interesting read on climate change...

[binö]

seems scientists are struggling to explain why the earth has been cooling since 2000.
Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown | Reuters

didn't some pigfuck politician compare climate change sceptics to flat earth believers? i think it was allan gore.
and i never heard this about the earth cooling since 2000 very interesting.
discuss

 

[wootoom]

Fail

 

[jnevin]

I don't understand why these people never mention the fact that the moon is progressively fucking with the earth's orbit, and that could be playing a part in things.

Also, global warming and global cooling are related. Thought that was common knowledge.

 

[machine23]

Climate-gate bro.. Plain and simple. They don't give a fuck about global warming, it's just a way to make mad fucking money in the scam. I believe we do need some honest debate without politics involved.

 

[WoodyO]

Let the tide rise. Let the sun fall. Let the air carbonize. The earth now heaves.

 

[pdaddyII]

I wish we could get fucking serious about this.

 

[shirlene29]

pollution obviously caused the ice age

 

[Fishak]

This climate change shit is nonsense. I think we all agree that the climate is changing but the argument is in why it is changing. I dont think my v8 powered trucks are the problem nor are coal power plants. Fuck.

 

[machine23]

This climate change shit is nonsense. I think we all agree that the climate is changing but the argument is in why it is changing. I dont think my v8 powered trucks are the problem nor are coal power plants. Fuck.

That's another thing, we are shutting down power plants all over, but GE gets special waivers for its coal power plants. Nice! Eliminate the competition

 

[miplank]

I'm on an oil tanker

 

[shirlene29]

I drive an oil tanker to work

 

[Fishak]

I drive an oil tanker to work

In no way is that depressing.

 

[shirlene29]

in no way was it meant to be taken seriously

 

[Fishak]

Real talk huh

 

[shirlene29]

no

 

[nydj66]

A chemical engineer's point of view:

FACT:

Around 1850 the world began digging taking fuels out of the ground and burning them for energy. This amounts to taking stored Carbon out of the ground, converting it to Carbon Dioxide and releasing it into the atmosphere. Today mankind releases roughly 21 billion metric tons of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere in this way. That number increases every year.


FACT:

The (directly) measured concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 25% since 1959. Surveying ice core samples shows that Carbon Dioxide levels have increased 40% since pre-industrial times.


FACT:

Carbon Dioxide is known to be a greenhouse gas. That is, Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere will allow sunlight to pass through unhindered but will trap that light energy in like a blanket once it has been absorbed and converted to heat. (In just the same way that the interior of your car gets hotter than hell on a sunny day.)


CONCLUSION:

If we know we're pumping massive amounts of previously stored Carbon into the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide, AND we can measure the increase in Carbon Dioxide concentration, AND we expect Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere to increase the temperature; how can anyone argue that Global Warming isn't real? Especially when the graph of Average Global Temperature, so closely follows the same trend as Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

The only question left to answer is; How much is it going to affect us?

 

[shirlene29]

debbie downer

 

[Fishak]

I am gonna plant 7 trees. Disaster averted. Some real Jack Bauer shit.

 

[-SD-]

Im a smoker

 

[shirlene29]

I have an acre of trees, Im covered

 

[WoodyO]

I hate this planet

 

[kx250rider]

The amount of money changing hands around the climate change scam, is unbelievable. More cash than oil, alcohol, drugs, and internet p*rn all combined and multiplied by a factor of a ton. If global warming is allowed to be debunked, thousands and thousands of fake jobs will go away, and half of the government would become obsolete overnight.

Charles

 

[redsamurai]

A chemical engineer's point of view:

FACT:

Around 1850 the world began digging taking fuels out of the ground and burning them for energy. This amounts to taking stored Carbon out of the ground, converting it to Carbon Dioxide and releasing it into the atmosphere. Today mankind releases roughly 21 billion metric tons of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere in this way. That number increases every year.


FACT:

The (directly) measured concentration of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 25% since 1959. Surveying ice core samples shows that Carbon Dioxide levels have increased 40% since pre-industrial times.


FACT:

Carbon Dioxide is known to be a greenhouse gas. That is, Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere will allow sunlight to pass through unhindered but will trap that light energy in like a blanket once it has been absorbed and converted to heat. (In just the same way that the interior of your car gets hotter than hell on a sunny day.)


CONCLUSION:

If we know we're pumping massive amounts of previously stored Carbon into the atmosphere as Carbon Dioxide, AND we can measure the increase in Carbon Dioxide concentration, AND we expect Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere to increase the temperature; how can anyone argue that Global Warming isn't real? Especially when the graph of Average Global Temperature, so closely follows the same trend as Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

The only question left to answer is; How much is it going to affect us?

^^^

 

[shirlene29]

I will be having no "real talk" now

 

[miplank]

what about (real talk)?

 

[shirlene29]

none

 

[shirlene29]

not even in quotations

 

[nydj66]

not even in quotations

OK, show your tits then!

 

[shirlene29]

there ya go

 

[nydj66]

Riding the cotton pony, are we?

 

[shirlene29]

no, but thatd be a handy excuse

 

[mrplunkey]

Anyone who truly believes in man-made climate change should support the idea of retarding the development of India and China as much as possible.

Exactly how many Chevy Volts do we need to buy to offset a billion low-end, fuel-inefficient cars?

