Damn lies .....global warming

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

And now we do.

Maybe Orangutangs did? My guess is if there were and a zillion + existed and they had a gazillion+ primitive typewriters, over 800,000 + years, Shakespeare's greatest works would have already been written, as well as ALL your idiotic 60,000 + posts


Given enough time, a hypothetical chimpanzee typing at random would, as part of its output,
almost surely produce one of Shakespeare's plays (or any other text).

Originally Posted by Clocker

And now we have peer-reviewed publications too, and we all lived happily ever after.

And if Climate Change deniers had been attempting to publish their sloppy feeble inaccurate papers over the last 800,000 years,obviously close buddies with all those simians, there would sill only be a scarce few published
ALL of those papers lacking any scientific accuracy..always claiming how awful and wrong the consensus is....

[HUSKER55]

I doubt it. Mosty would find punctuation faults and deny the whole existence.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

I doubt it. Mosty would find punctuation faults and deny the whole existence.

What are you talking about??

[DJofSD]

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
http://heartland.org/media-library/p...-of-CCR-II.pdf

Two major multi-volume reports on global warming were released in 2013 and so far in 2014, one by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and one by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

NIPCC is an international network of some 50 independent scientists from 15 countries, many of them distinguished and with no financial stake in the debate. Their new report consists of two volumes, each approximately 1,000 pages long, together citing nearly 6,000 peer-reviewed studies.

Here is what the scientists found:

# There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.

# Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC forecasts.

# Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice nd sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.

# The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs

More at the first link.

[MONEY]

Here's my two cents on climate change?

The earth weighs 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds.
It's core is somewhere between 9,000 and 13,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
The earth spins at 1038 mph.

Add to the above that the earth is traveling around the sun at
67,000 mph & that our whole solar system is rotating with the
Milky Way Galaxy at 515,000 mph and the Milky Way is speeding through
the Universe at 252,000 mph.

A couple of more things that we can do nothing about are Solar storms
and the effects that gravity from the neighboring planets have on the Earth.

Climate change has been occurring since before ever and will continue
to happen long after the end of forever.

[thaskalos]

Have no fear. Overpopulation will finish us off long before global warming gets a chance to do the job.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Have no fear. Overpopulation will finish us off long before global warming gets a chance to do the job.

Now you're talking.

[Tom]

What are you talking about??

How you an mostie always get backed into corners and then try to get by changing the topic.

If it's too hot in the kitchen, then....oh, wait it IS too hot for you.

Never mind.

[FocusWiz]

Originally Posted by MONEY

Here's my two cents on climate change?

The earth weighs 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds.
It's core is somewhere between 9,000 and 13,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
The earth spins at 1038 mph.

Add to the above that the earth is traveling around the sun at
67,000 mph & that our whole solar system is rotating with the
Milky Way Galaxy at 515,000 mph and the Milky Way is speeding through
the Universe at 252,000 mph.

A couple of more things that we can do nothing about are Solar storms
and the effects that gravity from the neighboring planets have on the Earth.

Climate change has been occurring since before ever and will continue
to happen long after the end of forever.

Climate change has been occurring since the earth was formed and even the most unscientific of us on both sides of this issue should not realistically ignore that fact. However, the issue in front of us now should not be whether or not it is "normal" but what the current trends indicate and, if the indication is bad, what can be done to mitigate the impact. Unfortunately, here is where the special interest groups pollute the science with political and economic preferences.

We had two of largest storms in recorded history two years ago, the remnants of Sandy and an unnamed storm that kindly stayed out in the mid-Atlantic. These were only exceeded in size by Typhoon Tip in 1979. Can it be a coincidence that these storms occurred during a period of warmer climate? Possibly, and possibly not (we are horse players, and past performances indicated that these storms were wild longshots to ever occur), but the circumstantial evidence points to it being part of a major fluctuation in climate.

Climate change can and has affected humans. Cambodia’s ancient Khmer civilization at Angkor was most likely destroyed by decades of drought and decades of heavy precipitation. These were likely not caused by man, but they affected man. The Sahara Desert was once lush fertile ground. Man did not cause that either, but man was definitely affected.

