Global Warming Called: Time for Believers to Pay Up!

[Paratus]

^

That very same website is the one where I realize the models aren't that good if you keep digging at their sources.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

My quote on wiki is From the IPCC

You have no idea how badly skepticalscience is contorting its sources to make its point.

Your pic is of the real temp but here is what the models predict. The scare mongering is based on the models. Not how yours is linear and these are exponential. Derp derp.

Oh but if you had actually read up the lower than predicted surface temperature is because more of the energy is going into the ocean. It's a complex system and it's easy to misunderstand a single plot. Especially one that was posted for it humor.

 

[OverVolt]

Oh but if you had actually read up the lower than predicted surface temperature is because more of the energy is going into the ocean. It's a complex system and it's easy to misunderstand a single plot. Especially one that was posted for it humor.

Why does your chart start at 1973?

😛

Is it perhaps cherry picked for the steepest slope?

😛

 

[werepossum]

Oh but if you had actually read up the lower than predicted surface temperature is because more of the energy is going into the ocean. It's a complex system and it's easy to misunderstand a single plot. Especially one that was posted for it humor.

😀 I definitely agree that climate models are excellent tools for predicting what's already happened. What's going to happen, not so much.

Of course, any psychic worth her fake gypsy heritage can also exercise amazing accuracy in predicting what's already happened, and is probably just as good at explaining why what she predicted did not happen.

 

[Paratus]

Why does your chart start at 1973?

😛

Is it perhaps cherry picked for the steepest slope?

😛

When you can prove to me that the extra ~.5W/M^2 we are measuring is incorrect I'll believe the Earth is not warming.

When you can explain why CO2 in the lab traps heat but the extra Gigatons of CO2 we've added to the air on top of the CO2 already present from the carbon cycle doesn't trap heat then I'll believe man has no influence on the climate.

Good luck!()🙂

(In before monolink and his Judith Curry obsession)

 

[werepossum]

Like these retarded fools in the insurance industry:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/business/insurers-stray-from-the-conservative-line-on-climate-change.html?_r=0



It's funny when money and profits are on the line companies take the science seriously. Politically motivated righteous ignorance, not so much.

Yes, this explains why it's practically impossible to buy home insurance along the coast, or crop insurance, or home insurance in the tornado belt.

Oh, wait . . .

 

[OverVolt]

When you can prove to me that the extra ~.5W/M^2 we are measuring is incorrect I'll believe the Earth is not warming.

When you can explain why CO2 in the lab traps heat but the extra Gigatons of CO2 we've added to the air on top of the CO2 already present from the carbon cycle doesn't trap heat then I'll believe man has no influence on the climate.

Good luck!()🙂

(In before monolink and his Judith Curry obsession)

They don't really know to what extent CO2 will affect the temperature all the models keep overshooting from what I see.

Your favorite place ever links this article: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

Trying to say it shows that doubling of CO2 leads to a 3C rise in temperature but its the hardest to predict part of the climate models. So all they are doing is coming up with a consensus of 3C. There are parts of that article that go like

"Three studies have calculated probability density functions of climate sensitivity...These distributions reflect the uncertainty in our knowledge of sensitivity not a distribution from which future climate change is sampled...These estimates are in good agreement with other estimates...The main caveat is that all three studies are on a version of the same climate model."

So lol...their evidence is rather circular and feeds off itself.

The article talks about the uncertainty in their estimates of climate sensitivy and skepticalscience tries to play it off like "Doubling of CO2 leads to a 3C rise in global temperature" but the article makes no such statement. They say 1.5 - 4.5C with a consensus at 3C. Its not like some kind of sure fire 100% climate law.

Bottom line: They don't know. Anybody talking like its some kind of guaranteed outcome irks me. The article itself doesn't irk me although the consensus based on the same model did make me laugh as that is just ridiculous.

 

[Paratus]

Yes, this explains why it's practically impossible to buy home insurance along the coast, or crop insurance, or home insurance in the tornado belt.

Oh, wait . . .

Well it's easy to see you don't know anything about costal insurance. My homeowners insurance does not cover flood or windstorm.

Flood is through the federal government because the insurance industry will not cover it.

Windstorm i.e. Hurricanes or other wind driven rain is covered by the insurer of last resort - the state.