 

[miplank]

Exactly how many Chevy Volts do we need to buy to offset a billion low-end, fuel-inefficient cars?

all of them

 

[machine23]

The amount of money changing hands around the climate change scam, is unbelievable. More cash than oil, alcohol, drugs, and internet p*rn all combined and multiplied by a factor of a ton. If global warming is allowed to be debunked, thousands and thousands of fake jobs will go away, and half of the government would become obsolete overnight.

Charles

Exactly!! Example, all those scandals with Obama and the green companies.. They got government funding and just took that shit.. If you're an insider you are making a killer. We all just sit around tho talking about instead of demanding these pigs to be arrested and hung..

 

[kx250rider]

Exactly!! Example, all those scandals with Obama and the green companies.. They got government funding and just took that shit.. If you're an insider you are making a killer. We all just sit around tho talking about instead of demanding these pigs to be arrested and hung..

Yes! And people accuse us (the Right and the Texas oil industry), of being the "insiders" and getting rich off people. If that's true, at least we're taking money that people are voluntarily spending, whereas the Green industry is extracting the money out the back door of Washington and stealing it from other causes for which our tax money was meant to cover. I can PERSONALLY guarantee anyone, that the oil and gas industry does not get ANY government subsidization or tax breaks for diddly squat. In fact, the taxes and permits are all inflated to get MORE money from oil & gas, to pay for green crap.

I'm not going to blab out a lot of details, but last Monday, I sent checks for over $450,000 to the IRS, and I'm not what anyone would consider an "oil tycoon". I'm just an avocado farmer with a few shares of mineral rights in West Texas, which are well-managed and caused me to get lucky once. Trust me it was a HUGE tax percentage; far far more than anyone knows to be taxed. I believe that in addition to the fake jobs that are created by global warming, it's also a ruse to lead to seizing the property of oil rights owners ultimately by the government. Anyone seeking the truth about the Green movement vs. the Oil & Gas industry; as far as who is doing what damage or not... Just start Googling and read a bit. I've pointed a few friends who were Green believers and Global Warming sheep to some factual reading materials, and they actually felt silly and changed positions .

Charles

 

[binö]

Yes! And people accuse us (the Right and the Texas oil industry), of being the "insiders" and getting rich off people. If that's true, at least we're taking money that people are voluntarily spending, whereas the Green industry is extracting the money out the back door of Washington and stealing it from other causes for which our tax money was meant to cover. I can PERSONALLY guarantee anyone, that the oil and gas industry does not get ANY government subsidization or tax breaks for diddly squat. In fact, the taxes and permits are all inflated to get MORE money from oil & gas, to pay for green crap.

I'm not going to blab out a lot of details, but last Monday, I sent checks for over $450,000 to the IRS, and I'm not what anyone would consider an "oil tycoon". I'm just an avocado farmer with a few shares of mineral rights in West Texas, which are well-managed and caused me to get lucky once. Trust me it was a HUGE tax percentage; far far more than anyone knows to be taxed. I believe that in addition to the fake jobs that are created by global warming, it's also a ruse to lead to seizing the property of oil rights owners ultimately by the government. Anyone seeking the truth about the Green movement vs. the Oil & Gas industry; as far as who is doing what damage or not... Just start Googling and read a bit. I've pointed a few friends who were Green believers and Global Warming sheep to some factual reading materials, and they actually felt silly and changed positions .

Charles

dude can you point me to a good read?

 

[redsamurai]

Exactly!! Example, all those scandals with Obama and the green companies.. They got government funding and just took that shit.. If you're an insider you are making a killer. We all just sit around tho talking about instead of demanding these pigs to be arrested and hung..

It happens "every" single administration. When the people who's money you used to get into office come knocking, they get their cut. That's how washington works and has "ALWAYS" worked. The sudden indignation about this from the right is laughable. All the fuss is about is "who" gets the right to pick our pockets. It doesn't matter how big or small the govt "appears" to be. They will pick us blind no matter what. It's in the very nature of our economic and monetary system which please rest assured, NO ONE up there has any plans to change anything. Why would they it's a whole shit ton of free cyber money which flows in.

 

[Headholio]

The amount of money changing hands around the climate change scam, is unbelievable. More cash than oil, alcohol, drugs, and internet p*rn all combined and multiplied by a factor of a ton. If global warming is allowed to be debunked, thousands and thousands of fake jobs will go away, and half of the government would become obsolete overnight.

Charles

More than oil, drugs, alcohol and porn. That's a lot money. Got a link?

 

[Headholio]

Anyone who truly believes in man-made climate change should support the idea of retarding the development of India and China as much as possible.

Exactly how many Chevy Volts do we need to buy to offset a billion low-end, fuel-inefficient cars?

I always knew you were a big supporter of retardation.

 

[mrplunkey]

I always knew you were a big supporter of retardation.

It's the only reason I read your posts.

 

[mrplunkey]

It happens "every" single administration. When the people who's money you used to get into office come knocking, they get their cut. That's how washington works and has "ALWAYS" worked. The sudden indignation about this from the right is laughable. All the fuss is about is "who" gets the right to pick our pockets. It doesn't matter how big or small the govt "appears" to be. They will pick us blind no matter what. It's in the very nature of our economic and monetary system which please rest assured, NO ONE up there has any plans to change anything. Why would they it's a whole shit ton of free cyber money which flows in.

