Global Warming is over.

[Q5Quint]

The only way to believe human caused global warming is a hoax is to discredit every credible source of information and discredit every scientist as being part of a global conspiracy, a conspiracy to have our daughters marry gay black men and obama to steal our guns and our gold away.

IPCC- discredited because Government
NOAH- discredited because government
The EPA- discredited because govenrment
NASA- discredited because government
AUSTRALIA- discredited because government

"In summary, the message is that global
warming is real, humans are very likely
to be causing it, and that it is very
likely that there will changes in the
global climate system in the centuries
to come larger than those seen in the
recent past."

We need to make a big sticky list of people and organizations that support 'human-caused global climate change' because the deniers are just that- deniers of obvious fact that all the credible people have accepted. It is good to question everything and everyone has the right to do so, but in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence you will just come out looking like a tin-foil hat crazy if you keep it up. Or maybe the floride in the water is just getting to me.... I don't know.

This article has some great comments:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-climate-change-science-psychology.html

Evolution is not a fact, climate change is not a fact, smoking does not cause cancer, we never landed on the moon, eating big macs will not make you fat... etc etc etc



Whose side are you really on? And why are you 'helping' them?

[Fusion]

Ok, than here's some info you can go ahead and add to your little fraud word cloud.

New ice core research suggests that, while the changes are dramatic, they cannot be attributed with confidence to human-caused global warming, said Eric Steig, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences.

“If we could look back at this region of Antarctica in the 1940s and 1830s, we would find that the regional climate would look a lot like it does today, and I think we also would find the glaciers retreating much as they are today,” said Steig, lead author of a paper on the findings published online April 14 in Nature Geoscience.

So the way I see it, just about everything has been blamed one AGW, and now, bit by bit, the whole idea is crumbling apart because aspects that are closely looked into are being debunked. Not by the "fraudulant right wing oil funded idiots", rather the scientists who believe that others believe that “Global Warming” is true. Others believe that they believe that “global warming” is true, because they believe that others believe that their belief that they believe is enough for them to say that they believe thus enforcing the belief of others that their belief is based on others' belief.

[cale]

So the way I see it

A great fault in the thinking of deniers, that they're qualified to decide what is and is not valid science and then form an opinion. You're free to have an opinion, it's just not the least bit credible therefore you and I both must rely on professionals. Amongst them, there is little debate to be had if any.

[Fusion]

Amongst them, there is little debate to be had if any.

If this was true, than the above study of Antarctica or the causes for the GP draught wouldn't have had to have been conducted. Case closed. No debate.
Luckily, it is not true and we are further being shown that our presence on this planet is not causing everything some consider "abnormal" and we do not understand all the factors that lead to various changes on this damn rock.

[rwh11385]

So the way I see it, just about everything has been blamed one AGW, and now, bit by bit, the whole idea is crumbling apart because aspects that are closely looked into are being debunked. Not by the "fraudulant right wing oil funded idiots", rather the scientists who believe that others believe that “Global Warming” is true. Others believe that they believe that “global warming” is true, because they believe that others believe that their belief that they believe is enough for them to say that they believe thus enforcing the belief of others that their belief is based on others' belief.

Um, the way you see it is likely the way you would like to see it and not based on any facts, reality, or science. Those who choose to study science and challenge the assumptions or theories of others are one thing, while those who simply deny science and reject it because of its implications or consequences are another.

Likewise, if people want to prove that climate change isn't real - don't repost stupid bull from a college dropout who is on the take from the Heartland Institute like George does, but learn the facts of science (and stats) and do research and find an explanation for the effects of GHG and what happens with the additional absorbed energy. Ignorance doesn't disprove what you don't understand.

Going around and criticizing temperature sensors while funded by right wing think tanks won't disprove climate change like Anthony Watts tried. Challenging a coefficient won't disprove the overall theory (like the plankton absorption variability discovered). People have to be willing to put a lot of effort into learning and researching to find an alternate explanation of what happens to the additional energy being absorbed by this rock because of GHG. Simply ignoring a pretty basic and easily understood and replicated in a lab doesn't do anything besides fool some people who would rather believe that humans produce no negative externalities than learn about and find explanations for the natural phenomena. We haven't gotten to where we are by assuming what the layman believed as fact, but rather the rigorous exploration of math and science to understand our world. If you don't have the desire or ability to do that, you might as well be quiet since failure to understand the basic fundamentals leaves you quite out of place to comment. Rather, it is simply you finding opinion you would like to be reality instead of actually comprehending science or truth.

