Watch the web for climate change truths

[Throckmorton]

These are all I could find
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberW...6/Features/Ethanol.htm
http://www.ethanolmarket.com/corngrains.html

 

[DealMonkey]

The real trigger for spiking grain/food prices worldwide is the speculative behavior by commodity traders looking to get in on the next big bubble. Certain countries and corporations exacerbated the situation by hoarding and then a price panic at the consumer level did the rest. The US mandate for bio-fuel and the depreciation of the US dollar probably has some small part in the run-up of prices, but it's speculation that's really driving the prices up. Speculation is always at the heart of every bubble, no matter whether it's tech stocks, oil or real estate.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uh, I could care less what rainsford mentioned, I was responding to Hareveybot. I also was not quoting data - I stated a conclusion of the study - which doesn't jive with what Harveybot and the rest of the religion of MMGW zealots keep trying to claim... that it is "settled science". It's FAR from that. It's good to see you MMGW religious folks haven't come up with a consistent spin line to explain away the supposed "pause". Keep trying...I'm sure you'll come up with something to use instead of the current deflections...

Yes, but you still stated one conclusion of the study while conveniently forgetting to mention the other things listed in the same conclusion in the same study, you know the part that said anthropogenic global warming is a fact and that their conclusion did nothing to change it. This is a common tactic by global warming deniers, cherry picking your facts and citations in order to fit your agenda. It is this sort of dishonesty that makes me say you put ideology before science.

PS: Don't think I've missed the irony in you calling MMGW a religion and then blindly ignoring things that don't agree with your ideology.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: glenn1
Ya know Prof John, you certainly spend a lot of time trying to disprove something you say doesn't exist. If you honestly disbelieved it, you'd let the rubes have their little manmade-global warming fantasy without interfering.

No, because it affects him through appeals to government, taxes, etc. If he believes it does not exist, it makes sense to try and disprove it.

I am interested in both sides. I recorded a two hour long "separating fact from fiction" on tv with tom brokaw and deleted it after 10-15 minutes. The entire thing was one-sided, he was interviewing only scientists who had a vested interest in seeing support for GW. It was really bad journalism.

This "both sides" stuff is ludicrous.

"Both sides" of an issue should be represented if there's significant support for both sides among qualified individuals. But if there's no significant support for one side of an issue, it's a DISTORTION to provide dissenting voices a forum. It would be like saying that in any discussion of the Holocaust, a historian MUST be included who's a Holocaust-denier because that's the "other side."

Well, anthropogenic climate change is kind of like that: I'm guessing that at least 95% of climatologist believe in significant anthropogenic climate change. If the anti-MMGW data ever reaches critical mass, climatologists will abandon MMGW in droves - that's how science works.

But until that happens, why would any of us non-climatologists want to hear fringe arguments about climate change? Are you interested in fringe arguments about the cause of AIDS? About who "REALLY" caused 9/11? How come you don't want to hear the "other side" of these issues whenever these issues are discussed?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
These are all I could find
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberW...6/Features/Ethanol.htm
http://www.ethanolmarket.com/corngrains.html

Second link suggests corn acres down. correct?

According to silverpig, our ethanol mandate is causing corn to displace soy...

first link 1.2 Billion bushels in 2005 for ethanol with ending SURPLUS stock of "17-year high of 2.114 billion bushels"

Meh...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uh, I could care less what rainsford mentioned, I was responding to Hareveybot. I also was not quoting data - I stated a conclusion of the study - which doesn't jive with what Harveybot and the rest of the religion of MMGW zealots keep trying to claim... that it is "settled science". It's FAR from that. It's good to see you MMGW religious folks haven't come up with a consistent spin line to explain away the supposed "pause". Keep trying...I'm sure you'll come up with something to use instead of the current deflections...

Yes, but you still stated one conclusion of the study while conveniently forgetting to mention the other things listed in the same conclusion in the same study, you know the part that said anthropogenic global warming is a fact and that their conclusion did nothing to change it. This is a common tactic by global warming deniers, cherry picking your facts and citations in order to fit your agenda. It is this sort of dishonesty that makes me say you put ideology before science.

PS: Don't think I've missed the irony in you calling MMGW a religion and then blindly ignoring things that don't agree with your ideology.

Again, no one is contesting Climate change - my statements are about MMGW which doesn't make a whole lot of sense given what we "know". How does the "pause" fit into the MMGW theory? Did man cause the "pause"?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uh, I could care less what rainsford mentioned, I was responding to Hareveybot. I also was not quoting data - I stated a conclusion of the study - which doesn't jive with what Harveybot and the rest of the religion of MMGW zealots keep trying to claim... that it is "settled science". It's FAR from that. It's good to see you MMGW religious folks haven't come up with a consistent spin line to explain away the supposed "pause". Keep trying...I'm sure you'll come up with something to use instead of the current deflections...

