Global Warming is over.

[CorvallisBMW]

^don't bother with facts, he doesn't understand them

Like you pointed out, he has nothing to stand on, therefor his only argument is to put down your sources while offering none of his own.

[Kershaw]

just like everything else the republican party says.

heeyyyoooooooooooo!

[rwh11385]

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

especially

A common failing of scientists, particularly those engaged in research which may have impacts upon the public, is to reject any input from the public in the conduct of their work. The peer review process provides an effective barrier to public scrutiny of a science, as is the tendency to regard the public as people to `be educated' instead of being learned from. The resulting intellectual arrogance has the effect of making scientists into a sort of medieval priesthood, keepers of secret and exclusive knowledge, and to be kept away from prying public eyes. Such an attitude, common with many scientists, is unpardonable given that most research is paid for by public money. This however, does not prevent such scientists from adopting a proprietorial view of their research results.

WOW. Just wow.

Usually gwb and joshh give you strong competition for chief RWNJ, but this is a strong performance for ridiculousness.


So should doctors listen to anti-vaccine crazies about if the HPV shot causes mental retardation? Should we listen to material scientists about the world trade center towers, or loose change on YouTube?


Advocating for scientists to have to cater to the objections of the uneducated is moronic. Especially in a country as bad at science as America.

[Fusion]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/farmers-obama-administration-ethanol-drought?mobile-redirect=false

Not posting because Obama, this is a problem everywhere.

[herbivor]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...redirect=false

Not posting because Obama, this is a problem everywhere.

And you posted it why? This has nothing to do with Global Warming except the fact that corn ethanol production increases it more so than conventional gasoline. I'm pretty sure everyone (except the National Corn Growers Association) is on board with decreasing or eliminating corn ethanol production, including the Obama administration.

[Fusion]

Orly? Nothing to do with it? So ethanol subsidizing was just made up for no reason?

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/al-gore-i-was-wrong-about-ethanol.html

Why do I have to keep explaining that the AGW ideology is the fundamental platform for idiotic political moves? Without it, and without people like Mann, the (any) government would not be able to brainwash you into thinking that their retarded spending, higher fuel and food prices, will be a solution "for the earth".

[cale]

Go back to your arguments about the public not being involved in research to give their opinions and Mann's success being evidence for corruption, they were much more entertaining.

[Fusion]

Why do I bother explaining it, when the douchebag said it himself?

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are.” - Al Gore (Grist interview, May 9, 2006).

[rhE-30]

I agree, why risk it. The odds are against humans. Like as if when we get to the point when the envioronment becomes unberable we will be able to change it back to great weather and abundant amounts of drinkable water. Im not talking today or tomorrow, but maybe a couple generations from now.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/30...l#xref-ref-4-1


I can't understand the push back on this issue~ why do you *not want to believe in human-caused global warming? It is obvious that we change the world- we are about to damn up the freaking amazon river- a billion cars and 1600GW of coal power plants worth of emissions.... damn aerosol cans were making a mess of things just 20 years ago. ACID FREAKING RAIN.

The last go round the sulfur cap and trade from powerplant emissions worked wonders. 'Oh it is a gubbment conspiracy to destroy the economy' they said. Luckily for that issue you can actually see/feel acid rain... and when it starts falling on your head and destroying your crop land then you will change your mind. When the dust starts blowing into your capital then you will change your mind. These are the same idiots that wait to put up a stoplight at an intersection until somebody dies, the reaction mindset instead of addressing future issues.

Think about the future. If we double the emissions and cars.... what do you think will happen? nothing? What if we triple the number? Still nothing?

'10 billion peoples worth of emissions will have no impact on the environment' is what you are saying and I know for a fact that you are smarter than that. You have to admit that at 'some point' our emissions WILL EFFECT the atmosphere.... just like they did with hfcfc's from aerosol cans and just like they did with sulfur emissions.

