This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
What If The World Can't Cut Its Carbon Emissions?
Submitted by Roger Andrews (of Energy Matters) via The Automatic Earth blog,
Many people, including more than a few prominent politicians, accept that global warming must be limited to no more than two degrees C above the pre-industrial mean, or a little more than one degree C above where we are now, to avoid dangerous interference with the Earth’s climate. Let’s assume these people are right, that the 2C threshold really does represent the climatic equivalent of a cliff and that bad things will happen if we drive off it.
So how do we apply the brakes?
According to the IPCC by limiting cumulative future global carbon emissions to no more than 500 gigatons, and even then we would have only a two-thirds chance of success:
To have a better than two-thirds chance of limiting warming to less than 2°C from pre-industrial levels the total cumulative carbon dioxide emission from all human sources since the start of the industrial era would need to be limited to about 1,000 gigatonnes of carbon. About half of this amount had already been emitted by 2011.
Here we will ignore the one-third chance of failure and use 500 gigatons as the “safe” emissions limit. Can we stay below it? Figure 1 summarizes the current position. The black line (data from EDGAR) shows progress, or lack thereof, in cutting global emissions since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) started the ball rolling in 1992. The red line is a projection of the black line. The blue line, which intersects zero in 2117, amounts to 500 Gt of future carbon emissions. I assumed a linear decrease for simplicity but other pathways are of course possible:
Figure 1: Current position on cutting global emissions to “safe” levels
Obviously the world is going to have to reverse course in a hurry if it is to have any chance of keeping warming below the 2C danger threshold. What are the chances that it can? Let’s look at which countries the emissions are coming from and see what the prospects are.
The world’s emitters are commonly divided into two categories – the “developed” countries, such as the US, UK, Germany and Japan, and the “developing” countries, such as Egypt, India, Malawi and Paraguay. We will look first at the developed countries, which presently emit a third of the world’s carbon. Developed country emissions for 1970 through 2012 are summarized in Figure 2:
Figure 2: Developed country emissions from fossil fuel burning, 1970-2012
The United States accounts for 16% of global emissions (the percentages given here are from 2012 EDGAR data). US emissions have been trending down since 2005 partly because of the shale gas boom and partly because of the 2008 recession. The Obama administration recently adopted rules designed to cut US emissions further but whether they will survive is uncertain, and even if they do the chances that Congress as presently constituted will agree to emissions cuts unless the developing countries follow suit are effectively zero. The 1997 US Senate rejected US participation in the Kyoto Protocol for this reason, and given the opportunity the present Senate would do the same.
The European Union accounts for 11% of global emissions. For some years the EU has been setting an example to the world by unilaterally pursuing ambitious emissions targets, although so far with little to show for it (the downtrend in EU emissions since 2006 is largely a result of the 2008 recession and the EU’s slow recovery). The realization that the EU can’t save the planet all by itself is, however, finally beginning to sink in, and as a result the EU has hardened its negotiating position, stating at the Lima climate talks that mandatory emissions targets must now be set for all countries, not just the developed ones.
Australia, Canada and Japan collectively emit 7% of the world’s carbon. All three are presently somewhat less than enthusiastic about emissions cuts and are unlikely to become greatly more enthusiastic in the foreseeable future. They won’t move unless everyone else does.
Now on to the developing countries, which emit two-thirds of the world’s carbon and are responsible for all of the growth in global emissions since the world embarked on its quest to cut them in 1992. Developing country emissions are summarized in Figure 3:
Figure 3: Developing country emissions from fossil fuel burning, 1970-2012
China, which now accounts for 29% of global emissions (according to EDGAR; other sources put the figure at 25-26%) is the key player. The UNFCCC exempts China and the other developing countries from emissions caps – in fact it encourages them to build more power plants in order to eradicate poverty – and China wants to keep it that way. China pays lip service to the need to combat climate change but considers economic development far more important, as illustrated in Figure 4. The total disregard for the “Spirit of Kyoto” is almost comical:
Figure 4: China’s emissions before and after ratifying the Kyoto Protocol
(The lip service consists of a) China’s 2005 commitment to reduce its carbon intensity – the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP – by 40-45% by 2020 and b) its recent commitment to make its best efforts to peak its emissions by 2030. Figure 4 shows what happened to China’s emissions after its 2005 commitment. Its latest commitment pretty much guarantees that its emissions will continue to rise for at least the next 15 years.)
India, with 6% of global emissions, makes no bones about where it stands: “The world must accept that India’s per capita carbon emissions will need to rise rapidly if it is to eliminate poverty, the environment minister said on Friday, as delegates meet in Lima for key UN climate change talks.” Economic development takes priority over the need to combat climate change in India too, as illustrated in Figure 5:
Figure 5: India’s emissions before and after ratifying the Kyoto Protocol
The position of Russia, which accounts for 5% of global emissions, is predictable. Under Kyoto Russia committed to keep its emissions below 1990 levels and its emissions are still well below 1990 levels (Figure 3). Putin has other things to worry about anyway.
The other developing countries, which collectively contribute 26% of global emissions, include some in a reasonably advanced state of economic development, such as South Korea and Chile, but otherwise are mostly poor. The poor countries are more than willing to limit their emissions provided the developed countries pay all the costs, and in 2011 the Green Climate Fund was set up to get the ball rolling. So far, however, contributions amount to only $10 billion – a negligible sum relative to the scale of the undertaking. We can safely assume that funds on the scale necessary to reverse the 3% historic annual growth rate in other developing country emissions will not be made available, or at least not quickly enough to do any good.
The bottom line is that the developed countries won’t commit to emissions cuts of the magnitude necessary to stay below the 2C threshold unless the developing countries shoulder at least some of the burden, but the developing countries aren’t going to sacrifice economic development on the altar of climate change, threshold or no threshold. The most they are likely to agree to is token measures that get good publicity but which don’t cut emissions, as China has already done. As a result the developed countries will again be left to go it alone, which as shown in Figure 6 is an exercise in futility:
Figure 6: Developed and developing country carbon emissions, 1970-2012
The conclusion is inescapable. However desirable it may be to protect the Earth from the dire consequences of a runaway climate the chances that the world will agree to cut its emissions quickly enough to stay below the 2C threshold are somewhere between zip, zilch and zero. (There’s also the question of whether cuts of the magnitude necessary would be politically, economically and technologically achievable if the world does agree, but we’ll leave it aside here.)
