Climate Change Deniers and Apologists sinking together.

[_Themis]

With regard to global climate change, doesn't science eventually win the day?

Sure. The climate is indeed changing and CO2 is greenhouse gas. But AGW has been proven over and over to be politics, not science.

Good to see Bcspace is still around to give us more substance-less assertions.

[_canpakes]

Good to see Bcspace is still around to give us more substance-less assertions.

If bc cannot take himself seriously, I'm not sure why anyone else should.

viewtopic.php?p=859982#p859982

[_Amore]

Again, I believe in replenishing the earth and in developing practical renewable energy, but I don't believe in spending billions of debt dollars in the BS name of "climate change."

Some basic reasons...


1. The “Greenhouse Effect” is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

2. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

3. Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn’t cause climate change, and we cannot stop it.

4. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.

5. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

6. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

7. When using unaltered historical NOAA/NASA data, there has been no warming trend the last 130 years.

8. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat.

9. The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, combined with everyone on the planet, we contribute around 8 or 9 percent of human carbon dioxide production.

10. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a mental disorder.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/23/the-10-t ... ange-hoax/

[_Chap]

I cite a couple of papers from the leading scientific journal Nature, and what comes back from the other side?

Again, I believe in replenishing the earth and in developing practical renewable energy, but I don't believe in spending billions of debt dollars in the BS name of "climate change."

Some basic reasons...

<pastes in stuff from a Tea Party News Network page>

Posts of this kind are worth about as much as a TBM post along the lines of 'Joseph Smith never had sex with anybody other than Emma', with a direct paste-in of stuff from a simplified rip-off of a FARMS page.

The poster has neither the ability or inclination to evaluate the claims made: she just finds the conclusions to her taste. In an effort to be fair, I copy here here the 'proof' provided on the page from which her listed points are copied:

Plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. (Reference: John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama)

All of southern Greenland and most of the northern part were ice-free during the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in. Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and, like southern Sweden today, had a relatively mild climate. (Reference: University of Copenhagen (2007, July 5). Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com)

Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor). (Reference: Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,)

And that's it. That's the proof that "... taxpayer-bilking scientists doctored data to make it look like global warming existed when there was none, [and] the sycophantic worshiping of this manmade religion can only be attributed to a serious mental condition."

Plants like CO2, surprise. So can you just pump up the level above what they are used to without disturbing them? It seems not. Once the climate was 5 degrees warmer than today, and there were no ice-caps then. OK. Would you like to discuss the effect of that temperature rise on global food production, or the effect of all that melt-water on sea levels? Water vapour is the major gas behind the greenhouse effect. OK, and so? Carbon dioxide is also a significant contribution, and human beings are boosting it sufficiently to cause significant temperature rises that will render current patterns of human living quite problematic. It will be no comfort at all that we aren't pumping up water vapor too.

[Guest]

And out today in Nature, the venerable journal of scientific record:

The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C

Christophe McGlade & Paul Ekins


Nature 517, 187–190 (08 January 2015)
doi:10.1038/nature14016

Editor's summary

If global warming is to be limited in this century to the much-publicized 2 °C rise compared to pre-industrial levels, fossil fuel use and the associated release of greenhouse gases will need to be severely limited. This raises questions regarding the specific quantities and locations of oil, gas and coal that can be safely exploited. Christophe McGlade and Paul Ekins use an integrated assessment model to explore the implications of the 2 °C warming limit for different regions' fossil fuel production. They find that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80% of current coal reserves should remain unused during the next 40 years in order to meet the 2 °C target and that the development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil production are incompatible with efforts to limit climate change.

Also this:

Climate science: Unburnable fossil-fuel reserves

Michael Jakob & Jérôme Hilaire

Nature 517, 150–152 (08 January 2015)

Several studies have previously analysed the global long-term implications of climate-change mitigation on fossil-fuel markets3, 4, 5. The novelty of the present study stems from the detailed regional representation of fossil-fuel reserves used in the authors' model, which are based on well-established data sources. In each of the 16 regions modelled, fossil fuels are divided into 21 categories that include various types of coal, oil and gas. Each category further accounts for key characteristics, such as recoverable resources, production and trade costs, as well as natural decline rates of production (the rates of fall that would occur in the absence of any further investment).

This approach allows the authors to emphasize differences in unburnable fossil-fuel reserves. About 80%, 50% and 30% of coal, gas and oil reserves, respectively, would need to remain below Earth's surface if the world is to limit an increase in global mean temperature to 2 °C. The uneven distribution of unburnable carbon has far-reaching consequences for fossil-fuel owners.

For example, the Middle East, which holds the bulk of conventional oil reserves, would need to leave about 40% of those reserves underground. This corresponds to about 8 years of global production at current levels6 (87 million barrels per day). Similarly, countries with large coal endowments would face great challenges. China and India would have to discard 66% of their reserves, whereas Africa would have to leave 85% of them. In addition, the United States, Australia and countries of the former Soviet Union would need to leave more than 90% of their coal reserves underground, in stark contrast to the renaissance of coal use currently under way in many places7.

With this graphic:

Figure 1: Fossil-fuel resources exceed atmospheric disposal space for carbon emissions.

McGlade and Ekins2 report that the carbon contained in fossil-fuel reserves (equivalent to 11,000 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide) is much more than the amount that can be emitted as CO2 to the atmosphere (870–1,240 Gt) if global warming is to be limited to 2 °C above the average global temperature of pre-industrial times. (Figure adapted from ref. 14.)

