Global Warming - It's Complicated

[JD Barleycorn]

Timmie you screwed yourself. You strongly imply that climatologists must be believed over skeptics who are paid by big oil companies. Your words. The problems are:

1) Not all climatologists believe in MAN MADE global warming (lets define our terms shall we).

2) How many of those believers are competing for government dollars to continue their research, pay their bills, and put food on the table. They have a vested interest in not coming to a conclusion that would put them out of a job.

3) If scientists are true professionals it should not matter who is paying the bills (see number 2) since science is all about empirical evidence than can be reproduced. If the research is valid then it should be judged on it's validity and not by who paid for it.

4) A lot of "evidence" has been shown to be forged, altered, or just outright bogus. See East Anglia Emails.

5) Al Gore Jr. is an idiot who almost flunked out of college and now claims to be an expert on climatology (and the inventor of the Internet and the creative source for "Love Story"). Anything that he says is very suspect to say the least.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The U.S. Department of Energy has just published its estimates of global carbon dioxide emissions for the year 2010, concluding emissions rose by 6 percent from 2009 to 2010. This constitutes the largest rise in emissions yet recorded and means global emissions are rising faster than any of the scenarios advanced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 report. Global warming activists are claiming the 2010 rise in emissions proves global warming is even worse than previously feared – but exactly the opposite is the case.

The new emissions data support the arguments of skeptics asserting carbon dioxide emissions do not impact global temperatures as much as IPCC computer models predict.

The fact that global temperatures are not rising despite such a significant increase in carbon dioxide emissions provides validation of skeptical arguments, not a cause for heightened alarm.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...rise-emissions

You are truly one of a kind....all proud of the fact that global emissions have risen 6%. That is such good news.

And, your little article relies entirely on projections that in the face of such a dramatic increase in emissions, temperatures won't start rising higher, and faster, this century.

But, unlike you....I am not a climatologist.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Timmie you screwed yourself. You strongly imply that climatologists must be believed over skeptics who are paid by big oil companies. Your words. The problems are:

1) Not all climatologists believe in MAN MADE global warming (lets define our terms shall we).

2) How many of those believers are competing for government dollars to continue their research, pay their bills, and put food on the table. They have a vested interest in not coming to a conclusion that would put them out of a job.

3) If scientists are true professionals it should not matter who is paying the bills (see number 2) since science is all about empirical evidence than can be reproduced. If the research is valid then it should be judged on it's validity and not by who paid for it.

4) A lot of "evidence" has been shown to be forged, altered, or just outright bogus. See East Anglia Emails.

5) Al Gore Jr. is an idiot who almost flunked out of college and now claims to be an expert on climatology (and the inventor of the Internet and the creative source for "Love Story"). Anything that he says is very suspect to say the least.

1. As usual, you are an idiot.

2. Most climatologists do believe in MMGW.

3. Read the thread, we've been talking about MMGW since the beginning. The terms have been defined.

4. Again, the entire premise of the challenge is that these thousands and thousands of climatologists are faking and scamming info so they can receive government funds. I believe that to be extremely unlikely. And, frankly, it is unclear to me what percentage of the climatologists whose research supports the idea are beneficiaries of government funding. And, again...thanks for pointing it out, we've been discussing it over the course of the last half-dozen posts. Maybe you missed those.

5. I would disagree that a "lot" of the evidence has been shown to be forged, altered, etc. Certainly, some of it has. But, the vast majority of the studies that have been done haven't suffered those problems.

6. I don't really care what Al Gore thinks about the issue. He's not a climatologist.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by timpage

1. As usual, you are an idiot. Non responsive.

2. Most climatologists do believe in MMGW. Link?

3. Read the thread, we've been talking about MMGW since the beginning. The terms have been defined. Read the posts, not obvious to the casual reader.

4. Again, the entire premise of the challenge is that these thousands and thousands of climatologists are faking and scamming info so they can receive government funds. I believe that to be extremely unlikely. And, frankly, it is unclear to me what percentage of the climatologists whose research supports the idea are beneficiaries of government funding. And, again...thanks for pointing it out, we've been discussing it over the course of the last half-dozen posts. Maybe you missed those. You, yourself criticized the validity of research funded by oil companies (care to tell me what percentage that is of total reserach) so it is valid for me to question scientists who make money by qualifying for research grants when the present government (going back 20 years) has decided that MMGW is happening. The conclusion was made before the research occurred. Plus I never said thousans and thousands, you did. I would say hundreds because thousands of climatologists are doing their normal day to day work. This is about the researchers and many of those researchers are NOT climatologists.

5. I would disagree that a "lot" of the evidence has been shown to be forged, altered, etc. Certainly, some of it has. But, the vast majority of the studies that have been done haven't suffered those problems. You didn't look up East Anglia did you? Look Lord Monckton while you're at it.