Now imagine that you are one of the prominent politicians – Obama, Kerry, Merkel, Ban Ki-moon, Hollande, Cameron, Davey, whoever – who have publicly and repeatedly stated that climate change is the greatest threat facing the world, that the world is in serious trouble if nothing is done to stop it but that a solution is still within our reach. What do you tell people when next year’s make-or-break Paris climate talks show that it isn’t?
- 17128 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -








GLOBAL WARMING IS BUNK
What is the emission of Debt???
Since the world makes only debt, we are interested in exactly what said debt emits before we condemn it as a hazard.
Does it emit a gas, or hydrocarbon?
Hydrocarbons are emitted into the atmosphere , absorbed by the ocean and converted back into oil & gas by FAST ABIOTIC-TECTONIC PROCESSES.
That is why Oil & gas will NEVER RUN OUT and CAN ALWAYS BE CHEAP AS HELL as long as we do not kill off fast oceanic abiotic processes.
GLOBAL WARMING / CARBON EMISSIONS ARE BUNK
You might want to bone up on the carbonate-silicate cycle. It is anything but fast.
Before global warming came along , your school of thought was religion.
Just like climate change - a fucking religion. Either tell us why no planet in our solar system has a measured constant surface temperature in it's entire history of it's existance or fuck off and go back to your bible. Global warming is a fucking religion not a science. Your lot did not even understand continental drift until 1944 . Muppets.
Mikey died from eating poprocks while drinking a coke BECAUSE CO2 IS POISON! You people had better wake up.
Dr. Don Easterbrook to a Washington State Senate Committee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRw4df4eM2w
Human caused global warming sounds like bunkum to me. That it is being so widely advocated while they fudge the numbers is a clue.
Polutiion is a problem, but manageable.
And meanwhile the Pope of the AGW religion, fat-shit Al Gore, continues to play naked grab-ass with the guys giving him massages, while laughing all the way to the bank. What a racket!
"Where we need to go" ??
Global atmospheric CO2 level has gone from 3.15 parts per 10,000 to a terrifying 3.95 parts per 10,000 in 2014!
Antarctic sea ice area in 2014 was at the greatest extent measured to date:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Are they out of their minds?
damn, one of the few times on ZH i'm wishing for a zero rating option.
BTW - that 3.15 parts per 10,000 was in 1961
http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-dioxide-levels.htm
vs. the 3.95 parts per 10,000 in 2014
When I was in school, this was the garbage the "scientific community" was indoctrinating us with...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Now that is "old school".
First it was global cooling, than warming, now its climate change to cover their asses in either direction.
ZH deniers are so funny! They all see themselves as divergent thinkers who are wise to "the Man" and hip to all the slick cons being pulled. But at the same time they lap up all the lies and propaganda spewed out by Big Oil and Big Coal (e.g. the Koch Foundation etc). Such morons! So ironic!
That's why I hardly ever comment here ... very high noise to signal ratio!
Anyone suggesting Rush Limbaugh is a 'Nazi' is woefully ignorant of the professed Weltanschauung of both, and belongs at Daily Kos - not here.
The irony of someone who sees before his own eyes absolutely no evidence of global warming, year after year, decade after decade, and refusing to acknowledge or admit it, calling anyone a "denier" is what is truly funny.
I guess the dastardly Kochs have just made it SEEM like there's no global warming. Neat trick.
You mean because your house isn't underwater yet, there's no global warming?
Deniers aren't exactly funny - more like pathetic.How anyone can take scientific proof and argue against it based on NOTHING SCIENTIFIC at all is typical of a worldview that can't cope with reality, refuses to see the ill effects of unregulated capitalism, and generally thinks the planet is theirs for the raping. Very sad.
Oh very well done, I think you managed to get every leftwing talking point in there.
People cannot be "deniers" if the science were true, that would make them suicidal, they are sceptical of the motives, processes, procedures & results of what is proferred as science. Then you swerve off even further by saying this thing you're holding out as truth is the result of rape & "unregulated capitalism"...lol...name for me one thing that is not regulated by the state and furthermore, I don't think you even understand what "regulation" is.
Regulation is: A hungry man trying to feed his family by catching and killing an endangered land tortoise for meat and being arrested, tried, convicted and jailed by the state. It is also a man paying the state a fee for a permit to bulldoze under hundreds of land tortoise burrows thus suffocating them all.
This is what you want, this is your nirvana?
You already have it.
The difference between global cooling and global warming is that the scientific consensus is entirely behind global warming. Did you even read the first two sentences in that wikipedia article?
When you were in school, you weren't paying attention, because the "scientific community" NEVER SAID THAT.
And you think climate change is both/either cooling/warming? Wow, you really should try to pay attention.
Wikipedia is not nor ever has been a reliable source. It was never intended to be a reliable source. It is a propaganda engine.
Move over Al,the other pope has a new encyclical ready to roll out,perhaps the aliens have finished probing
The ignorance on display here is astounding.
Go look at solar cycles and get back to us once you are over your own case of ignorance.
You pretty much nail it. The seriously disturbed nut's pimping AGW are linked into the same web as central bankers, transnational corporations (redundant?), the public 'university' system (schools), many police forces, and EVERY single Federal agency.
America has been occupied from within.
Global 'climate change' is something outside of human control. The planet, and it's human and other living creations are all being subject to far worse existential (and much more real) threats to our well-being than this indeed 'religious' construct of 'global fucking warming'!!!
Observe what these sociopath 'world leaders' have wrought upon humanity and then seriously consider your fucking sanity if you really believe these insidiously corrupt, vile, lunatics in charge of this certain to be EPIC fail ought to be tinkering with the weather!!!
Please ask yourself why you're trying to inject your fantasies into this discussion when you don't even know the difference between climate and weather.
Solar cycles. Do youself a favor before you cause yourself an aneurism and look inti it.
