Global Warming - Right & Wrong

Ozzie_Isaac

So, global warming is real, but cause is now lack of pollution.  Looks like all this talk about effect was real, but cause was wrong.  So now that we have done away with all the particulate pollution we are in real trouble.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11040557/Drop-air-pollution-INCREASED-global-warming-study-reveals.html

JohnInCarolina

The best hope of reducing global warming has and always will be to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in particular CO2.  The sensitivity to other forcings we can control tends to be secondary at best.  

JohnInCarolina

And I know you were probably three sheets to the wind when you posted this  @Ozzie_Isaac , but the Daily Mail is not a great source of information on much of anything besides British celebrities wearing skimpy bathing suits on vacation. 

lousubcap

While we are experiencing a global warming right now, I think most call this whole thing climate change.  But there will always be two (or more) sides to all complex issues.  Which ones have the strongest scientific fact based support?

dmchicago

JohnInCarolina said:

And I know you were probably three sheets to the wind when you posted this  @Ozzie_Isaac , but the Daily Mail is not a great source of information on much of anything besides British celebrities wearing skimpy bathing suits on vacation. 

Do you have a link?

JohnInCarolina

lousubcap said:

While we are experiencing a global warming right now, I think most call this whole thing climate change.  But there will always be two (or more) sides to all complex issues.  Which ones have the strongest scientific fact based support?

They actually describe two different, but related phenomena.  Global warming refers to the fact that the mean surface temperature of the planet is tending to increase and that this is being forced by greenhouse gases.  But the Earth’s climate is much more than simply the temperature, even though the temperature plays a fairly significant role.  So all of it is mixed in together, and the upshot is that many aspects of the planet’s overall climate are in fact changing as a result.  

dmchicago

A great indicator of dumbness is when it snows in Austin, and someone says:
"See, global warming is bulls!it!".

JohnInCarolina

dmchicago said:

A great indicator of dumbness is when it snows in Austin, and someone says:
"See, global warming is bulls!it!".

Isn't that someone usually Louie Gohmert?

JohnInCarolina

dmchicago said:

JohnInCarolina said:

And I know you were probably three sheets to the wind when you posted this  @Ozzie_Isaac , but the Daily Mail is not a great source of information on much of anything besides British celebrities wearing skimpy bathing suits on vacation. 

Do you have a link?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9823183/Molly-Mae-Hague-sets-pulses-soaring-white-skimpy-bikini-sultry-Ibiza-photoshoot.html

Don't say I never did anything for you, Dennis.  

HeavyG

JohnInCarolina said:

And I know you were probably three sheets to the wind when you posted this  @Ozzie_Isaac , but the Daily Mail is not a great source of information on much of anything besides British celebrities wearing skimpy bathing suits on vacation. 

"And I know you were probably three sheets to the wind when you posted this..."

He was probably still high on that intoxicating energy he picked up while attending the Trump rally last night. I bet he had goosebumps all night.

WildmanWilson

Global warming is a scam used by politicians to gain power and control over every person and industry that’s dumb enough to allow it. Oh, I mean climate change. But my question to you sky is falling libs, what’s normal for our planet. Was it normal when much of North America was covered in ice or when it was much warmer? Do you think we can simply stop any changes for our convenience? 

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

Global warming is a scam used by politicians to gain power and control over every person and industry that’s dumb enough to allow it. Oh, I mean climate change. But my question to you sky is falling libs, what’s normal for our planet. Was it normal when much of North America was covered in ice or when it was much warmer? Do you think we can simply stop any changes for our convenience? 

We can stop the man made forcing, yes.  We have in the past in other areas.  That’s why the ozone layer is recovering, for example. 

The first people to bring global warming and climate change to the attention of the public were scientists, not politicians.  It is a very real phenomena.  

JohnInCarolina

Normal for our planet should be around 300 ppm CO2 right now.  Currently it’s at around 420 ppm. 

