Where's The Data?

[ivan]

Bring it on, moron. Slavic sub-humans like yourself have seldom demonstrated much more than a propensity for brute-animal stupidity and "Strength of Retard".

 

wait, i thought that was mexicans? shitty tequila does taste like shitty vodka though...

[G-spotter]

But then, I'm not sure that is a compliment. The monkey went first.

 

And some bitch

[j_b]

Leo Tolstoy. Brute.

 

 

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/List_of_famous_Slavs/

 

Yeltsin is famous according to the list but Bulgakov, Mikalkov, Nabokov, Soljenitsin, .. are missing.

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]8Wq917ucGaE

[olyclimber]

Leo Tolstoy. Brute.

 

 

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/List_of_famous_Slavs/

 

Yeltsin is famous according to the list but Bulgakov, Mikalkov, Nabokov, Soljenitsin, .. are missing.

 

 

forgive me it was the first link the google gave.

 

plus i'm partially german.

[Hugh Conway]

Bring it on, moron. Slavic sub-humans like yourself have seldom demonstrated much more than a propensity for brute-animal stupidity and "Strength of Retard".

 

wait, i thought that was mexicans? shitty tequila does taste like shitty vodka though...

 

sounded like the irish or italians to me.

[Choada_Boy]

Please refute:

 

[Choada_Boy]

Then answer these questions:

 

1) Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

2) Is there an anthropogenic CO2 source or sources?

3) Is global mean temperature increasing?

 

 

[Fairweather]

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/co2_glochng.pdf

 

Is Global Warming Caused by Rising CO2?

 

No tangible, physical evidence exists that proves a cause–and–effect relationship between global

climate changes and atmospheric CO2. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that CO2 has increased

doesn’t prove that CO2 has caused global warming. As shown by isotope measurements from ice cores in

Greenland and Antarctica and by measurements of atmospheric CO2 during El Nino warming oceans emit

more CO2 into the atmosphere during climatic warming. The ice core records indicate that after the last

Ice Age, temperatures rose for about 800 years before atmospheric CO2 rose, showing that climatic

warming causes CO2 to rise, not vice versa. No doubt exists that the present high levels of atmospheric

CO2 are the result of human input, but the contribution that it makes to global warming remains to be

proven.

 

Assertions by the ICPP and other CO2 proponents

 

As seen in the previous discussion, no correlation exists between atmospheric CO2 and the many

global climate changes that have occurred over the past several centuries and the past 15,000 years. In a

Newsweek article (August 13, 2007), author Sharon Begley states “Current warming is 10 times greater

than ever before seen in the geologic record. The chance that warming is natural is less than 10

percent.” Every competent geologist knows that this statement is totally false and contrary to vast

amounts of well-established data. Global climates have warmed about 4-7° F in a series of ~30 year

cycles since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago, all with no correlation with atmospheric CO2, yet the author

claims that “the pattern of warming has a human fingerprint.” What is needed to bring clarity to the

issue is not rhetoric like this, but a hard look at the huge amount of geologic data that shows we’ve had

climate changes 20 times greater than the past century in a fourth of the time.

In February 2007, The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a summary report for

policymakers by 33 authors. The panel conducted no research of its own but relied on previously

published material. Neither the summary report nor the earlier full report contains any tangible, physical,

cause-and-effect evidence that global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The IPCC

conclusions are based on the empirical observation that global temperatures have risen during the past

century and CO2 has also risen and on computer model simulations that assume global temperatures will

rise with increasing atmospheric CO2. Because the coincidence of increase in global temperature and

atmospheric CO2 is an empirical relationship, that does not in itself prove that rising CO2 is causing

global warming. Nonetheless, the IPCC summary report for policymakers concludes that “Most of the

observed increases in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the

observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” They also concluded that “The

widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion

that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without

external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.” Curiously, they later

state the “It is very unlikely that climate changes of a least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to

variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed

Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributed to

volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed

to the early 20th century warming evident in these records.” The report does not elaborate on why, if

solar irradiance or volcanic eruptions were responsible for earlier climate changes, they could not also be

the cause of changes since 1950, nor how anthropogenic emissions could be responsible for early 20th

century warming before CO2 emissions began to soar after 1945.

[Choada_Boy]

Hey Douche Nozzle: Who cares what this shithead has to say? I get the whole empiricism thing.

 

So here's an experiment: Park your car in your garage, keep it running, close the garage door, stay seated, and let me know if anthropogenic CO2 emissions shouldn't be reduced, regardless of no direct evidence of causation in global mean temperature increase. It's a bad idea and will keep us from becoming a Type I civilization.

 

Here's another one: combust all of the available organic material on Earth. Measure global mean temperature v. time. Make a graph of your results.

[ivan]

[tvashtarkatena]

Apparently, certain 'credentialed experts' and their followership can't grasp the concept of a self reinforcing system, where co2 causes warming, which causes more co2....

 

Nor are they aware that there have been reasonably accurate models correlating co2 with average global temperature for over 100 years now, and that the back data (that half millions years or so of 'intangible evidence' buried in polar icefields) matches current version of these models quite well.

[Jim]

You can always find some wingnut on the interntet who says the world is flat. Dolts.

 

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

 

2001-Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[16]

2005-The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action, and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

 

2007-In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

 

2008-In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.” The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.

 

2009-In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid." The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.

 

[ivan]

my favorite was a senior i taught last year: "global warming isn't happening b/c god wouldn't let something bad like that happen"

[Jim]

my favorite was a senior i taught last year: "global warming isn't happening b/c god wouldn't let something bad like that happen"

 

.....as opposed to say AIDS, famine, and American Idol?

