Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise


Yeah, that's what my grandma said.

Oh, and she wants her thong back by the weekend.

Freshly laundered, if you'd be so kind.


Did she? Did she REALLY?

Your grandma don't wear no thong... that thong belongs to you, doesn't it?

Funny, that talking shit the way you do, you would have some kind of a problem having more of it pressed up against you anywhere anyhow....

Put your grandma back on... at least she had some sense... but you already knew that, didn't you? She probably needs to smack you around a bit more like the trifling little fool that you are...


C'mon Fred! Give him back his thong, will ya?


Sorry but what happened to the 50% CO2 that is not in the atmosphere? Was it not created? or did it disappear somewhere? in which case, do we need to cut emissions by only 50% of the recommended targets? and what is this about CO2 lasting not hundreds and thousands of years but only 10-15 years in the atmosphere? Surely, something wrong? Anyone want to take a stab at explaining the disappearing CO2? :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Speaking of disappearances, has ANYONE seen Al Gore?


NASA scientists report that 9 of the 10 warmest years on record (since 1880) have occurred since 2000. From Reuters:

Honestly, what's left to debate? There haven't been any geological or astronomical events to explain the increase in greenhouse gases, nations continue to industrialize, and the planet is getting warmer. The causal relationship between industrial byproducts and global warming is obvious and shouldn't be a matter of partisan bickering. Left, right, center, makes no difference. We have one planet, one viable environment in which we all live. If there is one major issue that should unite everybody and be completey non-political, this is it.


Nothing left to debate? Okay... who is going to pay what to achieve what at what cost and with what benefit?

Let me know when you get around to writing that Nobel Prize winning dissertation. :slight_smile:


Where is the goalpost now? Sorry, but these debates always end up with the anti-science folks moving the goalpost again and again.

First, it's claimed that global warming isn't happening, full stop. Some random quote from an article written by an engineer in the 1970s is used to back up the claim. Once the avalance of contradictory evidence is supplied, the goalpost is moved. The new claim is that global warming is happening, yes, but it's not caused by greenhouse gases. Another avalance of evidence to the contrary later, the goalpost has moved to, OK, yes, global warming is both happening and is caused by greenhouse gases, but man's contribution is minimal or non-existent. After this is debunked, the goalpoast is moved again. Now it's recognized that global warming is happening, is caused by an increase in greenhouse gases, and that man is primarily responsible. But the goalpost is moved yet again. Now the questions are: what can be done, at what cost, and what benefit?

So, which goalpost are you on today? Because what can be done, at what cost, and at what benefit are valid questions and the start of a real conversation. But if you've regressed back to "global warming is a conspiracy theory", I'm not going to waste my time.


Same as always Gaobaohan... same as always.

Global warming has been happening since the 1850s. It is perhaps 15 percent manmade.

There is no consensus other than some sort of warming is taking place but no agreement on on how much man is contributing and what other factors may be involved.

There are no ways to stop CO2 emissions and I am not sure that we should even try. Better to do as Bjorn Lomberg has suggested and focus on development because that provides countries with the money that they need to better adapt.

Efforts like Kyoto have failed and they will continue to fail. Why maintain the pretense that international action is of any use whatsoever.

Even worse, the political aspects are the most egregious because they involve the usual UN bureaucrats, recast communist leftist redistributionist characters. And the rest smell an opportunity for grants, money lots of MONEY like Al Gore and are in for the most basic of motives... the very greed that the global warming alarmist brigade is so quick to contemptuously target in the corporate class.

Talk... talk... talk... and what has been accomplished? and Kyoto AT BEST would postpone global warming by a negligible amount at a huge economic cost... and even then you understand that there were no guarantees of anything that could or even might be achieved.

Back to you... conspiracy? no. Stupidity... typical communist economic redistribution along the lines of Third Worldism, fighting neocolonialism, aid and assistance, and now new and improved climate change!!! Don't forget your buy three get one free coupon.


