Why not? and have there been any changes in the atmospheric H2O level?[/quote]
It’s constantly variable naturally and always has been. Nothing humans do comes close to affecting it at any statistically significant amount.
Does it? [/quote]
Yes.
Nobody is dismissively waving it away or saying it’s not a concern.
All the above is taught in any basic level Climate 101 course or possibly even in high school physics. How about you go and study up on the very basics of the Earth’s atmosphere and climate? Walk before running and all that. It’s patently clear you have no real understanding of science and just like to sprout the latest talking points from Free Republic and Fox. Which is why most posters in here no longer bother to respond to your claims.
Does this sound like you are dismissing the affects of methane to concentrate (haha) on CO2? It certainly appears so to me. Let me know how I am reading the tone of this incorrectly. And then, let’s look at this:
[quote]Methane’s Impacts on Climate Change May Be Twice Previous Estimates
Singling out how much each greenhouse gas (GHG) contributes overall to climate warming can be a tricky task. When it comes to measuring the impacts of greenhouse gases on our climate, scientists typically look at how much of each gas exists in the atmosphere. However, Drew Shindell, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, believes we need to look at the GHGs when they are emitted at Earth’s surface, instead of looking at the GHGs themselves after they have been mixed into the atmosphere. Once GHGs like methane and the molecules that create ozone are released into the air, these gases mix and react together, which transforms their compositions. When gases are altered, their contribution to the greenhouse warming effect also shifts. So, the true effect of a single GHG emission on climate becomes very hard to single out. According to new calculations, methane’s effect on warming the world’s climate may be double what is currently thought. The new interpretations reveal methane emissions may account for a whopping third of the climate warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases between the 1750s and today. The IPCC report states that methane increases in our atmosphere account for only about one sixth of the total effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases on warming. “If we control methane, which is viable, then we are likely to soften global warming more than one would have thought, so that’s a very positive outcome,” Shindell said.
Sources of methane include natural sources like wetlands, gas hydrates in the ocean floor, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, and non-wetland soils. Fossil fuels, cattle, landfills and rice paddies are the main human-related sources.
[/quote]
Now, from the above article, it would appear that methane has a much stronger influence on “climate change” than you have given it credit for and why is it (do you suppose) that climate change alarmists would like to focus on CO2 and NOT methane as you seem to be suggesting based on your tone and given your er… 10 year in the atmosphere remark? Also, note from the above quote that “getting a handle on gaslines” does not seem to be a major factor in the emissions of methane…
Now, back to this discussion of the need to learn to walk before we can run? Yes… let’s discuss that learning to walk part and would you like to start learning that here and now by understanding first and foremost that many believe that methane IS important. Do you have something to show that natural gas leakages and getting them under control is what has accounted for the drop in “concern” over methane levels?
Oh dear… are we going to go through another episode of the Occupy Wall Street Movement? Do you really want to go down that trail again? I notice that since that smackdown, no one has dared to broach the subject and all of you ran off like little girls…This is part and parcel of that same motivation/thought process (cough cough)/desire to commit to a cause…
No one is saying EVERYONE in the Green movement’s motives are IMPURE. What I and the leader of one of the largest Green Peace are saying is that they are not sure of their motives and have latched onto the environmental movement to satisfy other motivations. Like the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Green movement is littered with confused individuals who are unable to articulate their end aims. Hmmmm, kinda sorta reminds me of what it is like to have a sorta kinda pseudo conversation with you. You are almost a proxy for discussing these issues with other like (cough cough) minded individuals who flock to these causes. The issue is then that those who understand conservation are forced by those who do not to engage in behavior that is directly counterproductive. Recalls to mind the wildfires in the West because environmentalists will not allow logging of mature trees which then start to decline and become more combustible. Brush clearing is also banned as it may cause some variety of frog or bird to be inconvenienced… but when the fire starts and the whole thousands of square miles of habitat goes up in smoke… well… the thinking conservationist might consider that a greater inconvenience but let’s not bring that up lest the feeling environmentalist’s feelings be hurt. They are such delicate easily wounded creatures.
If you want to rant at me, go ahead. Sticks and stones. But you haven't really addressed the issue, have you old chap? You are just claiming to.
