Global Warming Called: Time for Believers to Pay Up!

[z1ggy]

Yet do you hear any plans that sound like 'shutting down big oil'? No, what you hear is a carbon tax on individuals.

Correct. Which is exactly why there is no motivation what so ever for the Gov't (that you believe is some kind of secret mastermind) in conjunction with big oil to supress the evidence that global warming is fake. If anything they should be touting the fact it is fake!

P.S. When I read this in the "email" that was "stolen" and was "evidence" of some kind of scandal, I almost fucking pissed my pants. You people...oh my lord.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang.

 

[BUnit1701]

Correct. Which is exactly why there is no motivation what so ever for the Gov't (that you believe is some kind of secret mastermind) in conjunction with big oil to supress the evidence that global warming is fake. If anything they should be touting the fact it is fake!

P.S. When I read this in the "email" that was "stolen" and was "evidence" of some kind of scandal, I almost fucking pissed my pants. You people...oh my lord.

Just, wow. Reading comprehension fail. The Guradian article was satire, clearly stating that he authored the email HE would have to see to believe there was a conspiracy.

 

[z1ggy]

Just, wow. Reading comprehension fail. The Guradian article was satire, clearly stating that he authored the email HE would have to see to believe there was a conspiracy.

You are correct, I did misread the top line. However, as the 2nd search result to "email rig" or whatever the Aldo guy told me was his proof, just shows it's all a load of BS.

If you all are claiming GW is fake, and that it is the work of large companies suppressing it.. I would have to disagree. It's completely counter intuitive.

 

[Paratus]

 

[BUnit1701]

You are correct, I did misread the top line. However, as the 2nd search result to "email rig" or whatever the Aldo guy told me was his proof, just shows it's all a load of BS.

If you all are claiming GW is fake, and that it is the work of large companies suppressing it.. I would have to disagree. It's completely counter intuitive.

Its simple really. We all know the oil companies get billions in corporate welfare. If you can convince the population that the Earth is warming due to their consumption of carbon energy and need to be taxed for it, there is more money to hand out as corporate welfare.

 

[momeNt]

You mean if we stop using oil? Interesting question. As a counterargument, have we evaluated the risk that natural energy poses to complementary commodities? Likely not.

Correct, if we were to stop pumping oil, and exploring for oil reserves, and just pretended it didn't exist. What possible risks does oil pose BELOW GROUND, we already clearly know what risks it poses when we use it as fuel.

 

[unokitty]

Its not about Climate Change, its about payments from the US to the third world.

Some 130 countries, including islands concerned they’ll disappear with rising sea levels, are pushing for reparations as part of a “loss and damage” mechanism at United Nations climate talks in Warsaw this week. They blame countries that industrialized 200 years ago for damaging the atmosphere.

“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.”

Developing countries push for climate change “reparations”
"Should the industrialized nations most responsible for global warming compensate those now suffering its effects?"

The Philippines' chief climate-change negotiator, Nadarev "Yeb" Sano, ... said: The US, accounting for at least one-fourth of cumulative emissions, has a huge responsibility, a moral responsibility, to tackle climate change, not just to address it domestically, but also to be able to provide support for developing countries.

Can call me names if you want, but I don't think that raising my taxes, or my electric bill, or building more nuclear power plants, represents a Climate Change solution.

Uno

 

[desy]

Seems some don't understand climate science any deeper than a google search
All those gotcha debunking hypothesis have been debunked again in favor of AGW
You see science evolves, so if a mistake is made in modeling or instrumentation they correct the flaw or resample and find time and again AGW holds up. Maybe not they way originally thought or can explain away other than results still hold true.
The basic premise, Man causes global warming cannot be excluded and is time and time again the most likely explanation for the evidence collected.

Everything else about how to stop it, mitigate it, solve it are all debatable, but to stick your head in the sand about the fundamentals? Grow a pair and face it, its real, now rage on about what if anything there is to be done about it

 

[werepossum]

This bickering is a sideshow from the truth: There's nothing that is going to be done in the near future regarding CO2 production.

Maybe if fusion becomes a real viable energy source by the end of the century, we could begin a transition away from carbon based industry.

Actually we could do a great deal if industrial nations took the money the UN wants to extort and used it to subsidize solar and solar research. I'm very agnostic about CAGW, but quite convinced about the dangers of excessive CO2, especially when combined with other ecological stressors.

