Catholicism and Climate Change

[kimmielittle]

– as in you’d think that having heard about the very serious problem of AGW,

Exactly what serious problem ofAGW are you taling about, please. I have shown ALL your claims attributed to AGW - here, as misconceptions and many times out and out falsehoods, thrown out by AGW’s in order to promote their agenda. Do you have any ** new ** claims to make?

 

[kimmielittle]

UN wants control of ALL - to heck with democracy

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
– UN Agenda 21

TO Tigg if you send me an email I’ll send you the quotes I’ve collected

 

[Calliso]

I agree that the devil is at work here, but in a different way. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but there are too many unanswered technical questions. First, why were the same people in the 1970s claiming there was a new ice age coming? Then consider the whole idea that the earth is warming. How do we know? The “hockey stick” graph? The data that went into it is questionable for at least two big reasons: 1) it has been found to have been fabricated to show a “problem” that is approaching a “crisis”; and 2) today we have sophisticated satellite measuring equipment that can determine the earth’s surface temperature very accurately all over the globe. A hundred years ago, basically all we had were crude thermometers at various locations, and not very many of them, at that. In order to make a comparison between temperatures then and temperatures now, a lot of interpolation and extrapolation had to be done on 100-year-old data to obtain temperatures then in isolated regions and on the oceans where there were no weather stations. Not a very good approach for drawing conclusions, yet for purely political reasons, there is a push on to spend billions of dollars based on those questionable conclusions. If you read the article I referenced in #167, you can see there are other reasons. When big bucks are at stake, what does truth matter?

Social science injects itself into the process the following way:
IMHO, the discipline should not call itself a “science” but a “study” instead.

Actually most scientists even back then were actually predicting warming. skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm But unfortunately the few predictions of an iceage were what the media seemed to pick up on. So unless one was to research it further it makes sense that one might think that was the dominate prediction back then. As for how we know it is warming. Umm well the hockey stick and many more like it show that the Earth is likely warmer then probably the past 1000 years or so. But actually there are many ways we know the earth is warming. skepticalscience.com/10-key-climate-indicators-point-to-same-finding-global-warming-is-unmistakable.html And that is not all some more things discussed here! skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html As for the hockey stick being shown to be fabricated…umm actually I am pretty sure that accusation didn;t actually hold up to scrutiny. skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm besides as this link shows there have been many studies since the original hockey stick that basically show the same sort of pattern. As for the other points I admit I can;t answer that but I also accept that there is a lot of things that I donlt understand that people who have studied this for decades do. But really even if we donlt trust the temperature data from lets say 1880 we have more recent data that is much more reliable that tells us it is warming. Not to mention like I have shown all the non themometer related evidence that points to a warming. And a greenhouse gas related warming.

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually most scientists even back then were actually predicting warming. skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm But unfortunately the few predictions of an iceage were what the media seemed to pick up on.

Actually, it was Mr. Hansens’ model that predicted an ice age.

As for the hockey stick being shown to be fabricated…umm actually I am pretty sure that accusation didn;t actually hold up to scrutiny.

AHhhh even Mr Briffa you now the guy with the tree ring data that was cherry picked ] says it doesn’t hold up but I did give you a new study of it. What defense to a new study of it, could be wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/1…mann-et-al-99/ I mean not just wave it off - explain it This was using Mr. Manns’ own figures ]

Now, let me ask you how do you defend a graph - when the raw data was thrown out?

You can’t…It can’t be reproduced under laboratory scientific control. That was the whole reason for me presenting the glacier graph - without the raw data…It isn’t evidence.

Now let’s say I gave the graph credibility - How come it didn’t predict the cooler Globals? Which Mr. Jones …NASA, UV, Royal Society, etc etc admit? Mr.Mann states that he can predict Global Warming from his graph in less than two years - BUT he couldn’t predict some 13 years and counting, of Global Cooling? He didn’t predict the people in Peru Freezing …Ad infinium

 

[kimmielittle]

Not to mention like I have shown all the non themometer related evidence that points to a warming. And a greenhouse gas related warming.

If you read my past posts NOAA GISS have been proven to have manipulated tempertures.

