But all of a sudden, I began to refute your claims one by one:
- GW didn't stop in 1998.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE HAS, AND ALWAYS WILL HAPPEN.
THERE IS NO HUMAN CONNECTION TO GLOBAL WARMING OR COOLING.
Quote:
- Glaciers and ice sheets are still melting - actually even faster now than three years ago.
THEY HAVE DONE THAT IN CYCLES TIME AND AGAIN, THROUGHOUT ALL HISTORY
Quote:
- Natural causes cannot explain the current warming, etc, etc.
YES, THEY CAN! IT'S HAPPENED THROUGHOUT ALL OF HISTORY, and ALWAYS WILL.
Example: France and Britain nearly went to economic war over vineyard competition in Britannia, against continental domination. There used to be a lot of wine growth in much warmer Britain in the Middle Ages, because of climate change (that always changes in time throughout the world, not because of human industry). http://www.english-wine.com/history.html To pay for the Norman Conquest, William ordered an immense taxation-related census of Britain's economy, and the records survive to this day.
Another: Roman historians detailed the lush, green climate of what is now a desert in southern Israel, at their famous siege of Masada. Climate change is very well documented here by historians, since the climate has radically changed in certuries, yet LONG before industrialization.
In that small part of your mind which has not yet been engulfed by the Tea Party's radical anti-state doctrine, you realized that I was right: In reality, your AGW-denier-idols were the corrupt, misguided or simply bat-shit crazy individuals - not the scientists, as you wanted to believe. And of course you also realized that AGW exists!
You think that politically corrupted scientists don't lie, especially in light of email proof of the Mann conspiracy that intended to lie and cheat their way with the climate data? You don't believe there are any technocrats that will lie to push their world views into their dream political dystopia? You totally ignore the bogus "science" of past, autocratic regimes, especially the Nazis and the Soviets.
"This is a very accessible and sometimes astonishing study of what happens when [color=red]politicians attempt to mould the culture and intellectual life of a society to justify their ideologies[/color]. . . . [color=red]It's a fascinating study of a leader who genuinely believed that the credibility of 'scientific' socialism was at stake.[/color]"--Steve Carroll, The Age
Quote:
But you're to deep in denial now to acknowledge that you were wrong: So instead you resort to personal attacks and an ever more radical political rethoric, hoping that me or somebody else will be impressed.
You are the one pushing the radical, crooked statism that inevitably leads to the greatest human disasters.
You are so far to the left that your delusion allows you to think moderates are radicals. Try to get help for that problem.
YOU DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE VAST EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS FLAWS IN YOUR IDEOLOGICAL BELIEF IN BOGUS, POLITICALLY-DRIVEN "SCIENCE."
Quote:
So now, three years later, I can state with great confidence: AGW is real! It's every bit as bad as science says and we have to stop it!
JUST BECAUSE YOU TRY TO THINK THAT WAY. IT'S ENTIRELY IDEOLOGY WHAT YOU BELIEVE, and YOU DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE VAST HISTORICAL, POLITICAL, and SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS FLAWS IN YOUR VIEWS.
Quote:
So, let me finish with this: Thank you Graviton! Thx, cause without you, I probably would have never been so convinced about the existence of AGW. Thx for letting me see this "inconvenient truth"!
OH, GO AND FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOUR IDEOLOGY TRYING TO SCREW OTHERS WHO DON'T AGREE WITH YOU, while AL GORE AND OTHERS HUGELY PROFIT MORE FROM THIS SCAM TO RADICALLY CHANGE WORLD POLITICS.
Let the AL GORE socialists tell you in their own words, the REAL DRIVE BEHIND THE CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUD: REVOLUTIONARY, GLOBAL POLITICAL CHANGE.
Also note that the Clinton and Obama climate czarina (now former EPA boss) Carol Browner has close associations and is now taking a senior seat at Soros' Center for American Progress, to push Soros' agenda.
The new leader of the EPA is the same profile. Listen to her push for radical global political change to the hard left.
