Great series debunking GW-denial pseudo-science

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
.................
Global warming has passed this test and is accepted by 97% of climatologists. When that many scientists studying their own piece of the puzzle all agree that the puzzle looks like man-made global warming, you should probably LISTEN TO THEM, and take rabid right-wing conspiracy theories with a large grain of salt. You know damn well that the right-wing is absolutely pro-industry and anti-environmentalist. They'll do/say ANYTHING to discredit scientists (in favor of Christianity), environmentalists (in favor of rabid "macho" consumption), and industry regulation (which is a GOOD thing).
.....................

Sorry but that is nothing more than hoagwash....

jdub297 recently posted the following thread..

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

Even though the temperature standstill probably has no effect on the long-term warming trend, it does raise doubts about the predictive value of climate models, and it is also a political issue. For months, climate change skeptics have been gloating over the findings on their Internet forums. This has prompted many a climatologist to treat the temperature data in public with a sense of shame, thereby damaging their own credibility.

Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.

www.spiegel.de...


And THE FEW Climatologist who agree with drama queen Hansen were claiming "it's too late to stop Global Warming no matter what we do"... and we have been finding throughout the years that there have been cooling trends such as the last three years which coincided with the Sun's conveyor belt, and overall activity crawling to the lowest levels seen in almost 100 years, and it has continued, and even reduced it's activity more for the past three years.

Now because the low activity of the Sun has weakened and made the Interplanetary magnetic field go through wild fluctuations, there are more cosmic rays, charged particles, plasma, interstellar dust etc entering the Solar System, and scientists recently found that some other SOURCE OUTSIDE OF EARTH is heating the Earth's atmosphere now that the Sun's activity is at a crawl.

You can't just pull a "97% of Climatologists agree with me" out of the "magic hat" when you have no real data to corroborate your WILD claim.

BTW, posting the number from the NYT, or some other wannabe green newspaper does not corroborate your claim....

[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
I present to you the very well researched and soberingly scientific video-blog series "Climate Crock of the Week" by Peter Sinclair.
...........................
If you consider yourself a real seeker of truth and respect sound science, then no matter your position on the subject, please be open minded to the facts/material presented. On the mountain of truth you never climb in vain...

Wow....so in order to refute the tons of facts which have been posted on this website you put the videos of some guy who starts making a false claim that those of us who don't think mankind is the cause for Climate Change he calls "climate deniers"....

NOT ONE OF US denies that there is Climate Change.... What we deny is the claims that mankind is the reason for Climate Change...

Then you go on puting videos in which this "dude" makes CLAIMS which have been REFUTED time and again...

The Medieval Warm Period, and the Roman Warm Periods WERE GLOBAL IN NATURE. Some other members and myself have posted dozens upon dozens of "peer reviewed research papers' which shows the Medieval Warm Period, and Roman Warm Period happened AROUND THE GLOBE...

You have provided NOTHING NEW. These are OLD claims which have been debunked time and again.

Perhaps it is time for you to take your own advice, and IF you are a "seeker of truth" then READ the TONS of "peer reviewed research papers" which have been posted on this same forum, instead of believing "videos" of some "dude" making wild exagerations, and false claims.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

You're bull#ting.

Please stop.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by NoHierarchy

Do you seriously think that's AT ALL what I was saying? No, it wasn't. I'm against cap n' trade too. Didn't you read a word I said? Cap & trade is a pathetic compromise to the fossil-fuel industries. We need something more radical/substantial to curb emissions/pollutants. I really don't understand how you can see a problem with the science being put forward when all of your denialist myths have been debunked hardcore. You have no bedrock to stabilize your arguments, you'll never find one because it doesn't exist. What exists is reality, and scientists do their best to study this reality. Upon doing so they've discovered that the planet is warming unnaturally rapidly and that the overwhelmingly likely cause is human-emissions of greenhouse gases and the subsequent positive feedback effects contributing to a greenhouse effect. Yes you're correct, the oil industries are grabbing power, they always have and continue to. However, they're absolutely NOT trying to convince the world that global warming exists, the exact OPPOSITE is true. The oil industries have put out a 2 decade long economic campaign of propaganda and disinformation on the SCIENTIFIC issue of global warming. They've invested countless dollars in promoting pseudo-science and skepticism of man-made global warming. It's proven that they've done this. If they hadn't, you very likely wouldn't be sitting there arguing their point for them. They've successfully mudied the discussion about global warming into a paranoid b*tch-fest. The fossil fuel industry has hijacked environmentalism, putting out ad-campaigns to make themselves look falsely green. They've hijacked the media and society in general by making people think they're fighting the elites by questioning global warming. I don't care if it makes you feel better to "resist" global warming, you're fighting the wrong battle. The real resistance/revolutionaries are environmentalists, they have been for decades, and all of a sudden you people come in fresh to the scene claiming that environmentalists/scientists are freaking nazis in bed with oil companies, you couldn't POSSIBLY be more wrong. Environmentalists (and even scientists) have a LONG HISTORY OF FIGHTING GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY. You should JOIN them not attack your ally. And that's just what "elites" love- that we're sitting here in forums and in our communities battling EACH OTHER over this issue while they get away with murder, theft, and wholesale environmental destruction.

