Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[Swa]

That's what science is there for. But I don't understand how people can deny the basic principle that GHG's will cause the GH effect - regardless of the total impact. Humans are taking stored carbon from below the surface and releasing it into the atmosphere. It is having an effect regardless of who's finger is in which pie. I'm just glad we'll one day run out of coal/oil (or it'll become less financially feasible) - then just to hope the earth's ecosystem hasn't completely collapsed/changed by then

Actually the most extensive study to date has shown no appreciable change in the last decade. Carbon use doesn't correlate with warming of the atmosphere just like it never has during earth's past warming and cooling episodes. Notice how it has changed from global warming to climate change over the years. Everyone knows climates will change so when that happens they claim they were right and ask for more research money from governments. That's not their original position so they were actually wrong.

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06...e_not_melting/


It seems see levels will be ok for a while still.

Seems to correlate with the non-change in temperatures.

[porchrat]

I was drinking coke when I read this. Nearly went through my nose. Totally sig worthy.

He has a point though. The planet is going to be just fine. It is our environment we are trying to save, not the planet.

We want the planet to continue to be hospitable for us. That does not equate to "saving the planet".

[ghoti]

He has a point though. The planet is going to be just fine. It is our environment we are trying to save, not the planet.

We want the planet to continue to be hospitable for us. That does not equate to "saving the planet".

Im sure when the term is used, it is only in the context of saving our current habitat. I cant imagine it been used in any other context.

[Techne]

Im sure when the term is used, it is only in the context of saving our current habitat. I cant imagine it been used in any other context.

You can't imagine it, I have seen people use it in the literal sense. I can imagine you spilling your Coke again...
Principle of charity chap... it may help you save some coca cola, and "save the planet" in the mean time, it costs a lot of CO2 to make those cans you know.

[ghoti]

You can't imagine it, I have seen people use it in the literal sense. I can imagine you spilling your Coke again...
Principle of charity chap... it may help you save some coca cola, and "save the planet" in the mean time, it costs a lot of CO2 to make those cans you know.

You sound silly every time you use the word, "chap". Probably just me that thinks that though.

Were you using the term, "save the planet" in the literal or metaphorical sense?

[Praeses]

Actually the most extensive study to date has shown no appreciable change in the last decade. Carbon use doesn't correlate with warming of the atmosphere just like it never has during earth's past warming and cooling episodes. Notice how it has changed from global warming to climate change over the years. Everyone knows climates will change so when that happens they claim they were right and ask for more research money from governments. That's not their original position so they were actually wrong.


Seems to correlate with the non-change in temperatures.

Do you not understand the Greenhouse effect?

[Swa]

Do you not understand the Greenhouse effect?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...colleague.html

[Praeses]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...colleague.html

Please post peer reviewed scientific papers. I couldn't care less what the media has to say.

[markface]

GLOBAL WARMING!!! - WE DIDN'T LISTEN

[Swa]

Please post peer reviewed scientific papers. I couldn't care less what the media has to say.

Funny that the usual suspects would jump up for "peer reviewed" "papers." It would have been peer reviewed if Richard Muller hadn't bungled it up! The graph btw is from the Global Warming Policy Foundation and not some media drivel.

[Praeses]

Funny that the usual suspects would jump up for "peer reviewed" "papers." It would have been peer reviewed if Richard Muller hadn't bungled it up! The graph btw is from the Global Warming Policy Foundation and not some media drivel.

usual suspects? I haven't posted in this thread since less than a week ago in months. You didn't even have a MyBB account back then...unless you're using another alias?
I'm a scientist - a graph/media drivel means nothing to me if there's no peer reviewed article to support it (which can be objectively criticized by peers), otherwise it means nothing in the scientific domain.

[Swa]

usual suspects? I haven't posted in this thread since less than a week ago in months. You didn't even have a MyBB account back then...unless you're using another alias?
I'm a scientist - a graph/media drivel means nothing to me if there's no peer reviewed article to support it (which can be objectively criticized by peers), otherwise it means nothing in the scientific domain.

I've been here for May and June. During that time you've been posting and unless I'm confusing you with somebody else I also saw your posts before going with scientific "consensus." Hence the usual suspects remark. Never mind there's really no such thing as scientific consensus I've seen how the review process works vs how it's supposed to work so sorry if I rather deal with verifiable facts than subjective opinions.

The data is all there to verify yourself if you really want to. The graph is a direct plot of that data if you consider the Global Warming Policy Foundation reliable. As for no peer-review documents you seem to ignore who it was that sabotaged that process.

[Arthur]

Do you not understand the Greenhouse effect?

What a giveaway.

This uncalled-for jab is entirely without warrant. It is condescending and irrelevant. It also betrays your prejudice and undermines any claim you might want to make about 'sticking to the facts'. It is a thinly-veiled ad hominem under a veneer of "I know science", and you know it (if you don't, you're not only ignorantly unjust, but stupid to boot). By the way, if you're going to capitalise Greenhouse, then you ought to capitalise Effect, though most scientific literature uses lowercase. Ever noticed that?

[Praeses]

What a giveaway.

This uncalled-for jab is entirely without warrant. It is condescending and irrelevant. It also betrays your prejudice and undermines any claim you might want to make about 'sticking to the facts'. It is a thinly-veiled ad hominem under a veneer of "I know science", and you know it (if you don't, you're not only ignorantly unjust, but stupid to boot). By the way, if you're going to capitalise Greenhouse, then you ought to capitalise Effect, though most scientific literature uses lowercase. Ever noticed that?

It was an honest question. Sorry to burst your bubble!

[Arthur]

It was an honest question. Sorry to burst your bubble!

If it was, can you explain how your question arises from Swa's post (the one you quoted)? Hint: maybe you have a problem with "Carbon use doesn't correlate with warming of the atmosphere"? If so, please give a reasonable accounting for his second clause "just like it never has during earth's past warming and cooling episodes" and how your apparently honest question arises from these points. Hint2: At issue is not the greenhouse effect, but the correlation between carbon use and atmospheric warming. Even if you cite warming from say 1850, you still have to account for prior warmings where anthropic carbon use is clearly not a factor. Or just blowing bubbles?