"Green" expeditioin boat capsizes - then is rescued by supertanker

[Little-Acorn]

But there is no evidence that climate change is harmful to the planet as a whole.

More importantly, there's no evidence that man is causing any of it, or could change it even if he tried.

Yet the global-warming (or whatever they're calling themselves this week) goofballs want government to spend $billions, and impose scads of regulations and restrictions on us, until it comes out the way they want.

And if it doesn't change, then we must spend more $billions and suffer even more restrictions.

 

[PLC1]

But there is no evidence that climate change is harmful to the planet as a whole. Why should we care? Sure it is bad for the area that becomes a desert but then it is equally good for the cooler climate that yields better crops.

That much is true. There is no proof that global climate change is going to be a disaster for humankind overall. As for the planet itself, I doubt that the Earth cares much about climate, nor about the continued existence of human beings for that matter.

Yes, there may be some positive outcomes, along with some negative ones.

And while it is a safe bet that the planet warms and cools (so it must warm so there must be global warming, at least sometimes) there is even less evidence that the warming (which might have ended in 1998) is causing any more climate change than is normal. There is less evidence that climate change is bad than there is for global warming being bad.

It is the heating of the globe that is causing climate change. Global warming is simply a less precise phrase to describe climate change, as it leads some who don't understand the phenomanon to confuse local weather with global climate.

Here's another part of that scientific website that addresses the semantics of global warming:

Consider the possibility that the expression "global warming" has become a problematic one, and that it might be best to avoid it.

A big part of the public confusion about climate change comes from sloppy language. The naysayers prey on this confusion, very much as their peers prey on the phrase "evolutionary theory" to suggest that "evolution, well, it's just a theory".

As for warming ending in '98, that was thought to be a remote possibility at one point. Here's an update from one of those apolitical scientific sites:

Further to our post about whether 2005 will be a year of record warmth, Jim Hansen has put out a brief discussion on the Washington Post report and some of the subsequent discussion. One minor clarification to his statements is that the reporter involved (Juliet Eilperin) did in fact leave messages for the relevant people at GISS (including me) prior to publication, but sometimes people can just be difficult to track down. Oh….and for those who are counting, with the preliminary October data in, 2005 has pulled ahead of 1998 in both the GISS land based met. station index (0.76 to 0.73°C) and the GISS land-ocean index (0.59 to 0.58°C). All previous caveats still apply….

And global cooling causes climate change too. In fact climates have always been changing. What is so bad about change. Especially since we might have zero control over it. Climate change even happens when there is no annual cooling or warming.

Yes, that is so. Global cooling, as during t he beginning of the last ice age, must have caused some profound changes in climate. There were few people around at that time, and none of them was able to record the events, however. Global cooling hasn't happened in thousands of years, so is currently an academic question.

In short the links between man made carbon emissions, then warming, then accelerated change, then negative effects, are so tenuous that in no way shape or form should politicians be considering taking any action at all.

Now you're getting to the meat of the matter. The reality of global climate change has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, making it a valid scientific theory, just like any other. To refute it is to simply ignore fact and logic.

Whether or not it will be a disaster, as described in Al Gore's work, is clearly debatable. Al gore is not, after all, a climatologist.

Which doesn't necessarily mean that it won't be a disaster, but I digress.

The meat of the matter, the real question, is just how much global climate change is anthropogenic and how much is not. That question has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely by a preponderance of the evidence.

Take a look at the site I've linked to. Anything you ever wanted to know about climate change is there, and probably a lot more.

 

[Andy]

It is the heating of the globe that is causing climate change. Global warming is simply a less precise phrase to describe climate change, as it leads some who don't understand the phenomanon to confuse local weather with global climate.

Here's another part of that scientific website that addresses the semantics of global warming:


As for warming ending in '98, that was thought to be a remote possibility at one point. Here's an update from one of those apolitical scientific sites:

Not exactly. The article you mention references the Washington Post, and GISS. GISS is one of the most inaccurate sources of information possible. They are run by a leftist, and routinely put out questionable material. At one point the published record warm temps, and later it was discovered the "record warm temps" were from a summer month.

Try this one.

D’Aleo replied. “In fact, if you look at the satellite data, which is the most reliable data, the best coverage of the globe – 2008 was the 14th coldest in 30 years. That doesn’t jibe with the tenth warmest in 159 years in the Hadley data set or 113 or 114 years in the NOAA set.”

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2009/20090114065138.aspx

Funny how the official government data doesn't fit with satellite data. Oh wait, governments lie.

Yes, that is so. Global cooling, as during t he beginning of the last ice age, must have caused some profound changes in climate. There were few people around at that time, and none of them was able to record the events, however. Global cooling hasn't happened in thousands of years, so is currently an academic question.

Unless you count the 70s.
http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/newsweek-global-cooling.jpg
Newsweek article about the coming ice age.

The bottom line again is, the earths climate is always changing. It has nothing to do with us. It warms, it cools, it changes. Our 0.0003% of the greenhouse effect, does not even register on the scales.

