quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Phydeaux, no offence meant, but only blithering fruitcakes don't believe in human induced global warming these days. I thought you rightie types saw yourselves as realistic, balanced and down to earth, and stuff. Doesn't it bother you that you take a view on GW that's so far out on the rarified extreme, here? I mean, not believing in human induced global warming is pretty much up there with not believing in light bulbs. It's just not a serious position to take. No offence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Phydeaux, no offence meant, but only blithering fruitcakes don't believe in human induced global warming these days. I thought you rightie types saw yourselves as realistic, balanced and down to earth, and stuff. Doesn't it bother you that you take a view on GW that's so far out on the rarified extreme, here? I mean, not believing in human induced global warming is pretty much up there with not believing in light bulbs. It's just not a serious position to take. No offence.

Actually Peon, none taken.

It doesn't bother me in the least. I've looked at a great deal of science on this. And the IPCC propaganda

a). Doesn't match real world temperatures.
b). Doesn't have a coherent theory.
c). Has holes the size of mac trucks on the issues of aerosols, ionizing radiation, leading/trailing indicators and paleontology.
Not to mention, historical warming trends.

Lead reviewers for the IPCC have said - this is crap, and unsupported crap at that.

Do I think global warming will re-occur around 2030? Yes, actually I do.
I *think* we will gain roughly another degree by 2050, however after losing roughly .3 - .5 degrees between 2014 and 2030.

Those numbers are rough conjectures on the part of many actual scientists.

Certainly not the *life uninhabitable* claim of al gore, in 15 years. And, if you look at long term climate records, cold transitions have caused far more loss of species than the warming occuring.

The bottom line is that the IPCC made a temperature projection in 1998. And instead of plus a degree, we are currently around +.12 degrees. IE the projection was demonstrably WRONG - and in my opinion this error will become more obvious and more pronounced over the next 3-5 years.

So, does it bother me? Nah. Contrary to your belief, I'm actually interested in any science that would actually show there is any science there. In other words, if you find a way of using berylium as a proxy for temperature - it interests me. If you study the salinity of ocean salts - interesting.

For a theory to be correct, it has to generally predict the data examined. Conversely, all one must do to prove a theory wrong, is to show that the current theory is wrong in one facet or another - something that has been done in more than a few hundred published papers to date.

It doesn't actually matter how many people scream - "the science is settled". Screaming that loudly only means the science isn't on your side and you're resorting to pounding the table.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Phydeaux, no offence meant, but only blithering fruitcakes don't believe in human induced global warming these days. I thought you rightie types saw yourselves as realistic, balanced and down to earth, and stuff. Doesn't it bother you that you take a view on GW that's so far out on the rarified extreme, here? I mean, not believing in human induced global warming is pretty much up there with not believing in light bulbs. It's just not a serious position to take. No offence.

Actually Peon, none taken.

It doesn't bother me in the least. I've looked at a great deal of science on this. And the IPCC propaganda

a). Doesn't match real world temperatures.
b). Doesn't have a coherent theory.
c). Has holes the size of mac trucks on the issues of aerosols, ionizing radiation, leading/trailing indicators and paleontology.
Not to mention, historical warming trends.

Lead reviewers for the IPCC have said - this is crap, and unsupported crap at that.

Do I think global warming will re-occur around 2030? Yes, actually I do.
I *think* we will gain roughly another degree by 2050, however after losing roughly .3 - .5 degrees between 2014 and 2030.

Those numbers are rough conjectures on the part of many actual scientists.

Certainly not the *life uninhabitable* claim of al gore, in 15 years. And, if you look at long term climate records, cold transitions have caused far more loss of species than the warming occuring.

The bottom line is that the IPCC made a temperature projection in 1998. And instead of plus a degree, we are currently around +.12 degrees. IE the projection was demonstrably WRONG - and in my opinion this error will become more obvious and more pronounced over the next 3-5 years.

So, does it bother me? Nah. Contrary to your belief, I'm actually interested in any science that would actually show there is any science there. In other words, if you find a way of using berylium as a proxy for temperature - it interests me. If you study the salinity of ocean salts - interesting.

For a theory to be correct, it has to generally predict the data examined. Conversely, all one must do to prove a theory wrong, is to show that the current theory is wrong in one facet or another - something that has been done in more than a few hundred published papers to date.

It doesn't actually matter how many people scream - "the science is settled". Screaming that loudly only means the science isn't on your side and you're resorting to pounding the table.

It has predicted the data fairly well, you just refuse to read the scientific research that actually shows it. Instead you scour the internet for those few research papers (of which you have yet to reference) that supposedly support your crack pot theories. All you seem to do is link to conservative blogs or websites owned or donated to by the oil industry, nothing concrete. You post argument after argument, all of which have been debunked and soundly put to rest. But no, you refuse to even consider the possibility you're wrong, the death of your ego would likely be the death of yourself, and it's quite sad to be honest. If you even had a lick of intellectual honesty, you would actually do the research. Start from the basics, "why do scientists think global warming is happening" and work your way up from there, because clearly you don't understand the concept of AGW. If you did, you wouldn't be blabbering that there are massive holes in the theories and that the models can't predict anything, when they soundly have.

