quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I think the notion offered by some Republicans on here that this is left wing propaganda is not only bullshit, but potentially dangerous bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

The Mail is an interesting publication isn't it?

Do any of our Brit friends know what their rep and leanings are?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Well, to me, the math is pretty easy to grasp. 9.1 billion metric tons per year into the atmosphere minus 5 billion metric tons per year absorbed naturally equals 4.1 billion metric tons remaining in the atmosphere.

I think sometimes, there's this tendency to ignore problems where the consequences won't be visited upon us in our own lifetimes.

I fully agree.

I think the notion offered by some Republicans on here that this is left wing propaganda is not only bullshit, but potentially dangerous bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Well, to me, the math is pretty easy to grasp. 9.1 billion metric tons per year into the atmosphere minus 5 billion metric tons per year absorbed naturally equals 4.1 billion metric tons remaining in the atmosphere.

I think sometimes, there's this tendency to ignore problems where the consequences won't be visited upon us in our own lifetimes.

I fully agree.

I think the notion offered by some Republicans on here that this is left wing propaganda is not only bullshit, but potentially dangerous bullshit.

quote:

Until the anti-climate change people come up with a plausible credible motive for the assertions of pro-climate change scientists, their case will fatally flawed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: housesub4you

Here is the rebuttal to the op-ed piece in the WSJ. 

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/letters.html

Here is just a bit of their response to the deniers

"You published “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science."

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Until the anti-climate change people come up with a plausible credible motive for the assertions of pro-climate change scientists, their case will fatally flawed.

A motive assumes conspiracy. Put aside conspiracy and consider other possibilities. The paradigm developed via information cascade and the busy little climate scientists are working at the problem solving stage, leaving unexplained the evidence from ice core borings that CO2 did not precede warming during past deglaciations and that in at least one instance (135,000 years ago) CO2 lingered in high amounts for 15,000 years after glaciation began. Also unanswered so far as I know is the question of the source of all that CO2 that accompanied previous deglaciations. Very inconvenient anamolies. Maybe the paradigm is false at its base. Motives unnecessary.

cheers! [:D]

quote:


The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
An appeal to Authority. Not respectable science. Ptolomeus developed a paradigm to assure the Holy Fathers that the earth was at the center and the sun/planets revolved about man's treasured home. And the Denier Galileo got into some deep shit with Authority. Experts, experts, experts . . . . are often wrong. But extreme views are not tolerated. Get back in step, dammit! [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Until the anti-climate change people come up with a plausible credible motive for the assertions of pro-climate change scientists, their case will fatally flawed.

A motive assumes conspiracy. Put aside conspiracy and consider other possibilities. The paradigm developed via information cascade and the busy little climate scientists are working at the problem solving stage, leaving unexplained the evidence from ice core borings that CO2 did not precede warming during past deglaciations and that in at least one instance (135,000 years ago) CO2 lingered in high amounts for 15,000 years after glaciation began. Also unanswered so far as I know is the question of the source of all that CO2 that accompanied previous deglaciations. Very inconvenient anamolies. Maybe the paradigm is false at its base. Motives unnecessary.

cheers! [:D]

Literally no real climatologists are claiming that CO2 is the only possible cause for warming. It simply happens to be the case this time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Until the anti-climate change people come up with a plausible credible motive for the assertions of pro-climate change scientists, their case will fatally flawed.

A motive assumes conspiracy. Put aside conspiracy and consider other possibilities. The paradigm developed via information cascade and the busy little climate scientists are working at the problem solving stage, leaving unexplained the evidence from ice core borings that CO2 did not precede warming during past deglaciations and that in at least one instance (135,000 years ago) CO2 lingered in high amounts for 15,000 years after glaciation began. Also unanswered so far as I know is the question of the source of all that CO2 that accompanied previous deglaciations. Very inconvenient anamolies. Maybe the paradigm is false at its base. Motives unnecessary.

cheers! [:D]

Literally no real climatologists are claiming that CO2 is the only possible cause for warming. It simply happens to be the case this time.

How do we know that? How has an 0.82 correlation translated into cause and effect this time?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trismagistus

pssssssst look up "toba event."

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Until the anti-climate change people come up with a plausible credible motive for the assertions of pro-climate change scientists, their case will fatally flawed.

A motive assumes conspiracy. Put aside conspiracy and consider other possibilities. The paradigm developed via information cascade and the busy little climate scientists are working at the problem solving stage, leaving unexplained the evidence from ice core borings that CO2 did not precede warming during past deglaciations and that in at least one instance (135,000 years ago) CO2 lingered in high amounts for 15,000 years after glaciation began. Also unanswered so far as I know is the question of the source of all that CO2 that accompanied previous deglaciations. Very inconvenient anamolies. Maybe the paradigm is false at its base. Motives unnecessary.

cheers! [:D]

Literally no real climatologists are claiming that CO2 is the only possible cause for warming. It simply happens to be the case this time.

How do we know that? How has an 0.82 correlation translated into cause and effect this time?

Because there is no other factor that has changed. Global tilt, orbital distance and variability, solar irradiance etc. are all stable or following stable long term cycles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Leftists don't have much room to talk either, since the Communist Bloc countries were pretty atrocious when it came to environmental policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Leftists don't have much room to talk either, since the Communist Bloc countries were pretty atrocious when it came to environmental policy.

I don't think it's valid to blame liberals and socialists for the actions of a communist dictatorship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

How do we know that? How has an 0.82 correlation translated into cause and effect this time?

Because there is no other factor that has changed. Global tilt, orbital distance and variability, solar irradiance etc. are all stable or following stable long term cycles.

Excuse me? There most certainly is a factor that has changed. The Earth is warming. THAT causes atmospheric CO2 to rise. We have no data showing that anthropogenic CO2 would not have been sinked had the Earth NOT been warming.

K.