Fundamentally, the more we gather information and data, experiment and observe, the better our understanding of our world will be - as well as our effects on it. Additionally, with a strong passion for science and innovation will lead us to means to live well sustainably and also find the means eventually to transport ourselves to other worlds. The future will not be determined by the cranky naysayers that deny science and cup their ears to truth, but by those who embrace a passion to learn and discover. Like those who have been stubborn in their disbelief of what was possible or true in history, people like that now will eventually be left behind in the dust and forgotten.

[cale]

If this was true, than the above study of Antarctica or the causes for the GP draught wouldn't have had to have been conducted. Case closed. No debate.
Luckily, it is not true and we are further being shown that our presence on this planet is not causing everything some consider "abnormal" and we do not understand all the factors that lead to various changes on this damn rock.

Again, you're entitled to your ignorant opinions. Fortunately science doesn't work on opinion, that's why the bullshit deniers spew has not infiltrated classrooms.

Carry on.

[Fusion]

Yeah, instead they're fed Gore's opionionated, unscientific and fraudulant lies.

Good job.

[rwh11385]

Yeah, instead they're fed Gore's opionionated, unscientific and fraudulant lies.

Good job.

Pavel, get it through your thick skull that people are capable of following science and finding rational reasons to operate on the basis that we are most likely influencing the planet's climate by the release of GHG without listening or having any respect for man-bear-pig Al Gore. Opinions and math/science don't mix well as there's support and a factual basis to science, while anyone can have an ignorant opinion. “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson.

But at the end of the day, all you have is criticizing Al Gore and Captain Planet or you liberal childhood education in Colorado, without any explanation of why you somehow believe that the destruction of energy is possible.

[cale]

Yeah, instead they're fed Gore's opionionated, unscientific and fraudulant lies.

Good job.

So now all climate science is Gore fed, it's just a coincidence that it is THE theory taught at every respectable school from kindergarten through Harvard?

Concise unbiased opinion, you have none.

[gwb72tii]

So now all climate science is Gore fed, it's just a coincidence that it is THE theory taught at every respectable school from kindergarten through Harvard?

Concise unbiased opinion, you have none.

wow, being taught in schools is what? somehow proof its correct? really? really?

gore is a fraud, has been all his life, and global warming being taught in schools today is political, not science

[rwh11385]

I think that beyond the 'argument' about climate change (since science is not about arguing but rather discovering truth through research), that the people who act according to how their interest-funded politicians would want them to attack some innovation because of its association with climate change, rather than caring to understand or see the future of technology. Our machines will continue to become more efficient, our materials technology will improve and make things stronger and lighter, we'll continue to bring down the costs of renewable energy while reducing the energy used in our systems, and also find new ways to recycle and reuse. Being against that is just ridiculous.

But to offset the anti-science festering in this thread...

http://inhabitat.com/17-year-old-intel-science-talent-search-winner-builds-algae-biofuel-lab-in-her-bedroom/

17-Year-Old Builds Algae Biofuel Lab in Her Bedroom to Win $100K Intel Science Talent Search Prize
The future belongs to the curious like this teenager who pushed algae to become more productive in biofuel creation in her bedroom. Not those who scoff at the notion of there possibly being a better way to live than based on digging up liquidified dinosaurs.

Flying on waste plastic:

http://www.gizmag.com/fuel-plastic-waste-sydney-london-flight/26391/

Recycled plastic waste to fuel Sydney to London Cessna flight

Cynar PLC, an Irish company that converts ELP into synthetic diesel.
... the company converts ELP typically destined for landfills into useful diesel... Interestingly, the diesel produced by this method is actually claimed more efficient and lower in sulfur than generic diesel.

http://www.gizmag.com/osmotic-salinity-gradient-power-nanotubes/26623/

Nanotubes boost potential of salinity power as a renewable energy source

Norwegian state owned electricity company Statkraft opened the world’s first osmotic power plant prototype, which generates electricity from the difference in the salt concentration between river water and sea water.

