NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

[bfdd]

But you're making the claim that government funding of NOAA is large BECAUSE their research results have reinforced the theory of MMCC.

Why don't you explain to us how that works? Does NOAA tell Congress that they'll come up with ever more pro-MMCC research if NOAA's funding grows? Does Congress threaten NOAA by telling them that money will be withheld if research against MMCC is funded? I mean, please inform us how this pro-MMCC cabal has been in control of Congress - even during the Bush Sr and Bush Jr years? Show us your evidence.

rofl you don't even know how it works? they just have to keep pumping out shit that says the world is going to end and the government approves their budget. there's really nothing more to it than that. there's probably some crooked politicians pushing on it too, but it really wouldn't be that hard to get government funding when you've been telling them for 20+ years the worlds going to end unless they fund your research.

 

[Hacp]

Are the Earth's climates permanent for any given area? Not a chance.

Are humans responsible for some changes in the climate? Not to any significant degree, considering all of the other non-human influences that exist.

Are we, as a nation or as a race of lifeforms, ready to deal with the inevitable changes in climate? Not really.

One of the two resources we need the most to sustain us, arguably, is fresh water (energy being the other). Shifts in which areas of the Earth are wet, dry, too wet, and too dry will have significant biological, agricultural, and economic impacts toward which we are, for the most part, apathetic and indifferent.

There are two big-picture questions related to climate change: 1. What causes (or caused) it? and 2. How do we prepare for it? Much has been made of the first, and next to nothing of the second. That's a problem.

We only need energy to sustain ourselves. Everything else, we have the technology to make with enough energy.

 

[shira]

rofl you don't even know how it works? they just have to keep pumping out shit that says the world is going to end and the government approves their budget. there's really nothing more to it than that. there's probably some crooked politicians pushing on it too, but it really wouldn't be that hard to get government funding when you've been telling them for 20+ years the worlds going to end unless they fund your research.

"probably some crooked politician"??? "It wouldn't be that hard"???

Wow, with proof like this, how can anyone believe in MMCC?

 

[monovillage]

You can always read this collection of papers in response to NOAA's "state of the climate 2009"
http://climaterealists.com/?id=6090

 

[zsdersw]

We only need energy to sustain ourselves. Everything else, we have the technology to make with enough energy.

We have the technology to do a lot, but not necessarily the will to do so. That's why fresh water is the most essential resource.

Desalinization? Not feasible on a large enough scale at a low enough cost to offset our need for naturally occurring fresh water.

 

[StageLeft]

Another shira thread opening with links to take on the "climate-change deniers". Yes!

 

[DrPizza]

:thumbsup: good article, OP.

 

[sandorski]

Deniers deny. Film at 11.

 

[shira]

Another shira thread opening with links to take on the "climate-change deniers". Yes!

No. Another thread revealing yet another compelling scientific report supporting MMCC. As compared with virtually no science supporting the opposite view.

Yet you insist that the scientific consensus is wrong, based on what, exactly?

 

[monovillage]

No. Another thread revealing yet another compelling scientific report supporting MMCC. As compared with virtually no science supporting the opposite view.

Yet you insist that the scientific consensus is wrong, based on what, exactly?

Well, first there is evidence that supports the skeptic view and I posted it, at least try to be truthful. Here's a list of 800 peer reviewed papers in support of skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

 

[sandorski]

Well, first there is evidence that supports the skeptic view and I posted it, at least try to be truthful. Here's a list of 800 peer reviewed papers in support of skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

You're not a Skeptic.

 

[FuzzyBee]

What do you think about our planet recently being a big chunk of ice? Do you think it's been warming up since then?

Why won't you answer my question?

 

[sandorski]

Why won't you answer my question?

??

Whatchatalkinabout?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Well, I quoted it. Shouldn't be too hard to find. Shira just seems to be ignoring it - I'd presume it's because it can't be refuted.

 

[sandorski]

Well, I quoted it. Shouldn't be too hard to find. Shira just seems to be ignoring it - I'd presume it's because it can't be refuted.

Ahh, End of last Ice Age, warming, and your point is?

Let me guess: This is just more of the same.

Right? Wrong.

 

[Poptech]

As compared with virtually no science supporting the opposite view.

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

There is extensive science supporting the skeptic position,



Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs) (NIPCC)

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

 

[Toastedlightly]

As I say in all threads:

1. The Earth is warming
2. We may be the cause (this is the debatable part)
3. What should we do about it? (this is the political part)

When people deny number 1, they are denying reality. Temperature records show a warming trend within the current populations lifetime.

When people deny number 2, they must have justification for their denial. Do we accept that CO2 is causing a chain reaction of green-house gas emission into the atmosphere? Do we accept that the sun is merely in a warm period? This is where the debate starts.

When people say that we must do something now or we are dead, they are dense. The Earth has survived many warming and cooling cycles and so has humanity. We can adapt. This is where politics makes it harrowing entry and strikes back all the way to point number 1.

So all, where do you fall?