That's an excellent point. Both sides will inevitably funnel money to whoever helps them win (and secure) their office.

Given that, would you agree that the only answer is make government smaller thus insuring there is less to steal?

 

[Headholio]

. I've pointed a few friends who were Green believers and Global Warming sheep to some factual reading materials, and they actually felt silly and changed positions .

Charles

You should give some of that reading material to PhD physicist Richard Muller.
He was one of the last credible global warming skeptics, paid by the Koch brothers to cast doubt on already proven climate science. Finally, even he could not keep up the charade, and changed his mind. A Koch brothers funded study (to disprove climate science) backfired on them and the study ended up concluding that if anything, current climate models are underestimating the impact of green house gas emmisions.

How a global warming skeptic came to change his mind – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

 

[mrplunkey]

That would be way cool if the models matched what was actually happening.

 

[Headholio]

I'll get to the bottom line. I can provide tons of real scientific (not Fox News) articles later but I don't have time right now.

There is no debate on climate change. It is real, and it is man made, and there is not a controversy about it. The fake controversy is a political invention not a scientific one.

The first 12 years of this century have all been in the top 14 hottest years in recorded history. 2012 was the hottest year in the united States ever, and 9th hottest ever for the earth.

As for the OP article, it is obviously anti-AGW, but all it is talking about is variations in the slope of a ever increasing sloped line. It's misleading the same way Sean Hannity scoffs at AGW every frickin time it snows. Bino's article if you read it, says nothing to disprove climate change theory. And don't misread it. Heating more slowly is not the same as cooling.

The upward slope of the earths temperatures is a jagged line, but the trend is clear. Anyone with any knowledge of trend analysis knows that you can't cherry pick a couple of data points out of thousands to disprove the conclusions of the whole set of data.

The models are pretty good right now, but not good enough to predict every variation. The anti AGW phonies will continue to point to every effort at improving the models as evidence that AGW must be wrong.

CO2 has increased 35% in our atmosphere in this industrial age, and there has never been anyone who could come up with a model that accounts for a 35% increase in CO2 without a rise in temperature. There is no contradictory model. The only science is AGW science, the deniers have no science.

 

[Headholio]

Anyone who truly believes in man-made climate change should support the idea of retarding the development of India and China as much as possible.

Exactly how many Chevy Volts do we need to buy to offset a billion low-end, fuel-inefficient cars?

We could "retard their development", or we could just kill them all, which would be an even bigger benefit to the environment. But do you consider either one to be a practical idea?

 

[mrplunkey]

We could "retard their development", or we could just kill them all, which would be an even bigger benefit to the environment. But do you consider either one to be a practical idea?

Obviously not. But I don't consider Solyndra, wind farms in the middle of nowhere or any of the other enviro-whacko ideas practical either.

How the same people who brought you the postal service think they'll reinvent the energy industry is laughable.

 

[Headholio]

Obviously not. But I don't consider Solyndra, wind farms in the middle of nowhere or any of the other enviro-whacko ideas practical either.

How the same people who brought you the postal service think they'll reinvent the energy industry is laughable.

The government will reinvent the energy industry, as it has many times thoughout history. Who do you think created hydroelectric power in this country? Who built Hoover dam for you and me? What private enterprise just decided to create the catalytic converter to clean up our air? Not only can the government do it, it is pretty much not going to happen without government initiative.

 

[mrplunkey]

The government will reinvent the energy industry, as it has many times thoughout history. Who do you think created hydroelectric power in this country? Who built Hoover dam for you and me? What private enterprise just decided to create the catalytic converter to clean up our air? Not only can the government do it, it is pretty much not going to happen without government initiative.

I'm just thankful that government invested those hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to develop hydraulic fracturing and create one of the best opportunities we've ever had to gain energy independence.

 

[wootoom]

Fracturing is something that benefits me, I'm not complaining up in Canada

 

[-SD-]

Can you find Dryland with fracturing?

 

[Headholio]

I'm just thankful that government invested those hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to develop hydraulic fracturing and create one of the best opportunities we've ever had to gain energy independence.

I'm a pro fracing guy, so I'm glad we agree that we should be thankful that US government starting fracing research in 1975 and has invested over 100 million in research and an additional billions in tax cuts to oil companies for fracing. So good point Plunkey.

Another fine example of how government can work.

 

[-SD-]

Government is shit for the most part

 

[Headholio]

Government is shit for the most part

Friggin Texans

 

[machine23]

They are helio... They might do a handful of so called good things but they have a million wrongs behind them.. You love government.. You're like the majority of immigrants who think they can't prosper without government. If that's the case, they should have gone to china. Or north korea

 

[mrplunkey]

I'm a pro fracing guy, so I'm glad we agree that we should be thankful that US government starting fracing research in 1975 and has invested over 100 million in research and an additional billions in tax cuts to oil companies for fracing. So good point Plunkey.

Another fine example of how government can work.

Only in your world can government get credit for developing fracking. They steal billions of dollars out of the fossil fuels industry every year -- and not just in income taxes. They impose excise taxes on their sole raw material (crude) and then they place excise taxes on their products as well.