Rant? I think that I have addressed the issue but I don’t think that you have perceived it and, ironically, for the very same reasons that the Occupy Wall Street movement foundered. Let’s face it… some people really do not have the intelligence to be able to discuss these issues with any (what is the word that I want here…) objectivity. This reminds me of an “interview” on CNN where some dumb blonde with hardball (haha) questions tries to discuss quantum physics or CERT with a reigning expert on the subject. Let’s just end this conversation with your final comment… wrapping up our discussion… I suggest that you use the following:
Well, isn’t that just amazing. Those kinds of collisions are a whole lot more than just a fender bender, aren’t they professor what’s it?
So, really then, aren’t the predictions of the most out there science fiction movies now become realities professor what’s it?
Quantum physics? Now, there’s a color of nail polish that I will look forward to being able to buy! What color and shade do you think would best fit that app… app… ell… app… (struggling to read teleprompter word…) apuhlatee un… oh name… there. um… maybe apple red? or green? apples could be yellow too. What do you think professor what’s it?
So there you have it ladies and gentlemen… a major scientific breakthrough… but how you ask will this affect the price of gasoline at the pump? More about that as our business reporter Fellonnious Contemplatus takes us on a revealing revelation of price fixing at the pump!
Subatomic particles? Not with Listerine mouthwash… and now a word from our sponsors!
My final conclusion…picture me humming the scarecrow song from the Wizard of Oz… Get it? GET IT? Professor What’s It has now left da house![/quote]
Moore is a former member of Greenpeace, not a current member. And the article you quoted does not discuss motivation. I am not talking about OWS, by the way, but groups like WWF and of course the IPCC. There is quite a difference.
You seemed to be saying that environmentalists are using the fear of climate change because (and this word speaks about why, and hence motivation) they can use it to make money, i.e. that they were deliberately exaggerating AGW to keep funding coming in. If true, that would b quite an impure motive: to put funding ahead of truth.
If you walk like a duck, look like a duck and quack like a duck…
Yes, I would argue that the economy is more important IF you really care about reducing pollutants and preserving the environment. IF, however, you are engaging in the latest version of “fairness” and “social justice” and “wealth redistribution,” then no… I would imagine that you will continue to focus on the regulatory aspect.
Greed might work but as to the rest? You seem to be confusing these “sins.” How would sloth and greed be compatible? and does one’s envy lead to greed and gluttony and lust? or are these inherent qualities BEFORE the greed kicks in? Any answer that you can provide would be most helpful to understanding your “I’m Taiwanese” take on these matters. Does this mean that you don’t want to meet Big John anymore? I will assume then that my offer to facilitate the introduction was deemed to be insulting? Do you then agree with me that Big John and his posts are not intellectually um… er… competent? Why would you take an introduction to Big John in such a negative way? hmmmmm… maybe you have already met Big John?
Now back to the issue of “doing something” about this issue… let’s examine one recent study to determine whether any such action would do anything other than make the adherents of said “action” “feel good” about themselves… and validating and affirming their sad lives is after all a noble deed! gesture! accomplishment! after all, schools today are about “most improved” and not necessarily “best in class.”
[quote]A new study just published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters is authored by a team led by Haiyan Teng from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado. The paper is titled “Potential Impacts of Asian Carbon Aerosols on Future US Warming.”
This study uses an atmosphere-ocean fully coupled climate model to investigate possible remote impacts of Asian carbonaceous aerosols on US climate change. We took a 21st century mitigation scenario as a reference, and carried out three sets of sensitivity experiments in which the prescribed carbonaceous aerosol concentrations over a selected Asian domain are increased by a factor of two, six, and ten respectively during the period of 2005–2024. The resulting enhancement of atmospheric solar absorption (only the direct effect of aerosols is included) over Asia induces tropospheric heating anomalies that force large-scale circulation changes which, averaged over the twenty-year period, add as much as an additional 0.4°C warming over the eastern US during winter and over most of the US during summer. Such remote impacts are confirmed by an atmosphere stand-alone experiment with specified heating anomalies over Asia that represent the direct effect of the carbon aerosols.
Usually, when considering the climate impact from carbon aerosol emissions (primarily in the form of black carbon, or soot
), the effect is thought to be largely contained to the local or regional scale because the atmospheric lifetime of these particulates is only on the order of a week (before they are rained out). Since Asia lies on the far side of the Pacific Ocean—a distance which requires about a week for air masses to navigate—we usually aren’t overly concerned about the quality of Asian air or the quantity of junk that they emit into it. By the time it gets here, it has largely been naturally scrubbed clean. But in the Teng et al. study, the authors find that, according to their climate model, the local heating of the atmosphere by the Asian carbon aerosols (which are quite good at absorbing sunlight) can impart changes to the character of the larger-scale atmospheric circulation patterns. And these changes to the broader atmospheric flow produce an effect on the weather patterns in the U.S. and thus induce a change in the climate here characterized by “0.4°C [surface air temperature] warming on average over the eastern US during winter and over almost the entire US during summer” averaged over the 2005–2024 period.
