EPA categorically rejects claims that climate science and MMCC are bunk

[umbrella39]

Ah, the religion of Global <insert cooling, warming, changing here>.

Ah, the religion of sticking head in the sand.

 

[Moonbeam]

Or quote the EPA, an agency that has a completely unbiased opinion on the subject and stands to gain nothing from further regulatory powers.

Is this how you operate, conniving for ever and ever more power?

 

[shira]

Oh course they dont get it. The eco-kooks and big business are two sides of a coin. Both are collectivist in nature. So it is natural for big business to be interested in the eco-kooks idea's and mold them into policy that reduces competition in their respective markets and enhances their position. Now the classic excuse for this result from the eco-kooks will be democracy is broken and we need more govt. And the cycle continues!

Since when are scientists "eco-kooks?"

If you can't refute MMCC with science, then MMCC is in fact the current, correct state of climate knowledge. To assert otherwise is to stand the concept of the scientific method on its head. Throwing baseless assertions and conspiracy theories at a overwhelmingly supported theory is the worst sort of know-nothingness.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Since when are scientists "eco-kooks?"

If you can't refute MMCC with science, then MMCC is in fact the current, correct state of climate knowledge. To assert otherwise is to stand the concept of the scientific method on its head. Throwing baseless assertions and conspiracy theories at a overwhelmingly supported theory is the worst sort of know-nothingness.

No, it's not the current or correct until the science proves that it is - so far all we have is speculation and assertions by the mmgw failful... uh I mean faithful.

 

[monovillage]

MMCC is not the current correct state of climate knowledge, it's been refuted on many points and those papers have been shown to you. If you choose not to read them it doesn't make them go away. A single paper refuting a single claim that is made by the MMGW crowd is enough to refute the hypothesis.

 

[Genx87]

Since when are scientists "eco-kooks?"

If you can't refute MMCC with science, then MMCC is in fact the current, correct state of climate knowledge. To assert otherwise is to stand the concept of the scientific method on its head. Throwing baseless assertions and conspiracy theories at a overwhelmingly supported theory is the worst sort of know-nothingness.

Im pretty sure Crag234 isnt a scientist.

 

[MotF Bane]

Think about this another way: A chemical is released into a community. Hundreds of people die of a rare form of cancer. But I argue that people have been dying of that cancer since medical records have been kept, so a one-time incident involving this chemical proves nothing. That reasoning - and yours - is absurd.

Correlation != causation.

 

[shira]

Uh... you seem to be forgetting that all important causation part - and that's why your analogy fails miserably. You can't prove causation - whereas you can with a chemical.

Uh . . . you seem to be forgetting that there's been voluminous research establishing just this causation, and no credible theory that demonstrates how natural variability can explain the observed changes in CO2 levels AND climate.

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

Attribution of recent change to anthropogenic forcing is based on the following facts:

* The observed change is not consistent with natural variability.
* Known natural forcings would, if anything, be negative over this period.
* Known anthropogenic forcings are consistent with the observed response.
* The pattern of the observed change is consistent with the anthropogenic forcing.

Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that:

* "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."; It is extremely unlikely (<5 percent) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing (i.e., it is inconsistent with being the result of internal variability), and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.
* "From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land surface changes, it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750."
* "It is virtually certain that anthropogenic aerosols produce a net negative radiative forcing (cooling influence) with a greater magnitude in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere.

But of course, you will say that this is just more of the conspiracy. You don't need actual science to support YOUR position. You just need a baseless belief system.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Uh . . . you seem to be forgetting that there's been voluminous research establishing just this causation, and no credible theory that demonstrates how natural variability can explain the observed changes in CO2 levels AND climate.

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



But of course, you will say that this is just more of the conspiracy. You don't need actual science to support YOUR position. You just need a baseless belief system.

lol, when the "science" can quantify the causation(thus proving the causation) feel free to get back to us - until then it's all just speculation and wild assertions.

 

[sandorski]

I like how they start out talking about man made climate change and then start talking about climate change.

See the slight of hand?

All I see is a Tard.

 

[PokerGuy]

before we can justify action to mitigate climate change.

lol@stupidity. Mitigate against change? Change is always going to happen, no matter what we do. Stupid Goron cult believers.

 

[piasabird]

Climate has been changing since the earth was formed.

What made the ice ages start/stop?

Most technological development only occurred in the last 200-300 years.

 

[werepossum]

MMCC proponents are the equivalent of Flat Earthers claiming that man-made structures are warping the Earth and causing it to curve, which it has never done before. THAT is really why it casts a round shadow on the moon.

We do need to reduce carbon emissions and investigate carbon sequestration because of the adverse affects of excess CO2, primarily in marine environs but also in some aquatic environs too. However the progressive movement insists on wrapping CO2 into Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (called Climate Change when they can't even lie it warmer, as if climate didn't change before man discovered fossil fuels) in an attempt to grab control over every facet of society and coincidentally crush the "Cult of the Individual" whilst establishing the new serfdom. Frankly, it isn't going to fly. The amount of lying and manipulation required to maintain a theory is inversely proportional to its validity.