 

[werepossum]

What do you think about our planet recently being a big chunk of ice? Do you think it's been warming up since then?

It's no secret why CAGW proponents begin their charts at the end of the Little Ice Age - that produces the most "proof" of warming. Were their charts begun in the Medieval Warm Period, things would look quite different.

But you're making the claim that government funding of NOAA is large BECAUSE their research results have reinforced the theory of MMCC.

Why don't you explain to us how that works? Does NOAA tell Congress that they'll come up with ever more pro-MMCC research if NOAA's funding grows? Does Congress threaten NOAA by telling them that money will be withheld if research against MMCC is funded? I mean, please inform us how this pro-MMCC cabal has been in control of Congress for at least the past 20 years - even during the Bush Sr and Bush Jr years? Show us your evidence.

Every government agency provides results that show a need for that agency to have even more money and power. It's simple human nature, very few people are willing to risk losing a government job (much more secure and much better compensated than private sector jobs after all) by pointing out that their agency is probably not needed and their problems insignificant. On the other hand, lots of people are willing to try to grow their own fief, thereby producing more budget, more underlings, and more opportunities for raises and promotion. The FDA will always issue reports showing a burning need for the FDA, the Department of Energy will always issue reports showing a burning need for the Department of Energy, etc. Like any entity, an agency's first ambition is to survive and grow. It's not even completely self-serving - you presumably wouldn't enter a field you think is irrelevant, after all. Not a cabal, just the way bureaucracy works.

It is quite amusing that you refer to skeptics as climate change deniers, though. The skeptics' position is that climate changes continually, whilst the CAGW proponents' position is that climate is stable but is now being changed by human activity. And you call US climate change deniers? Logic - get some!

 

[werepossum]

As I say in all threads:

1. The Earth is warming
2. We may be the cause (this is the debatable part)
3. What should we do about it? (this is the political part)

When people deny number 1, they are denying reality. Temperature records show a warming trend within the current populations lifetime.

When people deny number 2, they must have justification for their denial. Do we accept that CO2 is causing a chain reaction of green-house gas emission into the atmosphere? Do we accept that the sun is merely in a warm period? This is where the debate starts.

When people say that we must do something now or we are dead, they are dense. The Earth has survived many warming and cooling cycles and so has humanity. We can adapt. This is where politics makes it harrowing entry and strikes back all the way to point number 1.

So all, where do you fall?

Very good post. The only thing I'd add is that we do know CO2 has some adverse effects, so CO2 mitigation is a good thing to pursue anyway, to the extent that we can do so without destroying our freedom and prosperity, without buying into this new doomsday religion.

 

[bfdd]

"probably some crooked politician"??? "It wouldn't be that hard"???

Wow, with proof like this, how can anyone believe in MMCC?

proof? it was an off the top of my head example, not PROOF of what's happening. but go ahead attack me over it when you knew that's all it was, make yourself look more like a tool.

 

[Jaskalas]

As I say in all threads:

1. The Earth is warming
2. We may be the cause (this is the debatable part)
3. What should we do about it? (this is the political part)

When people deny number 1, they are denying reality. Temperature records show a warming trend within the current populations lifetime

#1 is undisputed, however, some of the data involved is suspect for being vandalized. Small changes to make the past look cooler, and the current decade warmer would have huge implications for the claim of unprecedented warmth.

Yes it is warmer, by how much exactly?

When the IPCC ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period

 

[bfdd]

rofl at shira and sandroski still trying to spin in this thread, why won't you guys acknowledge this part of the article?

The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape.

this is a bullshit piece of science that has no basis in reality, so why are you trying to spin this and argue the side of the article? you want to talk about religious idiot deniers? that's you fucking morons.

 

[DrPizza]

As I say in all threads:

1. The Earth is warming
2. We may be the cause (this is the debatable part)
3. What should we do about it? (this is the political part)

When people deny number 1, they are denying reality. Temperature records show a warming trend within the current populations lifetime.

When people deny number 2, they must have justification for their denial. Do we accept that CO2 is causing a chain reaction of green-house gas emission into the atmosphere? Do we accept that the sun is merely in a warm period? This is where the debate starts.

When people say that we must do something now or we are dead, they are dense. The Earth has survived many warming and cooling cycles and so has humanity. We can adapt. This is where politics makes it harrowing entry and strikes back all the way to point number 1.

So all, where do you fall?

No one is suggesting that global warming will cause an extinction event for humanity. However, there are plenty of examples that very easily demonstrate that this adaptation doesn't occur very well across the globe. Drought has on many occasions led to starvation and the deaths of untold numbers of people in developing areas.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Ahh, End of last Ice Age, warming, and your point is?

Let me guess: This is just more of the same.

Right? Wrong.

Since you're so matter-of-fact, how do you know?

Thanks for sticking up for Shira, BTW, since he (?) doesn't seem to want to answer inconvenient questions.

 

[sandorski]

Since you're so matter-of-fact, how do you know?

Thanks for sticking up for Shira, BTW, since he (?) doesn't seem to want to answer inconvenient questions.

Science.