Global Warming is over.

[BraveUlysses]

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=11244

[gwb72tii]

I know. but it's like a train wreck.. I just can't stop looking.

it is isn't it?
i think if i said it was monday rwh would disagree

bit i digress

one thing is certain
with the latest news from East Anglia/Briffa that restores the MWP that nando says doesn't exist, if you actually choose to believe Briffa, than the major tenant behind AGW is disproven, that anthro CO2 is the driver behing AGW. you can't have it both ways.

[rwh11385]

it is isn't it?
i think if i said it was monday rwh would disagree

Wow, still building a strawman.

nando was referring to you being the trainwreck.

[u3b3rg33k]

What is your denier solution in regards to H20(g)? Eliminate water? No. Focusing on water is a red herring.

So what you're saying what we need is
?

[rwh11385]

So what you're saying we need is
?

That, or evaporative cooling is the devil. Who cares about granny's dry skin in AZ??

[herbivor]

nope, herbal has argued exactly that CO2 is the driver of climate change and man is the reason.

That is correct and although you think CO2 lags temperature rise, that's just not true. Climatologists have found that CO2 precedes temperature rise now and in every other major GW event in the past. But I've already provided links and evidence so no point and doing that again. Like your idol, Glen Beck, pretty much everything you say is the opposite of reality.

[gwb72tii]

i'm trying really hard to avoid arguing like rwh
really hard
so far the only one of you with any shred of integrity on this subject is cale LOL, who i could possibly share a kokanee with and argue about it and still laugh about it at the end of the evening. he at least admits there is at least the possibility of errors on both sides, something rwh apparently is unable to bring himself to admit, nor nando or herbal

and when the 97% consensus is discovered (by me at least as i always wondered where the poll came from) to be fraudulent, you change your tune to "majority". well which is it? show me a scientific poll of all climate scientist. (I'll wait). And i'll pre-empt rwh's argument to this point. NO, 79 climate related scientists is not a representative poll of all climate scientists, no matter how much you want it to be or how you want to post charts on it. And to think you actually believe this. amazing.

when presented with data that refutes assumed outcomes of AGW, such as no tropospheric warming, no ocean warming (in fact maybe cooling), lack of being able to predict anarctic sea ice mass increasing while arctic sea ice loss is happening ETC ETC ET fucking C, you guys dismiss it outright as if it isn't happening.

when presented with over 31,400 petition signatures academia/science that there is no consensus, it cannot be believed. (including actual nobel recipients)

http://www.petitionproject.org/

when climatologist's emails were hacked and released showing collusion, manipulation of data, attempts to silence dissenting scientists (climategate) you brush it aside as if it didn't occur.

i have admitted to not being an expert on this, only an interested old man. I'm smart enough to read what i can and understand most of it, just like you guys.

yet it really is a religion to you isn't it. instead of actually using the scientific methid and trying to disprove the AGW theory, you ignore sound science and actively try to disprove the skeptics. you have it 180* backwards.

So from where i sit, there is no consensus, thee is no hockey stick, reports i've read from climate scientists posit CO2 is a latent indicator, lagging GW by about 200 yrs, and AGW climate models have been unable to predict actual climate change.

So if there is a MWP, as alleged by East Anglia/Briffa, and Mann is proved to be a fruad, will you admit to being wrong in your new religion? We can't have Earth as warm as it is today 1200 years ago if anthro CO2 wasn't an issue can we?

oh, and "brave", as i suggested before, why not actually contribute instead of making yourself look foolish? How old are you? 15?

[gwb72tii]

That is correct and although you think CO2 lags temperature rise, that's just not true. Climatologists have found that CO2 precedes temperature rise now and in every other major GW event in the past. But I've already provided links and evidence so no point and doing that again. Like your idol, Glen Beck, pretty much everything you say is the opposite of reality.

sadly i don't have the time to read/watch beck, or tv for that matter.
i would if i could tho
and i read your links and others. and then i re-read the latent CO2 papers as well. seems like thereis no consensus. ;)

btw - now that SF demolished the tigers, i may have time to watch frontline this week. not tonite tho as the 49ers play AZ
but i will watch it nad try to be fair. i'll get back to you.

[rwh11385]

i'm trying really hard to avoid arguing like rwh
really hard
so far the only one of you with any shred of integrity on this subject is cale LOL, who i could possibly share a kokanee with and argue about it and still not be enemies. he at least admits there is at least the possibility of errors on both sides, something rwh apparently is unable to bring himself to admit, nor nando or herbal

and when the 97% consensus is discovered (by me at least as i always wondered where the poll came from) to be fraudulent, you change your tune to "majority". well which is it? show me a scientific poll of all climate scientist. (I'll wait). And i'll pre-empt rwh's argument to this point. NO, 79 climate related scientists is not a representative poll of all climate scientists, no matter how much you want it to be or how you want to post charts on it. And to think you actually believe this. amazing.

when presented with data that refutes assumed outcomes of AGW, such as no tropospheric warming, no ocean warming (in fact maybe cooling), lack of being able to predict anarctic sea ice mass increasing while arctic sea ice loss is happening ETC ETC ET fucking C, you guys dismiss it outright as if it isn't happening.

when presented with over 31,400 petition signatures academia/science that there is no consensus, it cannot be believed. (including actual nobel recipients)

http://www.petitionproject.org/

i have admitted to not being an expert on this, only an interested old man. I'm smart enough to read what i can and understand most of it, just like you guys.

yet it really is a religion to you isn't it. instead of actually using the scientific methid and trying to disprove the AGW theory, you ignore sound science and actively try to disprove the skeptics. you have it 180* backwards.