Now you're getting to the meat of the matter. The reality of global climate change has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, making it a valid scientific theory, just like any other. To refute it is to simply ignore fact and logic.

As we've said a million times, climate change is normal. We are not refuting climate change. We are refuting that we have anything to do with it.

The meat of the matter, the real question, is just how much global climate change is anthropogenic and how much is not. That question has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely by a preponderance of the evidence.

Irrelevant evidence. The evidence only proves what we already know, namely that the climate does change naturally without any human interference. There is zero evidence that man has caused anything except on a extremely localized level. For example, cities are warmer. That does not effect global temps. If you drive a mile out of the city, it's cooler.

Take a look at the site I've linked to. Anything you ever wanted to know about climate change is there, and probably a lot more.

I did. They use GISS and NOAA information which is bogus. Read the article I cited.

 

[PLC1]

Not exactly. The article you mention references the Washington Post, and GISS. GISS is one of the most inaccurate sources of information possible. They are run by a leftist, and routinely put out questionable material. At one point the published record warm temps, and later it was discovered the "record warm temps" were from a summer month.

Try this one.

​

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2009/20090114065138.aspx

Funny how the official government data doesn't fit with satellite data. Oh wait, governments lie.



Unless you count the 70s.
http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/newsweek-global-cooling.jpg
Newsweek article about the coming ice age.

The bottom line again is, the earths climate is always changing. It has nothing to do with us. It warms, it cools, it changes. Our 0.0003% of the greenhouse effect, does not even register on the scales.



As we've said a million times, climate change is normal. We are not refuting climate change. We are refuting that we have anything to do with it.



Irrelevant evidence. The evidence only proves what we already know, namely that the climate does change naturally without any human interference. There is zero evidence that man has caused anything except on a extremely localized level. For example, cities are warmer. That does not effect global temps. If you drive a mile out of the city, it's cooler.



I did. They use GISS and NOAA information which is bogus. Read the article I cited.

I'm not sure why I even bother with global warming threads.

Any scientific evidence of global warming is dismissed as "leftist" or as "government propaganda" or something similar.

At least, it is OK now to admit that glaciers are melting and sea levels rising, so long as we don't attribute that to any thing humans have done. That is progress.

Not that it really matters, of course, as we aren't going to do anything about climate change anyway, but it would be refreshing to have a dialogue based on scientific research rather than political ideology:

Global warming is a disaster in the making!

No, no, it's a leftist hoax, designed to institute global socialism!

We'll be wiped off of the face of the globe by perfect storms and rising seas if we don't drive hybrids and use corkscrew light bulbs!

No, no, it's all a leftist conspiracy to end the American way of life!

What a bunch of hooey. I'm not sure why I even post on threads like this one.

 

[Stalin]

Exxon Valdez !!

 

[GenSeneca]

Any scientific evidence of global warming is dismissed as "leftist" or as "government propaganda" or something similar.

...And any scientific evidence we post that contradicts your statements are dismissed as politically motivated claims of conspiratorial nonsense.

Hey, I got one for you... Since you're so damned sure Humans are killing the planet with CO2, lemme hit you with this scientific gem of rebuttle: No one knows...

 

[PLC1]

...And any scientific evidence we post that contradicts your statements are dismissed as politically motivated claims of conspiratorial nonsense.

Hey, I got one for you... Since you're so damned sure Humans are killing the planet with CO2, lemme hit you with this scientific gem of rebuttle: No one knows...

First, I never said that humans were "killing the planet" with CO2 or anything else. What I said was that any apolitical scientific site that says that global warming is happening, and that human activities re most likely accelerating it, is dismissed as "leftist".

It is not a left vs right debate, but a logic vs wishful thinking debate.


No one knows? Well, there are some things that no one knows:

No one knows for sure that it is humans who are accelerating global warming. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that it is, but there is no absolute proof. Right now, it is an hypothesis with a great deal of support from science, regardless of what Professor Limbaugh says.

No one knows for sure that the result will be catastrophic. There is some evidence that it is going to be a serious problem in some areas, while others may get a benefit from it.

Anyone who has not been in a state of denial does know that the Earth is getting warmer, and that said warming is changing local climates. Posting nonsense about how there were blizzards in North Dakota and so on has zero to do with global warming. Al Gore might be an alarmist, but when one of his speeches is canceled due to winter weather, that is zero evidence of anything other than that local weather was cold. When a "green" ship capsizes, that is only evidence that said vessel may not have been seaworthy. It has nothing to do with global warming.

 

[GenSeneca]

First, I never said that humans were "killing the planet" with CO2 or anything else. What I said was that any apolitical scientific site that says that global warming is happening, and that human activities re most likely accelerating it, is dismissed as "leftist".

Just as any apolitical site disagreeing with those findings is dismissed as "Right-Wing Propaganda".

It is not a left vs right debate, but a logic vs wishful thinking debate.

Right... Logically raising taxes and micromanaging our economy will do nothing to change the global climate and those who think it can are wishful thinkers.

No one knows for sure that it is humans who are accelerating global warming.