YOU ARE GETTING NEGGED because the abiotic theory of oil creation is still considered WRONG given all available evidence. there are still outlying questions such as the potential differntial abiotic and biotic process that result in various hydrocarbons ( namely methane ) as well as crude oil.
crude oil is still considered primarily biogenic as is COAL. and there is plenty of science to back that up. methane hydrates i am not certain off and all types of variuos carbon containing gasses---such as CH4, may exist at various depths and under various circumstances and as such may be abiogenic.
however, probably none of them takes all that much c02 directly from the atmosphere directly into other solid or liquid forms very quickly as most/not all, abiogenic cycles are slow, and particularly most of those cycles that are an interaction between relatively stable atmospheric composition being subsumed into surface and subsurface soils or liquids.
that said .global warming is yes, a relgiion. and the worst kind, one cloaking itself in the language and jargon of science. with many such scientists having already hooked their lines to it liek a great big gravy train fish that will contineu to bring in research grant funding so long as they skew the conclusions of their research and simulations towards the panic government intervention carbon credit trading supporting conclusions.
that said, i will humor you and point out that TITAN the major moon of SATURN is without question the MOST intersting moon in the entire solar system BECAUSE IT HAS PLENTY OF CARBON IN ITS THICK ATMOSPHERE. venus is the ONLY other planetary body AT ALL with a known thick atmosphere above a hard rocky terrain. titan also has lakes (venus doesn't have any real 'lakes' and not of water) . titan is thus the only body in our solar system with a fluid dynamics system "hydrodynamic" that interacts in a cycle with terrain from plentiful atmospheric gas to surface lakes and also to 'dry' land. terra firma.
titan is thus , in many respects, the closest body in our solar system to earth ---NOT ONLY MARS, and titan is defined by thick methane clouds (very cold ones!) . and so we must go study the ONLY OTHER CARBON CYCLE in our solar system to better understand abiogenic chemical cycles of planetary bodies other than earth as they may shed more light on earth's cycle by putting some of our assupmptions into question. especially since we know there is NO life on titan, and no human influence. thus---it is a good source of objectively unspoiled external information. though it is dubious very much can be analogized from research on such a cold system, we have as of yet to do any meaningful observation. an orbiting space mission dedicated exclusively to titan SHOULD be in the works but is not as of yet.
the cassini huygens mission just scratched the surface. in my humble opinion, titan is without question the most important moon to study in the planetary system, and from a practical perspective perhaps one of the most practical as well as important bodies to study OTHER than potential practice missions upon steering earth threatening asteroids, or practice missions to nuke asteroids.
but that's just my 2 cents.
Sorry but you are so confused.
If the author is right then, the only thing that can save us is a powerful Global Government ...
That's what the UN reports are going for anyway, or anyway an alliance of the member governments against most of their people.
"If the author is right then, the only thing that can save us is a powerful Global Government ..."
Then again, the three biggest champions of Anthropogenic Global Warming: James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Al Gore are proven liars, so the author is probably not right.
Hey dont offend the catholics on the blog, and leave out the pope... He is one of the bigger advocates of wealth redistribution, oh, I mean global warming....
Great idea.
They can also fix all those terroristy types too.
lol. nice dry humour.
The author is a global warming skeptic:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/roger-andrews-how-nasa-giss-m...
Oops
Hey, Crazy. I'll give you 50:50 odds that global warming is real.
Hey man , I will give you 100% certainty that all planet surfaces fluctuate in temperature.
That is what is known as 'NORMAL'
In fact I would be very worried if our planets surface did not fluctauate , because that would be known as 'ABNORMAL'
If Global Warming is real then the least painful way of reducing emissions is fewer people. Fewer people means:
Less travel.
Less fossil fuels burnt.
Less houses built.
Less trees chopped down for furniture / paper.
Less refrigerators.
Less washing machines.
Less need for mining to dig metals out of the ground.
Less need for plastic.
Less water consumption.
etc, etc, etc, etc.
... without really trying.
But instead our govt pays people to have babies. So what are they really saying?
(Gotta give them credit - when they tell you to get fucked, they put your money where their mouth is.)
Oh but they still want to reduce emissions?
Well, perhaps impoverishing the planet is the other way of reducing emissions. Have as many people as you like. Just don't let them buy anything!
BTW, China and India increasing carbon emissions? No shit! They like to have nice things too. Not only that, we've given them all our manufacturing. So THEIR increase in carbon emissions is a reflection of OUR consumption habits. (Not criticizing the article - thanks for showing the graphs and pointing it out.)
Govt serious about emissions / pollution reduction? Where's the global one-child policy? No, can't have that now can we? Might affect someone's precious little bank account. Just put more people on the planet and expect them to get by with less. Guess what! Two people driving four cyclinders use the same petrol as one person driving a V8. Four people on small motorbikes use the same petrol as one V8. But what happens to those four people when they actually need a V8? Oh, that's right, they don't need anything! Except 4 people need four times as much food, water, clothing, shelter and all the other stuff I mentioned above.
Last time I looked there was still a shitload of people who travel 40km (25 miles) or more to work each day, but for some reason there is no better way. Last time I looked, Built-In-Obsolescence was practically "unavoidable" - there is NO better way! NPG? No, we have to pay people to make babies. There is no better way! But Carbon emissions and global warming is a problem? Some fuckers are deliberately creating the problem and then laying the blame on everyone for wanting a few nice things in their life.
"We gotta have more people but pollution is all your fault for eating too many cows!!!"
I believe at the soul of the Left is a deadly self loathing. Regardless of that the end game of GW is absolute control over all of life with no limits on power. After all they will be saving the planet. If some people need to "go", then it will be a terrible painful choice they must make...and that will not include "them".
It's the ultimate claim on power and short of a sudden Ice Age there will be no way to disprove it.
Actually, the way forward is to create a new economy that is based on sustainable energy. People that get on board will make lots of money. The only power shift that needs to happen is from dirty energy to clean energy.
The proof is in the pudding.
"Clean energy", especially clean and cheap energy is a myth for utopians. Energy prices themselves tend to reflect the relative efficiency of producing them and bringing them to market. Apart from hefty government subsidies and using the old "dirty" energy you cannot make clean energy. Most the clean stuff needs batteries, back up capabilities and has no ability to adjust. That is why most electric cars also carry a gas engine. It is why fully functioning oil and coal factories must stay in place to back up wind, hydro and solar. It requires inefficient duplication.
Even if everyone in America or any other country maxed out their solar and wind capabilities you still have to have an entire fully staffed oil, gas or coal plant to back them up for the cloudy windless days. You then need a third branch which are huge arrays of batteries which are extremely dirty to store energy when over produced.
Oil, gas and even coal are very clean compared to their predecessors which leftist-enviro lemmings do not realize.
Put it this way, imagine if we still had to burn raw wood and coal and everyone and everything traveled by horse, still. All organic and natural and largest pollution-waste problems you could imagine.
There may come a time in the future when these energies are cost efficient but it is probably when oil is north of $150-180/bbl.
Most "environmentalists" are first and foremost "humanitarians", which goes to show how moral they are, which is to say non-scientific -- religious.