Seems some don't understand climate science any deeper than a google search
All those gotcha debunking hypothesis have been debunked again in favor of AGW
You see science evolves, so if a mistake is made in modeling or instrumentation they correct the flaw or resample and find time and again AGW holds up. Maybe not they way originally thought or can explain away other than results still hold true.
The basic premise, Man causes global warming cannot be excluded and is time and time again the most likely explanation for the evidence collected.

Everything else about how to stop it, mitigate it, solve it are all debatable, but to stick your head in the sand about the fundamentals? Grow a pair and face it, its real, now rage on about what if anything there is to be done about it

Which of course explains the rampant dishonesty used to sell CAGW, such as starting the charts at the end of the Little Ice Age, denying the Medieval Warm Period, steering peer-reviewed papers to like-minded peers, and slyly substituting actual measurements when plotting one's temperature predictions, to name a few. But hey, who doesn't believe that equations which are completely useless where they can be directly measured and compared against reality are no doubt rock solid everywhere they cannot be directly measured?

 

[trenchfoot]

Seems some don't understand climate science any deeper than a google search
All those gotcha debunking hypothesis have been debunked again in favor of AGW
You see science evolves, so if a mistake is made in modeling or instrumentation they correct the flaw or resample and find time and again AGW holds up. Maybe not they way originally thought or can explain away other than results still hold true.
The basic premise, Man causes global warming cannot be excluded and is time and time again the most likely explanation for the evidence collected.

Everything else about how to stop it, mitigate it, solve it are all debatable, but to stick your head in the sand about the fundamentals? Grow a pair and face it, its real, now rage on about what if anything there is to be done about it

The real problem that is blocking any effort to lessen mankind's effect toward worsening global warming is the potential for reduced profits that corporations are going to experience if solutions get instituted.

The one recurring observation I came up with after reading these numerous climate warming threads in essence is the rejection of science by corporatists in favor of unrestricted unregulated profit making/taking.

Opposition toward making any kind of effort to lessen mankind's effect on global warming is, IMO, based soley on how corporations will spend billions of $$$ to fight any effort to institute changes, but don't want to spend a dime toward making their manufacturing processes more environmentally friendly.

Another problem lies in the aligning of the world's worst pollution makers to uniformly and multilaterally make the necessary changes to lessen the pollution mankind is discharging into the environment in lieu of steadfastly prioritizing profits over any other concern.

 

[desy]

That's why the science often comes into question, not through part of the scientific process which like everything can be corrected as understanding deepens is the huge effort by corporations to cast dispersions and garner a disproportionate amount of media attention trying to muddy the debate by manipulating the message.
There is a number of former climate deniers and not a lot of converts, that says it all.

My problem is there will never be anything the species man can do about this as fossil fuels run the world, period. Getting rid of CFC's? OK we had a substitute, and the ozone hole is repairing. There is nothing that allows humans to churn through as much energy as we do for our everyday lives that can replace it. Sure some things like hydro, geothermal and other alternatives exist but nothing to the scale coal and oil permeate absolutely everything and to try and roll that back?
Humans are far too short sighted and self interested to ever take the challenge esp considering the huge die off that would have to occur to have any substantial impact.
I'm not volunteering to go.
The only issue I have is the continual disbelief that humans actually could have a climate impact and the lengths they go to and straws they grasp to instead of owning up to the issue of too many people on planet using too much. Corporations only serve and thrive in growth economies which I guess what is what truly scares them because our society foundation would have to radically change. No one cares for that including myself but I do see it coming.

 

[hal2kilo]

Seems some don't understand climate science any deeper than a google search
All those gotcha debunking hypothesis have been debunked again in favor of AGW
You see science evolves, so if a mistake is made in modeling or instrumentation they correct the flaw or resample and find time and again AGW holds up. Maybe not they way originally thought or can explain away other than results still hold true.
The basic premise, Man causes global warming cannot be excluded and is time and time again the most likely explanation for the evidence collected.

Everything else about how to stop it, mitigate it, solve it are all debatable, but to stick your head in the sand about the fundamentals? Grow a pair and face it, its real, now rage on about what if anything there is to be done about it

I wonder who they are going to blame when the shellfishing industries are all gone due to acidification of the ocean.

Nevermind it's God's will. Nothing to be done.

