Global warming.

[Liberty1911]

Yes, but my assumptions are also backed up by enormous amounts of analysis of empirical evidence.

That is where the big difference comes in.... Claim something is incorrect all you want, that is fine - I have no issues with dissenting opinions... but without the presence of evidence to support your claim, it will not be a scientifically respected opinion.

The real problem is the facts are shoehorned into the "analysis" to fit the assumptions rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. Hence the problem with "global warming" being political.

Let's see some facts (not some scientist's biased assumption) like:

1. How much does CO2 contribute to warming compared to other factors like sun activity.

2. Of the CO2 increase, how much can be attributed man made causes?

The analysis would be more objective if they didn't already start with the assumption that man contributes CO2, and is therefore responsible for global warming.

It's funny how the earth can warm up all by itself (medieval warming period), and they will dismiss that with, "oh, that's attributible to sun activity", but nowadays, "well it's definitely man made."

Right.

Let's see some real science that draws conclusions from facts rather than interpreting the facts to fit their already decided theory.

 

[Liberty1911]

Anyone that could prove the IPCC incorrect and demonstrate better understanding of climate change would make their career.

If political pressures in the world were able to hold back science, then most of our modern understandings of science would not exist.

There's your problem. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science.

They have a theory, and that's all. They may take measurements and produce data, but they have proven nothing.

 

[88GT]

Here's another view that puts our current "warming" trend into perspective in case the one above was a little too busy.

The first graph picked an arbitrary zero point. The second one does not. The second graph shows the same trend but based on actual temps (or more precisely, amount of deviation from average of actual temps; it should be noted that this anomaly approach IS the standard methodology for calculating and tracking earth's temps).

It doesn't matter which graph you look at, the data is irrefutable: our current warming is no where near the level of temps experience on earth historically. And our current upward trend is no where an extreme rate of increase.

So, with that in mind, let's address this comment:

To believe that humans have no impact on the rising temperatures would either imply that:
A) Increased frequnecies of CO2 do not lead to an increase in temperature
or
B) Man does not contribute to rising levels of CO2

Given the lack of human-generated CO2, what explains the warming trends of the last 6,000 years? Why is our current smallish warming trend treated as an outlier of magnificent proportion when historically there have been greater rates of warming and greater actual temperatures? Why are we supposed to believe that the warming in this trend is solely due to human influences and not any of the other influences that affected the five (or more) other warming trends in the last 800,000 years?


The last million years have been the coldest years of the last 65million.

If we're warming, maybe we're just getting back to an equilibrium point. #thingsthatmakeyougohmmmmmm

If we are warming, perhaps we should all be very, very thankful. Our massive global population will do well to have longer growing seasons, greater area on which to farm, and less need to expend resources fighting the cold.

 

[level.eleven]

Oh my. These threads certainly bring out the conspiracy theorists.

 

[Liberty1911]

Oh my. These threads certainly bring out the conspiracy theorists.

There's a difference between a critical thinker and a conspiracy theorist.

Sometimes though, they can both be correct.

 

[88GT]

There's a difference between a critical thinker and a conspiracy theorist.

Sometimes though, they can both be correct.

The only conspiracy I can see is the one trying to create something out of almost-nothing.

A simple evaluation of the data should render any alarmist dumbstruck at the ridiculous nature of the claims.

 

[rhino]

Wait! There are real, live scientists here?

Gee, willikers! It's like having Beakman and Bill Nye right here with us!

Roy Spencer is a real, live scientist, by the way.

 

[smokingman]

Wait! There are real, live scientists here?

Gee, willikers! It's like having Beakman and Bill Nye right here with us!

Roy Spencer is a real, live scientist, by the way.

but but but no real climatologist has ever written a paper doubting human are the cause of global warming......oh,they have?
but the IPCC says....rofl.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I guess since the world was really hot a long time ago, short term increases in temperature cannot have anything at all to do with orbital factors, and greenhouse gasses do not amplify the result of these factors at all.

Makes sense. I guess it is all a conspiracy orchestrated by the world's leading climatologists. Too bad they are so sneaky that the data they release isn't falsifiable, otherwise conspiracy theorists would be instead considered critical thinkers.

