How to talk to a climate change denier, and then what?

[mynym]

And yes, for the record, even if he doesn't own up to it, before he edited #331, mynym ended the post with a proposal [in a pretty close paraphrase]: "How about assassinating the Rockefeller and Rothschild banking familes? Just kidding. Due process, don't you know."

This is where this thread is at. No doubt he will claim this is some kind of "a satire", but the implication is that he believes the actions of a few wealthy individuals are more relavent to the climate debate than the aggregate behaviors of populations and economies.

Denier.

Those that monetized fossil fuels in the first place are generally distorting the entire world economy and the ecology that it exists in. If they flowed their paper ponzi in the opposite direction and used their ability to create money/debt out of nothing and so forth with their peasants in mind at a local level then that would "reduce emissions." As it is they're generally just looting their peasant's wealth along with the rest of the planet and only seem interested in science to the extent that their lackey scientists are working within a paradigm owned by bankers. That's probably why corporate/government scientists usually look suspiciously like the old "save civilization" eugenics movement that the banksters produced and not people that are actually trying to help anyone or other life forms. Darwinism and all that, don't you know... and yet you blame the peasants for looking at government/corporate scientists out to "save civilization" again with suspicion?

Who gets sacrificed? The peasants, apparently. Or the little old lady that can't pay her heating bill as the "sky scrapers" of banksters and psychopaths rise in the background only to mysteriously fall at free fall speeds later in accordance with their rituals. The Cremation of Care or any other holocausts/sacrifices of the elite and everything else they do doesn't create global warming or climate change at all, either. No, it's probably all the fault of the "aggregate behavior" of the little old lady that already froze to death.

 

[Oxymoron]

you mean you really do need someone to hold your hand as you read through that crap

PS
see my previous and note the highlighted sections.

Yep, it is courtesy in my book. I always pick out some relevant section in the links I post, saves someone reading a load of rubbish for nothing, on a hunting trip.

 

[Pete Tar]

See, why couldn't Boston do that?

Was that the most compelling part because they seem to be admitting it there and just discounting it as 'cherry picking' but it seems quite a good cherry to me.

Okay I'll try my rebuttal again as it seems to have been missed. Remember this was in response to the article you posted mocking the small temperature rise as piffling and nothing to worry about.

There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there's no signs of it slowing any time soon.



Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

So, you get that? There is a difference in temperature rises depending on what surface or medium you are measuring.

REGARDLESS of how small it is (which it's not in terms of geographical timescales) it is still rising in concert with co2 output. So even though that article you posted may have said it is a tiny rise, it's still evidently due to rising co2.

Now here is some more news...

132 Years of Global Warming Visualized in 26 Dramatically Animated Seconds
in Science | August 1st, 2013 2 Comments

Courtesy of NASA comes a visualization showing how global temperatures have changed since 1880. According to NASA's web site, this "color-coded map shows a progression of changing global surface temperatures from 1884 to 2012. Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average." And the difference between dark blue and dark red is about 7.2 degrees fahrenheit. NASA scientists note that "2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record." Copies of the video above and still shots can be freely downloaded from the NASA web site. To deepen your understanding of climate change, spend some time with Global Warming, a freeonline course from the University of Chicago.
http://www.openculture.com/2013/08/...ized-in-26-dramatically-animated-seconds.html

Today's Climate Change Proves Much Faster Than Changes in Past 65 Million Years
Climate change is occurring 10 to 100 times faster than in the past and ecosystems will find it hard to adjust

...

The amount of global temperature increase and the short time over which it's occurred create a change in velocity that outstrips previous periods of warming or cooling, the scientists said in research published in today's Science.

If global temperatures rise 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next century, the rate will be about 10 times faster than what's been seen before, said Christopher Field, one of the scientists on the study. Keeping the temperature increase that small will require aggressive mitigation, he said.

If the Earth stays on its current course without reversing greenhouse gas emissions, and global temperatures rise 5 degrees Celsius, as scientists say is possible, the pace of change will be at least 50 times and possibly 100 times swifter than what's occurred in the past, Field said. The numbers are imprecise because the comparison is to an era 55 million years ago, he said.

"The planet has not experienced changes this rapid in 65 million years," Field said. "Humans have never seen anything like this."

...


They also looked at a period when global temperatures dropped 11 to 12 degrees over a period 52 million to 34 million years ago.

"That's a larger change in global temperature than what's likely to occur over the next century, but it happened over 18 million years," Diffenbaugh said. "So it was a high-magnitude but relatively low-rate event.

"We find periods of Earth's history where the global temperature change was of similar magnitude, but the rate was an order of magnitude slower."

Ecosystems shifting a yard a day
The changes that are expected ahead will happen much faster than the rate at which species and ecosystems typically are able to adjust, Field said.

Plants and animals essentially would need to move about 1 yard each day farther north or higher in elevation to maintain the conditions they prefer, Field said. While farmers and others can shift where they grow crops, Field said, it's different for a butterfly or a maple tree.

"Maple trees are not good at moving," Field said, adding, "You don't have forests moving over long distances very, very fast."

Trees can shift over time when seeds are blown and squirrels carry acorns, but it typically is not that rapid, he said. The fastest that trees have had to move in the past was tens of meters per year. That's known from pollen records, he said.
...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: ScientificAmerican-Global (Content: Global)

Get it? It's serious.
Not liking the carbon tax solution doesn't change the facts. In fact it's possible to not like the carbon tax and accept that it's happening without your brain exploding.

 

[Drew]

Denier.

Those that monetized fossil fuels in the first place are generally distorting the entire world economy and the ecology that it exists in. If they flowed their paper ponzi in the opposite direction and used their ability to create money/debt out of nothing and so forth with their peasants in mind at a local level then that would "reduce emissions." As it is they're generally just looting their peasant's wealth along with the rest of the planet and only seem interested in science to the extent that their lackey scientists are working within a paradigm owned by bankers. That's probably why corporate/government scientists usually look suspiciously like the old "save civilization" eugenics movement that the banksters produced and not people that are actually trying to help anyone or other life forms. Darwinism and all that, don't you know... and yet you blame the peasants for looking at government/corporate scientists out to "save civilization" again with suspicion?

Who gets sacrificed? The peasants, apparently. Or the little old lady that can't pay her heating bill as the "sky scrapers" of banksters and psychopaths rise in the background only to mysteriously fall at free fall speeds later in accordance with their rituals. The Cremation of Care or any other holocausts/sacrifices of the elite and everything else they do doesn't create global warming or climate change at all, either. No, it's probably all the fault of the "aggregate behavior" of the little old lady that already froze to death.

I am absolutely a denier when it comes to your stylized nonsense. I'll wear that badge with honor. I'm not the one cracking wise about assasinating people, then chickening out and pretending it didn't happen.

So yes. Once again, you have nothing new to add. The same argument by non sequitur. The same reductive fantasyland. The same [...] worldview where all evil and injustice MUST be blamed on scary dark evil secret magical men. The same piss-poor grasp of international trade, finance, politics, and history. The same gallop, the same "A, therefore B" reasoning, the same monological monologue. The same intellectual self-stimulation.

Don't you get tired of this? Aren't there other things you could be doing?

(ADMIN NOTE: Politeness edit)

 

[muttkat]

Matter of fact he is



Next

As I see it

Matter of fact he is





I basically don't deny the climate is changing but the military is playing with the weather too. As far as what I've been reading the sun is getting hotter and with that you can't do anything about. In so many billions of years the sun is suppose to burn the Earth up. You have to adapt and the carbon tax isn't going to fix that.

