Climate Change? Of course. Which way?

The earth is in a 23000 year wobble of the spin axis.

The Sun has variability that we are only beginning to measure. What is the 23K year Sun cycle?

Our earth orbit precesses. The moon is moving farther out. Our Solar System is
swinging thru dark energy and matter, they say. The hubris of anyone that claims to
have certain knowlege is only surpassed by
the tyranny of opinion the smuggly wield.

We are to go along with the Majority Bully?
I say, no. For those who don't slop at the
research grant trough, and still have an open
mind, let us consider the BEST study recently published. Doesn't surprise me that some see it as the latest data for man made global warming. Looking through funny colored glasses. Money Green. Luddites,
Carbon Credit traders.

Sure, if you don't read past wikipedia and the popular sources. Mostly, however, the
BEST study does not support MMGM.

BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming.
BEST concluded that land temperatures may be driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - a decadal phenomenon.

Based on this most recent temperature and CO2 information, some of which I have posted in another sub-forum.

" We can safely assume that the BEST researchers are no dummies.....that would explain their hedging comments that the human influence is 'overestimated' and that natural decadal oscillations may be driving temperatures instead of human CO2 emissions."

Other minority findings here.
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/

Of course, you'll see character stabbing and mud slinging practiced against this, soon enough. The way of the gun, for all the vaulted snobbery.

97% of world climate scientists say it does exist and is getting worse, 3% (on the payroll of oil,coal co. etc)say there is no global warming. I dont know where you get this 1/3 bullshit. Also just a Q, do you know more about climate change than the scientists?

Quote your sources, please. 97%? Don't believe it. I'm quoting a study, sir.
I know what I know because I study. Do you? Or do you bow before the "scientists?"

Are you a sacrifice to the Research Grant Inquisition? Good god, man. I think for
myself. You start with the potty mouth in the science forum? We are talking reasonably about the minority reports that you wish to bully into quiet.

*BUDS said:

97% of world climate scientists say it does exist and is getting worse, 3% (on the payroll of oil,coal co. etc)say there is no global warming. I dont know where you get this 1/3 bullshit. Also just a Q, do you know more about climate change than the scientists?

Click to expand...

99% of the scientist said Einstein was crazy , but we know otherwise..... whats your point.

(1770): "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke.

Climate change, (was global warming) was and is a political agenda.
Leftist want their power structrure. They think this is the ticket. Else,
why shout down and anyone who still asks questions? Brown Shirt tactics. We must be a politcal threat.

If it was just science and not politics it would be a civil and reasonable quest.

But, when one sides sniffs power, the sheep are punished. The way of the gun.

You're kidding me, right? Some of the great (non-political, largely) scientific debates of the last 200 years were pure Jerry! cn

Oh, I know. It's knock down drag out, sometimes. And I guess ole Edison had his agenda. <shrug> this seems different somehow. It's popular politics crashing into the information age. Voters are too busy to think it through sometimes. The unintended consequences. Perhaps it always seems stange when good science is muddied
with the shrill voice of power.

It hit my limit last year when the Discovery channel tried to run a few episode of a What to DO?!?!? "science" show. Brain dead ideas along the lines of Space Fountains. Use ships to throw up water vapor world wide and other weather tinkering horrors. Slow the Jet Stream with giant engines in giant ballons? Guilt side of the blame game. Well, we broke it, right? is the subliminal message. 1984 was not paranoia, he was a prophet, imo. The information age just makes it much more subtle.

It wasn't popular and actually suggested uni-lateral action against international treaty, if I read between the lines.

Lucky I believe in common sense and the System, thereof. Folks will get to spend a lot of money either way.

I'm always against bullies.

*BUDS said:

97% of world climate scientists say it does exist and is getting worse, 3% (on the payroll of oil,coal co. etc)say there is no global warming. I dont know where you get this 1/3 bullshit. Also just a Q, do you know more about climate change than the scientists?

Click to expand...

He gets his 1/3 bullshit from scientific facts from non-bribed scientists that refuse to go under the corruption of our treacherous government.
Where have you ever seen a commercial from the government controlled television saying "let's not worry about global warming because it's a natural cycle where we are actually slowly going in to a mini ice age" You don't see it because those 97% of scientists you are claiming say it IS getting worse have no proof under interviews of the actual cycle that global warming is man made and it is all paid off information to take more money from the tax payers pockets -carbon tax etc;

Just a Q: Do you believe all the propaganda the government displays for our community and society to see.

Just read doer's other comments i would say he knows more than all us put together hes got it spot on +rep

I don't think air pollution changes the climate of the earth at all. If it did, we'd see drastic changes in places like China where the pollution is a HUGE problem. But, its still a good idea to try to limit the amount we release. Either way I just bought a car that gets 16 MPG and also burns OIL as it burns fuel. Fuck the earth.

