The data doesn't support a singular conclusion. Historically with all the digging and the ice caps and the retro analysis of solar activity we haven't proven a long term impact of CO2 on surface temperatures. When you look at the raw data there are sometimes literally centuries of difference between a rise in one before a rise in the other and not necessarily a causal relationship. Fast forward to the last 150 years (a horrible sample size to determine causality for a planet over 4 billion years old) and you have an exponential growth in population and in human technological emissions and no corresponding exponential growth in the temperature curve.
There's a reason that the argument shifted from Global warming to climate change to any incident of extreme weather must support our claim because nothing like that has ever happened before. There's a reason that the argument isn't that 97% of all computer models all predicted the exact change in temperature to perfection and we talk about how out of 12000 papers 4000 expressed an opinion and an independent analysis of the abstracts of those papers and a 4 question survey support a consensus even though some authors of the 4000 papers put in the agree pile have publicly denied their believe in agcc yeh i know, not as catchy a bumper sticker as 97% of scientists agree!)
1.) the data's just not there.
2.) If these people were really serious then they wouldn't be wasting their time and more importantly our resources flying around on private jets and writing reports or models. They would actually be trying to solve the "problem" by creating an alternative energy source that can get a 747 from london to New York because that's the only way that you are going to put a dent in carbon emissions.
3.) Public opinion plummets when you actually tell people "well human beings represent less than 10% of carbon emissions in any given year and natural water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect and that Co2 is still less than 1% of total atmospheric composition." But what the hell do facts matter when you have shovel ready solutions to ensure that if you like your weather... you can keep... your weather!
Even if it is bogus, wouldn't finding sustainable alternatives be a good idea anyway in a world of finite resources?
Quote:Even if it is bogus, wouldn't finding sustainable alternatives be a good idea anyway in a world of finite resources?
No.*
*this message is sponsored by ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron.
Quote:The data doesn't support a singular conclusion. Historically with all the digging and the ice caps and the retro analysis of solar activity we haven't proven a long term impact of CO2 on surface temperatures. When you look at the raw data there are sometimes literally centuries of difference between a rise in one before a rise in the other and not necessarily a causal relationship. Fast forward to the last 150 years (a horrible sample size to determine causality for a planet over 4 billion years old) and you have an exponential growth in population and in human technological emissions and no corresponding exponential growth in the temperature curve.
There's a reason that the argument shifted from Global warming to climate change to any incident of extreme weather must support our claim because nothing like that has ever happened before. There's a reason that the argument isn't that 97% of all computer models all predicted the exact change in temperature to perfection and we talk about how out of 12000 papers 4000 expressed an opinion and an independent analysis of the abstracts of those papers and a 4 question survey support a consensus even though some authors of the 4000 papers put in the agree pile have publicly denied their believe in agcc yeh i know, not as catchy a bumper sticker as 97% of scientists agree!)
1.) the data's just not there.
2.) If these people were really serious then they wouldn't be wasting their time and more importantly our resources flying around on private jets and writing reports or models. They would actually be trying to solve the "problem" by creating an alternative energy source that can get a 747 from london to New York because that's the only way that you are going to put a dent in carbon emissions.
3.) Public opinion plummets when you actually tell people "well human beings represent less than 10% of carbon emissions in any given year and natural water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect and that Co2 is still less than 1% of total atmospheric composition." But what the hell do facts matter when you have shovel ready solutions to ensure that if you like your weather... you can keep... your weather!
Wow! You wrote a lot that means you must know a lot.
So what do you think of NASA's and the NOAA's official positions on climate change given the above? Do you believe there is a conspiracy amongst scientists?
Quote:Wow! You wrote a lot that means you must know a lot.
So what do you think of NASA's and the NOAA's official positions on climate change given the above? Do you believe there is a conspiracy amongst scientists?
And the Pope. Don't leave out the Pope. He's in on this conspiracy, too.
Quote:'Conspiracy' is a straw man argument. I thought you would be above that.
I'm definitely not above making a sarcastic remark.
But I appreciate your (formerly) high opinion of me.
Quote:'Conspiracy' is a straw man argument. I thought you would be above that.
You have literally typed out that there is a conspiracy amongst scientists in this thread. You evidently don't know what a straw man fallacy is. Or maybe all this cognitive dissonance you've afflicted upon your poor brain has finally begun to take it's toll.
Just sayin'
Quote:Even if it is bogus, wouldn't finding sustainable alternatives be a good idea anyway in a world of finite resources?
No one is saying not to, we're saying that forcing the economy to move there, especially right now while the tech can't sustain it, is suicide.
Quote:Liar.
Show where I've ever used the word 'conspiracy' other than to rebut the use of it.
Lol I like how you have yourself an out by not having "used the word 'conspiracy.'"
Here is what you actually said:
It means that the agenda is to bring about a new world government, and they are willing to use the excuse of Global Warming to do that. It means that it's about 'control.'
-Malabar Jag
Hmmm....what would be a word to describe such a nefarious secret plan to collude to harm us innocent folk? If only there was a word for that...hmmm
Quote:Lol I like how you have yourself an out by not having "used the word 'conspiracy.'"
Here is what you actually said:
It means that the agenda is to bring about a new world government, and they are willing to use the excuse of Global Warming to do that. It means that it's about 'control.'
-Malabar Jag
Hmmm....what would be a word to describe such a nefarious secret plan to collude to harm us innocent folk? If only there was a word for that...hmmm
It's not a secret, the Socialists have been trying to get to a world government for over a hundred years now.
Quote:As flsprtsgod said, it was no secret. Also no conspiracy. Just a bunch of like-minded people using <del>Global Warming</del> Climate Change to advance their own self interest.
That sounds like a conspiracy, Malabar... admit when you are wrong, my friend. It's not a sign of weakness, I promise.
Quote:You have a strange concept of "conspiracy." First and foremost, it has to be done in secret. The people who want a world government have made it no secret that that is what they want, nor that pushing catastrophic <del>Global Warming</del> Climate Change will help advance their goal.
Go check Webster's definition...
Also, to paraphrase the scotus, it's clear what your intent was. And sorry, but you are implying conspiracy.
Again, just the a strong man, and admit you're wrong. It's not a sign of weakness. Don't try to lawyer ball us. We're all jaguar fans here, therefore we're all friends.
This is a safe place--for jaguar fans. :-)
![[Image: hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif]](http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif)