People should be more concerned with population growth, the chemicals being put in the land, and getting rid of Monsanto's GMO crops. People should be concerned about why the bees, frogs, and other beneficial insects are declining.

Being Obama is so concerned about the climate, he certainly isn't concerned about the pollution that is being caused by fracking. I don't know if you've seen the movie Gaslands 1 & 2 where it shows people having to move out of their homes because of the contamination of the water supply. They show one guy turning on his water hose and lighting it and fire coming out of his hose and the EPA telling them and others its OK but you have to move if you don't like it. You can all the fumes leaking out those gas sites.

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

On a stop Thursday in New Hampshire, he said if simply drilling more at home could slash the price at the pump that would be happening now because U.S. production is up on his watch.

What he isn't telling you that most of that gas is going to Asian markets because they pay more $$$$$, in the meantime we're getting poisoned.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...estic-energy-production-in-new/#ixzz2atuECCxr

 

[muttkat]

I am absolutely a denier when it comes to your stylized nonsense. I'll wear that badge with honor. I'm not the one cracking wise about assasinating people, then chickening out and pretending it didn't happen.

So yes. Once again, you have nothing new to add. The same argument by non sequitur. The same reductive fantasyland. The same fundamentally infantile worldview where all evil and injustice MUST be blamed on scary dark evil secret magical men. The same piss-poor grasp of international trade, finance, politics, and history. The same gallop, the same "A, therefore B" reasoning, the same monological monologue. The same intellectual self-stimulation.

Don't you get tired of this? Aren't there other things you could be doing?

They seem to forget to mention the sun is getting bigger and hotter.

what are the chances of moving the forest fire airplane conversation to its own thread.

Some things aren't worth moving to another thread.

 

[muttkat]

'tis a bit off-topic, but I await your evidence, perhaps in a different thread.

Different perspective on that:

11,000-gallon tanker plane pours 'too much water,' officials say

The gargantuan Biscuit wildfire in Southern Oregon has now engulfed just under half-a-million acres since lightning ignited it and other western wildfires in mid-July. The magnificent 180,000-acre Kalmiopsis Wilderness within the Siskiyou National Forest resembles a moonscape. The rare plants, the wildlife, the trees that made the Kalmiopsis a special place v are gone. And the U. S. Forest Service says it cannot predict when the fires will be completely out v maybe in a month or two when the rains come.

"This should never have been allowed to happen, and it need not have happened," says Tom Robinson, 55, a fire administrator and instructor of fire prevention with the Virginia Offices of Fire Programs and Emergency Services in Richmond, Va.

Since 1996, Robinson has been waging a campaign to build public support for the deployment in this country of a Russian-made air tanker, the Ilyushin-76TD v nicknamed the "Waterbomber" v a rugged, airborne behemoth that can haul 11,000 gallons of liquid to a fire, nearly four times the carrying capacity of the C-130 Hercules, the largest tanker used by the Forest Service. Giant Russian Water Air
Tanker Still Ignored By US

Seems logical to me that you'd want to dump as much water on the fire as possible and so forth. But I'm sure that perspectives and perhaps simulations of perspectives vary.
Apparently it's better to let homes burn down and so forth than to use Russian planes or to get contracts for planes sorted out. Like Joe, I would note that when it comes to the military industrial complex it often seems like things get done, bombs get dropped, multimillion petrodollar missiles get launched, etc. So it does seem to be a matter of the paper ponzi, and the abject moral degenerates, psychopaths and Satanists* that ultimately own it... even if it's your local bank that's creating their type of symbolism/order out of nothing/chaos for them all the time.

*Yeah, I'm going there. Not that they would have to be symbolic "$atanists" at a base level of reality, as the reptilian/psychopath association that some conspiracy theorists get a bit carried away with would be enough to say "Luciferian." But it would seem that the banking families actually are, often, Luciferians and occultists. That's their symbolism, those are their rituals and that's their illuminated/light bearing mentality. I'm not going deep into all that. After all, it simply doesn't exist in the bunker. But I would just point out that there's a higher level of reality there in the background (Doesn't exist from the perspective that you've been educated in... so you can't see any evidence of it, see? There is no evidence. Duh. Of course there's no evidence when there can't be, given your perspective. But where did the random brain events that cause your perspective come from, again?).

It's the manipulation at a symbolic level of reality that's ultimately the reason that huge planes can show up or manifest like magick when it comes to making sacrifices for the petrodollars of the private banking families even as there's simultaneously not enough paper ponzi or power "trickling down" their pyramid schemes to magick up some planes to protect the homes of the peasants that they own from forest fires and so forth. In the end some things get done and others don't at a base level... but it's not just happenstance or chaos that's the explanation for everything like some have been taught to think. That's "just" bunker and base thinking, there.

 

[muttkat]

still having trouble with the difference between climate and weather I see [/quote

Different perspective on that:

11,000-gallon tanker plane pours 'too much water,' officials say

The gargantuan Biscuit wildfire in Southern Oregon has now engulfed just under half-a-million acres since lightning ignited it and other western wildfires in mid-July. The magnificent 180,000-acre Kalmiopsis Wilderness within the Siskiyou National Forest resembles a moonscape. The rare plants, the wildlife, the trees that made the Kalmiopsis a special place v are gone. And the U. S. Forest Service says it cannot predict when the fires will be completely out v maybe in a month or two when the rains come.

"This should never have been allowed to happen, and it need not have happened," says Tom Robinson, 55, a fire administrator and instructor of fire prevention with the Virginia Offices of Fire Programs and Emergency Services in Richmond, Va.

Since 1996, Robinson has been waging a campaign to build public support for the deployment in this country of a Russian-made air tanker, the Ilyushin-76TD v nicknamed the "Waterbomber" v a rugged, airborne behemoth that can haul 11,000 gallons of liquid to a fire, nearly four times the carrying capacity of the C-130 Hercules, the largest tanker used by the Forest Service. Giant Russian Water Air
Tanker Still Ignored By US

Seems logical to me that you'd want to dump as much water on the fire as possible and so forth. But I'm sure that perspectives and perhaps simulations of perspectives vary.
Apparently it's better to let homes burn down and so forth than to use Russian planes or to get contracts for planes sorted out. Like Joe, I would note that when it comes to the military industrial complex it often seems like things get done, bombs get dropped, multimillion petrodollar missiles get launched, etc. So it does seem to be a matter of the paper ponzi, and the abject moral degenerates, psychopaths and Satanists* that ultimately own it... even if it's your local bank that's creating their type of symbolism/order out of nothing/chaos for them all the time.

*Yeah, I'm going there. Not that they would have to be symbolic "$atanists" at a base level of reality, as the reptilian/psychopath association that some conspiracy theorists get a bit carried away with would be enough to say "Luciferian." But it would seem that the banking families actually are, often, Luciferians and occultists. That's their symbolism, those are their rituals and that's their illuminated/light bearing mentality. I'm not going deep into all that. After all, it simply doesn't exist in the bunker. But I would just point out that there's a higher level of reality there in the background (Doesn't exist from the perspective that you've been educated in... so you can't see any evidence of it, see? There is no evidence. Duh. Of course there's no evidence when there can't be, given your perspective. But where did the random brain events that cause your perspective come from, again?).

It's the manipulation at a symbolic level of reality that's ultimately the reason that huge planes can show up or manifest like magick when it comes to making sacrifices for the petrodollars of the private banking families even as there's simultaneously not enough paper ponzi or power "trickling down" their pyramid schemes to magick up some planes to protect the homes of the peasants that they own from forest fires and so forth. In the end some things get done and others don't at a base level... but it's not just happenstance or chaos that's the explanation for everything like some have been taught to think. That's "just" bunker and base thinking, there.

