This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Three Paths To Near-Term Human Extinction
Submitted by Guy McPherson of Nature Bats Last
Three Paths To Near-Term Human Extinction
About a decade ago I realized we were putting the finishing touches on our own extinction party, with the party probably over by 2030. During the intervening period I’ve seen nothing to sway this belief, and much evidence to reinforce it. Yet the protests, ridicule, and hate mail reach a fervent pitch when I speak or write about the potential for near-term extinction of Homo sapiens.
“We’re different.”
“We’re special.”
“We’re too intelligent.”
“We’ll find a way out. We always do.”
We’re humans, and therefore animals. Like all life, we’re special. Like all organisms, we’re susceptible to overshoot. Like all organisms, we will experience population decline after overshoot.
Let’s take stock of our current predicaments, beginning with one of several ongoing processes likely to cause our extinction. Then I’ll point out the good not quite so bad news.
We’re headed for extinction via global climate change
It’s hotter than it used to be, but not as hot as it’s going to be. The political response to this now-obvious information is to suspend the scientist bearing the bad news. Which, of course, is no surprise at all: As Australian climate scientist Gideon Polya points out, the United States must cease production of greenhouse gases within 3.1 years if we are to avoid catastrophic runaway greenhouse. I think Polya is optimistic, and I don’t think Obama’s on-board with the attendant collapse of the U.S. industrial economy.
Apparently — too little, too late — a couple people have noticed a few facts about Obama. This “awakening” might explain why his political support is headed south at a rapid clip.
But back to climate change, one of three likely extinction events. Well, three I know about: I’m certain there are others, and any number can play. With four months remaining in the year, the U.S. has already tied its yearly record for the most billion-dollar weather disasters. Russia is headed directly for loss of 30% of its permafrost by 2050. Tundra fires could accelerate planetary warming. This year, the Northeast Passage was open as of 27 July. This is a massively dire situation for the Arctic. In fact, we have passed a de facto tipping point with respect to Arctic ice. This latter outcome is stunning, but only to those who follow the horrifically conservative and increasingly irrelevant Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Nature is responding with hybrid bears, suggesting the near-term loss of all polar bears. Indeed, all Earth’s systems are rapidly declining. Many organisms can’t keep up as they try to stay ahead of an overheating planet.
As the living planet decays, we keep piling on. Examples abound. Here’s one tiny example among thousands, from that pesky BP well at Deepwater Horizon. It’s out of the news cycle, but it’s not done destroying life in the Gulf of Mexico. But perhaps this tidbit belongs beneath the heading of …
We’re headed for extinction via environmental collapse
Nature is bankrupt, just like Wall Street and the USA. Thanks for playing, but you lose. The banksters on Wall Street “win.” But only in the short term. In the long run, we’re all dead (as first stated by John Maynard Keynes).
Among the consequences of taking down more than 200 species each day: at some point, the species we take into the abyss is Homo sapiens (the wise ape). The vanishing point draws nearer every day. Our response, in the industrialized world: Bring on the toys. Burn all fossil fuels. Harvest the rain forests and strip-mine the soil. Pollute the water, eat the seed bank.
And, most importantly, figure out how we can make a few bucks as the world burns.
We have our hand in a monkey trap, and we can’t let go.
We’re headed for extinction via nuclear meltdown
Safely shuttering a nuclear power plant requires a decade or two of careful planning. Far sooner, we’ll complete the ongoing collapse of the industrial economy. This is a source of my nuclear nightmares.
When the world’s 442 nuclear power plants melt down catastrophically, we’ve entered an extinction event. Think clusterfukushima, times 400. Ionizing radiation could, and probably will, destroy every terrestrial organism and, therefore, every marine and freshwater organism. That, by the way, includes the most unique, special, intelligent animal on Earth.
Ready for some good news?
Meanwhile, back on Wall Street
The Securities and Exchange Commission is busily covering up Wall Street crimes, just as they did during the last presidential administration. And, as it turns out, they’ve been performing this trick for two decades. Finally, though, the S&P is taking the U.S. to the woodshed.
The S&P knows what the media and politicians know: U.S. national debt isn’t really $14 trillion and change, as we’ve been led to believe. In fact, it exceeds $200 trillion. And, back when it was a mere $10.5 trillion, it exceeded the value of all circulating currencies as well as all the gold ever mined. It cannot be paid off, ever. The response will be default. With luck, it’ll happen quickly and completely, thus sending us directly to the new dark age (with the post-industrial Stone Age soon to follow).
The ongoing crash of the stock markets differs from prior events because, for one thing, the Fed is about out of ammunition. At this juncture, there are no easy solutions. In fact, there are no solutions at all. We have just about used up all our “rabbits in the hat” as far as fiscal and monetary policy are concerned. Economics pundit Graham Summers agrees: The Fed is about to find itself completely powerless as 2008 redux appears.
Think of 2008 as an economic teddy bear, and 2011 as a grizzly. And I think I mentioned this one already: The hunters are out of bullets.
The all-too-expected political response from the final remaining superpower: ratchet up covert wars. Maybe, while we’re at it, launch another World War.
The bottom line
You’ve been warned repeatedly in this space, and the Guardian finally joins the party: The industrial economic system is about to blow. This burst of hope, our remaining chance at salvation, will undoubtedly be greeted with the usual assortment of protests, ridicule, and hate mail I’ve come to expect from planetary consumers who want to keep consuming the planet.
The underlying predicament — reduction in available energy — is described graphically by Gail Tverberg in this essay. She then tacks on fine analysis in this subsequent essay. Jared Diamond adds a dose of complexity, as described by Erik Curren at Transition Voice.
But these warning shots are only the most recent in a rich history dating back to Marcus Aurelius (and probably further). For materials only slightly older than me that focus on our energy predicament, take a peek at M. King Hubbert’s 1956 paper and the text of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover’s 1957 speech.
And then, let go.
»
- 43104 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome, 1993
And what was the basis for this statement and its context? Do you recall? I do. (at least the basis)
Full Text:
http://www.archive.org/details/TheFirstGlobalRevolution
You mean that AGW is actually a political movement masquerading as scientific fact. Who would have thought that the UN and IPCC were political?
You got a little bass-ackwards...
There fixed it for you....
