Earth Has Its Warmest May on Record Globally

[Denny Crane]

However you want to think about DC.

I know you think any expert that doesn't agree with you manipulates data or uses manipulated data but experts that agree with you do not manipulate data or use maculated data. To be fair, most probably feel that way.

Answer seems clear me . . . but doesn't matter. No one is going to change someones mind here because truth is no one here is an expert and we are just regurgitating what experts we believe.

I guess you also think the consensus term is manipulated . . . so the discussion on this topic is going no where.

"Consensus" isn't science. If 100% of scientists vote that the earth is flat, it does not make it so.

Scientists have been busted three times manipulating the data. Their emails made public with them admitting it among themselves.

And no, there is no consensus as claimed.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

And this speaks to why consensus is a big part of the alarmists' rhetoric:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

 

[PapaG]

The consensus has been manipulated. Denny and I have posted how repeatedly. I have to assume at this point that those who still believe that the consensus isn't manipulated aren't at all interested in science. The irony of some of those same posters mocking religion is obvious to me.

 

[Sinobas]

Global temps have been increasing, there's really no question about that anymore. The amount of Co2 has also been increasing, but would you expect anything else with the amount of fossil fuels we burn?

So even though climate is complicated there's still a pretty basic equation there. The temperature rise correlates most strongly to levels of CO2 that we started emitting after the industrial revolution.

 

[PapaG]

Global temps have been increasing, there's really no question about that anymore. The amount of Co2 has also been increasing, but would you expect anything else with the amount of fossil fuels we burn?

So even though climate is complicated there's still a pretty basic equation there. The temperature rise correlates most strongly to levels of CO2 that we started emitting after the industrial revolution.

"Correlates"

Think about that. It's not true, anyhow, but citing correlation as proof is cute in a middle school kind of way, although I may be insulting middle-schoolers.

 

[MarAzul]

"Correlates"

Think about that. It's not true, anyhow, but citing correlation as proof is cute in a middle school kind of way, although I may be insulting middle-schoolers.

In the grand scheme of the Carbon cycle, man isn't quite the horse he might like to think.

Then when I use one of those FootPrint calculators, there is no where to take credit for planting 700 trees on this place, or the 25000 planted on the ranch.
Bottom line is, I sure am glad Liberal Progressive pukes don't really ever get to design anything.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[MarAzul]

Then look at the way they calculate the "polution". Burning one gallon of gasoline emits 19.4 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere, and one gallon of diesel emits 22.2 pounds (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).


Geez a gallon of fuel only weighs 7.1 pounds! So they count the weight of the atmosphere that is already there!!. Then the natural process separates the carbon from the atmosphere combined by the engine.

The two figures are most interesting. The diesel engine is quite a bit more energy efficient, so it uses more air to burn the 1 gallon of Diesel. So it emits more pollution by that count by counting the weight of the atmosphere passing through the process. Geez that train that moves 1 ton of freight 500 miles using 1 gallon of Diesel has to go immediately.
Then I notice, I get counted for burning wood for heat. Wow, I either burn it in the clean up fire outside or in the house or let it rot. It returns the carbon one way or another with or without my guiding the process.

Very liberal counters, they count the carbon passing by your nose in one direction only, even when you actually do nothing.

 

[MarAzul]

I expect a liberal solution to that problem very soon.

 

[barfo]

And no, there is no consensus as claimed.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Oh Denny. You should really dig a little deeper instead of grasping at the first thing that supports your preconceptions.

Your link above is an article by Richard Tol, who attacks the '97%' consensus number. But let's see what else he has to say on the subject:

There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.

Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role.

The consensus is of course in the high nineties

barfo

 

[rasheedfan2005]

I think its great when people who believe the earth is some 3 billion years old is having its global climate changed by a couple of years of human activity.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Man can dam a river but only god can damn a planet.

-SlyPokerDog

 

[The_Lillard_King]

"Consensus" isn't science. If 100% of scientists vote that the earth is flat, it does not make it so.

Scientists have been busted three times manipulating the data. Their emails made public with them admitting it among themselves.

And no, there is no consensus as claimed.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

And this speaks to why consensus is a big part of the alarmists' rhetoric:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

Right . . . because your experts say so. Just like the the guy you posted the youtube video says scientists manipulates data it must be so. It could never be him manipulating data to prove what he is trying to say.