Ozzie_Isaac

JohnInCarolina said:

And I know you were probably three sheets to the wind when you posted this  @Ozzie_Isaac , but the Daily Mail is not a great source of information on much of anything besides British celebrities wearing skimpy bathing suits on vacation. 

Everyone knows The Star, especially Page 3 is the best (although it used to be even better)

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

And I know you were probably three sheets to the wind when you posted this  @Ozzie_Isaac , but the Daily Mail is not a great source of information on much of anything besides British celebrities wearing skimpy bathing suits on vacation. 

"And I know you were probably three sheets to the wind when you posted this..."

He was probably still high on that intoxicating energy he picked up while attending the Trump rally last night. I bet he had goosebumps all night.

That's just mean.  I don't go to rallies.  I have people for that.

dmchicago said:

A great indicator of dumbness is when it snows in Austin, and someone says:
"See, global warming is bulls!it!".

That always cracks me up.  Weather vs. Climate really trips people up.

My personal indicator is the fact I have around 100 saguaros on my property that range in age from 1 year to 150+ years old.  I am having to water them and in my neck of the woods the majority of the larger ones are showing signs of distress over the last 5 years or so.

WildmanWilson

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

Global warming is a scam used by politicians to gain power and control over every person and industry that’s dumb enough to allow it. Oh, I mean climate change. But my question to you sky is falling libs, what’s normal for our planet. Was it normal when much of North America was covered in ice or when it was much warmer? Do you think we can simply stop any changes for our convenience? 

We can stop the man made forcing, yes.  We have in the past in other areas.  That’s why the ozone layer is recovering, for example. 

The first people to bring global warming and climate change to the attention of the public were scientists, not politicians.  It is a very real phenomena.  

Those scientists said we were heading for another ice age and we were going to be running out of food and oil by not too. 

WildmanWilson

JohnInCarolina said:

Normal for our planet should be around 300 ppm CO2 right now.  Currently it’s at around 420 ppm. 

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years.  A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature.

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

Global warming is a scam used by politicians to gain power and control over every person and industry that’s dumb enough to allow it. Oh, I mean climate change. But my question to you sky is falling libs, what’s normal for our planet. Was it normal when much of North America was covered in ice or when it was much warmer? Do you think we can simply stop any changes for our convenience? 

We can stop the man made forcing, yes.  We have in the past in other areas.  That’s why the ozone layer is recovering, for example. 

The first people to bring global warming and climate change to the attention of the public were scientists, not politicians.  It is a very real phenomena.  

Those scientists said we were heading for another ice age and we were going to be running out of food and oil by not too. 

No they didn’t.  There were a few suggesting that, yes, but it was nowhere near the international consensus we currently have.

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Normal for our planet should be around 300 ppm CO2 right now.  Currently it’s at around 420 ppm. 

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years.  A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature.

In the past that was driven by a temporal offset between the oceans warming up and releasing CO2.  As other drivers (natural) caused the oceans to warm, they released CO2, which caused further warming and thus a feedback loop.

That feedback loop continues today but we understand both the natural and the anthropogenic forcings.  We have a very good handle over just how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity.  

I can do this all day by the way.  I actually do research in the climate space, in collaboration with a team of scientists at the national laboratories.  I serve on an advisory panel for the DOE on advanced computing that frequently oversees the climate modeling work out very best scientists do.  I have appointments in three different departments at one of the very best research institutions in the world.  I have probably forgotten more geophysics and math than you have ever learned.  

You - you read conspiracy websites and have access to Google.  

WildmanWilson

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Normal for our planet should be around 300 ppm CO2 right now.  Currently it’s at around 420 ppm. 

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years.  A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature.

In the past that was driven by a temporal offset between the oceans warming up and releasing CO2.  As other drivers (natural) caused the oceans to warm, they released CO2, which caused further warming and thus a feedback loop.

That feedback loop continues today but we understand both the natural and the anthropogenic forcings.  We have a very good handle over just how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity.  