Really, did you miss the part where BP CEO supports Cap and Trade::
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article209369.ece
Gee, might it have also something to do with the billions BP stands to gain by trading carbon credits? OR Goldman Sachs, or JPM? To me, this is one of the most amusing myths perpetrated by the AGW kooksters, that the oil companies are funding the anti AGW movement. Whilst some of the smaller producers may not like it, the large multinationals will make trillions off this scam.
The discussion is about GW, not Cap N' Trade. If the BP CEO supports it (or not), it doesn't change a thing...
This post did not say anything, all it did was call folks names. If this is a circular firing squad, you are in the center of it trying to get folks to shoot off more.
Bukkake much?
Please be useful, say something to support or refute something, or just stop.
Bukkake!
Huh - I didn't consider your mostly substance-less cheerleading of Randroids on this site all that useful, either. I have yet to see much analytical weight undergirding anything you've said over the last two years, at least. Let's call a spade a spade: you're defensive about the intellectually dubious nature of your petty little community and are willing to jump and back up even the most poorly written tripe [see article above]. That doesn't strenghten your case about providing useful commentary. I'll take your stock response off the air.
Sac, anomaly report:
An error occurred at /vote/comment/1581992/-1/vote/upanddown/e70ddbec398a4c1cb0bfd2b0711657e3.
Error Description: 403: Forbidden
I was trying to junk the fucker.
- Ned
laughs at Ned.
Let me ask you, Ned - and be honest - how often do you junk bigots on Zero Hedge? My guess is not enough.
If I believed in a diety, I would guess he/she/it is laughing at you for your own hypocrisy.
More like the same old meat.
maniac-I'm a junkster virgin. I've done like two greeniez and two red thingiez. I do make comments. Then, well, we might play a bit.
But since you don't believe in a diety, you believe in anything.
Off to the corner, so you can fuck yourself in private.
- Ned
I am not running around claiming to be an intellectual heavyweight or superior to folks on this site. I always tell folks I don't know much. I have done nothing to back up the "Three paths" post. The comment I did make was to say that we don't need to have this debate to see clear action that needs to be taken on the pollution front. The debate is a distraction, we don't need to piss in and poison our nest.
You have a clear pattern of saying nothing, twisting people's words, and rewriting history. You rewrote mine.
I do not claim the identity of "researcher" here like you do (though actually, I get paid to guide, teach, produce, and evaluate research). But that is not who I am around here. I am just a student, learning. I know my place and I am not ashamed of it. I don't have years in "doing" finance. I only started waking up to the nightmare and acting on it back in 2005. I did not take a haircut in the 2007-08 crash because I got out early. I did not have community anywhere, but figured shit out. Made my relatives angry with the choices I made. But honestly, I know very little and enjoy the multiple perspectives here.
I am undecided by the way in terms of candidates. I do not believe my vote matters. I don't have a paper ballot after I am done voting at my precienct. But if I did, I feel strongly that all of the candidates are bought and I don't have enough money to buy one. I am not represented. I don't matter.
Neither do you.
Standing ovation on that post. Very well stated.
...preferring not to clap, the Nazis Sieg Heil instead.
Proclaiming nothing matters is another way of avoiding responsibility and denying people agency. Gee, we haven't seen that all the fucking time here. Cry me a river for your feelings of worthlessness.
Boy am I glad I'm not having my research evaluated by Ms Creant.
"We find some interesting merits and problems with your work, but since neither I or you matter, why don't you just forget about it. Everyone's fired."
Give me a break. That's just another non-response by an unimaginative person. Also par for the course.
you're doin ok, maniac, but, frankly, that is not what i got from ms_C's post
i think she was saying she didn't matter, as an individual voter, nor do you; i'm not +/- on what she said, just sayin what i got, there
she also seems to be saying that she is pretty well-developed on some things, intellectually, but not on others, e.g. finance/econ(?) as on zH, so she is learning, and you have mis-represented her "attitude" to suit your own needs, perhaps
or, you have just become confused by something or other going on, here
btw, your "research" is BEing "evaluated" in real time, here, world-wide, if ya know what i mean...
...jellybean...
Thanks for hearing me slewie.
"I don't matter."
Yes you do, me lady. More than you know.
You add to the wealth that is ZH by being exactly who you are, we'll all get through this. But I'm sure they are pretty much fucked...lol.
Never, ever, let the bastards beat you down ;-)
I compliment you on that nmewn, you are right on the mark.... "Never, ever, let the bastards beat you down ;-)"
They come at you/us from all sides my friend...root out the fraud, abuse, corruption, cronyism etc. and the rest will take care of itself.
Fix the heading, steady as she goes ;-)
aye
this lot here have taken a few junks in their time...
none by me :p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum
- Ned
{OT--Translational Lift: there waa table that had this engraved, one of the bubbaz}
Ego vero nusquam spurios me deferant. Crusta est et vana, anima mea aliena ;-)
You're a good man, nmewn. Your encouraging words help more than you know.
Thanks Shells.
I know people sometimes get down. To feel beat down, like your words & deeds don't matter against a bunch of kleptocrats. Well, thats exactly how they want you to feel.
Like we don't matter.
They want you to stop digging into their sordid affairs, their connections, their special arrangements, their graft & corruption so they can continue on with their pillaging more smoothly.
Unless we are ready to say they are better than us (and we know they are not) we fight them and we enjoy the fight, we relish it, we crave it because the cause is just. We seek them out wherever they hide and we fight them with the viciousness & tenacity that can only come from being in the right.
No quarter, no compassion.
Amen. Relish it? Check. Crave it? Check. No quarter, no compassion.
Weapon up. Then you'll matter. Bullets, not ballots.
Look, if you want to learn - you're seriously in the wrong place. I do respect those that actually want to understand things -- not just yell fire in a crowded theatre. There's plenty of work to be done once one knows things. I'd be happy to share knowledge - and despite what you might think, I have done so in the past here. But things do need to change, particularly in aspects you've just drawn attention to.
Don't delude yourself into thinking there are multiple perspectives here; you've been around long enough to know better, Ms Creant. This site panders to a pretty far-right libertarian perspective, with a strong anti-Keynesian bent and a penchant for allowing bigotry -- particularly of the anti-semitic persuasion.