Again it comes down to who you want to believe. Trying to pretend to understand it to the level these people who spend their job studying this stuff do, is silly in my mind.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

The consensus has been manipulated. Denny and I have posted how repeatedly. I have to assume at this point that those who still believe that the consensus isn't manipulated aren't at all interested in science. The irony of some of those same posters mocking religion is obvious to me.

Or don't put value in the links posted to show there is no consensus . . .

Posters on here argue just to argue and will post data and links to prove what they are trying to argue. The times I do take to sometimes clink on a link, often those links are a joke or what the link says is being manipulated by the poster.

 

[Denny Crane]

Oh Denny. You should really dig a little deeper instead of grasping at the first thing that supports your preconceptions.

Your link above is an article by Richard Tol, who attacks the '97%' consensus number. But let's see what else he has to say on the subject:







barfo

Poppycock.

He was referring to the technique and results of the flawed surveys. Those surveys do say 97%, the fine print is "97% of a small number of scientists chosen for their bias."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol

Originally designated as a lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Tol said in March 2014 that he had withdrawn from the work with the report in September 2013, citing disagreement with the profile of the report which he considered too alarmist and putting too little emphasis on opportunities to adapt to climate changes.[13]

 

[PapaG]

Or don't put value in the links posted to show there is no consensus . . .

Posters on here argue just to argue and will post data and links to prove what they are trying to argue. The times I do take to sometimes clink on a link, often those links are a joke or what the link says is being manipulated by the poster.

This all goes back to Further claiming AGW is a "fact." It isn't. If you think it is, then you're not a believer in the scientific method.

 

[barfo]

Poppycock.

Ha ha. Your own consensus denier says:

There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.

Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role.

The consensus is of course in the high nineties

I don't think posting 'poppycock' really washes that away.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Ha ha. Your own consensus denier says:







I don't think posting 'poppycock' really washes that away.

barfo

He was talking about the survey results, which he also puts to shame.

The laugh is on you.

97% of 10 scientists I asked said you should take a long walk on a short pier. Go for it.

 

[MarAzul]

This is an example of the good science the American public receives from it's EPA.

Wood has 8000 BTUs per pound and 2.59 pounds of CO2 (a neat trick 2.59# from 1#)
Fuel Oil has 140000 BTU per gallon and 26.4 pounds of CO2 (another neat trick at 7.1 pounds per gallon)

So they charge me with creating 45 pound of pollution when I burn 17.5 pounds(BTUs equal one gallon) of Wood.

It seems to me that I should be credited with saving 26.4 pounds of pollution (the equivalent heating oill) since the wood will give up the Carbon no matter what I do, burn it in a clean up fire outside, burn it in the house, or let it rot. The carbon is returned to the environment. I get no credit at all for planting replacement trees to eat this stuff.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

If man wasnt around to fight forest fires... but we are the earths cancer right? Lols.

 

[Denny Crane]

He was talking about the survey results, which he also puts to shame.

The laugh is on you.

97% of 10 scientists I asked said you should take a long walk on a short pier. Go for it.

This wasn't meant as some sort of insult. It was to offer you a similar proposition your kind offers me. The long walk and short pier are what you are asking in terms of spending and the result. Based upon a vote of very few people.

So when does the fire and brimstone start? Or is this one if those moving goalpost things... Or like the 2012 apocalypse theories - the date has come and gone and we are still here.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If man wasnt around to fight forest fires... but we are the earths cancer right? Lols.

No, not at all. No matter what we do the Earth will go right on producing life. There is absolutely nothing we can do to destroy the earth.

What we are really talking about and what some very intelligent people in this forum are in complete denial about is can we poison our on existence on this planet to extinction? And the answer is yes.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream, "there is nothing we can do to harm the planet" all day long and you know, you're right. There is nothing you can do. We can set off every nuke we have and the planet will continue to spin around the sun.

But, and this is what people aren't understanding, we can intentionally and/or unintentionally make it so we can no longer exist on the earth. You can talk all you want about how trees have been around for this long or that long or how the ice has been around for this long or that long or talk all about the history of ice ages during the dinosaurs but we are the newest advanced life form on this planet. And newest means we're pretty fucking fragile. We can't live through a very big change to our environment compared to other life forms that have existed for 100s of millions of years on this planet. We are not that robust of a life form. We are the greatest threat to our own existence.