I can do this all day by the way.  I actually do research in the climate space, in collaboration with a team of scientists at the national laboratories.  I serve on an advisory panel for the DOE on advanced computing that frequently oversees the climate modeling work out very best scientists do.  I have appointments in three different departments at one of the very best research institutions in the world.  I have probably forgotten more geophysics and math than you have ever learned.  

You - you read conspiracy websites and have access to Google.  

Well toot your horn…beep beep. 

There is no data other than computer models. I asked what the normal temperature for the earth was and you gave CO2 levels. There is not one speck of evidence warming is man made. Nothing. The predictions have been wrong over and over yet they get a pass tell us of the next doomsday. We can go 10 years with little to no hurricane activity and as soon as a cat 5 hits boom! It’s automatic proof from the alarmist. 

The reason it was changed from global warming to climate change is because it didn’t stop snowing like they said. We still had record cold. So now, they can use it all. No rain, too much rain, no snow, too much snow, fires, cold, hot,….

You are a sucker and willing to send us back to the Stone Age while China and India continues to move ahead with cheap energy and there’s no way we complete globally. 

By the way. Science isn’t consensus. There was also no 97 % agreement on climate change. That’s as made up as the hockey stick graph. 

I wonder how green you are. Do you walk the walk? 

WildmanWilson

https://thenewamerican.com/climate-alarmists-caught-manipulating-temperature-data-yet-again/

Yeah, go ahead and say it. It a fake site or a conservative conspiracy. You don’t want to admit your are a sheep. There’s plenty of opposing views. You just will never find them on the left wing sites you stay on. AlGore.com isn’t going to be very objective. 

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Normal for our planet should be around 300 ppm CO2 right now.  Currently it’s at around 420 ppm. 

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years.  A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature.

In the past that was driven by a temporal offset between the oceans warming up and releasing CO2.  As other drivers (natural) caused the oceans to warm, they released CO2, which caused further warming and thus a feedback loop.

That feedback loop continues today but we understand both the natural and the anthropogenic forcings.  We have a very good handle over just how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity.  

I can do this all day by the way.  I actually do research in the climate space, in collaboration with a team of scientists at the national laboratories.  I serve on an advisory panel for the DOE on advanced computing that frequently oversees the climate modeling work out very best scientists do.  I have appointments in three different departments at one of the very best research institutions in the world.  I have probably forgotten more geophysics and math than you have ever learned.  

You - you read conspiracy websites and have access to Google.  

Well toot your horn…beep beep. 

There is no data other than computer models. I asked what the normal temperature for the earth was and you gave CO2 levels. There is not one speck of evidence warming is man made. Nothing. The predictions have been wrong over and over yet they get a pass tell us of the next doomsday. We can go 10 years with little to no hurricane activity and as soon as a cat 5 hits boom! It’s automatic proof from the alarmist. 

The reason it was changed from global warming to climate change is because it didn’t stop snowing like they said. We still had record cold. So now, they can use it all. No rain, too much rain, no snow, too much snow, fires, cold, hot,….

You are a sucker and willing to send us back to the Stone Age while China and India continues to move ahead with cheap energy and there’s no way we complete globally. 

By the way. Science isn’t consensus. There was also no 97 % agreement on climate change. That’s as made up as the hockey stick graph. 

I wonder how green you are. Do you walk the walk? 

Where are you getting your information from?  There's so much bad info in your post it's almost as though you are trying to be wrong.  

I did notice that your earlier response about the Science article was a cut and paste from a Joe Barton comment.  Interesting that you did that without providing any attribution.  

"There is no data other than computer models" - uhm... what?  We have temperature measurements recorded all over the globe, on a daily basis.   Then we also keep track of emissions all over the globe, as reported by various governments and companies and as measured locally via atmospheric sensors.  We have reams and reams of experimental measurements of all sorts of things that are pertinent to global warming.   None of that is from computer models. 

They changed it from "global warming" to "climate change" ?   That would be news to me, since as I wrote above these are actually two different things.  But you assert this as fact with so much confidence here.  When exactly do you think that happened?