While most of the summer warming doesn’t start to kick in until Asian carbonaceous aerosol emissions are upped in the model to 10 times what they are today, the winter warming over the eastern half of the country is large (several tenths of a °C) even at twice the current rate of Asian emissions. Now let’s revisit just how much “global warming” that stringent U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reductions may avoid averaged across the country. In my Master Resource post “Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain)” I calculated that a more than 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by the year 2050 would result in a reduction of global temperatures (from where they otherwise would be) of about 0.05°C. Since the U.S. is projected to warm slightly more than the global average (land warms faster than the oceans), a 0.05°C of global temperature reduction probably amounts to about 0.075°C of temperature “savings” averaged across the U.S., by the year 2050.
Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by some 80% to the amount of warming added in the U.S. by increases in Asian black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et al.) and there is no clear winner. Which points out the anemic effect that U.S. greenhouse gas reductions will have on the climate of the U.S. and just how easily the whims of foreign nations, not to mention Mother Nature, can completely offset any climate changes induced by our greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
And even if the traditional form of air pollution (e.g., soot) does not increase across Asia (a slim chance of that), greenhouse gases emitted there certainly will. For example, at the current growth rate, new greenhouse gas emissions from China will completely subsume an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emission in just over a decade. Once again, pointing out that a reduction in domestic greenhouse gases is for naught, at least when it comes to mitigating climate change.
[/quote]
Reference:
Teng, H., W. M. M. Washington, G. Branstator, G. A. Meehl, and J.-F. Lamarque, 2012. Potential impact of Asian carbon aerosols on future US warming. Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2012GL051723, in press.
And to my esteemed climate expert (who studied with Andrew Pitman!!!, a leading climate scientist in the WORLD!!!), soot appears to be, like methane, a very serious contender for most serious of climate changing substances… but… focusing on CO2 means more bang for the buck in controlling development, doesn’t it? So which is it? reducing temperatures or controlling economic development to reduce CO2 emissions which are “thought” to contribute to global warming is most important?
and then there is the issue of which is better placed to drive these improvements… government especially well-meaning UN type agencies or private-sector US businesses… read on… hahahahahahaahahahahahaha…
[quote]The Vancouver Observer reports:
"The Americans? Really? Every year the International Energy Agency (IEA) calculates humanity’s CO2 pollution from burning fossil fuels. And once again, the overall story line is one of ever-increasing emissions:
“Global carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion reached a record high of 31.6 gigatons in 2011.”
The world has yet to figure out how to stop the relentless increase in climate pollution. But mixed in with all the bad news there was one shining ray of hope. One of the biggest obstacles to climate action may be shifting. As the IEA highlighted:
“US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. This development has arisen from lower oil use in the transport sector … and a substantial shift from coal to gas in the power sector.”
How big is a cut of 430 million tons of CO2? It’s equal to eliminating the combined emissions of ten western states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah and Nevada.
It seems the planet’s biggest all-time CO2 polluter is finally reducing its emissions. Not only that, but as the chart above shows, US CO2 emissions are falling even faster than what President Obama pledged in the global Copenhagen Accord.
Here is the biggest shocker of all: the average American’s CO2 emissions are down to levels not seen since 1964 – almost half a century ago."[/quote]
and as to that CO2 driving water vapor driving temperatures…
And just for fun…
[quote]As the Climategate2.0 emails continue to establish, the alarmist climate scientists claiming “unprecedented” and “accelerating” global warming actually can’t find either. When examining the global temperature trends, it is clear that global warming has actually been missing for the last 15 years. This has definitely been the case of the continental U.S., as the graph on the left depicts. (click on to enlarge)
And, as the chart on the right depicts, this “global cooling” of the U.S continues in spite of growing CO2 emissions. Human CO2 emissions continue to grow at a business-as-usual pace with a record set in 2010 for the largest emissions ever.
The NOAA/NCDC chart on the left represents the 15 years (180 months), starting December 1, 1996 and ending November 30, 2011. Per these latest U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending November was the 5th coldest November-ending period for the last 15 years.
In terms of a single month, November 2011 was the 25th warmest since 1895 (November 1999 was the warmest).
The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 4.6°F, took place despite the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.
For the 10-year period ending November 2011 (December 1, 2001 thru November, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 8.9°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records.