Nusky said:

I don't think air pollution changes the climate of the earth at all. If it did, we'd see drastic changes in places like China where the pollution is a HUGE problem. But, its still a good idea to try to limit the amount we release. Either way I just bought a car that gets 16 MPG and also burns OIL as it burns fuel. Fuck the earth.

Click to expand...

Are you including co2 in your definition of pollution? You do realize we are discussing global climate change, not just localized atmospheric events? China and the US are not affected by climate change nearly as much as Greenland, and the poles. Although the average global temps have only risen slightly, it is much more pronounced as you get near the pole regions because of the role that ocean currents play.

There has been so much bait and switch here. First it was global warming and
methane was the ghg. Woops, methane is mostly from cow poop and marsh gas.
And the bets need to be hedged politically.

So, now it morphed to Climate Change and CO2. You know the old joke about betting
on the weather. Only one sure bet. It will change.

A small win, factory polution credit exchange was added to sweeten the deal, and
has become the Carbon Credit market. One of the top dogs there is Al Gore.

Smell the rat? So, of course the climate is changing. But CO2? It's the premier
mineral cycle on the planet. Volcanos spew it, reefs take it up, plants breathe it
in, we breathe it out. It's the perfect chaos element. The debate will rage and
money, taxpayer money will be spent in large amounts.

The latest reseach along the CO2 line, published this year, says that clouds play
a bigger role here to mitigate temperature than is credited, in the current
"group think."

Not suprising. The secret most powerful gas in the atmosphere is water vapor,
not CO2.

If they were so sure it was warming why did they change the name of the
movement to Climate Change? Savvy politics.

And why scream down those that disagree? We are kicking the rice bowl.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, BEST, had a report out earlier this year.

Of course, the shrill partisans on this grabbed it as the final nail in the coffin conducted
by the climate change deny-ers. (first thing on the leftist agenda, call names)

Here's what the leader said, "
BEST founder Richard A. Muller told The Guardian "...we are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious," "...we are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find. We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close."[3]
The BEST project is funded by unrestricted educational grants totalling (as of March 2011) about $635,000. Large donors include Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER)[4], and the William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation.[5] The donors have no control over how BEST conducts the research or what they publish.[6]

It actually was un-biased but that that didn't stop the power mongers from spinning it for their purpose.

See the current wikipedia for BEST and ask yourself. Does it mention this? No.

• BEST results show little, if any, warming over recent years
• BEST results found one-third of climate stations report a cooling, not a warming
• BEST determined that government maintained temperature-station quality is "awful"
• BEST found that the urban impact on global land temperatures is minimal
• BEST concluded that the human influence on land temperatures may be overestimated
• BEST concluded that land temperatures may be driven by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) - a decadal phenomenon

Wow, poison the well much?

Many of these questions and issues are valid, and probably something any one who has not looked into climate change would ask. There is nothing wrong with asking questions and seeking clarification. The problem is, you present these questions as if you have exhaustively searched for answers, when many of them can be answered by google and careful reading. You pre-reject any explanation based on paranoid sounding conjecture.

Lets look at some of the issues brought up here.

Global warming is still being debated:

This link explains that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists. The page provides source links to many independent science organizations and academic groups. It is a summary and collection of consensus proof, not just one webmasters opinion. Some of the facts pointed out in the summary are:

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

Click to expand...

There are an abundance of links to many different official sites showing conclusively that a consensus exists. Any skeptics should following this data and investigate the validity of the links. The question of "is the jury still out" must be answered "no" by any reasonable person

They switched Global Warming to Climate Change:

Who are 'they'? These two terms have been around for decades and mean different things, although they are related by causality. Global warming refers to a long term warming trend, while climate change refers to the effects this warming trend has. Pretty simple. No deceitful tactics here, just precise terms being used in the name of accuracy.

The BEST study showed a cooling trend:

The BEST study showed exactly what climatologists expected, the earth is warming. It served to confirm most earlier studies, not contradict them. Anyone who points out a cooling trend is guilty of purposely trying to skew the data by cherry picking small samples. Anyone who wishes to examine this data set can follow this link, which provides a summary, and again, many independent sources. If you wish for summary, including links, for the entire study as a whole, try here.

You already said, and are saying again, you want to control the style of the debate, characterize the way I sound, and take your passive agressiveness into a personal
attack, again? And suddenly, you are quote mining, where you
scolded me yesterday, for it. Flip Flop, the acid tongue.

We, the few, I admit, are discussing the minority view in a pot forum, for crying outloud, and you have a stick up your ass, apprearently. Can't stand opposition,
stoop to name calling and snobbery. It's obvious you have skin in the game, it's
your ricebowl or you would not be here with your ad hominem attacks.

Doer said:

You already said, and are saying again, you want to control the style of the debate, characterize the way I sound, and take your passive agressiveness into a personal
attack, again? And suddenly, you are quote mining, where you
scolded me yesterday, for it. Flip Flop, the acid tongue.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you are unclear on what the tactic of quote mining entails. First of all, it involves a quote. Text from a webpage does not constitute a quote, it is demonstration of pertinent data.

