Global Warming is over.

[nando]

^^^
yes yes yes
and the PNW is having a below normal temp summer
and the world has seen a slight cooling this year
and the alps had record snow
and the glaciers are not melting in the himalayas
and oceans have cooled
and there has been no warming for 15yrs
and there was lying/manipulating data in climategate
and there is significant dissension among scientists
and exxon spent 35 million on rebutting AGW vs 79 billion government funding pro AGW
and CO2 is a lagging indicator
and man contributes 4% to total annual CO2 emissions, yet man is driving AGW
and most warming last century happened well before CO2 rose
and climate models are proprietary not to be seen by tax payers
and climate models haven't predicted anything
and climate models don't take into account the fucking SUN
and the pro AGW camp is as innocent of political aims as the driven snow
and you guys dismiss it all away
we're "deniers". proudly.

-it hasn't rained in the PNW in a month that's not "cooler" than normal.
-I don't even know how you can say the world has been in a slight cooling this year, when it's totally the opposite.
-so? the midwest had a record drought. it's regional weather, not global.
-but they are disappearing pretty much everywhere else. hey, guess what's happening to the climbing window on Mt. Everest..
-probably from all the glacier meltwater :| (or, in fact, they've gotten warmer, and also more acidic).
-LOL. the last 10 years have been the 10 hottest on record. Facts have no meaning to you, though.
-According to you, but you can't even get facts straight. And there was no climategate. it was a false "scandal" created by the deniers.
-what do you consider significant? 2%? 3%? of unqualified people, no less.
-there isn't funding "pro AGW". that's not how science works. there's funding for climate research, and the climate research consistently shows it's warming. Other disciplines that study other parts of the environment are seeing the same thing. Oh, and poor, poor Exxon. :|
-if it is, imagine how much worse it will get.
-do you just make stuff up?
-we've been releasing CO2 into the air for centuries, but only in the last 100 years has it increased to a significant level.
-what? what would the average joe do with a climate model? most people wouldn't even understand it. Do you demand the details of the LHC? Would anyone even understand what it does? Most people don't even understand the dumbed down version. And actually, if you really want to see how they work, you can subscribe to whatever science publication they publish on, because they will explain how the model works there in greater detail than you can comprehend.
-They've predicted that temperatures are going to keep rising (and they have). What are you expecting?
-Wait, they're proprietary, but you claim to know details about these closed, proprietary models that nobody can see? Huh? How do you know what they do and don't include?
-baseless claim, your political opinion that complete ignores all of the (scary) facts.
-you're deliberately ignorant of what's happening around you.

I'd have considered myself a skeptic a few years ago, but facts speak louder than opinions and conspiracy blogs..

[Fusion]

-we've been releasing CO2 into the air for centuries, but only in the last 100 years has it increased to a significant level

Not accoring to the "dinopogenic" AGW study. I'm not making this shit up, just citing what scientists have said.

Do any of you guys have credible data on how much of all CO2 is man made and what percentages are made by other natural factors?
That's not a trick question, I'm seriously interested.

[nando]

I have a PDF somewhere that shows it all, but I have no idea where I put it.

[herbivor]

Not accoring to the "dinopogenic" AGW study. I'm not making this shit up, just citing what scientists have said.

Do any of you guys have credible data on how much of all CO2 is man made and what percentages are made by other natural factors?
That's not a trick question, I'm seriously interested.

Yes, I do. It's readily available with minimal searching. It's not a lot from a percentage standpoint. I think 4% may be a little high but somewhere around there as I recall. If your point is that a small percentage doesn't matter we've had that debate and the science indicate that it does.
You should also keep in mind that anthropogenic CO2 is not the only anthropogenic green house gas contributing to climate change and in fact may eventually have lesser weight when the feedback loops become greater.

Here is a fun fact that I will repeat again. The average temperature of the global climate increased slightly for just a few days after 9/11/2001. Go discover why and maybe you will accidentally stumble upon some real climate science that hasn't been polluted by propaganda arguments.

[gwb72tii]

fusion, what herbie says is true, anthro CO2 is not the only anthro gas that can affect climate
CO2 is the evil villain being used by the alarmists. 4% is a little high, but the alarmists will tell you the world has to regress to anthro CO2 emission levels of 20 yrs ago. even though this would wreck the world economy, literally kill people, enslave millions into permanent poverty,and do nothing about the supposed problem.
and yet we are the deniers.
you cannot make this stuff up

[nando]

hey, what do you suppose worldwide droughts, increased natural disasters and several feet of sea level rise will do to the economy?

the enviroment is like a credit card, and we're way behind on payments and over our credit limit. it's going to cost a lot either way.

[gwb72tii]

last i looked the supposed coming increase in severity and frequency of hurricaines due to AGW doesn't seem to be happening. infact its gone 180* opposite.

[nando]

I didn't say hurricanes. think floods, wildefires, severe heatwaves, etc. disasters from extreme weather isn't just hurricanes or direct weather events.

[gwb72tii]

fusion, if nothing else, here is a place to start although herb and nando might tell you not to pay attention to these "deniers"

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

and i stand corrected. apparently mann was sued successfully to release his model for scrutiny

[CorvallisBMW]

last i looked the supposed coming increase in severity and frequency of hurricaines due to AGW doesn't seem to be happening. infact its gone 180* opposite.

Are you purposefully trying to be 100% wrong with all of your statements?

"a new study in the journal Nature found that hurricanes and typhoons have become stronger and longer-lasting over the past 30 years. These upswings correlate with a rise in sea surface temperatures. The duration and strength of hurricanes have increased by about 50 percent over the last three decades, according to study author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html

[cale]

Are you purposefully trying to be 100% wrong with all of your statements?

"a new study in the journal Nature found that hurricanes and typhoons have become stronger and longer-lasting over the past 30 years. These upswings correlate with a rise in sea surface temperatures. The duration and strength of hurricanes have increased by about 50 percent over the last three decades, according to study author Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...newarming.html

I'm sorry but you're wrong, and I'm sure old man rivers will chime in soon with an article from someone wash-out bachelor in anything but climate science holding skeptic to back that up.

[nando]

I'm sorry but you're wrong, and I'm sure old man rivers will chime in soon with an article from someone wash-out bachelor in anything but climate science holding skeptic to back that up.

misquote?

[Fusion]

"The fallibility of methods is a valuable reminder of the importance of skepticism in science. Scientific knowledge and scientific methods, whether old or new, must be continually scrutinized for possible errors. Such skepticism can conflict with other important features of science, such as the need for creativity and for conviction in arguing a given position. But organized and searching skepticism as well as an openness to new ideas are essential to guard against the intrusion of dogma or collective bias into scientific results."

[cale]

There's a difference between being sceptical and promoting falsehoods, arguments from ignorance, appealing to the uninformed to gain strength etc. There's a reason most of the articles which deal with any controversies involving climate science are aimed at the relatively uneducated general public and not those actively seeking for more knowledge on climate change or the academic community ie. Faux news vs. National Geographic, Scientific American, Discover.

[Fusion]

Being sceptical does not lead to "green" parties pushing legislation for solar panel subsidization and leading to higher electricity prices, nor does it lead to green zones in cities and crazy emissions standards and over-subsidized mandatory ethanol and biodiesel percentages in fuel sold without choice for older engines unprepared for them.