Government was too busy wasting time on hairbrained pet projects from the green lobby to even notice the rapid advances in fracking as of late. My only hope is that the government idiots will stay out of their way and let them actually collect the gas.

 

[binö]

I'll get to the bottom line. I can provide tons of real scientific (not Fox News) articles later but I don't have time right now.

There is no debate on climate change. It is real, and it is man made, and there is not a controversy about it. The fake controversy is a political invention not a scientific one.

The first 12 years of this century have all been in the top 14 hottest years in recorded history. 2012 was the hottest year in the united States ever, and 9th hottest ever for the earth.

As for the OP article, it is obviously anti-AGW, but all it is talking about is variations in the slope of a ever increasing sloped line. It's misleading the same way Sean Hannity scoffs at AGW every frickin time it snows. Bino's article if you read it, says nothing to disprove climate change theory. And don't misread it. Heating more slowly is not the same as cooling.

The upward slope of the earths temperatures is a jagged line, but the trend is clear. Anyone with any knowledge of trend analysis knows that you can't cherry pick a couple of data points out of thousands to disprove the conclusions of the whole set of data.

The models are pretty good right now, but not good enough to predict every variation. The anti AGW phonies will continue to point to every effort at improving the models as evidence that AGW must be wrong.

CO2 has increased 35% in our atmosphere in this industrial age, and there has never been anyone who could come up with a model that accounts for a 35% increase in CO2 without a rise in temperature. There is no contradictory model. The only science is AGW science, the deniers have no science.

you and nj99 (wtf the dude who dated a tranny) obviously are science and engineering wise...but what i took from that article and others is exactly the opposite of the bolded, the debate is far from over and their is a lot of unknowns...

 

[Headholio]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

 

[kx250rider]

I'll get to the bottom line. I can provide tons of real scientific (not Fox News) articles later but I don't have time right now.

There is no debate on climate change. It is real, and it is man made, and there is not a controversy about it. The fake controversy is a political invention not a scientific one.

The first 12 years of this century have all been in the top 14 hottest years in recorded history. 2012 was the hottest year in the united States ever, and 9th hottest ever for the earth.

As for the OP article, it is obviously anti-AGW, but all it is talking about is variations in the slope of a ever increasing sloped line. It's misleading the same way Sean Hannity scoffs at AGW every frickin time it snows. Bino's article if you read it, says nothing to disprove climate change theory. And don't misread it. Heating more slowly is not the same as cooling.

The upward slope of the earths temperatures is a jagged line, but the trend is clear. Anyone with any knowledge of trend analysis knows that you can't cherry pick a couple of data points out of thousands to disprove the conclusions of the whole set of data.

The models are pretty good right now, but not good enough to predict every variation. The anti AGW phonies will continue to point to every effort at improving the models as evidence that AGW must be wrong.

CO2 has increased 35% in our atmosphere in this industrial age, and there has never been anyone who could come up with a model that accounts for a 35% increase in CO2 without a rise in temperature. There is no contradictory model. The only science is AGW science, the deniers have no science.

You're 100% correct... Indeed we're on a warming cycle; just like many before our time. And the co2 is indeed up (35% if that's the figure), but I believe that's an effect of the warming cycle; not the reverse. It could be argued all day, but the fact remains that 1 cow farting for one day, produces more fluorocarbons than 100 car air conditioners ruptured and releasing Freon R12; totalling 300 lbs of R12. (UCLA chemistry ieee paper c. 1985). And by one calculation; one volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gasses than all industry of all mankind in the entire 20th century (another Left calculation disputes that, so it may or may not be one way or the other).

The bottom line is that we're in a warming cycle, and whatever will be will be, and I'm not going to give up my life & livelihood to try to fight Mother Nature, and anyone who does, has my blessings... I just don't want their views to stop me from moving ahead.

Charles

 

[Headholio]

Look at the link to the graph above (I can't get it to display). You can see how much temperatures have risen over the last century. The trend is undeniable. From year to year, the black line is a zig zag as annual averages go up and down. Taking 5 year averages makes the red line smoother but still there are natural ups and downs over time. You can see a downward zig in the mid seventies before it zags back up and zigs back down in the 80's etc, and again in 2000 the zig is turning to a zag. To see the overall trend you need to see the big picture.
If 2013 is cooler than 2012 was, it would make no sense to say the earth is now cooling. It would just be part of the natural variability, and would say nothing about the overall trend.

The article you posted Bino is just talking about trying to understand the cause of those zigs and zags. Fine tuning the model to be able to predict smaller changes over shorter periods of time. So in that sense, yes there are many things unknown. But the fact that climate change is real is not disputed, and the fact that is man made is not disputed. That is not said or implied in the article.

 

[Headholio]

You're 100% correct... Indeed we're on a warming cycle; just like many before our time. And the co2 is indeed up (35% if that's the figure), but I believe that's an effect of the warming cycle; not the reverse. It could be argued all day, but the fact remains that 1 cow farting for one day, produces more fluorocarbons than 100 car air conditioners ruptured and releasing Freon R12; totalling 300 lbs of R12. (UCLA chemistry ieee paper c. 1985). And by one calculation; one volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gasses than all industry of all mankind in the entire 20th century (another Left calculation disputes that, so it may or may not be one way or the other).