Please note: The linear temperature trend, as shown in the NOAA chart, is not a prediction.
Other modern temperature charts. Historical and fabrication-temperature charts that support the position of global warming skeptics[/quote]
I was also intrigued to read about this especially given our expert CF Images (who sing along with me… studied with the world’s leading climatologist Dr. Andrew Pitman…)… He spoke so authoritatively about how long emissions like methane and CO2 “remain in the atmosphere.” But let’s take a closer look… oops…
[quote]The IPCC’s “Missing CO2” Remains A Major Embarrassment of Its “Consensus” Science
Read here. Back in 2009, NASA launched a new satellite that was supposed to locate the ‘missing CO2’ that the IPCC has found so elusive, to the point of embarrassment. Being unable to account for the still AWOL CO2, which of course is the main ingredient in the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis, is well…er…an embarrassment. Unfortunately, the satellite launch failed. A failure likely due to Obama’s NASA of HOPE, since they now think there is a higher calling than actual science and launch successes, which is a whole nother story. With that snark accomplished, the major problem of the missing CO2 remains and there is now a new study (more on that later) that proffers a new hypothesis to the missing CO2 riddle. Currently, what is absolutely known about the missing CO2 is that it implies the IPCC’s AGW “settled” climate science is not really settled, by a long shot. Essentially here are the facts regarding the “missing CO2.”
[b]1. Scientists estimate that only 50% of each years new CO2 emissions can be accounted for - yes, that means the other 50% is missing.
Since pre-industrial times, some 499 billion tons of CO2 has been emitted by humans.
Since pre-industrial times some 266 billion tons have been stored in the atmosphere; some 118 billion tons has been stored in the oceans; and, these two figures combined represent 334 billion tons stored.
Since pre-industrial times, some 165 billion tons of human CO2 emissions have gone missing. (The 165 figure is the difference between 499 and 334 billion tons.)[/b]
[color=#FF0000][b]
5. The IPCC “scientists” claim that emitted human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere from hundreds to thousands of years.
The vast majority (see above chart) of peer-reviewed studies have determined that CO2 only remains in the atmosphere some 5 to 15 years. (click on chart to enlarge)
[/b][/color]
Based on all the above, how could any climate scientist, let a lone the IPCC, claim that the science is “settled”? Not only are vast amounts of CO2 emissions not accounted for on a yearly basis, there is also the known IPCC claim that human CO2 emissions are stored in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousand of years yet 50% goes “missing” each year - in other words, in reality, it ain’t stored in the atmosphere.
Thus, not surprisingly, the IPCC and its quack climate scientists resort to a lot of hand-waving and mumbo-jumbo speculation to get around these known, major embarrassing CO2 issues with the AGW hypothesis.
Now comes a new study based on…ahem…a computer model that suggests the missing CO2 actually is being absorbed by the terrestrial biosphere. Esser et al. propose that a requisite combination of CO2 and nitrogen aerial fertilization explains how the “missing CO2” has actually been absorbed by vegetation, which means it’s definitely not remaining in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years.
As one can see, the science is far from settled and there is no current consensus as to where the ‘missing CO2’ goes - that’s why scientists like Esser et al. keep performing new research.
"In pursuing this course of action, Esser et al. found that nitrogen fertilization of the biosphere in the absence of an increase in the air’s CO2 concentration “would result in only minor additional carbon accumulation in plant biomass,” while rising CO2 alone, without consideration of the nitrogen cycle, would bind roughly half of the carbon in the postulated carbon sink. And in the most realistic situation of all, they determined that “a complete ensemble of rising atmospheric CO2 and N2 fixation, denitrification, and leaching is necessary to achieve the 160 Pg [billion tons] C bound in the terrestrial biosphere between 1860 and 2002 as required by the missing sink concept.” [GERD ESSER, JENS KATTGE, ABDULLA SAKALLI1 2011: Global Change [/quote]
Moore is not just a “former member.” He is the FOUNDER of Green Peace. Does that sink in?
You don’t think that it does. Show me how it does not.
[quote]I am not talking about OWS, by the way, but groups like WWF and of course the IPCC. There is quite a difference
.[/quote]
Good. Now get busy and show us how there is “quite a difference.”
I love it when you try to act all intelligent and grown up like. Let me give you a repeat performance in your own language.