Would it be surprising to find that the vastly wealthy world-wide fossil-fuel extraction industry hated these findings and was willing to pay mega-bucks to anyone who was willing to trash them in the public sphere? Would it be surprising if they continued spending until they could convey the impression in the public sphere that (at least) 'the jury is still out' on such issues?

Would it be surprising to find that the impact of such trashing on the community of the scientifically literate (who actually read journals like Nature, as opposed to getting their science from watching Fox News) was not very large?

Chap,

Thanks for posting findings from these two papers. For those who may not be familiar (e.g Amore), Nature was founded in England in 1869 and has indeed become the globally venerated journal of record for publication of high impact and rigorously reviewed scientific papers.

The bar at Nature is set very high indeed. It eventually publishes only a small percentage of the submissions it receives each year. Well over 90% of submitted manuscripts are eventually rejected.

The simple fact that the editors* at a scientifically conservative journal such as Nature saw fit to publish two papers on fossil fuel use and GHG emission in a single issue should be an indication of how seriously the international scientific community, as a whole, takes global warming and climate change.
___________________

*Unlike many scientific journals, Nature does not maintain a stable of external scientists on the payroll to help make decisions on what gets published. Their editors work independently once the external referees have provided reviews of a given manuscript. This way of managing things sometimes leads to friction with certain groups of scientists who might feel that their interests are not being fairly represented (a publication in Nature can do wonders for one's CV or Resume). However, over the long haul, this editorial approach has earned Nature the 'sterling' reputation it now enjoys.

[_canpakes]

Now I'm pretty sure that you're just not even serious, anymore. : )

1. The “Greenhouse Effect” is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

The greehhouse effect also occurs inside of a parked car on a sunny day. Would that be a good environment to, say, leave your child?

2. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

The relative quantities of each do not decide which can cause more of a shift in climate. And water vapor cycles differ from CO2 cycles. This is very basic stuff; I'm surprised that you would even list this one. You should look into this to get your debate points in order so that we can discuss it further.

3. Man’s contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn’t cause climate change, and we cannot stop it.

Again, two separate thoughts. Doesn't matter if we started or can stop climate change, we can still affect it - you are admitting that we can in this very statement. To find out how much, we research it. Why is that a problem for you?

4. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.

Solar activity does not appear to be the primary driver of the recent trends. Again, look into this and we can discuss if you'd like.

5. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

This, like the 'greenhouse effect' comment above, is a silly statement. As example, water is also useful to us, but past a certain point, and in certain quantities, it will kill a plant. I can give you a dozen more like that. ; )

6. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

Simple diversion. The argument is not so much whether or not 'the climate' will be 'OK' but if the folks depending upon climate systems can adapt quickly enough to match the changes.

7. When using unaltered historical NOAA/NASA data, there has been no warming trend the last 130 years.

Not correct.

8. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat.

Are you a polar bear? If not, why is this 'point' on the list?

9. The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, combined with everyone on the planet, we contribute around 8 or 9 percent of human carbon dioxide production.

Wait - you just told us in #2 to not worry about CO2 - what are you trying to say? : )

10. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a mental disorder.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/23/the-10-t ... ange-hoax/

Yes, as evidenced by lists like this one.

[_honorentheos]

Honorentheos,
You're bringing in a strawman logical fallacy.
I don't believe so much money should be spent toward oil exploration either and I believe in recycling and developing practical renewable energy systems. Still, that has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

If you look at the OP, it's an attempt to degrade those who deny changing weather by illogically labeling them as comparable to those who choose to believe in a certain religion. It's illogical enough as it is without strawman, but thanks anyway.

"Follow the money" is hardly a strawman. You tried that route yourself, but missed it by 10 to the twelfth.

[_Amore]

At least we agree that "climate change" is a mask for "money change."
And it seems that many ignorantly don't care how steep we get in debt.

Out of all of the ad hominemn attacks and other logical fallacies directed at "climate change deniers", I'm surprised that nobody has offered the most simple answer that yes, climate does in fact change...
http://www.weather.com/maps/forecast

Or even more basic:
"You got a window - open it!"
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qXdmTtk1Mm4

[_canpakes]

At least we agree that "climate change" is a mask for "money change."
And it seems that many ignorantly don't care how steep we get in debt.

Out of all of the ad hominemn attacks and other logical fallacies directed at "climate change deniers", I'm surprised that nobody has offered the most simple answer that yes, climate does in fact change...
http://www.weather.com/maps/forecast

Or even more basic:
"You got a window - open it!"

OK, so after all that, your final analysis as to why we should not invest a dime into understanding climate change is because the climate changes.

Hmm. ; )

[_DrW]

At least we agree that "climate change" is a mask for "money change."
And it seems that many ignorantly don't care how steep we get in debt.

Out of all of the ad hominemn attacks and other logical fallacies directed at "climate change deniers", I'm surprised that nobody has offered the most simple answer that yes, climate does in fact change...
http://www.weather.com/maps/forecast

Or even more basic:
"You got a window - open it!"
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qXdmTtk1Mm4

Amore,

Shocking as it may seem, it would appear from your above quoted post that you do not even understand, let alone appreciate, the difference between climate and weather.

With this and some of the other demonstrated gaps in your knowledge and understanding of the basics in mind, let me suggest that your time might be better spent reading up on these issues from credible sources such as EPA, NOAA, NASA, NCDC, and even some of the excellent articles by international climate watch organizations.

In the context of this thread, posting links to weather maps and videos of Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam is really a waste of your time and of those who you expect to read and respond to your contributions.

by the way, I saw and accept your apology for your comment about my academic degree. Thank you.

Really though, you aren't doing yourself, or climate change skeptics in general, any favors by your contributions so far on this thread.