Humans blamed for climate change

[Pooeypants]

Global climate change is "very likely" to have a human cause, an influential group of scientists has concluded. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said temperatures were probably going to increase by 1.8-4C (3.2-7.2F) by the end of the century. It also projected that sea levels were most likely to rise by 28-43cm, and global warming was likely to influence the intensity of tropical storms. The findings are the first of four IPCC reports to be published this year. "We can be very confident that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming," co-lead author Dr Susan Soloman told delegates in Paris. ...... Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface.

Source

So, is 90% certainty enough for you skeptics or do we need to wait even longer?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Pooeypants Source So, is 90% certainty enough for you skeptics or do we need to wait even longer?

In a very real sense, I will always deny responsibility because guess what, it's not me doing it.


My carbon footprint is miniscule by comparison to the average American, and I'm not contributing by outsourcing all of my purchases to the other side of the planet.


Sort of ironic that it's the Globalists that contribute such a large fraction of the problem with their policies, yet they are the ones crying the loudest about people reluctance to modify their lifestyle.


Perhaps if we weren't shipping boxes of parts to be assembled in China, and the ship them back to be distributed, the problem would't be so critical.


Can't help but wonder if there is a connection between the Nanny Staters being a huge contributer to the problem, and them wanting to be the ones we look too to "solve" it. ( The perfect bait, and switch topic used in any respectable hegemony. )

[The Architect]

Perhaps if we weren't shipping boxes of parts to be assembled in China, and the ship them back to be distributed, the problem would't be so critical.

It all comes down to economics, the cheapest solution will win.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Architect It all comes down to economics, the cheapest solution will win.

So as long as they are advocating those Globalist policies, blowing steam over possible solutions is totally wasted effort.


Seems to me the root of thhe problem is big business, and their profit margins, but the lectures always end up in my living room aimed at me.

[The Architect]

Seems to me the root of thhe problem is big business, and their profit margins, but the lectures always end up in my living room aimed at me.

Here is an example of what I was trying to say, we have the technology to cut down of global warming ( different fuels, etc..) but it is cheaper to use oil, and these new energy sources wont become common place until the price of oil exceeds these new sources.
Is that what you were saying?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: The Architect Here is an example of what I was trying to say, we have the technology to cut down of global warming ( different fuels, etc..) but it is cheaper to use oil, and these new energy sources wont become common place until the price of oil exceeds these new sources. Is that what you were saying?

Not at all.


My point was that it is big business eating up all of the energy, and causing all of the pollution, yet the lectures about fossil fuel addiction, and abuse always end up on my nightly news aimed at me, like I'm going to do something about it.


Actually I do do something about it on a personal level, but it's not like it will ever matter.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Pooeypants Source So, is 90% certainty enough for you skeptics or do we need to wait even longer?

No arument from me, I agree.

[xyzer]

I'm a skeptic...Just how do the words "very likely" suddenly come to be interpreted as over 90% certain? Seems like an intentional scare tactic designed to stir up support? Illogical generalization, unsupported by anything but conjecture!
That's one of the reasons I'm skeptical as Pooey well knows.


Another is that we don't know what impact anthroprogenic activity has on climate, we still only surmise!..why you ask? Because we have had several cooling cycles since human activity has had a so called warming effect..Because many climatologist believe that if Co2 has any affect it is minimal! As close as 25 years ago we were in a cooling cycle? Guess what, it changed? Because we haven't the technology to control local weather much less climate cycles?. Because we have only recently been able to measure GLOBAL temparatures with any preciseness? Because the report itself is filled with uncertain language,qualifiers such as could, might may,if..likely? Because even the wildest predictions of temperature rise by 2100 differ from as little as 3 degress to as much as 11? How come they are so imprecise?

Are we to penalize our economy for something that is still hypothetical and disputes the history of climate cycles over most of the earths past? Warming periods when there was little if any anthroprogenic activity? (900 to about 1200 AD is a good example)

I repeat we must use the tactic of adapting rather than trying to change climate! We can't change weather, or we would have prevented the Katrina destruction? We can't predict weather with much certainty for even a week at a time..Are we now suddenly able to chang global climate? I think not?