Luckily, they have science against them. We can be certain that the planet will always take care of killing off the excess human population that can't be supported. The more we try to keep people alive, the further we push the equilibrium, and the harder it will be to do so. The only thing we need to worry about is not going extinct at that point. Humanitarians are idiots who had might as well be beating their heads against a wall because it would be equally as pointless. Environmentalists are either idiots or very nostalgic people.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
What are fast abiotic-tectonic processes ?
Debt emits hope for the future
Carbon dioxide does not cause warming.
Warming causes excess carbon dioxide.
Earth-directed CMES cause warming.
www.youtube.com/suspicious0bservers
That's what the pre historic climate proxies show, and it 's also something you might expect. The solubility of gasses in water goes down with increasing temperature.
My thinking is that the proper course of action is actually approximately what we started back in the 1970's. At that time the word "pollution" was understood to be things directly toxic to life, i.e. poisonous noxious things, not carbon dioxide.
If you want to make yourself cry just do a BING or Google search on pollution and China or even Russina/USSR. You will see enough serious bad ass poisonous stuff to keep countries busy for a lifetime.
My bet is that if those reasonable, measureable and attainable goals are pursued you will see improvements across a number of areas, much like we have seen in the USA and Europe. However, it does not involve a lot more money or govenment power so it is unlikely.
Even if it's the case, the planet will heat up due to exponential growth in primary energy production. Energy production grows with economic output and a constant percent growth is exponential growth, although it does not look like exponential in the short term. Today the emitted heat is negligible, but in about 200 years it will at a 4% growth rate surpass the solar constant. As long as science can't invalidate established physics, especially the second law of thermodynamics, a "second" sun will bring the earth's temperature to a much higher level.
So what about thermal radiation ? High school Physics says the more you heat something up the more heat it radiates out ? Into space ? At night ?
the more you heat something up the more heat it radiates out ? Into space ? At night ?
Right, and it does not contradict, for more radiation you need a higher temperature, as you wrote. Temperature will not rise indefinitely, earth will just get onto to a higher temperature level, where both, absorbed and radiated energy are in balance. Temperature will go lower again, if you shut down the additional heat source.
The next 30 years the Earth will be extremely cold. Antarctic ice has shattered records and arctic ice is 50% above its 2012 low. Earth-directed solar flares cause warming, and we are entering a grand solar minimum.
A coronal mass ejection impacts earths magnetosphere, and the charged particles cause friction when they impact. This creates a massive upwelling of heat, which also can intensify storms located underneath the impact. The 90's had many of these impacts (along with the rest of the 20th century) but that trend has reversed and we will get colder.
Dr. Kongpop U-yen does excellent research on this.
www.youtube.org/suspicious0bservers
What about 4th grade science class... Remember all the dinosaurs are 65 million years old right? And a text book would never lie.
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
We are propagandized and lied to from the time we can start talking in this country.
OMG! We're fried! /sarcasm.
-----
In case you didn't notice, billions of years ago earth was HOTTER. Now, please explain with your oh, so very scientific theory... how earth got colder? We're waiting.
As a scientist and engineer, I find it amazing how easy serious research seems to many "regular folks" (especially "thoroughly brainwashed regular folks").
Like virtually all bogus arguments, there are grains of truth inside. Therefore "regular folks" can do "top notch science". It works like this:
#1: You decide what answer you want.
#2: You choose those factors that support your answer.
#3: You ignore those factors that contradict your answer.
#4: You puff out your chest and call your conclusions scientific.
So easy! If only real science and engineering was that easy!
A real scientist knows the number of substantial and significant influences on changes in a planetary environment is extremely large. And some factors interact with each other. And some of them we still have no way to measure the influences with substantial precision.
It takes a lot of time, effort and honest consideration to form a reliable opinion on a topic like AGW or "climate change in general". And guess what? The UN hasn't done that! They came up with an agenda, and push it for all its worth in order to enslave mankind and squeeze endless funds for eternity from the population of earth. They lie, cheat, hide data, ignore data, misrepresent facts, prevent scientists from publishing, only hire scientists who advocate their conclusions, and on and on and on. They are worse than the Catholic church circa Galileo.
However, even though the topic is extremely complex from a scientific point of view, there are known facts that must give pause to any rational human being, most certainly scientists. For example the MWP, a time before oil extraction and energy consumption but recent enough that written works still exist that describe a very much warmer climate than now... and NO higher water levels. Woops! Oh, but food production was easier then. Wouldn't it be terrible if the poor of planet earth suffered better growing conditions. Can't let that happen, can we UN?
Sigh. Human beings are such a waste.
It's established physics and can be experimentally verified.
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance.html
I think it's a banality: If you move an object closer to the sun, it will get warmer, because the absorbed energy is higher.
If you have an additional energy source on this object instead, it will have the same effect.
You fell FACE FIRST into exactly what I warned about. You identify ONE ISSUE, then ignore EVERYTHING ELSE. And you think you've answered some question, or contributed to the debate.
Holy crapola!
Do you know how hot the inside of the earth is? Do you understand the earth has been radiating some of that heat away for billions of years, even as it absorbs other input from the sun, and radiates that away too? Do you understand what factors are involved in these and dozens of other effects in the earth, on the earth, in the atmosphere, in the sun, in the solar system?
I know, "who cares". Because you have one factoid provided to you by folks with agendas, and presto chango, nothing else matters. Nothing.
Just in the last lifetime of years we've had human predators screaming about "global warming"... then "global cooling" (the coming ice age)... then "global warming" again.
And every time, those who push this nonsense have political agendas. And every time, they say "we must all sacrifice and send our money to US (or UN), and become slaves to our masters who know how to handle this emergency". You think people like you would get a clue. But NOPE. That evidence is utterly lost upon you and your clueless friends.
The current science czar for the current scumbag in chief authored a book in the 1970s that warned of "global cooling", and proposed huge quantities of carcenogenic "carbon black" be spread on the icecaps of earth to absorb more solar energy... and hopefully melt those nasty white icecaps that reflect too much sunlight.
Now the scumbag insists we must all be slaves to their "new world order" of human predators because... oh... I was wrong, it is global warming, not global cooling that we must worry about.
Guess what? The factoid you linked to was common knowledge (to scientists) long before that scumbag told us we must all be impoverished slaves to fight global cooling. It meant nothing to him then, and it means nothing to him now. Except propaganda for weak-minded fools.
That's not the science you were looking for.
Nope, that doesn't work either.
