Global Warming is over.

[rwh11385]

one small window???
ROFL
according to your side its fucking impossible for CO2 to rise and temps to go down, its central and the core of your hypotheses (as opposed to theories. hint- read my sig)
we should have a catastrophe on our hands by now according to your side

Says who? I know of zero studies that say CO2 is the sole determinant of global temperature. Maybe you should back your claims instead of attacking a strawman.


But it does sound like your assertion that it was impossible for treasury yields to go down when stocks are going up. . .

[mrsleeve]

Sleeve, what you consider common sence observation, I would consider scientific ignorance. Your statements are proud announcements of your ignorance on this topic. It takes very little reading and understanding of sound science to understand the basics of AGW, yet all the RWNJs on here refuse to do so, probably because ignorance is bliss, especially with this topic.

Oh I see, its ok when you "warmisits" and generally liberal people use that argument on anything a "RWNJ" or conservative has to say when a valid point is brought up. But its not valid when a conservative........... Errr wait I think you guys classify me as a RWNJ, uses the same argument, in the same fashion on AGW or anything else you guys stump for.


Got it!!!! Wont happen again you have my humble apologies .

[herbivor]

Oh I see, its ok when you "warmisits" and generally liberal people use that argument on anything a "RWNJ" or conservative has to say when a valid point is brought up. But its not valid when a conservative........... Errr wait I think you guys classify me as a RWNJ, uses the same argument, in the same fashion on AGW or anything else you guys stump for.


Got it!!!! Wont happen again you have my humble apologies .

Good. Glad you learned your lesson. What boggles my mind is why AGW is a "leftist" theory. It's like saying evolution, or the theory of Relativity are "leftist" theories. Sound science has no political motivation. You can argue that politicians and corporations do, but to argue scientists, who are just crunching numbers and trying to figure out how things work, have a socialist political agenda is ridiculous, especially coming from a libertarian minded person such as yourself.

[mrsleeve]

Good. Glad you learned your lesson. What boggles my mind is why AGW is a "leftist" theory. It's like saying evolution, or the theory of Relativity are "leftist" theories. Sound science has no political motivation. You can argue that politicians and corporations do, but to argue scientists, who are just crunching numbers and trying to figure out how things work, have a socialist political agenda is ridiculous, especially coming from a libertarian minded person such as yourself.

Follow the money and those that are both "funding all the research" and then using "results of said research" are one in the same generally speaking that is. They are being used to further what agenda again ?? You see I am a skeptic, and a pragmatist to a fault. I am just calling it as I see it, and urging some caution and lets rule out some more obvious shit 1st.

Kinda like my car is gutless and loses power when under acceleration, It must be the new radio I put in, since it started to happen 2 days after I installed it.......

[nando]

the difference is CO2 and methane have been long known to be a greenhouse gas, the effects of which you can replicate in a lab.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Is water vapor a greenhouse gas that can be replicated in a lab?

[mrsleeve]

^

No I dont think you can recreate that in a lab, your kitchen tea pot, or yummy potato pot, or maybe even in a bong, but no defiantly not in a lab..........................

the difference is CO2 and methane have been long known to be a greenhouse gas, the effects of which you can replicate in a lab.

Both of which are small fractions of 1% of total atmosphere and are both inversely proportional to the amount of increase in quantity needed to double the effect......... We have to vastly increase our output of these gases to warm the ball of dirt, or a couple of big natural volcanic events. Besides life thrived for 100's of millions of years on this ball of dirt when levels of those gases were many many times higher than they are now, besides dont plants like C02 ???? You know those things that make the gas we need to survive.

But then you know all this already

[rwh11385]

Follow the money and those that are both "funding all the research" and then using "results of said research" are one in the same generally speaking that is. They are being used to further what agenda again ?? You see I am a skeptic, and a pragmatist to a fault. I am just calling it as I see it, and urging some caution and lets rule out some more obvious shit 1st.

Kinda like my car is gutless and loses power when under acceleration, It must be the new radio I put in, since it started to happen 2 days after I installed it.......

It was also pragmatic to believe the sun revolves around the Earth, although science has proven otherwise. But that doesn't stop 1/5 of the US from still believing it.

Pragmatic is an euphemism for anti-intellectual.

http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/pragmatism-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/

The Ugly

Strong pragmatism is attractive to some because it promises to resolve a large number of skeptical dilemmas at once, since pragmatism labels nearly everything we already believe as true. But skeptical dilemmas only exist because we have high standards regarding truth. Thus getting rid of them can only be accomplished by effectively lowering our standards regarding truth, which pragmatism does. And lowering our standards regarding truth is not something to be happy about. It is only because we have high standards that we make intellectual progress or revise our beliefs.

Imagine the world if we still believed that leeches sucked out diseases because it made sense to the common person and there was no definitive proof to the contrary.

[mrsleeve]

I see so a pragmatist is someone that is too stupid to understand things that are not governed by the microcosm of their narrow scope of understanding I/E not university educated, by modern definitions of education that is, gotcha.........



