Attention Flat-Earthers- CO2 levels set record- and it ain't volcanoes!

[Empty Quiver]

So where did all of this sequestrated carbon ( petroleum ) come from?


Why the atmosphere, of course. Plants used that carbon to build themselves, they died and were covered up and became oil or coal. Quite obviously at some time every bit of that carbon was in our atmosphere.


So exactly what are we expecting warm and moist or frozen and glaciated? He'll every one of the earth firsters want to see population reduction. Why should you care what the process is? Bullets, birth control, starvation, does it really matter? This human blight shall pass as has every other pinnacle life form


I don't know about the rest of you but I prefer polluted skies, warm silted rivers, and red tides and plankton blooms are the things that bring a smile to my face. If I can have all that and keep an extra million bucks in my bank account all the better.


Gotta go me and Mr. Burns are having dinner tonight.

[ChungDoQuan]

OK Chung, what should we do?
Ben

Be smarter.

[two-blocked]

Let's see - CO2 levels were first measured in 1958.....but we know what the levels were 10 and 20 million years ago?
 

You say the temperature has been rising steadily for the past 30 years.......In fact there has been no rise for the past 10 years.
 
You say the temperature has risen steadily for the past 150 years......Yes, because that was the end of the Little Ice Age when the earth was in a cooler cycle.
 

‘Global warming stopped in 1998′–Only if you flagrantly cherry pick   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/
 
you can’t draw conclusions about global climate from an anecdote about a single region, or even a few regions. You need detailed analysis of proxy climate indicators from around the world.
 
‘The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today’–Repeating this point does not make it true   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/
 
‘Greenland used to be green’–Don’t judge a book by its cover, much less a land by its name   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/greenland-used-to-be-green/
 
‘Vineland was full of grapes’–Or was it an early advertising campaign?   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/vineland-was-full-of-grapes/

[blind ear]

Everyone hold your beath for two minutes aday and we can probably work our way out of this in a hurry!    )-.-(    ear

[two-blocked]

Ok, really hate digging this out again, but since you have been brainwashed into this hoax, perhaps a few real facts (ie those not manufactured by the gore group) may help prevent spreading this dis-ease


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/10/01/primer-global-warming-dispelling-myths


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/07/01/primer-global-warming-dispelling-co2-myths


http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol1/v1n5/feature.htm


sorry I'm not buying into the hype

Keep digging, sooner or later you'll find the truth!
 
Your first reference:
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect’ — No, it isn’t   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/warming-is-due-to-the-urban-heat-island-effect/
 
Your second:
There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing-global-warming/
 
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change’–Not so   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/historically-co2-never-caused-temperature-change/
 
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags’–Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming
http://grist.org/climate-energy/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags/
 
Your third: already answered. You really should find references more recent than the 90's. You're not keeping up with science!

[keith44]

Ok, really hate digging this out again, but since you have been brainwashed into this hoax, perhaps a few real facts (ie those not manufactured by the gore group) may help prevent spreading this dis-ease


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/10/01/primer-global-warming-dispelling-myths


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/07/01/primer-global-warming-dispelling-co2-myths


http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol1/v1n5/feature.htm


sorry I'm not buying into the hype

Keep digging, sooner or later you'll find the truth!
 
Your first reference:
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect’ — No, it isn’t   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/warming-is-due-to-the-urban-heat-island-effect/
 
Your second:
There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-proof-that-co2-is-causing-global-warming/
 
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change’–Not so   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/historically-co2-never-caused-temperature-change/
 
CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags’–Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming
http://grist.org/climate-energy/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags/
 
Your third: already answered. You really should find references more recent than the 90's. You're not keeping up with science!

new lies do not refute the truth, man made global warming or climate change is a hoax designed to generate tax revenue for which ever government invokes it

[mcwoodduck]

Two- Blocked,
You understand that the term Flat Earthers is a slang term for the Man made global warming believers. 
That reguardless of what scientific evidence or scientific method is used to disprove the therory you all believe it hook line and sinker.  There is also another added term used for you called No growth.  As all of your Eutopian plans never take into account growth of the population or the growth of the economy. 
You say properly inflate your tires and get an oil change and and we as a society cna save 1% of our fuel nation wide and yet you do not understand that fuel = growth.  and not increasing the amount of fuel by more than  1% the economy can not grow and no new jobs cna be created.  add to that the addition of more and more taxes and regulations and you will never get growth. 

