BBC: What Happened to Global Warming?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
No. Climate Change is loaded terminology precisely because we are to assume that it is "Man made Climate Change". Since scientists have failed in calculating natural climate change (which has much more variation throughout the history of the planet) the models they use are garbage in - garbage out.
:lmao: ummm...yes :lmao:
 
Pretty much everything in this debate can be debunked (accurately or not), on both sides, including the debunkings.
 
Pretty much everything in this debate can be debunked (accurately or not), on both sides, including the debunkings.

Depending on what you mean. The warmers made claims and they were debunked. The debunkers haven't made any claims on the absolute certainty what causes climate change because more studies are needed. For example currently nobody can say 25% (sun), 25% (Anthropogenic CO2), 25% (oceans), 25% (land use). They just make estimates and put them into models to make predictions on what they think is natural. This is fine as long as they try to find out why the models were wrong and adjust them before media gets any alarms. We shouldn't be getting alarms until the science is settled.

Pointing out heat, cold, melting, freezing is correlation, not causation. The reality is that there are probably so many factors involved that they will have a hard time forecasting a year from now let alone 50 years. The only thing keeping this floating is the general public's response to the appeal to authority argument which works for many people, but it's erroding fast.

It's going to be awhile before we can get open transparent debate between both sides, which is what is BADLY needed. The peer-review system has to be cleared up. And this is just the science. The economic reality is that the U.S. better get its finances in shape before they remove 2% of GDP every year. I prefer to look at energy security as a different problem and that would allow for natural gas (cleaner than coal) to be an option and funding on renewable resources until they are at least as good as nuclear or preferrably better to prevent massive reductions in economic growth.

For example:

YouTube - Craig Venter: On the verge of creating synthetic life
13:00

Or:​

YouTube - Nuclear Fusion

Of course there will be other options that may come in the future.
 
Lightfoot has a bachelors in Mechanical Engineering. :lol:

I have a bridge I'd like to sell you Oscar, Mr Lightfoot and you can go in 50/50.

Here's another example of appeal to authority. :wave:

He's just posting an opinion that gets to the heart of the debate. He's not showing climate models or his own climatology studies. I'm an accountant. I'm not showing MY research. I'm talking about the debate OTHER researchers are engaged in and displaying variances between predictions and observed results. Or are you saying that only climatologists can talk about the debate? Your facetiousness knows no bounds.
 
Here's another example of appeal to authority. :wave:

He's just posting an opinion that gets to the heart of the debate. He's not showing climate models or his own climatology studies. I'm an accountant. I'm not showing MY research. I'm talking about the debate OTHER researchers are engaged in and displaying variances between predictions and observed results. Or are you saying that only climatologists can talk about the debate? Your facetiousness knows no bounds.

I'm saying this guy is par for the course when it comes to experts you have posted. This guy has a paid for agenda and isn't qualified to make the leaps that he does...
 
I'm saying this guy is par for the course when it comes to experts you have posted. This guy has a paid for agenda and isn't qualified to make the leaps that he does...

Uh...no it isn't. Most of what I posted comes from climate scientists and astrophysicists but you just choose to call it "crap" and move on. Also the "paid for agenda" is being pointed on both sides. Everybody gets paid via industry or government and not all skeptics or believers fit into the obvious categories. Some in government are skeptical and some in industry are for cap and trade.

Here's some other skeptics:

YouTube - climategate on finnish television 1/3

YouTube - climategate on finnish television 2/3

YouTube - climategate on finnish television 3/3
 
Um, a small portion... Let's be honest.

The entire Lord Monckton presentation is from actual scientists and encompasses astrophysics and climatology. All I'm doing is reminding people with the same evidence over and over again because the IPCC pro-AGW point of view keeps repeating over and over again their catastrophic claims. The main new study I posted includes more uncertainty over how much CO2 is absorbed or not. The rest is what political commentators think about that evidence because politics and economics is also involved in the conversation.

Also some people on this board don't care which side is right but are wanting some change to more energy independence and preparation for climate change (natural or manmade) including Lightfoot which is a continuation of my conversation with Phillyfan.
 
But you have ALWAYS approached this issue from an economic and political side first and then found the "science" that backs up your side's stance. You've posted science that contradicted what you were trying to say, you've posted "science" from people who were not even scientist, and "science" from people who were doing shitty backyard science experiments that anyone beyond 7th grade could find the faults in, which just shows us your understanding of science in general is very weak. You also only talk about the IPCC and never tackle the science outside of this organization that back them up. So your agenda is much much more transparent then most people.
 
