Global Warming is over.

[herbivor]

I went to school for Computer science and Archaeology...

You have as much qualifications or more than the average person on this matter who signed a petition as a "scientist" responding in dissent of anthropogenic global warming. That being said, you have no qualifications based on your area of expertise to make an argument one way or the other. Of course you are entitled to your opinion just like the rest of us, but climate scientists, who are the qualified authorities on this matter, didn't develop the Global Warming Theory based on opinions.

[markt51]

You have as much qualifications or more than the average person on this matter who signed a petition as a "scientist" responding in dissent of anthropogenic global warming. That being said, you have no qualifications based on your area of expertise to make an argument one way or the other. Of course you are entitled to your opinion just like the rest of us, but climate scientists, who are the qualified authorities on this matter, didn't develop the Global Warming Theory based on opinions.

Yea i wasnt saying that because of my degrees that i think i am the definite source for global warming data. But I do have an extensive background in Geology and Anthropology bc of my archaeology degree.

You dont have to be a Climatologist to know and interpret global warming. Especially when its been happening over and over, and there is evidence that backs that up.

The point of my post wasnt to wave my degree penis around and say you were all wrong. Just wanted to say "Hey global warming isnt anything new, we didnt create it, we just made its effects worse". And if anything, i do believe an anthropology degree does come in handy in some small way or another, when studying the effects of cultures.....since you know, we study cultures.

[gwb72tii]

don't let herbie get under your skin or keep you from posting here
he's the resident "expert"

[rwh11385]

Just wanted to say "Hey global warming isnt anything new, we didnt create it, we just made its effects worse".

Can gwb not see this, or does he simply think that markt51 is agreeing with his position because that's what he wanted to read??

Oh well. This whole thread is the attempt to not only assume that humans have zero influence on global warming but also denying that it exists period.

[Thizzelle]

It's the Apocalypse! Hell is coming to Earth! That's why it's Hot! Everyone repent and praise the baby Jeebus!

Maybe that's what he meant?

Kinda. Just so many people sinning that hell is getting bigger and bigger coming from the depths of earth to the surface.

[cale]

don't let herbie get under your skin or keep you from posting here
he's the resident "expert"

Isn't he actually working in the field? Last time I checked, you're an engineer and not an "engineer". You can disagree with his work, but you also don't need to be condescending just because you have a different belief.

[BraveUlysses]

^No, he peddles mutual funds





Mann fights back: Climate scientist gets compared to Jerry Sandusky, files libel suit

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/climate-scientist-gets-compared-to-jerry-sandusky-files-libel-suit/

Back in the 1990s, Mann was one of the first to attempt to perform one of these global reconstructions, and the result became iconic: the hockey stick graph, which later graced the cover of an IPCC report. Although it got him a Nature paper at the time, it's caused him little but trouble since. A substantial portion of the people who are convinced scientists are just making up the whole climate change thing have decided that, if they can just discredit Mann's work, the entire field of study will come crashing down into a confused heap.

Name that P&R poster!

[Q5Quint]

This is still a thing?

Gosh I have like 10 pages to catchup on.


Here is a photo from a 2010 conference in my state on 'climate change adaptation'.

You see, we cant directly admit that climate change is real because there are so many idiots out that that will continue to politicize and deny it until their death. We have to have conferences on planning and adaptation to climate change since we actually DO KNOW it is real.... AND that we will have to adapt to it. We just cant actually admit it as real since half the idiots in our country will show up with pitchforks and torches. This is also a problem because it will be hard to actually DO anything about it, other than 'deal with it' when it happens.



Here is a link to all 18 speeches/talks they gave that day:
http://mediasite.online.ncsu.edu/onl...1-26593ccb027b

Who is 'they' and what were some key points?

Global Climate Change Impact In the United States
Tom Peterson, Nobel Prize-winning member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Important Climate - Related Issues for Communities
Scott Shuford, Onslow County Planning & Development Director

Luncheon Plenary: What Leading States Are Doing to Address Impacts of Climate Change
Zoe Johnson, Office for Sustainable Future, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Developing Climate Change Adaptation Strategies
Rob Verchick, EPA Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy

Planning in a Changing Climate: Projected Impacts and Adaptive Responses: Human Health
Dr. Howard Frumkin, M.D., Special Assistant to the Director of Climate Change and Health, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Luncheon Plenary: Tools and Resources for Planners
Reid Ewing, Smart Growth Planning Expert, Unversity of Utah

Looks like some good talks by some smarty pants people. I expect you to dig up evidence that they are all bunk and somehow unqualified now.

Also found out that Michael E. 'Hockey Stick' Mann is giving a talk at my old university next spring. Ye haw! We also have 15 15 passenger vans going to see bill mckibbons 'do the math' talk in Raleigh on Nov 19th. http://math.350.org/

Also my favorite link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I like to 'play it safe'~ the best part about human-caused global warming is that we are trying to 'play it safe' and fix a problem before it happens. If you are in the other camp, and are wrong, we will have some serious shit to deal with. If those of us 'playing it safe' are wrong.... well.... have mpg and pollution standards really hurt you that bad?