That's hardly a diversity of viewpoints or a fertile ground for the sharing of multiple ideas. This has long been my criticism and continues to be.
I doubt you actually enjoy all the perspectives here - you're simply saying that because you feel the need to defend this community. You don't have to - there are plenty of others willing to stand up and attempt to justify reckless hate and willful ignorance.
"This site panders to a pretty far-right libertarian perspective, with a strong anti-Keynesian bent and a penchant for allowing bigotry -- particularly of the anti-semitic persuasion."
Almost speechless here. Can you drop any more red herrings into one simple sentence?
Far right libertarian? What does that even wind up meaning anyways? The promotion of individual rights & self determination is far right or libertarian?
Anti-Keynesian...and why not?...because the results of his "theory" (and its neo-Keynesian variant) are described by himself as best suited for a authoritarian/totalitarian state? That is, at odds with the long term interests of the people?
One can't claim its not being "done right" on the one hand and then turn to promote or condone more of it with the other hand after the world (not just this country) has just been shifted off its economic axis because of that very thing...the absolute fiscal & monetary insanity of thinking the state is entitled to anothers labor first before even the one who labors is why we are where we are today.
The theory itself relies on the state issuance of debt for God's sake! To whom does Keynes propose the claim on future labor (the debt) be sold to when at last...only 1% of the population has the ability to repay it?
They gonna go all feudal on that 1 percent's ass or what?...self flagellation...perfect, should be quite a show...lol.
And you just blow by the self-professed "progressives" who continually post anti-Israel/jooo garbage here...the majority of which appears to come from euro-land where its still considered some sort of weird sadistic sport.
And NIST says that fires brought down the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. I trust my eyes before I trust the paid "experts."
No matter, I've never supported the notion of "global warming" anyway. It's an issue of our inability to adjust to a changing climate: mono-cropping etc. have reduced our ability to weather significant changes.
Oh, and this inter-glacial period is waning. It's a natural cycle: it'll wipe out hubris... (Al Gore supporters and Al Gore haters alike)
And yet, the temps keep rising, the ice keeps melting, the oceans keep acidifying...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
Global Highlights"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."- Al Gore
Shooting the messenger again are we? Al Gore has never claimed to be a scientist. He conveyed what the science indicated. Tell me Crockett do you have any background at ALL in the environmental sciences, and I'm not talking geography here, I'm talking about environmental chemistry and all that wonderful inorganic and organic chemistry stuff. I've taken a grand amount of it so I don't have to approach the subject matter as an IGNORANT SKEPTIC. Oh I'm sorry CYNIC. You wouldn't qualify as a skeptic if you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
I have enough education to know that when someone says "I'm lying about global warming so that I can force through my economic and social agendas," that I probably should not believe what that person says about global warming.
It pretty basic stuff.
So now you think your a lawyer? And who said this, a politician or a scientist.
Al Gore is a politician. But scientists can lie, too. Some very prominent scientists have suggest that lying is a good way to promote the climate change agenda.
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Prof. Stephen Schneider, IPCC/Stanford Professor of Climatology
Quote out of context, bitchezz. The point this professor was trying to convey is the difficulty of making clear, best-guess calls from complex, uncertain and contradictory data, with the understanding that you're sometimes going to be wrong. Scientists tend to be far more uncomfortable about that sort of thing than financial analysts, who ought to understand a thing or two about such attempts.
The professor said that he is trying to scare people like you by exaggeration and falsification. Looks like it worked.
Here are more of your friendly scientists discussing their agenda:
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/Unive...
I always loved the comment: "well, the original data have been lost, but we still have our QA'd data that we won't give you."
They placed original data through a "Quality Assurance" process! and Voila! (even left comments in the code doing the "interpretation".
Whoever did that data dump (and even wikileaker**n) did us all a great service.
- Ned
{wow, talk about loss of situational awareness, where is the wiki-multiple-leaker-of all types? these days, what is his situation?}
Good point, New Meat. Without the original date, the science fact turns into science fiction. But, then, we are assuming that there is orginal data, instead of faked numbers and data points. The good news is that the scientists involved in Climategate are permanently disgraced for their duplicity. Phil Jones, time to find another dick to suck.
MOAR quotes out of context, bitchezz!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-clim...
I understand how you feel Toxic. If I were a second rate scientist, and I could earn a 6 figure salary plus vacation perks spewing the AGW propaganda line, why I might also join your cult. Fortunately, I do not have to whore myself to make a buck.
No, you don't have to whore yourself, says the MBA
Likewhatever...
(rolls eyes)
The July worldwide land surface temperature was 0.84°C (1.51°F) above the 20th century average of 14.3°C (57.8°F)—the fifth warmest July on record
Think about that statement for a moment. Do you really think life on Earth is so fragile that a 1.51 degree increase in temperature wipes it out? If you go outside can you tell the difference between 65 F and 66.51 F? I didn't think so, and I don't think animals care either. When the average temperature is 10 degrees hotter than normal I might sit up and take notice.
In the middle ages there was a period where the average temperature increased by a lot more than 1.51 degrees if I remember correctly and mankind and the rest of nature didn't go extinct then.
Another point - the author of this post knows nothing about radiation (I write computer codes that model it). The term "ionizing radiation" is meaningless in this context. Nitrogen and oxygen don't ionize unless the temperature gets really hot, like above 6000 K. And the diatomic molecules would most likely dissociate first. If nuclear power plant meltdowns cause temperatures around the globe in excess of 6000 K, then, yes, we would be in trouble.
Of course I don't believe that, and no one said that it would. I am concerned that it is just the beginning of further increases. Once it gets warm enough then other things will happen that will further destabilize the climate system, such as large-scale methane releases from permafrost and from the oceans.
I do not believe that we will destroy life on earth. I believe that it is highly likely, without a change in course, that we will forever alter life's trajectory and in the process we will most likely destroy ourselves. This planet has been around over four billion years, life around one billion. Life will not end; in the timescales of planets it will be but a short bout with the flu. For humans it is likely to be devastating.
These quick climate changes have indeed happened before. If you do some reseach on it there is a lot of very fascinating reading about it.
