The Climate Change Deniers can go back to their holes now

[InnocentBoy]

But the polar bears are drowning!

 

[Tugela]

So you can't debate Climategate at all?

So CO2 makes up 0.03% of total gases in the atmosphere, and we only contribute 3% to the 0.03%. We aren't effecting the temperature any time soon. Not to mention CO2 lags temperature changes by 600 years.

Do you believe the EPA that CO2 is a pollutant? LOL.

Really? It's not lagging temperature change right now. Ancient data is not comparable because global temperature is also related to things such as overall albedo and other stuff which may have been quite different in the distant past on large timescales, so that proves nothing. High levels of CO2 will cause temperature increases, this is physics. And CO2 levels are spiking up sharply. This extra CO2 is not coming from you breathing, it is not coming from volcanoes, it is coming from humans burning fossil fuels. There is no other source.

A pollutant is any un-natural by product of human activity so yes, it is a pollutant. If you were dumping water into a desert, it would be a pollutant as well.

 

[bcneil]

I am no expert, but I am remember learning in school (and just looked up on the internet to make sure I was right), that CO2 is a byproduct of burning. Doesn't that mean that wherever temperature is rising, CO2 is present, and not the other way around like the climate change advocates are saying, that CO2 is the cause of rising temperature?

This is insulting to anyone with any basic science education.....yes when hydrocarbons burn one of the byproducts in co2.
Sounds like you don't even understand what the basics of global warming even is, yet can make assumptions against it.
Tens of thousands of scientists are not trying to trick you.

Noone can take shit like this serious. If a 50 year old virgin nun read about blowjobs in cosmo, and starting telling all the SPs that they were giving head all wrong.
Would you take it serious? Why do you think you have more knowledge than basically ALL scientists working in this field??
Oh thats right they all spent 4-8 years in college to sit around making shit up all day for paychecks......all winking and using secret handshakes.

 

[bcneil]

I was expecting this

For some reason you guys become hysterical when somebody asks questions instead of just accepting everything.

And as far as the 50 year old virgin nun is concerned, you never know, she could be a natural talent as far as blowjobs are concerned

Nobody is hysterical

So your conclusions are that in something like a combustion engine.
Its the actual heat produced during combustion that is causing global warming?
The co2 in a red herring byproduct tricking all science?

Co2's properties as a "green house gas" was known in the 1800s.
Its not something they just made up in the last 20 years for jobs.

As with most client change deniers you have used the "shotgun approach"

The earth isn't warming.....co2 wouldn't be the cause.......scientists are either lying or just don't understand the science.
Same as silky johnson.

Scientists all lying or not understanding science...this is just silly. The reason almost all scientists in non related fields also support climate change, even if they don't work in climatology is because they understand science. They understand the test procedures needed for papers to be approved, and the methods needed to scientifically refute claims.

The earth isn't actually getting warmer...........the USA has 1000s of weather monitoring stations alone, all data over the last century have shown a trend of increased temperature. Cherry picking a colder than normal winter in Boston means nothing compared to a larger trend.
I agree that things like the fact this July was the warmest in HISTORY doesn't support climate change either, but it is part of the larger trend however, which does.
All it takes however is one politician or spokesperson for the Koch brothers to simple say "no is isn't" and its a wash in some peoples mind.
If 1000s of weather stations taking readings all day isn't enough to prove temperature is rising, what would?????? Serious question.

Co2 doesn't cause warming........again known since the 1870s the only question is how much excess in the atmosphere will effect temperature by how much. Silky for instance claimed co2 doesn't effect climate.....then later said 3% isn't enough. I asked him how he figured that or how high would be enough...he didn't know....heres a hint for you silky...if you think it doesn't effect climate than NO amount will effect it.
So next time you can answer that. But hey why not play both sides of the field, it doesn't effect climate AND 3% isn't enough.
That was before the crack set in and he went off about how dry ice keeps soda cool, and giving mouth to mouth to a drowning victim doesn't kill them

But the reason he comes up with actual figures is because he doesn't understand them, but thinks hey 3% is a small number, so that must mean its too small do do anything......he brings no other scientific reason for this assumption, other than he thinks 3% is a small number. THATS IT. People will say, yeah maybe. However the effect is also very small as well. Using the Kelvin temp scale temp rising from 275 to 276 is even a small percent.