The reality is ACTUALLY much different than your idea. If you go to the right places on Earth, it's 10 times worse than any scene in Captain Planet caused by Horace Greedly.

...Continued>>>

reply to post by TheRedneck


...Continued...

There is no CO2 scam. It's a greenhouse gas, we've very rapidly increased atmospheric concentrations to levels not seen in ages. What do you think is going to happen in this scenario? You don't even know why you're whining about taxation. The whole anti-taxation movement is a bunch of f*cking peons being dragged into a war against taxes on rich people. The RICH are afraid of taxation. And the taxes right-wing Joe the plumbers are fighting are taxes on the rich/industry, taxes which would really not affect most average Americans to any great extent. And whichever ILLEGITIMATE taxes affect the majority of non-wealthy Americans can just be FOUGHT individually. Who said ANYTHING about everyone living in "dark, dank caves"??? You're setting up total straw-men that have nothing to do with the actual facts. Environmentalists ALREADY DO fight other toxins/pollutants in the environment. You're talking as if environmentalists have ignored everything and become brainwashed by global warming- NO, they haven't. We're still focusing on everything else, global warming is just one more giant thing to tack onto the laundry list of environmental f*ck-ups we're guilty of. And it MUST be stopped along with everything else. We're not just going to let deniers win their false argument on a topic as serious as global warming. Nobody is saying CO2 is "poisonous/toxic/deadly". They're saying that it's a freakin GREENHOUSE GAS and that we're emitting TOO MUCH of it. It then causes GLOBAL WARMING and results in dangerous CLIMATE CHANGE. It's a very simple equation that you guys purposely mangle in order to make environmentalists look silly. We actually are quite intelligent, we have our concepts straight, so stop using foolish/dishonest tactics to try and discredit them. But actually, come to think of it, CO2 in fact IS toxic to humans at high enough levels. Of course, this would have to be in an enclosed space or an entirely different planet. But that's not the argument as far as GW is concerned. The IPCC are irresponsible thieves? Where do you come up with this stuff... seriously. That doesn't even make sense.

The only flea-ridden dogs here are GW deniers. You're a duped minority being sicked on everyone else by industry elites, and you're so rabid that you never actually glance behind you at your corporate owners to see who's really holding your leash and feeding you your rotting propaganda.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Fear-used to implement an agenda of TAX and CONTROL

I trump your propaganda with propaganda from 40 years ago.

Here was their first attempt-but the older of us, were just a tad more knowledgeable of their ways, than the people of today.

These are from this site, they put this together of the last propaganda attempt to control and tax by weather forecasting.
www.masterresource.org...

“Predictions of future climate trends by Stephen Schneider and other leading climatologists, based on the prevailing knowledge of the atmosphere in the early 1970s, gave more weight to the potential problem of global cooling than it now appears to merit.” - Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Betrayal of Science and Reason (Washington: Island Press, 1996), p. 34.

“Certainly the threat of another ice age was the topic of much scientific and popular discussion in the 1970s. Books and articles entitled ‘The Cooling,’ ‘Blizzard,’ ‘Ice,’ and ‘A Mini Ice Age Could Begin in a Decade,’ abounded. The ‘snow blitz’ theory was popularized on the public television presentation of ‘The Weather Machine’ in 1975. And certainly the winters of the late 1970s were enough to send shivers through our imaginations.” - Harold Bernard, Jr., The Greenhouse Effect (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing, 1980), p. 20.

“The worriers about cooling included Science, the most influential scientific journal in the world, quoting an official of the World Meteorological Organization; the National Academy of Sciences worrying about the onset of a 10,000 year ice age; Newsweek warning that food production could be adversely affected within a decade; the New York Times quoting an official of the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Science Digest, the science periodical with the largest circulation.” - Julian Simon, “What Does the Future Hold? The Forecast in a Nutshell,” in Simon, ed., The State of Humanity (Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1995), p. 646.

“In the early 1970s, the northern hemisphere appeared to have been cooling at an alarming rate. There was frequent talk of a new ice age. Books and documentaries appeared, hypothesizing a snowblitz or sporting titles such as The Cooling. Even the CIA got into the act, sponsoring several meetings and writing a controversial report warning of threats to American security from the potential collapse of Third World Governments in the wake of climate change.” - Stephen Schneider, Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century? (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1989), p. 199.