So what you're saying is that the govt doesn't to spend the money on air tankers which is so true. It has plenty of money on stupid shit like this.

[/ex]1 The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

#2 The Obama administration plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars helping students from Indonesia get master's degrees.

#3 If you can believe it, the U.S. government has spent $175,587 "to determine if cocaine makes Japanese quail engage in sexually risky behavior".

#4 The U.S. government spent $200,000 on "a tattoo removal program" in Mission Hills, California.

#5 The federal government has shelled out $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research on video games such as World of Warcraft. Wouldn't we all love to have a "research job" like that?

#6 The Department of Health and Human Services plans to spend $500 million on a program that will, among other things, seek to solve the problem of 5-year-old children that "can't sit still" in a kindergarten classroom.

#7 Fannie Mae is about to ask the federal government for another $4.6 billion bailout, and it will almost certainly get it.

#8 The federal government once spent 30 million dollars on a program that was designed to help Pakistani farmers produce more mangos.

#9 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once gave researchers at the University of New Hampshire $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows.

#10 According to USA Today, 13 different government agencies "fund 209 different science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education programs — and 173 of those programs overlap with at least one other program."

#11 A total of $615,000 was given to the University of California at Santa Cruz to digitize photos, T-shirts and concert tickets belonging to the Grateful Dead.

#12 China lends us more money than any other foreign nation, but that didn't stop our government from spending 17.8 million dollars on social and environmental programs for China.

#13 The U.S. government once spent 2.6 million dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.

#14 One professor at Stanford University was given $239,100 to study how Americans use the Internet to find love.

#15 The U.S. Postal Service spent $13,500 on a single dinner at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse.

#16 The National Science Foundation once spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians "gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions".

#17 A total of $1.8 million was spent on a "museum of neon signs" in Las Vegas, Nevada.

#18 The federal government spends 25 billion dollars a year maintaining federal buildings that are either unused or totally vacant.

#19 U.S. farmers are given a total of $2 billion each year for not farming their land.

#20 The U.S. government handed one Tennessee library $5,000 for the purpose of hosting a series of video game parties.

#21 A few years ago the government spent $123,050 on a Mother's Day Shrine in Grafton, West Virginia. It turns out that Grafton only has a population of a little more than 5,000 people.

#22 One professor at Dartmouth University was given $137,530 to create a "recession-themed" video game entitled "Layoff".

#23 According to the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. military spent "$998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida".

#24 The U.S. Department of Agriculture once shelled out $30,000 to a group of farmers to develop a tourist-friendly database of farms that host guests for overnight "haycations".

#25 The National Institutes of Health paid researchers $400,000 to find out why gay men in Argentina engage in risky sexual behavior when they are drunk.

#26 The National Institutes of Health also once spent $442,340 to study the behavior of male prostitutes in Vietnam.

#27 The National Institutes of Health loves to spend our tax money on really bizarre things. The NIH once spent $800,000in "stimulus funds" to study the impact of a "genital-washing program" on men in South Africa.

#28 According to the Washington Post, 1,271 different government organizations work on government programs related to counterterrorism and homeland security.

#29 The U.S. government spent $100,000 on a "Celebrity Chef Fruit Promotion Road Show in Indonesia".

#30 The feds once gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 "to paint a Chinook salmon" on the side of a Boeing 737.

http://www.infowars.com/30-stupid-things-the-government-is-spending-money-on/

The forestry service has gotten into a policy allowing brush to build up thus causing bigger fires and of course peoples homes and then more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/wildlands_project/burn_baby_burn_20071030265/

 

[muttkat]

Okay I'll try my rebuttal again as it seems to have been missed. Remember this was in response to the article you posted mocking the small temperature rise as piffling and nothing to worry about.

There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can perhaps give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening. Here records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there's no signs of it slowing any time soon.

View attachment 3790

Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

So, you get that? There is a difference in temperature rises depending on what surface or medium you are measuring.

REGARDLESS of how small it is (which it's not in terms of geographical timescales) it is still rising in concert with co2 output. So even though that article you posted may have said it is a tiny rise, it's still evidently due to rising co2.

Can't change the sun. As far as animal species are concerned over 99% have gotten extinct.

Now here is some more news...

132 Years of Global Warming Visualized in 26 Dramatically Animated Seconds
in Science | August 1st, 2013 2 Comments

Courtesy of NASA comes a visualization showing how global temperatures have changed since 1880. According to NASA's web site, this "color-coded map shows a progression of changing global surface temperatures from 1884 to 2012. Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average." And the difference between dark blue and dark red is about 7.2 degrees fahrenheit. NASA scientists note that "2012 was the ninth warmest of any year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. With the exception of 1998, the nine warmest years in the 132-year record all have occurred since 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranking as the hottest years on record." Copies of the video above and still shots can be freely downloaded from the NASA web site. To deepen your understanding of climate change, spend some time with Global Warming, a freeonline course from the University of Chicago.
http://www.openculture.com/2013/08/...ized-in-26-dramatically-animated-seconds.html

Today's Climate Change Proves Much Faster Than Changes in Past 65 Million Years
Climate change is occurring 10 to 100 times faster than in the past and ecosystems will find it hard to adjust

...

The amount of global temperature increase and the short time over which it's occurred create a change in velocity that outstrips previous periods of warming or cooling, the scientists said in research published in today's Science.

If global temperatures rise 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next century, the rate will be about 10 times faster than what's been seen before, said Christopher Field, one of the scientists on the study. Keeping the temperature increase that small will require aggressive mitigation, he said.

If the Earth stays on its current course without reversing greenhouse gas emissions, and global temperatures rise 5 degrees Celsius, as scientists say is possible, the pace of change will be at least 50 times and possibly 100 times swifter than what's occurred in the past, Field said. The numbers are imprecise because the comparison is to an era 55 million years ago, he said.

"The planet has not experienced changes this rapid in 65 million years," Field said. "Humans have never seen anything like this."

...


They also looked at a period when global temperatures dropped 11 to 12 degrees over a period 52 million to 34 million years ago.

"That's a larger change in global temperature than what's likely to occur over the next century, but it happened over 18 million years," Diffenbaugh said. "So it was a high-magnitude but relatively low-rate event.

"We find periods of Earth's history where the global temperature change was of similar magnitude, but the rate was an order of magnitude slower."

Ecosystems shifting a yard a day
The changes that are expected ahead will happen much faster than the rate at which species and ecosystems typically are able to adjust, Field said.

Plants and animals essentially would need to move about 1 yard each day farther north or higher in elevation to maintain the conditions they prefer, Field said. While farmers and others can shift where they grow crops, Field said, it's different for a butterfly or a maple tree.

"Maple trees are not good at moving," Field said, adding, "You don't have forests moving over long distances very, very fast."

Trees can shift over time when seeds are blown and squirrels carry acorns, but it typically is not that rapid, he said. The fastest that trees have had to move in the past was tens of meters per year. That's known from pollen records, he said.
...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: ScientificAmerican-Global (Content: Global)

Get it? It's serious.
Not liking the carbon tax solution doesn't change the facts. In fact it's possible to not like the carbon tax and accept that it's happening without your brain exploding.

You can't change the sun if its gotten bigger and hotter. Over 99 % of animal species have gotten extinct thus we need to protect what we have but not going to extremes like this:

[Broken External Image]:http://www.freedomadvocates.org/video/watch/31_taking_liberty_wildlands_project/
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/video/watch/31_taking_liberty_wildlands_project/

 

[muttkat]

Yep thats great.