 

[sandorski]

MMCC proponents are the equivalent of Flat Earthers claiming that man-made structures are warping the Earth and causing it to curve, which it has never done before. THAT is really why it casts a round shadow on the moon.

We do need to reduce carbon emissions and investigate carbon sequestration because of the adverse affects of excess CO2, primarily in marine environs but also in some aquatic environs too. However the progressive movement insists on wrapping CO2 into Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (called Climate Change when they can't even lie it warmer, as if climate didn't change before man discovered fossil fuels) in an attempt to grab control over every facet of society and coincidentally crush the "Cult of the Individual" whilst establishing the new serfdom. Frankly, it isn't going to fly. The amount of lying and manipulation required to maintain a theory is inversely proportional to its validity.

wut?

 

[werepossum]

wut?

Sorry, sometimes big words are necessary.

Bazinga!

 

[bamacre]

Is this how you operate, conniving for ever and ever more power?

I believe you may have confused me with a politician.

 

[sandorski]

Sorry, sometimes big words are necessary.

Bazinga!

I wish it were just a matter of Big Words. However, muddled thoughts are muddled, no matter the size of words used to express them.

So i ask again:
Wut?

 

[TheDoc9]

I wish it were just a matter of Big Words. However, muddled thoughts are muddled, no matter the size of words used to express them.

So i ask again:
Wut?

Basically Sandorski, he was saying how you/your kids are going to wake up indentured servants one day because of these types of lies and manipulation. You and Shira and some of the others seem to be ok with it, while for the rest of us - the silent majority, the b.s. falls on deaf ears.

 

[sandorski]

Basically Sandorski, he was saying how you/your kids are going to wake up indentured servants one day because of these types of lies and manipulation. You and Shira and some of the others seem to be ok with it, while for the rest of us - the silent majority, the b.s. falls on deaf ears.

Ya, this is why I ask: Wut?

That's just stupid.

 

[shira]

lol@stupidity. Mitigate against change? Change is always going to happen, no matter what we do. Stupid Goron cult believers.

No, mitigate THE change, you illiterate fool.

mit·i·gate
&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;m&#618;t&#618;&#716;ge&#618;t/ Show Spelled [mit-i-geyt] Show IPA verb, -gat·ed, -gat·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to lessen in force or intensity, as wrath, grief, harshness, or pain; moderate.
2.
to make less severe: to mitigate a punishment.

People are always going to get older, no matter what we do. So there's no point in exercising or eating healthy. Does that capture your head-up-your-ass logic?

 

[shira]

Climate has been changing since the earth was formed.

What made the ice ages start/stop?

Most technological development only occurred in the last 200-300 years.

So, if natural climate variability is "A" and man-made climate variability is "B", your "reasoning" is that A PLUS B is irrelevant, since there will always be A?

Let's see if I can capture your "logic":

People have always died and will continue to die of natural causes. Therefore, we should make no attempt to prevent deaths due to accidents and homicides.

You're a genius.

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe you may have confused me with a politician.

I think you may have confused a politician with projection.

 

[sandorski]

So, if natural climate variability is "A" and man-made climate variability is "B", your "reasoning" is that A PLUS B is irrelevant, since there will always be A?

Let's see if I can capture your "logic":

People have always died and will continue to die of natural causes. Therefore, we should make no attempt to prevent deaths due to accidents and homicides.

You're a genius.

People tell me that Smoking will kill me and that I should give up cigarettes. I reply that Time will kill us all and that we should give up wrist watches.

 

[PokerGuy]

No, mitigate THE change, you illiterate fool.

I quoted your post. It said "mitigate climate change" not "mitigate THE climate change". In other words, you are the fool, don't try and blame me because your writing skills fail your nutty global warming religion beliefs.

People are always going to get older, no matter what we do. So there's no point in exercising or eating healthy.

The fact is NOBODY KNOWS yet what the real impacts of the "climate change" will be. All they have are models that have proven pathetically inaccurate. In other words, there is NO SCIENTIFIC backing for taking radical action because the reality is you don't even know if the change - if any - will be good or bad. Go say two more "Hail Gore's" at the MMGW altar and your sins will be forgiven though.

 

[PokerGuy]

People tell me that Smoking will kill me and that I should give up cigarettes. I reply that Time will kill us all and that we should give up wrist watches.

Actually, the health analogy does work pretty well in this case, it illustrates the folly of the MMGW religion and it's followers.

"Butter is bad! It clogs up arteries, we need to take immediate action. Get rid of all butter and use margarine instead. ". 20 years later: "scientists have figured out that margarine may actually be worse for you than butter".... Oops. Taking actions without fully understanding what you're actually doing and what the impact will be is sets you up to fail.