“Some climatologists believe that the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, at least, may decline by two or three degrees by the end of the century. If that climate change occurs, there will be megadeaths and social upheaval because grain production in high latitudes (Canada, northern regions of China and the Soviet Union) will decrease.” - George Will, “A Change in the Weather,” Washington Post, January 24, 1975, quoted in James Fleming, Historical Perspectives on Climate Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 132-33.

“The dramatic importance of climate changes to the world’s future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. This well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immediate consideration.” - Stephen Schneider, Back cover endorsement, Lowell Ponte, The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive It (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976).

Would you like me to post more propaganda lies?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You're wrong. Latif was taken out of context and even stated himself that any upcoming "cooling" will be a very brief fluctuation in the general upward temp trends. There is very minimal evidence that cosmic rays/solar output has anything to do with our global warming...


mediamatters.org...

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

www.wired.com...

www.livescience.com...

www.sciencedaily.com...

reply to post by endisnighe


Actually... there was hardly ANY consensus amongst scientists/climatologists in the 70's on global cooling. It was sensationalized by the media (i.e. the quotes you provided) as a possibility, but wasn't very popular in scientific journals/peer-reviewed texts:

www.skepticalscience.com...

www.realclimate.org...

www.newscientist.com...

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Do you seriously think that's AT ALL what I was saying?

It seemed to be. Here are your exact words:

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
STOP F*CKING TALKING ABOUT CARBON TAXES.

It seems like that's all you've got.

I simply explained that the carbon taxes are the reason for the opposition.

But, of course, you have much more to say now:

Cap & trade is a pathetic compromise to the fossil-fuel industries. We need something more radical/substantial to curb emissions/pollutants.

I would like to know exactly what it is you are trying to accomplish, then. Should we remove all carbon dioxide from the air? Half of it? What carbon dioxide level are you happy with?

I really don't understand how you can see a problem with the science being put forward when all of your denialist myths have been debunked hardcore. You have no bedrock to stabilize your arguments, you'll never find one because it doesn't exist.

Please, set me straight. Show me the calculations. Show me the model. Show me the observations.

Oh, that's right... you can't. All you can show me are the conclusions.

they've discovered that the planet is warming unnaturally rapidly and that the overwhelmingly likely cause is human-emissions of greenhouse gases and the subsequent positive feedback effects contributing to a greenhouse effect.

Unnaturally? Would you care to explain what is unnatural about it?

Overwhelmingly likely? Would you care to explain exactly what effect is likely the culprit and why the likelihood is overwhelming?

The oil industries have put out a 2 decade long economic campaign of propaganda and disinformation on the SCIENTIFIC issue of global warming. They've invested countless dollars in promoting pseudo-science and skepticism of man-made global warming. It's proven that they've done this. If they hadn't, you very likely wouldn't be sitting there arguing their point for them.

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying my arguments are proof of collusion?

They've successfully mudied the discussion about global warming into a paranoid b*tch-fest. The fossil fuel industry has hijacked environmentalism, putting out ad-campaigns to make themselves look falsely green.

Yeah, that idea of having hard data that can be independently examined gets in the way sometimes... darn that silly Scientific Method anyway! We should throw that out as well as transparency.

They've hijacked the media and society in general by making people think they're fighting the elites by questioning global warming.

I just spent an entire day trying to find some exact information on the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide as it relates to reflected infrared energy. Know what I found? Articles on ways to sequester carbon dioxide. I also spent several hours trying to find out what the emission spectrum of carbon dioxide was. Know what I found? Articles on carbon emissions, breakdowns of carbon emissions by country, region, continent, etc.

And the opponents of AGW have taken over the debate? I'll say one thing for you: you are certainly good for a laugh!

I don't care if it makes you feel better to "resist" global warming, you're fighting the wrong battle.

Ummm, my air conditioner is off. And this time of year, I would feel better if I could have some Global Warming.

I 'resist' nothing. I only demand answers to my questions before I hand over what little living I have to some companies that A) have more than I do, and B) can't answer my questions.

The real resistance/revolutionaries are environmentalists, they have been for decades, and all of a sudden you people come in fresh to the scene claiming that environmentalists/scientists are freaking nazis in bed with oil companies, you couldn't POSSIBLY be more wrong.

'Established revolutionaries'? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Environmentalists (and even scientists) have a LONG HISTORY OF FIGHTING GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY.

Really? Exactly when did that all change? You are aware of the Copenhagen Conference in three days, right? The one where President Obama may well sign over US sovereignty to the UN in compliance with environmental/scientific wishes?

Environmentalists may have once fought against government, but now they seem to be all buddy-buddy.

