Global Warming is over.

[cale]

You thinking you're informed enough to make that claim highlights your ignorance and more so, your arrogance. You think because you frequent a few propaganda fueled websites you're capable of making that call? You're not, and as someone who actually does keep informed from those who are actually involved in the study I can tell you you're far from correct.

It's not just what I believe, it's how it is. Just because something is truthful in science doesn't mean it's law written in stone. Perhaps you should first educate yourself as to what is a truth or a fact are in science before you and try to debate what qualifies as one, because you look like an idiot struggling through your own confusions.

[Fusion]

as someone who actually does keep informed from those who are actually involved in the study I can tell you you're far from correct

Elaborate.

[herbivor]

There is no proof that human actions are responsible for even a fraction of any climate related change, and there never was.
That climate change is a neverending, unpredictable process, that we can agree on.

Prove it, or it's not true. ;)

[cale]

Elaborate.

Oh snap, I've been called out!

You're just as capable as I am to find reliable sources of information, it's your choice that you do not and instead go with unsound ones. When you can provide legitimate reasons as to why you making the ludicrous claim that no proof of AGW exists is rational, then maybe a discussion would be possible...but it is not. Claiming that you disagree with what's been presented and then most importantly explaining why would be a start...but you don't. You want to claim an expert position and strike out all evidence and work that's been done because...you've been exposed to what ground breaking science exactly?

Do you even understand how outrageous it is for an individual such as yourself with no formal education on the subject, to sit here and claim that everything science tells us about GW being human driven is wrong? Are you this quick to dismiss majorly held understandings in other sciences too, or are you like most vocal deniers and have no taste for science other than what's controversial because it's a hot topic and target for your political affiliation?

[MAXELHOFF]

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...g-rate/266623/

[cale]

*anxiously awaiting gwb's post of increased antarctic ice pack as refutation

[Fusion]

Would my opinion be any more credible if I was a railroad engineer?

[EyExR]

Whoa - 94 pages of this?...

It doesn't matter if global temperatures are increasing or decreasing - the problem is that there are too many people on this planet and our carbon dioxide output is higher than recorded history. The end result will be human induced temperature changes over time.

Whether we are aware of it or not, our Sun is a variable star leading to long period cooling and warming effects based off of solar activity. You have to compound the effects of solar output with human induced warming.

Influences on temperature changes are so dynamic that it is nearly impossible to blame global cooling or warming on any one or group of variables.

The point is - we're human. We have the ability to make choices that will interrupt or enhance the nature of things on our planet. I believe in the Precautionary Principle which says: "if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action".

We know what the right thing to do is, so let's do it. Just because you don't get caught stealing doesn't make stealing the right thing to do...

If you were momentarily flung off this planet, floating in the voids of space while looking back at our blue marble - you would suddenly experience the scariest thing imaginable, the idea of an inhospitable Earth - and you would fight like mad to get back and protect her.

[cale]

Would my opinion be any more credible if I was a railroad engineer?

Depends. If you ask gwb, then likely yes. Hell, a railroad engineer is probably one of the signatures on that letter to the UN he provided.

You'd be more credible if you didn't come in and make ridiculous claims like "there is no proof for AGW", something that there most definitely is incredible amounts of. Stating that you disagree with the conclusion climatologists have presented after reviewing the facts is fine, although you're not in a position to actually discredit it yourself so you're forced to rely on the efforts of professionals just as I am. The difference being the professionals you and other deniers seem to agree with are at the bottom of the food chain in climate science. Coincidence? Not at all, they present theories that are refuted time and time again.

Bad science is bad.

[Fusion]

Yes, it sure is.

Pachauri was born in Nainital, India. He was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow[4] and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India.[5] He began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[6] He lives in Golf Links, New Delhi.[7] He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment.[8]

Also, old story, but here's another agw scientist
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

[cale]

Yes, it sure is.

Pachauri was born in Nainital, India. He was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow[4] and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India.[5] He began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, in 1972, as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974.[6] He lives in Golf Links, New Delhi.[7] He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment.[8]

And care to explain how this discredits the actual research being done by climatologists? He's a figurehead and spokesperson to an organization which doesn't even do it's own climate research. Similar to many successful politicians not even being graduates in any form of political science. When this individual is passing off his personal reviews of hard data as climatology then you can call into question his credentials, till then this is about as laughable as deniers discounting hard science because they disagree with Gore. You do realize he's just a parrot himself right, and that what he says in no way credits or discredits research? I accept AGW as reality because that's what science tells us is occurring, not because a movie told me so. I'm sorry if you have the misunderstanding that that's where everyone gets their information, but it most certainly is not.

Keep trying to toss a red herring in the works and not acknowledge that you're not in a position to refute the science despite your claims trying to do exactly that.

[gwb72tii]

it's useless to argue the science here as nobody understands it any better than anyone else
and to point that out, and to link cale and others to those in the field that are in fact scientists that doubt AGW means nothing
its like arguing with a wall. no fact, no opinion, even by those qualified in the science to have a qualified opinon, are good enough.

that is why AGW is called a religion. no proof necessary, but faith is essential

[rwh11385]

it's useless to argue the science here as nobody understands it any better than anyone else
and to point that out, and to link cale and others to those in the field that are in fact scientists that doubt AGW means nothing
its like arguing with a wall. no fact, no opinion, even by those qualified in the science to have a qualified opinon, are good enough.

that is why AGW is called a religion. no proof necessary, but faith is essential

So you think your understanding of climate change is the same as Q5?
And if you think it is useless to argue about science because you so clueless about it, WHY DO YOU TRY?

Instead of posting opinions of questionable conservative think tanks, why not excuse yourself because of your ignorance of science [period] and go back to being a remora - sucking on the teat of wealthy retirees. You can leave the rest of us to actually discuss the topic instead of being distracted by your antics.

[cale]

Belittle yourself all you'd like. Time and time again you've posted articles which are misleading or downright false in terms of disproving AGW and you think they're a smoking gun. So sorry, but no we don't all have the same poor understanding or comprehension abilities that you do when it comes to discerning sound science from propaganda fueled bullshit you like to piggy back on.

[gwb72tii]

So by your definition Phil jones admitting in 2010 that he earth
isn't warming any longer and that climate scientists can't
explain it s posting more false bullshit?