As an aside. Humans would be better off if earth was a little warmer (say 2C to 5C or so). And it was quite recently, in the MWP, when quite a bit more land was suitable for growing crops. But... wouldn't want to make it easier to feed the starving people that the UN claims to care about, would we? Nope. Perish the thought.
Scientific facts please, but you are trolling around only.
Bunga-man - You put up some good posts, so you must be an OK dude. Look into solar cycles, the Maunder Minimum, the current failed peak in the cycle and associated drop off in solar activity.
AGW and the Goldman Sachs carbon trading bonanza are going to fail if they don't get more buy-in soon, before every j6p can see its getting colder.
LOL!
Honestann is 'trolling'. Yeah, right...by making you her little forum bitch.
I value your participation, though, because you illicit Honestann's sharp and superbly-written responses.
If the whole thing were actually based on one variable then every year should be hotter than the next, even with background factors.
The thing the Left will not admit is that climate is virtually infinitely complex and not fully understood or known. For a simplistic example: Carbon dioxide increases warming, air holds more water, more clouds form. Average cloud cover increases dramatically causing temperature stabilization.
Not that that is what will actually happen, but it is the idea of compensatory mechanisms. We know the earth has been through infinite ups and downs in temperature and atmospherice carbon content and life goes on.
I once did an internet search to see what the theories were on what ended the last ice ages as that would be highly relevant. I did not find any great answers.
honestann rocks!
Geologists, as a group, are more likely to be deniers than other scientists, or so I've read. The statement about humans being better off if earth were 2-5C warmer is incredibly ignorant.
You have obviously no idea how incredibly ignorant are you if you think that we can make earth 2-5C warmer with CO2 emissions in our lifetime or lifetimes of our children/grandchildren. Have you any idea at all how temperature changes with CO2 concentration? How much do we have to increase CO2 concentration in order to increase the average temperature by 3C? That is exactly the contribution of the 400 ppm CO2 current concentration warming effect and in the last 100 years we added only 120 ppm. In order to warm the atmosphere up another 3C we would have to add another 800 ppm because of the log2 expression describing the relationship between T and CO2 conc. That will take many centuries. The warming effect of additional layers is diminishing.
You completely misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say plausible increases in CO2 could raise average earth temperature by 2C to 5C degrees in any plausible timeframe.
I merely said that IF the temperature rose that much (as some climate hysterics claim), that would be a net benefit to mankind, not a drawback.
The point of mentioning that is merely to say, "even IF those crazy hysterics were right, that's nothing to fear, so the entire scare campaign is unwarranted even if you accept their lies".
I'm curious. Why on earth did you take what I said, and simply pretend I said what you imply? Maybe I just said what I actually said. And now, at least you understand my reason for mentioning that, which I thought everyone would without this elaboration.
PS: I don't expect the average temperature of earth to rise 2C to 5C anytime in the next couple centuries, but if it does, I'd look at the sun for the most probable cause, not CO2.
Now I am confused even more. I was not replying to you at all and I do not have any problem whatsoever with your opinion. I am not scared of AGW.
Yup, now I see it wasn't me you responded to. I didn't notice that before. Sorry for my mistake.
If any heat is retained by CO2 (which I doubt), it will be more than offset by the H2O cycle. I'll bet a single cloudy morning in Dubuque would sink more heat than day's worth of global CO2-induced warming. A cloudy morning absorbs heat when water evaporates, rises, and condenses, then reflects heat when it forms white water vapor.
Do I have data? No, partly because I don't give a shit, and partly because [as honestann stated] there is no incentive on behalf of government-funded research entities to explore variables that contradict their theses.
It's amazing that an entire government-worshipping entity has arisen that demands free citizens provide extensive scientifc data--in order to be left alone.
It's the modern Inquisition. Instead of breaking dissidents on the wheel, the inquisitors destroy their reputations and professional opportunities.
I know a lot of them would like to bring back physical methods of indoctrination. I've talked to GW fanatics that believe dissent should be made illegal with long prison terms. I do not believe they were being sarcastic.
Yes, there are many other effects and feedbacks the so called "experts" can not quantify. I was just merely pointing out, that even by their own theories there is no reason to be scared let alone hysterical about AGW.
If we succeed in killing the oceans, we will see
an exponential heatup even if the sun goes back to ice
age level cool down.
Carbon is only part of our problems.
Actually, I think if you look into this a bit you'll find out that carbon dioxide causes warming and warming causes more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's called a feedback loop, and is more problematic (and uncertain) after the planet warms past a tipping point.
Earth-directed coronal mass ejections affect the earth's magnetosphere, electric grids, etc. Not much to do with climate, though.
You are hugely exaggerating this particular feedback loop. As you can see from the ice core data the significant warming of 10C generated only 100 ppm CO2 increase.
No more baked beans for dinner folks.
The IPCC is the UN's most corrupt body. Why would ZH ever quote them?
Agreed. What next? An article about how great Jim Cramer is?
Sorry Tyler, but with Enron starting this shit and the likes of Larry Summers et al cashing in along with cherry picked data and e mails proving fraud time and time again, WTF.... really?
You have to remember, when they talk of "us" cutting emission they really mean us, not "them"
Other then that governments are the leading cause of death in the world so yeah, they got that going for them.
The question that needs to be asked is:
Just what is the temperature SUPPOSED to be?