I said that I could do this all day and I can, but that doesn't mean I want to.  I'm sure it's fun for people like you to try and waste the time of people like me, and while this has been another entertaining exchange with you it seems clear you're kind of hopeless.  Best of luck to you. 

WildmanWilson

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Normal for our planet should be around 300 ppm CO2 right now.  Currently it’s at around 420 ppm. 

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years.  A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature.

In the past that was driven by a temporal offset between the oceans warming up and releasing CO2.  As other drivers (natural) caused the oceans to warm, they released CO2, which caused further warming and thus a feedback loop.

That feedback loop continues today but we understand both the natural and the anthropogenic forcings.  We have a very good handle over just how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity.  

I can do this all day by the way.  I actually do research in the climate space, in collaboration with a team of scientists at the national laboratories.  I serve on an advisory panel for the DOE on advanced computing that frequently oversees the climate modeling work out very best scientists do.  I have appointments in three different departments at one of the very best research institutions in the world.  I have probably forgotten more geophysics and math than you have ever learned.  

You - you read conspiracy websites and have access to Google.  

Well toot your horn…beep beep. 

There is no data other than computer models. I asked what the normal temperature for the earth was and you gave CO2 levels. There is not one speck of evidence warming is man made. Nothing. The predictions have been wrong over and over yet they get a pass tell us of the next doomsday. We can go 10 years with little to no hurricane activity and as soon as a cat 5 hits boom! It’s automatic proof from the alarmist. 

The reason it was changed from global warming to climate change is because it didn’t stop snowing like they said. We still had record cold. So now, they can use it all. No rain, too much rain, no snow, too much snow, fires, cold, hot,….

You are a sucker and willing to send us back to the Stone Age while China and India continues to move ahead with cheap energy and there’s no way we complete globally. 

By the way. Science isn’t consensus. There was also no 97 % agreement on climate change. That’s as made up as the hockey stick graph. 

I wonder how green you are. Do you walk the walk? 

Where are you getting your information from?  There's so much bad info in your post it's almost as though you are trying to be wrong.  

I did notice that your earlier response about the Science article was a cut and paste from a Joe Barton comment.  Interesting that you did that without providing any attribution.  

"There is no data other than computer models" - uhm... what?  We have temperature measurements recorded all over the globe, on a daily basis.   Then we also keep track of emissions all over the globe, as reported by various governments and companies and as measured locally via atmospheric sensors.  We have reams and reams of experimental measurements of all sorts of things that are pertinent to global warming.   None of that is from computer models. 

They changed it from "global warming" to "climate change" ?   That would be news to me, since as I wrote above these are actually two different things.  But you assert this as fact with so much confidence here.  When exactly do you think that happened?

I said that I could do this all day and I can, but that doesn't mean I want to.  I'm sure it's fun for people like you to try and waste the time of people like me, and while this has been another entertaining exchange with you it seems clear you're kind of hopeless.  Best of luck to you. 

I said before that no matter the link I post on any topic, you libs always say the exact thing. You always default to trashing anything that’s not your cookie cutter lib talking points. 

I never said temps don’t change. I said there’s no proof it’s man made. Everything is from computer models that are making these doomsday predictions. Why do you always just forget that when they are wrong? 

You don’t want to admit data has been changed. Did you know many weather reporting stations have been shutdown? Many in cooler climates. It’s also said we are still coming out of the last ice age and the temperature is just reflecting that. 

 

You do not see it called global warming now. It’s only referred to as climate change. I said why that is. Because it wasn’t warming and there was a huge lull as well as their predictions of no snow flopped. 

You never answered. What’s the normal temperature for our planet? Tell me what amount of CO 2 needs to be reduced and at what cost and what the results will be. Let me guess, you’ll check a model and get back with me. lol 

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Normal for our planet should be around 300 ppm CO2 right now.  Currently it’s at around 420 ppm. 

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years.  A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature.

In the past that was driven by a temporal offset between the oceans warming up and releasing CO2.  As other drivers (natural) caused the oceans to warm, they released CO2, which caused further warming and thus a feedback loop.