Many (and here I do not mean all) activists in the climate change (read: alarmists not the rational researchers) would like this to be an issue (and by issue I mean an area of concern that requires raising awareness and empowering people) so that they can continue to engage in protests (and these are their most important MOTIVATION… I used all caps so that you would understand what I am referring to when I discuss motivation) especially since SOME (again not all or perhaps not even most) were ex Communists who decided to find a new cause in environmental activism (as the FOUNDER not the FORMER MEMBER of Green Peace one of the largest and most active of environmental groups has found to be the case and this would in my view count as MOTIVATION, i.e. as in what makes them want to act the way that they do). The real MOTIVATION is one of endless protest and economic and wealth redistribution. They have left communism which was all about economic redistribution (or do you think that it was not?) to enter environmental activism. Now, how could these two causes be similar when their aims are so different? What would the uniting factor be? Hmmmm gosh… I don’t know… what does the FOUNDER of Green Peace seem to be suggesting here… Bit difficult… hard to draw a conclusion… argh I just cannot make the connection… Damn. Now where were we?
Well gosh golly gee Big John… Yes, that would be quite an “impure motive” to put funding ahead of truth… Yeah… funny that you bring this up… yeah… I guess that I see your point… I, too, think that putting funding ahead of truth would be “quite an impure motive…” yes… um… quite right… that would be a problem for me… Yes, I think that might motivate me into engaging in sustained criticism of the same… yeah… glad that we finally got to the crux of the matter here… quite an effort but I think that we are finally talking about something where I kinda sorta but cannot be sure FEEL that you might be onto something here… Cannot quite decide what that might be but… sensing… feeling… intuiting… that you might be onto something truly BIG.
Does this sound like you are dismissing the affects of methane to concentrate (haha) on CO2? It certainly appears so to me. Let me know how I am reading the tone of this incorrectly. And then, let’s look at this:
[quote]Methane’s Impacts on Climate Change May Be Twice Previous Estimates
Singling out how much each greenhouse gas (GHG) contributes overall to climate warming can be a tricky task. When it comes to measuring the impacts of greenhouse gases on our climate, scientists typically look at how much of each gas exists in the atmosphere. However, Drew Shindell, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, believes we need to look at the GHGs when they are emitted at Earth’s surface, instead of looking at the GHGs themselves after they have been mixed into the atmosphere. Once GHGs like methane and the molecules that create ozone are released into the air, these gases mix and react together, which transforms their compositions. When gases are altered, their contribution to the greenhouse warming effect also shifts. So, the true effect of a single GHG emission on climate becomes very hard to single out. According to new calculations, methane’s effect on warming the world’s climate may be double what is currently thought. The new interpretations reveal methane emissions may account for a whopping third of the climate warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases between the 1750s and today. The IPCC report states that methane increases in our atmosphere account for only about one sixth of the total effect of well-mixed greenhouse gases on warming. “If we control methane, which is viable, then we are likely to soften global warming more than one would have thought, so that’s a very positive outcome,” Shindell said.
Sources of methane include natural sources like wetlands, gas hydrates in the ocean floor, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, and non-wetland soils. Fossil fuels, cattle, landfills and rice paddies are the main human-related sources.
[/quote]
Now, from the above article, it would appear that methane has a much stronger influence on “climate change” than you have given it credit for and why is it (do you suppose) that climate change alarmists would like to focus on CO2 and NOT methane as you seem to be suggesting based on your tone and given your er… 10 year in the atmosphere remark? Also, note from the above quote that “getting a handle on gaslines” does not seem to be a major factor in the emissions of methane…[/quote]
Did you read what was written? Obviously not, because if you had you would have seen this
it is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2
Stating that something is more powerful than x is certainly not relegating it to nothing or waving it away dismissively. It’s stating that it’s more powerful ie has a stronger influence.
Again, if you bothered to read what I wrote you’ll see the following
It’s not fully understand what has caused the increase to level off over the last decade
which is followed by
likely scenario is a drop in the amount that leaks from natural gas pipelines
Put those together and what do you get?
At this stage, scientists do not know what is causing it and based on the study so far, the gas pipelines are a likely cause.
Nobody is saying it’s definitely that or that it is the only thing. It may be the pipelines, it may be something else entirely. At this stage we don’t know and more study will need to be done to learn why.
Moore did not cofound GP but joined an already pre-existing organization. He now does PR stuff for industry. How does that make him an expert on the motivation of environmentalists, which is paid to refute? He is an anti-environmentalist in many ways, perhaps the worst possible source on their motivation. Again, you have no evidence or compelling arguments here, just the usual rehash of anti-communist hysteria.