If you go to the right places on Earth, it's 10 times worse than any scene in Captain Planet caused by Horace Greedly.

Oh, so you do remember Captain Planet! Here's a tip: Horace Greedly isn't real. Whoopi Goldberg isn't Gaia either.

There is no CO2 scam. It's a greenhouse gas, we've very rapidly increased atmospheric concentrations to levels not seen in ages.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas in that it will absorb three narrow bands in the IR spectrum, these being approximately 2.7, 4.5, and 15 microns if I am not mistaken. The bandwidth of these appear to be less than half a micron, although exact data seems to be well-buried amidst the cries of gloom and doom. That covers a very small portion of the total IR spectrum.

The drastic increase you mention is 100 ppmv (380 ppmv - 280 ppmv) over a period of from 30-50 years (depending on who you ask). 100 ppmv is 0.01% of the total volume of the atmosphere. That means if your home is around 2000 square feet, you've got an extra 0.0316 ounce of carbon dioxide in the entire house. If we keep increasing the concentration at the same rate (assuming the 30 year timespan), you will will have a whole ounce of extra carbon dioxide in that home in 960 years... in the year 2969.

Yeah, that's drastic...

The whole anti-taxation movement is a bunch of f*cking peons being dragged into a war against taxes on rich people. The RICH are afraid of taxation. And the taxes right-wing Joe the plumbers are fighting are taxes on the rich/industry, taxes which would really not affect most average Americans to any great extent.

OK, now you're being just plain silly. You really don't think those taxes will be passed on to the consumer? You really think the wealthiest people in the world will just sit there and wring their hands, saying "Woe is me!" while they take those taxes themselves to keep Joe's costs down? We have to buy that power, and it will not be sold for less than it costs to produce, including taxes: that much is historically proven, logical, hard FACT.

Environmentalists ALREADY DO fight other toxins/pollutants in the environment.

As do I. I challenge you to find one post, just one, anywhere on ATS (or on the entire Internet, for that matter) where I ever stated that we need more SO2, more atmospheric methane, more nitrates... Again, I repeat myself: My only concern at this time is heinous regulation of a naturally-occurring harmless gas called carbon dioxide through taxes which do not even go toward any environmental concern.

We're not just going to let deniers win their false argument on a topic as serious as global warming. Nobody is saying CO2 is "poisonous/toxic/deadly".

Au contraire! You may not be saying that, but certainly others are! I have even been told CO2 is a carcinogen!

But actually, come to think of it, CO2 in fact IS toxic to humans at high enough levels. Of course, this would have to be in an enclosed space or an entirely different planet.

So is water, and on this planet.

The IPCC are irresponsible thieves? Where do you come up with this stuff... seriously.

Irresponsible: reliance on temperature monitors placed improperly according to the IPCC's own requirements; apparent destruction of data; personal e-mails which show scientific bias; lack of complete information on environmental conditions; disregard for observed deviations from predictions.

Thieves: CO2 Cap & Trade, Copenhagen, Denmark, Dec 7, 2009.

The only flea-ridden dogs here are GW deniers. You're a duped minority being sicked on everyone else by industry elites, and you're so rabid that you never actually glance behind you at your corporate owners to see who's really holding your leash and feeding you your rotting propaganda.

And that must be the reason you went on this tear over a statement, in response to a question from you, that my only concern is CO2 Cap & Trade. Which one of us is more 'rabid'?

Sheesh...

TheRedneck

This might interest some of you...

The arguments made by climate change sceptics...


news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Nobody is saying CO2 is "poisonous/toxic/deadly".

Really? Want to tell Carol Browner, Lisa Anderson, Steve Chu, John Holdren and Barack Obama that?

EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger

Want to see what your fellow faithful are saying on ATS?

Report: EPA To Declare 6 Gases A Public Health Risk

EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger

Do you read what you post. or just copy and paste from your bible or hymnbook?

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 6-12-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
It seemed to be...
I simply explained that the carbon taxes are the reason for the opposition.

But, of course, you have much more to say now...

I would like to know exactly what it is you are trying to accomplish, then. Should we remove all carbon dioxide from the air? Half of it? What carbon dioxide level are you happy with?

Actually no that's not all that I was saying. You're putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say you wanted something bad to happen to the planet. I was saying STOP TALKING ABOUT CARBON TAXES so much. Why? Because both sides already agree that they're not the best option. You're beating a dead horse by falsely presenting carbon taxes as the only proposed solution and as some uber-evil. It's a useless pet issue and you're blowing it out of proportion either way.