Can I have one. Who is going to look after the running of it whilst I am working all hours to pay for everything. What happens to the people who are not green fingered or are old or sick. It is great but how do you see this fitting in with 'Globalisation' and multinational corporations etc.

I think it a good thing but does it fly?

I like to grow my own organic stuff but sometimes it goes wrong and I get little. I have looked into
http://tilz.tearfund.org/Publications/Footsteps 21-30/Footsteps 25/Raising fish and crops together.htm

Anyone can do it... but I haven't got round to it and nor have most people. If I had to I would.

How about you?

I read about something similar pertaining to the fish except they wanted 37 dollars to tell you all about it. That picture is of a living wall right?

 

[muttkat]

Wrong

The reason the extinctions occur is specifically because this isn't true. We can't adapt in time. As a matter of fact there isn't even the possibility of adaptation because the end result of climate shift isn't just a dramatic shift in temps, but a dramatic reduction of available oxygen in the atmosphere, rule of thumb, the bigger you are, the more oxygen you require be available. IE just how far down everything dies off is entirely dependent on this simple reality. Its got jack to do with adaptation

I'm guessing your not reading my posts then. Cause more than enough scientific data has been presented to prove to any reasonable person that climate shift is very real, is happening much much faster than predicted, and can only have one result. Mass extinction

There have been 5 extinction events that have lead to large amounts of animals getting extinct also.

 

[muttkat]

They have only recently discovered them so what activity levels they were in the past is conjecture at the moment.

It seems logical that sea temperatures in the area will be affected by the mantle temperature in the locality. If you are averaging out the sea temp that could also be for a number of reasons.

It is interesting that:
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but has since declined. Today, at 380 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.

I was just going to mention that but you did already. thanks

 

[Boston]

As I see it

Oh please

Causes of Climate Change
Over the Past 1000 Years

​

Thomas J. Crowley
Abstract:
Recent reconstructions of northern hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the last 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparison of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41-64% of pre-anthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations were due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000 year time series results in a residual with a very large late 20th century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the last 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.
Links to Paper Sources:
Published July 14, 2000 Science, 289: 270-277.
www.science.com

today, a decade or so later, we have even stronger evidence against "the sun did it" argument.

THere is zero validity to the statement that the suns output has increased over this incredibly short period in which we see a radical rise in global temps, face it people, its CO2 forcing

 

[Boston]

There have been 5 extinction events that have lead to large amounts of animals getting extinct also.

And all of them naturally caused except this one. Not only that when you look at the rate of changes in the atmospheric chemistry its possible to predict just how far down life dies down to. IE in the Permian Triassic extinction stuff died off down to about 2 lbs and it lasted 30 million years because atmospheric CO2 shot upwards about 3300 times slower than it is today. Sooooooo how far down is shit going to die off in this extinction, ( 3300 times more ? ) you know, the one that didn't need to happen except that our dumb asses are to thmat to bother doing anything about it ?

 

[Boston]

Oxymoron said: ↑
They have only recently discovered them so what activity levels they were in the past is conjecture at the moment.

It seems logical that sea temperatures in the area will be affected by the mantle temperature in the locality. If you are averaging out the sea temp that could also be for a number of reasons.

It is interesting that:
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Content from external source
It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but has since declined. Today, at 380 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.

I was just going to mention that but you did already. thanks

What a load of rubbish. Do any of you deniers even comprehend the term "rate of change" or is it just that your desperately clinging to your little world so hard there's just no waking up and smelling the roses. Fact is, sure CO2 levels have varied considerably in the past, so has oxygen levels, for that matter so has ammonia methane and sulfur, So whats your point ? Or did you guys just miss the sticky little issue of it taking the better part of a billion years for any of those to change much. Oh wait, you forgot to mention that any rapid ( or relatively so ) changes resulted in mass extinctions

What is up with you people clinging to the denial with a death grip, it just doesn't make any sense. Is the science behind it all really so confusing to you that you just can't put 2 and 2 together.

Its rate of change people

its not that change occurs but how fast it occurs thats the problem

Holly mother of whatever gods you might pray to can it really be all that hard to grok something so simple

 

[Oxymoron]

And all of them naturally caused except this one. Not only that when you look at the rate of changes in the atmospheric chemistry its possible to predict just how down life dies down to. IE in the Permian Triassic extinction stuff died off down to about 2 lbs and it lasted 30 million years because atmospheric CO2 shot upwards about 3300 times slower than it is today. Sooooooo how far down is shit going to die off in this extinction, ( 3300 times more ? ) you know, the one that didn't need to happen except that our dumb asses are to thmat to bother doing anything about it ?

The consensus seems to be that 'yes they were natural events', (how could they not be?), but the events were volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes and tectonic movements which as well as creating mountain ranges etc, changed ocean currents. Also there have been several pole reversal events. I am not saying we have no effect on the planet because we obviously do, as does everything else that lives, but how much is down to 'other' events is likely to be much greater than our influence.

These events were mostly very fast and catastrophic and something we could not influence today even if we had warning. Supervolcanic eruptions and huge meteor strikes are something we can only hope about avoiding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Tuff or simply YTT[2]) was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred sometime between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia). It is recognized as one of the Earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe hypothesis holds that this event caused a global volcanic winter of 6–10 years and possibly a 1,000-year-long cooling episode.

The Toba eruption has been linked to a genetic bottleneck in human evolution about 50,000 years ago,[28][29] which may have resulted from a severe reduction in the size of the total human population due to the effects of the eruption on the global climate.[30]

According to the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000-10,000 surviving individuals.[31][32] It is supported by genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago.[3

 

[Oxymoron]

Yes it IS a consensus when the people who actually know what they're talking about and who have based their careers on science and study, stop arguing.

Because you can find blogs that don't understand the science and misrepresent any data they can twist to downplay the basics of global warming does not mean there isn't a consensus.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that's nearly all of them. A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

So these guys don't count then... They don't know what they are talking about so they were not included in your consensus above? If we exclude all the GWists from the skeptics, could we have it that the skeptics hold the consensus on the subject?

http://epalawsuit.com/global-warming-debunked/

Andrew Bolt of the Australian Sun-Herald has put together a series of graphs based on numbers from a plethora of scientific bodies to prove that the most alarmist claims about climate change are not only unproven, but in fact the complete opposite of what man-made global warming advocates proclaim is now being observed.

"That's why 31,000 other scientists, including world figures such as physicist Prof Freeman Dyson, atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen and climate scientist Prof Fred Singer, issued a joint letter last month warning governments not to jump on board the global warming bandwagon," writes Bolt.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate."

That's why Ivar Glaever, who won a Nobel Prize for Physics, this month declared "I am a sceptic", because "we don't really know what the actual effect on the climate is".