The bottom line is that we're in a warming cycle, and whatever will be will be, and I'm not going to give up my life & livelihood to try to fight Mother Nature, and anyone who does, has my blessings... I just don't want their views to stop me from moving ahead.

Charles

There is no flourocarbon in cow farts. Cow farts produce methane. So it seems pretty ridiculous to compare cows to air conditioners. But if there is a real UCLA article about it, lets see it.
And yes, methane is a greenhouse gas and cow and human farts give off methane. Cow farts contribute to global warming. It is part of the problem, and as the population grows, industrial emmissions grow, burning of fossil fuels increases, livestock farming increases and deforestation increases. It's all part of the problem.
I will address your misunderstanding of "warming cycles" in a separate post.

 

[Headholio]

You're 100% correct... Indeed we're on a warming cycle; just like many before our time. And the co2 is indeed up (35% if that's the figure), but I believe that's an effect of the warming cycle; not the reverse. It could be argued all day, but the fact remains that 1 cow farting for one day, produces more fluorocarbons than 100 car air conditioners ruptured and releasing Freon R12; totalling 300 lbs of R12. (UCLA chemistry ieee paper c. 1985). And by one calculation; one volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gasses than all industry of all mankind in the entire 20th century (another Left calculation disputes that, so it may or may not be one way or the other).

The bottom line is that we're in a warming cycle, and whatever will be will be, and I'm not going to give up my life & livelihood to try to fight Mother Nature, and anyone who does, has my blessings... I just don't want their views to stop me from moving ahead.

Charles

Warming and cooling cycles of the past are pretty well understood by understanding volcanic activity, solar activity, earth orbit variations etc. Slight changes cause a cascade of events that result in positive feedback to warming or cooling that accelerates the change. These things can be modeled mathematically.

Never in history has change occurred so fast, and the reason is known, and fits the model. Man's activities are forcing the change. The change we are seeing right now is unprecedented in history.

Your idea that a warming trend is causing an increase in CO2 instead of the other way around does not make sense. CO2 emissions are known. It is not a natural event. We know where the CO2 is coming from. Emissions. And the increase causes positive feedback such as the oceans becoming less able to absorb the CO2.

 

[binö]

Look at the link to the graph above (I can't get it to display). You can see how much temperatures have risen over the last century. The trend is undeniable. From year to year, the black line is a zig zag as annual averages go up and down. Taking 5 year averages makes the red line smoother but still there are natural ups and downs over time. You can see a downward zig in the mid seventies before it zags back up and zigs back down in the 80's etc, and again in 2000 the zig is turning to a zag. To see the overall trend you need to see the big picture.
If 2013 is cooler than 2012 was, it would make no sense to say the earth is now cooling. It would just be part of the natural variability, and would say nothing about the overall trend.

The article you posted Bino is just talking about trying to understand the cause of those zigs and zags. Fine tuning the model to be able to predict smaller changes over shorter periods of time. So in that sense, yes there are many things unknown. But the fact that climate change is real is not disputed, and the fact that is man made is not disputed. That is not said or implied in the article.

not disputed what are you talking about it is majorly disputed.
like i said before i respect your obvious knowledge, but how can a science minded bro like yourself be so resolute about something being beyond debate? that doesn't strike me as a very scientific thought process and IMO hurts your arguments.

 

[nydj66]

not disputed what are you talking about it is majorly disputed.
like i said before i respect your obvious knowledge, but how can a science minded bro like yourself be so resolute about something being beyond debate? that doesn't strike me as a very scientific thought process and IMO hurts your arguments.

Scientists who live in ivory towers can assign statistical certainty and say something is 95% certain and so there is a 1/20 chance it could be false. That leaves room for debate.

Us engineers who have to make things work in the real world know that when enough evidence points in one direction, you're best off going with the odds.

The fact that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas is not a theory by some environmentalist; it is a demonstrable fact. You can prove it over and over again in the laboratory. No one disputes that.

We know we're taking massive amounts of Carbon out of the ground that's been stored for hundreds of millions of years and burning it to produce Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. No one disputes that.

AND, we can measure that the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increased right in pace with the burning of fossil fuels. No one disputes that.

Given all those facts, you would predict that the average global temperature would increase with increasing Carbon Dioxide levels. And indeed, we have plenty of evidence that is happening.

So anyone who looks at the evidence and states with authority, "There is no such thing as man-made climate change" must have a political reason to do so. Because any reasonable person would conclude that we very likely are causing the climate to change.

It is also very likely that the United States will not bear much of the cost of this climate change so there is no incentive to sacrifice to prevent it. That's the political reality.

 

[Headholio]

not disputed what are you talking about it is majorly disputed.
like i said before i respect your obvious knowledge, but how can a science minded bro like yourself be so resolute about something being beyond debate? that doesn't strike me as a very scientific thought process and IMO hurts your arguments.

I'm just looking at the evidence. I will also say that the link between cholesterol and heart disease is not disputed. that doesn't mean you can't find some whacked internet article to the contrary, it just means that the data is in, has been analyzed and the conclusion is obvious. Studies continue to be done, and they always support the hypothesis.

I already posted the facts from Science magazine. 10 years of studies. 928 papers. 0 disputing AGW. How can you call that majorly disputed?