Human society adjusts to the current climate and thus is disrupted when it changes, regardless of whether the cause is natural or not. Humans generally populate near waterways and coastal areas. Humans generally populate temperate areas more heavily than deserts and arctic regions. We grow crops where crop growing is best supported by nature. The Left is correct when they call for action to investigate the impact of this change and what can be done to mitigate it since (assuming we populate in these logical places) the effects are going to be disruptive. They are wrong when they put the entire wager on carbon dioxide.

The biggest issue is that we disregard heat as a problem and fail to see other alternatives other than the reduction of carbon dioxide as a potential solution. The tendency of people to say, "show me your science" is as sickening here as it was during the debate about cigarettes. There was plenty of "science" supporting cigarette smoking and it was difficult then (as it is now) for the lay person to separate one scientist with an ulterior motive from other scientists with different motives.

Carbon dioxide isn't the only factor, but it seems like our focus on it will head us all to doom. Carbon dioxide is by far the most enduring factor in our atmosphere, but I cannot believe how much we ignore the affects of methane, hydrofluorocarbons, ozone (yes ozone can be a problem in the wrong place), and the affects of plain ordinary soot (often referred to in research as "black carbon"). While heat is the main problem, mitigating the affects of these items (especially soot and methane) could go a long way towards mitigating the overall climate impact.

I am not attacking the folks on this forum for relying on their information sources. It is not you who filters the "knowledge" that comes to you.

I think both sides (not just here) need to stop arguing about whether man caused climate change or not and we need to stop focusing on carbon dioxide reduction as a panacea or fossil fuels as the enemy. For those who rely on nature, yes, the forests of the Amazon soak up an ever-declining amount of carbon dioxide, but so did the exposed mountain faces of the Himalayas during Cenozoic times. Lots of things affect the atmosphere and many things that affect the atmosphere also affect climate.

Climate is complicated. Climate is not just caused by man and not just caused by the Sun. Growth and decline of mountains, volcanic eruptions, expansion of the Atlantic and shrinking of the Pacific, heating and cooling of our oceans all affect climate. We cannot prevent all climate change and we may find some such changes beneficial. However, this nonsensical focus on carbon dioxide versus whether or not humans caused it leaves me hot under the collar.

just another 2¢.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
http://heartland.org/media-library/p...-of-CCR-II.pdf

More at the first link.

Not so fast

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2...dibility-test/

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test

The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered, as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise.

...However, the Heartland institute is nowhere close to the IPCC in terms of credibility. A few key points show the NIPCC to be a transparent marketing gimmick rather than a legitimate scientific undertaking:

The NIPCC does not follow the same rigorous scientific evaluation process as the IPCC.

The Heartland Institute has a long history of opposing settled science in the interests of its free-market funders, and has used decidedly un-scientific tactics to do so.

The NIPCC vs. IPCC Process

The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations. These authors and reviewers were all unpaid volunteers, and are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from conventional wisdom.

...Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute. The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors. The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive.

..The Heartland Institute has a long history of valuing the interests of its financial backers over the conclusions of experts. It has campaigned against the threats posed by second-hand smoke, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as the Endangered Species Act. With its aggressive campaigning using tools such as billboards comparing climate change “believers” to the Unabomber, Heartland makes no pretense at being a scientific organization.

[hcap]

Does not look unbiased at all. And has been demonstrably wrong on ozone and CRCs and second hand smoke risks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Some info about Singer

.. his questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss,[2] his public denial of the health risks of passive smoking, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

Singer set up the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) after a 2004 United Nations climate conference in Milan. NIPCC organized an international climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007,[66] to provide what they called an independent examination of the evidence for climate change.[67] Singer prepared an NIPCC report called "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate," published in March 2008 by The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank.[66] ABC News said the same month that unnamed climate scientists from NASA, Stanford, and Princeton who spoke to ABC about the report dismissed it as "fabricated nonsense." In a letter of complaint to ABC News, Singer said their piece used "prejudicial language, distorted facts, libelous insinuations, and anonymous smears

[hcap]

http://www.forecastthefacts.org/camp...tland/tobacco/

Heartland Institute And Tobacco

Led by president and CEO Joseph Bast, the Heartland Institute has a long and disgraceful track record of misleading the public about the overwhelming scientific evidence that cigarette smoking poses significant health risks. The organization has also consistently argued against health-based regulation of tobacco products. Heartland’s scientifically and morally indefensible advocacy on smoking is no surprise given that a significant portion of its funding has come from tobacco companies. In the past two years, Altria and Reynolds American contributed $90,000 and $110,000 respectively.