And it's why the American Physical Society this month said "there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

 

[Boston]

The consensus seems to be that 'yes they were natural events', (how could they not be?), but the events were volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes and tectonic movements which as well as creating mountain ranges etc, changed ocean currents. Also there have been several pole reversal events. <---- The magnetic flip is not associated with mass extinctions, and they occur if I recall about ever 120,000 years or so. We are likely experiencing one right now actually I am not saying we have no effect on the planet because we obviously do, as does everything else that lives, <----- wrong, previous and existing life forms did not dig up every ounce of fossil fuels possible and light the shit on fire, period, only humans are responsible for this mess. but how much is down to 'other' events is likely to be much greater than our influence. <----- dead wrong, just for fun I'll post it again

Causes of Climate Change
Over the Past 1000 Years

Thomas J. Crowley
Abstract:
Recent reconstructions of northern hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the last 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparison of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41-64% of pre-anthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations were due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ~1000 year time series results in a residual with a very large late 20th century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the last 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.
Links to Paper Sources:
Published July 14, 2000 Science, 289: 270-277.
www.science.com

Just in case you didn't grok that in the first few times it was mentioned
These events were mostly very fast and catastrophic and something we could not influence today even if we had warning. Supervolcanic eruptions and huge meteor strikes are something we can only hope about avoiding. Which has nothing to do with a perfectly avoidable and completely within our control catastrophe like human caused rapid global climate shift, or to keep it simple, burning fossil fuels .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Tuff or simply YTT[2]) was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred sometime between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia). It is recognized as one of the Earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe hypothesis holds that this event caused a global volcanic winter of 6–10 years and possibly a 1,000-year-long cooling episode.

The Toba eruption has been linked to a genetic bottleneck in human evolution about 50,000 years ago,[28][29] which may have resulted from a severe reduction in the size of the total human population due to the effects of the eruption on the global climate.[30]

Which most people would take as a lesson in not screwing up the atmospheric chemistry, but no, you want to think its some kinda permission to go ahead and light every bit of fossil carbon on fire all at once. Brilliant deduction. Just brilliant

According to the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000-10,000 surviving individuals.[31][32] It is supported by genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago.[3]

And so whats your point, that some volcano goes off 75000 years ago releasing mountains of ( your man estimated about 6 billion tons ) sulfur dioxide and screws up the climate system? As if that has anything to do with whats going on today ?

PS you really should read up on things before you go jumping to conclusions

The Toba eruption apparently coincided with the onset of the last glacial period. Michael L. Rampino and Stephen Self argue that the eruption caused a "brief, dramatic cooling or 'volcanic winter'", which resulted in a drop of the global mean surface temperature by 3–5 °C and accelerated the transition from warm to cold temperatures of the last glacial cycle.[14] Evidence from Greenland ice cores indicates a 1,000-year period of low δ18O and increased dust deposition immediately following the eruption. The eruption may have caused this 1,000-year period of cooler temperatures (stadial), two centuries of which could be accounted for by the persistence of the Toba stratospheric loading.[15] Rampino and Self believe that global cooling was already underway at the time of the eruption, but that the process was slow; YTT "may have provided the extra 'kick' that caused the climate system to switch from warm to cold states".[16] Although Clive Oppenheimer rejects the hypothesis that the eruption triggered the last glaciation,[17] he agrees that it may have been responsible for a millennium of cool climate prior to the Dansgaard-Oeschger event.[18]

According to Alan Robock,[19] the Toba eruption did not precipitate the last glacial period. However assuming an emission of six billion tons of sulphur dioxide, his computer simulations concluded that a maximum global cooling of approximately 15 °C occurred for three years after the eruption, and that this cooling would last for decades, being devastating to life. As the saturated adiabatic lapse rate is 4.9 °C/1,000 m for temperatures above freezing,[20] the tree line and the snow line were around 3,000 m (9,900 ft) lower at this time. The climate recovered over a few decades, and Robock found no evidence that the 1,000-year cold period seen in Greenland ice core records had resulted from the Toba eruption. In contrast, Oppenheimer believes that estimates of a drop in surface temperature by 3–5 °C are probably too high, and he suggests that temperatures dropped only by 1 °C.[21] Robock has criticized Oppenheimer's analysis, arguing that it is based on simplistic T-forcing relationships.[22]

Despite these different estimates, scientists agree that a supereruption of the scale at Toba must have led to very extensive ash-fall layers and injection of noxious gases into the atmosphere, with worldwide effects on climate and weather.[23] In addition, the Greenland ice core data display an abrupt climate change around this time,[24] but there is no consensus that the eruption directly generated the 1,000-year cold period seen in Greenland or triggered the last glaciation.[25]

 

[Jazzy]

This site is very helpful with overall info.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/grand-view-4-billion-years-climate-change

It seems apparent, to me at least, that if we burn the carbon laid down as coal and oil since the last really hot spell, then we will get the last really hot spell back. We won't want that.

That will raise the ocean about 250 feet and reduce our population much more effectively than any "NWO". It will certainly be a new world order, extinguishing every top land predator. It will be a lot slower than a nuclear catastrophe, of course, and the recovery will be slower, too.

I was searching for this graph:

but the other graphs are relevant also.

 

[Boston]

So these guys don't count then... They don't know what they are talking about so they were not included in your consensus above? If we exclude all the GWists from the skeptics, could we have it that the skeptics hold the consensus on the subject?

Sure but a consensus of ignorance isn't much of a consensus now is it Its kinda like winning in the special Olympics, your still special standing there with your little consensus in your hands aren't you ? On the other hand if your up against a bunch of Nobel laureates and your all in agreement, then maybe someone should start paying attention and stop arguing politics

http://epalawsuit.com/global-warming-debunked/

Andrew Bolt <---- Oh lord not this guy again, anyone ever actually look up these people before you go placing to much faith in the crap they are spewing ? I gotta go with the desmog blog on this one ( also a group of actual climate scientists ) and note ole Andrew is a complete quack. see http://www.desmogblog.com/andrew-bo...nt-over-alleged-anti-jewish-conspiracy-theory

of the Australian Sun-Herald <--- owned by the famous kotch brother if I recall ( also climate deniers ) has put together a series of graphs based on numbers from a plethora of scientific bodies to prove that the most alarmist claims about climate change are not only unproven, but in fact the complete opposite of what man-made global warming advocates proclaim is now being observed I call BS, show me the graphs ? show me the data ? show me the cherry picking, oops did I just suggest they cherry picked there data rather than actually look at and compare all data available ? Oh I think I did :rolleyes:.

"That's why 31,000 other scientists, including world figures such as physicist Prof Freeman Dyson, Oops, did you neglect to mention that the guys education occurred in 1945 long before climate science was even invented ? atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen Ahahhhahahahahahaa I love it when people trot this guy out for another spin around the denial game. Oh perfect, OK so the guy is a paid schill of the oil and gas companies, and lies about it. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#Fossil_Fuel_Interests_Funding
I'd also note that the guys discarded more failed excuses for climate shift than pretty much any other scientists other than maybe his pall ole Fred Singer and he still claims there's no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer :eek: ( and yes he's also paid by the tobacco industry ) Great example, thus proving that a tenured professor can be as much of an idiot as he wants with pretty much no accountability other than to his wallet. Holly molly I can't believe you trotted out ole Lindzen. As if that was ever going work out for yah. Can you say "paid schill"

But stay tuned there's more

and climate scientist Prof Fred Singer,
Oh I'm just loving this, Fred Singer eh, Are you positive you want to go with ole Fred on this one ?

In the early 1990s, while officially "on leave" from the University of Virginia, Singer set up the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy with the help of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution and with funding support from the Unification Church (also known as "Moonies," followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church).

This organisation worked closely with Elizabeth Whelan and Frederick Stare's American Council on Science and Health in countering climate activism as it related to the chemical industry.[9] Later Singer's organisation changed into the Science and Environmental Policy Project with funding from the coal and oil industries and some support from PR firm APCO & Associates.

but there's oh so much more, yup it just gets better and better.