But you have ALWAYS approached this issue from an economic and political side first and then found the "science" that backs up your side's stance. You've posted science that contradicted what you were trying to say, you've posted "science" from people who were not even scientist, and "science" from people who were doing shitty backyard science experiments that anyone beyond 7th grade could find the faults in, which just shows us your understanding of science in general is very weak. You also only talk about the IPCC and never tackle the science outside of this organization that back them up. So your agenda is much much more transparent then most people.

There you go again. I've posted skeptical science. If others (including yourself) want to publish IPCC reports and other AGW scientists then by all means go ahead. Everyone knows what the IPCC thinks at nauseum, and any who aren't a part of the IPCC and agree with the IPCC then the argument against the IPCC works for both. They politically push people out of the debate with their "peer-review" process and we have evidence of this with the emails. You can't escape politics and economics precisely because the IPCC is a political body and cap and trade is about economics. You can't allow them leeway on this and say I can't talk about politics and economics. Also because of the emails we have to look at the science outside of East Anglia because we are getting hockey stick graphs around the world and urban island heat effects that have errors as large as the warming.

We have been over this before with the solar panels. Having some solar panels work in specific regions is not the solution to the world's energy market yet you keep harping on it like it's a relevant argument. The articles I posted on solar panels show that they are too expensive precisely because not enough energy can be extracted so it can't even compete with nuclear let alone fossil fuels. Then you ignore Spain which had over 30% increase in fuel prices. Did you read about that? Again your facetiousness continues.

I've also posted from pro-AGW scientists and their predictions in the past few years which make "backyard science experiments" look good. My agenda is to put the lie of consensus and settled science out the window because we know it's not settled and there is no consensus. My agenda is transparent (that's the point). I'm not trying to hide anything because there is no inbetween. It's either a catastrophic crisis as claimed by other agendas or it's not. Most of what A Wanderer has posted also has caveats (with some hints at catastrophe) that make it again uncertain. He even has posts quoted from sources he likes that put skepticism on model predictions while at the same time trying to say we should trust those models. Then he posted that we should go ahead with a precautionary principle. Most people are okay with precaution if it doesn't cost trillions of dollars and halts development in the 3rd world. I thought a leftist would naturally understand that. But hey I'm not supposed to talk about politics and economics because we need to worship at the altar of scientists. In fact why don't we just eliminate elections because we the people are too stupid to know what's good for us and just have scientists run the economy in a technocratic dictatorship?

People are sick and tired of bogus alarmism. Whatever orange alerts you leftists complain about under Bush is nothing like WWF and the U.N. :shrug: They've made erroneous off the wall predictions but I don't see you calling those scientists hacks. The fact that they get away with this tells me that skeptics are on the right track. There's a trackrecord that goes back decades involving dead oceans, ice ages, Malthusian starvation that all have proven way off the mark. Why shouldn't I be skeptical?
 
More reason to be skeptical from a guy within the IPCC:

[My emphasis]

DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online

The mini ice age starts here

By David Rose

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2.

Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was ‘settled’.

Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.

Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.


‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance.

Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming.

The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view.

On the one hand, it is true that the current freeze is the product of the ‘Arctic oscillation’ – a weather pattern that sees the development of huge ‘blocking’ areas of high pressure in northern latitudes, driving polar winds far to the south.

Meteorologists say that this is at its strongest for at least 60 years.

As a result, the jetstream – the high-altitude wind that circles the globe from west to east and normally pushes a series of wet but mild Atlantic lows across Britain – is currently running not over the English Channel but the Strait of Gibraltar.

However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic ‘multi-decadal oscillations’ (MDOs).

For Europe, the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic, now several degrees below its average when the world was still warming.

But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.

'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’

Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.

But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise.

Many of the consequences of the recent warm mode were also observed 90 years ago.

For example, in 1922, the Washington Post reported that Greenland’s glaciers were fast disappearing, while Arctic seals were ‘finding the water too hot’.

It interviewed a Captain Martin Ingebrigsten, who had been sailing the eastern Arctic for 54 years: ‘He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, and since that time it has gotten steadily warmer.

'Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended into the sea they have entirely disappeared.’

