More False Info From The UN on MM Global Warming.

[jman19]

well, no, the 18% figure would be wrong, because that's % of the total, and if the total goes up without the contribution derived from meet going up, then it'll necessarily be a lower %.

That doesn't sound right... the article makes it seem like the % for transportation related emissions should be higher. No one said anything about the total amount of emissions being incorrect. You're assuming that the factors not included as part of transportation emissions are not included in the total emissions.

 

[NeoV]

I should really just copy/paste previous replies from GW threads, but -

nothing in this article refutes in any way, shape, or form the current leading theories about the current state of climate change and man's impact on it

nothing in the "climategate" emails did either

nothing in the "polar icecap" stories did either

nothing in the "hockey-stick" story did either

I'm pretty sure anyone with a blog that comes up with any theory about how study X used a comma instead of a period in paragraph 57 disproves man is having any impact on our climate - and the same group of simple-thinkers here would jump up and down about it.

 

[Zorba]

One scientist? LOL!!!!

How many scientist do you think do completely overlapping research? How many scientist did the original research? If you think it is more than a small handful, it is clear that you have never worked on true research. Just because hundreds or thousands accept it as fact, does not mean they all researched it themselves.

 

[Zorba]

The issue is not that animals produce green house gases, it is that the large producers of these gases are being centralized in places that used to be reserved for CO2 scrubbing (forests and the like, particularly in Brazil).

Why does the word 'fart' seem to discredit the idea in so many people's minds. The population of domesticated animals is growing, why is it unbelievable that these pockets of animals that previously were not there could produce more emissions than would be possible a few thousand years ago? Whether you increase the number of tail pipes or tails you still get more where there was previously few..

We have also massively decreased the number of wild animals, but I never hear about getting a credit for that.

 

[desy]

Yep used to be a lot of Bison running around
I'm sure they fart as much as cows do

 

[Hacp]

Also, even if there was man made global warming, why do we need to stop it? Wouldn't countries that benefit from global warming want it? Whats to stop greenland from racking up carbon dioxide to warm up?

 

[JockoJohnson]

So they figured out the shocking news that animals fart and have been farting on this planet for millions of years be it running around freely living their lives and reproducing in the wild or domesticated in herds being raised for food? Amazing!

Humans fart, too. Are our farts made up of different fart juice than animal farts?

Should we start taking each other out to save ourselves from ultimate annihilation by farts?

FACT: There are more humans farting at this time in history than any other because there are more of us alive then ever.

 

[jman19]

Also, even if there was man made global warming, why do we need to stop it? Wouldn't countries that benefit from global warming want it? Whats to stop greenland from racking up carbon dioxide to warm up?

/facepalm

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

/facepalm

^^ This is the only appropriate response to nonsense like that.

 

[Munky]

Science changes as facts come in. Truth crystallizes from data and our theories and models change to reflect this. It pisses me off that when we learn new facts you fuckheads see it as "SCIENTISTS WERE WRONG!" instead of, "hey, we now know more about the world around us, that's excellent."

It similarly pissed me off when fuckheads go

"the results from proxy data in our models doesn't match instrumental data, but we'll just add a fudge factor and call it a day"
or...
"the world hasn't been warming for the last decade, but that just means we're headed for even worse warming"
or...
"we lied on our book report and my dog ate the raw data, but I'm absolutely correct!"

 

[Amused]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hacp
Also, even if there was man made global warming, why do we need to stop it? Wouldn't countries that benefit from global warming want it? Whats to stop greenland from racking up carbon dioxide to warm up?

/facepalm

Now why is that your first reaction?

We are in very short warm cycle punctuated by ice ages. The entire rise of human civilization has taken place in this very brief uptick, and the dark ages took place during a cooling spell in the middle of this uptick.

If anything, we should be TRYING to warm the earth as civilization has always prospered most during the warmest periods.

Meanwhile, there is no way the current activity of man will stop the Earth from cooling as it has over and over again. And when that cooling happens, civilization will suffer greatly.

