Nickolai

According to the natural cycles of glaciation with intermediate warming periods of around 10,000 years means the globe should be cooling not warming the cycle is connected to the wobble in the earths axis and the position of the earths wobble means less sunlight falling in the northern hemisphere and colder temps but the Arctic is five degrees above normal. The north Atlantic was reported to be 8 to 13 degrees above and the Pacific ocean off the coast reported to d 8 to 12 degrees above normal. Baby seals have been coming ashore abandoned by their mothers as their food source had moved and it is believed the mothers moved further out to sea in search of food. None of this is normal all of it including a fourth year of drought in CA, with likely a fifth year ahead according to a Stanford University Climatologist is connected to Global warming

Richard94611

BladeRunner, you do annoy me when you misrepresent and fabricate facts. The little stunt you pulled about the House Committee on Environment, for instance, where the references even included a reference that a source that had been paid $1000 to "muddy the waters" of the global warming discussion.

Your presence here doesn't intimidate me in the least.

In this thread,m which is about global warming, you bet I have a one track mind: global warming.

I mention your Tea Party association not because I think that once you joined the Tea Party this convinced you that global warming/climate change is a hoax, but because your membership in that loony organization indicates your state of mind and predispositions, including before you joined. You are a radical right-winger, and your Tea Party membership certainly demonstrates this. And one of the beliefs of you radical right-wingers is that we should all be free of government regulation.

If you are not convinced that we human beings have an enormous influence on our environment, including the atmosphere, then you are just not plugged into reality.

Your comments about CO2 truly show an uninformed mind. I see no evidence that you have understood the mechanism going on in the atmosphere regarding CO2, the absorption of heat, and the effects this is having on the earth's temperature. And while I am at it, your constant attempts to manufacture scientific truth by citing bogus numbers of "scientists" who are not scientists yet whom you claim to support your side of the discussion shows that you have not understood how scientific consensus is established.

I suggest that you try being open-minded to facts and read "Merchants of Doubt."

I wish that global warming were not real, but the evidence certainly shows that it is. The arguments you put up constantly are almost always inaccurate or irrelevant. This is true of the CO2 argument above.

If you feel there is no point in discussing these matters with me, then why don't you stop ? Meanwhile, the world will go on, evidence for global warming will continue to mount up, and most of the leaders of the world, who fortunately are not of your fearful anti-regulatory Tea Party mentality, will continue to take more and more measures to prevent or abate climate change/global warming.

It is simply annoying to see an articulate and quite probably intelligent person like yourself be so close-minded.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Spare me the condescension, Richard. You keep hammering away at this global warming crap as if it were a f*cking religion and government cronyism is the priesthood that preaches to you from regulatory scripture.

You constantly accuse those of us who don't buy the AGW hype of being close minded and yet your position on this is cemented in your brain. You're locked in, man, never to be free from the propaganda.

So, go ahead and enjoy the cool earth while it lasts. But, JSYK, a thousand years from now, when you and I are long gone, the earth will still be here, fat and happy, rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun. The cold-hearted orb that rules the night will still orbit the earth and run the tides. Wolves will still howl and men will still fight. All that said, there is the remote possibility of a cataclysmic event that could alter the future of earth permanently, but it sure as hell won't be because of greenhouse gases. Even if all the ice on earth melted into the oceans, much of the major continents would remain dry. The possibility of that happening short of a major cosmic event is so remote that it is ridiculous to worry about.

Richard94611

Richard94611

Yes, BladeRunner, I keep harping on this subject because I have personally seen the results of climate change/global warming, and because the evidence that these things are happening were long ago established, though you choose to ignore it.

If the evidence were not there, if the overwhelming percentage of climate scientists and climate specialists did not say it is happening, then your popular magazine experts would have more credibility. Maybe your hubris convinces you that you are smarter on this subject than the American Association for the Advancement of Science, but given the position of that organization's members, I think it highly likely that you are simply dead wrong.

Your pronouncements on climate change first became highly suspect to me when you tried to foist that minority report from the Republican members of the House Committee on Environment as though this was a majority report, and where you failed to see that their stance was purely a political one, not a scientific one. I wondered at the time if you were stupid or duplicitous. That the references included "evidence" from a retired scientist whom it had been discovered had been paid $1,000 "to muddy the waters" intellectually about the issue must have escaped your attention. Or, this form of lying just didn't seem important to you.

One of the manipulations you climate change deniers constantly engage in is to talk about how mankind will survive and "a thousand years from now", etc., etc., etc. We are not talking about man';s survival or a thousand years from now. We are talking about what is now happening, what has happened in the last 40 - 50 years, and what is highly likely to continue happening in the rest of the present century. You just don't get it, do you ?

Are you aware that climate change/global warming is going to have vast political implications and cause wars and unrest throughout many areas of the world as climates change, and food supplies are weakened or vanish or move to other countries, and millions of people have to migrate to other countriews where they are perhaps not welcome ? Do you realize that we in this country are going to have to deal with this kind of political unrest ?

And then there is an issue I have not harped on, but have mentioned once or twice, that makes your intellectual position highly suspect. I refer to Seitz, Singer, Nierenberg and Jastrow, to mention four of the main players. As was said deep down in the garage by Deep Throat, BladeRunner, "Follow the money."