So from where i sit, there is no consensus, thee is no hockey stick, reports i've read from climate scientists posit CO2 is a latent indicator, lagging GW by about 200 yrs, and AGW climate models have been unable to predict actual climate change.

oh, and "brave", as i suggested before, why not actually contribute instead of making yourself look foolish?

You mean you are trying to avoid arguments based on logic or facts? Good job if that is what you meant.

Building strawmen, using guilt by association, and assuming all others but you are suffering from blind loyalty.

I never said the statistic was representative of all climate scientists. Quote me where I said that you liar. I said that it was the statistic of the subset of a larger poll. If you were familiar with polls, you'd know that statistics of smaller demographic groups are reported, although not definitive of anything but the response within the survey. But all of your posted criticisms failed to understand that and either were from biased sources or from sources that didn't understand statistics. It wasn't the fault of the researcher how the numbers were communicated in the media, as I mentioned before, and he did clearly state the subset sample size in the publication I've seen. Failure for others to accurately use that information is on them.

No, where did anyone dismiss the sea ice mass to the south? It was simply shown that it was cherry picking fallacy to state those numbers without giving an accurate picture of overall ice quantity.

Do you even know what the scientific method is? And how in your mind does climate change research not follow it?

George, I think you should realize that lying and saying that others have said things they haven't doesn't make you seem anything but a desperate fool who is full of it. The constant wave of logical fallacies underlines the fact that you do not base your argument on any reason or rationale besides trying to throw excuses why you are deadset in your preconceived opinion and will ignore anything contrary to that assumption.

[gwb72tii]

so that's your response rwh? predictable at least. congrats

[rwh11385]

so that's your response rwh? predictable at least. congrats

Well as long as you keep making up lies and post full of fallacy, what do you expect?

You are used to people eating up your BS?

[Fusion]

Wellp, not only is the EU making fraudulant claims, they've also already decided what our future will be.
If these demands don't make you shiver (living here or not) and if you are too blind to see the ideological shift of a whole society, than you are probably missing a large portion of your brain.
Yes I write demands, because these things will be dictated, not discussed and certainly not voted on by the society as a whole.

This study has focused on emission reduction potentials not covered by the EU
Emissions Trading System and identified 36 options for behavioural change in
the mobility, housing and food domains that will, when realised, result in a
decrease of GHG emissions. Of these options, 11 have been studied in detail. If
implemented by all the households and/or consumers which can reasonably be
expected to be able to do so, their impact on EU GHG emission mitigation
potentials would range from 22 Mt CO2 in 2020 (a reduction of space heating
temperature by 1°C) to more than 250 Mt CO2 in 2020 (a shift to a vegetarian
diet). Table 1 provides an overview of the maximum realistic mitigation
potential of the changes in 2020, 2030 and 2050.

1a. Buying and using an electric car
1b. Buying and using an plug-in hybrid
2. Buying and using a smaller car
3. Fuel efficient driving style
4. Teleworking
5. Virtual meetings
6a. Reduction of room temperature by 1°C
6b. Reduction of room temperature by 2°C
7. Optimised thermostat settings
8. Optimised ventilation behaviour
9. Shift to a vegetarian diet
10. Reduction of animal protein intake (one animal protein-free day per week)
11. Shift to a healthy diet

For each of the selected behavioural changes, barriers have been identified
that inhibit their implementation. Often, these barriers are specific to the
change options, although a generalisation is possible per domain. Policies can
overcome barriers to an extent. This study has also identified policies and for
8 April 2012 7.316.1 – Behavioural Climate Change Mitigation Options - MAIN REPORT
a selection of change options quantified the likely effects of policy packages
aimed at overcoming barriers.

For example, in order to increase the purchase and use of smaller cars, a
policy package has been designed comprising of the following instruments:
− a CO2 differentiated purchase tax;
− a CO2 differentiated company car tax;
− a (CO2 differentiated) increase of fuel taxes;
− spatial policies favourable to smaller cars;
− a supportive communication strategy.
This policy package could in the longer term reduce CO2 emissions per
passenger kilometre by 6-9%. This would correspond to 24–35 Mt in 2050. If
the additional effect of higher taxes on car purchases and transport demand is
taken into account, emissions would decrease by 16-25%.

Methane. The most common greenhouse gas after CO2, methane is responsible for some 19% of global warming from human activities. One reason for rising methane emissions is the expansion of livestock farming due to the growing consumption of meat and dairy products. The bacteria that help cattle and sheep digest their food produces methane gas, which the animals belch back into the atmosphere.

Sure, let's drive hybrids and eat wheat while we slowly die out.

Figure 1: Population size of EU27 with and without immigration, 2008–2061

Meanwhile we're in a Demolition Man scenario, countries that don't give a rat's ass can continue breeding.

[u3b3rg33k]

That, or evaporative cooling is the devil. Who cares about granny's dry skin in AZ??

Love me some swamp cooler -

[dirtysix]

Thing that gives me the shits most about GW is immigration.
Might have to stock up on some of those 'Fuck Off We're Full' signs the Aussies are so fond of.

[cale]

so far the only one of you with any shred of integrity on this subject is cale LOL, who i could possibly share a kokanee with and argue about it and still laugh about it at the end of the evening.

Smoke all you'd like too, apparently it's not bad jokes, I don't argue offline. So much more difficult when you can't google a subject 5 minutes before being an expert on it

Just watched the PBS bit Herb. Had a good snicker to myself every time they addressed an argument that had been brought up in this thread, and there were quite a few of them. Proof that the resident deniers are either experts on the subject, or just damned good at parroting what the current spokesperson for ignorance has fed to them. Oh to be so easily manipulated...I wish you were all 18 year old girls.