After the first time I heard about it; it me about 30 minutes of research, right here on this computer, to know and understand that it was completely and totally impossible. It didn't happen. It's not happening now, and it's not going to happen. And do I know this ? Yes, I know this. How do I know this ? Well, that's a little difficult to explain. It involves studying physics, chemistry, and engineering, and the history of these subjects in human culture, the hilarious errors that have been made, the absurdities that have been bebieved in pasionately by, a.) a majority of the public, b.) a majority of people who could, one way or another, call themselves scientists, or c.) both. There are plenty of examples. In this particular case, AGW caused by CO2 emissions; it is pitifully easy to prove that this is of no concern to anyone. It is, of course, a very interesting field of study; but the field you find yourself studying is large scale, indeed industrial scale fraud, professional propaganda, a "fortunate sense of white guilt" on the part of the inhabitants of the consuming nations, which can be exploited by said propagandists, etc. etc. You find that you are studying sociology, mas psychology, and the extreme effectiveness of mass propaganda in a world culture where the last high school student who mastered Plane Geometry, and thereby learned how to think, is either dead or in an old peoples home. It's a bit unsettling to be driven, by necesity, by the weight of evidence, to the conclusion that everything that makes it to the evening news, everything that gets printed in the New York Times, was paid for by somebody; and they don't have your best interests at heart; nor needless to say, I hope, the best interests of the Planet. It's simply impossible to write enough here to begin to refute the so-called "evidences" that have been presented to you over the years. Suffice it to say, that I can dispense with every one of them, finally, and beyond a reasonable doubt, as they like to say in Court. I'll just quickly prove to you that you're being attacked by professional propagandists, and not fed real information by anyone interested in your welfare or the welfare of the planet. There are about 380PPM of co2 molecules in the atmospher, at present. But what does this mean ? Well, suppose you make a shallow wooden box that held 10,000 BB's; those iconic little copper colored steel balls, they're .177" in diameter. That's a lot of BB's. Now put three white painted BB;s in there with them; that's what 300PPM means. Now suppose you're an infrared photon that has as its mission to escape from the atmosphere to the great cold of outer space; at "nighttime" on the Earth. Your job is to get out of the atmosphere without being interfered with by one of these 3 BB;s. Think you can do it ? Yeah, it turns out you can. But, but, someday, if we keep burning all this fossil fuel we'll actually get to 400PPM !! Then they'll be four BB's in this big box that you have to work your way through; oh noes !! They tell you that we put 44 quadrillion tonnes of Co2 in atmosphere, last year; but if they were on an educational mission, they would tell you what this means. How big is this "Atmosphere" ? What effect did these tonnes have on the 3 BB's per 10,000 ? None. It's not even measurable on a one year basis. The Atmosphere, people, is ginormous. It's a Planet, not your back yard. But this proves that what they evening news guy has been given to read is designed to scare you, to startle you, to convince you, not to leave you better informed. You see ? You understand. Good. It's the same in every case; in every case, ther are no exceptions. It's the "warmest year in whateer"; NO. It isn't. and We know it isn't . It was warmer in 900AD than it is now; we know this. Who benefits ? Cui Bono ? Washington. It's a new tax; but how can you object to a tax to save the Planet? After all, you're guilty, aren't you ? So you have to pay your fair share; right ? Wrong. It's all bullshit. Who has lobbyists in Washington right now trying desperately to get some kind of carbon tax passed ? The major Oil Companys !! Why ? Because they understand how the scam will work and they know they can play the scam. Go back to roots; where did global warming come from ? from the UN. That's a fact; you can trace it out in the public record. What do they want ? More money, more influence, more power, more office holders collecting more salaries. Another step closer to the World Government they hope they get to help run. There' a book called "Unstoppable Global Warming; every 200 years"; it's a worthwhile book that contains a lot of facts. But there's a consensus !! Absolutely not. there is no consensus. Amongst the 20 or 30 people on this planet who are qualified to make a statement on this subject; no. No consensus. On the contrary, many, many, respected researchers have resigned from the American Academy of Sciences, because of their, (100% political) statement that it was real. The Royal Society in England made fools out of themselves for the first time in 200 years backing this shit, and have already apologized for their error. Any detail, you worried about, or you don't understand, such as t he situation with Artic Ice Fields, or any other detail; just research it on the internet; there are people who know what's actually going on in every case. I can't type forever, here, I can't write a book. Just remember, every piece of "evidence" is false, corrupt, deliberately mis-leading, (propaganda), and can be dispensed with in a few moments with references to actual studies. Thank You.
I agree entirely SAT, but please, a paragraph break every now and then wouldn't hurt.
ask the marxist Pope how to fix it
The Catholic church advocates Distributism, where the workers are the owners of the means of production.
Communism is where the state owns the means of production.
Capitalism is where parasites own the means of production.
Socialism is just a made up boogie-man word.
Too many sublties for the American mind. I am afraid.
They like everything to be black and white.
Spoonfed babies.
so zerohedge is now carrying bs global warming stories. wow, this site is further down the toilet than I thought.
A couple of weeks ago it also carried a gun control piece too. Next thing you know the name will change to Huffington-Hedge
Agreed. Tyler, this is an investment blog. Get out of the religious stuff. There are plenty of places folks can go read echos of greenie propaganda.
Tell me what the news on the street is, why don't you?
How far down the toilet is the place?
Are we floating at the surface?
Are we caught in the vortex?
Or, are we well on our way to the cess pit?
Inquiring minds want to know!
We are in the digestive phase. Noticed the fucking stink yet ??
Global warming? This piece was almost entirely about
carbon emissions. Its entirely appropriate for this site
as it discusses politics and economics. Whose
changing the topic to global warming? Who is spouting
the other "religious" faith?
Even if we have a cool down due to the sun and volcanic
acitivity, we still have ocean acidification to think about.
You wanna know how I can tell that you're a propagandist/sophist? By simply seeing that WE NEED to do something rather than simply stating that you yourself are concerned about something.
When that "WE NEED" line comes out, it's almost a 100% chance that what follows is going to be bullshit.
"...we still have ocean acidification to think about."
You can think about ocean "acidification" all you like, but the ocean is alkaline. So if you want something to be done about it, you're going to have to look for another pocket to pick.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
I see we have all the climate scientists, who have spent years researching, on ZH tonight.
Please explain to us how government grants do not influence the outcome of science.
Right. Next we'll see thorough government and corporate studies of whether government and corporate funded research is fair, balanced, accurate and reliable.
Oh, wait! I can save them the expense! Their answer will be "absolutely!".
The USA is saturaded with liers and propaganda.
Which lies do you chose to believe?
Climate change will show up in the re-insurers premiums, so yes- it is a financial issue. (For those amongst us to whom filthy lucre gives meaning to life.)
Increased oceanfront real estate development that is affected by storms is not the same thing as increased storms.
Hey Douchenozzle, when you can explain all of the major climate changes that happened before our SUV's you may have something. Until then, go suck a tree trunk.
How many hours have you spent researching the earth's atmosphere?
I'll take a wild guess.... NONE.
If the best you can come up with is 'douchenozzle' I won't waste any more time on discussion.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Discuss
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/548516/North-South-poles-not-meltin...
The earths climate was constant before oil extraction.
For hundreds of millions of years there were no storms , no floods , hell there were not even any earthquakes. It was all butterflies and tree frogs before we came along. Not so much as a fucking rainstorm. The mountain ravines and ocean floors were made by unicorns , butterflies and tree frogs .