I cant seem to find a source that disproves 928 and more papers pointing out the obvious facts. We are trying to put up a stoplight before we get t-boned/acid rain/or make another giant hole in the ozone layer. Yes it will cost more but it is obviously in our best interest. No conspiracy theories here, just the facts.



Environmental damage aside I think we should stop using as much oil and coal because it makes us dependent on other countries- not a big fan of nuclear either because it costs so damn much and requires big gubbment to manage. I would like to change things now but as limited resources get more and more scarce and the price keeps going up.... people will change anyway over time because it makes financial sense. Balanced budgets, no debt, self-sufficient, and working to make our community and our homes the best in the world. I do not want to buy a ford made in mexico, but I would buy a bmw made 150 miles away in South Kakalaki (well technically I hate the x3 and x5 and they don't make z4s there anymore, so maybe not).

[Fusion]

Sure we can keep quoting scientists

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/articles/2011090820190012.html

An international team of scientists, led by Dr Stephen Barker of Cardiff University, has produced a prediction of what climate records from Greenland might look like over the last 800,000 years. Until now such temperature records from Greenland have covered only the last 100,000 years or so.

The research published in the journal Science (8 September) demonstrates that abrupt climate change has been a systemic feature of Earth's climate for hundreds of thousands of years and may play an active role in longer term climate variability through its influence on ice age terminations.

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/articles/2011062110100014.html

"We cannot attribute the end of the Norse civilisation to a single factor, but there is enough evidence to suggest that climate change played a major role in determining its collapse," concluded Ribeiro. "Harsh climate conditions made farming and cattle production increasingly difficult and the extensive sea-ice prevented navigation and trading with Europe."

"There is perhaps an important lesson to learn from the Norse collapse and that is a lesson of adaptation, of being able to adjust our values and life-style when times change. That is an important challenge we face today as a society."

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/articles/2012083023500003.html

Mathematical models and laboratory experiments used to study airborne soot particles led to projections that the absorption-boosting chemicals that coat black carbon could yield an increase in absorption by as much as a factor of two. But field studies in smoggy California cities found black carbon absorption enhancements of just 6 percent, suggesting that climate models may be overestimating warming by black carbon, the researchers report.

"In one respect, it shows that nature is much more complicated than our initial laboratory experiments and modeling indicated. Now we will try to unravel and understand that complexity."

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/articles/2012083018120023.html

"These events, which often mirror warming and cooling phases, persisted between 250,000 and one million years," Pälike explains. They resulted from minor differences between how much calcium was added to the oceans by weathering versus how much carbon dioxide was added to the ocean-atmosphere system by volcanic eruptions. The cycling of carbon between the sea surface and deep ocean further complicated the situation.

"Understanding the processes that caused these CCD excursions will provide important new insights about how the carbon cycle and climate are linked," Lyle says. "And, they will help us better understand how and when the current spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually level out."

[gwb72tii]

see, you're just a denier fusion.you obviously don't get it. it's settled science.

[gwb72tii]

Let's compare who has more to lose shall we?

let's see, cale
scientists who aren't funded at all, or scientists who annually receive billions from the governments around the world.
gee, fuck me, that is a hard one cale

[cale]

let's see, cale
scientists who aren't funded at all, or scientists who annually receive billions from the governments around the world.
gee, fuck me, that is a hard one cale

Governments fund AGW research because it's reality, how peculiar that those with financial interests in fossil fuels are backing research to deny it. Or...wait

scientists who aren't funded at all,

Nvm, they're not funded at all.

You're a class act, you're straight up trying to deny what anyone can find out with a simple google search? Pathetic, truly pathetic.

[Fusion]

We're all wrong. You're supposed to pretend to be interested in the environment and then buy one of these http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoram...181556572.html

:giggle:

[Q5Quint]

Fusion did you even read any of those papers you posted? The summary's are interesting but inconclusive

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/artic...820190012.html

Dr Barker added: "It is intriguing to get an insight into what abrupt climate variability may have looked like before the Greenland records begin. We now have to wait until longer Greenland records are produced so that we can see how successful our prediction is."