Heeter so what your saying is that common sense has no place in modern science, (yet you just advocated for it the current H/C thread via commonsense testing) particularity when it comes to AGW.



Still leaning toward finding out in 10-15 years the sun is and always will be at fault for our weather patterns.............

[BraveUlysses]

No, he's not saying that, but feel free to keep building strawmen

[nando]

^

No I dont think you can recreate that in a lab, your kitchen tea pot, or yummy potato pot, or maybe even in a bong, but no defiantly not in a lab..........................




Both of which are small fractions of 1% of total atmosphere and are both inversely proportional to the amount of increase in quantity needed to double the effect......... We have to vastly increase our output of these gases to warm the ball of dirt, or a couple of big natural volcanic events. Besides life thrived for 100's of millions of years on this ball of dirt when levels of those gases were many many times higher than they are now, besides dont plants like C02 ???? You know those things that make the gas we need to survive.

But then you know all this already

I don't know where you get "many many times" when they've never been higher than they are now (391ppm and climbing) while any humans were living or even before any of our evolutionary ancestors were around.



maybe what you meant is they're currently many times what they were at any point in human history or any point hundreds of thousands of years before then.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

[rwh11385]

^

No I dont think you can recreate that in a lab, your kitchen tea pot, or yummy potato pot, or maybe even in a bong, but no defiantly not in a lab..........................




Both of which are small fractions of 1% of total atmosphere and are both inversely proportional to the amount of increase in quantity needed to double the effect......... We have to vastly increase our output of these gases to warm the ball of dirt, or a couple of big natural volcanic events. Besides life thrived for 100's of millions of years on this ball of dirt when levels of those gases were many many times higher than they are now, besides dont plants like C02 ???? You know those things that make the gas we need to survive.

But then you know all this already

Ummmmm... what?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself.

Here's a simple experiment you can do to see the effects of CO2 in real-life if you need practical application of theory to believe it:

http://cleanet.org/clean/community/activities/c2.html

[Cliche Guevara]

well, since there has been little in the way of the alarmist's climate models prediciting anything accurately, it's all opinion

We've been running many of our climate models for a couple decades now so we have solid date to compare their predictions to. You may be surprised to learn that the models that predict the most extreme warming an ice loss have been the most accurate. Try doing some research before you pull this bullshit out of your ass, alright?

Follow the money and those that are both "funding all the research" and then using "results of said research" are one in the same generally speaking that is.

I've never understood how someone can make the serious assertion that the money behind the environmental movement could somehow hold more sway than the money behind the oil and coal industry. Absolutely absurd.

Kinda like my car is gutless and loses power when under acceleration, It must be the new radio I put in, since it started to happen 2 days after I installed it.......

You understand the concept of scientific experiment, right? They don't just make wild claims and accept them without first being rigorously tested.

Is water vapor a greenhouse gas that can be replicated in a lab?

Yes, our climate models do account for water vapor.

[rwh11385]

I see so a pragmatist is someone that is too stupid to understand things that are not governed by the microcosm of their narrow scope of understanding I/E not university educated, by modern definitions of education that is, gotcha.........



Heeter so what your saying is that common sense has no place in modern science, (yet you just advocated for it the current H/C thread via commonsense testing) particularity when it comes to AGW.



Still leaning toward finding out in 10-15 years the sun is and always will be at fault for our weather patterns.............

Where did I say that? Scientists should have common sense and deal with healthy skepticism but the basis of understanding in the world should not be the layman's assumption. To defy all of science because it might not be visible or experienced is amazingly simplistic. Where would we be with chemistry, combustion, materials, flight and space, medicine, electricity, communications, and technology if theory was downcast because it was not understood by all or obvious from experience? To argue that all of science is unfair because someone uneducated on the subject cannot understand it or does not believe it is insanity.

Do you want your work on weld quality being criticized or questioned by someone who has never welded before? Do you enjoy people who have never worked around pipelines or learned at all about them determining if one is reasonable or not, or safe? You seem quite upset when unfamiliar liberals attack pipelines, yet don't understand you are doing the same to science?

Should all of mankind's progress be limited by the least common denominator of understanding? If so, we are in some dire trouble. The rule of laymen and dismissal of all things intellectual in favor of pragmatism... and I thought having Congress make laws about the internet of which they knew little about was bad.

[gwb72tii]

but to argue scientists, who are just crunching numbers and trying to figure out how things work, have a socialist political agenda is ridiculous,

OMG were you born yesterday?
scientists are the bread winners of their organizations . everything from the secretary to the gardener get paid by the scientists obtaining grants. and you believe they're not subject to politics? get a clue.

what scientists, in their right mind, are going to argue that AGW is a myth when they'd never get any more gold from the taxpayer? do you suppose there's political pressure on these scientists to get more of taxpayer gold by those organizations?

these are endless loops that go round and round as long as the funding exists.