The important thing to remember warming OR Cooling does not prove the hypothesis of AGW…

Why? Because the so called science has been purposely tainted. by the very people presenting AGW.

It is also important to note: that the slight warming that IS predicted can not be shown to be harmful to plants or humans. AS a matter of fact, We DO have Observational Scientific evidence that slight warming benefits both

 

[Calliso]

Then why not call it Natural Global Warming Or God Driven Global Warming? It DENIES ALL other of God’s Nature to mae Man the Driver over ALL else.

How about showing the Scientific Principles Correctly applied here ? You seem to love to state there are some.

You can start with the so Called Green House Effect
Then we can move on to why the An inert object can only emit as much radiant energy as it absorbs In perfect transfer ] principal - Should be thrown out to cause such a so called effect.?

Then we can proceed to the Second Law Of Thermodynamics and why it’s ignored?

Then let’s discuss why Stefan-Boltzmann equations are used when known to be debunked?

Then we can discuss why CO2 is numbered in LINEAR and EXPONENTIAL terms instead of logarithmic dynamics, which it’s known to be?

Then we can address why not one claim of AGW has with stood OBSERVATIONAL Science?

Do you think God ordained a group of social engineers the right to deceive - in order to transfer power and money without accountability?

Who’s doing the sinning? The lies and deceptive tactics of AGW"s to promote their agenda - AND EVEN at those - Still no evidence for their claims of AGW after decades and [T]rillions of Dollars pumped into selling their schemes.

You are playing like a broken record - YOU AGW’s made the claims - it’s your burden.

Actually, There was no buck to pass - now was there

Prove that AGW has killed one person

Can you show where. I can show the sins of envey - coveting - killing for population control…Maybe we shouldn’t try to use the Bible -until we have some knowledge of the Bible?

WHAT a wild stretch. For the most part, Atheists DEMAND evidence…They are void of Faith.

If you can’t convince people of Faith of AGW…Good luck to ya

YET once again, Show me one way that Cap and Trade - Population Control - Carbon Credits - Mitigates 1 Degree of Climate.

Ok are you seriously suggesting here that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics? skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm heck here is even something from a skeptic drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/ As for that equation I am still not really sure what you are talking about with this debunking but I did find this n3xus6.blogspot.com/2006/11/debate-over-good-guys-win.html as for the logarithmic claim I did find this response in a comment thread on realclimate. first the comment being reponded too in red Sorry, I was linking the 2 issues – the estimate of climate sensitivity and the added CO2 released from ecosystems. If the temperature response to CO2 is logarithmic, adding more CO2 will have diminishing effect. I also wonder if the infra-red absorption bands can become saturated? Then the response in blue The logarithmic effect is already incorporated in radiative transfer models. And a “diminishing effect” does not necesessarily mean a “small effect,” if that’s what you’re getting at. Look at it this way: we all agree that the effect of doubling CO2 will be substantial, and any feedback that accelerates CO2 release will make the day of doubling come sooner, giving ecosystems and society less time to adapt, and requiring tighter emissions targets if one is to avoid doubling but really it seems to me that the scientists are accepting that the relationship between co2 and temperature rise is logarithmic some more stuff from skeptical science again, skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html

As for no observational evidence. Well that just isn;t true! I have posted in my last post links that show pretty clearly that it is warming. But now to show some evidence that the warming has anything to do with co2 and humans.
First another nice post from skeptical science skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html this link goes into more detail about the evidence that shows that greenhouse gases are the main culprit in the recent warming,. skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.html but really the claim of no observational evidence is completely false. As I have shown in these threads time and time again. I mean I guess I am curious but have you ever even tried to look for the evidence for AGW? Or are you just believing one what seems to be a popular “skeptic” claim that AGW is totally based on models? Cause i think if you would look at my links and look further you would find plenty. Also skeptical science has a nice list of commonly used arguments by skeptics which is very useful skepticalscience.com/argument.php But plain and simple let me put it this way I donlt think that humans are a major cause of the recent warming because some politican told me or whatever. I believe it because I have read the evidence and looked into the issue. I am no expert by any means. But with my limited understanding the evidence seems pretty solid. And I used to be someone that was somewhat skeptical of AGW. I didn;t disbelieve it totally but for awhile thought claims were being greatly over exaggerated. Though to be fair the media can over exaggerate things and that is where I used to and probably the majority of people get there info on AGW. Which is not a good place to get it for the most part.