 

[SeekSteadyRegSP]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ng_n_1742653.html?ir=Canada&utm_hp_ref=canada


Several months ago I read in amazement as several posters on this forum denied human caused climate change.

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid some people really are.


Just Google Richard Miller Global Warming Koch Brothers

The phrase "climate change" is redundant, as the word 'climate' has an allowance for 'change' already built-in.


And as you're the fool who brought "global warming" to this thread - it appears you're among the "some" in your own category of stupid people.


What say you spend your evening going over the definitions of "global" and "warming"?? Though one guesses you still won't be able to derive the concrete proof of your own stupidity from what, to the rest of us, is already clear.

 

[kickback]

I wonder if there is a scientific climate blog somewhere that is discussing the CBJ vs. BBBJ debate:eyebrows:

 

[blazejowski]

I wonder if there is a scientific climate blog somewhere that is discussing the CBJ vs. BBBJ debate:eyebrows:

 

[westcoast555]

The phrase "climate change" is redundant, as the word 'climate' has an allowance for 'change' already built-in.


And as you're the fool who brought "global warming" to this thread - it appears you're among the "some" in your own category of stupid people.


What say you spend your evening going over the definitions of "global" and "warming"?? Though one guesses you still won't be able to derive the concrete proof of your own stupidity from what, to the rest of us, is already clear.

Agreed. For the most part the whole climate change/global warming scare seems like a now discredited plot to tax the weather. Nice scam.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

You said a lot but didn't 'debunk' climategate. The emails are out, shows a CLEAR cover-up and fudging of numbers. CAN'T BE DEBATED.

For god's sake. Those scientists were cleared of wrongdoing by more than one review/investigation. A LONG time ago too. If you're going to latch on to something as your main argument, at least pay attention to the news and the outcome!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/07/12/climategate-debunking-get_n_642980.html


I've posted this before:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYIZ-dfCito

 

[Miss*Bijou]

Agreed. For the most part the whole climate change/global warming scare seems like a now discredited plot to tax the weather. Nice scam.

Discredited by whom, with what evidence exactly?

 

[blazejowski]

For god's sake. Those scientists were cleared of wrongdoing by more than one review/investigation. A LONG time ago too. If you're going to latch on to something as your main argument, at least pay attention to the news and the outcome!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/07/12/climategate-debunking-get_n_642980.html




I've posted this before:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYIZ-dfCito

Just an FYI, Miss Bijou, you're arguing with a Conspiracy Nutjob who's been banned here more times than anyone else in Perb history....

 

[westcoast555]

It's called damage control

It has already been established that they tried to cover up important data.

Agreed. The 'investigation' was a total whitewash. They were clearly biased, covering up information, fudging data, refusing to share data and hiding behind FOIA legislation. Science requires transparency and replication and objectivity. Nothing the CRU unit was doing had any of this. Quite the opposite.

Science gets derailed when it encounters "confirmation bias".

 

[uncleg]

For god's sake. Those scientists were cleared of wrongdoing by more than one review/investigation. A LONG time ago too. If you're going to latch on to something as your main argument, at least pay attention to the news and the outcome!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2010/07/12/climategate-debunking-get_n_642980.html





I've posted this before:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYIZ-dfCito

Just an FYI, Miss Bijou, you're arguing with a Conspiracy Nutjob who's been banned here more times than anyone else in Perb history....

Yup, argue with the guy 5 days after his latest ban.........................talk about having to get in the last word.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

whew!



<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/juliaanderson/2613316815/" title="Well Aren't We Just a Ray of Fucking Sunshine by TortoiseHugger, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3225/2613316815_fdb514d45a_m.jpg" width="216" height="214" alt="Well Aren't We Just a Ray of Fucking Sunshine"></a>

Yup, argue with the guy 5 days after his latest ban.........................talk about having to get in the last word.

