Kerry Says "The Bible" is why we must save the Muslims from Global Warming/Climate Change

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Does CO2 follow temps or do temps follow CO2?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf

Are we in a natural cooling cycle or warming cycle?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

How much difference would cutting 15% of carbon output make?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

How much of the GW is caused by deforestation?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

How much difference has ethanol made?

???

What will happen 10 years from now without change?20? 100?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf


See for yourself, I'm not a scientist, you're not a scientist.. why not see what the actual scientists have to say about it?
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Does CO2 follow temps or do temps follow CO2?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf

Are we in a natural cooling cycle or warming cycle?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

How much difference would cutting 15% of carbon output make?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

How much of the GW is caused by deforestation?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

How much difference has ethanol made?

???

What will happen 10 years from now without change?20? 100?

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf


See for yourself, I'm not a scientist, you're not a scientist.. why not see what the actual scientists have to say about it?
Click to expand...
The fuck you say? A 105 pg PDF? If this PDF is agreed upon by 97% of scientists then I'll give it a read. Is it? Does this one paper reflect the views of all and can you cite that for me?

Also, can you save me some time and maybe give me a page number or general vicinity of where those answers are that you claim are 97% in agreement (on this one paper)?

Little known fact. I have a masters of science degree. I would be include in the consensus yet have no training in climatology. Doesn't that bother you a bit?
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
The difference being, Rush actually EARNED his wealth. Although you could make the case that having to fuck that hideous scag is work of a nature that few could stomach. Maybe he EARNED it after all.
Click to expand...
I guess we all have a price. I'd hit it for a billion dollars. Seems like a sweet deal to me.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
The fuck you say? A 105 pg PDF? If this PDF is agreed upon by 97% of scientists then I'll give it a read. Is it? Does this one paper reflect the views of all and can you cite that for me?

Also, can you save me some time and maybe give me a page number or general vicinity of where those answers are that you claim are 97% in agreement (on this one paper)?

Little known fact. I have a masters of science degree. I would be include in the consensus yet have no training in climatology. Doesn't that bother you a bit?
Click to expand...
Read the report

Use the table of contents to answer any questions you have
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Funny you should mention that, I've been reading it since you posted it.

I don't think it's what you claim it is. In fact, I don't think you even read it.
Click to expand...
"The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the fifth in a series of such reports. The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects and options for adaptation and mitigation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report


What field is your MS in and where did you earn it?
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Yes, the climate changes naturally over thousands of years, greenhouse gas ppm have risen dramatically since the industrial revolution, 2012-2013 saw the highest concentration increase since records began in 1984, and 2000-2010 was the hottest decade on record, so regardless of what NLXSK1 believes about there being some stable gap in the increase in temperatures, it's simply a lie and he's been told dozens and dozens of times and he still spouts the bullshit. That's why he is a denier. He knows what the truth is, yet denies it. The anthropogenic factor has caused global temps to increase at a rate that will significantly change the planet in hundreds of years.

Do you understand the difference?
Click to expand...


It snowed in south dakota today. Earliest in recorded history... Wierd huh?? Global warming causes cooling!!

Let me ask you something Padwan... Why do we continue to record thousands of high and low temperatures across the country every year? Could it be because we dont have enough data??
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the fifth in a series of such reports. The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects and options for adaptation and mitigation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report


What field is your MS in and where did you earn it?
Click to expand...
Meeeeeeeeeeeshigan.

Doesn't matter the field, it's SCIENCE!!

How many of the 97% are climatologists?

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
Click to expand...
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:

It snowed in south dakota today. Earliest in recorded history... Wierd huh?? Global warming causes cooling!!

Let me ask you something Padwan... Why do we continue to record thousands of high and low temperatures across the country every year? Could it be because we dont have enough data??
Click to expand...
You don't understand the difference between weather and climate

Big surprise

ginwilly said:
Meeeeeeeeeeeshigan.

Doesn't matter the field, it's SCIENCE!!

How many of the 97% are climatologists?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Click to expand...
Like I said, if you don't accept ACC right now, no amount of evidence will change your mind. You believe what you want to believe, not what's true

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You don't understand the difference between weather and climate

Big surprise



Like I said, if you don't accept ACC right now, no amount of evidence will change your mind. You believe what you want to believe, not what's true

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/
Click to expand...
lol pot, kettle

So when you find out it's actually 79 climatologists of the over 3000 responding, and what they agree on is that we are warming, man is contributing, nothing else, will you keep repeating that 97% consensus line?

In spite of the FACTS listed by wsj who read the actual survey that consisted of those very vague questions (how much? don't know....) will you still keep repeating that line while telling others they are ignoring evidence?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We are doing horrible things to our planet, we should focus our energy on not doing that. Instead we have the climatevangelicals who spread propaganda, not truth.

There are very basic questions that we don't know the answer to yet. Pretending we do hurts the cause. How can you win over skeptics with lies? You act as if we already have the answers.

What we know;
Is the earth warming? yes
Is man contributing? yes This is the consensus, everything else is window dressing.

Are we in a warming or cooling period? split on this one
How much is man contributing? Don't really know, a lot? a little? depends...
What happens if we reduce carbon output by X percent? don't know really, got a pretty good idea
Does CO2 affect temps or the other way around? yes....
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
I simply don't want to waste my time on people like you

You don't matter, the scientific consensus matters

And that's something you're going to have to learn to deal with
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I simply don't want to waste my time on people like you

You don't matter, the scientific consensus matters

And that's something you're going to have to learn to deal with
Click to expand...
Of course the consensus matters, but you keep giving a false narrative of exactly what the consensus is. I think the reason is because you don't really know because it doesn't really matter to you.

Some of you guys really come off as faith based with this issue. It's too important going forward to have this attitude. We are going to be faced with myriads of policy based on GW and the faith based will go along and laud each one without knowing why.

You should probably call me names now...
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Of course the consensus matters, but you keep giving a false narrative of exactly what the consensus is. I think the reason is because you don't really know because it doesn't really matter to you.

Some of you guys really come off as faith based with this issue. It's too important going forward to have this attitude. We are going to be faced with myriads of policy based on GW and the faith based will go along and laud each one without knowing why.

You should probably call me names now...
Click to expand...
"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols. This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

That's why your criticism of "the 97%" is invalid

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

-Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

-Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.

-Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale. Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative. Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.

-The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.

-The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).

And the kicker...

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."


Read that?

Nobody, not a single scientific organization, has a dissenting opinion. Not. A. Single. One.


So again, believe whatever you want to believe. Makes no difference to me.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I simply don't want to waste my time on people like you

You don't matter, the scientific consensus matters

And that's something you're going to have to learn to deal with
Click to expand...

Scientific theory is not based on consensus. You do not have a consensus even if it did no matter how many times you repeat it.

97% of scientists in this small sampling agree that the earth is warming and man has something to do with it. Well, I agree with that too. The amount man has to do with it and whether we can or should change that is still up for debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top