In 1993, Singer collaborated with Tom Hockaday of Apco Associates to draft an article on "junk science" intended for publication. Apco Associates was the PR firm hired to organize and direct The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition for Philip Morris. Hockaday reported on his work with Singer to Ellen Merlo, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris.[17]

In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency funded by the Tobacco Institute over a risk assessment on environmental tobacco smoke. [18] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI.[19]

"The report's principal reviewer, Dr. Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [20]

Ahahhahaahahahaha another paid tobaco schill

Oh and it just get even better, how about, also lies about being a paid schill of the oil and gas industry o_O

In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer stated that he had two meetings with Robert Balling in Pheonix for which his expenses were re-imbursed. Singer believed the the funding, which he received from Balling, originated from the Western Fuels Association.[22] Singer also admitted to working as a consultant on approximately half a dozen occasions for the Global Climate Coalition and that payments to him came either from the firm of John Shlaes, the coalition's director or the PR firm, E. Bruce Harrison, which worked for the coalition.[23] He also stated that he had undertaken consulting work on "perhaps a dozen or so" energy companies. This included work on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell, Sun, Unocal, the Electric Power Research Institute, Florida Power and the American Gas Association.[24]

In February 2001, Ronald Collins from the Center for Science in the Public Interest chided a Washington Post for citing Singer but not disclosing his consulting work. "Although The Post's readers were told of some of Mr. Singer's more impressive credentials, they were not informed that he has served as a consultant to Exxon, Shell, Unocal, Sun Oil, ARCO, Ford and GM. All of those companies, of course, have vested interests in fighting off reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. At a time when industry is buying greater influence in the scientific community, it is essential for the press to provide full disclosure," Collins wrote.[25]

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry. " As for full disclosure: My resume clearly states that I consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil."[26]

issued a joint letter last month warning governments not to jump on board the global warming bandwagon," writes Bolt.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate."

That's why Ivar Glaever, who won a Nobel Prize for Physics, Oh you mean he's NOT a climate scientist ? this month declared "I am a sceptic", because "we don't really know what the actual effect on the climate is". I'm going to go with ignorant because we in fact know exactly what the effect on climate is ( arrhenius predicted it accurately in about 1890 something actually )

And it's why the American Physical Society this month said "there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

Oh is that what they said ? lets say we go take a look at their website and see what they really have to say

From
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

They also mention this little tidbit in their commentary

The second sentence in the third paragraph articulates an immediate policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to deal with the possible catastrophic outcomes that could accompany large global temperature increases. Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2. Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.

So please, what exactly was your point in bringing the paid oil and gas schills into the conversation ? Schills who have obviously distorted the facts for money while denying they are on the payroll ? So the question becomes if these kinda dishonest money grubbing people are the best you can do to support whatever point your trying to make, why is it for one instant anyone should take anything they or you say seriously ?

 

[Boston]

I'm calling that one debunked kids

 

[Boston]

Trust nothing from that site Jazzy, its pure road apples, straight from the deniers mouths

 

[Oxymoron]

PS you really should read up on things before you go jumping to conclusions

I will take care of my side... you take care of yours... fair enough?

From
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

So please, what exactly was your point in bringing the paid oil and gas schills into the conversation ? Schills who have obviously distorted the facts for money while denying they are on the payroll ? So the question becomes if these kinda dishonest money grubbing people are the best you can do to support whatever point your trying to make, why is it for one instant anyone should take anything they or you say seriously ?

You and Pete stated there was no scientific disagreement and in fact there was a consensus. This is bunk. Just because you do not like what they have to say does not mean they are not scientists and that they can be discounted.

Coming out with bunk like that is harmful to your case.

Here is the quote which you say does not exist.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion....

Whether or not human produced carbon dioxide is a major cause of impending climate change (as is being debated in the two articles of this issue), the issue of energy "production" by our Earth-bound societies must be faced...

There is a debate no matter how much you insist there isn't.


Also you are bouncing around all over the place insisting that previous extinction events were the result of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. That is more verifiable bunk and detracts from your argument.

It is like saying 'The guy died from lead poisoning because he was shot in the heart'.

The supervolcanic explosions and giant meteors did not 'coincidentally occur' at the same time as CO2 increases... they caused it. Not only that, there is no proof the CO2 increases had anything to do with the mass extinctions... (which brought on snowball earth not high temp earth). But more than that the events caused massive debris and chemical agents to be released into the atmosphere which naturally killed of vegetation which animals needed to feed on so it is hardly surprising that CO2 level rose and extinctions happened. Also the sun's rays were blocked. You cannot simply ignore these facts.

Nor can you ignore the fact that periods of high CO2, (1200 or even 7000ppm), coincided with life burgeoning throughout history.

 

[Oxymoron]

Boston said:

"That's why 31,000 other scientists, including world figures such as physicist Prof Freeman Dyson, Oops, did you neglect to mention that the guys education occurred in 1945 long before climate science was even invented ?

followed by:

arrhenius predicted it accurately in about 1890 something actually )

I will leave you to work out the illogicality of that statement

TBH, I would rather collaboratively talk about solutions, (just in case). But I suppose it makes no difference in the end as you and I will affect the outcome not one jot.

 

[Pete Tar]

I wonder what fallacy I would be committing if I compared climate change deniers with defending and justifying the actions of paedophiles?

 

[Oxymoron]

I wonder what fallacy I would be committing if I compared climate change deniers with defending and justifying the actions of paedophiles?

A massive and totally unrelated one. You could wind up accused of Trolling.

 

[Pete Tar]

Oh well, I won't do that then.

 

[Boston]

Once again you are confused

You and Pete stated there was no scientific disagreement and in fact there was a consensus. <---- and there's the straw man argument kids right there for all to see. I' can't speak for Pete but I don't recall saying there was no scientific disagreement, what I may have said is that there was a consensus, completely different things. 98% of climate scientists agree and that other 2% are paid schills from the oil and gas industry. Now if you want to discuss scientists from other disciplines then you should have picked the geological society, they have about a 50/50 mix, but then again, most of them are in the employ of the oil and gas industry, so no big surprise This is bunk. Just because you do not like what they have to say does not mean they are not scientists and that they can be discounted. Your right, it is bunk but only because I never said that. Its your feeble attempt at the classic straw man argument. Nice try, but, didn't work

Coming out with bunk like that is harmful to your case. Oh, so since I didn't come out with bunk like that, but instead you did, by trying to create a straw man argument, what exactly happened to your case ?

Here is the quote which you say does not exist. Stop please your killing me OK so show the readers where it is I said "that quote does not exist" please

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion....

Whether or not human produced carbon dioxide is a major cause of impending climate change (as is being debated in the two articles of this issue), the issue of energy "production" by our Earth-bound societies must be faced...

There is a debate no matter how much you insist there isn't.