There is a movement called the 350 movement ( www.350.org... ) which calls for a reduction of CO2 below 350 ppm. Personally I think this is a decent goal. HOWEVER, I am actually in much more agreement with Derrick Jensen on the issue. We need to reduce atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels (280ppm) to actually redeem ourselves and the environment:


(If you prefer, you can skip to 4:45 to get straight to the point on the 350 movement)

Please, set me straight. Show me the calculations. Show me the model. Show me the observations.

Oh, that's right... you can't. All you can show me are the conclusions.

I've already shown you plenty of evidence. It's out there for all to see. You're just selectively shutting it out based on your very loose biases towards science and scientific organizations. Instead you trust random nobodies in the denial camp, taking their thimbles of weak and usually dead-wrong "evidence" over the mountain of findings by thousands of professional scientists.

www.ucsusa.org...

cdiac.ornl.gov...

www.aip.org...

Unnaturally? Would you care to explain what is unnatural about it?

Overwhelmingly likely? Would you care to explain exactly what effect is likely the culprit and why the likelihood is overwhelming?

I use the word "unnaturally" meaning man-made or not indicative of a natural climate cycle. You already know the effect of greenhouse gases. It's already been explained how the evidence is overwhelming. 97% of climatologists agree on the fundamental tenets of man-made global warming. That is an OVERWHELMING majority. Not to mention the actual findings by the network of scientists OVERWHELMINGLY bolsters the case for AGW. The claims of climate change "skeptics" are extremely minute in actual scale. And most are from either paid-off sources or unreliable/unrelated ones. Seriously, I shouldn't have to rehash the most elementary issues with you, you should already know these things.

...Continued>>>

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying my arguments are proof of collusion?

You are not understanding me correctly. However, now that you bring it up semi-defensively yourself... are you in collusion??
Seriously though, it should have been obvious that my point was- if the fossil fuel industries (and industry-obsessed right-wing think-tanks) didn't purposely fund disinformation/propaganda and muddy the debate decades ago, it's quite unlikely that so many peope would be GW deniers. Their efforts have had a real effect, otherwise they wouldn't have spent the money on it. It's really not so hard to believe that people could be duped by such a thing. It happens all the time with every issue. Especially amongst a crowd like this which is already receptive to conspiracy theories. And personally, I am too, but I take them with a large grain of salt and a great interest. Toss out the bunk conspiracy, hold on to the random gems of under-reported truth. And so far, my observation is that the REAL news on global warming is seriously under-reported. Whereas they tend to focus on either sensationalizing the issue in a less intellectual fashion and/or presenting denial claims on an even par with assertions of AGW, which they definitely are NOT on par. Not to mention- the media rarely suggests serious solutions in government/industry/society/lifestyle, because this might upset the poor/sensitive sponsors and viewers who are too cushy living as voracious consmers to want to change their ways. But even so, many people DO want to change but they aren't being given real/mature information on it from the media. This is their responsibility and they squander it.

Yeah, that idea of having hard data that can be independently examined gets in the way sometimes... darn that silly Scientific Method anyway! We should throw that out as well as transparency.

I just spent an entire day trying to find some exact information on the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide as it relates to reflected infrared energy. Know what I found? Articles on ways to sequester carbon dioxide. I also spent several hours trying to find out what the emission spectrum of carbon dioxide was. Know what I found? Articles on carbon emissions, breakdowns of carbon emissions by country, region, continent, etc.

And the opponents of AGW have taken over the debate? I'll say one thing for you: you are certainly good for a laugh!

Your response didn't even make sense there... at all. But to humor you, that's exactly what industry is muddying/destroying- rational scientific discussion and presentation of REAL scientific findings using the scientific method rather than filtered industry bias/cherry-picking/greenwashing.
And what does spending an entire day trying to find that information have to do with what I said? It doesn't. You continue to miss my points and then respond as if you "nailed" me, but you've only hammered yourself in the thumb. Of course NOW opponents of AGW have taken over the debate. But my point was that in the beginning, up until recent years, it was hijacked by industry and industry sympathizers. This shows an absolute politico-economic bias when the real issue is SCIENTIFIC discussion. If those in government/media/industry actually treated this issue objectively and scientifically, they'd absolutely have to conclude that AGW is real. But that would impact their bottom line, even their ideologies, and they are too damn corrupt/stubborn to admit defeat or wrongdoing, and especially to then change their ways.

...Continued>>>

Ummm, my air conditioner is off. And this time of year, I would feel better if I could have some Global Warming.

I 'resist' nothing. I only demand answers to my questions before I hand over what little living I have to some companies that A) have more than I do, and B) can't answer my questions.

I meant I don't care if it makes you feel better to resist (i.e. deny) AGW. I live near Chicago, so I hear you on that. However, if you want warmer climates, move further south. Global warming will not be pretty if we let it get out of hand. Uncomfortably cold weather will potentially be the least of our worries.

