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

[two-blocked]

Iggy,
 
Instead of relentlessly regurgitating inane diflectionary comments about "green" celebrities please follow up on your admission that CO2 levels are increasing with a semi-intelligent hypothesis on the source of this CO2.
 
Thanks in advance.

[ironglow]

Iggy,
 
Instead of relentlessly regurgitating inane diflectionary comments about "green" celebrities please follow up on your admission that CO2 levels are increasing with a semi-intelligent hypothesis on the source of this CO2.
 
Thanks in advance.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx
 
 
   ENJOY !
     

[mcwoodduck]

I have a couple questions.
What instraments were used to collect the data?
What site was used in both tests? 

[ironglow]

Chung tells us;
   "
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." 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
  Thanks Chung;
  I don't recall anyone asking for a verbal illustration of your fellow Warmist worshippers.. but it does give us a grasp of the contemporaries you deal with in your Enviro-Gaia faith.             http://www.pantheism.net/earth.htm
 
  Al is into Gaia worship... Here, he claims the earth is HOT, millions of degrees just under the surface.(witness 40 seconds into video).  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14kNtnJgXXM     Should we believe ANYTHING he says?
 
  Meanwhile, Gore's enviro-pope regrets leading Gore down the Gaia trail:  http://countycitizen.com/?p=3394
 
  Below, see Al's "mother earth" named GAIA..

[SHOOTALL]

My good friend, I see that not only are you an apostle of ridiculously outdated and spurious scientific tomes, you're also a devotee of employing distorted Shakespeare quotes (is there any correlation?)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.

Sounds like old QDC wants us to get fired up on theory and not wait for proof. Jump the gun , Sort of like when they jumped the gun and stopped using R-12 and R-22 ( well everyone but the Govt. and others around the world) which cost Americans millions if not billions of dollars and is still costing them. When Maintance and reclaim would have taken care of most of the problem if one really existed to start with.

[ChungDoQuan]

Just because y'all can eventually find one scientist out of 10,000 who agrees with you (For whatever reason: stupid, disgruntled, paid off, whatever) does not mean your points have as much validity as the other side, supported by the other 9,999 scientists. But then, Rightys specialize in false equivalencies.  Look at it this way: in 1970, if you kept looking, you would eventually find a gay Marine--- does that mean all Marines are gay?

[SHOOTALL]

That was silly, The main pushers of the rising temp. THEORY were found lying to support  there cause. And also conspired to falsify the data. You fail to realize it's the liberal left that is creating the falsehood and lies. All we on the concretive side ask for id PROOF that can be verified like other scientific breakthroughs but it seems that does not exist. I suggest you and other liberals take a deep breath , get your own house in order , boot the liars and conspirers out then find truthful research to base theory and pick up the pcs.
 Now I have to ask what the he-- do gay marines have to do with this discussion ? I have to tell ya in 1970 or any other year finding anything gay was not even a thought. BTW about 70 I had my mind on the ladies something that occupies my thoughts even today.

[DDZ]

Just because y'all can eventually find one scientist out of 10,000 who agrees with you (For whatever reason: stupid, disgruntled, paid off, whatever) does not mean your points have as much validity as the other side, supported by the other 9,999 scientists. But then, Rightys specialize in false equivalencies.  Look at it this way: in 1970, if you kept looking, you would eventually find a gay Marine--- does that mean all Marines are gay?

Did you ever hear that if a lie is repeated enough times people will believe it? You and 2B are a couple that are believing the lies. There are many more scientists that believe what many of us do here. If you read the article, you will see that money could very well be a factor for some.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

From the vostok ice core samples taken in the Antarctic, data shows that every 100,000 years the earth warms then cools. The average temperature peak is also consistent at 2C. Following the pattern, shows we are at a warming peak, and another ice age is headed our way. In fact the temp has not reached the 2C, so it has actually been warmer in the past. The data also shows that we should have reached the 2C mark 10,000 years ago but didn't, so we are cooler than the pattern depicts. Data also shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperatures by 800 to 1000 years. Its temperature rise that causes a rise in CO2, not the other way around.
I'm sure as soon as we start cooling off the environmental wackos will blame man for the cooling, just like they did in the 70's.







     

[ironglow]

The final tally of Greenland ice cores, shows that between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago, Greenland was much warmer than it is today.
   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/24/first-complete-ice-core-record-of-last-interglacial-period-shows-the-climate-of-greenland-to-be-significantly-warmer-than-today/
Why do you suppose Greenland was so warm then..Too many  18 wheelers and Caddies?   Maybe someone was using too much toilet paper (2 sheets).
  I suggest they didn't have a good recycling program..and didn't have pollution controls on their motorcycles..