So this seems to be about how there is no ice-core data for greenland older than 100k years.... and they have made some predictions and are now actually coring to see if their predictions are correct.... not sure what you are trying to prove here? That fast shifts in regional climate do happen and wipeout norse settlements?

"Our study shows a major shift towards cooler conditions and extensive sea-ice which coincides with the estimated time for the collapse of the Western Settlement in AD 1350," said Dr Ribeiro. "The Norse were proud of being Europeans, farmers and Christians, and never adopted the hunting and survival techniques of the Inuit, so these temperature shifts would have caused significant problems for the colonists and their livestock."

Next....

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/artic...110100014.html

This one is good~ "Did Climate Change Cause Greenland's Ancient Viking Community to Collapse?"

The results underline the regional complexity of climate patterns in the study area, which may vary from ice core reconstructions, and are strongly controlled by the fluctuating influence of "warm" Atlantic waters entrained by the West Greenland Current.

So.... this area appears to have actually got colder and might have caused the failure of a norse settlement.... so you are proving that climate change kills people? Your own quote points this out?

Next....

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/artic...023500003.html

Up in the Air: Heating by Black Carbon Aerosol Re-evaluated

"These findings do require us to reduce our projections about the amount of heating soot produces, at least under some experimental conditions. But the findings don't point to soot as being a harmless climate forcer," said Davidovits. "Soot remains an important climate heating agent, as well as a health problem that has been well documented."

lol~ I haven't even heard of soot being touted as a climate change issue but more of a pollution issue.... but if you think of the volcano eruption/blackout the sun issue I guess that it could mess with the climate too. I guess you are trying to prove here that soot might not be as much of a global warming issue as was predicted before?

Next....

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/artic...018120023.html

New Nature Study Illuminates 55 Million Years of the Carbon Cycle And Climate History

Today, the Pacific's CCD sits just less than three miles (4.5 km) deep, and is thought to be on the rise as a result of modern, human-induced climate change.

Did you even read this article? It points out human-caused factors a few times.

"Adding geologic reserves of carbon into the oceans and atmosphere – by burning coal or petroleum, for example – causes oceans to become more acidic and causes the atmosphere and oceans to warm. This new CCD record is an important step toward understanding how the carbon system balances out over long time frames. "

Thanks for trying to cite some sources but just remember that I will read them and quote them too?


What you should have done quoted this on the last one:

"We often discuss global warming induced by man-made carbon dioxide. However, on geological timescales of millions of years, other processes determine the carbon cycle," says lead author Heiko Pälike, a geoscientist at the University of Bremen who co-led the first expedition. Volcanoes are a major natural source of atmospheric carbon dioxide, while the weathering of carbonate rocks can remove the gas from the atmosphere. "The overall balance of these processes is reflected in the CCD," explains Pälike.

That will try and turn the AGW argument to something like 'do humans put as much shit into the atmosphere as a shit volcano'?

And then I would respond with some article comparing the two like this: http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...l-warming1.htm

and say we went from 280ppm co2 in 1900 to 390ppm today... and we shit out "1 billion tons in 1900 to about 7 billion tons in 1995" of co2 emissions...
So how many emissions does a volcano make?

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

While sulfur dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling of the lower atmosphere, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. This is probably because the amounts of carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanism have not been of sufficient magnitude to produce detectable global warming.

Damnit I am sciencing all over myself this is juicy

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

HOLY BALLS HUMANS EMIT WAY MORE SHIT THAN ALL THE SHIT VOLCANOES COMBINED

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.”

So I will now say that humans emit 270 times more emissions than all the volcanoes on the earth.... AND

n recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate.

That we would need 11,200 more kilaueas, the most active volcano on the planet, to equal our people powered emissions. Think of our emissions like 11,200 human-powered volcanos.

Now that's exciting!

Also nobody answered my question about the electric motorcycle. it doesn't actually help emissions since it is powered by coal but it gives you the option to be able to hook it up to your solar panels one day. The real question here is would I be gay if I bought one?