[ironglow]

Well, I see the Chicken Littles are still clucking..
   So we produce too much CO2... Animals require oxygen, plant life requires CO2..a symbiotic arrangement.  By simple logic then, we should have plant life crawling all over us!

   Don't you Chicken Littles wonder a bit when your head guru pays $8.85 million for a beach side mansion in California, the lawn of which, he has already said will be covered with 20' of water within the next 10 years ? 

[two-blocked]

"So we produce too much CO2"- thanks, there's hope for you yet, the first step in realization is admitting there's a problem
 
CO2 concentration has gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 150  years. That rate of rise is unprecedented.  What is causing it? Where's that CO2 coming from?
Where's all the purported plant life?
What happens when symbiotic relations go out of balance?
 
 
 
 

[ironglow]

  So, for you Lefties...
   When a conservatives disagree with your precious. wholesale  abortions.. your stock reply is often:
          " If you don't like abortions..don't have one."
 
  So you guys who have fallen for the religion of AlGoreanity.. and think we should sacrifice our choices in cars, trucks, woodstoves, lawnmowers, toilet paper, bonfires etc..
 
  We conservatives should say :
       If you think those things should be sacrificed..you go ahead and sacrificeon your own..don't bother us with your mysticism.

[Empty Quiver]

"So we produce too much CO2"- thanks, there's hope for you yet, the first step in realization is admitting there's a problem
 
CO2 concentration has gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 150  years. That rate of rise is unprecedented.  What is causing it? Where's that CO2 coming from?
Where's all the purported plant life?
What happens when symbiotic relations go out of balance?

You purporting it to be out of balance does not make it so.


Again what should the levels be? How do you come to that conclusion? I would contend my assessment is as valid as any in this discussion. By the way why are the temperatures of all the other planets in this solar system rising? Mars is easily explained by all of the man made unmanned missions as of late but the others are a bit tougher.

[two-blocked]

"You purporting it to be out of balance does not make it so."
 -   Correct, I've left that to the scientists
 
There is no consensus’–If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like?   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-consensus/


"Again what should the levels be? How do you come to that conclusion? I would contend my assessment is as valid as any in this discussion."
-  Go back to Post #10 and read the referenced article.  There is no set "level"- It's the rate of change, the causes and the effects
 
 "By the way why are the temperatures of all the other planets in this solar system rising? Mars is easily explained by all of the man made unmanned missions as of late but the others are a bit tougher."
 
Mars and Pluto are warming too’–No they aren’t — and what if they were?
http://grist.org/climate-energy/mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too/

[SHOOTALL]

So since we are doomed , how long do we have to hunt , fish and party ?

[ChungDoQuan]

'Til you get mercury or pesticide poisoning.

[DDZ]

I see that David Roberts writes some of the BS for Grist.org, where two-blocked's info stems from. The American hating, communist Van Jones is one of Roberts idols, and Grist has received funding from some of the same extremist foundations that has funded Van Jones's activism over the years. The web site has also had articles criticizing America for not passing global warming legislation. They then went on to ask if China's Communist dictatorship is the way to go. Sorry Two-blocked, but many of us are not going to believe much propaganda coming from a radical leftist website like Grist.org.
I found out the site is more attractive to young people. Mainly the ones that have been indoctrinated by the global warmists in our government run schools, and by liberal professors.   

It appears that some research shows the earth was as warm or warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. It also shows the earth has been cooling over the last 2000 years.  ...and there wasn't even any SUV's, coal fired power plants, air conditioners, or people spraying underarm deodorant around back then.   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html

[two-blocked]

Don't like Grist?  Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

• NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
• National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
• State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) –     http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
• The Royal Society of the UK (RS) –     http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
• American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
• American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
• American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
• National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
• American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

As impressive as that list is it may still not be good enough for the true consrvative mind. Try these:
 
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The  statement was issued by:

• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
• Royal Society of Canada
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Academie des Sciences (France)
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
• Indian National Science Academy
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
• National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

"It appears that some research shows the earth was as warm or warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. It also shows the earth has been cooling over the last 2000 years.  ...and there wasn't even any SUV's, coal fired power plants, air conditioners, or people spraying underarm deodorant around back then"
 
Go back and read reply #32
 
you can’t draw conclusions about global climate from an anecdote about a single region, or even a few regions. You need detailed analysis of proxy climate indicators from around the world.
‘The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today’–Repeating this point does not make it true   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/
 
 

[FPH]

And you can't draw valid conclusions from admitted lies and false data.