I just picked that quote randomly. Apparently you haven't noticed that the same comment/argument has been repeated many times, by numerous posters, both before and after I posted my reply?!

I'm really not sure how setting the record straight is some big crime or about me "having to get in the last word".

by lying their faces off and spending large sums of money to liars to confuse the average person and to the election campaigns of politicians of all parties to be able to influence what they do and say.

Well thank god for us that you are so much smarter and insightful than the average person.

What fucking arrogance.

I don't get it. What is arrogant about that comment?
What are you complaining about this time?

 

[Miss*Bijou]

It would be their job to explain it to us so that we get it, but obviously they can't.

Well I think there are many books, videos, documentaries which do just that. It involves people making the effort to do their part to understand it as well. It's not going to magically happen in anyone's sleep lol Here's 18 minutes well spent (please don't tell ferris bueller about it though - that's waaaayyyy too arrogant for him)


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/A7ktYbVwr90" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Science is a business just like anything else. They don't mind bending the truth a little to get grants.

Forget the lone scientist working in his basement. Those are the exception. Most scientists wouldn't admit that they are in it for the money, but they make a pretty good living repeating what the authorities tell them, attend conferences and write useless papers. They are not going to risk their livelihood to disprove something that is backed by powerful people.

How do I know this? I have known a few scientists. When I asked a chemist why is he working in the weapon industry, he said "because that's where the grants are". Science is one of the last sacred cows nobody dares to touch. Always, always, always question everything you are told, especially if they try to silence you with arguments like you don't have the necessary expertise or that you are just too ignorant to understand them.

That is good advice and I agree that everything must be questioned however the problem with your conclusion of bending the truth is that scientists, unlike politicians, oil tycoons, billionaires and even journalists, need to have their research and results reviewed and approved by peers before they are published.


Im not saying its impossible or couldn't happen but if you think of it logically, exactly who would gain from climate change? Someone mentioned the governments because they could claim a new tax. First of all, that's ridiculous because governments do not need to fabricate elaborate schemes such as this just so they can tax. Anyone knows if they want to add a tax, they'll just do it and wouldnt be bothered to make up something like this. That's ridiculous.Secondly, what makes this even more absurd is the well known fact that governments, ours especially, DOESN'T want to acknowledge climate change or treat it seriously because its no secret that they have A LOT more to gain from denial and that their loyalties lie with the industries who most want to burry it.


So who is conspiring exactly and what do they have to gain? Let's hear it, then. Who behind this big scam and has managed to convince 90% or so (can't remember exact #) of scientists to either lie about it (if they didn't believe it) or to actually buy it?


And you seem to be forgetting one side of this equation, the deniers, and what their own incentives and motivations might be for creating doubt and denial. A hell of a lot more at stake than grants scientists might miss out on, that's for sure. Most deniers have much to gain from making sure to keep things status quo. Much, as in MILLIONS if not billions. If you're going to look at one side, yous better do the same for the other.

The powerful interests in regards to this topic are multinational fossil fuel companies, multinational heavy industry conglomerates, and multinational investment banks. Who has vast holdings and assets that only have value in the status quo? Who controls the media corporations and pays the bills of the spin doctors and talking heads?
Like Big Tobacco & the hazards of smoking and the coal industry and acid rain, the people who are making the money today are the ones with the hands on the levers of power that prevent or delay warranted change from occurring by lying their faces off and spending large sums of money to liars to confuse the average person and to the election campaigns of politicians of all parties to be able to influence what they do and say.

Bingo!

 

[Miss*Bijou]

It's called damage control
It has already been established that they tried to cover up important data.

Agreed. The 'investigation' was a total whitewash. They were clearly biased, covering up information, fudging data, refusing to share data and hiding behind FOIA legislation.