Yes, but you still stated one conclusion of the study while conveniently forgetting to mention the other things listed in the same conclusion in the same study, you know the part that said anthropogenic global warming is a fact and that their conclusion did nothing to change it. This is a common tactic by global warming deniers, cherry picking your facts and citations in order to fit your agenda. It is this sort of dishonesty that makes me say you put ideology before science.

PS: Don't think I've missed the irony in you calling MMGW a religion and then blindly ignoring things that don't agree with your ideology.

Again, no one is contesting Climate change - my statements are about MMGW which doesn't make a whole lot of sense given what we "know". How does the "pause" fit into the MMGW theory? Did man cause the "pause"?

Again, the same conclusion you reference states that the climate change occurring is substantially caused by mankind. And MMGW makes complete sense given what we know.

There is nothing in a 'pause' that doesn't fit into anthropogenic global warming. I feel like this should go without saying, but there are lots and lots of things that effect global climate, and we are only one of them. To put it simply, view it as an addition problem. 5+5= 10 right? Well, so does 4+6. If one of the elements contributing to the current temperature on the planet decreases enough, it could certainly lower the temperature of the planet without contradicting the fundamental premise that man's emissions of greenhouse gases are still pushing the long term heating up once the ocean returns to its previous state.

If you are looking to disprove MMGW, your best bet is to prove that greenhouse gases do not contribute to warming, or at least do not contribute in a meaningful way. Showing that oceans also affect climate does absolutely nothing to the theory.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Uh, I could care less what rainsford mentioned, I was responding to Hareveybot. I also was not quoting data - I stated a conclusion of the study - which doesn't jive with what Harveybot and the rest of the religion of MMGW zealots keep trying to claim... that it is "settled science". It's FAR from that. It's good to see you MMGW religious folks haven't come up with a consistent spin line to explain away the supposed "pause". Keep trying...I'm sure you'll come up with something to use instead of the current deflections...

Yes, but you still stated one conclusion of the study while conveniently forgetting to mention the other things listed in the same conclusion in the same study, you know the part that said anthropogenic global warming is a fact and that their conclusion did nothing to change it. This is a common tactic by global warming deniers, cherry picking your facts and citations in order to fit your agenda. It is this sort of dishonesty that makes me say you put ideology before science.

PS: Don't think I've missed the irony in you calling MMGW a religion and then blindly ignoring things that don't agree with your ideology.

Again, no one is contesting Climate change - my statements are about MMGW which doesn't make a whole lot of sense given what we "know". How does the "pause" fit into the MMGW theory? Did man cause the "pause"?

Again, the same conclusion you reference states that the climate change occurring is substantially caused by mankind. And MMGW makes complete sense given what we know.

There is nothing in a 'pause' that doesn't fit into anthropogenic global warming. I feel like this should go without saying, but there are lots and lots of things that effect global climate, and we are only one of them. To put it simply, view it as an addition problem. 5+5= 10 right? Well, so does 4+6. If one of the elements contributing to the current temperature on the planet decreases enough, it could certainly lower the temperature of the planet without contradicting the fundamental premise that man's emissions of greenhouse gases are still pushing the long term heating up once the ocean returns to its previous state.

If you are looking to disprove MMGW, your best bet is to prove that greenhouse gases do not contribute to warming, or at least do not contribute in a meaningful way. Showing that oceans also affect climate does absolutely nothing to the theory.

So man didn't cause the pause but we cause MMGW?

You use 5,5 and 4,6 but do we really have an idea how much we affect things?

It's not up to me to disprove MMGW, it's up to you "believers" to show the proof and you have not yet done so. You have guesses, theories, and projections but you can't provide proof.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

So man didn't cause the pause but we cause MMGW?

You use 5,5 and 4,6 but do we really have an idea how much we affect things?

It's not up to me to disprove MMGW, it's up to you "believers" to show the proof and you have not yet done so. You have guesses, theories, and projections but you can't provide proof.

Right. To use a more extreme example, if the sun went out tomorrow the earth would freeze. This would not disprove MMGW. There are simply more factors in play than how much CO2 we pump into the air. This does not mean that the CO2 we pump into the air does not have a substantial effect.