These four and several others, have consistently made huge amounts of money in the last forty years by denying a number of phenomena. They started working for the tobacco industry in sowing doubt that smoking causes cancer. They then moved on do the same thing with acid rain, also funded by industry. They were in part funded by Monsanto. Then they moved on to the ozone hole. Then finally they have concentrated on climate change/global warming. In every case they were funded by "institutes" that in fact were funded by industries having a direct, financial interest in muddying the intellectual waters about these things so that government regulation would be avoided and so the industries would continue to earn huge profits at the expense of thousands of lives and many other problems. You cannot credibly deny this because the path is very clear. The path of the money is documented, from the interested industries to conservative institutes and think tanks to the scientists in question. Three of the institutes involved in this were/are the Hudson Institute, the Cato Institute, and the George C. Marshall Institute. These men also worked on the tobacco situation, to sow doubt about the proposition that smoking causes cancer, for the Tobacco Industry Committee for Public Information, the Heartland Institute (funded by Phillip Morris), the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, and the Tobacco Institute. Money was funneled through organizations such as the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.

Yes, I condescend to you because you are either too ignorant or too lazy to read the evidence. Or if you read it and do not see a serious warning flag about the people most active in climate change/global warming denial, then you have to be stupid, which I don't think you are.

Now let us mention another warning flag. When in life you see people doing crooked, deceitful, lying things, you normally are suspicious of those people. Frauds have been perpetrated by climate change deniers in order to confuse the public and prevent government regulation. The first is the Petition Project, which you have so glibly trumpeted as scientific evidence, which it isn't. I posted documented information about that a few posts ago, which evidently you didn't bother reading.

Here is one comment about the Petition Project: "The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren't, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented." The article goes on to say: "Also attached to the petition was an apparent "research paper" titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy's prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson's son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression. (My emphasis -- R94611]

The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

So I ask you, if the data in this project were sound, why did its originators try to make it seem as though it came from a prestigious organization when it did not ? If you don't see something highly suspicious in this, then you must indeed be naive about human nature. Follow the money, BladeRunner.

There were many, many smaller deceptions practiced by the deniers over the years, and these are well-documented. But this major one is most noteworthy because it proves something about the ethics of the people involved.

(You will note that when you posted that list of articles denying climate change just a few days ago, I did read every one of them, and noted to you that they all came from the popular media and none were peer-reviewed.)

You have failed to see what has been called "the tobacco strategy," and to realize that climate change/global warming deniers are using the same tactics that the tobacco industry used for decades to deny that smoking causes cancer. This has been a dishonest attempt to confuse the public and muddy the waters. You, yourself, have fallen for it regarding climate change/global warming.

I am betting that in your investigations of this matter you have not had the intellectual balls to read "Merchants of Doubt." After all, why read something that attacks some of your most cherished notions.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

It works both ways. We truly do not understand how the earth "works" and people who claim they do are bigger deniers of the facts than those who do not claim to know anything at all.

It is true that the earth's climate is changing, it is the reason that most people disagree with. The messengers must be shot.

Richard94611

Nobody is claiming that they understand all the ways the world works. They do claim they understand some of the ways. You are using the classic deniers' argument that "because we don't understand everything, we don't understand anything." The major mechanisms for climate change/global warming are very well known and understood, and follow the laws of physics.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

...so the claim that Carbon Dioxide, single-handedly is destroying the earth, seems to imply that they understand how it works and we just stop breathing that will fix everything, wow. How can mix two comments together that contradict themselves...you don't even understand how to argue correctly, why should I believe anything you have to say.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

You pretend that science doesn't know how CO2 behaves as a greenhouse gas, but I can assure you, we do. You also pretend that CO2 is suggested to be a poison gas, not natural to the environment and life cycles which, I can assure you, it is.

One should only have to say this fifty times for it to be understood, but here's number fifty one; CO2 has been higher in the past and the earth has had higher temps, but it has never risen at the rate that it is rising this time as far as can be determined. The full extent of that aspect is clearly not clearly understood.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

[quote=Dummy Boy]
...so the claim that Carbon Dioxide, single-handedly is destroying the earth, seems to imply that they understand how it works and we just stop breathing that will fix everything, wow. How can mix two comments together that contradict themselves...you don't even understand how to argue correctly, why should I believe anything you have to say.

Work on reading comprehension and stay focused on what is being said. DB pretended nothing of the sort.

Richard94611

Stop misrepresenting what he is saying. You have a penchant for doing that sort of thing. You are ignorant of the facts.

Richard94611

Stop misrepresenting the claim., No wonder you are confused about this issue. It seems that you have difficulty understanding what you read.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

***so the claim that Carbon Dioxide, single-handedly is destroying the earth, seems to imply that they understand how it works and we just stop breathing that will fix everything,****

This is not nor has it ever been true. I gave you a good, in context, response. It seems that it is YOU who need to work on your reading comp.

That comment of his is a red herring of sorts, meant to distract from the true issue. It also implies a lack of understanding of the science involved to begin with. Thus we hear folks claim that we CO2 can't be a problem since plants need it to "breath".

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

No you are the one misrepresenting the facts. Climatology is a very young science and the earth's systems are significantly more complex than your self proclaimed experts are smart.

Politically you always need a boogy man to scare the sheeple into doing what you want them to do.

There are a great many highly respected scientists in a whole host of different areas of expertise that strongly disagree with you and your lemmings.

you should go run and play with your junior chemistry set and leave the science to the adults.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/29/scientists-and-studies-predict-imminent-global-cooling-ahead-drop-in-global-temps-almost-a-slam-dunk/

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

If the earth is billions of years old how can one hundred and fifty years of temperature data tell you anything?