Sorry but I deleted quite a bit of that last as it was just fraught with half truths and very poorly researched assertions that just weren't worth my time

You are as misinformed as misinformed can possibly be

Can you please learn to read what your quoting and place those quotes within the proper context

Lets look at the whole thing

Forum on physics and society

Editor's Comments

With this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion. This editor (JJM) invited several people to contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded with this issue's article that argues against the correctness of the IPCC conclusion, and a pair from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz, responded with this issue's article in favor of the IPCC conclusion. We, the editors of P&S, invite reasoned rebuttals from the authors as well as further contributions from the physics community. Please contact me (jjmarque@sbcglobal.net) if you wish to jump into this fray with comments or articles that are scientific in nature. However, we will not publish articles that are political or polemical in nature. Stick to the science! (JJM)

Whether or not human produced carbon dioxide is a major cause of impending climate change (as is being debated in the two articles of this issue), the issue of energy "production" by our Earth-bound societies must be faced. Fossil fuel supplies may become unavailable in this century – or the next – but in a finite system, obeying the laws of thermodynamics, non-fossil energy sources will have to become available to mankind, sooner or later (within the foreseeable lifetime of our planet). One major energy resource, being much touted again, is that of the fissioning nucleus. Nuclear power faces three major drawbacks in the public eye: the possibilities of devastating accidents; the possibility of "proliferation" – the diversion of energy resources and technology into weaponry; the problem of protecting present and future generations from "nuclear ashes"- the long-lived radioactive byproducts of power generation by nuclear fission. For the most part, our society has "stuck its head in the sand" regarding these issues, but we have spent a great deal of money exploring one possible means of dealing with the third problem – burying nuclear wastes deep underground (out of site, ergo out of mind). As the News item in this issue summarizes, the Federal government, after the expenditure of billions of dollars, seems to be ready to start sending long-lived wastes to be buried in Nevada. Many people there object – "not in my backyard"! As physicists interested in the impact of physics on society (and the converse), we are obligated to participate intensely in the public debate on this problem of waste disposal as well as the other two. The final resolutions will have to be political but hopefully they will be well informed by knowledge of the physical possibilities as well as constraints. For example, I am unaware of any public discussion about the practical possibilities of decreasing the amount of long-lived nuclear ashes via the use of fast neutron fission reactors for power generation. I hope to see much more discussion of these issues in the future "pages" of this journal. (I put quotation marks about the word "pages" since it now appears that we may no longer be communicating with you via the customary paper pages; what word(s) should we use?) We know that many of our readers are well informed on these topics and hope that they will share their physical insights with the rest of us – please submit articles, commentaries, letters, and enjoy the summer – whether its warmth is in line with past trends or represents a new climate. (AMS)

The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee.

Your taking a comment from the APS forum editors comments and acting like its not his personal view. Simply because the APS invites and encourages a debate doesn't mean they haven't established a consensus based position which is there official position. As noted earlier but just so the readers can see exactly what that position is.

From
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm


National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE

(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007) <------- that would be the highly relevant part you obviously missed

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

They also mention this little tidbit in their commentary

The second sentence in the third paragraph articulates an immediate policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to deal with the possible catastrophic outcomes that could accompany large global temperature increases. Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2. Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.

so once again you've missed the mark completely

 

[Boston]

Boston said:

followed by:



I will leave you to work out the illogicality of that statement

confused again eh

Well that would be because if your going to discuss climate science you might want to actually know something about climate science, like that Arrhenius was the first to predict what a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would do. Back in about 1890. Where as the elements of climate science weren't even remotely considered as a cross disciplinary imperative till about the 1980s. As a physicist back in the dark ages Freeman Dyson would've learned jack about climate studies or atmospheric dynamics.

Nice try but is that really the best you can do after that drubbing you just took concerning your sources all being paid schills from not just the oil and gas companies but also the tobacco industry

Oh and you might also want to read up on what climate scientists think of ole Freemans idears

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...x_V3eg&usg=AFQjCNEeiGPyvgwqZVQHrzZDv27rE48z9g

 

[JRBids]

Contrails cannot be shut on and off at will, nor abruptly, as witnesses have seen in numerous sightings of chemical spraying by aircraft. I personally have seen this type of on/off spraying in Utah by two military tankers flying in loose formation.

Assuming they are NOT contrails and a chemical is being sprayed. Why does it have to be sprayed "on and off". Wouldn't you want a nice even layer of chem?

 

[Jazzy]

Trust nothing from that site Jazzy, its pure road apples, straight from the deniers mouths

I don't trust them. Their interpretation isn't mine.

Their claim that the earth is resilient is correct, though. They simply omit the fact that it is we that aren't.

(I have issues with my Apple mouse. This post never went.)

I offered the site for the information it contains, not its opinion.

I have difficulty being polite to climate change deniers, truthers, and religious people. Once it was the USSR that held me in thrall. But looking back on that era, it seems relatively innocuous compared with today.

Stalin and his bad boys were playmates compared with this crowd. He was never capable of raising the sea level by a hundred yards, and extinguishing every animal over 2 lbs in weight.

 

[mynym]

I am absolutely a denier when it comes to your stylized nonsense. I'll wear that badge with honor. I'm not the one cracking wise about assasinating people, then chickening out and pretending it didn't happen.

You read something into things that wasn't there, there. After all, I think that the powers that be should be detained without trial and water boarded by their peasants until they confess that they don't really have the best interests of the peasants that they've consistently tried to have sterilized and/or killed at heart. Or perhaps peasants could have them confess that their lackey scientists (That always seem to target peasants, by happenstance.) really are just as much their lackeys as Marx was, as corporate/government scientists.

Just kidding, due process and all that... and I'm against torture too. Next thing you know someone would have them confessing to being shape shifting aliens from the Draco system even when they're just old, impotent men. Not to mention that they'd be busy with confessing and yet the fact would remain that their lackeys weren't even "in on it." Too dumb and just going with the flow and "pull" of a current created once a tribe or group of people is given the ability to create currency/debt out of nothing... more likely.

So yes. Once again, you have nothing new to add. The same argument by non sequitur. The same reductive fantasyland.

Projection. Apparently there is nothing that corporate/government lackeys taking up the mantle of science (just like the eugenicists of old did) aren't able to work to frame in terms of "It's all the peasant's fault." You don't even have to pay them, once the habit is formed apparently it comes naturally. The ruling class could have huge bombs going off in the background, yet scientists would still be saying that everything is all peasant's fault.

I take a more balanced view, when peasants are burning down rain forests then sometimes it really is all their fault. But when peasants resources and so forth are all drawn away from them at a local level by globalists/banksters and the partnerships of corrupt politicians and banksters creating debt/money out of nothing then that's more the fault of the banksters and the politicians and the corporate/government economists and scientists/Darwinists that cover for them. And when the same cowards and lackeys come back and basically want to have a little old peasant lady die because she can't pay her heating bills while saying nothing, nothing about the distribution of resources and pollution caused by the petrodollar and the banksters then it's time to get my little cape out to save the planet too and so forth, etc. That's all. You're not the only people out to save the planet.

The same [...] worldview where all evil and injustice MUST be blamed on scary dark evil secret magical men.

No, only that which they're responsible for. Which is to say, quite a bit... and they really do use the magick of symbolism and so forth. Might as well be Babylonian bankers building their temples in the city and so forth... the only problem being that they don't want to let the peasants have their jubilee year these days.

Don't you get tired of this? Aren't there other things you could be doing?

The fact that your random brain events or memes triggered on a joke about sacrificing the banksters but not on the joke of sacrificing Justin Bieber says more about you than it does about me as a joker. From the perspective of peasants, we know the end and the sort of sacrifice that scientists or priests of knowledge working for the ruling class typically demand.

As far as I go, that's the best you can do? Back to strategies of avoidance again... one would think that if I wasn't saying anything of substance according to your way of perceiving things then you wouldn't be seeking to avoid it. In any event, let me know if you're ever done blaming peasants and have something to say about the issue of "evil secret magical men" creating money out of nothing, centralizing control and redistributing the resources of peasants while creating wars and pollution and "climate change" in the process.

To be clear, I'm all for blaming peasants when they are to blame. But scientific lackeys incorporated into current power structures and within the paradigm of their owners could probably figure out a way to blame peasants for climate change due to white phosphorous eating away their skin or bombs being dropped on them. Climate change caused by huge bombs and multimillion petrodollar missiles is probably still the peasants fault according to the lackeys, as they need to be bombed to save the planet.... no doubt. Anything less than that perspective would be one of the "conspiracy theories" typical to serfs and rubes or blaming an "evil group of magic men" and so forth, no doubt. From the perspective of lackeys the petrodollar and drones and all the rest of it apparently don't cause "climate change," as apparently that can't be entered into the calculation or the computer by the same species of Darwinist/scientist that originally gave peasants the eugenics movement.