Are some of you also in disbelief that we can pollute a river? Oceans? Air? You honestly don't think we're doing any of these things? And if you do, do you not think that the pollution we are producing is harming us?

It shouldn't take a scientist to tell you these things. It shouldn't be a debate. It shouldn't be coming as a giant surprise to some of you. We are threatening not only the quality of our lives but our actual lives. What we do on this planet affects our ability to live on this planet.

 

[MarAzul]

No, not at all. No matter what we do the Earth will go right on producing life. There is absolutely nothing we can do to destroy the earth.

What we are really talking about and what some very intelligent people in this forum are in complete denial about is can we poison our on existence on this planet to extinction? And the answer is yes.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream, "there is nothing we can do to harm the planet" all day long and you know, you're right. There is nothing you can do. We can set off every nuke we have and the planet will continue to spin around the sun.

But, and this is what people aren't understanding, we can intentionally and/or unintentionally make it so we can no longer exist on the earth. You can talk all you want about how trees have been around for this long or that long or how the ice has been around for this long or that long or talk all about the history of ice ages during the dinosaurs but we are the newest advanced life form on this planet. And newest means we're pretty fucking fragile. We can't live through a very big change to our environment compared to other life forms that have existed for 100s of millions of years on this planet. We are not that robust of a life form. We are the greatest threat to our own existence.

Are some of you also in disbelief that we can pollute a river? Oceans? Air? You honestly don't think we're doing any of these things? And if you do, do you not think that the pollution we are producing is harming us?

It shouldn't take a scientist to tell you these things. It shouldn't be a debate. It shouldn't be coming as a giant surprise to some of you. We are threatening not only the quality of our lives but our actual lives. What we do on this planet affects our ability to live on this planet.

Ah! now we are getting somewhere. It all comes down to how We ruin the nest. It took a long time to reach this point but we are nearing the point a decision must be made. During my life span, the population of the earth tripled. We added as many people as had ever existed before. It would take less time to do it again but for one thing. We can not feed that many.
The Sea won't wash us away so we will be forced to deal with the excess population and GHGs will not be part of the equation.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

No, not at all. No matter what we do the Earth will go right on producing life. There is absolutely nothing we can do to destroy the earth.

What we are really talking about and what some very intelligent people in this forum are in complete denial about is can we poison our on existence on this planet to extinction? And the answer is yes.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream, "there is nothing we can do to harm the planet" all day long and you know, you're right. There is nothing you can do. We can set off every nuke we have and the planet will continue to spin around the sun.

But, and this is what people aren't understanding, we can intentionally and/or unintentionally make it so we can no longer exist on the earth. You can talk all you want about how trees have been around for this long or that long or how the ice has been around for this long or that long or talk all about the history of ice ages during the dinosaurs but we are the newest advanced life form on this planet. And newest means we're pretty fucking fragile. We can't live through a very big change to our environment compared to other life forms that have existed for 100s of millions of years on this planet. We are not that robust of a life form. We are the greatest threat to our own existence.

Are some of you also in disbelief that we can pollute a river? Oceans? Air? You honestly don't think we're doing any of these things? And if you do, do you not think that the pollution we are producing is harming us?

It shouldn't take a scientist to tell you these things. It shouldn't be a debate. It shouldn't be coming as a giant surprise to some of you. We are threatening not only the quality of our lives but our actual lives. What we do on this planet affects our ability to live on this planet.

I wont argue people are poison. I think about it everytime I see a moron buying skittles and pepsi with food stamps.

Since you think we are poisoning our own existence by farting and exhaling CO2 im curious if you think homosexuality could be poisoned to our existence? I mean if everyone goes gay eventually we wont have babies? And humans will cease to exist.

Using this logic we can conclude if I have to quit driving my truck because of emissions then homos should also have to quit being gay. For the benefit of humanity of course.

Also if evolution has been producing smarter forms of life for millions of years then perhaps humans adapting to a warmer climate is actually necessary in the evolutionary process?

 

[barfo]

This wasn't meant as some sort of insult.

No offense taken.