We all live in a world of "what ifs" and we all have to do our own risk assessments. Mine tells me that, one way or another, humanity is on a runaway train to disaster. I am preparing myself accordingly. Perhaps by doing so me and mine will have an opportunity to get through it. ;-)
TPOG
"I believe that it is highly likely, without a change in course, that we will forever alter life's trajectory and in the process we will most likely destroy ourselves."
Wouldn't we first have to discern what "lifes trajectory" is?
I mean, some of us are old enough and lived through past hyterias like this...Paul Ehrlic's Population Bomb (no food), John Holdren's new Ice Age (no food & cold), Ted Danson's Dead Oceans (so long Flipper and Ted Turner's whatever the hell Jane whispered in his ear at night while he slept,
The "threats" always seem to enrich the few at the cost of the many to me.
Tom Malthus, Carl Sagan, ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umrp1tIBY8Q
Nothwithstanding that NOAA is totally politicized in favor of AGW, and their data is not available for third party review, even if what you wrote was true, it still does not prove AGW. Sorry bro, correlation is not causation.
Why don't you go elsewhere then... lots of places
Here is an on-line journal
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
or
http://jclim.rutgers.edu/
Hulk,
You've always seemed pretty rational on these threads. Why would we have trouble accepting reporting on things like finance and politics, but accept the same reporting on things like environment? I'm not saying I believe in "climate change" as presented. But even children know that if you go dumping shit around the planet, there has to be some negative consequences. (not a personal attack for the record)
"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
Shit, I could have sworn it was Rupert Murdoch who said this....
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination...So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Prof. Stephen Schneider, IPCC/Stanford Professor of Climatology
It is worth remembering that the phrase, 'the science is settled' was created by a british PR firm. So could Rupert have coached Watson, maybe and so what.
Flak-start w/Bernays, but then there is the old frog Gustave le Bon (how cute, just "the good"). - Ned
Agree completely Confused. We are fucking up the environment bad. totally unsustainable what we are doing. I absolutely believe in conservation. But as far as anthropomorphic global warming, thats bullshit and is just going to hurt the poor working class very badly. I worked many years with the climate modelers at one of our national labs, proofreading their papers for mathematical errors. The modelers will be the first to admit to you that these models are not accurate.I even found a very embarassing physical science error on one of the papers circa 2002.
Here is an excellent paper on the growing problem of Scientific Fraud, of which I believe AGW is. In particular, I remember the "power lines cause cancer" science fraud study. Many, many people were hurt badly, financially, by this science fraud.
http://web.mit.edu/murj/www/v08/v08-Features/v08-f2.pdf
"The modelers will be the first to admit to you that these models are not accurate."
If I recall the dates correctly (1970-1990) they actually knew what the temps were with hindsight and ran their models to confirm the models. We know what happened.
Another reason more "modeling money" made it into NASA's taste of the "shovel ready jobs" bill than into actual subsidized taxpayer jobs. Whatever stupidi rationale that winds up meaning anyways.
Neo-Keynesian epic fail part 9,931...lol.
TPTB Manipualte and misinform with regards to climate change to further contriol and tax the populace, ergo, climate change does not exist in ANY form. ( I think that's the crux of thier argument.)
No? I'll try again:
Climate change/mass exstinctions happen throughout history, none are caused by humans, ergo, climate change is none of our (humans?) concern...
Normally I'd suggest they kill themselves, but they are 10 steps ahead of me. Enjoy Hell on Earth bitchez.
"Climate change/mass exstinctions happen throughout history, none are caused by humans, ergo, climate change is none of our (humans?) concern..."
I don't defend anything other than logic, and your statement is in dire need of corection on this account.
Just because something has not happened before does NOT mean that it will not in the future.
You statement would suggest that other obeserved populations, such as microbes, do NOT cause their own demise by over-populating/over-running their resource base.
Thanks for playing (the game of poor logic)!
U dudn't reed muh comint gud.
I presented TWO logically fallacious arguments, not just the one, to illustrate the poor logic of above posters.
Thanks for missing the not-so-subtleties
(Naw, just kidding, same team bud)
Gee, what persuasive and cogent arguments for AGW. I suggest you go back to posting on Mother Jones, instead of shaming yourself on ZH.
No thanks, I like "shaming" myself here (with an anon pseudonymno less). You seem like a bright fellow, care to elaborate on why my /sarc arguments are fallacious?
....No, I sure you wouldn't, just another clown, clowning away. I come here for people like you, so please, contiune.
Their ability to ignore objective evidence is exceeded only by their determination to maintain the status quo. To admit that there's a problem would be to admit that something needs to be done and that would affect their comfort in the short-term so therefore it cannot be. Freedom, for them, includes the freedom to commit suicide (even if it means taking everyone else down with them). So curious that they can see the necessity of shared pain and sacrifice only when it comes to the abstracts like money and finance, but not when it's their actual existence at stake.
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.” - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
Ooh...you can cut and paste quotes cherrypicked from emails and replicated across the interwebs of ACC deniers everywhere.
How does any of that change the science involved in any way?
Does it change the forcing of CO2? Of the ocean temps rising? Of the ice melting? Of the radiation no longer escaping to space?
Please, let's hear your "they're saying it for the funding" argument while you ignore the guys with the $400M golden parachutes and their army of paid "scientists" on leashes.
I can see a 'scam' in some of the approaches to the problem, but to fail to accept the hard science behind the issue is about as ignorant as ignorant can be.
Of course it doesn't change the science. It merely confirms that the global warming promotors have admitted to substituting lies for science. How many times do they have to tell you that they are lying in order to push other agendas before you wise up?
Show me the objective data...I'm waiting. What study was falisified? What lie presented as truth? (not that I think you'd ever accept reality that contradicts your chosen system of belief)
Why do you not believe that the data was falsified when the scientists who created the data admit that it was falsified?
Answer the question: what data was "falsified"?
The hockey stick graph, the Russian tree ring data and the Himalayan glacier data were falsified. If you've been following the AGW story you're also aware of other examples.