People are sucked in by political talk. Listen to talk radio and there is a dispute. But look at science, and there is no dispute.

 

[Headholio]

Consider also, that there is not 1 major scientific institution in the world denying the reality of AGW. International acadamies of science from every industrialized nation, every scientific organization in this country and around the world.

That is not what a debate looks like.

 

[75th]

So anyone who looks at the evidence and states with authority, "There is no such thing as man-made climate change" must have a political reason to do so. Because any reasonable person would conclude that we very likely are causing the climate to change.

This. Its amazing that, with all the knowledge at your fingertips via the interwebs, folks are still conditioned to live in the fox news / weekly standard bubble.

The debate about whether or not we are having an impact is long over. What we can debate, however, is how much of an impact we are having and what the most viable solutions would be. The folks in the aforementioned bubble, however, arent willing or capable of having that type of conversation.

 

[Headholio]

Only in your world can government get credit for developing fracking. They steal billions of dollars out of the fossil fuels industry every year -- and not just in income taxes. They impose excise taxes on their sole raw material (crude) and then they place excise taxes on their products as well.

Government was too busy wasting time on hairbrained pet projects from the green lobby to even notice the rapid advances in fracking as of late. My only hope is that the government idiots will stay out of their way and let them actually collect the gas.

Yep that's my world. Its called reality. Walk towards the light Plunkey. You clearly don't understand governments impact on all sorts of fundamental scientific research, that private industry has no motivation to perform. Government can, has and will continue to reshape our energy usage.

The government steal from the oil companies? You are truly crazy. Exxon made 41 Billion last year and paid 13% tax. And to top it all off, they did it by selling one of this country's natural resources, and degrading our natural environment. Asking for 13 percent cut seems to be an extremely generous deal the American people are giving them.

 

[75th]

Yep that's my world. Its called reality. Walk towards the light Plunkey. You clearly don't understand governments impact on all sorts of fundamental scientific research, that private industry has no motivation to perform. Government can, has and will continue to reshape our energy usage.

The government steal from the oil companies? You are truly crazy. Exxon made 41 Billion last year and paid 13% tax. And to top it all off, they did it by selling one of this country's natural resources, and degrading our natural environment. Asking for 13 percent cut seems to be an extremely generous deal the American people are giving them.

That 13% is stealing dontchaknow.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Let the tide rise. Let the sun fall. Let the air carbonize. The earth now heaves.

That's poetic.

 

[binö]

Scientists who live in ivory towers can assign statistical certainty and say something is 95% certain and so there is a 1/20 chance it could be false. That leaves room for debate.

Us engineers who have to make things work in the real world know that when enough evidence points in one direction, you're best off going with the odds.

The fact that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas is not a theory by some environmentalist; it is a demonstrable fact. You can prove it over and over again in the laboratory. No one disputes that.

We know we're taking massive amounts of Carbon out of the ground that's been stored for hundreds of millions of years and burning it to produce Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. No one disputes that.

AND, we can measure that the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increased right in pace with the burning of fossil fuels. No one disputes that.

Given all those facts, you would predict that the average global temperature would increase with increasing Carbon Dioxide levels. And indeed, we have plenty of evidence that is happening.

So anyone who looks at the evidence and states with authority, "There is no such thing as man-made climate change" must have a political reason to do so. Because any reasonable person would conclude that we very likely are causing the climate to change.

It is also very likely that the United States will not bear much of the cost of this climate change so there is no incentive to sacrifice to prevent it. That's the political reality.

do you concede their would be political reasons to take the opposite tack? imo the distrust of politicans and their motives has contributed to this debate

 

[75th]

imo the distrust of politicans and their motives has contributed to this debate

No. Youre challenging the studies of literally thousands of scientists who, across dozens of nations and political affiliations, have all come to the exact same conclusion. This isnt a right/left issue despite what the weekly standard has been telling you. The fact that there may have been some crony capitalism vis a vis Solyndra is a distraction (for the weak minded) from the actual issue at large.

The distrust of science and reality has contributed to this debate.

 

[Headholio]

do you concede their would be political reasons to take the opposite tack? imo the distrust of politicans and their motives has contributed to this debate

Distrust is definitely a big part of the reason that people still think there is a debate. People are being told (by media sources with an agenda to mislead) that those crazy lefties hate progress and want us to go back to the stone age and horses and buggies.

But this issue is not like real right/left political issues. You can discuss a proper tax strategy forever and never get consensus, but for a scientific issue like this, the facts are available for anyone to know if you look at science instead of politics.

 

[wootoom]

half you people dont even know the story behind fracing, you just pin it on another government problem

 

[mrplunkey]

Yep that's my world. Its called reality. Walk towards the light Plunkey. You clearly don't understand governments impact on all sorts of fundamental scientific research, that private industry has no motivation to perform. Government can, has and will continue to reshape our energy usage.

The government steal from the oil companies? You are truly crazy. Exxon made 41 Billion last year and paid 13% tax. And to top it all off, they did it by selling one of this country's natural resources, and degrading our natural environment. Asking for 13 percent cut seems to be an extremely generous deal the American people are giving them.

Exxon 2012:

Revenue: 428.4B
Pre-Tax Income: 78.7B
Taxes: -31.0B
Minority Interest: -2.8B
Net Income: 44.9B

There's your problem right there, You think 31/78.7 = 13%

Psssst... It isn't. It's 39%.