 

[kimmielittle]

Ok are you seriously suggesting here that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics?

I and many Scientist / Physicists have stated that AGWer’s VIOLATE the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Mr Gavin Shmidt is one of the worst violators

Here is His Green House Effect



Gavin @ 10 April 2007 RealClimate realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/

You see. I do examine ALL sides

It is the one used by IPCC

Now as I’ve already said Mr Schmidt, Multiplied by two He not only wanted a blanket covering the Earth - BUT an ELECTRIC Blanket ] To prove a GreenHouse Effect This VIOLATES An inert object can only emit as much radiant energy as it absorbs In perfect transfer ] principal …The SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS …Only to the extent that it absorbs energy can a CO2 molecule be a source of heat – and since frequency response is limited, so too is its ability to heat. CO2 fails to intercept anything close to the full span of the earth’s radiant spectrum. In effect CO2 Has been multiplied by two.

Then AGWers misused Stefan-Boltzmann equations to present a FLATBODY The misused The long established Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody equation to invent the greenhouse gas theory of climate.

The theory incorporates the two-dimensional flat body numbers to ‘calculate’ how much of the Sun’s energy enters and leaves the Earth’s atmosphere.

But the problem is Stefan-Boltzmann never intended for his numbers to be applied to a threedimensional rotating planet.

Schmidt merely repeated the errors shown in the Kiehl and Trenberth diagram (1997). The Kiehl-Trenberth graphic calls Schmidt’s “up and down” effect the ‘back-radiation’ with a heat flux. And I’ve already explained CO2 Radiates equally in ALL directions.

Thus we may reasonably infer that Schmidt’s shenanigans are inextricably intertwined with those of his fellow warmist climatologists, K. E. Trenberth and J.T. Kiehl who, 13 years ago, first applied the bogus “full surface energy balance equations.”

Again, I point out NASA debunked Stefan-Boltzmann equations over 40 years ago for use on 3d Planitatry ] equations. A fact well known to these AGWs.

Continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued

We also know that heat when transferred LOSSES heat. We can’t even come close to a perfect transfer in a natural setting. So…We know we can’t even get close to this - **An inert object can only emit as much radiant energy as it absorbs…BUT AGW’s Not only multiplied by two CO2… BUT Accredit CO2 to absorbing / emitting the full spectrum / **full span of the earth’s radiant spectrum. This is why they use LINEAR - or Exponential measurements and ignore logarithmic values. Heat transfer dissipates during transfer and can only emit what it absorbs - at the very best ] ALL molecular reactions adhere to this scientific fact.

Continued

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued

Let’s examine AGW’s Multiplication by two:

If this were to work - The up -down hypothesis. It would have to work everywhere that atmosphere / radiant heat is present:

For if an object absorbing a unit of energy could emit that unit in one direction and also in the other, 2 unit in all, this would make home heating a snap. Let’s say your radiant heater is putting out 1000 watts per square meter. Ignoring the inverse square issue, we’ll have it that a nearby panel absorbs the same, 1000. So while this panel is radiating 1000 watts per m² away from the heat source, it also radiates 1000 W/m² backwards, bringing the radiator up to 2000 W/m². Thus your room is getting heated by 3000 watts per square meter at the price you’d pay for a thousand.

Science and heating bills tell us…This is JUNK SCIENCE

Again,…An inert object can only emit as much radiant energy as it absorbs

.

 

[kimmielittle]

Continued

Another Scientific Truth: A two-sided absorber/emitter will radiate 50-50, not 100-100 as greenhouse theorists insist. The total amount of light in a system cannot exceed what the source provides.

This ridiculous model of light amplification is hardly unique. Gavin Schmidt of NASA, for instance, uses a similar one to instruct his readers about the greenhouse effect. See below post ]

This is part of the “settled science” on which IPCC authority rests. And in which most global warming warmists also believe.

Can you see why Physicists / Scientist are bailing from AGW ?

BTW; NASA is being investigated for these.