http://www.gizmag.com/neptune-balls-seaweed-insulation/26581/

Waste seaweed finds use as insulation

The fibers can be stored and transported in plastic bags, and then blown and/or hand-packed into attics or walls like other types of insulation. The loose material has an energy value of 2.502 joules per kilogram kelvin, which Fraunhofer claims is 20 percent higher than that of wood-based insulation. There are also plans to make it available in sheet form.

http://www.gizmag.com/new-materials-efficient-ultrathin-solar-cells/26296/

Computer modeling points to new class of efficient, ultra-thin solar cells

Researchers from the Vienna University of Technology, together with colleagues from the U.S. and Germany, have used computer simulations to show how the unique electrical properties of a new class of materials known as layered oxide heterostructures can potentially be used to create a new type of efficient, ultra-thin solar cell.

http://www.gizmag.com/spectrolab-solar-cell-efficiency-record/27000/

Spectrolab claims record efficiency for new solar cell

Spectrolab, a Boeing subsidiary known for the manufacture of solar cells for satellites and spacecraft, has in recent years turned its attention to terrestrial solar cells to tap into the expanding alternative energy market. Now the California-based company has claimed a new solar cell efficiency record of 37.8 percent for a ground-based multi-junction cell without solar concentration.

While Spectrolab and others have achieved higher efficiencies with multi-junction solar cells, these were done using sunlight concentrated by lenses or mirrors onto the solar cells. The company says it was able to set a new record without concentration using a new class of high-efficiency multi-junction solar cell.

http://www.gizmag.com/artificial-leaf-self-healing/27004/

Self-healing “artificial leaf” produces energy from dirty water

Back in 2011, scientists reported the creation of the “world’s first practical artificial leaf” that mimics the ability of real leaves to produce energy from sunlight and water. Touted as a potentially inexpensive source of electricity for those in developing countries and remote areas, the leaf’s creators have now given it a capability that would be especially beneficial in such environments – the ability to self heal and therefore produce energy from dirty water.
...
Because bacteria can build up on the leaf’s surface and stop the energy production process, previous versions of the device required pure water. Now Nocera’s team has found that some of the catalysts developed for the artificial leaf actually heal themselves, meaning the process can work with dirty water.
...
“We’re interested in making lots of inexpensive units that may not be the most efficient, but that get the job done. It’s kind of like going from huge mainframe computers to a personal laptop. This is personalized energy."

http://www.gizmag.com/recyclable-solar-cell-trees/26832/

Recyclable solar cells created using trees

Researchers at Georgia Institute of Technology and Purdue University have developed new solar cells based on natural substances derived from plants, including trees. The organic solar cells have an efficiency of 2.7 percent – a new high for cells on substrates derived from renewable raw materials – and can be easily recycled.

Though 2.7 percent efficiency is relatively inefficient compared to, say, the recent strides in solar cell technology made by Empa, the environmental benefits of producing easily recyclable solar cells are clear.

http://www.gizmag.com/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-fuel-microorganism/26836/

Genetically modified microorganism could convert atmospheric CO2 into fuel

The team modified the organism so that is able to feed at lower temperatures. They then used hydrogen gas to create a chemical reaction in the microorganism that incorporates CO2 into 3-hydroxypropionic acid, a common industrial chemical that can be used to make acrylics and other products.

"What this discovery means is that we can remove plants as the middleman," said Michael Adams, lead researcher. "We can take carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and turn it into useful products without having to go through the inefficient process of growing plants and extracting sugars from biomass."

http://www.gizmag.com/walgreens-net-zero-retail-store/26868/

Walgreens plans to build first net zero retail store in the U.S.

Drugstore chain giant Walgreens has announced its intention to build what the company believes will be the first net zero retail store in the United States. Once open for business, engineers anticipate that the combination of solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal technology, energy-efficient building materials, LED lighting and ultra-high-efficiency refrigeration will allow the new store to produce energy equal to or greater than it consumes.

Corporate environmental stewardship (like Walgreens) and university research will go a long way to making the world better than when we came into it. Hopefully with ARPA-E funding to promote the country's leadership in technology and also for our energy independence.

But maybe some people just want to protect oil and coal...