Quote mining is taking a direct quote and displaying it out of context in the pretense that it agrees with your point. Not to be confused with legitimate quoting, witch illustrates a point. I wont point out your incidence of quote mining because it was in another thread, but I welcome you to specify which quote you are accusing me of mining here.

We, the few, I admit, are discussing the minority view in a pot forum, for crying outloud, and you have a stick up your ass, apprearently. Can't stand opposition,
stoop to name calling and snobbery.

Click to expand...

You surely didn't present this topic as if it is just shooting the shit in a pot forum, nor are you simply presenting your take on things. You are making unjustified accusations based on ill-informed and biased speculation. You are claiming the public is being lied to on a global scale for the sake of money and power. Seems like a fairly alarming proposition to me. Meanwhile all I did was present data and clarify some of the misconceptions you presented here. Again I welcome you to specify the name calling and snobbery.

It's obvious you have skin in the game, it's
your ricebowl or you would not be here with your ad hominem attacks.

Click to expand...

We can see what your evidence filter requires for a conclusion by examining this statement. You do not know anything about me but are certain I am now part of this conspiracy. Simply because I presented data and summary of the consensus you have decided I am on the take. Please point out the ad hominem attacks you accuse me of. Ad hominem occurs when you point out an irrelevant detail to refute logic, instead of focusing on the logic itself. Much like what you have done by alluding to my source of income.

I find it interesting that all of your text is attacking me, and none of it addresses the points I brought up. For example, you were asking for sources confirming the consensus of 97%. I provided this data as you requested, do you now acknowledge a consensus exists? You were also speculating about the use of the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming'. I explained that both terms have been around for many years and are used when appropriate. Considering the level of interest you displayed when saying "If they were so sure it was warming why did they change the name of the
movement to Climate Change?" I would have thought you would have responded upon hearing the correct reason. Instead you only seem interested in discrediting me based on irrelevant and made up allegations. Is this the typical way in which you digest information?

Hey, you-dog. I never said anything about anybody. Certainly not you until the personal attacks began, (Doer doesn't sound like he's just shooting the shit) and now they continue. You control the manner and tone of the debate. I'm obviously not the only the only one who thinks so. You act like you're defending a movement. The end justifies the means. The way of the gun. Ergo sum.

Isnt there evidence that at times in the past atmospheric CO2 concentrations were up to 12x times more than they are at present?

I think it's immensely arrogant to think humans alone can drastically influence a planet that's been around for 4 billion years with cyclical climate changes documented for millions of years.

We may be influencing or accelerating a natural cycle, but the idea of "Man Made Climate Change" is absurd.

Harrekin said:

Isnt there evidence that at times in the past atmospheric CO2 concentrations were up to 12x times more than they are at present?

I think it's immensely arrogant to think humans alone can drastically influence a planet that's been around for 4 billion years with cyclical climate changes documented for millions of years.

We may be influencing or accelerating a natural cycle, but the idea of "Man Made Climate Change" is absurd.

Click to expand...

...I think it's a living metaphor for the 'unhealthy air' in the world You know, like how we're mostly arrogant towards each other. We tend to use our vocal capabilities to tear down instead of building up and it causes a living pollution.

"seek and ye shall find" in this context, to me, looks a bit like "evidence, of course you'll find it".

...just my 2¢

Harrekin said:

Isnt there evidence that at times in the past atmospheric CO2 concentrations were up to 12x times more than they are at present?

I think it's immensely arrogant to think humans alone can drastically influence a planet that's been around for 4 billion years with cyclical climate changes documented for millions of years.

We may be influencing or accelerating a natural cycle, but the idea of "Man Made Climate Change" is absurd.

Click to expand...

In short, the sun was cooler and less intense in the past and demand for co2 was higher, however c02 is not the only driver of climate change. If you wish to read an in depth explanation, go here.

I don't think anyone is taking the position that human are 100% responsible for climate change. In addition, I don't think anyone serious is saying that human contribution is 0%. Nature does a good job of cycling the co2 it makes, unfortunately humans do not. The co2 produced by volcano's and forest fires ect. is easily absorbed back into nature. A good deal of human co2 emissions are also absorbed by nature, maybe as much as half. Unless humans do something to offset the rest, a rise in level seems likely. A rise in co2 level has a direct effect on climate. Again, a more in depth explanation can be found here. It's not out of arrogance that we think humans are a major contributer to climate change, it because that is what the evidence tells us.

I'll agree with those who say carbon credits are a sham solution. I am not a fan of 'green guilt'. Many people care about the environment and any time there is a subject people feel passionate about, there are scam artists waiting to take advantage. I don't however equate those situations to the whole concept being a fraud. As I said, I think these are fine questions to ask, however when I look at the answers evidence based data gives us, they make sense. When I look at the words of those claiming to be opposition, they don't make sense, they make mistakes.