Buschue, man, you're full of nonsense.
bueschu Cherokee (3.8 mt)
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Posts: 402
Posted:
Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:54 pm
Jeez, man! You're raving ("Braaah! Socialist! BRAAAHHH! Yelling around in RED CAPSLOCK!!!")! Must have really hit a nerve with my previous statement.
Anyway, you were kind enough to at least halfway answer one of my questions, so I'll happily respond to that:
- The "It's been warm before"-crock:
I don't exactly see why this should disprove AGW. We're not talking about past ages here, we're talking about our age. And it so happens that we, who live in this age, emit vast amounts of greenhouse gases like Co2 into the atmo - and since the theory of the greenhouse-effect is around a 150 years old (way before the UN, Gore or Obama came into existence), I don't suppose you'd deny at least the possibility that our emissions could have a measurable effect on our climate.
- The "It's been warmer in some places before"-crock:
Well sure, but they don't call it GLOBAL warming for nothing, right? Local warm periods don't necessarily represent a global trend. On the other hand: While some places barely warm at all nowadays, others - like the arctic - are warming rapidly. The net-effect of that is a still slow but accelerating warming on a global scale.
Btw, for your information: Nowadays, they too grow wine in Scotland! D'uh!
- The "It's a natural cycle"-crock:
That would be new to me. Ice Age-cycles for example are way too slow to explain the current temp-increase. Solar irradiation on the other hand was fairly constant during the last 40 or so years. It even reached a minimum in 2009 - and yet global temps didn't plummet.
- Talking about ice: the "Glaciers and arctic sea ice have melted before"-crock:
Again: Why should earlier melts indicate that what's happening now in the arctic region for example, would be normal or even good for us?
On the contrary: Fairly small amounts of warming have caused fairly large increases in sea levels in the past, so if we should warm around 3 to 4 C until 2100, one can expect a sea level-rise of up to 2 meters due to ice melting on Greenland and Antarctica.
Melting sea ice on the other hand would not lead to more sea level rise but to a so called positive feedback: The white ice shield melts away, exposing more of the darker sea water to the sunlight. This water stores more heat which in turn is released into the atmo which in turn melts more sea ice etc., etc. - you get the picture.
- As usual the large rest of your post consists mostly of political ramblings ("Nazi-science": OMG, you're really aiming high here, aren't you?), so I will ignore them and concentrate on the science.
N1 Baker (23 kt)
Joined: Jul 17, 2007
Posts: 38
Posted:
Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:59 pm
Graviton wrote:
THERE IS NO HUMAN CONNECTION TO GLOBAL WARMING OR COOLING.
No, none whatsoever.
bueschu Cherokee (3.8 mt)
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Posts: 402
Posted:
Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:07 pm
Yeah, that's Graviton: Yelling around as loud and ideological as possible, hoping that nobody will notice the unsubstantiated BS that builds the core of his post.
What really pisses me off is, that in a few days to a few months he will probably just pop up again and propose that we end the discussion (supposedly because I have no facts [!] to justify my position), ignoring everything I wrote so far.
And when I calmly ask him to deliver a useful alternative to the theory AGW he will go all berserk on me, accusing me of supporting some crappy global UN-Obama-commie-dictatorship instead of just answering the friggin' question!
revolutionman Cherokee (3.8 mt)
Joined: Jun 14, 2009
Posts: 405
Posted:
Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:23 pm
I wonder what the Latvian government opinion on global warming is... I know this is a heated discussion now, but is this all U.S. ideology and information or are we looking at a global scale here?
bueschu Cherokee (3.8 mt)
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Posts: 402
Posted:
Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:22 pm
As far as I know, practically every major scientific organisation in the world and most governments have now accepted the scientific consensus that we humans are the main cause of the recent global warming. So, Gravitons claim that "governments around the world, through the already ridiculously corrupt UN, are now openly chanting about the real reasons for climate change fraud" is - as usual - wishful thinking.