[two-blocked]

There is no evidence’ — Yes, there is   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-evidence/
 
The Concensus on climate change is not going down
http://grist.org/climate-energy/peiser-refuted-oreskes/
 
Iggy,
 Thanks for proving my point. Noone in the climate change camp ever said temperatures weren't warmer. It's about the rate of change. The 8 degree change in 130,000 years as per your article is no where as rapid as the 2 degrees in 150 that we are looking at.
 
Bro, you've already admitted that CO2 concentrations have gone up and you just proved that temperatures are rising at an unprecidented rate.  You're almost there!  Now where is that CO2 coming from?  You can do it!!!
 
You're welcome!
 
 

[two-blocked]

There is no evidence’ — Yes, there is   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-evidence/
 
The Concensus on climate changeis not going down
http://grist.org/climate-energy/peiser-refuted-oreskes/
 
Iggy,
 I am sooooooo proud of you! Thanks for proving my point. No one in the climate change camp ever said temperatures weren't warmer in the past. It's about the rate of change. The 8 degree change in 130,000 years as per your article is no where as rapid as the 2 degrees in 150 that we are looking at.
 
Bro, you've already admitted that CO2 concentrations have gone up and you just proved that temperatures are rising at an unprecidented rate.  You're almost there!  Where is that CO2 coming from? You can do it! Put that massive IQ (145) to work!!!!
 
You're welcome!

[ChungDoQuan]

145? Are there two of him? 

[DDZ]

Yes CO2 has gone up, but CO2 does not cause Temperature rise. Temperature rise causes CO2 rise. Just like it has in the past. I'm not disagreeing that we have warmed some. The argument is that you think its man caused, and I and others don't. The way it is, you or your global warming buddies that want to pass laws telling us how we should live, don't have an ounce of proof that the warming is man caused. In fact data proves differently. 

[mcwoodduck]

Yes CO2 has gone up, but CO2 does not cause Temperature rise. Temperature rise causes CO2 rise. Just like it has in the past. I'm not disagreeing that we have warmed some. The argument is that you think its man caused, and I and others don't. The way it is, you or your global warming buddies that want to pass laws telling us how we should live, don't have an ounce of proof that the warming is man caused. In fact data proves differently.

My question is what intraments did they use 150 years ago to see waht the CO2 levels in the world were and are they still using those same instraments to check what they are today?
Today we have a Mass Spec that can tell everything down to the molicule but 150 years ago, what did methode did they use and if they used it how accurate is it.  It would be just like the left to take information from 150 years ago, that were 30% accurate and then use modern technology that shows all of the CO2 and shows the same sample 3X the levels as the old methode.  when the sample has not changed.  Rememeber the left does not care about truth they care about using information to push their adgenda and their adgenda is to turn the US into a 3rd world nation with little mining, little manufacutrring, and smaller economy to force people to rebell aganst capitalism and adopt the universal socialsim/ communism.

[two-blocked]

Only if you ignore fossil fuel emissions
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-us-is-a-net-carbon-sink/
 
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/
 
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/
 
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change’–Not so   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/historically-co2-never-caused-temperature-change/
 
The temperature record is unreliable’–But temperature trends are clear and widely corroborated   
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-temperature-record-is-simply-unreliable/
 

[kinslayer1965]

http://www.petitionproject.org/

I am not sure why they are still claiming a consensus. The site above list  by name 31,487 people, who are trained to take empirical evidence and reach conclusions based upon said evidence, that do not agree with the "Al Gore" delusion as I refer to it. 9,029 of those people have PHDs.

I would also like to point out that the much vaunted International Climate Commitee's report on global warming that Al Gore made so much ado about was signed by only 50 so called scientist. Try questioning any of their resumes and se how far you get. If you have an issue with any of the 31,487 names listed on the petition site send them a message and they will respond to any questions you have.

CR

[Empty Quiver]

What do you folks propose I do about this "problem"?


Jimmy Carter would freeze his skinny ass off in my house during the winter. I commute to work twice a week. I avoid using any more electricity than I have to, I married a blind woman who cares little about lighting the house, and not a bit about a TV.


My home is over 150 years old, my furnishings are old, the furnace is a high efficiency model gas fired to reduce the inefficiency inherent in electricity.


Contrast this with your average third world existence. China for example has air quality so horrific they shut down industry for the Olympic Games.


I'm not in any mood to be lectured about my lifestyle when I am already living a pretty clean life, thank you very much. Take your self loathing guilt trip somewhere else we're full up here.

[Oldshooter]

China for example has air quality so horrific they shut down industry for the Olympic Games.

There ya go! a good place to start , learn chinese and go there and give them some links, tell us how that works for ya!