As a result, the shoals of fish that used to live in these waters had vanished, while the sea ice beyond the north coast of Spitsbergen in the Arctic Ocean had melted.

Warm Gulf Stream water was still detectable within a few hundred miles of the Pole. In contrast, Prof Tsonis said, last week 56 per cent of the surface of the United States was covered by snow.

‘That hasn’t happened for several decades,’ he pointed out. ‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while.’

He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world’s media were preoccupied by fears of freezing.

For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted ‘Another Ice Age’, saying: ‘Man may be somewhat responsible – as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth.’

Prof Tsonis said: ‘Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.’

Like Prof Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.

But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.

'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’


Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.

He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’

He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.

The work of Profs Latif, Tsonis and their teams raises a crucial question: If some of the late 20th Century warming was caused not by carbon dioxide but by MDOs, then how much?

Tsonis did not give a figure; Latif suggested it could be anything between ten and 50 per cent.

Other critics of the warming orthodoxy say the role played by MDOs is even greater.


William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect.

According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’

But last week, die-hard warming advocates were refusing to admit that MDOs were having any impact.

In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.

Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’

The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion. [So is it global warming or climate change?]

It's obvious that the science isn't settled. Even predicting with oceans isn't going to be the only method since there are probably other variables like how cosmic rays are affected by the sun. Until it's settled I don't want to hear about catastrophe.
 
There you go again. I've posted skeptical science. If others (including yourself) want to publish IPCC reports and other AGW scientists then by all means go ahead. Everyone knows what the IPCC thinks at nauseum, and any who aren't a part of the IPCC and agree with the IPCC then the argument against the IPCC works for both. They politically push people out of the debate with their "peer-review" process and we have evidence of this with the emails. You can't escape politics and economics precisely because the IPCC is a political body and cap and trade is about economics. You can't allow them leeway on this and say I can't talk about politics and economics. Also because of the emails we have to look at the science outside of East Anglia because we are getting hockey stick graphs around the world and urban island heat effects that have errors as large as the warming.
I'm saying you are driven by economics and politics first, and then you find the science. That's the bullshit way to do this, it's why most of your "scientist" have been found faulty as well. And how does the argument against the IPCC work for science outside the IPCC, that doesn't make any sense what so ever. You're losing it Oscar.

We have been over this before with the solar panels. Having some solar panels work in specific regions is not the solution to the world's energy market yet you keep harping on it like it's a relevant argument. The articles I posted on solar panels show that they are too expensive precisely because not enough energy can be extracted so it can't even compete with nuclear let alone fossil fuels. Then you ignore Spain which had over 30% increase in fuel prices. Did you read about that? Again your facetiousness continues.
But it does work and is cost efficient for certain parts of the planet(like YOUR article said), just like wind is for other parts of the planet, you always choose to ignore that fact. :huh: If you actually address this point this time, you win a prize.

You've used it twice now, I'm not quite sure you know the definition of 'facetious' because you're using it wrong.

I thought a leftist would naturally understand that. But hey I'm not supposed to talk about politics and economics because we need to worship at the altar of scientists. In fact why don't we just eliminate elections because we the people are too stupid to know what's good for us and just have scientists run the economy in a technocratic dictatorship?
This is reason 1,256 why no one can take you seriously in here.

People are sick and tired of bogus alarmism. Whatever orange alerts you leftists complain about under Bush is nothing like WWF and the U.N. :shrug: They've made erroneous off the wall predictions but I don't see you calling those scientists hacks. The fact that they get away with this tells me that skeptics are on the right track. There's a trackrecord that goes back decades involving dead oceans, ice ages, Malthusian starvation that all have proven way off the mark. Why shouldn't I be skeptical?
We've gone over the alarmism time and time again, you don't get it, I don't know how else to explain it to you. :shrug:
 
I'm saying you are driven by economics and politics first, and then you find the science. That's the bullshit way to do this, it's why most of your "scientist" have been found faulty as well. And how does the argument against the IPCC work for science outside the IPCC, that doesn't make any sense what so ever. You're losing it Oscar.

I think you are downplaying the IPCC too much and the jury is still out on who's faulty. To throw the IPCC under the bus is a big deal in this debate considering they try and represent a world consensus.

But it does work and is cost efficient for certain parts of the planet(like YOUR article said), just like wind is for other parts of the planet, you always choose to ignore that fact. :huh: If you actually address this point this time, you win a prize.