Use your brain, I know being a conservative has addled its uses, but for the love of god, you're doing yourself more a disfavour than a benefit by spewing this crap.

quote:



More facts from the climate front.

All according to EPA Figures:
China, singlehandedly is responsibly for 28% of global emissions.
The US, by contrast, is responsible for 14%.

China singlehandedly is responsible for more emissions than the entire western hemisphere.
If American emissions were reduced to zero, Ie, IF america completely ceased to exist - it buys us 6 years.

US emissions continue to decline (more than any other nation*). China's emissions continue to grow.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates onshore wind power will be 80% more expensive than conventional natural gas power, offshore wind power will be 142% more expensive than natural gas, solar thermal power will be 208% more expensive than natural gas, and solar photovoltaic will be 377% more expensive than natural gas.

And ther Gabriel Calzada study found that each job in renewable energy cost the country 22 jobs.

It is an IDIOTIC fantasy that carbon emissions can be solved in the United States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail.
Here:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

They not only do not agree with your made up numbers, they dont say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Phydeaux, no offence meant, but only blithering fruitcakes don't believe in human induced global warming these days. I thought you rightie types saw yourselves as realistic, balanced and down to earth, and stuff. Doesn't it bother you that you take a view on GW that's so far out on the rarified extreme, here? I mean, not believing in human induced global warming is pretty much up there with not believing in light bulbs. It's just not a serious position to take. No offence.

Actually Peon, none taken.

It doesn't bother me in the least. I've looked at a great deal of science on this. And the IPCC propaganda

a). Doesn't match real world temperatures.
b). Doesn't have a coherent theory.
c). Has holes the size of mac trucks on the issues of aerosols, ionizing radiation, leading/trailing indicators and paleontology.
Not to mention, historical warming trends.

Lead reviewers for the IPCC have said - this is crap, and unsupported crap at that.

Do I think global warming will re-occur around 2030? Yes, actually I do.
I *think* we will gain roughly another degree by 2050, however after losing roughly .3 - .5 degrees between 2014 and 2030.

Those numbers are rough conjectures on the part of many actual scientists.

Certainly not the *life uninhabitable* claim of al gore, in 15 years. And, if you look at long term climate records, cold transitions have caused far more loss of species than the warming occuring.

The bottom line is that the IPCC made a temperature projection in 1998. And instead of plus a degree, we are currently around +.12 degrees. IE the projection was demonstrably WRONG - and in my opinion this error will become more obvious and more pronounced over the next 3-5 years.

So, does it bother me? Nah. Contrary to your belief, I'm actually interested in any science that would actually show there is any science there. In other words, if you find a way of using berylium as a proxy for temperature - it interests me. If you study the salinity of ocean salts - interesting.

For a theory to be correct, it has to generally predict the data examined. Conversely, all one must do to prove a theory wrong, is to show that the current theory is wrong in one facet or another - something that has been done in more than a few hundred published papers to date.

It doesn't actually matter how many people scream - "the science is settled". Screaming that loudly only means the science isn't on your side and you're resorting to pounding the table.

It has predicted the data fairly well, you just refuse to read the scientific research that actually shows it. Instead you scour the internet for those few research papers (of which you have yet to reference) that supposedly support your crack pot theories. All you seem to do is link to conservative blogs or websites owned or donated to by the oil industry, nothing concrete. You post argument after argument, all of which have been debunked and soundly put to rest. But no, you refuse to even consider the possibility you're wrong, the death of your ego would likely be the death of yourself, and it's quite sad to be honest. If you even had a lick of intellectual honesty, you would actually do the research. Start from the basics, "why do scientists think global warming is happening" and work your way up from there, because clearly you don't understand the concept of AGW. If you did, you wouldn't be blabbering that there are massive holes in the theories and that the models can't predict anything, when they soundly have.

Use your brain, I know being a conservative has addled its uses, but for the love of god, you're doing yourself more a disfavour than a benefit by spewing this crap.

Another (in a long litany) of unsupported allegations.

Do me a favor. The IPCC has more than 40 "models" of global warming. Why don't you present them. And then, graph the IPCC models (prior to 2012) predicted temperatures vs actual.

And, then, graph the models the IPCC used in 1998.

Do any of the 1998 models correctly predict the temperatures (short answer: no).

Instead of *telling* me the science is good, show me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

And this is based on what? Something you pulled out of your ass?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I don't know that I expected much different results. Even to the extent man is contributing, it is very gradual so the effects as I have been arguing if borne out to be true, IF the globe is to suffer, by the time everybody gets on board, it will be...too late.

One reason is because (globalized) man will still be burning fossil fuels and will continue to do so.

We're very near a global cooling phase.

Be sure to let us know when it starts, then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I don't know that I expected much different results. Even to the extent man is contributing, it is very gradual so the effects as I have been arguing if borne out to be true, IF the globe is to suffer, by the time everybody gets on board, it will be...too late.

One reason is because (globalized) man will still be burning fossil fuels and will continue to do so.

We're very near a global cooling phase.

Talk to me in August. I doubt you'll still be claiming that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Not that you'll actually, like read them.

So here's some pretty pictures..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

And this is the problem with cons, they think that whatever helps their political bias is a fact, pathetic