All five investigations? Wow they've got everyone in on their scam and involved in this big conspiracy Obviously neither one of you bothered to read or even watch the segment on the video I posted and you're speaking without even knowing what actually came out of those FIVE separate investigations... Yes, let's talk about confirmation bias, shall we! Lol



But look, EVEN IF this was truly a massive conspiracy AND everyone was in on it AND there was absolutely no truth to it, would you tell me we have nothing to do with

- 90% of fish in the ocean being gone due to greedy, irresponsible overfishing-

- the sea is actually dying along with plant and animal life from (among other reasons) ocean acidification (Ocean Acidification: The Other CO2 Problem),

- that no matter what you say the Arctic sea ice IS melting, and it is actually melting much faster than originally predicted.

- mass extinctions are occurring, leading scientists to believe we've started the 6th mass extinctions, and were to blame for not all but a great many of these species dying or at risk.

- that we've managed to create a huge island of plastic right in the middle of the ocean,

- that we're so freaking loud that whales can't hear and communicate with each other or they have to basically keep 'yelling' if they want to be heard.

- the coming water crisis/shortage

- overpopulation, earth degradation, toxic dumping in rivers and lakes (not to mention where it ultimately ends up; in our bodies - even as newborns, through mother's milk)

Etc etc etc... To name only a few!


In the end, every single one of these impressive, um, accomplishments of this great civilization of ours requires more than a quick, feelgood fix to patch things up. No, all of these require the same thing, which is identical to what global warming should convince us is absolutely, unquestionably NECESSARY if we have any hopes that our species at least appear to be somewhat as wonderful as we think it is and that is a complete change in how we view the natural world, ourselves, our relationship with and dependence on it and in how we live on this planet. A radical change, which, of course, isn't in a million years going to happen... one look at the world now makes this painfully obvious.

(No, *this* species is going to resist any change, pretend, deny and invent all kinds of reassuring reasons to justify keeping things juuuust the way they like it. And they'll pull it off and truly believe it right up until its right in their face and far past the point where anything can,be done. Then they'll blame x and cry, asking why no one ever told them? They would have done something if only they'd known! And when they are inevitably confronted with having been told, they'll lash out and complain that someone should have said this was important! If they'd known it was important they would have done something! .... And on and on... Were really are quite a stupid species.)


Of course the planet will survive. The planet will heal itself without us, after having spit out the destructive naked apes who spread like varmint and spread their mindless destruction like a cancer that metastasizes, attacking one part before moving on to the next. What possible use would it be to have this huge brain and yet fail at the most basic, essential task -the only one that actually matters, really- keeping our species going? Imagine that! Man, the master of all things on this planet, convinced of his superiority over the dumb animals and nature that he has dominion over....cannot even keep his kind alive! In evolutionary terms, that's a pretty embarrassing fail. Ya, intelligence my ass. Actually creating your own destruction is not what one would call intelligent, now is it?! But that's what we're excelling at right now. Even better, we even pretend or deny that's not the case - in spite of it being so obvious a child could figure it out! How special are we?! I doubt there is any other animal capable of doing that!


That's why the whole denying thing is so ridiculous. You think its a scam? Fine, whatever, ok, let's just say its a scam and stop wasting time debating details, allegations, conspiracies and all of that. Are you then going to tell me all the other examples are also just big conspiracies too? There really is no problem with our civilization/culture/lifestyle? Nothing to change, nothing to see here, just move along? Is your mind truly capable of this much denial?


Arguing about climate change is a massive waste of time and a distraction. The fact is that climate change is only one of many trainwrecks of our own making that we need to stop pretending is not serious and can be ignored or avoided by denying it without the consequences of this exploding in our (more likely our descendants) faces when its too late for anything by then (arguably we've already passed that threshold or at best will soon be passing it).


The truth is that if we wanted to have any chance of surviving as a species, huge changes (ie NOT just starting to recycle or getting a smaller car to replace your SUV type of changes), not only to our lifestyle, our habits and consumption choices. The truth is capitalism prevents these changes from ever happening even if we somehow were all willing to do it - which.is not exactly likely). Capitalism, growth and mass consumption will never cease to be completely at odds with the survival of humans on this planet. I assume denial's just the easy, no-stress way of avoiding having to think about the whole thing.



