-Temperatures should rise 0.3C per decade.
>They haven't been. No data set shows that much of a rise. None.
-Sea level will rise at an alarming rate.
>It hasn't.
-There will be more deaths due to Global Warming.
>The number of deaths from natural disasters has gone down.
The temperatures are trending BELOW Hansen's scenario C (no increase in greenhouse gases after 2000)
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen-1988_annotated.png
There IS something really weird about some of the pro agw people on here and I'm not quite sure why.
They'll never accept a logical fact or play any logic games at all in fact. Insults are considered by them to be great as long as it's against sceptics. Much of what they say is frankly ridiculous.
Recently one of the septics asked a normal question about Sherlock Homes logic and they didn't answer, just blasted him with insults. I asked a perfectly normal and unbiased question which was basically 'are people paid to study a problem ever likely to say there is no problem' What's wrong with that, it's perfectly reasonable, but for the thought crime of daring to ask such a thing I was told I'd never been to school and had no acquaintances who were educated ! I mean what a ridiculous answer and what weird thought processes. This statement was applauded by the agw regulars tho.
It seems that sometimes it's almost like they're having a competition for who can make the most ridiculous statements.
One has to wonder how they ever manage to interact with the real world or their families. Do they maybe beat their wives or partners if disagreed with ?
There's definitely something fishy about them, I'm thinking that maybe they're all the same person or that they work for some propaganda outlet such as a fusion centre. It has to be one of these because they obviously aren't normal.
ps carbonic acid is nothing to worry about, it's a scientific impossibility for it to have a significant effect. Because
It's one of the weakest known acids
It's acidity is entirely dependant upon temperature and pressure
the ocean is one of the best natural buffer solutions.
Pure carbonic acid which couldn't be synthesised for a long time is stable but is diluted a billion times by a single drop of water.
basically far too little co2 to affect such a large amount of water before you even consider it's low disassociation constant in a buffer.
It is funny. They only doubt they have is whether you were ever a member of their cult.
I am nearly convinced that Dook is Dana but Dana lets himself become even more asinine and his jackassery is on full display as his doppelganger Dook but I could be mistaken because they certainly often do resemble each other. I think that explains why Dook pushes his skepticalscience bible which isn't skeptical and it certainly isn't science.
The skepticalscience (the discredited blog that is neither skeptical nor science) will tell you all you need to know. If you do want more information, desmog will clear the air (not really). It's a religion. You gotta just believe.
It looks like religion, it smells like religion... there's no need to taste it. Like a religion the climate change lobby have a greater good that is worthy, mankind can't go on using the earths resources without consequences and the masses need a belief system to get them to do the right thing. Sounds like a win win, just don't look too closely.
No doubts at all. AGW science is based on real time statistics regarding CO2 levels and global average temps for over 30 years. if 30 years is enough info to establish a regions climate then 30 years is enough to illustrate climate change /.global warming.
We have seen increases in heat waves, record high temps, drought, desertification, torrential rains, floods, unusual blizzards etc. All of these anticipated with GW
Plus ten out of the last 15 years were the warmest in 132 years.
Renewable energy is imperative and ASAP
Oil is expect to run out around 2050 That is not far away, so not only do we need to focus on renewable's, we nee to innovate and improve their reliability. If the Bush administration hadn't eliminated the tax incentives on renewable investments, we would have already made more strides in this area.
A side point here: the world is moving towards renewable technology. If the US wants to maintain status as a world economic power, we need to become innovative in the renewable product market and we need to price our products for sale in the world market, not just over pricing in America OR China and India will be the world's source for renewables and the US will fall far behind economically
Anyone with a doubt is clearly a DA denier
You cannot accuse climate scientists - or, for that matter, anyone who agrees with AGW - of having "unshakable beliefs" regarding AGW since virtually 100% of them have already changed what they think from being skeptical to accepting AGW. It is only Deniers who remain steadfast in their beliefs regardless of empirical evidence or scientific opinion.
>>So tell us, apart from just talking what do we do?<<
This is a common - and false - argument based on the implicit assumption that doing nothing is a real-world choice. We will, in time, be forced to do something. The issue is whether we proceed blindly and thoughtlessly or intelligently and rationally.
I have some doubts about whether you ever believed the scientific evidence for climate change, as it seems incredible that a rational, reasonable person would reject science and buy into the fossil fuel companies propaganda. But I guess it could happen.
As the article below points out, there's almost no scientific evidence for rejecting global warming.
I accept the facts, rather than ignore them and hope they will go away. Renewables can be refined to increase their efficiency, that's what R&D is for, and if not there is always Agenda 21, drastic but perhaps necessary All your objection are just lies by vested interests.
I mean you AGW proponents, Big Gryth, Hey dook and others, you seem so convinced with unshakable beliefs, how come? I used to be a climate change believer, and it took a long time to change, first I had some doubts then I did some research, listened to both sides of the argument and finally decided to be skeptical/denier, occasionally I still have a few doubts ( carbonic acid worries me a bit), but what worries me most is the way people get carried away it's almost like a religion, and skepticalscience is Hey Dooks bible.
So tell AGW proponents what should we realistically do, I mean renewables is a great idea but they will never make more than 20% of our energy needs, plus they will use up huge tracts of land in doing , renewables are so much worse for our environment than fossil fuels, I mean windmills chop birds, biomass plants will be grown in natural forest/grassland areas, squeezing out diverse plants and animals, hydro is limited there are only so many places available, plus they flood lands and stifle fish migrations, solar farms as well use huge tracts of land, (I agree with solar panels on roofs)
all these renewables are so expensive and so unreliable what are the alternatives, I mean carbon taxes and regulations are negatives, they just make life harder without really solving the problems.