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, see:
On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
So you're relying on an inference from McIntyre in 2004 that the PCA methodology used for the "hockey stick" was incorrect (even though that wasn't, in fact, the case)...and calling that "falsified"? How about that very study leaving out the data from Mann's 1998 paper for fuck's sake?! Falsification would be the substitution of false data in place of real world measurements to achieve a different outcome, none of which has occurred in any of the many temperate proxies that all show the same trend in the post-industrialization temperature record.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
Then you move on to criticism from Roy Spencer, famed Exxon bun-boy, which uses an oversimplistic model to interpret observed data and infer a dubious result. As for computer models, some (giss), which don't include ENSO effects, match the observed data for the ten years analyzed less well than those which do (MPI-Echam5).
Guess which one of the two models predicts higher climate sensitivity to CO2, Sparky?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/
Again, how this qualifies as 'falsification' is an exercise left to your over-active imagination and the producers at Fox News and editors at the WSJ, since those seem to be the main sources you have for your understanding of climate science.
I used to believe in global warming. That was when I was a Democrat. I wised up after 40 years and now that I'm a free individual and have looked into these things for myself I feel far more confident in my opinion of the matter.
You can keep on believing people who tell you straight out that they are actually pushing a different agenda and using the fear of climate change to do so. I'm not sure why you consider that to be advantageous but if it works for you then that's groovy, man.
CO2, the melting ice, and the rising, warming ocean don't care what you believe.
If you've "looked into these things for myself", then why do you resort to copying and pasting instead of presenting what "you" found?
Perhaps I can conceive of scientists doing hard work and having it misused by politicos for nefarious purposes (if attempting to spin science to garner consensus can be called that).
Maybe you don't know any scientists, but I do and the likelihood of them engaging in a plot of the kind that your argument hinges upon is on par with a lobbyist working to get money out of politics
or an investment banker working toward wealth redistribution and limits to executive compensation. Do you think they got into that field for the big bucks and hot chicks?
Ahh... so GW is Democrat-Republican thing... I do not doubt that they are people who would use AGW to "political ends", but that does not change the science..
YO, snowball, don'tcha know that if this global warming thingie goes on u will melt? ?? eh???
If you wish to talk "science" as currently construed, say since Gallileo or so, then we have an agreed framework: The Theory Has To Be Testable. Got it?
I postulate an alternative that destroys the AGW "theory". There are many other factors that argue against AGW. I have many in my quiver, but for sake of brevity I give all y'all:
a) Global Cooling (Sagan, Newsweek, later redacted as a part of the Ministry of Truthiness)
b) The Finger Lakes Region of upstate NY (OT, too bad it is still part of NY, or that NYC can't be ---)
c) the formation of Mt. Desert Island, and why the Appalachian mountain chain isn't rather taller than it is, and ...
I know you won't/are intellectually incapable of getting above, but, well, you aren't doing "Science."
- Ned
Bullshit. You want to talk specifics, let's go. You want to toss up flak without links or data? -> suck a dick.
You want to talk about thermohaline shutdown? Bring it.
You think obtuse references to the holocene climate of NY or volcanic activity in the Ordovician will help you? LOL
Are you in denial that CO2 forcing is a real phenomenon? Or that human activity is a factor? Or that ocean temps are rising monotonically? Or that the Antarctic ice is melting? Or....?
I can intellectually wipe the floor with you...if you're willing to talk science, but, thus far, all you have in your "quiver" is anecdotal bandini.
The AGW scientists can't seem to find the warming of which you speak.
From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment."
Still with the copy and paste and not a single shred of physical evidence to refute current climate science, I see. What's the matter? They don't have any actual science available on your denier blogs?
I've posted lots of evidence in support of my position. All you post are calls for more evidence. How does that make you Mr. Empiricism?
No, you've posted aspersions and called them proof of falsification, but not a single shred of physical evidence that contradicts current climate science.
Crockett,
You have hit the nerve center of liberal theology:
Either AGW must be true, or we need further research. Any dissent shall be met with full frontal attack via obscure words and character assaults.
As Reagan once said, it's not that (they) are wrong, it's that they know so much about what isn't so.
melting snowballz:
"I can intellectually wipe the floor with you..."
Really?
Don't you know how the miles-high glaciers carved out the finger lakes? Along the shores of which are, now-a-days such great vineries? Where Johnnie-Apple-seed started?
Let's talk science. I'll see you one global warming chit and raise youi one "Nobel Prize Winning Global cooling Nobel Prize winning Scientist--Carl Sagan"
come back skoshi' fucka'
- Nec
I'm waiting; present your "science" at your leisure. And not just lame allusions next time, but something concrete, measurable, and related to the climate.
And am I supposed to give two shits about Carl Sagan or something?
"Bullshit. You want to talk specifics, let's go. You want to toss up flak without links or data? -> suck a dick."
Wait a minute!...hold the bio-diesel...the corn cobs/dogs,,,the whatever here.
I thought we were just discussing this on the "Johnny Has Two Dads textbook" thread.
So is that like a slam or what?...does that wind up being good or bad?...I'm really cornfused about this now snowy and so is Johnny...lol...is this how you "volunteer" your time to teach my children in the classroom?
This is like the Book of Revelations...or...sumpin ;-)
In response to "I know you won't/are intellectually incapable of getting above...", yes. As stated previously on the other thread, "until demonstrated otherwise".
I don't volunteer "in the classroom", just with kids, but certainly not your "Squire" (...who's "hoity toity" again?!).
As for "Johnny has two dads", that strawman still "won't hunt"...it was about protecting one's rights, not indoctrinating your precious, no matter how many times you attempt to digress.
I've generally had some measure of respect for your contributions here, but lately you've mostly contributed back-biting triviality and not a whit of inspired commentary.
"but certainly not your "Squire"
"Progressives" have never appreciated English.
"it was about protecting one's rights"
No, it was about a "progressive" agenda. And I buried you up to your neck in your own agenda. And you never answered my question there snowy, how many biological children do you have?
"I've generally had some measure of respect for your contributions here"
My view of yours dropped precipitously six months ago.
So know we're pretending that 'squire' wasn't derived from French? Does he carry your sword and help you don your armor or something?
You never asked me how many kids I have, but the answer is one happy little boy who turned two in July. I've mentioned him several times before on other threads.
Good thing I'm not in dire need of validation from pompous twits.
"Does he carry your sword and help you don your armor or something?"
Would you believe me if I said...no? ;-)
So its one, I send him a heartfelt but belated happy birthday.