[G-spotter]

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/co2_glochng.pdf

 

Is Global Warming Caused by Rising CO2?

 

bla bla bla

 

"AIDs is not caused by HIV. Just a coincidence."

"The eye is so irreducibly complex it could not have ever evolved."

"The Grand Canyon was formed by the Biblical flood."

"Smoking does not cause cancer. Sick Building Syndrome is to blame."

[G-spotter]

"Sick Building Syndrome" came to the attention of the public largely through the highly organized and funded efforts of the tobacco industry, who promoted the notion of "Sick Building Syndrome" to deflect attention from secondhand smoke as a point-source pollutant linked to health complaints and discomfort of occupants in offices and factories.

 

Tobacco companies maintained that secondhand smoke, also known as Environmental Tobacco Smoke or ETS, plays a minor role in "sick-building syndrome," and that instead ETS served merely as an indicator of larger problems present within the building. The industry, through paid surrogate third-party air quality companies like ACVA Atlantic and Healthy Buildings International, pointed to chemical agents, like radon and bioaerosols in the indoor environment, as the main causes associated with complaints of illness among workers. The industry used "Sick Building Syndrome" thus to deflect the focus on tobacco smoke as a primary indoor pollutant and to point out that any attempt to address the discomfort of building occupants by banning smoking was "misdirected and inadequate."[2]

 

Same tactics different problem.

[Fairweather]

Hey Douche Nozzle: Who cares what this shithead has to say? I get the whole empiricism thing.

 

So here's an experiment: Park your car in your garage, keep it running, close the garage door, stay seated, and let me know if anthropogenic CO2 emissions shouldn't be reduced, regardless of no direct evidence of causation in global mean temperature increase. It's a bad idea and will keep us from becoming a Type I civilization.

 

Here's another one: combust all of the available organic material on Earth. Measure global mean temperature v. time. Make a graph of your results.

 

You're kind of an angry dumb shit, aren't ya?

[Fairweather]

So where's this going? Obama can make all the speeches and suck all of the libcock he wants to in Copenhagen this week, but one fact remains: It takes 67 Senate votes to ratify an international treaty, and Obama can't even rally 60 to get cloture on health care! Any "climate change" treaty he puts his signature on will face the same Senate ratification fate as Versailles and the CTBT: D.O.A.

[StevenSeagal]

So where's this going? Obama can make all the speeches and suck all of the libcock he wants to in Copenhagen this week, but one fact remains: It takes 67 Senate votes to ratify an international treaty, and Obama can't even rally 60 to get cloture on health care! Any "climate change" treaty he puts his signature on will face the same Senate ratification fate as Versailles and the CTBT: D.O.A.

 

I've always advocated that the development of cleaner technologies and more efficient energy sources is instrumental in meeting the needs of the growing population of the planet commensurate with a limited supply of current resources, not to mention the security and political issues that are attached as well as the need to retain an economic environment that not only competes globally, but leads the way. All of the above irregardless of the global warming issue. If we address the above, and climatologists are right, we will have done all we could. If the science was wrong, then we did what was important anyway.

 

Unfortunately, "where this is going" likely will be the rest of the world, led by Europe and paradoxically, China, leading the way instead of us. 100 years from now the US be an also ran on the world stage. If you want to question the science, fine, but when this "skepticism" is also being used to stifle ANY sort of meaningful action or discussion to move us forward and to keep the entrenched energy industry lobbyists fat and happy is unconscionable and will be something future generations will pay for.

[Fairweather]

That's all well and good--and I agree with much of what you say--but realistic alternative energy isn't part of TTK & Co's plan either. (Sorry, but windmills just won't cut it.) He summed it up nicely earlier in this thread when he proclaimed his "long, long list of other things" on the fearmonger's political agenda--many of which, I'm sure, run contrary to what he recently called "that dusty and tired old document known as the US Constitution." In any event; what good is change based on a likely falsehood?

 

I will say that it's pretty sad when a YouTube video of John Stewart draws more reflective responses than the research of a well-credentialed and respected glaciologist. Cc.com is truly the home of the tool.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Hey Douche Nozzle: Who cares what this shithead has to say? I get the whole empiricism thing.

 

So here's an experiment: Park your car in your garage, keep it running, close the garage door, stay seated, and let me know if anthropogenic CO2 emissions shouldn't be reduced, regardless of no direct evidence of causation in global mean temperature increase. It's a bad idea and will keep us from becoming a Type I civilization.

 

Here's another one: combust all of the available organic material on Earth. Measure global mean temperature v. time. Make a graph of your results.

 

You're kind of an angry dumb shit, aren't ya?

 

"kind of"? now that's a monumental understatement

[j_b]

YES, when I step out my front door the earth does look flat, so it must be true!

[j_b]

So where's this going? Obama can make all the speeches and suck all of the libcock he wants to in Copenhagen this week, but one fact remains: It takes 67 Senate votes to ratify an international treaty, and Obama can't even rally 60 to get cloture on health care! Any "climate change" treaty he puts his signature on will face the same Senate ratification fate as Versailles and the CTBT: D.O.A.

 

right, senate conservatives that represent 34% of the US population can effectively block any new legislation. Let's congratulate ourselves that a small dead-ender minority can effectively be obstructionist at a time we need to be taking major decisions.

[j_b]

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/co2_glochng.pdf

 

Is Global Warming Caused by Rising CO2?

 

let's recall that this paper hasn't been published in the peer-reviewed literature, irrespective of the writer's other work on glacial chronology.