Insofar as how much we affect the climate we have pretty good tools for looking at that. If you look at any decent paper on the subject they always project how much of the variance they are accounting for in them. When you say things like this, it makes me think that you have done almost no real reading on this subject outside what you've gleaned from global warming denier sites and blogs.

As has been said so many times, you will never get proof in a system as large and complex as the earth. Since it cannot be replicated in a lab, we have to rely on other, less precise methods. What scientists have determined is that MMGW is highly probable. Far more probable then the idea that we are not having an effect. The retreat to a demand for absolute proof is ridiculous, because it will never happen.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

So man didn't cause the pause but we cause MMGW?

You use 5,5 and 4,6 but do we really have an idea how much we affect things?

It's not up to me to disprove MMGW, it's up to you "believers" to show the proof and you have not yet done so. You have guesses, theories, and projections but you can't provide proof.

Right. To use a more extreme example, if the sun went out tomorrow the earth would freeze. This would not disprove MMGW. There are simply more factors in play than how much CO2 we pump into the air. This does not mean that the CO2 we pump into the air does not have a substantial effect.

Insofar as how much we affect the climate we have pretty good tools for looking at that. If you look at any decent paper on the subject they always project how much of the variance they are accounting for in them. When you say things like this, it makes me think that you have done almost no real reading on this subject outside what you've gleaned from global warming denier sites and blogs.

As has been said so many times, you will never get proof in a system as large and complex as the earth. Since it cannot be replicated in a lab, we have to rely on other, less precise methods. What scientists have determined is that MMGW is highly probable. Far more probable then the idea that we are not having an effect. The retreat to a demand for absolute proof is ridiculous, because it will never happen.

So you admit that your suggestion that I/we disprove MMGW was "ridiculous". good, because it is up to you people who wish to claim this theory as "fact" to show how it is...although you can't....

The main point here is that if you don't understand it, then how do you know how to "solve" it or better yet - IF we should solve it. (to prevent the typical reaction from your kind - I support reasonable efforts to maintain a clean enviroment and reduce pollution - but not because of MMGW)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

So man didn't cause the pause but we cause MMGW?

You use 5,5 and 4,6 but do we really have an idea how much we affect things?

It's not up to me to disprove MMGW, it's up to you "believers" to show the proof and you have not yet done so. You have guesses, theories, and projections but you can't provide proof.

Right. To use a more extreme example, if the sun went out tomorrow the earth would freeze. This would not disprove MMGW. There are simply more factors in play than how much CO2 we pump into the air. This does not mean that the CO2 we pump into the air does not have a substantial effect.

Insofar as how much we affect the climate we have pretty good tools for looking at that. If you look at any decent paper on the subject they always project how much of the variance they are accounting for in them. When you say things like this, it makes me think that you have done almost no real reading on this subject outside what you've gleaned from global warming denier sites and blogs.

As has been said so many times, you will never get proof in a system as large and complex as the earth. Since it cannot be replicated in a lab, we have to rely on other, less precise methods. What scientists have determined is that MMGW is highly probable. Far more probable then the idea that we are not having an effect. The retreat to a demand for absolute proof is ridiculous, because it will never happen.

So you admit that your suggestion that I/we disprove MMGW was "ridiculous". good, because it is up to you people who wish to claim this theory as "fact" to show how it is...although you can't....

The main point here is that if you don't understand it, then how do you know how to "solve" it or better yet - IF we should solve it. (to prevent the typical reaction from your kind - I support reasonable efforts to maintain a clean enviroment and reduce pollution - but not because of MMGW)

When did I ever suggest that you disprove man made global warming? I have repeatedly asked you and others to back up your assertions with legitimate studies and science on the topic, but that's a fundamental rule of any scientific debate where the two people aren't experts. (it also is particularly helpful here because most deniers on here don't have a single clue what they are talking about).

To answer your other question, it's really easy. As I've stated repeatedly in my replies to you, we know that man caused global warming through the mechanism of greenhouse gas emissions is highly probable. So, reducing those emissions is how you solve it. Sure we don't understand our climate perfectly (or anywhere near perfectly), but that doesn't mean we don't understand certain aspects of it well enough to act upon.

Acting to curb CO2 emissions based upon the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence is simply being rational. Sure there's a possibility that science could be wrong, but it is far more likely that they are not. While we could look foolish one day for working to stop these emissions if we're wrong, I would imagine that sitting here and doing nothing with this mountain of evidence staring us in the face would look like suicidal insanity to future generations.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
...I would imagine that sitting here and doing nothing with this mountain of evidence staring us in the face would look like suicidal insanity to future generations.

I wonder.. given how history is usually written by those in charge, will future generations even know what really happened?