But I asked how many biological kids you have. Can I assume, from your answer, that your son is of you & your husband?
Its a very simple straightforward question snowy...it only requires a simple yes or no.
You can assume whatever you like (you always do, obviously), but my wife's C-Section scar makes you look even more ridiculous than you were trying to be.
Lest you make some pathetic attempt to prevaricate even further, he's mine, I planted the seed, and I enjoyed the acts leading up to his conception.
I leave you to whatever gloryhole or truckstop you'll be frequenting tonight with a baseball bat to work out your "frustrations".
Well obviously I thought you were a woman all this time. I wonder whatever gave me that idea?...ROTFLMAO!!!
It just gets better & better with you...lol.
Sooo, ummm, whats all this about gloryholes & truckstops...something else you need to get off your chest? ;-)
No one ever pegged you as being all that bright.
Hey, it's your hobby, who am I to judge how you spend your copious amounts of free time? Besides, I'm sure you "needed the money".
LOL!!!
Thats what I like about you snowy...always lookin out for the little guys "rights" ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_earth
not that there's anything wrong with that
What do you consider to be hard science? Flawed conclusions based on useless computer models? Didn't they predict there would be no snow in England by 2010? Gee, I guess that why it is now called Climate change, ha ha!
Of course they are basing recommendations on climate models, since there is no empirical data to support their theory.
Sure, because CO2 levels aren't rising, and the ocean temp isn't monotonically increasing, and spectral data doesn't demonstrate that infrared radiation being reflected back to earth is increasing.
Or maybe you just missed that with your head buried in the sand?
I do not think it is that. I think instead that the AGW priests are frothing about fire and brimstone at us and we look at the science and see that the earth has gone through dramatic swings in temperature which have included periods where there was no ice in the arctic to periods when the entire globe was frozen a mile thick even at the equators and say, much like Barney Frank did in leading to the current financial crisis regarding the GSEs "We will roll the dice". This even though it is obvious that if you are pumping tons of gases into the atmosphere, you are going to have an impact (even though it only represents something like 3% of the gas going into the atmosphere annually). Personally I worry more about the availability of stuff to burn to create energy than I do about the effect we are having on the atmosphere, even though I recognize the effect is not good. Maybe this will be the thing that bends the population curve down finally. Wouldn't be the first time and wil not be the last. I doubt it will result in total extinction though.
"AGW PRIESTS"- Just wondering? Do you consider the mechanical engineer who builds the bridge you stand or drive on a priest? Do you consider the nuclear physicist who designs and maintains nuclear facilities and weapons grade materials a priest. Since when are immutable LAWS of physics considered something you have to praise, have faith or believe in. Gravity certainly doesn't give a shit if you believe in it or not. Seems to me that science is only convenient for you when your emotionally OK with it. As if that mattered! Once again an ignorant cynic does not make an educated skeptic. There are very few true skeptics in the world. Science provides measurable and sometimes not so measurable phenomenon, but actual results nonetheless. We have impacted both our internal ecology and external ecology. But of course it will probably take such an event to cause a paradigm shift of whoever might/could survive this.
Well, what you are really saying is "It is settled science". I do not think it is settled. And the examples you cite of other scientists and their pursuits lack the religious aspect that exists in the AGW debate whether you care to acknowledge it or not. The fact is that climate science is one of the most difficult areas of all, where physics, astrophysics, chemistry and probably some other areas all come together in dynamic ways that are devilishly hard to understand even for scientists, much less lay people. I worry about the effects human activity has on the thin envelope of gases surrounding the planet as its composition has changed dramatically throughout earths history. You need only ask the anaerobic life snuffed out when the atmosphere went from reducing to oxidizing thanks to the friendly stromatolites how changing the gas mixture can affect things. But again it is so massivley complicated that to say there is a valid concensus that can guide policy is lunatic, particularly when it should be obvious that the approaches advocated will cause massive economic dislocations that are certain against possible economic dislocations in the future which are not certain. There are LOTS of ways to begin to address this potential problem without creating carbon exchanges for example which will only serve to enrich a few entities like Goldman Sachs at the expense of the rest of us. We have not exhausted those approaches yet, not even close. Politically, if oyu really want to address this issue then do it straight with a carbon tax, not with some makework BS that allows political actors to dole out favors in exchange for donations, ie more crony capitalism. But in order to do that, you will need to convince people rather than merely resorting to an appeal to scientific authority or by simply asserting the science is setlled. Good luck.
t0-yep.
There is a difference/distinction that has to be drawn between 1) the assessment of the situation (that might be in the science/engineering realm), 2) the analysis of the implications of the possible outcomes and possible paths to desireable outcomes (science/engineering/public policy), and then the decision making process. So, yes, it is perversion of science.
But, well, if a group comes out of the previous century and has accumulated wealth and wishes to aim all of society into a particular direction, then pick the direction and work the process backwards to establish the organizations needed.
don't cha' know.
- Ned
Re Immutable laws of physics...you are right. The second law of thermodynamics puts paid to the AGW theory.
This I gotta hear.... please educate me.
Flak, ya gotta get the background. Here ya go, did your research for ya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_thermodynamics
Basically, tendency for natural processes toward disorder/disintegration.
But it is in the Newtonian view, it disregards nuclear processes and is concerned with controlled volumes. And disregards import/export of mass/energy. And is statistical (JezzBallz teaches that intelligence can screw with Maxwell-->his deamons.
Get back to us after appropriate study.
- Ned
Yes, how does this relate to what he said... You could say I have a little experience with Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics... stuff like TdS equations, partition functions, you know...
More AGW religious BS from a true believer. Religious fanatics like you always try to force their views on others, because you are specially illuminated by the truth, and are doing this for the good of others. Oh how hard it must be to be so special and apart from the great unwashed.....I pity you, sniff.
Right. The Club of Rome said they were going to create a "global revolution" by creating a fictitious story of global warming but then it happened for real! All the fudged data proves it!
Polar bears are NOT going extinct. They can swim hundreds of miles and wont drown due to melting ice, and they just follow their prey - seals etc.
The Arctic Ice Cap is recovering since 2007, it is not melting away.
