posted February 25, 2011 09:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Node:
The status quo is much more profitable in the short term-- than the alternative technologies-- that will not be nearly as profitable for years to come.

---

Node

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
— Neil deGrasse Tyson

that says it all...

posted February 25, 2011 09:44 AM            

As a practical matter this is exactly what one would expect to happen when the earth was coming out of the Little Ice Age...global warming....after global cooling.

Warming was exactly what happened about 25,000 years ago when the earth began warming and over several thousands of years ended the long Ice Age. In the years since the Ice Age ended there have been at least 3 periods when temperatures were warmer than they are now. The last period was called the Medieval Warm Period...about 1000AD to 1350AD when temperatures were about 2 degrees warmer than they are now.

The warming experienced in the first part of the 20th Century...and the small amount of warming since are well within the normal variation of the climate history of Earth and no big deal...except for those crackpot non scientists who have been ripping off taxpayers all across the world with government research grants to fund their lifestyles and enhance their academic credentials.

Fortunately, there are still honest professional climate researchers who have called the crackpots on the outrage they perpetrated on governments and humanity and at least one Attorney General who is investigating one of the icons of the man made global warming religion.

posted February 25, 2011 10:04 AM            

2. Speaking of agriculture, CO2 is not a poison. CO2 is also a good thing. Plant food! Yummy!

3. Humans cannot affect the weather, the climate, or the ozone; we are at the mercy of mother nature. The earth has been warming and cooling since the beginning of its creation with no regard to the life on it, no matter how much we may want to impart importance to our own.

4. What the global warming movement is actually about is deceiving the public through fearmongering in order to get more funding. And then it's aimed at control. Money and control...pure and simple.

posted February 25, 2011 11:40 AM            

This is great. This is the most fun I've had looking at the subject in a long time.

Jwhop,

Rational people would suspect your list of 31,000 "scientists" for starters for the fact that they have no proof of the qualifications of any of them. Even the listed breakdown of what professions these people supposedly have doesn't attach the name of the person to their expertise. Secondly, they're going to ask themselves whether this petition comes from a reliable source on climate science, and whether the information presented in the petition was accurate. The source is NOT known in the scientific world of climatology. The results not certified by any scientific industry. The petition provided inaccurate information for the petitioners to evaluate.

That's what rational people would think about your list. Only a fool would think they were on to something with that list.

Why don't I need a list? Because I cite sources that are well respected in the world of climatology ALL of which back AGW. No need for ducking, bobbing, or weaving on my side of the debate.

Nice Fred Singer nonsense from 2004. Way to go!

And I love this one degree business. The relevant point being that it's Celsius, which is a larger degree measurement.

Medieval Warm Period was regional, not global. It wasn't 2 degrees warmer then.

The warming is not within the historically normal range. Total nonsense according to NOAA, NASA, etc. This last decade was the hottest on record.

Randall,

More unsubstantiated claims? Really?

Explain to everyone how you came to the conclusion that there are a mere 54 scientists that back the manmade global warming theory.

Rajii,

That's a rather concise listing of the science that disproves the denial of global warming.

Node,

posted February 25, 2011 12:01 PM            

CO2 according to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

1. What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See? They are more open-minded than I portray them:

So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.

posted February 25, 2011 12:12 PM            

quote:

---

Rational people would suspect your list of 31,000 "scientists" for starters for the fact that they have no proof of the qualifications of any of them....acoustic

---

Now I remember why it was necessary to demote you from AcousticGod to acoustic.

You're full of error which is most definitely un-God like.

Ph.Ds in physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, computer sciences, geology, Paleoclimatology and other scientific fields listed are exactly the kind of qualifications necessary to deliver authoritative professional opinions on earth's climate.

9,000 Ph.Ds in scientific fields against your pathetic hoaxers, hucksters, con artists, scammers and scientific frauds acoustic.

No wonder you can't produce a list of the man made global warming religionists. They're already held in such low esteem in the scientific community they don't need to shine a spotlight on themselves and make it worse.

The last Ice Age wasn't regional and neither was the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. As usual, you're full of crap.

Even your little hoaxer icon Phil Jones admits the warming in the 20th Century was within the variable range of climate on Earth and that there's been no significant warming since 1995.

I like it when you make a fool out of yourself acoustic...which is your usual state of existence.

posted February 25, 2011 12:22 PM            

Jwhop,

Don't talk nonsense. Everything I stated in my previous post to you was accurate. Your list is rationally suspect on all levels. The Medieval Warm Period was NOT global in scope. Phil Jones isn't anything of mine, and his opinion is:

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

posted February 25, 2011 01:35 PM            

The study which appeared in a recent issue of the journal Quaternary Research is important for showing how climate in this region has changed due to natural causes prior to human interventions in the area. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/medieval_marsh.html

posted February 28, 2011 10:36 AM            

I would like to hear an explanation for this.

Clearly, there is a common thread, one which reaches throughout our solar system, and I doubt that humans are holding the needle.

posted February 28, 2011 01:29 PM            

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted February 28, 2011 03:57 PM            

There still is a correlation between CO2 and temperature rise. The fact that CO2 is outpacing the models used for IPCC doesn't negate the correlation or possible causality. It may be good news for us; news that something is mitigating the warmth, but that wouldn't of itself disqualify CO2 as the most likely cause.

posted February 28, 2011 11:15 PM            

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

posted March 01, 2011 03:34 PM            

Widely accepted by those who receive funding for such a hypothesis, and by those who have been indoctrinated by those persons/institutions. Not to mention those whose only source of information is the mass media. I guess that includes the majority.

However, "the best science" does not support the theory, and it is only a theory, and most scientists in the field do not buy the man-made global warming scenario.