That feedback loop continues today but we understand both the natural and the anthropogenic forcings.  We have a very good handle over just how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity.  

I can do this all day by the way.  I actually do research in the climate space, in collaboration with a team of scientists at the national laboratories.  I serve on an advisory panel for the DOE on advanced computing that frequently oversees the climate modeling work out very best scientists do.  I have appointments in three different departments at one of the very best research institutions in the world.  I have probably forgotten more geophysics and math than you have ever learned.  

You - you read conspiracy websites and have access to Google.  

Well toot your horn…beep beep. 

There is no data other than computer models. I asked what the normal temperature for the earth was and you gave CO2 levels. There is not one speck of evidence warming is man made. Nothing. The predictions have been wrong over and over yet they get a pass tell us of the next doomsday. We can go 10 years with little to no hurricane activity and as soon as a cat 5 hits boom! It’s automatic proof from the alarmist. 

The reason it was changed from global warming to climate change is because it didn’t stop snowing like they said. We still had record cold. So now, they can use it all. No rain, too much rain, no snow, too much snow, fires, cold, hot,….

You are a sucker and willing to send us back to the Stone Age while China and India continues to move ahead with cheap energy and there’s no way we complete globally. 

By the way. Science isn’t consensus. There was also no 97 % agreement on climate change. That’s as made up as the hockey stick graph. 

I wonder how green you are. Do you walk the walk? 

Where are you getting your information from?  There's so much bad info in your post it's almost as though you are trying to be wrong.  

I did notice that your earlier response about the Science article was a cut and paste from a Joe Barton comment.  Interesting that you did that without providing any attribution.  

"There is no data other than computer models" - uhm... what?  We have temperature measurements recorded all over the globe, on a daily basis.   Then we also keep track of emissions all over the globe, as reported by various governments and companies and as measured locally via atmospheric sensors.  We have reams and reams of experimental measurements of all sorts of things that are pertinent to global warming.   None of that is from computer models. 

They changed it from "global warming" to "climate change" ?   That would be news to me, since as I wrote above these are actually two different things.  But you assert this as fact with so much confidence here.  When exactly do you think that happened?

I said that I could do this all day and I can, but that doesn't mean I want to.  I'm sure it's fun for people like you to try and waste the time of people like me, and while this has been another entertaining exchange with you it seems clear you're kind of hopeless.  Best of luck to you. 

I said before that no matter the link I post on any topic, you libs always say the exact thing. You always default to trashing anything that’s not your cookie cutter lib talking points. 

I never said temps don’t change. I said there’s no proof it’s man made. Everything is from computer models that are making these doomsday predictions. Why do you always just forget that when they are wrong? 

You don’t want to admit data has been changed. Did you know many weather reporting stations have been shutdown? Many in cooler climates. It’s also said we are still coming out of the last ice age and the temperature is just reflecting that. 

 

You do not see it called global warming now. It’s only referred to as climate change. I said why that is. Because it wasn’t warm and there was a huge lull as well as their predictions of no snow flopped. 

You never answered. What’s the normal temperature for our planet? Tell me what amount of CO 2 needs to be reduced and at what cost and what the results will be. Let me guess, you’ll check a model and get back with me. lol 

Yes, you are right.

WildmanWilson

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Normal for our planet should be around 300 ppm CO2 right now.  Currently it’s at around 420 ppm. 

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years.  A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature.

In the past that was driven by a temporal offset between the oceans warming up and releasing CO2.  As other drivers (natural) caused the oceans to warm, they released CO2, which caused further warming and thus a feedback loop.

That feedback loop continues today but we understand both the natural and the anthropogenic forcings.  We have a very good handle over just how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity.  

I can do this all day by the way.  I actually do research in the climate space, in collaboration with a team of scientists at the national laboratories.  I serve on an advisory panel for the DOE on advanced computing that frequently oversees the climate modeling work out very best scientists do.  I have appointments in three different departments at one of the very best research institutions in the world.  I have probably forgotten more geophysics and math than you have ever learned.  