[dartman51]

Originally Posted by FocusWiz

Climate change has been occurring since the earth was formed and even the most unscientific of us on both sides of this issue should not realistically ignore that fact. However, the issue in front of us now should not be whether or not it is "normal" but what the current trends indicate and, if the indication is bad, what can be done to mitigate the impact. Unfortunately, here is where the special interest groups pollute the science with political and economic preferences.

We had two of largest storms in recorded history two years ago, the remnants of Sandy and an unnamed storm that kindly stayed out in the mid-Atlantic. These were only exceeded in size by Typhoon Tip in 1979. Can it be a coincidence that these storms occurred during a period of warmer climate? Possibly, and possibly not (we are horse players, and past performances indicated that these storms were wild longshots to ever occur), but the circumstantial evidence points to it being part of a major fluctuation in climate.

Climate change can and has affected humans. Cambodia’s ancient Khmer civilization at Angkor was most likely destroyed by decades of drought and decades of heavy precipitation. These were likely not caused by man, but they affected man. The Sahara Desert was once lush fertile ground. Man did not cause that either, but man was definitely affected.

Human society adjusts to the current climate and thus is disrupted when it changes, regardless of whether the cause is natural or not. Humans generally populate near waterways and coastal areas. Humans generally populate temperate areas more heavily than deserts and arctic regions. We grow crops where crop growing is best supported by nature. The Left is correct when they call for action to investigate the impact of this change and what can be done to mitigate it since (assuming we populate in these logical places) the effects are going to be disruptive. They are wrong when they put the entire wager on carbon dioxide.

The biggest issue is that we disregard heat as a problem and fail to see other alternatives other than the reduction of carbon dioxide as a potential solution. The tendency of people to say, "show me your science" is as sickening here as it was during the debate about cigarettes. There was plenty of "science" supporting cigarette smoking and it was difficult then (as it is now) for the lay person to separate one scientist with an ulterior motive from other scientists with different motives.

Carbon dioxide isn't the only factor, but it seems like our focus on it will head us all to doom. Carbon dioxide is by far the most enduring factor in our atmosphere, but I cannot believe how much we ignore the affects of methane, hydrofluorocarbons, ozone (yes ozone can be a problem in the wrong place), and the affects of plain ordinary soot (often referred to in research as "black carbon"). While heat is the main problem, mitigating the affects of these items (especially soot and methane) could go a long way towards mitigating the overall climate impact.

I am not attacking the folks on this forum for relying on their information sources. It is not you who filters the "knowledge" that comes to you.

I think both sides (not just here) need to stop arguing about whether man caused climate change or not and we need to stop focusing on carbon dioxide reduction as a panacea or fossil fuels as the enemy. For those who rely on nature, yes, the forests of the Amazon soak up an ever-declining amount of carbon dioxide, but so did the exposed mountain faces of the Himalayas during Cenozoic times. Lots of things affect the atmosphere and many things that affect the atmosphere also affect climate.

Climate is complicated. Climate is not just caused by man and not just caused by the Sun. Growth and decline of mountains, volcanic eruptions, expansion of the Atlantic and shrinking of the Pacific, heating and cooling of our oceans all affect climate. We cannot prevent all climate change and we may find some such changes beneficial. However, this nonsensical focus on carbon dioxide versus whether or not humans caused it leaves me hot under the collar.

just another 2¢.

Well said.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by FocusWiz

Climate is complicated. Climate is not just caused by man and not just caused by the Sun. Growth and decline of mountains, volcanic eruptions, expansion of the Atlantic and shrinking of the Pacific, heating and cooling of our oceans all affect climate. We cannot prevent all climate change and we may find some such changes beneficial. However, this nonsensical focus on carbon dioxide versus whether or not humans caused it leaves me hot under the collar.

According to the scientific consensus the current, and relatively sudden accumulation of heat is in fact attributed to man and basically the advent and growth of the industrial revolution. Although you are correct in that yes climate involves an enormous number of variables, those variables have been ruled out in terms of the resent debate as not as significant as human activities. For example...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm

Climate Myth...

It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer." (BBC)

Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions.

[Tom]

those variables have been ruled out in terms of the recent agenda as not as significant as human activities.

Consensus here.....