 

[Jaskalas]

Actually we could do a great deal if industrial nations took the money the UN wants to extort and used it to subsidize solar and solar research. I'm very agnostic about CAGW, but quite convinced about the dangers of excessive CO2, especially when combined with other ecological stressors.

Solar is more promising than most alternatives. We had a story on P&N about a solar plant storing its energy over night as molten salt. However, if it requires rare earth materials... it'd be doomed in mass production. We'd need an honest and public assessment of how we could utilize this technology.

 

[Paratus]

That's why the science often comes into question, not through part of the scientific process which like everything can be corrected as understanding deepens is the huge effort by corporations to cast dispersions and garner a disproportionate amount of media attention trying to muddy the debate by manipulating the message.
There is a number of former climate deniers and not a lot of converts, that says it all.

My problem is there will never be anything the species man can do about this as fossil fuels run the world, period. Getting rid of CFC's? OK we had a substitute, and the ozone hole is repairing. There is nothing that allows humans to churn through as much energy as we do for our everyday lives that can replace it. Sure some things like hydro, geothermal and other alternatives exist but nothing to the scale coal and oil permeate absolutely everything and to try and roll that back?
Humans are far too short sighted and self interested to ever take the challenge esp considering the huge die off that would have to occur to have any substantial impact.
I'm not volunteering to go.
The only issue I have is the continual disbelief that humans actually could have a climate impact and the lengths they go to and straws they grasp to instead of owning up to the issue of too many people on planet using too much. Corporations only serve and thrive in growth economies which I guess what is what truly scares them because our society foundation would have to radically change. No one cares for that including myself but I do see it coming.

I've said the before but how about prioritizing nuclear and natural gas to replace coal and oil. Adding local or private solar and wind where it makes sense. We could sell US natural gas, GE turbines, Westinghouse reactors to India and other third world countries. As their standard of living rises they'll have less kids and world population will decline decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

It's interesting that you bring up CFCs. There's a prime example of a global environmental problem that was rectified. It was even a greenhouse gas.

 

[Aldon]

Adding local or private solar and wind where it makes sense.

Take a loot at this.

As their standard of living rises they'll have less kids and world population will decline decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

And what makes you think a higher standard of living causes fertility rate to decline?

 

[halik]

Take a loot at this.



And what makes you think a higher standard of living causes fertility rate to decline?

Oh?
...controversy around Pierpont's work centers around her statements made in a self-published, non-peer-reviewed book that ultra-low frequency sounds affect human health, which are based on a very small sample of self-selected subjects with no control group for comparison.

 

[Aldon]

Oh?
...controversy around Pierpont's work centers around her statements made in a self-published, non-peer-reviewed book that ultra-low frequency sounds affect human health, which are based on a very small sample of self-selected subjects with no control group for comparison.

Any thoughts you'd like to share?

 

[Paratus]

Take a loot at this.



And what makes you think a higher standard of living causes fertility rate to decline?

So? Coal causes respitory problems, nuclear has a waste issue compounded by politics, and natural gas releases a fair amount of CO2. Pick your poison.

Ever hear of Japan, Western Europe, and the US. All of those have declining birth rates, (the US is slightly positive due to immigration). First world standards of living reduce birth rates.

Now you mentioned the sun in an earlier post. While the sun is the ultimate driver of then climate you do realize we have been monitoring the suns output for decades. The suns output has remained relatively steady and in fact was down slightly for much of the 00's.

 

[OverVolt]

This. Every year where the global temperature is lower than these simulations predict (hint: every year), they introduce some kind of arbitrary correction to lower the result (again). And then they still end up overestimating the next year. Etc ad infinitum...

They can't predict the global temperature for the next year and feel entitled to make 50 year, 100 year, etc. predictions 😛

It blows my mind. I'm assuming some of these guys breeze over the whole article and read the abstract and conclusion, or just read it somewhere 2nd hand and never look at the actual research article and go around saying "science said so"

So I dunno. Its pretty dumb all around.

The wiki is a fine enough portal.

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

At least know what the science is that you all are defending. The math and science behind the simulations is difficult I get that. It doesn't make it correct. There are way too many variables at their discretion, its too... contrived I guess.