We have had periods on this planet since the homo genus evolved that have been far colder and far warmer. We will survive minor temperature fluctuations but we might not survive a global Stalinist regime.
Temperatures are shown to be rising since 1800 as we emerge from a recent little ice age, but these temperatures as measured in the lower atmosphere have plateued since 1998.
Stop being such a condescending asshat and maybe read some of the opposite point of view for a change?
Nah, your blinders are just too comfortable for you, apparently.
Care to cite a study backing these assertions re; Arctic Ice?
Good documentary on how much bullshit is associated with the imaginery idea that man made CO2 causing climagte change is one big sick ass fraudulent looting the masses fraud-O-rama.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647
Oh, please explain in your own words why it is a fraud.
Go ahead, make my day.
Unfortunately Flak, that just might cause an ego furor in a denier, cynic, ignorant skeptics own mind. All of these so called deniers and skeptics apply subjective emotional assumptions to objective and measurable scientific variables. The many disciplines of science have too little members compared to the world's population as a whole thus we have to step up and become physics and chemistry professors for the lot of them, due to their inherent intellectual and emotional laziness(see immaturity) to actually do any real work. The study of the sciences is hard work, but these clowns desire to sit back and be entertained and dismiss on a whim anything that is not to their liking or comprehension. Once again as if that mattered. I like the old saying "I can explain it to you, I just can't understand it for you." We'll just have to keep up the fight, and call them out when stupidity(see lack of common sense) runs amuck.
Well said....
More elitist AGW garbage from the Toxic one....I just love how you guys like to waste time circle jerking yourselves over how clever you are, using psuedo psychobabble to justify your deluded beliefs. It would be amusing if you were not trying to force your religion upon us.
Psuedo techo babble?.... whats the matter, you can't understand it?
Show me you know your stuff....bet you can't
Flak is striking for junior asssitant probationary sub-troll.
give the puppy a skosh' break.
- Ned
[ED. Anomaly Report: Sac, I have "junior assistant probationary sub-troll" in subscript, as it should be, on the comment window, did not come through on the thread]
{Dang, Sac, wouldn't have your job for just about anything ;-)}
@ Flak
And...he's back! Unable to articulate an affirmative case, you resort to taunting so-called "deniers" to "disprove" what hasn't been established, all the while presuming yourself judge and jury as to what and who is credible.
As any good lawyer knows, you don't make your case on cross-examination.
Give us the airtight affirmative case as credible as water freezing at 32 degrees.
You have great intellectual gifts, but seem to subordinate them to a need to show others they are wrong.
I'veFlakmeister
Vote up! 0
Vote down! 0
M. Sc. in Theoretical Physics, Ph.D. Experimental Physics,
Post Doctroral Experience: U. of Chicago, U. Michigan, Visiting scientist U. of Manchester,
Staff Scientist at Brookhaven National Lab
Primary author of ~20 peer reviewed research papers....
Referee for the Physical Review
Internationally known: Invited seminars and colloquia in 7 countries, 3 continents.... ~20 of the top 100 research universities in US, places like Stanford, CalTech. Featured speaker at 2 international conferences....
Over 20 years experience basic research....
And while not related 5 years experience in structured finance on Wall St.
Hope that helps.... been asking Flake to link to the 20 plus authored, peer reviewed papers that he claims in his CV. Still waiting....
Your argmument is that you could explain it but, in your elitist little mind, it is not worth the effort since (by your assumption) nobody else is willing, or capable of understanding??
Sounds alot like religion to me:
-God speaks through me so I am the authority
-God told me the solution.
-Since God speaks in myserious ways, you are incapable of understanding...now get back to your routine.
At least you have not resorted to throwing virgins in the volcano to appease God...at least not yet.
That aint science, chief. Calling people stupid is not going to fucking cut it. Nobody is denying change, or even that there is some human related impact. Your presentation could use some work if you are going to convince people of your position. If you bothered to read posts, the concern is largely over zealots for the religion of statism, selling fear to promote their solutions of Carbon Credits, and Geo-Sequestration....for tree food.
Perhaps if you cared to share what data you have seen, and counter with some of your conclusions, others might see the wisdom of your solution, and agree.....or are they just too stupid?
Fear makes the masses more pliable.
you overestimate your importance to mankind- strictly an unanalytic obsevation of course
We don't have a problem understanding you. The problem is your "explanations" do not constitute proof. The burden of proving a theory, such as AGW, is upon the proponents. AGW proponents proceed as if AGW is true till proven false. All scientists are supposed to be sceptical, not partisans.
What we need is a disconnect of politics from science (and religion). What we get instead is a new type of "Politically Correct Science" or "popularity activism science"?
Responding to requests for proof with PR or statements that "science is settled" is simply a refusal to engage in debate. Proponents who will not attempt to prove their theory or engage in open debate with their credentialed critics are not to be taken seriously.
We at ZH see a similiar attitude in conventional economists and financial advisors when it comes to advising the public on PM investments. This makes us unwilling to take their advice on other matters. Science (or parts of it) appears about to head down that same road.
This illustration pretty much says it all. I hope this isn't to simple for ya Flakmeister. Wouldn't want to bruise your superior intellectual ego you so often tout.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI
I notice all the dipshits point to youtube....
Ever read anything?
Yes indeed, I have. I also attended a CSUCI climate information forum and it was absolute nonsense. I asked one of the physicists if he believed CO2 was a pollutant, and he replied: "That's the wrong question". This after he was showing slides of a CO2 induced forrest environment flourishing with abundant growth.
The whole forum was propaganda. It was ridiculous.
Flakmeister...You have no idea what your talking about.
Prove that I don't....
In your words explain where the science went wrong....
dude, u b upside down. job of science is to prove that it is right against all commers. - Ned
Where did the science go wrong? You make it sound like the science in unequivocal... which it certainly isn't.
The models predicted increased warming during the naughties. Didn't happen. Temperatures plateued.