Evidence would be something like an admission (intercepted email, recorded conversation etc) that AGW was “good for business” and that it was worth flubbing the data to get the next grant payment.
I have met a lot of greenies, and to my mind their motivation is usually more of a religious cause sort of thing - to save the planet. Exaggeration helps justify their cause, which deepens their sense of meaning.
They do tend to be lefties, but think of environmental issues as human vs or with earth, not as class struggle. Most of their economics are about reducing environmentally damaging forms of activity. Greenies tend to be self-righteous and a bit flaky, but they are not commies and generally don’t value money as much as their cause.
[quote=“BigJohn”][quote=“fred smith”]
Many (and here I do not mean all) activists in the climate change (read: alarmists not the rational researchers) would like this to be an issue (and by issue I mean an area of concern that requires raising awareness and empowering people) so that they can continue to engage in protests (and these are their most important MOTIVATION… I used all caps so that you would understand what I am referring to when I discuss motivation) especially since SOME (again not all or perhaps not even most) were ex Communists who decided to find a new cause in environmental activism (as the FOUNDER not the FORMER MEMBER of Green Peace one of the largest and most active of environmental groups has found to be the case and this would in my view count as MOTIVATION, i.e. as in what makes them want to act the way that they do). The real MOTIVATION is one of endless protest and economic and wealth redistribution. They have left communism which was all about economic redistribution (or do you think that it was not?) to enter environmental activism. Now, how could these two causes be similar when their aims are so different? What would the uniting factor be? Hmmmm gosh… I don’t know… what does the FOUNDER of Green Peace seem to be suggesting here… Bit difficult… hard to draw a conclusion… argh I just cannot make the connection… Damn. Now where were we?
[/quote]
Moore did not cofound GP but joined an already pre-existing organization. He now does PR stuff for industry. How does that make him an expert on the motivation of environmentalists, which is paid to refute? He is an anti-environmentalist in many ways, perhaps the worst possible source on their motivation. Again, you have no evidence or compelling arguments here, just the usual rehash of anti-communist hysteria. [/quote]
[quote]Did you read what was written? Obviously not, because if you had you would have seen this
it is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2
Stating that something is more powerful than x is certainly not relegating it to nothing or waving it away dismissively. It’s stating that it’s more powerful ie has a stronger influence.[/quote]
Er… you might need some assistance from your “world leading climatologist professor” here. I was not the one stating that methane does not matter. I was questioning what appeared to be YOUR assertion that with only “a decade in the atmosphere” methane DID not matter. That is WHY I posted the article to show that er methane DOES matter and YOU accuse ME of being unable to read? hahahahahahahahaha
Now, then, so silent on the aspect wherein MOST PEER-REVIEWED papers show that CO2 is lasting in the atmosphere only a decade as well? Strange omission on your part. YOU choose to focus on the obviously WRONG assertion that I do not believe that methane matters and YOU ignore this? What’s up with that? Better write to your “world-leading climatologist professor” to seek some more advice but then … no doubt my challenge is in bad taste and a egregious example of the expectations that one might have that someone might be able to defend one’s position that have driven so many would-be posters on Forumosa away from this thread… kinda sorta like what I did with the ruination of the Occupy Wall Street thread… Yeah… that must be it…
hahah apparently there is more… Okay, let’s have a look…
[quote]Again, if you bothered to read what I wrote you’ll see the following
It’s not fully understand what has caused the increase to level off over the last decade
which is followed by
likely scenario is a drop in the amount that leaks from natural gas pipelines
Put those together and what do you get?
At this stage, scientists do not know what is causing it and based on the study so far, the gas pipelines are a likely cause. [/quote]
Fine. As my source did not show any mention of leaking natural gas pipelines and their rectification as a remedy… let’s see what you can supply as to YOUR assertion that this is the cause and remedy. YOU made the assertion so YOU post what proves YOUR point… I will wait…
So, er, then you don’t know so we can just delete that last comment as being “unknowable…” and would you prefer to go with my list of PROVEN sources? would that be all right then? and would you agree that maybe it is not I who need to learn to walk and then run but a certain sorta kinda someone who thinks that “his world leading climatologist professor” who does not factor in any way to the level to even achieve first mention on a google search might be the one who needs to do some walking before running instead… yeah… .that is what I thought… but not doubt you take awfully pretty pictures of the climate change stuff so your lack of knowledge on the science can be put down to the fact that you are just an ignorant Australian redneck and not a Chinese visiting student who might have the intellectual wherewithal to actually benefit from a course or two with Andrew Pitman… M. or not included as middle initial? Yeah… kinda sorta thought that might be the case… so why don’t you go take a picture of the spanking that I just gave you and write that down as “lesson learned?” hahahahahahahahah
Moore is not a cofounder of Greenpeace? okay, then what about this… Happy to learn where this is wrong…
[quote]Greenpeace Co-Founder
Dr. Patrick Moore Questions Man-Made Global Warming, Calls it ‘Obviously a Natural Phenomenon’
‘We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people’
Friday, January 21, 2011By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Excerpt From The Blaze: Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder
of the environmental organization Greenpeace, isn’t too hot about global warming. Appearing on Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney on Thursday, he said global warming is a “natural phenomenon,” there’s no proof of man-made global warming, and suggested that “alarmism” is driving politicians to create bad environmental policies. He also said he’s not the only environmentalist that believes like him.