And I have no doubt there will be people then telling others it is all man's fault and trying to ruin their quality of life.

 

[sandorski]

So you say in point 1. That Newton did a good job predicting behavior of BASEBALLS and apples on Earth even though BASEBALLS weren't invented yet, and yet say we do not yet know everything and science still searches. So how can you say TLC is totally wrong when the statements in his post are factual? Einstein DID coin E=MC2. Newton didn't know about energy thus he couldn't have postulated the formula.
As for point 2. What we know about global warming is, nature can affect it much quicker and more profoundly than man can. It has been proven that natural events can change the earth's climate. What we also know about it is the people that want to believe in it the most also stand to profit the most (Al Gore). They are also hypocrites.

We do? Might wanna tell somebody.

 

[jman19]

Now why is that your first reaction?

We are in very short warm cycle punchtuated by ice ages. The entire rise of human civilization has taken place in this very brief uptick, and the dark ages took place during a cooling spell in the middle of this uptick.

If anything, we should be TRYING to warm the earth as civilization has always prospered most during the warmest periods.

Meanwhile, there is no way the current activity of man will stop the Earth from cooling as it has over and over again. And when that cooling happens, civilization will suffer greatly.

And I have no doubt there will be people then telling others it is all man's fault and trying to ruin their quality of life.

It is my first reaction because there are a ton of negative consequences if were to intentionally raise the temperature of the earth. I'm not sure the potential upsides are worth the downside - aren't there other ways in which we can make "civilzation prosper?" (which, by the way, couldn't be a more vague argument).

I don't think "punchtuated" is a word.

 

[Amused]

/facepalm

It is my first reaction because there are a ton of negative consequences if were to intentionally raise the temperature of the earth. I'm not sure the potential upsides are worth the downside - aren't there other ways in which we can make "civilzation prosper?" (which, by the way, couldn't be a more vague argument).

I don't think "punchtuated" is a word.

I think the negatives have been FAR overstated. Especially since we are due for a cooling trend and the fall into the next ice age will be disastrous.

I mean, lets face it: The hype gets funding and attention. Take away the hype and what do we have? A slight warming trend that lasted a few decades and has stopped. A warming trend that is NOT so drastic or record setting that it hasn't happened before.

When you look at the big picture in climate history, we are on the trailing edge of a very brief warm period. And in that brief time, ALL of human civilization occurred. Before that, human development was stagnated by the long cool period.

Given that the Earth is going to be entering the next cooling cycle very soon, I see absolutely no downside to an attempt to warm it.

And I haven't seen any real proof that man IS warming the Earth. But even if he is, good. We're going to need it.

Damn spellchecker.

 

[sandorski]

I think the negatives have been FAR overstated. Especially since we are due for a cooling trend and the fall into the next ice age will be disastrous.

I mean, lets face it: The hype gets funding and attention. Take away the hype and what do we have? A slight warming trend that lasted a few decades and has stopped. A warming trend that is NOT so drastic or record setting that it hasn't happened before.

When you look at the big picture in climate history, we are on the trailing edge of a very brief warm period. And in that brief time, ALL of human civilization occurred. Before that, human development was stagnated by the long cool period.

Given that the Earth is going to be entering the next cooling cycle very soon, I see absolutely no downside to an attempt to warm it.

And I haven't seen any real proof that man IS warming the Earth. But even if he is, good. We're going to need it.

Damn spellchecker.

Debatable

 

[monovillage]

A summary of Dr. Richard Tol's look at IPCC AR4 working group 3 with links for complete articles.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/03/summary-of-richard-tols-look-at-ipcc.html

"In the previous guest posts, I (in one case jointly with Chris Green) argue that Working Group 3 also contains mistakes, and that most errors point in one direction: optimism about the impacts of climate policy. The other mistakes reveal the inability of the IPCC to constructively engage with valid criticism. I also looked at the reviewer comments and the responses. The errors were identified during the review process, but made it into the final report nonetheless."