Tick, tick, tick. Time is ticking as more fossil fuels are being used. In order to stop CO2 from increasing (according to alarmist guys like Hansen from NASA) we would need to shut down coal plants.

Hansen Asks England to Shut Down its Coal Plants | Planetizen

NASA's James Hansen takes his global warming message to England, telling them in no uncertain terms that they must stop their reliance on coal-derived electricity. He dismisses 'clean coal' and even 'carbon caps' if coal plants continue to operate.

"Coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet", writes James Hansen, director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. "He was the first scientist to warn the US Congress of the dangers of climate change."

"The climate is nearing tipping points. If we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades, we will see effects that are irreversible."

"The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species.

If we cut off the (world's) largest source of carbon dioxide - coal - it will be practical to bring carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm, lower still if we improve agricultural and forestry practices, increasing carbon storage in trees and soil.

The three countries most responsible, per capita, for filling the air with carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are the UK, the US and Germany, in that order.

Coal is not only the largest fossil fuel reservoir of carbon dioxide, it is the dirtiest fuel. Coal is polluting the world's oceans and streams with mercury, arsenic and other dangerous chemicals. The dirtiest trick that governments play on their citizens is the pretence that they are working on "clean coal" or that they will build power plants that are "capture-ready" in case technology is ever developed to capture all pollutants."

So how is solar and wind going to replace coal without doing serious damage to growth? Even Barack Obama needs growth to win an election in 2012.

You've already stated that environmentalists use alarmism to get lazy people to move their asses on new technologies and that you think it will only be expensive at the beginning and it will then become cheaper.

I have addressed the question and even asked you another question in response. I will ask again:

Is this about stopping catastrophic climate change induced by man or is this about energy independence? There are two issues brought up in this thread.

You've used it twice now, I'm not quite sure you know the definition of 'facetious' because you're using it wrong.

You're arguments look more like jokes and jabs than actually adding to the debate. You keep ignoring the big picture which does not support wind and solar being just a temporarily expensive alternative to fossil fuels. Currently it is so expensive we would go backwards in development if we shut down fossil fuels and we would prevent 3rd world countries from using fossil fuels to develop their countries. In order to get them to develop CO2 HAS TO INCREASE until some miraculous technology appears. You can fund research without cap and trade and it would be cheaper too. Direct funding would also avoid a boom bust scenario from cap and trade as people invest in green companies despite a lack of good products and a panic as many of those companies will fail just like the dot.com boom/bust.

This is reason 1,256 why no one can take you seriously in here.

You obviously don't. It's not which comes first or after (politics and science). They both go hand in hand. The science by the IPCC eliminated the medieval warming period and when I saw that graph in university I was skeptical because of the historical record showing otherwise. When you guys talk about science it sounds as if you want some scientific elite to dictate economics and politics because we are too narrow-minded and science must come first. You have to look at ALL stakeholders because there are other options to adapting to climate change (natural or man-made) that can be better use of limited resources than cap and trade or shutting down coal and giving a tax-credit to unemployed workers. If you don't want to talk about economics and politics then just post more scientific articles and your beliefs on what will happen in future weather. No one is stopping you.

Considering how my Anthropology teacher was using the hockey stick graph I could easily have suspicions about politics coming before the science. Then you add Greenpeace founders openly saying that.

We've gone over the alarmism time and time again, you don't get it, I don't know how else to explain it to you. :shrug:

Yes we have and we agreed to disagree. Energy independence is a different issue than racing to save the world from climate doom. Conflating the two issues to force the public into new technologies is not a efficient method IMHO. There are good reasons to switch over to new technologies when they are primetime (energy independence) but it looks more likely that it will take decades before some of the technologies I posted will be ready. Using natural gas domestically is also another interim option for the U.S., which will help in a worldwide recession. From some earlier comments on nuclear from Obama I'm hoping that the U.S. will be allowed to go ahead with more nuclear power plants because nuclear already is better than wind and solar as can be seen by the French experience.
 
Tick, tick, tick. Time is ticking as more fossil fuels are being used. In order to stop CO2 from increasing (according to alarmist guys like Hansen from NASA) we would need to shut down coal plants.

So how is solar and wind going to replace coal without doing serious damage to growth? Even Barack Obama needs growth to win an election in 2012.