[xyzer]

My point was that it is big business eating up all of the energy

Come n Milton it us that demand and eat up the energy..Big Business provides it? It reacts to our demands..? Qit talking and quit driving to work..walk! Quit turnign up the thermostat when it get cold! Auit turning on the airconditioner when its hot! Get on the environmentalists to let up on the use of nuclear enegy its relatively clean and wont pollute!

[RickSp]

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I'm a skeptic...Just how do the words "very likely" suddenly come to be interpreted as over 90% certain? Seems like an intentional scare tactic designed to stir up support? Illogical generalization, unsupported by anything but conjecture! That's one of the reasons I'm skeptical as Pooey well knows.

Well, how about you tell us what you would interpret 90% chance as.

Quote by: xyzer Another is that we don't know what impact anthroprogenic activity has on climate, we still only surmise!..why you ask? Because we have had several cooling cycles since human activity has had a so called warming effect..Because many climatologist believe that if Co2 has any affect it is minimal!

Many? Care to give a figure on that? Or are we pulling numbers of out thin air again?

Quote by: xyzer As close as 25 years ago we were in a cooling cycle? Guess what, it changed? Because we haven't the technology to control local weather much less climate cycles?. Because we have only recently been able to measure GLOBAL temparatures with any preciseness? Because the report itself is filled with uncertain language,qualifiers such as could, might may,if..likely?

60 years ago they thought our genetic material was in the form of proteins, they found that DNA was too simple. This was the general consensus of the scientific community at the time due to the data they had. What does that mean? It means the scientist's models are only as good as the data they have, we've had all the extra years of collection and far better computer processing to give a better understanding of our atmosphere. Stop dwelling in the past.

Quote by: xyzer Because even the wildest predictions of temperature rise by 2100 differ from as little as 3 degress to as much as 11? How come they are so imprecise?

It's always been know that the further you try to forecast, the more uncertainty there is. It's universal. And there are many studies using different variables which is why we have the IPCC which collates all of them to give a consensus report on the sitation.

Quote by: xyzer Are we to penalize our economy for something that is still hypothetical and disputes the history of climate cycles over most of the earths past? Warming periods when there was little if any anthroprogenic activity? (900 to about 1200 AD is a good example)

Again, your points do not contradict the current Global Warming situation as explained my human activities.

Quote by: xyzer I repeat we must use the tactic of adapting rather than trying to change climate! We can't change weather, or we would have prevented the Katrina destruction? We can't predict weather with much certainty for even a week at a time..Are we now suddenly able to chang global climate? I think not?

What you think is irrelevant, you come here with anecdotes and rhetoric, you offer no alternate model which can clearly explain this phenomenon better.
Even if we are to adapt, that's fine for we rich Westerners, what about those folks who are still in poverty? Those who are already starving or dying of disease, who's going to help them out?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Pooeypants What you think is irrelevant, you come here with , you offer no alternate model which can clearly explain this phenomenon better.

Hey, you have some issues that you seem unwilling, or unable to address as well.


How about you guys investigate what is causing other planets in the solar system to warm at the same time?


As long as your side is turning a blind eye to some of the obviously more well thought out questions proposed, I don' think the accusations of "anecdotes, and rhetoric" are totally one sided.


You know I'm a fence walker here, so just address the damned question, and spare me the lecture this time.

[xyzer]

Hey guys?girls? read these references and then jump into the swarm of those of us who feel... "We Really Just Don't Know"?

Its on Canada.com titled the Real Deal! The real deal?

There are several chapters referenced, each of which gives us skeptics some assurance that the scientific and political world has not gone completely mad. Not all are warming up to the alarmist conjecture we are exposed to in the press?
Pooey...it does offer you some alternate models!

What you think is irrelevant, you come here with , you offer no alternate model which can clearly explain this phenomenon better.

You just stand with your head in the sand as Ricks cartoon points out! The only thing really missing in the cartoon is the "crap" coming out the wrong end!

You are being duped if you believe the word 'likely' can be defined as meaning 90+% certain? Who conjured up that nonsense? Who are those guys?

[RickSp]

Quote by: xyzer You are being duped if you believe the word 'likely' can be defined as meaning 90+% certain? Who conjured up that nonsense? Who are those guys?