You - you read conspiracy websites and have access to Google.  

Well toot your horn…beep beep. 

There is no data other than computer models. I asked what the normal temperature for the earth was and you gave CO2 levels. There is not one speck of evidence warming is man made. Nothing. The predictions have been wrong over and over yet they get a pass tell us of the next doomsday. We can go 10 years with little to no hurricane activity and as soon as a cat 5 hits boom! It’s automatic proof from the alarmist. 

The reason it was changed from global warming to climate change is because it didn’t stop snowing like they said. We still had record cold. So now, they can use it all. No rain, too much rain, no snow, too much snow, fires, cold, hot,….

You are a sucker and willing to send us back to the Stone Age while China and India continues to move ahead with cheap energy and there’s no way we complete globally. 

By the way. Science isn’t consensus. There was also no 97 % agreement on climate change. That’s as made up as the hockey stick graph. 

I wonder how green you are. Do you walk the walk? 

Where are you getting your information from?  There's so much bad info in your post it's almost as though you are trying to be wrong.  

I did notice that your earlier response about the Science article was a cut and paste from a Joe Barton comment.  Interesting that you did that without providing any attribution.  

"There is no data other than computer models" - uhm... what?  We have temperature measurements recorded all over the globe, on a daily basis.   Then we also keep track of emissions all over the globe, as reported by various governments and companies and as measured locally via atmospheric sensors.  We have reams and reams of experimental measurements of all sorts of things that are pertinent to global warming.   None of that is from computer models. 

They changed it from "global warming" to "climate change" ?   That would be news to me, since as I wrote above these are actually two different things.  But you assert this as fact with so much confidence here.  When exactly do you think that happened?

I said that I could do this all day and I can, but that doesn't mean I want to.  I'm sure it's fun for people like you to try and waste the time of people like me, and while this has been another entertaining exchange with you it seems clear you're kind of hopeless.  Best of luck to you. 

I said before that no matter the link I post on any topic, you libs always say the exact thing. You always default to trashing anything that’s not your cookie cutter lib talking points. 

I never said temps don’t change. I said there’s no proof it’s man made. Everything is from computer models that are making these doomsday predictions. Why do you always just forget that when they are wrong? 

You don’t want to admit data has been changed. Did you know many weather reporting stations have been shutdown? Many in cooler climates. It’s also said we are still coming out of the last ice age and the temperature is just reflecting that. 

 

You do not see it called global warming now. It’s only referred to as climate change. I said why that is. Because it wasn’t warm and there was a huge lull as well as their predictions of no snow flopped. 

You never answered. What’s the normal temperature for our planet? Tell me what amount of CO 2 needs to be reduced and at what cost and what the results will be. Let me guess, you’ll check a model and get back with me. lol 

Yes, you are right.

Too tough to answer I suppose. 

WildmanWilson

A few quotes:

Quote from Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

Quote by Maurice Strong, a primary power behind UN throne: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

Quote by Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC: “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: “It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Normal for our planet should be around 300 ppm CO2 right now.  Currently it’s at around 420 ppm. 

CO2 lags temperature

"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years.  A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature.

In the past that was driven by a temporal offset between the oceans warming up and releasing CO2.  As other drivers (natural) caused the oceans to warm, they released CO2, which caused further warming and thus a feedback loop.

That feedback loop continues today but we understand both the natural and the anthropogenic forcings.  We have a very good handle over just how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity.  

I can do this all day by the way.  I actually do research in the climate space, in collaboration with a team of scientists at the national laboratories.  I serve on an advisory panel for the DOE on advanced computing that frequently oversees the climate modeling work out very best scientists do.  I have appointments in three different departments at one of the very best research institutions in the world.  I have probably forgotten more geophysics and math than you have ever learned.  

You - you read conspiracy websites and have access to Google.  

Well toot your horn…beep beep. 