 

[mynym]

I have difficulty being polite to climate change deniers, truthers, and religious people.

Isn't that over 90% of the people on the planet?

Stalin and his bad boys were playmates compared with this crowd. He was never capable of raising the sea level by a hundred yards, and extinguishing every animal over 2 lbs in weight.

I hadn't noticed that all truthers were climate change deniers. Although, given my experience here... it would seem that anyone could be a denier.

It seems to me that truthers should have been called "deniers" from the beginning to resonate with other forms of human sacrifice or holocaust/sacrifice denial. That way your crowd of peasants or "deniers, truthers and religious people" that don't want to be sacrificed again could be targeted more easily. In any case, I'm not sure how you can blame people for being against the idea of human sacrifice typical to the ruling class and their lackeys.

 

[Jazzy]

You read something into things that <snip> gave peasants the eugenics movement.

Lovely flow. Is this your way of assuming responsibility? How big is your share of fossil carbon combustion? Do you promote renewable energy, passive solar housing and permaculture?

Why is it that "truthers" deny AGW?

Ah. We have crossed posts.

Yes, it must be over 90% of the planet. So what? I'm a big boy now.

 

[mynym]

Lovely flow. Is this your way of assuming responsibility? How big is your share of fossil carbon combustion? Do you promote renewable energy, passive solar housing and permaculture?

Yes, I promote local sources of energy and so forth. I've always thought that aquaponics and other alternatives or even fringe and crackpot stuff that seems like it could never work is interesting. You never know, maybe one day a crackpot will invent something in their garage that will actually work and more life forms will be able to live longer than they would have otherwise.

But that's all pretty small stuff compared to having huge oil tankers financed by the petrodollar headed across half dead oceans and then having Team America, World Police headed back in the other direction across the ocean and so on and so forth. If people would stop that, then it's more likely that they'd want to invent something in their garage or get local and so forth. Not to mention that they might have enough resources to do so, given that their ability to create wealth would become local.

In the meantime, do you promote natural gas cars? Look at it this way, we can see the Bakken fields from space anyway so it's not as if that fossil fuel isn't already being burned anyway.

Why is it that "truthers" deny AGW?

I don't know that they all do. Kind of ironic that they're likely to be chemtrailers, huh? Apparently huge emissions from plants and so forth can't change the weather or the climate but a small series of contrails or HAARP probably can... imagine that. But if we could weight their epistemic velocity on that side vs. your epistemic inertia with respect to awareness of the work of the banksters on the other (e.g. 911)... it might all come out even.

Back on the topic of "how to talk to," etc. I think people here are underestimating the power of understanding different perspectives in order to create juxtapositions and rhetoric or what amounts to nothing of "substance" in the bunker. If you want to convince people or learn "how to talk to a denier" well... sheesh. To begin with, you can't write off 90% of the people on the planet without even trying to understand their "denier, truther, religious" perspectives if you expect to convince them.

Supposedly that's what most people here are interested in.... communication, convincing people, etc. I'm not always into that. But in any case, you seem to have a funny way of going about that.

 

[Oxymoron]

Isn't that over 90% of the people on the planet?



I hadn't noticed that all truthers were climate change deniers. Although, given my experience here... it would seem that anyone could be a denier.

It seems to me that truthers should have been called "deniers" from the beginning to resonate with other forms of human sacrifice or holocaust/sacrifice denial. That way your crowd of peasants or "deniers, truthers and religious people" that don't want to be sacrificed again could be targeted more easily. In any case, I'm not sure how you can blame people for being against the idea of human sacrifice typical to the ruling class and their lackeys.

Rock on Mynym, you brighten my day.

 

[Boston]

and not a shred of scientific evidence to support the diatribe Nym. Hmmmmmmmm, now how could that be

 

[mynym]

Thanks. So.... I take it that you're a denier and therefore not a "changer" yet not a chemtrailer either? Just trying to keep my labels, brands and tribes straight, for now...

You have to admit that it's kind of funny the insane amount of "epistemic velocity" that rubes (or what for Americans would be "red state" types) have with respect to chemtrailing. They know it exists from a few clouds or contrails even when more than a few of the same people have all the "epistemic inertia" of a rock when it comes to admitting that AGW exists.

There again, shouldn't "anthropocentric global warming" be "anthropocentric climate changeyness... so buy some more hopium or somethin'" by now? If it's rock solid science, then get out the rhetorical sledgehammers and present it that way. If it's not, then rely on juxtapositions and comparisons. Actually, even if it is rock solid science a few more juxtapositions and metaphors might help with respect to "how to talk to" people. I think they'd find that it will convince people, if that's their goal.

(I can only imagine the climate changers looking longingly at their rhetorical sledge hammer of science and scientific consensus if a framework could be created in which they would have to give that up for the greater good.)

 

[mynym]

and not a shred of scientific evidence to support the diatribe Nym. Hmmmmmmmm, now how could that be

There's a lot of historical evidence backing it.

In any event, what is the best book to read that represents your views?

 

[Jazzy]

Yes, I promote local sources of energy and so forth. I've always thought that aquaponics and other alternatives or even fringe and crackpot stuff that seems like it could never work is interesting. You never know, maybe one day a crackpot will invent something in their garage that will actually work and more life forms will be able to live longer than they would have otherwise. But that's all pretty small stuff compared to having huge oil tankers financed by the petrodollar headed across half dead oceans and then having Team America, World Police headed back in the other direction across the ocean and so on and so forth. If people would stop that, then it's more likely that they'd want to invent something in their garage or get local and so forth. Not to mention that they might have enough resources to do so, given that their ability to create wealth would become local.

I couldn't agree with you more.

In the meantime, do you promote natural gas cars? Look at it this way, we can see the Bakken fields from space anyway so it's not as if that fossil fuel isn't already being burned anyway.

No, I don't. I promote an autonomous solar electric car.

I don't know that they all do. Kind of ironic that they're likely to be chemtrailers, huh? Apparently huge emissions from plants and so forth can't change the weather or the climate but a small series of contrails or HAARP probably can... imagine that.

I have. Check out http://jazzroc.wordpress.com

But if we could weight their epistemic velocity on that side vs. your epistemic inertia with respect to awareness of the work of the banksters on the other (e.g. 911)... it might all come out even.

I'm aware of the "other side". I'm for all the non-violent change that can be mustered. I just will not support violence in any form. I promote withdrawal. (Makes me sound like the Pope - LOL!)

If you live sustainably without using the dollar, then you are helping. The best example I can think of is Cuba, which had to stand on its own two feet after the collapse of the USSR. It has a fine social health care and education system considering its poverty.

Back on the topic of "how to talk to," etc. I think people here are underestimating the power of understanding different perspectives in order to create juxtapositions and rhetoric or what amounts to nothing of "substance" in the bunker. If you want to convince people or learn "how to talk to a denier" well... sheesh. To begin with, you can't write off 90% of the people on the planet without even trying to understand their "denier, truther, religious" perspectives if you expect to convince them.

I understand them enough to detest them. It's they who need to listen, even if they don't want to. I live in their world. They don't live in mine. Except for Cubans. Wait a minute - they are Catholics!

Supposedly that's what most people here are interested in.... communication, convincing people, etc. I'm not always into that.

Nor am I. It's thinking about my grandchildren that gets me off my arse.

But in any case, you seem to have a funny way of going about that.

What, detesting liars and fools? What's funny about that?