 

[kimmielittle]

As for no observational evidence. Well that just isn;t true! I have posted in my last post links that show pretty clearly that it is warming. But now to show some evidence that the warming has anything to do with co2 and humans.

Simply put, The only time evidence is Observationally Proven, Is when it matches the claims made. You have to prove 1] CO2 Drives Climate 2] AGW is the culprit . This is your and AGW’s biggest hurdle ]

Observational Science requires the Claim myth ] match the observational evidence.

The claim made By IPCC for example: Sea level Rising

Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, “the sea is not rising,” he says. “It hasn’t risen in 50 years.” If there is any rise this century it will “not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm”. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on “going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world”.

When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC’s favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a “corrective factor” of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they “needed to show a trend”.

First and foremost ** IF ** They were raising you still have the burden of proof to show a cause and effect attributed to AGW and CO2

**Something, forgotten in the hyperbole of extremists claims ** .

One kinda funny, in a way, Story was the hoax of the Madives Government - You see there was a well established tree - that disproved their claims Dr Morner has a picture of it ] It was removed because, it showed no sea level raise had taken place.

As I have shown in these threads time and time again.

You have not presented any claims that have borne the test of observational science - We have shown, many times, claims need something more.

Here is a new one: “Lighter skinned people radiate more CO2 than darker skinned people” We know lighter colors radiate and darker colors absorb …Thus lighter skinned people cause / accelerate AGW" Since no one can prove AGW using Science correctly you will have a hard time disproving my claim I just made }.

I mean I guess I am curious but have you ever even tried to look for the evidence for AGW? Or are you just believing one what seems to be a popular “skeptic” claim that AGW is totally based on models?

If I didn’t look at BOTH sides - how in the world, do you think I could debate AGW so well? You suggesting otherwise is pure nonsense.

I research not only the claims - but resources used - and Authors.
I don’t parrot, as can seen by my posts…Mostly, I explain in my own words That requires, that I KNOW /UNDERSTAND BOTH sides

 

[kimmielittle]

Typo Correction
"We know lighter colors radiate and darker colors absorb "

Should be

We know lighter colors reflect and darker colors absorb

Sorry

 

[kimmielittle]

Some may ask, “Why couldn’t CRU Mr. Manns’ Model” Predict Cooling"?

Because, it was manipulated many times, to “evidence” ONLY The Global Warming agenda. The Cards were stacked in favor of one result - only.

Now, it seems…when the hockey stick started suffering under scientific scrutiny …That NASA, NOAA, GISS took up the fine act of manipulating data upward - so that even if the Hockey stick failed to serve… Remember Mr Jones…Mr… Mann…Mr.Hansen…Mr Shmidt …et al are ALL buddies of the same mindset as Climategate emails show ]

It is important to remember…This isn’t counting the so called science in presenting the so called Green House Effect

ADD these together either one of the above, alone kills the so called Science objectivity ] BUT ADDED TOGETHER???

It is also important to note…ALL AGW hypothesis - Green House Effect used by AGW’s - USE these tainted equations to promote AGW.

 

[sedonaman]

… But really even if we donlt trust the temperature data from lets say 1880 we have more recent data that is much more reliable that tells us it is warming. …

Yes. Today is warmer than yesterday.

 

[Ender]

As for no observational evidence. Well that just isn;t true! I have posted in my last post links that show pretty clearly that it is warming.

This is the first paragraph of one of the sources you cited:

A common theme expressed at Skeptical Science is that to understand climate, you need to look at the full body of evidence. To help people assess the evidence, NOAA have just published State of the Climate 2009. The report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. All of these indicators are moving in the direction of a warming planet.

I find this a perfect example of the approach True Believers use to support their theory: when the facts don’t support your position, find different facts. What have scientists been tracking and computing for decades? Global temperature. What have we been incessantly told has been rapidly increasing? Global temperature. What is it that is going to rise to planet killing levels? Global temperature.

Soooo … when that very State of the Climate report released just last year that is cited above makes this utterly unambiguous statement that global temperature has not gone up at all for the last decade -The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is ** 0.00°**±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise. - what is a True Believer to do? Find something other than global temperature to prove that global temperature is going up. That’s what the “10 measurable planet-wide features” are. We are now to believe that “indicators” of global temperature are more accurate than the global temperature itself … and we are told that it must surely be greed that keeps us from accepting this.