By participating in the fossil fuel economy and voting for corrupt, industry-bribed politicians, you're already handing over what little you have to these uber-rich companies. We must stop this. We must stop the industry monopoly on not only energy supply but also on control of our government and land/resources. We must take the power back as citizens and not let rich/powerful entities steal it from us while poisoning our environment/water/food/minds.

'Established revolutionaries'? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Well... first, I didn't use the word 'established'. And second of all- No. How would an established revolutionary/resistance movement be an oxymoron? They've existed all throughout history. Where are you comin from with this stuff?

Really? Exactly when did that all change? You are aware of the Copenhagen Conference in three days, right? The one where President Obama may well sign over US sovereignty to the UN in compliance with environmental/scientific wishes?

Environmentalists may have once fought against government, but now they seem to be all buddy-buddy.

Yes really. And it didn't change. I am aware of the conference and you're crazy to think he's going to freaking "sign over US sovereignty" to the UN. Show me the real proof that he's doing exactly that, and don't make vague connections or exaggerated conclusions either. Don't act like you know anything about the environmental movement. Environmentalists aren't "all buddy-buddy" with the government/industry now. That's somewhat anti-thetical to the actual movement. Of course environmentalists try to work with government/industry when they can have success doing so. And if in any way environmentalists ARE "buddying" up to government, it's because it's FINALLY paying some attention/doing something substantial about an environmental problem and well... why the hell WOULDN'T environmentalists encourage/support that? Government isn't ALWAYS evil, neither is industry, they're just DANGEROUS. I'm an Anarchist for chrissakes, and I can admit that. Good things can be done through them, but ultimately they get in the way. However, in many respects, I support government over industry, specifically in the ways that government can be used more directly by we the citizenry to prevent industry from destroying the environment, our health, or steal from/deceive us. But like I've said, government has been bought off in many ways by industry, and we need to END that. If this government is supposed to represent and be run of/by/for the people, then let's AT LEAST make it do that as long as it exists.

Oh, so you do remember Captain Planet! Here's a tip: Horace Greedly isn't real. Whoopi Goldberg isn't Gaia either.

Of course I remember Captain Planet. And the character from the show was Hoggish Greedly lampooning Horace Greely. And Whoopi Goldberg isn't Gaia...? Wtf?


...Continued>>>

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas in that it will absorb three narrow bands in the IR spectrum, these being approximately 2.7, 4.5, and 15 microns if I am not mistaken. The bandwidth of these appear to be less than half a micron, although exact data seems to be well-buried amidst the cries of gloom and doom. That covers a very small portion of the total IR spectrum.

The drastic increase you mention is 100 ppmv (380 ppmv - 280 ppmv) over a period of from 30-50 years (depending on who you ask). 100 ppmv is 0.01% of the total volume of the atmosphere. That means if your home is around 2000 square feet, you've got an extra 0.0316 ounce of carbon dioxide in the entire house. If we keep increasing the concentration at the same rate (assuming the 30 year timespan), you will will have a whole ounce of extra carbon dioxide in that home in 960 years... in the year 2969.

Yeah, that's drastic...

You are correct on the absorbtive IR bands for CO2. I don't think the data is buried beneath cries of gloom and doom. Such science is quite ambiguous/complex to the public and cannot simply be explained thoroughly every time global warming is mentioned. Also, the data is out there, and it didn't take me hours to find. More like seconds-minutes. Relatively yes, it does cover a small portion of the IR spectrum. However, that doesn't mean the amount of heat trapped/radiated back towards the surface in those bands is not substantial enough to cause global temperature increases. You're trying to minimize the percentage of CO2 as compared to the total volume of the atmosphere, however, most of our atmosphere is composed of Nitrogen/Oxygen which are only double-atom molecules. Greenhouse gases are molecules composed of 3 or more atoms, with that kind of molecular structure, radiative vibration becomes much more pronounced and tends to trap heat in what I liken to an atmospheric net, like mini molecular catcher's mitts for infrared radiation. So what you're conveniently leaving out is the TOTAL tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. Atmospheric concentration/percentages might seem unimpressive, however the actual net amounts of CO2 are quite impressive. There are about 3 teratonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere currently. So, not a lot as a percentage, but a lot as a general amount. So the logic is- when infrared radiation beams down to the Earth and gets trapped, it doesn't discern CO2 as a percentage and then trap itself accordingly, it doesn't react to most of the other atmospheric gases at all, IR simply reacts to greenhouse gases (largely CO2) and is trapped proportional to the net amount. So really your assertions show no actual proof that the rise/amount of CO2 in our atmosphere can't still generate the kind of warming we're seeing. If all the CO2 were taken from our atmosphere, we'd see a global drop in temps by about 60 degrees fahrenheit.