The Earth was never once a ball of hot magma with lava and volcanoes covering it;s surface , it was just butterflies and bees. No climate change whatoseover , until we came along and started drilling that is,...
scuttlebutt amongst the unicorns, is that the us nuke tested in the wrong location too much, and made an "anomoly" that really did the deed.
luckily, man didnt fail to discover other magic to play with, and so the greatest show on earth now, man made, is to watch men fight water with wind.
heat baby, more heat.
http://www.margaritaville.tv/player?mc_id=566
+1 CrazyT...Classic sarcasm!
You better fucking well know it as well. Just don't get me started on BITCOIN , cos like the WORD PROCESSOR it's gonna FUCK THE TYPE-WRITER straight up it's ribbon.
Cutting carbon emissions is all about taxation and control.nothing to do with global warming.
If yu believe carbon emissions contribute to global warming, there are many solutions available for less cost than a months worth of QE
Dr Allan Savory: How to green the planet and reverse desertification
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
To a large extent I don't bother arguing Global Warming, the Science, because it is easier to argue Global Warming, the Politics. What a co-incidence that all proposed solutions involve making people feel guilty for being alive and then stealing their money. Who-ever could have guessed?
Solutions Proposed vs Solutions Ignored is a fruitful area of investigation.
It would be a little less obvious of the 'solutions' to the alleged problem did anything at all to address the alleged root causes of said alleged problem. I'd bet almost anything you'll find the proceeds of any carbon taxes flowing directly into the gas tanks of the MIC.
Close, but no cigar. Goldman Sachs is all behind "carbon trading". The MIC is just a tool of the bankster cabal, not the other way around.
"The MIC is just a tool of the bankster cabal..." this reduction to "all wars are banker's wars" has no sense, for me. the US MIC is a huge thing, fuelled by a huge chunk of the US Budget
further, the political alignments between the US MIC and the US Megabank Lobby aren't perfect, across the two US parties
as a rule of thumb, Republicans seem to prefer big engagements with lots of soldiers and equipment, while Democrats seem to prefer drones, cruise missiles and air strikes
Republicans also seem to have a stronger love for the oil biz while Democrats seem to have a stronger love for alternatives to oil
Goldman Sachs has many, many tentacles. and it's often very difficult to say if they are behind something or not, then often they play both sides at the same time
1. All persons that die in auto accidents have had something to eat or drink within 72 hours of their deaths.
2. We can therefore accurately state that all persons who eat or drink something will die in an auto accident within a 72-hour period after eating or drinking.
THIS is the 'scientific' method used to determine the affects of CO2 on global temperatures. Correlation does not prove casuality, dipshit.
That's exactly correct, Ms. Erable; but it's a little hard for people to grasp at the first go. You mean, they lie to us on TV ? Yes, dear, they do. they lie to you on TV. Every night.
Please sheath that rapier wit of yours. Actually I have a BA in Environmental studies. No, I don't work in that field. But you, Douchenozzle, don't care. I just didn't drink the kool aid!
Gee,it seems that somehow massive ice sheets seemed to advance and retreat multiple times during eras prior to industrial man:
Pleistocene Epoch
1.8 million-10,000 years ago
This epoch is best known as the "Great Ice Age." Ice sheets and other glaciers encroach and retreat during four or five primary glacial periods. At its peak, as much as 30% of the Earth's surface is covered by glaciers, and parts of the northern oceans are frozen. The movement of the glaciers alters the landscape. Lakes, such as the Great Lakes in North America, are formed as ice sheets melt, and retreat. Global warming begins after the last glacial maximum, 18,000 years ago.
http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibitions/current-exhibitions/fossil-mysteries/fo...
Fuck you.
Can't beat a carefully thought out and reasoned response!
WOW, I bet your head hurts after all that hard thinking!
Is Reggie your friend too?
It's all you deserve. There was a time when shit peddling assholes like you were literally run out of town on a rail. But, we're too civilized now. A pity.
The reason you're getting all the shit dipstick is because several of the commenters have spent a considerable quantity of time researching the subject and have concluded that the preponderance of evidence favors the conclusion of a pathetically poor case being made by the "97% consensus" (100% bullshit) crowd.
The leftist mind is attracted to the very idea of controlling the world as if it were some sort of Sim City game. The typical leftist mind suffers the debility of being entirely blind to it's own diseased state of ignorance.
'Global warming' is just another leftist exercise in madness.
That too.
Logic man, like Bunga Bunga is usually A-OK, but on this topic, they're nuts. Both should read up on solar cycles. The Sun is more powerful the any AGW Al Gore and Goldman can whip up.
"Can't beat a carefully thought out and reasoned response!"
I see your only argument thus far has essentially been the same as the Al Gore method, which is: "The debate is over."
The same scientific experts who have quite literally been wrong about every prediction they've ever made about "climate change" are now, like you, simply asking us not to believe our own lying eyes.
Well, you can suck it, expert.
Am I hallucinating or did George Washinton just wink at me?
Well, you have one of them. Me. I've been on this case now for 6 years; it never smells any better. It's one hundred percent fraud. period.
Goes against the sage advice of Flo and Eddie,keep it warm Bitchez !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PkW8I4Bv6M
An interesting and balanced read about the subject. I actually learned something new.
https://sites.google.com/site/climatesensitivity/
The atmosphere is optically thick to CO2, and was even pre-industrial. The whole theory of the greenhouse effect assumes that CO2 is a strong warmer, but basic physics says it isn't. The modeler folks assumed CO2 was the reason we had warming in the 90s and did ad-hoc fits between CO2 and temperature, but had to make ad-hoc connections to other drivers (generally water), because the CO2 effect is saturated. This is not in contention, by the way...this is known to all. The models are not based on physics, they are based on the assumption that CO2 caused temp rises in the 90s.
These same folks ignored the fact that the temp rise in the 90s was comparable to that in the 30s (no CO2 rise), or that temp was falling in the 70s when CO2 was rising strongly. In the 17-18 years since, temps have failed to keep up with the models, and every time the IPCC meets, they lower their alarms but claim to still have confidence in their models. Satellites have been launched to get better data than land-based thermometers, and have failed to show any of the predictions -- the warming community has since ignored the satellite data. Instead, they keep fiddling with the land-based data and making claims. The GISS (NASA) databse is constantly fiddled with...go download several years worth and you will find that later years have been "adjusted" to cool past temperatures.