Ender

 

[sedonaman]

Ok are you seriously suggesting here that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics? skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm heck here is even something from a skeptic drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/ As for that equation I am still not really sure what you are talking about with this debunking but I did find this n3xus6.blogspot.com/2006/11/debate-over-good-guys-win.html as for the logarithmic claim I did find this response in a comment thread on realclimate. first the comment being reponded too in red Sorry, I was linking the 2 issues – the estimate of climate sensitivity and the added CO2 released from ecosystems. If the temperature response to CO2 is logarithmic, adding more CO2 will have diminishing effect. I also wonder if the infra-red absorption bands can become saturated? Then the response in blue The logarithmic effect is already incorporated in radiative transfer models. And a “diminishing effect” does not necesessarily mean a “small effect,” if that’s what you’re getting at. Look at it this way: we all agree that the effect of doubling CO2 will be substantial, and any feedback that accelerates CO2 release will make the day of doubling come sooner, giving ecosystems and society less time to adapt, and requiring tighter emissions targets if one is to avoid doubling but really it seems to me that the scientists are accepting that the relationship between co2 and temperature rise is logarithmic some more stuff from skeptical science again, skepticalscience.com/The-CO2-Temperature-correlation-over-the-20th-Century.html

As for no observational evidence. Well that just isn;t true! I have posted in my last post links that show pretty clearly that it is warming. But now to show some evidence that the warming has anything to do with co2 and humans.
First another nice post from skeptical science skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html this link goes into more detail about the evidence that shows that greenhouse gases are the main culprit in the recent warming,. skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.html but really the claim of no observational evidence is completely false. As I have shown in these threads time and time again. I mean I guess I am curious but have you ever even tried to look for the evidence for AGW? Or are you just believing one what seems to be a popular “skeptic” claim that AGW is totally based on models? Cause i think if you would look at my links and look further you would find plenty. Also skeptical science has a nice list of commonly used arguments by skeptics which is very useful skepticalscience.com/argument.php But plain and simple let me put it this way I donlt think that humans are a major cause of the recent warming because some politican told me or whatever. I believe it because I have read the evidence and looked into the issue. I am no expert by any means. But with my limited understanding the evidence seems pretty solid. And I used to be someone that was somewhat skeptical of AGW. I didn;t disbelieve it totally but for awhile thought claims were being greatly over exaggerated. Though to be fair the media can over exaggerate things and that is where I used to and probably the majority of people get there info on AGW. Which is not a good place to get it for the most part.

Looks like all your information comes from only one source, skepticalscience.com

 

[sedonaman]

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn’t what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.

So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

The burden of proof is on the advocate. Why doesn’t skepticalscience.com explain why it believes faked data?

 

[lynnvinc]

Then why not call it Natural Global Warming Or God Driven Global Warming? It DENIES ALL other of God’s Nature to mae Man the Driver over ALL else.

People are capable of killing people, it’s just that we’ve decided to do it through GHGs, AGW and its knock-on effects – as well as through guns, abortion scalpels, genocide against Native Americans, etc.

For instance, we’ve killed about 15,000 people in Europe during the summer 2003 heatwave (they figure about half of the 30,000 deaths are attributable to AGW). Then there are the 160,000 deaths each year caused by disease spread, attributable to AGW. And that doesn’t count a portion of those who die due to floods, droughts, severe storms, agri and seafood decline due to AGW & its various affects, etc.

And that doesn’t count the millions, perhaps billions that will be dying in the future due to the GHGs we’ve already emitted up to now (assuming someone doesn’t invent a CO2 vacuum cleaner that doesn’t emit more GHGs than it takes in).

And it doesn’t at all count the millions who die from the same actions that cause AGW – from local pollution, acid rain, mining/drilling for fossil fuels, etc. That itself is enough to strive to become more energy/resource efficient/conservative and go on alt energy when feasible.

Let’s face it we’re just a bunch of killers, but we don’t have to be. We can change and be good if we want to .