[mcwoodduck]

Just because y'all can eventually find one scientist out of 10,000 who agrees with you (For whatever reason: stupid, disgruntled, paid off, whatever) does not mean your points have as much validity as the other side, supported by the other 9,999 scientists. But then, Rightys specialize in false equivalencies.  Look at it this way: in 1970, if you kept looking, you would eventually find a gay Marine--- does that mean all Marines are gay?

And maybe we are finding the one in 10,000 that is an Honest Scientist and not out for the research Money.  One in 10,000 that is actually telling the truth.  Remember in the Middle ages, every scientist swore the Earth was Flat and only a few defied the consensus and told the truth. 

[two-blocked]

The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda
 
To say that the oft-touted "30,000 Global Warming Petition" project stinks would be the understatement of the year.
 
I thought it would be timely to once again break down this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda after it was mentioned last night in Daily Show host Jon Stewart's interview with US Energy Secretary of Energy, Dr. Stephen Chu.
 
.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology
 
The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.
 
In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:
 
Atmospheric Science (113)
 
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)
Astronomy (59)
Astrophysics (26)
 
So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.
 
The page does not break out the names of those who do claim to be experts in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, which makes even that .5% questionable [see my section on "unverifiable mess" below].
 
This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant given the nature of scientific endeavor.
 
When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to the dermatologist, I go to a cardiologist because it would be absurd to go to skin doctor for a heart problem. It would be equally absurd to look to a scientist with a background in medicine (of which there are 3,046 on the petition) for an expert opinion on the science of climate change. With science broken down into very narrow specialties a scientific expert in one specialty does not make that person an automatic authority in all things science.
 
In this way the logic of the 30,000 petition is completely flawed, which isn't surprising given its questionable beginnings.
 
 
The petition first emerged in April 1998 and was organized by Art Robinson of the self-proclaimed "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" (OISM) [their headquarters are the Photo Inset].
 
Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson's group co-published the infamous "Oregon Petition" claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.
 
The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren't, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.
 
Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.
 
Also attached to the petition was an apparent "research paper" titled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. The paper was made to mimic what a research paper would look like in the National Academy's prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy journal. The authors of the paper were Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon (both oil-backed scientists) and Robinson's son Zachary. With the signature of a former NAS president and a research paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a false impression.
 
The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating: "The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."
 
An Unverifiable Mess
 
Time and time again, I have had emails from researchers who have taken random samples of names from the list and Google searched them for more information. I urge others to do the same. What you'll quickly find is either no information, very little information or information substantiating the fact that the vast majority of signers are completely unqualified in the area of climate change science.
 
For example,
 
"Munawwar M. Akhtar" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Fred A. Allehoff"  - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Ernest J. Andberg" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Joseph J. Arx" - no info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
"Adolph L. Amundson" - a paper by Amundson on the "London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage." [PDF]
"Henry W. Apfelbach" - an Orthopedic Surgeon
"Joe R. Arechavaleta" - runs an Architect and Engineering company.
 
And this is only names I picked in the "A's." I could go on, but you get my point. The list is very difficult to verify as a third-party, but this hasn't stopped the Petition from bouncing around the internet and showing up in mainstream media.
 
Given all this it seems to me that anyone touting this as proof that "global warming is a hoax" completely misunderstands the process of scientific endeavor or has completely exhausted any real argument that rightfully brings into to doubt the reality of climate change.
 
Or, then again, they could just be in it for the money.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

[two-blocked]

No consensus???
 
Check out this undeniably most impressive and comprehensive list!
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

[SHOOTALL]

If Global Warming is so true and so easy to see/prove why was it necessary for the research people to falsify their findings ?  These were the people educated in the process of finding and reading the information. Now we find they lied . We will never trust them again.

[two-blocked]

I assume you are talking about "Climategate" which was a grandstanding move by climate change deniers right before the Copenhagen Summit. The media paid more attention to the allegations than the results of the investigations.
 
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] 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.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
 
http://conservapedia.com/Climategate
 
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/climate-change/4338343
 
 

[Mike in Virginia]

two-blocked, are you a Democrat and/or liberal? 
 
I have come to my own conclusion that all manmade climate change advocates lean way too far to the left. 
 
If you are a leftist, just please tell us.  That simple admission would reveal so much. 
 
If you are by chance not a liberal, then you have allowed liberal lies to seep into your mind as the truth. 
 
Of course climate change exists; it always has.  I don't know about the global carbon dioxide levels, but I'm certain mankind is arrogant in the extreme to believe he caused it.  We can't change climate.  Even if we could, the few governments willing to try an fix it, are vastly insufficient.  Climate is going where it's headed.  No slowing is possible. 
 
