Look like Global warming was a HOAX after all

[/pine]

When you have two settled science concepts such as the effect of greenhouse gases, or ocean acidification, those who want to overturn that have their own burdens. That's just the way it is.

You are implying there is no credible evidence for the effect of greenhouse gases, or what happens when rising levels of CO2 are present. The theories have been proven. They are not new. Real scientists who overturn a "proven" theory also use credible evidence and results that are reproducible. It has happened in the past. Those scientists didn't just stand around saying it's not true, they rolled up their sleeves and produced proof. What is stopping the deniers from producing their own evidence?

Humans are the ones who are taking lots of carbon (coal, oil, gas) that was locked into the earth's crust and inserting it into the earth's active carbon cycle. There is no question about who is doing that. Whatever results, it is human caused.

And no, volcanoes do not produce more than humans. Forest fires are quickly releasing carbon that is already accounted for in the earth's active carbon cycle. One way or another, sooner or later, that plant carbon was going to be released and recaptured.

Dave...get over it...We told you so...we do admire your exuberance...as misguided as it was/is...and don't forget..."the flowers bloom like magic in the spring..."

 

[Midniteoyl]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Climate Study: Evidence Leans Against Human-Caused Global Warming

22,000 Scientists Disagree With UN Global Warming Push | In Pursuit of Happiness

 

[Midniteoyl]

No soup?

In fact you deniers said a lot. Scientists said adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will warm the planet. Deniers are basically saying, no it won't. You are making a claim that you should be willing to attempt to prove.

That is all that really matters when the debate is boiled down to it's essence. Take away all the gotcha's, wild predictions and political spinning, and you are left with two facts that science can prove or disprove:
1) Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will result in a warmer planet.
2) Free atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will be also be absorbed by the oceans, and through normal chemical processes, will increase the acidity of ocean water.

There is science, and observations, showing those facts to be true. The earth has warmed rapidly since the Industrial Revolution, and the oceans are more acidic. For deniers to have credibility, they would need to disprove those two facts.

Saying that a temperature plateau is proof that greenhouse gases do not cause warming--knowing that plateaus have repeatedly happened since 1850--is not science. It's an unsubstantiated opinion that the past will not repeat itself--for some mysterious reason.

What is undeniably true is that the CO2 is going somewhere, and causing some effect. Molecules and elements do not disappear by some sort of magic.

See my links above...

 

[sseelhoff]

When you have two settled science concepts such as the effect of greenhouse gases, or ocean acidification, those who want to overturn that have their own burdens. That's just the way it is.

You are implying there is no credible evidence for the effect of greenhouse gases, or what happens when rising levels of CO2 are present. The theories have been proven. They are not new. Real scientists who overturn a "proven" theory also use credible evidence and results that are reproducible. It has happened in the past. Those scientists didn't just stand around saying it's not true, they rolled up their sleeves and produced proof. What is stopping the deniers from producing their own evidence?

Humans are the ones who are taking lots of carbon (coal, oil, gas) that was locked into the earth's crust and inserting it into the earth's active carbon cycle. There is no question about who is doing that. Whatever results, it is human caused.

And no, volcanoes do not produce more than humans. Forest fires are quickly releasing carbon that is already accounted for in the earth's active carbon cycle. One way or another, sooner or later, that plant carbon was going to be released and recaptured.

The data has been fudged, and the "scientific community" seeks to discredit anyone who questions the findings. This is not science, this is faith based decision making. No different than the church of the middle ages. They called those who would question what was settled "heretics." Your word is denier, but it is all the same.

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

 

[Midniteoyl]

On CO2..

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

Global Warming? No, Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening' - Forbes

 

[dave1949]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's pretty short list, 32 actual, published, scientists who totally disagree with the IPCC findings.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

Minority Page. Hmmm. News Flash! Scientists Disagree. I wouldn't blame them for disagreeing, dissent is healthy.


Climate Study: Evidence Leans Against Human-Caused Global Warming

It is pretty difficult to take anyone who makes this statement seriously:
"Even if a future warming of 2°C occurs, the authors observe that though it "would cause geographically varied ecological responses, no evidence exists that those changes would be net harmful to the global environment or to human well-being" because the "current level of ~400 ppm" proves that "we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels 15 times greater existed during the Cambrian Period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects."

22,000 Scientists Disagree With UN Global Warming Push | In Pursuit of Happiness

Where is the list? There has always been a list of thousands of names of people who disagree floating around for years now. It is a junk list.

 

[dave1949]

Who pays the deniers? Deniers like to claim it's all about the money and grants. I guess they should know.

Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort

To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service. The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010.

 

[dave1949]

The data has been fudged, and the "scientific community" seeks to discredit anyone who questions the findings. This is not science, this is faith based decision making. No different than the church of the middle ages. They called those who would question what was settled "heretics." Your word is denier, but it is all the same.

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

James Taylor again, from over two years ago.

What does someone else fudging data, or not, have to do with having no data of your own? There is no logic there.

 

[dave1949]

On CO2..

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says

The paper referenced builds upon work done by the same author (Lu) in 2009. It is interesting research but not conclusive. The basic idea has had four years to percolate through the science community now.

Could CFCs be causing global warming?

Global Warming? No, Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening' - Forbes

This piece, by yet again James Taylor, takes the predictable science of CO2 and plants and tries hard to make something about global warming out of it. Of course plants respond to CO2, and I have read other forestry research indicating CO2 allows plants to use moisture more efficiently. That is all well and good, but it has limits. Plants can only use so much CO2, and there is only so much moisture and other nutrients available for plants. Once the system runs into those limits, CO2 uptake by plants is going to level off.

This is an interesting research topic in forestry due to looking for methods or conditions that cause forests to become better carbon sinks. The gained knowledge is an aid to limiting the impact of increased carbon, and perhaps a way to increase the commercial value placed on forests in carbon credit trades.

 

[Egon]

How do you know they (lobsters (of any persuasion)) are moving north?

How do we know they are not?:thumbsup:

Seems some get red necks with warmer water so's dey be moving north into cooler surroundings.

The Crowfoot Glacier is retreating you know!