[Q5Quint]

Back when I was in highschool I thought briefly about going into psychology to the point of doing my senior project on ptsd with interviews with iraq vets. That was a little much and turned me off to it a bit, so I opted for the construction field instead.

What interested me about the human mind was its ability to persist, and its belief and will to persist, even in situations of overwhelming trauma or what not. And after the fact, the minds ability to function with severe 'issues'.

However I was also on a mock trial and a debate team so I enjoy 'arguments' more than most. What I do not enjoy is illogical arguments because a mind refuses to give up and submit to reason due to some kind of blocking-stress-mechanism.



Here we have a scientific paper, of which the author admits to it having nothing to do with any recent global warming, only attempting to analyze the repeatable data of temperatures for the last 400k years.

Now, as a 'climate science denier', this is your opportunity to redeem yourself. Are you only a climate science denier, or are you a all-science denier?

You have even quoted this paper to support your climate denial position and I will re-quote again.

New ice core research suggests that, while the changes are dramatic, they cannot be attributed with confidence to human-caused global warming, said Eric Steig, a University of Washington professor of Earth and space sciences.

So if we KNOW what the temperatures and climate used to be, and we KNOW that certain factors seem to vary along with the temperature of the earth (sun, water vapor, co2, methane etc), then we should KNOW that changing those factors could do SOMETHING to the climate... right?

The issue I have is that deniers use the 'global conspiracy' card and say that all the 'good climate denial scientists' can't get any papers published with their non-warming viewpoints. However, that doesn't make their argument right or valid in any way.

What I cant understand is how this is even an issue. You can make your modeling predictions based on the data of the earth from the last 400k years- apply that to current time- and see if we predict our temps rising or falling. The earth has been both warmer, and colder before, so how much warmer or colder do we think it will be next year based on these given assumptions?

I guess what I am saying is that there is no 'downward' hockey stick because there is absolutely no data that proves that is even a possibility. The earth was cooling before humans started burning all this carbon, which always seems to rise directly with earths temp rising, which they are rising faster than they have in the last 400k years.





If you are going to convince me of anything you need 'real' science and data- but since there is a global cover-up you cant find any. Thats fine, but just remember that you now need to convince me that there is a global cover-up, which aside from the tin-foil hat party anyone has yet to make a reasonable argument for this.

I mean to say that literally every thermometer set up anywhere in the whole country in the last 50 years is wrong so that we can lie about how warm the planet is getting.... you need some pretty big facts and motivation to back that kind of stuff up. Al gore wants to lie about the climate so he can make money in the same way that bp and exxon want to lie about the climate to make money. The finger points both ways.

So lets see it. Global conspiracy evidence since that is the only 'reasonable explanation' left.

[cale]

wow, being taught in schools is what? somehow proof its correct? really? really?

gore is a fraud, has been all his life, and global warming being taught in schools today is political, not science

Universities are one of the biggest driving forces for advancement of knowledge in science in that their methods of learning is not just reading from books, but actively participating in research. So yes, if it's accepted as truth in those universities that is an indication it is correct. Really....really

Gore is a nobody in climate science research. He's a figurehead, a puppet. How is it that you and Fusion believe insulting him discredits science? It's like trying to discredit astrophysics because Morgan Freeman hosts Through the Wormhole and you disagree with him personally. It's really an illogical approach to disputing the science and highlights your inability to think unbiasedly.

[gwb72tii]

actually the morgan freeman stuff is really interesting

[Fusion]

TtWH is awesome.
My point still can't get through some of you.

Just ONE example:
- Technology gave us LEDs and LED lightbulbs
- Any dumbass can calculate the possible savings, not only in consumed energy, but also the longetivity and savings vs. buying many inc. bulbs
- less energy consuption = environmentally freindly, which is a bonus
^^^ that is great and I have NOTHING against this

BUT I don't need a goverment regulation to ban inc. bulb manufacturing and FORCE me to buy LED bulbs, although the basic idea is correct. The sad thing is that currently available AGW rhetoric is used to back these regulations and screw with the market (people stock pile inc. bulbs and LED bulb prices stay high).

They should TEACH people the benefits, not force them into doing things based on Gore alarmism (among others). Easy peasy. Or one would think.

You could also compare this to Bloomberg's drink regulations. It doesn't solve a problem, even if it may be backed by science.