NASA says Climate Change exagerated?

[BraveUlysses]

To gain access to large amounts of Govt. Grants. In trade for slighted opinions.

Occam's Razor should generally lead you to the more obvious conclusion: that those who speak, promote and disseminate FUD on this and similar subjects have a clear agenda to prevent real discussion about real issues based upon scientific facts.

[Farbin Kaiber]

I just farted three times, 1/3 of those released methane, should I fork over $, or did I pay any associated costs for pollution by buying the product? Should we add a tax to gassy foods to make polluters fork over $?

[HarryPotter]

Ah yes, the global conspiracy of which tens of thousands of climate scientists to...do what exactly?

Ah yes, the government is here for good and to do only good attitude. I love it. Those guys in power would never do anything to harm this country. Only the republicans attempt to destroy this great nation.

It's quite comical.

[z31maniac]

Ah yes, the government is here for good and to do only good attitude. I love it. Those guys in power would never do anything to harm this country. Only the republicans attempt to destroy this great nation.

It's quite comical.

AHh, yes. The overreaction to the opposite extreme!
Pretend there is no tenable solution that lies somewhere in the middle!

[HarryPotter]

AHh, yes. The overreaction to the opposite extreme!
Pretend there is no tenable solution that lies somewhere in the middle!

What lies in this middle? What would the solution be?

[Sagaris]

Ah yes, I just wanted to say "ah yes".

[BraveUlysses]

I just farted three times, 1/3 of those released methane, should I fork over $, or did I pay any associated costs for pollution by buying the product? Should we add a tax to gassy foods to make polluters fork over $?

Better idea: maybe we can institute a tax on shitty arguments or flagrant overuse of logical fallacies in online discussions?

Ah yes, the government is here for good and to do only good attitude. I love it. Those guys in power would never do anything to harm this country. Only the republicans attempt to destroy this great nation.

It's quite comical.

No, that's not my position. That's the position you've created from whole cloth so that you can turn around and slay the shit out of that strawman. Try again.

In fact, how about you spell out exactly every detail you believe about this global conspiracy of climate scientists, so we can publicly ridicule you.

[herbivor]

Here we go again. I guess you guys didn't read the multiple links I posted siting all of the data we have to link GW to man made causes, or if you did you just dismissed them to assume that all these scientists just make up the data to gain more grant money. If that's the case, why not just join an Amish community and dismiss all science? Your god will take care of your problems I'm sure. Give me one piece of real scientific evidence that concludes definitively that GW is not anthropogenic. No one has in this thread because they can't. Farbin, stop farting. You're contributing to the problem.

[CorvallisBMW]

Here we go again. I guess you guys didn't read the multiple links I posted siting all of the data we have to link GW to man made causes, or if you did you just dismissed them to assume that all these scientists just make up the data to gain more grant money. If that's the case, why not just join an Amish community and dismiss all science? Your god will take care of your problems I'm sure. Give me one piece of real scientific evidence that concludes definitively that GW is not anthropogenic. No one has in this thread because they can't. Farbin, stop farting. You're contributing to the problem.

He makes a good point.

He provided a huge amount of evidence to prove his point, and so far all the detractors have done is claim a worldwide conspiracy. Does anyone have any actual evidence that disproves his argument?

[gwb72tii]

ok
let me throw this back at you and then i'll provide links to data

1. you have not shown any data, anywhere, that proves anthropogenic GW. what you have shown is conjecture and opinion, ie models that seek to prove your points, but are models where the input can be changed to bring about your desired conclusion.

2. i pointed out, and herb agreed, that annual anthropogenic C02 accounts for less than 4% of total C02 emissions. i also pointed out C02 is not linear. nowhere have you shown that this "less than 4%" is the driver of GW.

3. the Hadley CRU emails prove your side lies, or at least has lied about the data used to support AGW

links and quotes

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/global_warming_bring_it_on.html

Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence - actual measurements of Earth's temperature and climate - shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming

But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.


Unstoppable Global Warming; every 1500 years

http://books.google.com/books?id=DJxlzuOdK2IC&pg=PA21&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8168&linkbox=true&position=5

A growing number of independent scientists, applying the latest satellite data, are strident in their argument that there is no longer any credible scientific evidence to support the faltering greenhouse gas effect (GHE), the cornerstone of UN climate science.


etc etc etc

and what you'll find in the above and literally thousands of other published research is opinion on AGW, just like your side's is opinion on AGW.

here's a challenge for you;
please show me any data/research/proof that reducing anthropogenic C02 20% will save us all from doom. in other words, that a 8/10th's of 1% decrease in annual CO2 emissions (20% X 4% anthropogenic CO2) will save the world.

[DTM190]

However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

Is the point I made that herb ignored.

Dont get me wrong Herb, I have enjoyed reading everything you have posted and this thread in general

[mrsleeve]

Is the point I made that herb ignored.

Dont get me wrong Herb, I have enjoyed reading everything you have posted and this thread in general

its the point we have all made many many times over and all the supporters of AGW ignore and skirt around. Herbi here is just the latest of many who have been duped lock, stock, and barrel, and has tried to convince all us skeptics here. Those of us that have been here for a long enough have gone though this 10 times or more by now.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Wouldn't it be funny if in 75 years they find that increased levels of CO2 increase world crop yield 165%, effectively decimating world hunger?

[CorvallisBMW]

its the point we have all made many many times over and all the supporters of a round earth, sun-centered solar system and evolution ignore and skirt around. Herbi here is just the latest of many who have been duped lock, stock, and barrel, and has tried to convince all us skeptics here. Those of us that have been here for a long enough have gone though this 10 times or more by now.

Interesting...

[CorvallisBMW]

Wouldn't it be funny if in 75 years they find that increased levels of CO2 increase world crop yield 165%, effectively decimating world hunger?

Its nice to theorize impossible things when you don't have anything real to fall back on. Increased CO2 = increased temps = more droughts = less food. Plants need water to grow too. C'mon Farmin Kaiber, you should know that :)