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dSa9tyuIdkI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/d5iBOXcoP_8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KkEmLRCP078" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZVhY_wwk18M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A few years ago I began to feel pretty apocalyptic. But I hesitated to use that word, in part because of those drawings I’ve seen of crazy penitents carrying “The End is Near” signs, and in part because of the power of the word itself. Apocalypse. I didn’t want to use it lightly.

But then a friend and fellow activist said, “What will it take for you to finally call it an apocalypse? The death of the salmon? Global warming? The ozone hole? The reduction of krill populations off Antarctica by 90 percent, the turning of the sea off San Diego into a dead zone, the same for the Gulf of Mexico? How about the end of the great coral reefs? The extirpation of two hundred species per day? Four hundred? Six hundred? Give me a specific threshold, Derrick, a specific point at which you’ll finally use that word.”

* * *

Do you believe that our culture will undergo a voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living?

For the last several years I’ve taken to asking people this question, at talks and rallies, in libraries, on buses, in airplanes, at the grocery store, the hardware store. Everywhere. The answers range from emphatic nos to laughter. No one answers in the affirmative. One fellow at one talk did raise his hand, and when everyone looked at him, he dropped his hand, then said, sheepishly, “Oh, voluntary? No, of course not.” My next question: how will this understanding—that this culture will not voluntarily stop destroying the natural world, eliminating indigenous cultures, exploiting the poor, and killing those who resist—shift our strategy and tactics? The answer? Nobody knows, because we never talk about it: we’re too busy pretending the culture will undergo a magical transformation.

- Derrick Jensen

 

[Miss*Bijou]

Nice collection Bijou, I happen to have all there books, I take it you watched What a way To go? Another important one is, William Catton Overshoot

Thanks, I've never heard of him so I'll check it out.

Yes, I've watched What a Way To Go. I knew Derrick Jensen and Daniel Quinn already and have a few of their books. I had no idea who Richard Manning was but I've been wanting to get one of his books since then. Haven't gotten around to doing that yet. lol

I did find the movie interesting but I think I preferred End:Civ - Resist or Die...but they are both great. I don't know if you know or like Arundhati Roy (Have you watched "We"? So good.) but I watched this "talk" (I guess that's what it is?) a few months ago with Derrick Jensen AND her...and I liked it. She's awesome. It's not exactly about the environment specifically but really good. Anyway, check it out if you feel like it http://youtu.be/lwy0yvhstS0

 

[mik]

Only 2 per cent of Canadians who responded to a new opinion poll believe climate change is not occurring.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...elieve-in-climate-change-poll/article4482183/

Looks like the 2% have been brainwashed by the 1%.

 

[mik]

Strange, though, to see such a poll published in the pro-Harper Globe and Mail.

 

[bcneil]

The article in question with a few highlights

You are right, you can't really use data from optional opinion polls.
But I have seen several different types of polls, seems about 80% of Canadians understand the science, Western Europe is closer to 90%
America trails with about 65%. (guess why? Nope not cause they have more science education )

Global warming or climate change isn't about science, its politics.

If someone doesn't think co2 is increasing in the atmosphere and/or temperature has not risen.
Then enlighten me.....What would be a good way to determine if either are true?
What methods would YOU use to test this out....IE...experiments, mathematical models....What would YOU DO???

If you think CO2 does not have the properties to increase temperature......here is a little carrot.
Find out the properties that make CO2 a greenhouse gas, and gases like 02 of N2 not.
You know, the differences....
Then even if you disagree with that, you at least know what you are disagreeing too.

If you are one who thinks its all about the methane. Then you should have information as why NH4 is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, what the properties NH4 has that cause this. Also know the relative concentrations of each gas, and how NH4's stronger effect relates to this.

It often blows my mind how many people who aren't sure the scientific reason O2 and CO2 differ as greenhouse gases (regardless of wether they believe the reasons or not) Yet are confident enough to discredit all of science about this.