 

[printcraft]

Sorry guys...... not drinking what you are laying down on man made global warming.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Wait! There are real, live scientists here?

Gee, willikers! It's like having Beakman and Bill Nye right here with us!

Roy Spencer is a real, live scientist, by the way.

And real life engineers too!!

The possibilities for INGO are endless!!

 

[rhino]

And real life engineers too!!

The possibilities for INGO are endless!!

I resemble that remark!

Today in a job interview I got to say, "You can take the boy out of engineering, but you can't take the engineer out of the boy."

We just gotta make sure none o' dem Rose-Hulman graduates get into this topic. Those guys are all a bunch o' nerds.

 

[printcraft]

Hey man made global warming crowd.....

Here is what we're talking about with the manipulation of data to get the result you want.

(link borrowed from Ted)

Gun Deaths Will Exceed Traffic Fatalities By 2015, Study Says

So what you have is a "study" by rabid anti gunners.... and guess what they came up with?

 

[dreich]

Global warming is a myth,it is a natural cycle but many people are getting rich doing "research" and then the carbon tax credits will make traders rich.

 

[slowG]

It's pretty flipping cold out

 

[Bunnykid68]

Blizzard warning

 

[Wysko]

Key words.
Interglacial period.
Milankovitch cycle.
Medieval warm period.

A carbon tax will not change any of the above. The ice age ended about 13,000 years ago without the help of the small number of humans living on our planet at the time. Unlike Al Gore, the gang at the U.N and other assorted politicians, Mother Earth couldnt care less about taxes or money. Like it or not, she will do what she will do.

 

[Tsigos]

It seems the insurance industry believes global warming is real.


Climate-Proofing The Insurance Industry - Forbes

 

[smokingman]

It seems the insurance industry believes global warming is real.


Climate-Proofing The Insurance Industry - Forbes

The world’s largest reinsurer has examined the recent rise in the number and severity of natural disasters worldwide, and finds the trend bears the unmistakable fingerprints of climate change. What’s more, America is bearing the brunt of that change.
“North America is the continent with the largest increases in disasters.

Yes Americans,you need to pay higher premiums to help us offset global warming that seems to unjustly do more damage in America than anywhere else in the world.PS.Buy carbon credits,AllState only owns an 8% stake in the UK carbon exchange.

Some other interested parties.
JPMorgan isn't alone. All the big global investment banks - including Barclay's (BCS), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), and Merrill Lynch (MER, Fortune 500) - are hurrying into carbon finance. Point Carbon, a consulting firm, says the global carbon markets generated $59 billion in revenues in the first half of 2008.
JPMorgan jumps into carbon trading - Aug. 12, 2008

It is an old article before JPM and HSBC set up the US exchange,but if buying a poor african a 6 dollar WOOD stove can generate $15 dollars per year in cabon credits rofl....
JPMorgan (JPM, Fortune 500) is quietly pushing the boundaries of the carbon market - a sprawling international experiment to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause global warming - by subsidizing the distribution of efficient cooking stoves in poor countries. Because the new, improved stoves save fuel and produce less carbon dioxide than traditional stoves, they generate so-called carbon credits that can be sold to companies or individuals who want to offset their own emissions.


"The business is complicated, controversial and potentially very profitable.
How profitable? If all goes according to plan, JPMorgan will expand its support for cook stoves from Uganda into Kenya, Ghana, Cambodia and beyond. Each stove is estimated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by two to three tons a year; each ton generates a credit worth $10 or $15 a year, and potentially more, for the bank.
"If you can distribute 10 million stoves"


Yes,you read that correctly.Giving away wood stoves generates carbon credits...billions of dollars worth rofl.

PS.That 20k you invested in a wind turbine and solar off the grid power system will get you exactly 0 carbon credits.You see only corporations who own shares of the carbon exchanges can "generate" credits.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"The business is complicated, controversial and potentially very profitable.

And this....

Is what all the hullaballoo about climate change is all about for the crony capitalist accomplices of the global wealth transferring socialists.