More real science from potholer54:


Richard Muller from BEST is now completely on board: ... wanted=all


Yes there is. As Woodsy the Owl taught us when we were kids:


CO2 is not pollution.

95% or more of global CO2 is naturally produced. Man is responsible for 2%? 3%? and yet mostly responsible for global warming?

Yeah... give a hoot... vote for another UN bureaucracy and increased taxes which again (sing along with me cuz you all know the words) were to accomplish little to nothing under the best of circumstances under the Kyoto Treaty... So what are we discussing again?

#253 ... rn-europe/


I doubt that any institute for space studies existed in 1880 and don't trust global temperature data gleaned from sources before the satellite era.

100ppm = .001%, so that's an increase of .00105%, if you actually trust data from 1880. How did they measure atmospheric CO2 in 1880?

Extreme weather events such as typhoons, droughts, floods, etc., have always and will always occur. Even ice melting in summer does not constitute evidence of climate change.

I fully support reduction of pollution and sustainable living/development, but I don't need spurious theories to support my beliefs or to scare the shit out of people.


If a consensus is defined as 100% agreement, that's true. But 97-98% of the world's active climate scientists support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC). This figure is from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, which reviewed an extensive dataset of 1.372 climate researchers and their publications. The article also states that:

The world's climate scientists don't think the global warming of the last century is 15% caused by humans, they think it's mostly caused by humans. That's enough to act on, in my opinion.

This is basically what your argument comes down to. Let's give up up. There's nothing to be done. I'm having flashbacks to dealing with Taiwanese immigration bureaucrats. Mei banfa!

The response to global warming is straightforward: reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Efforts to date have been mostly unsuccessful because of the lack of political will, and the absence of collective sense of shared responsibility.


It's something we see over and over again. Scientists who are initially skeptical, whether of their own accord or because they were hired by industry, come around and become advocates of the mainstream AGW theory. But I've got the feeling that won't impress the skeptics, who think the whole thing is a sham run by Communist grant-seeking leftist liars.


If you ignore the poles LOL.
No Artic Ice, melting Antartic ice sheets... pah, let's ignore 'em nobody lives there anyway.


I trust the scientists to be able to predict the incubating propensities of different gases and to have performed a lot of lab experimentation on them. Models should be able to accurately predict the additional warming effect of varying volumes of CO2 in the atmosphere. It doesnt seem like a difficult ask, as opposed to the more complex downstream effects of global warming such as cloud cover or ocean circulation change or violent weather systems becoming more common.

They can also look back through the climate record for correlations of different CO2 concentrations against warm periods.


And yet the whole thing is extremely complicated from a scientific perspective. It will be very interesting to see where the 2014 report goes in terms of amended predictions, if any, and on what basis.



so it is back to WE MUST ACT... Okay and do what exactly? ACT to SHOW that we CARE? If that is good enough for you then why bother discussing the "science?"

We have discussed the 97% to 98% of climate scientists who agree with the IPCC before. Must we open this again? I believe that the last discussion revealed a high number of political appointees on panels and they had no background whatsoever in climate anything. Ditto for many of those "polled." And regardless, science is not about consensus or is it? I thought that science was about having the right answer. Is this now to be governed by group think? well, Galileo would be shocked... the new Catholic Church and its papery (deliberate reference to the many trees who have died to print communiques and bulletins and action items and agendas and ...) have issued a diktat and we must now all agree?

As to how the other scientists are selected? past efforts have been heavily politicized.

As to the warming... it has happened with and without human effort. Yawn.

Finally, Bjorn Lomberg and others have shown how climate change is not even among the top 20 of development targets and concerns. He has also shown ably how more economic development leads to more money to deal with climate and environmental issues. The solution then is to grow our way out of the problem rather than cut development in a misguided effort that according to Kyoto would achieve nothing at all. So, your answer is that we should act at great expense to achieve nothing because we agree that there might be a problem? Okay... How's that attitude and approach work out for you in your own personal life? :laughing: