Global warming deniers, can you also deny ocean acidification?

I don't understand. Do you think that Al Gore invented climate change out of whole cloth or do you think that he seized control of 1,000's of scientists across the world and all of their data?

Your obsession with Al Gore is a little creepy.

Don't believe me, then google everything about him and get back to me. None of this stuff is made up. Truth hurts.

Your belief in global warming is even more creepy, that you actually fell for it.

Algore King of Carbon Credits wrote:

Don't believe me, then google everything about him and get back to me. None of this stuff is made up. Truth hurts.

Your belief in global warming is even more creepy, that you actually fell for it.

You don't get it. Al Gore didn't make up the science. The science predates his involvement, what he did was focus attention on the issue.

What you're saying is the same as arguing that because a company specializes in roof repairs it must cause hurricanes.

No ironic123, I believe the lack of reliable data requires looking at the proposed solutions to see why unverifiable claims are being made. As was pointed out by someone else, the contributions of CO2, which are a miniscule contributor to the greenhouse effect by comparison with water vapor, are tiny compared to natural causes.

When the solution is to force taxpayers to fund demonstrably impractical technologies another motive is presumed, and the motive dominates the attempt to make some sense of the science, particularly when the models being used for prediction are not dynamic models, and were not built for predicting climatic behavior.

In Amory Lovins case, he is 40 year acolyte of E.F Shumacher, a utopian Marxist. Lovins has made a living telling everyone else their lives must change, and their use of energy is denying others that energy. Small is beautiful unless you prefer to live on a subsistence farm.

Holdren is much the same. Holdren never did science. He is was mentored by Paul Ehrlich, who believed we needed to limit population by whatever means. Ehrlich has the distiction of having written one of the most ridiculous books of gloom predictions, The Population Bomb, ever. Holdren is maintained by Theresa Kerry's inheritance, just like John Kerry. His grad students claim he is a committed Marxist, as his writing for Ramparts, which only tolerated Marxists would indicate.

Holdren, Hart, and the Ehrlichs made a famous wager with economist Julian Simon (The Ultimate Resource), Simon wagering that there is no such thing as limited resources. That was a sacrilege to the doomers. The Holdren gang of Marxists split their bet on five or six carefully selected minerals. After the agreed upon period, five years is my recolleciton, Holdren/Ehrlich had lost on all five minerals. In his breathtaking arrogance, Holdren paid but never admitted having been wrong. Both Ehrlich and Holdren have made more money as celibrities on the lecture circuit, and Holdren, with a MacArthur prize, (almost as ridiculous as Gore and Obama's Nobel prizes) Kennedy School appointment, and acolades, but no science.

Global warming is a political hoax. Some proponents like "Green Jobs" Van Jones want to bring down capitalism. Some like Al Gore have get richer quicker schemes based upon cap and trade laws, with the able assistence of Kleiner Perkins, probably betting on Gore's celebrity and the abundance of technically naive liberals, and crooks in government. Some are just naive utopians who flock to the cause of the week without knowing what they are doing.

As for technologies, governments should be the last to decide. Government doesn't need to make a profit. Let the market decide. Look what the market has done in the semiconductor and communications industries.

The scientific points in your first sentence are either misleading or false.

Listen, if I was convinced that people were trying to overthrow capitalism, and using climate change to do so, I would be upset too. But I wouldn't be so naive as to pretend the science was something different than the reality.

Also, your last sentence doesn't make any sense.

Interesting how in all forms major media, the topic of global warming is a fore gone conclusion. But in a setting like this where real people can say what they think, there is not such overwhleming support for global warming. Global warming is a hoax.

You just made a groundbreaking discovery. The general public is ignorant!! I had no idea.

Look, these are the same people who think Obama was in power when the bank bailouts were passed, who think health insurance reform was a government takeover, and who think that Republicans stand for family values. So it is no surprise that they don't "believe" science, but do believe that God gave them dominion to destroy the earth.

IPCC can't see jake wrote:

Interesting how in all forms major media, the topic of global warming is a fore gone conclusion. But in a setting like this where real people can say what they think, there is not such overwhleming support for global warming. Global warming is a hoax.

Yes, let's put real world issues to a vote.

just saying wrote:

You just made a groundbreaking discovery. The general public is ignorant!! I had no idea.

Look, these are the same people who think Obama was in power when the bank bailouts were passed, who think health insurance reform was a government takeover, and who think that Republicans stand for family values. So it is no surprise that they don't "believe" science, but do believe that God gave them dominion to destroy the earth.

You sound like one of those liberal eugenists. Aren't all liberals really closeted racists? I digress.

It is my understanding the equations to make famous hockey graph could take random numbers and turn it into the hockey graph. Oh, but that is what God told me since I am conservative (but not a Republicrat). I couldn't have possibly understood the science or even know what a random number is.

If you believe in the AGW hoax, then you most likely believe in population reduction. If so, then kill yourself since that is the conclusion.

Us liberty minded people believe you can kill yourself, or have many children. That is your choice, something that liberals don't offer. Liberals simply don't believe in personal freedom.

I just watched the whole video. First of all, I think it's funny at minute 6:20 - 6:40 when he says "we drilled thru 900 meters of water". No shit. You must have had a diamond-tipped drill for that.

But seriously, I must object to his statements around minutes 13:00 - 16:00. He's comparing the various (5 or 6) naturally-derived temperature measurements such as corals and tree rings over the last 1000 years and showing how different they are from one another. He even says "you can see there's some signals there, some records show lower temps than others. Some show greater variability." Then he goes on to say "but then at the very end [of the graph chronologically] is where we have the instrumental record in black. There's a temperature up there in 2009. We've warmed the globe about a degree centigrade in the last century. And there's nothing in the natural part of that record that resembles what we've seen in the last century. You know, that's the strength of our argument that we're doing something that's different [AGW]." Wait a second! Didn't you just say "There's nothing in the natural part of the record that resembles what we've seen in the last century"? Could that be because we don't have an instrumental record prior to the last century? So it would seem that's the weakness of your AGW argument. Not your strength.

Sorry, this guy sounds like he's talking to pre-schoolers and spoonfeeding them b.s. Just because he says "that's the strength of our argument" doesn't make it so. He can say that 100x but any honestly discerning and carefully listening individual can see the lack of logic in that sequence. Watch it 3 or 4 times and take notes. You can't miss it. It's absolutely moronic and illogical.

by the way, Rob Dunbar, I want you to self-Google later and find this thread. So there you go. Rob Dunbar.

PS. Ron Dunbar, I'm jealous that you get a tour of the Antarctic while I have sit in goddamn cubicle all day long. If you invite me on your boat, I'll play devil's advocate against your dumbass arguments and help you sharpen them. Free advice on the art of persuasion in exchange for boat trip. Deal?

Now that we (us humans) have succesfully warmed the globe and acidified the ocean, can we work on stopping those pesky hurricanes and earthquakes? Maybe sprinkle in a shower or two in the desert so a few more people can eat?

What?

It's literally impossible to have instrumental record prior to the last century. That does NOT mean that it's impossible to determine what has happened prior to the last century.

That's like saying we can't know anything about the Roman Empire because there are no videos (one specific type of evidence) of the roman empire.

There's more to climatology/geology/science than instrumental record, although the instrumental record can help with interpretation and precision.

Why did you not capitalize Roman?

ironic123 wrote:

What?

It's literally impossible to have instrumental record prior to the last century. That does NOT mean that it's impossible to determine what has happened prior to the last century.

I wasn't saying that it's impossible to determine what has happened prior to the last century. Of course there is tree ring data, ice bubbles, and sediments. I get it. What I'm saying is that the instrumental record showing high temps in the last 100 years, as compared to the lower temps shown in the natural indicators, doesn't prove anything. The comparison is invalid precisely because they're vastly different methods of temperature measurement. I would much prefer to compare an apple to an apple. And since we don't have thermometer readings from 1000AD, we can't compare the distant past to today's temperatures using that method. We can only compare today's tree ring data to the past's, and today's ice bubble data to the past's, and today's sediment data to the past's. I can't believe I even have to explain something so obvious. The speaker himself seemed to allude to this, and then did a 180 and said "whoa! Look at the last 100 years of temperature data!!! It's proof of AGW!" Hello, McFly?!?!?!?!

ironic123 wrote:

i find it strange that people can't make the leap from: "the earth has warmed and cooled before man" to "man can influence the warming and cooling."

It's like saying animals went extinct before man, ergo man had nothing to do with the extinction of the dodo.

How can you accept the science behind "the earth has warmed" and blindley discount the science behind "causes of the current warming"? They largely come from the same body of work.

It makes it almost impossible to argue the science if your fundamental ability to reason is impaired.

"Bwah bwah bwah bwah SCIENCE! bwah bwah bwah bleh blah bwah YOU'RE STUPID!"

It's easy to accept one and not the other. One is correct, the other is propaganda. Is that too hard to imagine? Not all science is equal, dontcha know...

So the answer is apparently yes, but no one has written a conspiracy theory yet that has caught on with Fox/Drudge/etc.

Temperature is the constant, you can use the tree ring data from the last century to better calibrate temperature. If you compare tree ring to tree ring you get the same thing but it's "easier" to use thermometers in large part because it's quicker (i.e. you don't have to drill every time you want to make a measurement).

I can't believe I have to explain something so obvious. Once you figure out how the two are related, it's apples to apples.

To the other poster:

Different kinds of science? what are you effing talking about? Applying the scientific method to climate change doesn't work for you?