Ice has failed to melt catastrophically (antarctica is at all time high since we launched satellites, arctic is within a std dev of normal). Temps are normal, sea level is normal, extreme weather isn't appearing. These guys have egg on their faces. They have spent trillions (not billions, trillions) on this game, and there are huge payrolls and egos at stake. This is bad science up there with the worst that the scientific community has ever seen. There is a whole industry of physicists whose jobs depend on this being a crisis (I know, I am a physicist, and know many of them).
This is all shameful and will not turn out well.
Disregard facts, aquire more taxes and regulation.
OMFG; he must not have heard about the consensus ! He'll be so embarrassed when he finds out he's disagreeing with 8000 "environmental scientists", and 2000 political scientists. Question for the day'; WTF is an "environmental scientist".
how about >30000 the other way? it isn't talked about much in MSM, but the consensus really isn't.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
About the only scientists who haven't sold out are mathematicians; not statisticians. Engineering was tarnished with the NIST report concerning the world trade centres- redundancy and load-bearing properties appeared to have flown right out of the window. Now large swathes of science have destroyed their reputations by investing their money, their resources, their positions and their egos on that turd of a theory- manmade global warming.
Our CO2 "output" is a tiny pipsqueak to what the Earth emits, and more importantly emits at varying rates. We ain't doing jack shit to greenhouse gases. Those icecaps and glaciers were melting in the 40s and 50s at an alarming rate and scientists feared catastrophic global warming. Then came the 60s and 70s and the cooling period, as CO2 continued to rise. Then there were fears of an ice age. Ha! The irony is we're going to have bumper harvests with higher CO2 levels. Plants love more CO2, why do you think they grew so big in the Carboniferous period?
Two things sicken me: 1. Scientists are placing faith in woefully incomplete models to demand governments and people change their way of life- economic depression and developing countries be damned; 2. The whole notion of preventing climate change is the height of arrogance and hubris. What! Are we so deluded in believing that we're going to restore the climate to a past state? We do not have the technology save for nuclear bombs, cloud-seeding and barmy geoengineering ideas.
And fuck all those greens and everyone else who says developing countries and the third world should protect their habitats. US, UK and Europe- WTF have you been doing but cutting down most woodland, farming most of the land and building urban areas? You hypocritical pieces of shit! You expect others to emulate an example you did not follow? I'm thinking of all those people bitching about reintroducing predators in the UK: bears and wolves, while at the same time demanding foreign predator species are protected. You two-faced bastards!
Let the Brazilians cut down the Amazon rainforest, let China continue to build a coal-fired power station every week. They'll get around to the pollution that DOES damage the environment: smog and contaminated water.
Edit: A third sickens me, well amuses me to death. If the weather forecast ain't correct half the time then how the hell do long term models become more accurate with time? Smacks of Orwellian double speak to me.
I believe the proper term for the folks you are ranting on is "cocktail greenies". These are the folks who shop at whole foods (with their SUVs) but have never set one foot off the pavement in the real outdoors. Their vision is for some unphysical utopia where we power our iphones and electric cars with kale and puppy kisses. If they really wanted to wean the world off of oil -- whether because of scarce resources or because of global warming -- they wouldn't be deadset against nuclear power.
Thorium and fusion power baby! Oh yeah if they really gave a shit about "carbon emissions" <spitwad> they would stop eating meat, stop using plastic products and with it most clothes. Oh wait, they're so dependant on plastics -- and the few thousand untested chemicals which have probably done more damage than manmade emissions ever will, I'm thinking male infertility and phthalates -- they can't get their heads out of their arses.
Oh yeah, their beloved "green" technology? Solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars, computers and energy-efficient devices? All made from rare earth elements/metals. And they ain't called rare earth for nothing you know. It involves mining a few million tonnes of earth or rock to obtain a few meagre kilogrammes, or even less. So aside from massive strip-mining, there is both horrendous chemical and water pollution produced in the processes to preserve and refine these rare earth elements, since they have the unfortunate habit of corroding and/or disintegrating in Earth's atmosphere. Oh yeah this is incredibly energy intensive.
These green technologies ain't so green. These cocktail greenies are actually supporting the most polluting industries known to man. Cognitive dissonance is a real bitch.
For my entire life I was under the impression CO2 was plant food. Now I come to learn that it's a deadly toxin. We must immediately extinguish all CO2 from the atmosphere. Our plant friends will thank us for it!
World famous Virologist and research at UC Berkeley; " Most of my colleagues in science are prostitutes". Yeah; fraid so.
Too bad you are late to this conversation. But please continue to add your views.
I don't like "views"; or "opinions'; and I don't really have any. But I will continue to offer facts. I worship at the altar of facts. I am Scientist.
He is refering to US scientists, I assume?
If so, there may be some veracity to his claim. After all he would know.
Let me see if I have got this right. Science is so yesterday- so what is in fashion today?
Silly me. Of Cause. Lies and propaganda.
We are further down the road than I thaught.
Next step- witch burning. That should be fun.
Accept that unfortunately, almost everyone sold out. Once you accomplish that, you will see that science has little if anything to do with AGW.
"It's the Intellectual Climate, I'm worried about"---Richard Lindzen, professor of Meterorology at MIT; who performed the critical satelitte experiment to measure whether the Long Wave Infrared is actually escaping from the Atmosphere at Night, as it should. It is. Game Over. If there is AGW; it must express itself in the upper troposphere; firstly in t he tropics. There's no measurable effect. g ame over. If you wish to play again, please obtain another government guarter to put in the slot. Thank You.
Global warming policy proposals are little more than elaborate wealth transfer systems based on a false basic premise.
Yeah, but try to tell joe blow asshole that if you can get him/her to look up from their Obamaphone.
What a fucked up, slanted article. But, hey, I'm a climate change "denier" so my opinion doesn't matter.
You're a brain-dead buffoon, THAT'S why your opinion doesn't matter.
FIFY
Well, you're certainly winning me over with that attitude.
I think I would rather continue to piss you off. You seem to have a wealth of intelligent responses when someone says you are full of shit.
As opposed to you, who couldn't come up with an intelligent response if your life depended on it.
For you to insult me, first, I must value your opinion.
And yet you continue to reply.
Face it, I am living rent free in your head. It's not a big room, but it'll do.
BTW, there's a leak in the bathroom. At least I think its the bathroom. I've been peeing in it.
.
Game over. he's pwned. Nice one.
LMFAO!
"As opposed to you, who couldn't come up with an intelligent response if your life depended on it."
Where is the logic in a running argument consisting entirely of ad hominem statements (and rather bland ones at that) unless your goal is simple trolling?
Hey Buddy.. Pssst .. YOU full of SHIT