Also the federal government subsides most crops.

Are you still sure about your point?

 

[werepossum]

Well it's easy to see you don't know anything about costal insurance. My homeowners insurance does not cover flood or windstorm.

Flood is through the federal government because the insurance industry will not cover it.

Windstorm i.e. Hurricanes or other wind driven rain is covered by the insurer of last resort - the state.

Also the federal government subsides most crops.

Are you still sure about your point?

Hmm, my aunt had a house in Sebastian Inlet literally 70 feet from the high water line and her insurance was private. Maybe it's a Republican thing.

Join us, little padawan! Be part of the 20% who have not yet attached themselves to Uncle Sugar's bodacious teats for life!
http://www.pricemypolicy.com/

 

[Paratus]

Hmm, my aunt had a house in Sebastian Inlet literally 70 feet from the high water line and her insurance was private. Maybe it's a Republican thing.

Join us, little padawan! Be part of the 20% who have not yet attached themselves to Uncle Sugar's bodacious teats for life!
http://www.pricemypolicy.com/

The folks I know who live in costal counties who still have private insurance were grand-fathered in. Insurance companies were paying too much out on windstorm in the last ten years.

To buy the windstorm insurance you have to go through a private insurer but they only act as the middle man. The state sends its own adjusters and pays out if there's a claim.

I know this from personal experience when a hurricane knocked the roof off my house a few years ago.


Umm, I already work for the US government so too late I guess.

 

[Aldon]

“Many countries around the world are already incurring losses and damages from the impacts of climate change,” Yeb Sano, the Philippine lead negotiator whose hometown was flattened by the storm, said in an interview in Warsaw. “We’d like to make clear the difference between humanitarian aid and climate change compensation in the context of historical responsibility.”

I assume that they're implying carbon dioxide emissions and rising sea levels are related, yet they're the ones influenced by the media and corporations into thinking this way in the first place.

“Many countries around the world are already incurring losses and damages from the impacts of climate change,”

Whoever wrote this article is not bias, no, but rather too stupid to even be in the workplace and in authority of writing such articles. Please, knowing that causation does not yield correlation is not too much, is it?

Yeb Sano, the Philippine lead negotiator whose hometown was flattened by the storm, said in an interview in Warsaw. “We’d like to make clear the difference between humanitarian aid and climate change compensation in the context of historical responsibility.”

Let's get some money from China because we're technically breathing in their pollution. That author needs to go fornicate him/herself.

 

[Agent11]

Just a money grab by developing nations. I really hope Obama isn't stupid enough to support this.

Washington has opposed the position saying that a deal under which "the developed countries would be treated in one way, in one section of the agreement, and developing countries in a different part of the agreement" was a "non-starter", US negotiator Todd Stern said.

Whew. Dodged a bullet there. . .

So how do you climate change aficionados feel about Obama's stance taken here?

According to a report by the World Resource Institute, developed nations have spent $35 billion in international climate finance through the “fast-start finance” period between 2010 – 2012, exceeding the initial target of US$30 billion.

Five countries - Germany, Japan, Norway, Britain, and the US gave a combined sum of $27 billion, adaptation funding received $5 billion, while mitigation received $22.1 billion.

Can't really blame the developing nations, they thought this was their new cash cow obviously.

 

[Paratus]

I assume that they're implying carbon dioxide emissions and rising sea levels are related, yet they're the ones influenced by the media and corporations into thinking this way in the first place.



Whoever wrote this article is not bias, no, but rather too stupid to even be in the workplace and in authority of writing such articles. Please, knowing that causation does not yield correlation is not too much, is it?



Let's get some money from China because we're technically breathing in their pollution. That author needs to go fornicate him/herself.

Speaking of "influenced by the media and corporations into thinking this way in the first place", when you ignore basic and peer reviewed science you are not some sort of skeptic. You are just another easily led sheeple.

Try not to be an idiot just because this was a bad deal in the first place. 😉

 

[desy]

That particular graph goes to 73 because its from satellite instrumentation, its not cherry picked data. Try again

 

[TheVrolok]

lol, this is still going on?

 

[unokitty]

Collapse of UN confab on "climate change" shows what it's all about: ($$$$$$)

Poor countries have demanded that the developed world give them $100 billion annually by 2020 to prepare for the impacts of global warming, such as heat waves and droughts. Brazil even put forward a proposal last week that would have made rich countries pay for historical greenhouse gas emissions.

