Global Warming is over.

[gwb72tii]

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

get a fucking original thought and come back

[nando]

or maybe the plain facts don't support the AGW deniers, but propaganda funding does (and is apparently quite effective).

[mrsleeve]

So during the Jurassic when atmospheric CO2 levels were 2000-4000ppm they were really lower than current 350ppm????

I thought you guys were good at math, last time I checked thats nearly 10 times the current levels or "many many times" and why would I have said "life", hundreds of MILLIONS of years, if I only meant human habitation????

Life was here 300m years ago, and it will be 300m from now more than likely. Or are all those fossils in museums and peoples parlor display cases a conspiracy theory by the "deniers" to discredit Climate Change??? Oh wait us RWNJ think the earth has only been here for 6k years right

[gwb72tii]

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?

nope, sorry, your AGW models predict upper troposhere warming at both poles, something that has not happened so far at either pole. nor did your models predict loss of ice in the arctic but ice mass gain in the antarctic and in greenland. nor did your models predict no temp gain since 1998 while co2 is rising. nor do oyur models, with 20/20 hindsight, explain the midieval warm period when vikings farmed greenland, nor the temp decline from 1940-1970

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.

nope, sorry, not when the AGW funding has outpaced non-tax payer funding by something like 5000:1


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

WE AGREE!!! say that again looking in the mirror


Yes, our climate models do account for water vapor.

some, but they don't account for the sun

[mrsleeve]

stood 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.

Al Gore ring any bells, for starters.

You like power, and heat, and your modern life right. Those are product that allow those things to happen. If you were all about the Green then you would only run your modern devices on the power you could make in a green way, so basicaly NOTHING, you would have to go revert to about the 1690's way of life.

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

Yeah matter of fact I do, does not change the fact that rushing to get a wanted answer and institute massive social changes on a global scale based on said answer and a few years of data with completely understanding the phenomenon. Is a bit, how shall we say suspect of the true intentions and a bit hasty dont you think. Especially considering the purveyors of such information and their stated goals outside of the Climate Change arena

[BraveUlysses]

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.

Oh, this argument again? you didn't read this link last time you tried using this angle

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money/

get a fucking original thought and come back

babby needs a nap!

[mrsleeve]

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.

I will address this latter

[herbivor]

get a fucking original thought and come back

Says the man on a broken record. You have learned nothing at all from this entire thread. I at least read your links, research the sources, and determine their scientific validity, which so far has been nil. I have learned much from your links and those that I have researched on your behalf. The answers to all of your trolling questions have been answered with reasonable science based sources. And yet you still know nothing different than when you first posted on the subject. You are completely hopeless. I don't care to convince you, but don't infect similar weak minded fools with your propaganda. It's a disservice to the human population and the planet.

[J3M93]

So during the Jurassic when atmospheric CO2 levels were 2000-4000ppm they were really lower than current 350ppm????

I thought you guys were good at math, last time I checked thats nearly 10 times the current levels or "many many times" and why would I have said "life", hundreds of MILLIONS of years, if I only meant human habitation????

Life was here 300m years ago, and it will be 300m from now more than likely. Or are all those fossils in museums and peoples parlor display cases a conspiracy theory by the "deniers" to discredit Climate Change??? Oh wait us RWNJ think the earth has only been here for 6k years right

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

solar activity bro, solar activity.

[rwh11385]

nope, sorry, your AGW models predict upper troposhere warming at both poles, something that has not happened so far at either pole. nor did your models predict loss of ice in the arctic but ice mass gain in the antarctic and in greenland. nor did your models predict no temp gain since 1998 while co2 is rising. nor do oyur models, with 20/20 hindsight, explain the midieval warm period when vikings farmed greenland, nor the temp decline from 1940-1970

Say what? Stop making up lies. Or posting misinformation. This wouldn't happen to if you backed your claims with actual data instead of forgetting what reality was.

You mean the link that again cherry picks the sea ice in Antarctica yet ignores the much larger overall loss of total ice mass on Antarctica?