Somehow i think that the mainstream meme will be that there was no way for the governments of our time to know the truth or that somehow the evidence was murky and unclear up until it was too late. Any holders of dissenting opinions will be laughed at and mocked as conspiracy theorists.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: eskimospy
...I would imagine that sitting here and doing nothing with this mountain of evidence staring us in the face would look like suicidal insanity to future generations.

I wonder.. given how history is usually written by those in charge, will future generations even know what really happened?

Somehow i think that the mainstream meme will be that there was no way for the governments of our time to know the truth or that somehow the evidence was murky and unclear up until it was too late. Any holders of dissenting opinions will be laughed at and mocked as conspiracy theorists.

The evidence is "murky and unclear."

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: eskimospy
...I would imagine that sitting here and doing nothing with this mountain of evidence staring us in the face would look like suicidal insanity to future generations.

I wonder.. given how history is usually written by those in charge, will future generations even know what really happened?

Somehow i think that the mainstream meme will be that there was no way for the governments of our time to know the truth or that somehow the evidence was murky and unclear up until it was too late. Any holders of dissenting opinions will be laughed at and mocked as conspiracy theorists.

The evidence is "murky and unclear."

Wow that was quicker than I'd thought it would be. In the future, things move much faster than I am used to. Lies and falsehoods move at superluminal speed!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The evidence is "murky and unclear."

Wow that was quicker than I'd thought it would be. In the future, things move much faster than I am used to. The truth moves at superluminal speed!

fixed.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I just read this article today. Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?
The most interesting part is that NASA is going back and changing old data to make GW look real.

Who's in charge of NASA's date? "Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of the temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen - Al Gore's science advisor and the world's leading long-term advocate of global warming."

That was a good find, thanks.

Always happy to know that NASA will freely edit the data of the entire last century. That's what they get paid to do after all.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I just read this article today. Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?
The most interesting part is that NASA is going back and changing old data to make GW look real.

Who's in charge of NASA's date? "Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of the temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen - Al Gore's science advisor and the world's leading long-term advocate of global warming."

That was a good find, thanks.

Always happy to know that NASA will freely edit the data of the entire last century. That's what they get paid to do after all.

I believe that's what you call F.U.D.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


Nice straw man...

The debate is not about resources and pollution. The debate is whether we spend billions of dollars to combat something that might not actually exist.

For the record:
going green = great
spending money to fund alternative energy = great
reducing our use of fossil fuels = great

spending billions of dollars chasing 'mandates' so we can feel good about ourselves = bad

Get over yourself, PJ There's no question about whether global warming is real, except in the fridged vacuum between your ears, and there's no question that human beings are the major cause of it. If we don't mandate action, now, by the time the majority of idiots who either are so uninformed that they don't know it's coming, and the majority of self-centered idiots who deny that it's happening will have forestalled action until it's too late to do anything to save our planet.

Unless you've got another one all prep'd and ready to handle the entire population of the planet AND the means to get everyone there, continuing to spew your bullshit makes you a menace to humanity.

:roll: Climate change is real - that is all that is known. MMGW has NOT been shown to be real. Some are saying the warming has stopped and that we're on a cooling trend for the next decade or more. But you folks keep spewing your MMGW religion and we will continue to point and laugh at your willing ignorance.

Every major scientific organization on the planet has stated that they support the following IPCC statement:

Scientific opinion on climate change

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

See Wiki

But of course YOU know much more than these organizations. Rather than conceding that the evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change is at least "strong", you dissemble by stating, "It hasn't been proven," as if ANY scientific theory is EVER proven.

Let's make this explicit: How strong do you think the overall scientific case is - weighing the evidence for and against - in support of MMGW? And a follow-up question: On what are you basing your opinion? Do you subscribe to and/or religiously read most of the following peer-reviewed journals on Atmospheric science to keep fully abreast of the latest research on climate change?

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Canadian Journal of Earth Science
Earth Interactions
Global Environmental Change
Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of Climate
Journal of the IEST
Journal of Physical Oceanography
National Weather Digest

If your answer is "no," then how are you making a determination of where the preponderance of evidence lies? What is this independent means you've discovered that gives you your incredible insights on climate change without having to burden yourself reading the basic research papers? And how can climatologists the world over contact you to arrange for you to teach them the amazing truths your learned?

 

[DealMonkey]

Ahhhh, the hubris of the anti-MMGW crowd. They think they know more than the vast majority of the world's climate scientists and scientific organizations who have massed millions of man-hours studying the issue. Just like their belief in God, no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever convince them otherwise.