 

[lynnvinc]

Actually most scientists even back then were actually predicting warming. skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm But unfortunately the few predictions of an iceage were what the media seemed to pick up on. So unless one was to research it further it makes sense that one might think that was the dominate prediction back then. As for how we know it is warming. Umm well the hockey stick and many more like it show that the Earth is likely warmer then probably the past 1000 years or so. But actually there are many ways we know the earth is warming. skepticalscience.com/10-key-climate-indicators-point-to-same-finding-global-warming-is-unmistakable.html And that is not all some more things discussed here! skepticalscience.com/What-happened-to-the-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html As for the hockey stick being shown to be fabricated…umm actually I am pretty sure that accusation didn;t actually hold up to scrutiny. skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm besides as this link shows there have been many studies since the original hockey stick that basically show the same sort of pattern. As for the other points I admit I can;t answer that but I also accept that there is a lot of things that I donlt understand that people who have studied this for decades do. But really even if we donlt trust the temperature data from lets say 1880 we have more recent data that is much more reliable that tells us it is warming. Not to mention like I have shown all the non themometer related evidence that points to a warming. And a greenhouse gas related warming.

Yes, and as I remember back in the 70s we were also worried about nuclear war, and there was talk of “nuclear winter” – like if the bombs and radiation didn’t get us then the dust it would kick up would cause cooling that would destroy agriculture. That’s probably why the media picked up more on the aerosol effect – that was just being studied, I believe by Stephen Snyder – than the GH effect. It was a Newsweek story that was mainly the source of the big hype.

One thing these people here don’t understand is that science usually progresses over time. We learn more and more. Computers get better and better and can crunch more data. And, yes, I agree with them that social science does seem more to go around in circles, or is just a big debating arena. But physical sciences do progress with better data and better theories, and better equiptment to collect and process the data. So one would expect some advances since the 70s, wouldn’t one? Just bec at one time we thought the sun moved above a stationary earth, it doesn’t mean that’s still our view or we were a bunch of duffuses; in fact that is a very good and valid observation for the ancients (the Chinese thought the sun was a fire bird). We do the best we can, with what we know.

And for me AGW is a done deal and has been before the 1st studies reached sci confidence in 1995. I’m into looking at more cutting edge things, like how warming seas might lead to super-anoxia, which might lead to certain bacteria turning methane into hydrogen sulfide – a deadly gas, thought to have killed off a lot of life toward the end-Permian extinction 251 mya. Then there is Hansen’s cutting edge warning about the venus syndrome & ending all life on earth – not yet accepted by most climate scientists (see esp pg 24 of columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf. But these folks here don’t seem to care much about their progeny or future generations; I guess it’s just next quarter’s profits for them. I wish they’d just do at least the simple things that reduce GHGs AND save them money…on the off chance the scientists just might be right. Why do they like to take unnecessary risks with life on earth (and souls in the hereafter)? Esp when mitigating can be done in ways that are good for the economy and reduce other well-known and accepted problems. It just astonishes me to no end. In the name of Jesus, WHY???

 

[Calliso]

People are capable of killing people, it’s just that we’ve decided to do it through GHGs, AGW and its knock-on effects – as well as through guns, abortion scapals, genocide against Native Americans, etc.

For instance, we’ve killed about 15,000 people in Europe during the summer 2003 heatwave (they figure about half of the 30,000 deaths are attributable to AGW). Then there are the 160,000 deaths caused by disease spread, attributable to AGW. And that doesn’t count a portion of those who die due to floods, droughts, severe storms, agri and seafood decline due to AGW & its various affects, etc.

And that doesn’t count the millions, perhaps billions that will be dying in the future due to the GHGs we’ve already emitted up to now (assuming someone doesn’t invent a CO2 vacuum cleaner that doesn’t emit more GHGs than it takes in).

And it doesn’t at all count the millions who die from the same actions that cause AGW – from local pollution, acid rain, mining/drilling for fossil fuels, etc. That itself is enough to strive to become more energy/resource efficient/conservative and go on alt energy when feasible.

Let’s face it we’re just a bunch of killers, but we don’t have to be. We can change and be good if we want to .

To give a little bit more direct info here skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm to just give a little example. Of course I donlt think you can for sure attribute anyone one specific event to global warming. But I have heard it is like loading the dice increasing the odds of extreme weather events.