Moore is the author of the book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist,” in which he exposes the green movement and explains why he left the organization.
While talking with Varney, he explained that departure was in part due to [color=#FF00FF] the group’s “extremist positions” and it being hijacked by political and social causes as well as the left:
[/color]Watch Video of Moore here.
Key Excerpts of Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore: “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and its not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”
Moore was asked who is promoting man-made climate fears what are their motives?
Moore: "A powerful convergent of interests. [color=#0040FF] Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue"
[/color]Moore says scientific dissent is growing: “There are many thousands of scientists’ who reject man-made global warming fears…It’s all based on computer models and predictions. We do not actually have a crystal ball, it is a mythical object.”
To Watch Dr. Moore’s interview go here.
Related Links:
SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
Flashback 2000: Patrick Moore featured in AMAZON RAINFOREST: CLEAR-CUTTING THE MYTHS – TELEVISION SPECIAL REFUTES MYTHS & LIES OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS
‘Save the Trees, Use More Wood’ - May 1, 2002: Greenpeace co-founder
and Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore (who left the green movement because it became too radical for him) stated in 2002: Save the Trees, Use More Wood: Excerpt: Moore explained that advances in forestry techniques have resulted in wood becoming one of the most environmentally friendly products. “We should be growing more trees and using more wood,” explained Moore. "The less wood we use, the more steel and concrete we use. […] Moore explained that a greater demand for wood products leads to more forested land, noting that 80 percent of the timber produced in the U.S. comes from private property. He predicted that if “those land owners had no market for wood, they would clear the forest away and grow something else they could make money from instead.” “When you go into a lumber yard, you are given the impression that by buying wood you are causing the forest to be lost, when in fact what you are doing is sending a signal into the market to plant more trees,” Moore added.[/quote]
Gosh… he certainly put one over on the Greenpeace people… So, your view is that he has no qualifications or that the Greenpeace movement is too stupid to recognize someone with no qualifications so by the very fact that it cannot determine this it is to be written off. Let me know which choice you choose to make. Either he is legit or the organization is so stupid that it is incapable of determining who its leadership should be.
The cofounder and at the very minimum PRESIDENT and LEADER of Green Peace has made some very direct comments above. I saved them deliberately because I know your debate style… Now, you have his comments very directly ascribing certain motives to the people who join environmental movements… Now, what will you do… show us where that is “quite a difference” or continue to engage in your usual debate style which is to ask endless questions while doing nothing to defend your own poorly stated positions? Remember I still remember how you walked away from the Occupy Wall Street movement discussion… Strange you seemed almost as convinced then as you do now… why no subsequent posts on OWS? Hmmmm? hahahahahahahahahaha I KNOW why. And so does EVERYONE else.
The former leader of the organization has ascribed certain motives in the post directly above… No doubt you have something that will show that this is not the case? hahahahahah but will ask that I prove that x y or z… um cuz… this cannot be true because I feel that it cannot be true is true… so er you have to show me how someone with er no er no yes, no yes
Do you REALLY want to let that quote stand? Do you REALLY?
I will give you a chance to retract before demanding that you PROVE your assertion that the people that you have met feel this way and that this somehow DISCOUNTS my contempt for the same? This is YOUR argument to counter mine? God almighty. What a laugh…
Read the above and are we to take YOUR word for what these peoples’ motivations are? No siree… get busy… you said there was “quite a difference” so get busy and prove it… I know from the OWS how this will go but I will pretend to think that you are actually capable of defending your views without temping the whole conversation to cover up for your lack of er… capability?