This might give you some information on specifics:
www.ipcc.ch...

OK, now you're being just plain silly. You really don't think those taxes will be passed on to the consumer? You really think the wealthiest people in the world will just sit there and wring their hands, saying "Woe is me!" while they take those taxes themselves to keep Joe's costs down? We have to buy that power, and it will not be sold for less than it costs to produce, including taxes: that much is historically proven, logical, hard FACT.

I'm not being silly, it's true. A lot of the anti-taxation movement is supported by wealthy interests who don't want any of their money taken. It's pure greed, especially at a time of all-time lows in taxation of the wealthy and all-time highs in the wealth gap between rich/poor. Those in the upper percentages make a record 976 times more than the average citizen does. And they wanna bitch and moan about ESTATE taxes? As for the carbon tax, I think it could be regulated in a way that the tax would affect industry and the consumer equally. I mean... in America we pay much less than most other countries for our petrol. We've got it good, however, the price we pay doesn't reflect the ENTIRE cost of using fossil fuels. If it was holistic in cost, we'd be paying a lot more, and a carbon tax is a way of balancing that out. I'm not saying it's a good thing that most of us will be paying more of our hard-earned money to gov't/industry, it isn't. However, if we push our congressmen, we can force industry to share a fair burden and not put all of it on the consumer's shoulder. The bottom line though is- we shouldn't be using fossil fuels any longer. They're unsustainable, and one way or another we'll pay a hefty price for using them. The system is far from perfect, and I think as far as government is concerned, one of the most effective things they can do is tax a harmful fuel so that the real costs are more properly represented to both industry and consumers, which in turn will encourage a faster move towards reduced consumption, renewable energy, and other sustainable alternatives. It's not pretty but it's one thing that, according to numbers and market pressures, will probably do its part. So in essence, carbon taxes are not the solution, they're a pressure enforced to rebalance market perspectives in order to PUSH us towards a solution faster. Because at our current rate, the market will never make that push by itself until fossil fuels are depleted. But even with peak oil at hand, we don't have the time (or energy) to wait for that. This is the time to change the world if we want to avoid resource wars, environmental destruction, runaway global warming, and other obvious effects of the depletion of the literal and figurative grease of our global gears.

As do I. I challenge you to find one post, just one, anywhere on ATS (or on the entire Internet, for that matter) where I ever stated that we need more SO2, more atmospheric methane, more nitrates... Again, I repeat myself: My only concern at this time is heinous regulation of a naturally-occurring harmless gas called carbon dioxide through taxes which do not even go toward any environmental concern.

I never said you stated anything like that. I also AGREED with you that focusing on other pollutants is extremely important. My point was that environmentalists are the MAIN groups doing so! And also, part of that environmental fight is against global warming/greenhouse emissions. Also, like I said before, the fact that it's naturally occurring/harmless doesn't mean that the INCREASE is natural nor does it mean that the effects of global warming will be harmless.

Au contraire! You may not be saying that, but certainly others are! I have even been told CO2 is a carcinogen!

That may be, I don't know. Whoever said it's a carcinogen is wrong. But again- at high enough concentrations it can be toxic, but once again that's not the issue. Also, most of the people I've heard talking about CO2 have not called it a carcinogen. Most people rightfully focus on its role as a greenhouse gas alone and not as a poison.

And yes, water is toxic if you ingest too much. And it floods the lungs by drowning if you breathe it in. However, it's also not a gas like CO2. But what's your point?

Irresponsible: reliance on temperature monitors placed improperly according to the IPCC's own requirements; apparent destruction of data; personal e-mails which show scientific bias; lack of complete information on environmental conditions; disregard for observed deviations from predictions.

Thieves: CO2 Cap & Trade, Copenhagen, Denmark, Dec 7, 2009.

Prove all this. And the CRU emails dont count. Also prove that any of what you listed is standard practice and that the IPCC is rife with such rotten corruption. Even if you have a couple legit examples, that doesn't mean the whole organization and everything it releases is bunk, not by a long shot. In fact, most if not all large organizations have a couple or more bad examples/mistakes in their past. This is what I mean, it is HIGHLY unlikely that the IPCC is rife with corruption and that the scientists are all in collusion with nobody speaking out. It's a conspiracy theory which doesn't hold its weight in logic, let alone damning evidence.

And that must be the reason you went on this tear over a statement, in response to a question from you, that my only concern is CO2 Cap & Trade. Which one of us is more 'rabid'?

Sheesh...

I went on a tear because I hear the carbon tax/cap n' trade bullsh*t straw-man being brought up so much as if it's an excellent rebuttal to environmentalists. It angers me because first of all IT'S NOT a great argument, second of all it's WRONG, and third of all, most environmentalists think cap n' trade is crap themselves!