(Btw, here's the position of the Latvian gov.: Latvia supports the fight against climate change. )
Sure, you will find occasional conflicts about the mitigation of AGW, its extent or even existence everywhere, but in my opinion the anglosaxon countries - particularly the US - are currently the main ideological battlefields regarding climate change.
The reason in case of the US might be the overall shape the country is in: On one hand it's still the worlds Number 1 in terms of political, economical and scientific power.
On the other hand, the recent economic crisis, the long and bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the growing cultural division within have deeply shaken the populations positive image of their own country.
In this atmosphere of uncertainty anti-intellectual and anti-scientific views are growing - see my recent post about the new "teach the controversy"-law in Tennessee.
It was only a matter of time, until something that has such a profound effect on our western lifestyle as climate change became a part of this cultural conflict. And I'm afraid, the recent attacks on climate science are just the beginning.
But then the US have shown a remarkable capability of renewing themselves in the past, so there's still a chance that this conflict might weather down within the next one or two decades - especially, since the effects of AGW become more and more evident.
N1 Baker (23 kt)
Joined: Jul 17, 2007
Posts: 38
Posted:
Sat Apr 30, 2011 12:22 am
The problem is that there is scientific consensus on climate change, but it doesn't include the general public. It's also not so easy so be apart of the consensus, as not everyone is a scientist.
bueschu Cherokee (3.8 mt)
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Posts: 402
Posted:
Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:20 pm
Yeah, I guess the climate scientists have to take their share of blame for the current wave of denial because they haven't been particularly effective communicators so far. One exception was the late Stephen Schneider from the National Center for Athmospheric Research - alas, he died last year.
Another part of the problem is, I think, the media: They confused AGW with a purely political issue instead of a largely scientific one. They apply the same "He said - she said"-narrative to climate science as one would apply to politics.
Problem is: Science is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of evidence. By letting non-scientists like Christopher Monckton, James Inhofe etc. counter the arguments of climatologists, the media nolens volens signaled to a confused public that those people are just as savy as real scientists.
N1 Baker (23 kt)
Joined: Jul 17, 2007
Posts: 38
Posted:
Tue May 03, 2011 6:37 am
bueschu wrote:
Yeah, I guess the climate scientists have to take their share of blame for the current wave of denial because they haven't been particularly effective communicators so far.
Actually I think they have nothing that can be said to the general public. The scientist can't justify his reasons or explain his evidence to the general public. Too bad. Just keep feeding the masses propaganda and maybe they'll learn, not!
N1 Baker (23 kt)
Joined: Jul 17, 2007
Posts: 38
Posted:
Tue May 03, 2011 6:39 am
bueschu Cherokee (3.8 mt)
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Posts: 402
Posted:
Tue May 03, 2011 3:05 pm
Well, it's very difficult to explain something as complex as AGW to the general public after all. And it sure gets even more difficult for a scientist who's used to words like "likely", "probably", "there's some evidence for..." - those terms are completely normal science-speak but to the general public they sound like "We don't know jack sh*t!".
People like Graviton who can afford to grossly oversimplify the issue certainly have an advantage here.
Btw, a good source for climate science explained layman-friendly is skepticalscience.com. They made a list of practically every AGW-denier-myth - and one with what science really says.
bueschu Cherokee (3.8 mt)
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Posts: 402
Posted:
Tue May 03, 2011 3:14 pm
bueschu Cherokee (3.8 mt)
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Posts: 402
Posted:
Sat May 14, 2011 12:15 pm
Free inhalers for asthmatic children - and of course renewable energy is eeevil!
I think, this op-ed-turned-video below neatly condenses the considerable problems AGW already poses today - and the failure of politics to address the issue. Keep in mind that we've still warmed less than 1C since the industrial revolution, and that there's at the very least (means if we'd reduce our C02-emmissions by 100% right now) an additional half degree in store for us due to the thermal inertia of the climate system.
bueschu Cherokee (3.8 mt)
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Posts: 402
Posted:
Sat Jun 11, 2011 12:30 pm
Ok, the "There's been no warming since 1995"-crock is now officially dead:
Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair.
Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.
By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
)