"The US, EU, Australia and Norway remain blind to the climate reality that's hitting us all, and poor people and countries much harder," said Harjeet Singh, spokesperson for ActionAid International. "They continue to derail negotiations in Warsaw that can create a new system to deal with new types of loss and damage such as sea-level rise, loss of territory, biodiversity and other non-economic losses more systematically."

In Wake of Super Typhoon Haiyan, Youth Climate Justice Leaders Call for Climate Reparations

"Disasters are not purely 'natural,' humans are responsible for it. Lack of action has not only cost socio-economic losses but hundreds of thousands of lives! I look forward to parties discussing and implementing steps related to loss and damages as well as through mitigation measures of developed countries," she said.

"We demand 'new' funds for the Global Climate Fund...

"We have over and over appealed to the conscience and heart of the negotiators while having to endure the blows of climate change impacts without concrete support from those who block the process.

Climate change believers, the third world wants $100 billion dollars.

The science is clear, they say.

Now, they want to be paid.

More evidence that Climate Change aka Global Warming was never about science. It was always about money.

Uno

 

[Aldon]

when you ignore basic and peer reviewed science you are not some sort of skeptic.

Nope. I'm a realist. I don't make assumptions why hurricanes happen, tornadoes happen, or ice is melting. Other than that, science is not science when it is rigged, nor is it anyway qualified to be classified as science when jackasses rig data. Are you one of those scientists who went out to a shore or to Greenland, saw the ice melting, and blamed it on the cars and planes that have gotten you there? Yea, humans are assholes in general, I have to agree.

 

[Paratus]

Nope. I'm a realist. I don't make assumptions why hurricanes happen, tornadoes happen, or ice is melting. Other than that, science is not science when it is rigged, nor is it anyway qualified to be classified as science when jackasses rig data.

Nope your not even a realist. Just easily led. Tinfoil conspiracy type stuff.

 

[BUnit1701]

Nope. I'm a realist. I don't make assumptions why hurricanes happen, tornadoes happen, or ice is melting. Other than that, science is not science when it is rigged, nor is it anyway qualified to be classified as science when jackasses rig data. Are you one of those scientists who went out to a shore or to Greenland, saw the ice melting, and blamed it on the cars and planes that have gotten you there? Yea, humans are assholes in general, I have to agree.

Exactly this. One has to be an absolute fool to believe that smokestacks are suddenly the cause of hurricanes and droughts. These things have happened for billions of years, and will continue to happen for billions of years. Sometimes they will be bigger and stronger, sometimes smaller and weaker. Life goes on.

 

[momeNt]

Shouldn't we ask people who believe in protecting the Earth to pay for all the natural disasters?

Earth since its inception has constantly been trying to wipe out all of the forms of life that exist on it. Yet there are is a growing number of people who are dead set on PROTECTING Earth. The people protecting it should be the ones footing the bill for the disasters it causes.

The sooner we can get rid of Earth the better, these natural disasters are literally killing us.

 

[Paul98]

Of course that those who don't believe in man made global warming are against this.

If they did believe would they be willing to pay poor countries money for damage done by man made climate change?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So when should these "poor countries" be responsible for their contribution to man made global warming?

 

[monovillage]

The whole Chicken Little/Global Warming lie is failing worldwide. At COP19 fringe groups stage a walk-out because they're not going to be able to extort more money from western nations.
http://news.yahoo.com/green-groups-quit-ailing-warsaw-climate-talks-134123702.html

A real shame that eco-terrorist groups such as Greenpeace won't be able to steal taxpayer dollars.

 

[Jaskalas]

So when should these "poor countries" be responsible for their contribution to man made global warming?

Their contribution is only going to increase in the future, unless we use our industry to squash their industry. Either way CO2 production happens.

 

[Paul98]

So when should these "poor countries" be responsible for their contribution to man made global warming?

They would when they have contributed a meaningful amount compared to it.

 

[Aldon]

While we argue about global warming, what about human waste? Our population isn't getting smaller, and our planet isn't going to be bigger either. That's an equivalent problem, but why did global warming caught like wildfire instead?