You believe the shit you want to believe.

 

[75th]

Exxon 2012:

Revenue: 428.4B
Pre-Tax Income: 78.7B
Taxes: -31.0B
Minority Interest: -2.8B
Net Income: 44.9B

There's your problem right there, You think 31/78.7 = 13%

Psssst... It isn't. It's 39%.

You believe the shit you want to believe.

I think it was actually closer to 41%.

Then again, the vast majority of that was paid to countries outside the US where it operates.

Exxon paid $1.5 billion in taxes to the US Federal Government.

 

[binö]

No. Youre challenging the studies of literally thousands of scientists who, across dozens of nations and political affiliations, have all come to the exact same conclusion. This isnt a right/left issue despite what the weekly standard has been telling you. The fact that there may have been some crony capitalism vis a vis Solyndra is a distraction for the weak minded) from the actual issue at large.

The distrust of science and reality has contributed to this debate.

i rarely read weekly standard and don't consider myself so stfu

 

[75th]

Eh, if the shoe fits kiddo.

 

[binö]

Eh, if the shoe fits kiddo.

lol at your delusions of granduer on every issue, like RS in a way but more acidic.
fiance, politics, and now climate change, you are the undisupted master of all.
now stfu and stop commenting in my threads please you add nothing but smugness ny or hh give much better opposing intel on the matter

 

[75th]

lol at your delusions of granduer on every issue, like RS in a way but more acidic.
fiance, politics, and now climate change, you are the undisupted master of all.
now stfu and stop commenting in my threads please you add nothing but smugness ny or hh give much better opposing intel on the matter

Not my fault that youre arguing the world is flat. Not sure why umad when folks are trying to come up with solutions. Whats wrong with nuclear power, for instance?

 

[youpissmeoff]

For everyone in this thread that is truly concerned with a man made climate change, how many of you are driving a natural gas vehicle??

 

[75th]

For everyone in this thread that is truly concerned with a man made climate change, how many of you are driving a natural gas vehicle??

Sort of a straw man, don't you think? If natty gas vehicles were as available and cost effective as traditional vehicles over let's say the past decade then you may have a point.

My Hyundai gets like 30mpg highway though.

 

[stosstruppe]

Well this thread has actually been an eye opener. Up until about 10 minutes ago I was fairly resolute in dismissing man's contribution to climate change though hadn't realised the debate on climate change had heated up again relatively recently since Al Gore etc.

 

[Headholio]

Exxon 2012:

Revenue: 428.4B
Pre-Tax Income: 78.7B
Taxes: -31.0B
Minority Interest: -2.8B
Net Income: 44.9B

There's your problem right there, You think 31/78.7 = 13%

Psssst... It isn't. It's 39%.

You believe the shit you want to believe.

The 13% came from US taxes actually paid. Exxon reports foreign taxes paid (ok) and deferred taxes, which is bullshit, because those deferred taxes never have to be paid if the money isn't brought back into the US.

Analysis: Gas price spike revives fight over energy taxes | Reuters

 

[mrplunkey]

I think it was actually closer to 41%.

Then again, the vast majority of that was paid to countries outside the US where it operates.

Exxon paid $1.5 billion in taxes to the US Federal Government.

1) A huge portion of their operations are outside the US.

2) US rates are globally uncompetitive, hence Exxon is doing the right thing for its shareholders.

 

[75th]

Well this thread has actually been an eye opener. Up until about 10 minutes ago I was fairly resolute in dismissing man's contribution to climate change though hadn't realised the debate on climate change had heated up again relatively recently since Al Gore etc.

The Al Gore doom and gloom "omg we only have 5 years!!!" bullshit has been a huge disservice. The fact that climate change is occurring is not up for debate anymore. How much of an impact we as humans are having and what the best solutions are should be the topic of conversation, IMO.

 

[75th]

1) A huge portion of their operations are outside the US.

2) US rates are globally uncompetitive, hence Exxon is doing the right thing for its shareholders.

1) I know

2) I know. No argument.

I dont blame Exxon for paying as little in taxes to the US as possible. We are giving them that opportunity and, as a publicly traded company, they have to take advantage of it. Them doing so isnt evil. Its good business.

Someone as anti-subsidies/loopholes as you, however, should be arguing for some type of change in the tax code that allows them to benefit to such an extent, correct?

 

[mrplunkey]

1) I know

2) I know. No argument.

I dont blame Exxon for paying as little in taxes to the US as possible. We are giving them that opportunity and, as a publicly traded company, they have to take advantage of it. Them doing so isnt evil. Its good business.

Someone as anti-subsidies/loopholes as you, however, should be arguing for some type of change in the tax code that allows them to benefit to such an extent, correct?

Being able to operate and recognize taxes overseas isn't a loophole. If the US wants to price themselves out of the global market on taxation, they deserve to suffer the consequences.

But I am anti-loophole. I'd love to eliminate things like exploration subsidies. But let's also eliminate oil import taxes, oil environmental taxes, fuel excise taxes and the whole other mess associated with trying to persecute fossil fuels.

 

[stosstruppe]

For everyone in this thread that is truly concerned with a man made climate change, how many of you are driving a natural gas vehicle??