Even Climate 'scientists' admit they don't know if increased levels of H2O in the atmosphere will increase warming (as it's a greenhouse gas) or decrease warming (as clouds alter Earth's albido)
http://surfacestations.org/ shows that huge numbers of the surface temperature monitors are poorly sited - that hundreds of the (cooler) rural stations have fallen into disuse, and that averages have been raised by using urban stations' readings (without taking into account UHI)
The 'science' is poor. The data is poor. Expecting anyone who has read around the subject to accept the wilder predictions of AGW is unrealistic. Is it getting warmer? Probably... is it hotter now than it was 800 years ago? Probably not. Do AGW promoters have an incentive to exaggerate the threat? Undoubtedly. Do 'denier' sceintists exist, with plausable rebuttals? Yup.
Give it a fucking rest. This isn't The Guardian.
Give it a fucking rest. This isn't The Guardian.
+1
Lol, classic!
Flaky, you want to take money from me, and from anyone else who does not share your views. So, short of being at the wrong end of a gun, I suggest that you try to prove your AGW theories, instead of demanding that we prove a negative. So put up, or fuck off.
I really don't give a fuck about your money.... I just worry about my grandkids.
The ice cap is melting away. Many species have been destroyed by Eath's temperature changes. And we look like we will follow.
I can understand the reluctance of polluters and followers to not want to blame emissions, but to deny what is actually occurring involves a special talent whatever the cause.
It is the denial of reality that is most provoking. Debate of why is ok.
This is not a recent problem in human development, Galileo was put in jail for his revelations. And we know why the Koch's are a such a anti humane group.
Ice caps have come and gone throughout the earth's history, long before we started burning fossil fuels.
How many species have been killed by the 'extraordinary' increases of, what , 1 or 2 degrees in the last century - that may or may not be anthropogenic?
Yes, let's stop dumping mercury, lead, Bisphenol A, etc, etc into the environment. But CO2 is harmless at present concentrations - and it has existed at much higher levels in the past, when temperatures were lower than they are today: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Plant life enjoys faster growth in an environment that is higher in co2.
Plants use co2 to grow.
Believe it or not, that reduces co2 from the atmosphere.
I guess we could extrapolate the fact that plants use co2 and release oxygen to infer that with more trees, the amount of co2 would diminish below the amount of co2 necessary to sustain plant life.
Omg! The trees are going to become extinct!
It is my opinion that the problem lies in extrapolating current conditions to accelerate, when in the real world, that is not what happens.
Just my opinion. Please don't come find me and burn up my suv to save the environment.
What a great debater you are mr progressive. Why must we disaprove you? It is your heory produce the science. Another Alinksy tool. Progessives demand unassailable documentation for a shift in thier beliefs while never fully proving their theories. A couple of hundred million dollars of grant money has spent on man made climate change wheres your proof? O thats right I just have to STFU.
If man made global warming had been scientifically proven the suppoprters of it would not have the change the name to Climate Change.
Exactlty when in the life of our little planet has climate never changed? A climate must have already been estabished so the first billion years is the right anwer.
Just go to NOAA and browse around...you;ll find all you need.
Care to present your credentials for holding the beliefs that you have? Can you even understand a paper on climate science?
My credentials are, among others , a BA in political science. This fully qualifies me to discuss AGW since it is a political and faith based movement, not grounded in science despite the fraudulent claims of a small group of corrupt scientists and shills feeding from the public trough. Who cares how many angels can dance on the head of a AGW pin, anyways? Any academic can write incomprensible BS. Just ask former USSR academics if facts were relevant to the conclusions of agenda driven science. Either their followed the party line, or were sent to labor camps. The science was irrelevant to the political agenda, just like AGW.
BA in political science... good, for you.
Any hard sciences? Chemistry? Physics? Engineering? Thermodynamics?
Any math beyond linear algebra, mono-variate calculus?
Any non-linear modelling? Probability theory?
Any PDEs?
Any tensors?
Do you know the difference between a statistical and systematic error?
Stochastic processes?
Actually, I also have a MBA in Finance, but who cares. AGW is a political and faith based view of the world. It has nothing to do with science other than manufacturing false proofs to support pre determined conclusions.
But since you asked, I have many good friends who are PHD quants. One of them reviewed the code attached to the climategate emails and pronounced the model to be rubbish. If you profess to know anything about statistical modeling, then you know that the AGW models cannot account for second order effects. Also, no model is robust enough to account for all the relevant variables, and to compute said variables.
I do not argue the science because it is secondary to where AGW leads us...into paying endless taxes and forcing fascist like controls into every aspect of our lives. I do not want to live in such a world, and my children deserve better.
You summed it up, if I may paraphrase "I don't believe in AGW because I do not like the implications."
Well at least you are honest about your motivation. Misguided, but honest and intellectually bankrupt.
Sorry, you are misquoting me. The purpose of the AGW science was to provide the intellectual foundation for a central planning system using carbon credits as currency. Climategate conclusively demonstrated that key AGW scientists were doctoring their data, and distorting results to support the claim that the world is warming, that it is due primarily to carbon dioxide, and human beings are primarily responsible for the increase in CO2 emissions. I will follow truth, whereever it may lead, but I will not bow to liars and enslave my children because it was easier to ' go along to get along'.
Oh, so the guys like Hansen that have been studying this stuff for years is all part of conspiracy. I suggest you re-read about Climategate and the use of proxy data and what not and some of the followup stuff:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/one-year-later/
and links therein
Hey asswipe. Pay attention to what I wrote. I do not deny "climate change" just the fraudulent idea that ACO2 causes it. It doesn't.
Also, I find even the most intelligent are as dumb as fence post when it comes to understanding the simpliest of fraudulent notions.
Busy day... might have missed something you wrote....
Alright explain in your own words using science why AGW is fraudulent. I am all ears
Start here....
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
Climategate has been put to rest.... old story.
Yea, old story...nothing to see here. Then there's the part where AGW is being picked apart daily for the fraud and lie which it is. Yes?
When snowballs lets you up for air, could you address this fact. No?
Would you like 99 other studies that come to the same conclusion?
Start here:
http://jclim.rutgers.edu/
I can source 1000 studies (really) that prove the existence of God. But without the ability to falsify results, it becomes a matter of faith. That is the difference between science and faith, and to date, nothing has been produced by the AGW'ers that proves conclusively:
the earth is warming at a rate that is significantly above normal (what is the baseline temperture of the earth anyways?)
CO2 is the main agent driving global warming
humans are the primary source of CO2 production.
Unless you can prove all 3, the theory is simply wrong.