That's right. We can't trust the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world. We should listen only to James Inhofe, the Bible quoting, queer bashing, torture supporting senator who called environmentists "nazis" and global warming a "hoax" while taking more campaign money from the oil industry than any other senator, save one. Yah that's right. Sure.

[Chris]

maybe someone should link to the report.pdf

[xyzer]

I'm amused, but I must confess not suprised, at your naivete' Rick!?

That's right. We can't trust the overwhelming majority of scientists around the world. We should listen only to James Inhofe, the Bible quoting, queer bashing, torture supporting senator who called environmentists "nazis" and global warming a "hoax" while taking more campaign money from the oil industry than any other senator, save one. Yah that's right. Sure

Could it be that the majority of the scientists were right, when they once believed, and expounded, that the earth was flat? Could it be that the majority of scientists were right when the believed, for so many years, that the sun revolved around the earth? Scientific endeavor and expression is fallible, is it not? Get real...

I can only suggest that you read the references on the site I referenced? Statistical anomalies, along with revealed discrepancies, abound if one analyzes several of the assertions that has been offered as definitive science about climate change?

Bottom line! Should we rush to change something that is not conclusively true? Should we waste resources on what might be rather than what we know and are capable of solving?

[RickSp]

Yah, I know xyzer. You prefer to listen to a right wing lunatic on the oil company payroll rather than to the consensus of experts in the field.

Scepticism is one thing. Willful denial of the obvious quite another.

[Chris]

Quote by: xyzer I'm amused, but I must confess not suprised, at your naivete' Rick!? Could it be that the majority of the scientists were right, when they once believed, and expounded, that the earth was flat? Could it be that the majority of scientists were right when the believed, for so many years, that the sun revolved around the earth? Scientific endeavor and expression is fallible, is it not? Get real... I can only suggest that you read the references on the site I referenced? Statistical anomalies, along with revealed discrepancies, abound if one analyzes several of the assertions that has been offered as definitive science about climate change? Bottom line! Should we rush to change something that is not conclusively true? Should we waste resources on what might be rather than what we know and are capable of solving?

The flat earth myth... ahh nice one.
Greek astronomers had long observed that the earth was not flat even centuries before Christ.

It was Copernicus who said the solar system was heliocentric. It was a commonly held belief from Aristotle to Copernicus that the Earth was the center of the universe.

[xyzer]

maybe someone should link to the report.pdf __________________

I have, and I'm no more convinced that I was before I read it Chris! It is replete with subjective estimatea and statements that I question.!
e.g. "Eleven of the past 12 years1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global temperatures"
questions...How long have we been instrumentally recording GLOBAL temps? If so how and where were they recorded over the globe? Is this a logically valid fact upon which we can base a conclusion?
e.g."Average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twiced the global average rate on the past 100 years"... Oops, there they go again! Does the arctic temp rate increase(however dubiously,imperfectly, measured) have any direct affect on what the rest of the globes rates are?

I could go on..but it's obvious that this analyses is replete with statisical conjuring, and questionable measurements. It's kind of like the use of the words, "very likely" to generalize an observation which is then given a 90% probability of truth? Smoke and mirrors to inflate an unknown!

Hey..I agree that since we have really had a better(sattellite) form of measuring GLOBAL temps in the last quarter century we can observe a general warming! However, that is a far cry from blaming anthropogenic causes as the main reason for it? In one of the references in the 'Real Reason' artiicles it is stated that radiation from the sun has been shown in lab experiments to be conducive to low cloud formation.Low cloud formation helps in the warming scenario? Could it be that the suns influence is the main cause of our current climate change?

[xyzer]

The flat earth myth... ahh nice one. Greek astronomers had long observed that the earth was not flat even centuries before Christ. It was Copernicus who said the solar system was heliocentric. It was a commonly held belief from Aristotle to Copernicus that the Earth was the center of the universe. __________________

Thanks for confirming my skepticism Chris...What we call myth was scientific belief in yesteryear? Obviously then, what is postulated by some as scientific fact today may be disproven with more knowledge and scientific measurement? Should we waste resources on correcting what is not logically proven? Should we put all our eggs in one tenuous basket?

Sure we should attempt to lessen anthropogenic pollutants..but that doesn't mean we need to waste resources trying to change natural climate cycles which are more likely(I like that word it gives me an over 90% accuracy rate?) to be the causes for climate change?