Probably the most important and level-headed section of that wiki

No model – whether a wind-tunnel model for designing aircraft, or a climate model for projecting global warming – perfectly reproduces the system being modeled. Such inherently imperfect models may nevertheless produce useful results. In this context, GCMs are capable of reproducing the general features of the observed global temperature over the past century.[27]

A debate over how to reconcile climate model predictions that upper air (tropospheric) warming should be greater than surface warming, with observations some of which appeared to show otherwise[29] now appears to have been resolved in favour of the models, following revisions to the data: see satellite temperature record.

The effects of clouds are a significant area of uncertainty in climate models. Clouds have competing effects on the climate. One of the roles that clouds play in climate is in cooling the surface by reflecting sunlight back into space; another is warming by increasing the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the atmosphere to the surface.[30] In the 2001 IPCC report on climate change, the possible changes in cloud cover were highlighted as one of the dominant uncertainties in predicting future climate change;[31] see also[32]

Thousands of climate researchers around the world use climate models to understand the climate system. There are thousands of papers published about model-based studies in peer-reviewed journals – and a part of this research is work improving the models. Improvement has been difficult but steady (most obviously, state of the art AOGCMs no longer require flux correction), and progress has sometimes led to discovering new uncertainties.

So I agree the models are a useful tool thats fine, The eco-Kooks Realllly blow it out of proportion. We have so much data over the past 100 years to help tune the models but there are too many uncertainties in my mind to try and predict the next 50, 100, etc.

Dat science.

 

[Svnla]

Paging Al Gore, Green Peace, all of the tree huggers. I am sure they are eagerly waiting to pay their "fair share" out of their own pockets.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Its not about Climate Change, its about payments from the US to the third world.

Developing countries push for climate change “reparations”
"Should the industrialized nations most responsible for global warming compensate those now suffering its effects?"


Can call me names if you want, but I don't think that raising my taxes, or my electric bill, or building more nuclear power plants, represents a Climate Change solution.

Uno

Isn't it funny?! Money pays for everything it seems! Even human lives, your nation being flooded, etc... All of that is payable! No need to dig out the island, just pay some extra taxes and were good bro.


Living fucking proof that these are retarded fools. Like liberals looking for more entitlements like they deserve them.

 

[Paratus]

They can't predict the global temperature for the next year and feel entitled to make 50 year, 100 year, etc. predictions 😛

It blows my mind. I'm assuming some of these guys breeze over the whole article and read the abstract and conclusion, or just read it somewhere 2nd hand and never look at the actual research article and go around saying "science said so"

So I dunno. Its pretty dumb all around.

The wiki is a fine enough portal.

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

At least know what the science is that you all are defending. The math and science behind the simulations is difficult I get that. It doesn't make it correct. There are way too many variables at their discretion, its too... contrived I guess.

Yup the temperature is always going down isn't it.

:whiste:

 

[Paratus]

Isn't it funny?! Money pays for everything it seems! Even human lives, your nation being flooded, etc... All of that is payable! No need to dig out the island, just pay some extra taxes and were good bro.


Living fucking proof that these are retarded fools. Like liberals looking for more entitlements like they deserve them.

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

And the industry expects the situation will get worse. “Numerous studies assume a rise in summer drought periods in North America in the future and an increasing probability of severe cyclones relatively far north along the U.S. East Coast in the long term,” said Peter Höppe, who heads Geo Risks Research at the reinsurance giant Munich Re. “The rise in sea level caused by climate change will further increase the risk of storm surge.” Most insurers, including the reinsurance companies that bear much of the ultimate risk in the industry, have little time for the arguments heard in some right-wing circles that climate change isn’t happening, and are quite comfortable with the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is the main culprit of global warming.

“Insurance is heavily dependent on scientific thought,” Frank Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, told me last week. “It is not as amenable to politicized scientific thought.”

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

 

[OverVolt]

^

That very same website is the one where I realized 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 (the one referencing source 27)

You have no idea how badly skepticalscience is contorting its sources to make its point. The Climate scientists aren't that crazy but their followers sure are.

Your pic is of the real temp but here is what the models predict. The scare mongering is based on the models. Note how yours is linear and these are exponential. Derp derp.

 

[OverVolt]

Why do you think your graph goes to 1973 precisely? Because its the steepest slope.

Lol.

Dat peer-reviewed science you guys seem to love is a bitch. Sorry its just most of you guys are knuckleheads. If you guys were more pragmatic about it I wouldn't be so... mean I guess.