There is no data other than computer models. I asked what the normal temperature for the earth was and you gave CO2 levels. There is not one speck of evidence warming is man made. Nothing. The predictions have been wrong over and over yet they get a pass tell us of the next doomsday. We can go 10 years with little to no hurricane activity and as soon as a cat 5 hits boom! It’s automatic proof from the alarmist. 

The reason it was changed from global warming to climate change is because it didn’t stop snowing like they said. We still had record cold. So now, they can use it all. No rain, too much rain, no snow, too much snow, fires, cold, hot,….

You are a sucker and willing to send us back to the Stone Age while China and India continues to move ahead with cheap energy and there’s no way we complete globally. 

By the way. Science isn’t consensus. There was also no 97 % agreement on climate change. That’s as made up as the hockey stick graph. 

I wonder how green you are. Do you walk the walk? 

Where are you getting your information from?  There's so much bad info in your post it's almost as though you are trying to be wrong.  

I did notice that your earlier response about the Science article was a cut and paste from a Joe Barton comment.  Interesting that you did that without providing any attribution.  

"There is no data other than computer models" - uhm... what?  We have temperature measurements recorded all over the globe, on a daily basis.   Then we also keep track of emissions all over the globe, as reported by various governments and companies and as measured locally via atmospheric sensors.  We have reams and reams of experimental measurements of all sorts of things that are pertinent to global warming.   None of that is from computer models. 

They changed it from "global warming" to "climate change" ?   That would be news to me, since as I wrote above these are actually two different things.  But you assert this as fact with so much confidence here.  When exactly do you think that happened?

I said that I could do this all day and I can, but that doesn't mean I want to.  I'm sure it's fun for people like you to try and waste the time of people like me, and while this has been another entertaining exchange with you it seems clear you're kind of hopeless.  Best of luck to you. 

I said before that no matter the link I post on any topic, you libs always say the exact thing. You always default to trashing anything that’s not your cookie cutter lib talking points. 

I never said temps don’t change. I said there’s no proof it’s man made. Everything is from computer models that are making these doomsday predictions. Why do you always just forget that when they are wrong? 

You don’t want to admit data has been changed. Did you know many weather reporting stations have been shutdown? Many in cooler climates. It’s also said we are still coming out of the last ice age and the temperature is just reflecting that. 

 

You do not see it called global warming now. It’s only referred to as climate change. I said why that is. Because it wasn’t warm and there was a huge lull as well as their predictions of no snow flopped. 

You never answered. What’s the normal temperature for our planet? Tell me what amount of CO 2 needs to be reduced and at what cost and what the results will be. Let me guess, you’ll check a model and get back with me. lol 

Yes, you are right.

Too tough to answer I suppose. 

Wow you’re obviously a genius.

JohnInCarolina

WildmanWilson said:

A few quotes:

Quote from Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

Quote by Maurice Strong, a primary power behind UN throne: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

Quote by Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC: “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: “It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”

Do you have any thoughts of your own, or do you just regurgitate what you find from Google?

https://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

HeavyG

LOL. I was just thinking..."I wonder which website wildboy just copy/pasted all that from".

JohnInCarolina

HeavyG said:

LOL. I was just thinking..."I wonder which website wildboy just copy/pasted all that from".

caliking

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

A few quotes:

Quote from Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

Quote by Maurice Strong, a primary power behind UN throne: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

Quote by Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC: “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: “It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”

Do you have any thoughts of your own, or do you just regurgitate what you find from Google?

https://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

Screw you, JIC. I was *this* close to being impressed. 

JohnInCarolina

caliking said:

JohnInCarolina said:

WildmanWilson said:

A few quotes:

Quote from Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

Quote by Maurice Strong, a primary power behind UN throne: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Quote by Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”

Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Quote by Michael Oppenheimer, major environmentalist: “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

Quote by Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC: “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: “That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Quote from Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: “It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.”

Do you have any thoughts of your own, or do you just regurgitate what you find from Google?

https://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

Screw you, JIC. I was *this* close to being impressed. 

It was the Club of Rome quote, wasn’t it?  People remember the Roman empire, and so they just take it for granted that the Club guys are the real deal.