So tell us, apart from just talking what do we do?
There IS something really weird about some of the pro agw people on here and I'm not quite sure why.
They'll never accept a logical fact or play any logic games at all in fact. Insults are considered by them to be great as long as it's against sceptics. Much of what they say is frankly ridiculous.
Recently one of the septics asked a normal question about Sherlock Homes logic and they didn't answer, just blasted him with insults. I asked a perfectly normal and unbiased question which was basically 'are people paid to study a problem ever likely to say there is no problem' What's wrong with that, it's perfectly reasonable, but for the thought crime of daring to ask such a thing I was told I'd never been to school and had no acquaintances who were educated ! I mean what a ridiculous answer and what weird thought processes. This statement was applauded by the agw regulars tho.
It seems that sometimes it's almost like they're having a competition for who can make the most ridiculous statements.
One has to wonder how they ever manage to interact with the real world or their families. Do they maybe beat their wives or partners if disagreed with ?
There's definitely something fishy about them, I'm thinking that maybe they're all the same person or that they work for some propaganda outlet such as a fusion centre. It has to be one of these because they obviously aren't normal.
ps carbonic acid is nothing to worry about, it's a scientific impossibility for it to have a significant effect. Because
It's one of the weakest known acids
It's acidity is entirely dependant upon temperature and pressure
the ocean is one of the best natural buffer solutions.
Pure carbonic acid which couldn't be synthesised for a long time is stable but is diluted a billion times by a single drop of water.
basically far too little co2 to affect such a large amount of water before you even consider it's low disassociation constant in a buffer.
It is funny. They only doubt they have is whether you were ever a member of their cult.
I am nearly convinced that Dook is Dana but Dana lets himself become even more asinine and his jackassery is on full display as his doppelganger Dook but I could be mistaken because they certainly often do resemble each other. I think that explains why Dook pushes his skepticalscience bible which isn't skeptical and it certainly isn't science.
The skepticalscience (the discredited blog that is neither skeptical nor science) will tell you all you need to know. If you do want more information, desmog will clear the air (not really). It's a religion. You gotta just believe.
It looks like religion, it smells like religion... there's no need to taste it. Like a religion the climate change lobby have a greater good that is worthy, mankind can't go on using the earths resources without consequences and the masses need a belief system to get them to do the right thing. Sounds like a win win, just don't look too closely.
No doubts at all. AGW science is based on real time statistics regarding CO2 levels and global average temps for over 30 years. if 30 years is enough info to establish a regions climate then 30 years is enough to illustrate climate change /.global warming.
We have seen increases in heat waves, record high temps, drought, desertification, torrential rains, floods, unusual blizzards etc. All of these anticipated with GW
Plus ten out of the last 15 years were the warmest in 132 years.
Renewable energy is imperative and ASAP
Oil is expect to run out around 2050 That is not far away, so not only do we need to focus on renewable's, we nee to innovate and improve their reliability. If the Bush administration hadn't eliminated the tax incentives on renewable investments, we would have already made more strides in this area.
A side point here: the world is moving towards renewable technology. If the US wants to maintain status as a world economic power, we need to become innovative in the renewable product market and we need to price our products for sale in the world market, not just over pricing in America OR China and India will be the world's source for renewables and the US will fall far behind economically
Anyone with a doubt is clearly a DA denier
You cannot accuse climate scientists - or, for that matter, anyone who agrees with AGW - of having "unshakable beliefs" regarding AGW since virtually 100% of them have already changed what they think from being skeptical to accepting AGW. It is only Deniers who remain steadfast in their beliefs regardless of empirical evidence or scientific opinion.
>>So tell us, apart from just talking what do we do?<<
This is a common - and false - argument based on the implicit assumption that doing nothing is a real-world choice. We will, in time, be forced to do something. The issue is whether we proceed blindly and thoughtlessly or intelligently and rationally.
I have some doubts about whether you ever believed the scientific evidence for climate change, as it seems incredible that a rational, reasonable person would reject science and buy into the fossil fuel companies propaganda. But I guess it could happen.
As the article below points out, there's almost no scientific evidence for rejecting global warming.
I accept the facts, rather than ignore them and hope they will go away. Renewables can be refined to increase their efficiency, that's what R&D is for, and if not there is always Agenda 21, drastic but perhaps necessary All your objection are just lies by vested interests.
I mean you AGW proponents, Big Gryth, Hey dook and others, you seem so convinced with unshakable beliefs, how come? I used to be a climate change believer, and it took a long time to change, first I had some doubts then I did some research, listened to both sides of the argument and finally decided to be skeptical/denier, occasionally I still have a few doubts ( carbonic acid worries me a bit), but what worries me most is the way people get carried away it's almost like a religion, and skepticalscience is Hey Dooks bible.
So tell AGW proponents what should we realistically do, I mean renewables is a great idea but they will never make more than 20% of our energy needs, plus they will use up huge tracts of land in doing , renewables are so much worse for our environment than fossil fuels, I mean windmills chop birds, biomass plants will be grown in natural forest/grassland areas, squeezing out diverse plants and animals, hydro is limited there are only so many places available, plus they flood lands and stifle fish migrations, solar farms as well use huge tracts of land, (I agree with solar panels on roofs)
all these renewables are so expensive and so unreliable what are the alternatives, I mean carbon taxes and regulations are negatives, they just make life harder without really solving the problems.
So tell us, apart from just talking what do we do?