But we should return ourselves to the dark ages, greatly lower our living standards, and relinquish even more of our precious rights, just to hedge our bets?

Don't you find it odd that the only answers they can find for fighting global warming all require you to give up your rights, fork over more in taxes and drastically lower your living standards?

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that it is, but there is no absolute proof. Right now, it is an hypothesis with a great deal of support from science, regardless of what Professor Limbaugh says.

If you believe that, you're selective on your reading of the "evidence".

Anyone who has not been in a state of denial does know that the Earth is getting warmer, and that said warming is changing local climates.

Anyone who wasn't in a state of denial would also know that the sun had been in a state of record activity for an entire decade, which just happened to coincide with our warming trend that has since leveled of and is now dropping.... And its totally coincidence that now that the sun has record low surface activity, we're cooling.... Just wait till the solar corona pops...

 

[PLC1]

Just as any apolitical site disagreeing with those findings is dismissed as "Right-Wing Propaganda".

There are no apolitical sites that disagree with scientific findings. There are political sites, and there are scientific sites. I'll go with the latter.

Right... Logically raising taxes and micromanaging our economy will do nothing to change the global climate and those who think it can are wishful thinkers.

Raising taxes and micromanaging our economy has nothing at all to do with the science of global warming.

But we should return ourselves to the dark ages, greatly lower our living standards, and relinquish even more of our precious rights, just to hedge our bets?

Well, if that's what you want to do, go right ahead. I've never advocated such a thing, however.

Don't you find it odd that the only answers they can find for fighting global warming all require you to give up your rights, fork over more in taxes and drastically lower your living standards?

There aren't a lot of answers to global warming at all. It is happening, it is here, we need to deal with it. Perhaps we can mitigate it a little, and at the same time come a little bit closer to energy independence, but we won't anyway.

If you believe that, you're selective on your reading of the "evidence".

If you don't believe that, then you're engaging in wishful thinking.

It is still possible that global warming isn't being accelerated by human activity, but the evidence is pointing in the other direction just now.

Anyone who wasn't in a state of denial would also know that the sun had been in a state of record activity for an entire decade, which just happened to coincide with our warming trend that has since leveled of and is now dropping.... And its totally coincidence that now that the sun has record low surface activity, we're cooling.... Just wait till the solar corona pops...

The Earth should logically be in a cooling cycle just now, if it weren't for the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The science of global warming somehow evokes an irrational response in some people. It has nothing to do with politics, except that there is a political debate about what we should do about it.

My position on that debate is that we won't do anything about it anyway, so why debate it?

We might as well divide ourselves into two camps, one saying it isn't so, the other wringing hands and wanting to change things. We won't change anything anyway, but will continue to debate and deny, while the changes take place.

Wasn't it this thread in which I posted a site that discussed the actual science, not the politics, of global warming? Can you address any of the points in that site?

 

[GenSeneca]

There are no apolitical sites that disagree with scientific findings.

But there are apolitical ones who agree with MMGW...

There are political sites, and there are scientific sites. I'll go with the latter.

Well that makes two of us... I'm not sold that our contribution is anything other than negligible... a fraction of a fraction.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is an internal switch between two slightly different circulation patterns that occurs every 30 years or so in the North Pacific Ocean. It was originally described in 1997 in the context of salmon production. It has a positive (warm) phase that tends to warm the land masses of the Northern Hemisphere, as well as a negative (cool) phase.

Raising taxes and micromanaging our economy has nothing at all to do with the science of global warming.

Yet you go along with the MMGW crowd by not challenging them on their proposals but instead challenge us on why we don't agree with MMGW.

Well, if that's what you want to do, go right ahead. I've never advocated such a thing, however.

That's what you're fellow MMGW peeps are advocating and you're too busy challenging me on MMGW to challenge them on their proposed policies.

There aren't a lot of answers to global warming at all. It is happening, it is here, we need to deal with it.

I disagree that we need to do anything about it... we can't stop the earths climate from changing. All of America could die off and become rainforest tomorrow and the rest of the industrialized world would just pick up the slack.

It is still possible that global warming isn't being accelerated by human activity, but the evidence is pointing in the other direction just now.

You're not using any quantifiable absolutes, rather vague terms like "accelerating" which makes any "evidence" easy to manipulate. For example, I fill a bathtub with water then pull the drain plug. While its draining, I use a thimble to bail water out of the tub. Technically, I'm "accelerating" the process but by totally inconsequential amounts.

The Earth should logically be in a cooling cycle just now, if it weren't for the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

We are in a cooling cycle... have been since 1998 when we peaked.

Wasn't it this thread in which I posted a site that discussed the actual science, not the politics, of global warming? Can you address any of the points in that site?

Could have been... I only spoke up because you were mischaraterizing the opposition to MMGW as being purely political... Yet, you don't challenge the MMGW crowd about their proposals to "solve" GW as being purely political. It would be refreshing to see you challenge them on the their proposals... Since their proposals will enslave you and your children whereas my skepticism will keep you free that much longer.