I will die soon, comparatively speaking, but as long as my brain works I will know that everything earthly is on track.  The process is proceeding as planned.  I'm saying for you to just relax and know the world is still green and pure and that it is a gift for you and me to enjoy and have for a little while.  It wasn't meant to be our permanent residence.  It's not meant to be the permanent residence of your grandchildren.  None of us will die from global warming.  We might have to turn up the a/c a bit for comfort, but even without modern conveniences, the earth is our mother, and she will last as long as we do. 
 
If you have a bible, read it.  If you don't have one, send me your address and I'll see you get one forthwith.  Inside it are the truths to tell us the earth will last until Jesus returns for His own.  Until then, relax.  We have enough turmoil without worrying about crap the Democrats put out. 

[two-blocked]

I appreciate your concern brother, but I've got plenty of Bibles and am good with God.

The difference between us is:

I believe we have a spiritual obligation to be responsible stewards of God’s creation in our actions, and to support those with spiritual calling to work to protect the environment. We cannot claim to love God while abusing his creation

You believe we cannot know what God wants us to do with His creation; therefore it is presumptuous for humans to think they are acting to protect His creation. Rather we should leave the fate of the Earth in God’s hands.

[mcwoodduck]

Two -Blocked.
I would believe you and your belief that we have man made global warming if:
1) you screamed that we shoukld be manufacturing here in the US where enviromental laws can be followed as opposed to China that is polluting the planet.
2) You exposed the fakes for who they are that tell everyone to do as they say and not as they do.
3) That grass roots campains like the Dolphin safe tuna are better than LAWS and more laws and regulations. 
Instead you seem to think that the US is bad and that we need to be punnished for some reason.instead of being the beacon for what the rest of the world should be doing and allowing capitalism that raises the standards of living where ever it is tried.

[Empty Quiver]

I appreciate your concern brother, but I've got plenty of Bibles and am good with God.

The difference between us is:

I believe we have a spiritual obligation to be responsible stewards of God’s creation in our actions, and to support those with spiritual calling to work to protect the environment. We cannot claim to love God while abusing his creation

You believe we cannot know what God wants us to do with His creation; therefore it is presumptuous for humans to think they are acting to protect His creation. Rather we should leave the fate of the Earth in God’s hands.

Who are the "we" to which you refer?


Earlier I posted a short list of what I have done. By no means do I feel unique either in this regard. It can be easily argued that Gods plan includes the way man is treating earth and of that is the case, the earth firsters should stand down quickly as they are going against the will of God.


Do you have a reasonable plan after the chicken little announcement or is it enough to simply bait the "flat earthers" into your straw man debate? You still have not given any actions this group should take. Now I'll play along for a few seconds here. Reduce fossil fuel use, done, witness the reduction in use the se past few years. Reduction in coal fired electricity generation, done. Half baked CO2 sequestration ideas implemented, done, witness all the private corporation planting trees (without a law I might remind you).


Could more be done? Certainly could, get out of bed with the Chinese for starts, stop all construction and repair of highways, suffocate children at birth (or simply sever their spines before). What am I missing here. You need not post an acre of linked text a few words will suffice, just to get me started personal examples would be great.

[Oldshooter]

It is preposterous that man can destroy what God created. Man can destroy himself, and prolly will, but it is presumptuous that he will before God lets it be so! There may be global warming, just like there has been global cooling. This God's world, man is just in it, he dont make it or destroy it. Unless of course God has deemed it appropriate. Then man cannot stop it. Scientists theories change with the wind and politics God never changes. 

[DDZ]

I believe many Christians are very concerned about polluting, and refrain from doing it. On the other hand that is far different than jumping on the man made global warming hoax, that is another wealth transfer scheme by socialists through cap and trade. Just as is, welfare, obamacare, bailouts, endless regulation, minimum wage mandates, mandated employee benefits, etc... Just about every federal agency has a wealth transfer plan from those that have to those that don't. The man made global warming scheme is one of the big ones.

2B, maybe you should dig a little deeper into those plenty of Bibles you have, because leftist ideas along with the democratic world view plain just don't line up with the Holy Bible. I would suggest on clearing your mind, and read the Bible from cover to cover. Then read it again.   

[two-blocked]

It would be nice to go cold turkey on our CO2 producing habits. That's impractical so we have to attack it incrementally.
 
What do I do at the moment?
We drive two fuel sippers
We keep the thermostats down and work to make the house tighter
We buy wind produced electric. That costs extra
We use public transportation and ride bikes or walk as much as possible
We recycle and reuse as much as feasible
We buy local produce when in season
We have regular discussions with the kids about climate change (indoctrination sessions)
We never vote for candidates that are too dumb to recognize climate change
We pray for the day when we can welcome those poor misguided souls blinded by religious dogma into the light 
 
In the future I hope to do more