[ironglow]

Don't like Grist?  Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

• NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
• National Academy of Sciences (NAS): http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
• State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) –     http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
• The Royal Society of the UK (RS) –     http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
• American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
• American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
• American Institute of Physics (AIP): http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
• National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
• American Meteorological Society (AMS): http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

As impressive as that list is it may still not be good enough for the true consrvative mind. Try these:
 
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The  statement was issued by:

• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
• Royal Society of Canada
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Academie des Sciences (France)
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
• Indian National Science Academy
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
• National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

"It appears that some research shows the earth was as warm or warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. It also shows the earth has been cooling over the last 2000 years.  ...and there wasn't even any SUV's, coal fired power plants, air conditioners, or people spraying underarm deodorant around back then"
 
Go back and read reply #32
 
you can’t draw conclusions about global climate from an anecdote about a single region, or even a few regions. You need detailed analysis of proxy climate indicators from around the world.
‘The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today’–Repeating this point does not make it true   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
 Yeah; just like the primary university that the UN bought off to produce the study the UN wanted. Here's the story of East Anglia University....:
   http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

[two-blocked]

OOOH! Climategate!- hack their computers, start a smear campaign with cherry picked emails right before the Copenhagen Summit.
 
Praytell what was the result?
 
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
 
That's how flat-earthers refute good science!
 
Viewing the increasing agreement among climate models and climate scientists as collusion instead of consensus is a rather conspiratorial take on the normal course of scientific investigation. I suppose that fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing with the status quo is indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, but you know, it is also consistent with having the right answer.
 
‘Consensus is collusion’–Is climate science maturing, or should we reach for our tinfoil hats?
http://grist.org/climate-energy/consensus-is-collusion/

[keith44]

I always wondered what a battle of wits with an unarmed person would look like, thanks two blocked

[two-blocked]

My good friend, I see that not only are you an apostle of ridiculously outdated and spurious scientific tomes, you're also a devotee of employing distorted Shakespeare quotes (is there any correlation?) to refute facts!
 
As much as I'd hoped this thread would provide the opportunity to recognize the real situation, it appears that ultimately "The Bard" was correct.
 
"The common curse of mankind, folly and ignorance, be thine in great revenue!"
 
 

[ironglow]

Two blocked says;
      " The common curse of mankind, folly and ignorance, be thine in great revenue!"
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 
  What a great picture of the Liberal/Leftist mindset! 
    Two blocked.. as with nearly every progressive, places himself upon a self-constructed, lofty perch.. there he sits and enjoys mocking the "common folk"..   the serfs, peons, plebeians, and bourgeoise.
   With progressives , Mommy & Daddy (if they have one) and all their instructors have impressed upon them how clever, cute and "special" they are; so it is perfectly normal for them, to look with distain on the "great unwashed".... That's you and I brother...
 
  Enjoy your Koolaid, 2B...
 

[mechanic]

This topic comes up often.  What has always bothered me, is that those who claim to believe so strongly in it, don't follow the recommendations of those that teach it.
 
If carbon dioxide is the great culprit, as was once auto exhaust and was once ozone, etc. why are they still driving?  Why heat your home. 
 
Set an example for all us ignorant underlings.  Live what you preach.
 
Ben

[ironglow]

Precisely Mechanic!
       When I was a platoon sgt, I never asked my men to do anything I wouldn't do.. in fact, I usually led them in doing it!  There is no better testimony to a leader's sincerity, than that he lives that which he expects of others.
 
   So, tell us 2B..what kind of lifestyle do AL Gore, Barack & Michelle,  Micheal Bloomberg and all those "green" celebrities follow?
    Are they setting the leadership example..or are you just being played for a sucker, due to politics ?

[SHOOTALL]

'Til you get mercury or pesticide poisoning.

 I stay away from imported Chinese food so that shouldn't be a worry. 

[45-70.gov]

This topic comes up often.  What has always bothered me, is that those who claim to believe so strongly in it, don't follow the recommendations of those that teach it.
 
If carbon dioxide is the great culprit, as was once auto exhaust and was once ozone, etc. why are they still driving?  Why heat your home. 
 
Set an example for all us ignorant underlings.  Live what you preach.
 