[gwb72tii]

Can gwb not see this, or does he simply think that markt51 is agreeing with his position because that's what he wanted to read??

Oh well. This whole thread is the attempt to not only assume that humans have zero influence on global warming but also denying that it exists period.

actually this is not true and has never been true
i (and some others who discount the AGW promoters "theories") have never said there is no warming or that man has had zero influence on the environment. we have argued that the AGW science is not sound, and the proposed remedies are unrealistic, destructive, and based on unsound science. we have argued that climate change is a natural occurence and man's influence is not the driving force behind climate change as you and your band of brothers have argued here.

[gwb72tii]

and in breaking news, it appears michael mann is not the man he says he is

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/26/michael-mann-claiming-a-nobel-prize-he-didnt-receive/

[rwh11385]

actually this is not true and has never been true
i (and some others who discount the AGW promoters "theories") have never said there is no warming or that man has had zero influence on the environment. we have argued that the AGW science is not sound, and the proposed remedies are unrealistic, destructive, and based on unsound science. we have argued that climate change is a natural occurence and man's influence is not the driving force behind climate change as you and your band of brothers have argued here.

Um, the thread title is "global warming is over" and repeatedly people have tried to say that it was stopped entirely.

Either you were being untruthful when you tried to attack the notion of global warming itself based on out of context sea ice data, or you are a liar now. Which is it?

And you have ignored the question every time about how sound of science you require for action to be taken.

[nando]

actually this is not true and has never been true
i (and some others who discount the AGW promoters "theories") have never said there is no warming or that man has had zero influence on the environment. we have argued that the AGW science is not sound, and the proposed remedies are unrealistic, destructive, and based on unsound science. we have argued that climate change is a natural occurence and man's influence is not the driving force behind climate change as you and your band of brothers have argued here.

wait, which is it? does global warming exist or not? are you now admitting what the facts show, that it is real?

[gwb72tii]

go back and read my posts nando. i have agreed in the past, more than once, that the earth's climate has changed (to use the new buzzwords from your side). the arguments i have been making center on the facts presented from numerous places that:
1..warming indeed stopped 16 years ago per Hadcrut 4 data, ad even the likes of Phil Jones don't know why

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29GXaUqpw

2. there is no such thing as a broad based 97% consensus among climate scientists that man is the driver of climate change, yet your side hammers skeptics with this falsehood constantly in order to "win" arguments

http://blog.heartland.org/2011/07/you-call-this-consensus-on-climate-change/

3. in the absence of any consensus, to "remedy" a "problem" we really know very little about is costly, perhaps unnecessary, kills world GDP etc. yet you and others feel compelled to act in the absence of consensus or valid data that proves anything can be done at all to stop climate change.

yet "something" has to be done or the earth will come to an end

oh really

[rwh11385]

go back and read my posts nando. i have agreed in the past, more than once, that the earth's climate has changed (to use the new buzzwords from your side). the arguments i have been making center on the facts presented from numerous places that:
1..warming indeed stopped 16 years ago per Hadcrut 4 data, ad even the likes of Phil Jones don't know why

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29GXaUqpw

2. there is no such thing as a broad based 97% consensus among climate scientists that man is the driver of climate change, yet your side hammers skeptics with this falsehood constantly in order to "win" arguments

http://blog.heartland.org/2011/07/you-call-this-consensus-on-climate-change/

3. in the absence of any consensus, to "remedy" a "problem" we really know very little about is costly, perhaps unnecessary, kills world GDP etc. yet you and others feel compelled to act in the absence of consensus or valid data that proves anything can be done at all to stop climate change.

yet "something" has to be done or the earth will come to an end

oh really

I know you like to avoid questions, but try theses:


1. Do you concede that the earth is warming on the long-view? (egardless of your repeated calls to momentary breaks in rate or even references to potential cooling and increased sea ice near the south pole)

2. Do you concede that humans do have an influence on climate change?

[nando]

go back and read my posts nando. i have agreed in the past, more than once, that the earth's climate has changed (to use the new buzzwords from your side). the arguments i have been making center on the facts presented from numerous places that:
1..warming indeed stopped 16 years ago per Hadcrut 4 data, ad even the likes of Phil Jones don't know why

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29GXaUqpw

2. there is no such thing as a broad based 97% consensus among climate scientists that man is the driver of climate change, yet your side hammers skeptics with this falsehood constantly in order to "win" arguments

http://blog.heartland.org/2011/07/you-call-this-consensus-on-climate-change/

3. in the absence of any consensus, to "remedy" a "problem" we really know very little about is costly, perhaps unnecessary, kills world GDP etc. yet you and others feel compelled to act in the absence of consensus or valid data that proves anything can be done at all to stop climate change.

yet "something" has to be done or the earth will come to an end

oh really

1) this was already discredited. it requires an extremely ignorant view of how trends are formed in statistics. it relies on 1998 being an extremely warm year due to a strong el nino, but if you look at the trend there is no other conclusion than the last decade has been the hottest ever.

2) you said it was under 100 people, yet it looks like it was several thousand which is more than enough to form a consensus. so far you haven't proven anything false.

3) this relies on #2 being true, which you haven't proven except in your twisted view.