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Nobody is saying CO2 is "poisonous/toxic/deadly".

Really? Want to tell Carol Browner, Lisa Anderson, Steve Chu, John Holdren and Barack Obama that?

EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger

Want to see what your fellow faithful are saying on ATS?

Report: EPA To Declare 6 Gases A Public Health Risk

EPA Poised to Declare CO2 a Public Danger

Do you read what you post. or just copy and paste from your bible or hymnbook?

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 6-12-2009 by jdub297]

Did you read your links there?

Nowhere does it say CO2 will be declared a toxin/poison.

The EPA declaring CO2 a public danger is a decisive step towards getting real about CO2 emissions and their impacts. The declaration is in those gases' relation to global warming and not any kind of toxicity.

Originally posted by December_Rain


Anti-Climate people simply do not have science with them to claim it is not man made or the climate change is not happening other than private blog articles or fox news propaganda.

You seem to be missing a crucial aspect of respectable society however, and that is the fact that those who cast the initial claims, are also the ones responsible for being able to factually prove such. Therefore, the burden of proof is all upon the shoulders of AGW Alarmists, and NOT the other way around. No Pro-AGW Scientist has yet been able to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt (Most of them even admit to such), and everytime a new "Alarming" finding is stirred about and brought to light, another observation soon shoots it down. As a matter of fact, actual field observations have time and again rendered the climate modellings false in their presumptions and understandings.

So, you are absolutely false in your statement, because first and foremost there is no such thing as being "Anti-Climate", as Climate is a facet of sustained Weather Patterns, and those who do remain skeptical of AGW (Which must be what you are referring to), do in fact have science backing them up. Your quip of "News Bite Experts" is true when regarding Alarmists, but it cannot discount the scientists and well-versed citizens who have actually taken the time to read and study actual field reports.

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by December_Rain


Anti-Climate people simply do not have science with them to claim it is not man made or the climate change is not happening other than private blog articles or fox news propaganda.

You seem to be missing a crucial aspect of respectable society however, and that is the fact that those who cast the initial claims, are also the ones responsible for being able to factually prove such. Therefore, the burden of proof is all upon the shoulders of AGW Alarmists, and NOT the other way around. No Pro-AGW Scientist has yet been able to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt (Most of them even admit to such), and everytime a new "Alarming" finding is stirred about and brought to light, another observation soon shoots it down. As a matter of fact, actual field observations have time and again rendered the climate modellings false in their presumptions and understandings.

So, you are absolutely false in your statement, because first and foremost there is no such thing as being "Anti-Climate", as Climate is a facet of sustained Weather Patterns, and those who do remain skeptical of AGW (Which must be what you are referring to), do in fact have science backing them up. Your quip of "News Bite Experts" is true when regarding Alarmists, but it cannot discount the scientists and well-versed citizens who have actually taken the time to read and study actual field reports.

Don't play word games, man, you know what he meant by "anti-climate".

Second of all, you're grossly over-exaggerating- They HAVE been able to prove global warming beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's exactly what sane/rational people are saying- you deniers are not harboring reasonable doubt. You're way off-base with your doubt/skepticism. Even SKEPTICS societies are distancing themselves from you as being paranoid faux-skeptics. I will concede, being a little paranoid in this society is not necessarily a bad thing, however on the issue of global warming you're dead wrong. Also, MOST climatologists haven't admitted anything like "we haven't proven AGW beyond a reasonable doubt" perhaps a "shadow of a doubt" but even the theory of gravity can't be proven beyond a SHADOW of a doubt.

Also, your assertion that there's an equal contradiction found after every "alarming" GW finding, is also dead wrong. If this were the case, scientists wouldn't be ANYWHERE NEAR as serious/sure about it as they are. The amount of evidence SUPPORTING AGW is far more mountainous than anything that may contradict it. Doubt is inherent in science, skepticism and burden-of-proof IS their religion, and for you to sit there and say that they're all lying to us to push some agenda is not only false but just insane.

As for field observations contradicting climate modelings, you're only half-correct. Scientists have never said their models are 100% accurate. However, they are quite reasonably accurate. And most of the field observations have EXCEEDED the climate models in actual warming. Just recently a study came out that showed climate models from just a FEW years ago were too conservative in their projected warming/effects. We've been seeing more warming than was even thought.

If you truly believe the science/logic backs AGW denial up... then I'm not sure I can convince you. Though the opposite is true, you've already deluded yourself into thinking you're on the side of righteousness, and as with any ideological fervor, you'll say anything to keep the delusion alive.

! UPDATE !


New Climate Crock of the Week episode addressing the CRU email hacks:

Smacking the Hack Attack

[edit on 8-12-2009 by NoHierarchy]