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/#landIce

Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica (left chart) has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012...e-data-(again)

Contrary to the Mail's claim that "there's more ice at South Pole than ever", this summer ice loss from the ice sheet dwarfs the gradual increase in sea ice that occurred this winter.

Not only cherry picking data to only consider and publish the sea ice versus total, but also ignoring the Northern hemisphere.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2012_seaiceminimum.html

http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/750....withtrend.jpg

[rwh11385]

I will address this latter

Okay. Explain also why it is elitist to not want a dentist to land the rover on Mars, a lawyer to do open heart surgery, an accountant to fly a plane, or a pundit to determine if the science of global warming is valid or not.

Why get offended by the implication that not everything is understood by perception and common sense, so that some things require education or training to have an understanding and accomplish work?

[cale]

So during the Jurassic when atmospheric CO2 levels were 2000-4000ppm they were really lower than current 350ppm????

I thought you guys were good at math, last time I checked thats nearly 10 times the current levels or "many many times" and why would I have said "life", hundreds of MILLIONS of years, if I only meant human habitation????

Life was here 300m years ago, and it will be 300m from now more than likely. Or are all those fossils in museums and peoples parlor display cases a conspiracy theory by the "deniers" to discredit Climate Change??? Oh wait us RWNJ think the earth has only been here for 6k years right

When are you going to stop and realize that what you call common sense is no adequate in a debate where facts are present and necessary?

For the sake of the argument I'll accept your numbers are right, I don't know them and will not bother to look right now as I'm in a rush. You need to accept that just because organisms EVOLVED over millions of years to live in a certain environment, doesn't mean that you can reintroduce the same environment to organisms who've evolved in very different conditions. Your ignorance of basic science is astounding, to think you can argue it is even worse.

[Cliche Guevara]

Say what? Stop making up lies. Or posting misinformation. This wouldn't happen to if you backed your claims with actual data instead of forgetting what reality was.

That's what happens when you get your global warming news from an agenda driven agency rather than scientific sources. It's sad, really, how much time we have to spend combating the unending onslaught of misinformation and scientific ignorance coming from the side of the global warming deniers.

[cale]

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

Is the average not steadily rising? As I said, google is your friend. It will show you that indeed temperatures have been steadily increasing over the last few hundred years at a rate which cannot be chalked off to natural coincidence.

You're choosing to look at yes, one small window in the grand scheme of things.

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.

The sole purpose of climate research is for a few key individuals to get Nobel prizes, you've exposed it for it truly is. Medicine and other fields of study are the same way, they're all out to get rich! Well...rich by the standards of a scientists at least. So maybe after a few decades of hard work as the premier scientist in their field, a few book deals etc. and a small handful may retire as a millionaire if they're lucky. All those researchers driving 20 year old Volvo's because they can't afford more on their $40k a year salary are motivated by the money.

Seriously, it's almost saddening how quickly you fall in line with the beliefs of those in your political party. They're not just passive beliefs either, they're topics which you're extremely heated about. Can't wait to see what next topic is picked up by the Republican party and your simple-minded self will spend hours endlessly fighting for it in this forum as though you're fighting the good fight.

get a fucking original thought and come back

See last paragraph. Nearly every argument you make has already made headlines in the propaganda preaching sources you cite as evidence. For someone who gets all his information from sources who agree with you on every other topic you really shouldn't be calling out anyone else when your wool is the thickest of all the sheep.

[herbivor]

For those of you interested in the reality of what is currently happening, I'm reading a book called Eaarth. The statistics are pretty sobering and educational. For the past 30 years, we have been uncertain what the irreversible tipping points is withe regards to CO2 levels. Latest research shows that it is 350 ppm (we are in the 390s). In other words, we've already passed the tipping point and at the very least will cause major environmental destruction and permanent drastic changes to what has been a reasonably stable climate since human civilization began. I could go on with not what will come but what has already happened and is happening all around us, but check out the book if you are interested in the affects of AGW.