Ben

you are  correct


there just might be global warming....there might not be


BUT I KNOW HYPOCRACY WHEN I SEE IT

[mcwoodduck]

OOOH! Climategate!- hack their computers, start a smear campaign with cherry picked emails right before the Copenhagen Summit.
 Why are whistle blowers good, except when they refute your claims of Man Made Global Warming.  When a Whistle blower goes after Big(insert Name Here) it is great and that person is celebrated.  When a whistle blower exposes the lie of Big Government and Big Warmists that person has an adgenda and is a kook?
Praytell what was the result?
The result was the brain washed news media ignored it, the ellected officials that have passed laws ignored it so they did not look like morons, the BIG money Green movement Did what you always claim big anything does it spent Millions to protect their income.  They attacked the people personally for telling the truth.   Can you say cover up
 
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
 
That's how flat-earthers refute good science! But it is not good science.
There are many flaws with the data collection, About 70% of the data collection sites are corupted with outside heat sources or reflection.  IS the earth really warming if the temp probe is on the exhaust of the building that is rejecting heat?They do not take into account the SUN into the equasion.  How cna you say the earth is warming based on man made influence if you do not question the source of the heat?  The Sun runs in Cycles and by not including the SUN in the equasion how can you tell what is solar and what is man ma[/color]de activity causing temp changes?[/b]
They do not use the Scientific methode in their research, if you do not use the scientific methode in your research it is NOT GOOD Science.
 
Viewing the increasing agreement among climate models and climate scientists as collusion instead of consensus is a rather conspiratorial take on the normal course of scientific investigation. I suppose that fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing with the status quo is indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, but you know, it is also consistent with having the right answer. The whole model no matter what data you  enter comes up with the same conclusion. 
 
‘Consensus is collusion’–Is climate science maturing, or should we reach for our tinfoil hats?   Consensus is not Science - This is why you are aclled Flat earthers.  A consensis of the people in the middle ages knew the earth was flat.  Real scientists did research and proved the earth was a sphere and that the earth revolved around the sun not the other way around that the consensus of people knew.  And is it really a consensus if these same people are getting paid to say it?  BIG Global Warmers have lots of money invested in telling the lie. 
http://grist.org/climate-energy/consensus-is-collusion/

[ChungDoQuan]

My good friend, I see that not only are you an apostle of ridiculously outdated and spurious scientific tomes, you're also a devotee of employing distorted Shakespeare quotes (is there any correlation?) to refute facts!
 
As much as I'd hoped this thread would provide the opportunity to recognize the real situation, it appears that ultimately "The Bard" was correct.
 
"The common curse of mankind, folly and ignorance, be thine in great revenue!"

They've led their entire lives believing in magic. They not only don't understand science; they don't understand logic, and have no tools for filtering out the truth. They equate belief with evidence, since they don't know the difference. They are incapable of deciding right from wrong as a mental process, and can only recognize pseudo abstractions using conclusions drawn from examples, but they are incapable of extrapolating from those examples, since that is not true abstract reasoning. They are like play-by-ear musicians--- some have a modicum of talent in linguistic manipulation, but they don't understand the rules of logical theory, except as something abstract and thus, beyond their scope of understanding. In short, Their minds are made up; don't confuse them with facts.

[two-blocked]

Ben,
We're doing our best to incrementally reduce our carbon footprint.
 
We pay a little extra for wind generated energy
http://www.xcelenergy.com/Environment/Renewable_Energy/Wind/Colorado_Wind_Power
 
One of our cars is a Civic, we're avid bike riders, and we vote for intelligent people who recognize climate change
 

[mcwoodduck]

My good friend, I see that not only are you an apostle of ridiculously outdated and spurious scientific tomes, you're also a devotee of employing distorted Shakespeare quotes (is there any correlation?) to refute facts!
 
As much as I'd hoped this thread would provide the opportunity to recognize the real situation, it appears that ultimately "The Bard" was correct.
 
"The common curse of mankind, folly and ignorance, be thine in great revenue!"

They've led their entire lives believing in magic. They not only don't understand science; they don't understand logic, and have no tools for filtering out the truth. They equate belief with evidence, since they don't know the difference. They are incapable of deciding right from wrong as a mental process, and can only recognize pseudo abstractions using conclusions drawn from examples, but they are incapable of extrapolating from those examples, since that is not true abstract reasoning. They are like play-by-ear musicians--- some have a modicum of talent in linguistic manipulation, but they don't understand the rules of logical theory, except as something abstract and thus, beyond their scope of understanding. In short, Their minds are made up; don't confuse them with facts.

QDC, I am confussed, it sounds like you are making the case for the anti Warmists.  That logic, science, and reality mean nothing to them.