Great another assertion. So PROVE IT… Get busy and PROVE IT… I know that you cannot but will ask you to PROVE IT… This should be funny… Like watching a retard fuck a doorknob but get going… I really am looking forward to this
And there ladies and gentlemen you have his closing argument… God. I wish that I could make this shit up. Thank you. This is the final statement summing up the motivations of the climate change alarmist movement… and there you have it… in all its banality and stupid self-absorption…
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]Did you read what was written? Obviously not, because if you had you would have seen this
it is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2
Stating that something is more powerful than x is certainly not relegating it to nothing or waving it away dismissively. It’s stating that it’s more powerful ie has a stronger influence.[/quote]
Er… you might need some assistance from your “world leading climatologist professor” here. I was not the one stating that methane does not matter. I was questioning what appeared to be YOUR assertion that with only “a decade in the atmosphere” methane DID not matter. That is WHY I posted the article to show that er methane DOES matter and YOU accuse ME of being unable to read? hahahahahahahahaha[/quote]
I thought it was pretty obvious that by saying CH4 was more powerful, that meant that it mattered. The time period is not in dispute by anyone, “alarmist” or “denier”.
The article you posted didn’t come with a link.
When I Googled the phrase “The vast majority (see above chart) of peer-reviewed studies have determined that CO2 only remains in the atmosphere some 5 to 15 years.” your post was already the 4th result. The top 3 all pointed to a blog, C3 headlines.
C3 headlines posts a bunch of “data” and “conclusions”, none of which they show any links to evidence for. In fact, in the article you quoted, the only link related to the timespan goes, by way of a couple of blogs and editorials, to finally mention a single peer-reviewed paper. Not a majority but one.
[quote=“fred smith”]hahah apparently there is more… Okay, let’s have a look…
[quote]Again, if you bothered to read what I wrote you’ll see the following
It’s not fully understand what has caused the increase to level off over the last decade
which is followed by
likely scenario is a drop in the amount that leaks from natural gas pipelines
Put those together and what do you get?
At this stage, scientists do not know what is causing it and based on the study so far, the gas pipelines are a likely cause. [/quote]
Fine. As my source did not show any mention of leaking natural gas pipelines and their rectification as a remedy… let’s see what you can supply as to YOUR assertion that this is the cause and remedy. YOU made the assertion so YOU post what proves YOUR point… I will wait… [/quote]
I’m not sure why you are continuing with this point. Nobody knows why methane has stopped increasing in the past decade (other than 2007). No scientist will give you a definitive answer because they all know that more study is needed.
So, er, then you don’t know so we can just delete that last comment as being “unknowable…” and would you prefer to go with my list of PROVEN sources? would that be all right then? and would you agree that maybe it is not I who need to learn to walk and then run but a certain sorta kinda someone who thinks that “his world leading climatologist professor” who does not factor in any way to the level to even achieve first mention on a google search might be the one who needs to do some walking before running instead… yeah… .that is what I thought… but not doubt you take awfully pretty pictures of the climate change stuff so your lack of knowledge on the science can be put down to the fact that you are just an ignorant Australian redneck and not a Chinese visiting student who might have the intellectual wherewithal to actually benefit from a course or two with Andrew Pitman… M. or not included as middle initial? Yeah… kinda sorta thought that might be the case… so why don’t you go take a picture of the spanking that I just gave you and write that down as “lesson learned?” hahahahahahahahah[/quote]
There aren’t any proven sources on why methane has stopped increasing in the atmosphere because nobody knows why. All we have so far are likely scenarios, any of which could be right or all of which could be wrong.
[quote=“BigJohn”]
"think of environmental issues as human vs or with earth, not as class struggle. " [/quote]
Bullshit. It is a class struggle full of left-leaning myopic, suburban, spoiled idiots that have damaged most of their brain cells by too much dope, booze, and first year political science courses from shitty liberal academics. These ass hats are propped up by trust fund idiots that couldn’t piss straight without mommy and daddy holding it up for them.
Moore is absolutely right when he describes most environmentalists as being anti-forestry. Most of these outside protestors come from ultra-rich Marin county, East Coast, or similar backgrounds.
You look at people that oppose the forestry or pulp/paper mills or who are the strongest global warming alarmists, and it is often famous musicians, US actors or trouble maker US activists such as RFK Jr. [who obviously should have been taking care of his late wife rather than poking his nose in other peoples’ business].
Instead of supporting industry providing good jobs to working families (jobs that are often $20 to $40 dollars an hour), these idiots are NIMBY (not in my backyard) exclusionists that hold protest concerts against any kind of development and would rather have low paying service jobs in their communities that totally cater to their narcissism.