It was to offer you a similar proposition your kind offers me. The long walk and short pier are what you are asking in terms of spending and the result. Based upon a vote of very few people.

maybe, but what we should do is a different question than what are the current facts. I was addressing the latter, not the former.

He was talking about the survey results

Ok, explain how this quote is about the survey results:

There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.

It sounds to me like he is acknowledging that there IS a consensus, and furthermore saying that he agrees with it. How is that a statement about the survey results?

It is true that he has some quibbles with the survey - he thinks the number is in the high 90's, but maybe not 97%. If it's 95% instead of 97%, is that supportive of your denial?

barfo

 

[PapaG]

No, not at all. No matter what we do the Earth will go right on producing life. There is absolutely nothing we can do to destroy the earth.

What we are really talking about and what some very intelligent people in this forum are in complete denial about is can we poison our on existence on this planet to extinction? And the answer is yes.

You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream, "there is nothing we can do to harm the planet" all day long and you know, you're right. There is nothing you can do. We can set off every nuke we have and the planet will continue to spin around the sun.

But, and this is what people aren't understanding, we can intentionally and/or unintentionally make it so we can no longer exist on the earth. You can talk all you want about how trees have been around for this long or that long or how the ice has been around for this long or that long or talk all about the history of ice ages during the dinosaurs but we are the newest advanced life form on this planet. And newest means we're pretty fucking fragile. We can't live through a very big change to our environment compared to other life forms that have existed for 100s of millions of years on this planet. We are not that robust of a life form. We are the greatest threat to our own existence.

Are some of you also in disbelief that we can pollute a river? Oceans? Air? You honestly don't think we're doing any of these things? And if you do, do you not think that the pollution we are producing is harming us?

It shouldn't take a scientist to tell you these things. It shouldn't be a debate. It shouldn't be coming as a giant surprise to some of you. We are threatening not only the quality of our lives but our actual lives. What we do on this planet affects our ability to live on this planet.

That's a neat story, but temperatures have been higher in the past, and much of North America was under much more water in the past. Lake Missoula, where I'm near the bottom of right now while visiting family, is a deep lake. Somehow, glaciers carved the valleys here after the lake that doesn't exist anymore was drained. Vim sitting in a lake bed that hasn't existed for a million years, at least. How did that happen?

 

[barfo]

Since you think we are poisoning our own existence by farting and exhaling CO2 im curious if you think homosexuality could be poisoned to our existence? I mean if everyone goes gay eventually we wont have babies? And humans will cease to exist.

Do you think homosexuality is contagious?

Using this logic we can conclude if I have to quit driving my truck because of emissions then homos should also have to quit being gay. For the benefit of humanity of course.

Uh, no. The problem is actually that there are too many humans, not too few. If there were fewer people driving trucks like yours, your truck wouldn't be an issue.

Also if evolution has been producing smarter forms of life for millions of years then perhaps humans adapting to a warmer climate is actually necessary in the evolutionary process?

It's actually necessary if the climate warms up, yes. Not clear how that will make us smarter, but maybe it will.

barfo

 

[PapaG]

I also wonder who says humans can't pollute a river? Anybody who says that isn't worthy of any consideration on this topic.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

Do you think homosexuality is contagious?



Uh, no. The problem is actually that there are too many humans, not too few. If there were fewer people driving trucks like yours, your truck wouldn't be an issue.



It's actually necessary if the climate warms up, yes. Not clear how that will make us smarter, but maybe it will.

barfo

Homosexuality does seem contagious I mean when one celeb says hes gay everyone turns gay. I kid I kid

But if we use to be apes and the need for food made our brains bigger to form tools ect ect like evolution claims who is to say our lungs wont adapt to breathe CO2 and we'll develop bigger sweat glands?

I mean science damn it lets use some fucking logic here.

 

[PapaG]

Some people say AGW is a fact, too. I consider that view as idiotic as those unnamed people who say humans can't pollute rivers or lakes. Both sides are based on unscientific proof.

 

[barfo]

But if we use to be apes and the need for food made our brains bigger to form tools ect ect like evolution claims who is to say our lungs wont adapt to breathe CO2 and we'll develop bigger sweat glands?

Sure. How fast do you think evolution works? How many generations will it take for humans to develop those CO2 lungs and sweat glands? Now how fast is the earth warming?

I mean science damn it lets use some fucking logic here.

Let's do.

barfo