6. I don't really care what Al Gore thinks about the issue. He's not a climatologist.

Finally something we agree on. So why is he the leader of the charge?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by timpage

Also, your argument seems to have shifted from "there is no MMGW" to "everybody else is doing it, why shouldn't we." lol....

. . . and you're the lone vegetarian at the BBQ, Little Timmy. Regardless of whether you partake, the animal you refrain from eating will be slaughtered, cooked and eaten. Your small act of self-denial will be insignificant in the long run, and your abstinence only makes you weaker and less able to compete.

[timpage]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Finally something we agree on. So why is he the leader of the charge?

Because he is high-profile and believes passionately in the issue? WTF difference does it make?

I'll answer that question for you: Because it's not a scientific issue for you people. It's political. That's why you have to make up bizarre theories like all of the research climatologists are liars scamming the government. There are dozens and dozens of areas of scientific research where the conclusions of the folks doing the research isn't being challenged by the argument that "well, you're scamming for money" even though the research is financed by the government.

Al Gore leading the charge is, at least partly, why this has become a political issue, rather than a scientific one. Because the right-wing whackos hate his guts and would call him a liar if he said the sun was going to rise in the east tomorrow.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by timpage

You are truly one of a kind....all proud of the fact that global emissions have risen 6%. That is such good news.

And, your little article relies entirely on projections that in the face of such a dramatic increase in emissions, temperatures won't start rising higher, and faster, this century.

But, unlike you....I am not a climatologist.

Carbon emissions rise 6% - significant
Voter Fraud rises 6% - insignificant
Right, Timmie Boy?

[Raquel de Milo]

http://http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1351
This article claims Global Warming causes prostitution!

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Raquel de Milo

http://http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1351
This article claims Global Warming causes prostitution!

I claim your tits cause Penile Warming

[redriverronin]

Climate change is just another way for corporations to make money and everyone else to get poorer. The oil companies won't even be notice but we will when electricity price go sky high. Australia is getting fucked right now because of this we will to soon enough just another part of the UN agenda 21 to control everything through lies and recite.

[essence]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

There must be many people that scare you then, limey boy.

Too true, when you grow up you will realise that the louder the message is shouted, the less valid it is, the more tears which are shed, the less remorse there is, the more sure somebody is, the more of a charlatan they are.

I was always told, when selling a product, the things you are least confident about, say them with super confidence in a loud voice.

All too common and tragic - the person who weaps for the deaths of loved ones is often the one who killed them.

The police and judges know this is all too common.

See philpott for a recent case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ap...led-derby-fire

ps keep your tawdry insults to yourself, cunt face. Fuck you.

[CJohnny54]

Originally Posted by Raquel de Milo

http://http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1351
This article claims Global Warming causes prostitution!

I claim prostitution causes Climate Change...

or

the lack of sex....

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by essence

Too true, when you grow up you will realise that the louder the message is shouted, the less valid it is, the more tears which are shed, the less remorse there is, the more sure somebody is, the more of a charlatan they are.

I was always told, when selling a product, the things you are least confident about, say them with super confidence in a loud voice.

All too common and tragic - the person who weaps for the deaths of loved ones is often the one who killed them.(pathetically stupid comment, and you misspelled "weeps")

The police and judges know this is all too common.

See philpott for a recent case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ap...led-derby-fire

ps keep your tawdry insults to yourself, cunt face. Fuck you.

You must be from the lower classes.

[Yssup Rider]

Lower classes? Nice talk, JL.

You must be from the upper class.

Inappropriate. Just call him a dipshit or a fuckball and spare us the class talk.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by CJ7

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 390 ppm. That's 30% more than the highest natural levels over the past 800,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

We also know the additional CO2 in the atmosphere comes mainly from coal and oil, because the chemical composition of the CO2 contains a unique "fingerprint.

The problem is that we have fossil records and other proxies on CO2 levels going back a LOT farther than 800,000 years, and they show FAR higher CO2 levels than current-day.

Making it worse, going with those fossile records, we have proxies that let us estimate the global temperature at those times. When you plot CO2 vs. temperature (note: I HAVE DONE THIS! ME, PERSONALLY!) from that extended data, what you get is a random scattergram with no trend line
whatsoever.

And nobody wants to talk about volcanic CO2 contributions.

And nobody wants to talk about forest fires. If you grew up in the Pacific Northwest, one of the things you learned, in elementary school science classes, at a young age, is that forest fires are naturally part of a pine forest's lifecycle. Pinecones, the seeds of new pine trees, fall off the tree sealed in pitch. The seed cannot germinate until and unless a forest fire burns the pitch away.