You've already stated that environmentalists use alarmism to get lazy people to move their asses on new technologies and that you think it will only be expensive at the beginning and it will then become cheaper.

I have addressed the question and even asked you another question in response. I will ask again:
I knew you wouldn't address it :lol:


Is this about stopping catastrophic climate change induced by man or is this about energy independence? There are two issues brought up in this thread.
Both... funny how things relate, eh?


You're arguments look more like jokes and jabs than actually adding to the debate.
When you're dealing with some of the "science" you post you have to just laugh otherwise you'd cry.

You keep ignoring the big picture which does not support wind and solar being just a temporarily expensive alternative to fossil fuels. Currently it is so expensive we would go backwards in development if we shut down fossil fuels and we would prevent 3rd world countries from using fossil fuels to develop their countries.
But as it's been pointed out to you time and time and time again, even by your own article, you're wrong. It IS cost and energy efficient in certain parts of the world. The more you ignore, the more ignorant you look.

You obviously don't. It's not which comes first or after (politics and science). They both go hand in hand. The science by the IPCC eliminated the medieval warming period and when I saw that graph in university I was skeptical because of the historical record showing otherwise. When you guys talk about science it sounds as if you want some scientific elite to dictate economics and politics because we are too narrow-minded and science must come first. You have to look at ALL stakeholders because there are other options to adapting to climate change (natural or man-made) that can be better use of limited resources than cap and trade or shutting down coal and giving a tax-credit to unemployed workers. If you don't want to talk about economics and politics then just post more scientific articles and your beliefs on what will happen in future weather. No one is stopping you.

Considering how my Anthropology teacher was using the hockey stick graph I could easily have suspicions about politics coming before the science. Then you add Greenpeace founders openly saying that.
No, this is your problem, on an issue like this the science should be first, this is something you don't get... I'm sorry you didn't like your teacher and the hockey stick graph, but there's a whole other world of science out there.
 
I knew you wouldn't address it :lol:

Yes I did. :doh: Solar and wind aren't enough. Your point of Australia is moot. Geothermal also works in Iceland but that hardly means we should push out fossil fuels when NONE of the options (including nuclear) can handle the demand. This would be economically (to put it lightly) unfeasible.

Both... funny how things relate, eh?

Yeah and so which are you arguing for?................................:| It's okay to lie to the public via climate catastrophe that doesn't exist to push for ecofuels? If we want ecofuels for energy independence we shouldn't beat around the bush. In fact it will speed up the process because we can look at workable solutions to that problem via fossil fuels now until the technology gets better.

Even this over the top alarmism is more consistent than using a roundabout AGW argument as a front for switching to renewable resources:

YouTube - COLLAPSE - Theatrical Movie Trailer

This alarmism tactic is so overused that it's like background noise now.

When you're dealing with some of the "science" you post you have to just laugh otherwise you'd cry.

That's precisely why it doesn't add to the conversation. You are SO above everyone else so you don't have to explain your position. I've already posted past predictions of a flooded New York or snow free England that could make you, as you say, "laugh otherwise you'd cry".

But as it's been pointed out to you time and time and time again, even by your own article, you're wrong. It IS cost and energy efficient in certain parts of the world. The more you ignore, the more ignorant you look.

See first response above. Why did you think I posted that article? The claim from warmers was to stop fossil fuels and move to solar and wind. What about the rest of the world? The fuel prices would go through the roof. That's why you sound facetious holding on to the fact that someplace in sunny Australia has enough sunlight to use solar panels, of course also using fossil fuels to keep the price down because the power isn't enough for all of Australia let alone the technology being ready to be replicated around the world. Remember the Waxman Markey bill has a provision to give dislocated coal workers a tax credit because they knowingly want to shut down coal plants.

YouTube - Shut those coal plants!

Bankrupting coal plants to go to solar and wind without nuclear? Even congress is starting to back down on that.

No, this is your problem, on an issue like this the science should be first, this is something you don't get... I'm sorry you didn't like your teacher and the hockey stick graph, but there's a whole other world of science out there.

That's exactly what skeptical scientists are telling the IPCC. The debate is hardly over in the science arena.
 