I get 45-50mpg (also highway) on my Yaris (it's the wife's car I drive, I swear!) so unless as previously mentioned we retard the likes of India, China etc's extreme use of fossil fuels I doubt switching to a car that runs on used bio-oils & good intentions is going to make much of a difference.

As also mentioned, I am also of the belief we should switch to nuclear power more so though there is a lot of opposition to its usage simply by "merit" of involving the word "nuclear".

 

[Headholio]

1) A huge portion of their operations are outside the US.

2) US rates are globally uncompetitive, hence Exxon is doing the right thing for its shareholders.

A large part of Exxon profits are Saudi Arabia, which taxes them at a much higher rate than the US (according to tthe Reuters article I posted above).

 

[75th]

As also mentioned, I am also of the belief we should switch to nuclear power more so though there is a lot of opposition to its usage simply by "merit" of involving the word "nuclear".

Personally, Id like the see nuclear and natty gas as a transition plan to something truly clean and sustainable such as solar. I dont think the necessary R&D will happen, however, until somebody fucks with our oil supply and the military gets involved.

Military + government + private industry = quick results. Seems like its all about finding a way to gather the energy outside the atmosphere and "transfer" it down to earth in a safe and efficient manner.

 

[mrplunkey]

A large part of Exxon profits are Saudi Arabia, which taxes them at a much higher rate than the US (according to tthe Reuters article I posted above).

Cool story.

No point, but cool story.

 

[Headholio]

Cool story.

No point, but cool story.

Sorry you are unable to follow.

 

[Headholio]

Being able to operate and recognize taxes overseas isn't a loophole. If the US wants to price themselves out of the global market on taxation, they deserve to suffer the consequences.

But I am anti-loophole. I'd love to eliminate things like exploration subsidies. But let's also eliminate oil import taxes, oil environmental taxes, fuel excise taxes and the whole other mess associated with trying to persecute fossil fuels.

Since you are always up for learning new things Plunkey:

per·se·cut·edper·se·cut·ing

Definition of PERSECUTE

1
: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2
: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester

Persecuting fossil fuels lol. Maybe you should put that line in your sig right after the "irregardless" one.

 

[mrplunkey]

Since you are always up for learning new things Plunkey:

per·se·cut·edper·se·cut·ing

Definition of PERSECUTE

1
: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2
: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester

Persecuting fossil fuels lol. Maybe you should put that line in your sig right after the "irregardless" one.

Yeah, Barry would never "punish", "cause to suffer", "pester" or otherwise hurt the fossil fuels industry. I hear the coal guys love him these days.

 

[kx250rider]

I think what I see as the BIG picture, is that nobody knows one way or the other, and in the meantime I intend to live & let live. Giving the Left the benefit of the doubt, and we do in fact get a major climate change, we'll adapt. After all; think of all the construction jobs to build sea walls, and think of all that hydroelectric power we can have from inrush currents along the coasts, and think of all the new farming that can take place in the Mojave Desert ;-) . No reason to crush the entire fuel industry and tax the small businessman to death while all this is being hashed out.

Charles

 

[nydj66]

Personally, Id like the see nuclear and natty gas as a transition plan to something truly clean and sustainable such as solar. I dont think the necessary R&D will happen, however, until somebody fucks with our oil supply and the military gets involved.

Military + government + private industry = quick results. Seems like its all about finding a way to gather the energy outside the atmosphere and "transfer" it down to earth in a safe and efficient manner.

There's no where near enough plutonium on the planet to meet our long-term energy needs with nuclear; otherwise it'd be a great choice.

Solar is just not cost competitive yet. However, wind is and that's why that's being developed so heavily.

 

[stosstruppe]

nydj66 could you do me a favour please & provide data, graphs or whatever highlighting how CO2 levels have on the whole increased since the industrial age, mass deforestation etc occurring since the last 150 years or so.

(I realise "Google is my friend" etc though appreciate you may have the data already to hand).

 

[Headholio]

nydj66 could you do me a favour please & provide data, graphs or whatever highlighting how CO2 levels have on the whole increased since the industrial age, mass deforestation etc occurring since the last 150 years or so.

(I realise "Google is my friend" etc though appreciate you may have the data already to hand).

You can learn a lot here:

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

A little disorganized but also good:

RealClimate

 

[Headholio]

I think what I see as the BIG picture, is that nobody knows one way or the other,

Wrong

and in the meantime I intend to live & let live. Giving the Left the benefit of the doubt

,

Its not a political issue. It has nothing to do with the left. It's like saying cholesterol is liberal.

and we do in fact get a major climate change, we'll adapt. After all; think of all the construction jobs to build sea walls, and think of all that hydroelectric power we can have from inrush currents along the coasts, and think of all the new farming that can take place in the Mojave Desert ;-) .

Think of all the drought, starvation, species extinction, destruction of property, forest fires, increased poverty...

You think you you can just decide what is going on and what will happen?

No reason to crush the entire fuel industry and tax the small businessman to death while all this is being hashed out.

I know you are a lost cause, but you speaking from an extremely ignorant point of view. Read the links I posted above and get some real information. And I'm still waiting for the article on cow fluorocarbons

 

[SouthernLord]

Fuck polar bears