See first response above. Why did you think I posted that article? The claim from warmers was to stop fossil fuels and move to solar and wind. What about the rest of the world? The fuel prices would go through the roof. That's why you sound facetious holding on to the fact that someplace in sunny Australia has enough sunlight to use solar panels, of course also using fossil fuels to keep the price down because the power isn't enough for all of Australia let alone the technology being ready to be replicated around the world. Remember the Waxman Markey bill has a provision to give dislocated coal workers a tax credit because they knowingly want to shut down coal plants.

I saw your response earlier and this is exactly why you are going back on my ignore list, you just aren't equipped to have serious discussions about anything science related. Here's the concept, if parts of Austrailia can thrive on sun efficiently(without fossil fuels or tax credits, you should read your own articles) and parts of western US can do the same on wind, etc, etc then we're winning. NO ONE SAID THERE WOULD BE ONE ANSWER FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, AND NO ONE SAID IT WOULD BE OVERNIGHT! Pull your head out of the sand. You seem to not understand a lot of the basics. :shrug:

:wave: again.
 
I saw your response earlier and this is exactly why you are going back on my ignore list, you just aren't equipped to have serious discussions about anything science related. Here's the concept, if parts of Austrailia can thrive on sun efficiently(without fossil fuels or tax credits, you should read your own articles) and parts of western US can do the same on wind, etc, etc then we're winning. NO ONE SAID THERE WOULD BE ONE ANSWER FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, AND NO ONE SAID IT WOULD BE OVERNIGHT! Pull your head out of the sand. You seem to not understand a lot of the basics. :shrug:

:wave: again.

I'm responding to alarmist claims made by the IPCC and others that we should quickly shutdown part of the energy industry because we "only have a few years left". This is a different tack than "hey we should fund new technologies before we run out of fossil fuels in 300 years." If the IPCC is really thinking like you but feel it's necessary to go full out in climate alarm mode to get things going then people (who aren't on top of things like you) will get the impression that "hey isn't it supposed to be warming like the predictions say?". Then when the science shows that it cooled since 1998 and 1998 wasn't the hottest year on record then the public are going to smell blood. At a minimum it's a massive PR disaster. At worst it's a giant ponzi scheme.
 
UN climate report riddled with errors on glaciers

WASHINGTON — Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful.

The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 — hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035.

The climate panel and even the scientist who publicized the errors said they are not significant in comparison to the entire report, nor were they intentional. And they do not negate the fact that worldwide, glaciers are melting faster than ever.

But the mistakes open the door for more attacks from climate change skeptics.

door.gif
 
Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide

Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide

Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is

Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.

Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.

Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.

Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.

Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.

Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.

Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.

Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not here!





“The attempts of environmentalists to bolster the myth of human-induced global warming is downright immoral.”

~ Philip Stott, Professor of Biogeography, University of London
 
Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide

Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide

Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is

Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.

Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.

Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.

Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.

Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.

Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.

Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.

Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not here!





“The attempts of environmentalists to bolster the myth of human-induced global warming is downright immoral.”

~ Philip Stott, Professor of Biogeography, University of London
Are you laughing about this in a "look how stupid this joke is" way or in an honest to goodness "look how foolish this joke makes liberals look!"

I hope it's the former, but fear it's the latter. If it's the latter, please, read a goddamn book or something that will actually let you learn things.
 
Are you laughing about this in a "look how stupid this joke is" way or in an honest to goodness "look how foolish this joke makes liberals look!"

I hope it's the former, but fear it's the latter. If it's the latter, please, read a goddamn book or something that will actually let you learn things.

In fairness, the fringes of the environmental movement do indeed advocate more or less what Iron Horse posted in his satire.

The likes of Zac Goldsmith - and he is mainstream and not on the fringes - with his three kids aren't in a position to preach about overpopulation to the likes of us who don't even have any kids.
 
In fairness, the fringes of the environmental movement do indeed advocate more or less what Iron Horse posted in his satire.

The likes of Zac Goldsmith - and he is mainstream and not on the fringes - with his three kids aren't in a position to preach about overpopulation to the likes of us who don't even have any kids.
But people like Iron Horse project the fringe onto the entire "movement" (which seems like a shitty word for describing someone who simply thinks we shouldn't pollute and use up fossil fuels at an absurd rate).

You guys will be happy to know that I'm taking a class about energy usage this semester! I should be quite knowledged on the subject by the end.
 
John Stossel has done some very interesting shows on alternative fuels and energy independence in the past month.
But he'll largely be ignored as a wackjob because he now works for Fox News and generally favors free market solutions over government intervention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom