Hitler again? Can’t people get over the whole Hitler thing? It’s seems people who liken the democrats to nazis have this over simplified and glorified perspective of the world.
in terms of facts this video is sparse. Actually no, it’s quite bare. There are random references to altitude (as if that has anything to do with Global Warming), claims that glacier melting in a specific location are only “conjectural” (as if that doesn’t mean something), and that the massive amounts of snow in the south this YEAR disprove a phenomenon 100 years in the making. To top it all off, it mentions van jones as some sort of spokesperson for “the movement”, as if he is a respected authority in the field of climatology. This logic is grade A bullshit.
There are glaciers in parts of the world that have been severely diminished, there are entire ecosystems that have been dramatically effected by even tiny amounts of warming thus far, and the data agreed upon by the scientific community as the most reliable shows a warming period EVEN IN THE LAST 15 YEARS. Although the last 15 years have gone through a reduced warming faze, they are still the hottest on record in many years. Even this fucking Fox article said this “climate gate” bullshit does not disprove global warming. What is so illogical about this?
Of course it’s not really about logic is it? As many republicans have already stated they are terrified that green policies have the potential to devastate the economy. It appears that even in the face of overwhelming evidence for a global problem some people only want to think about money. Perhaps that doesn’t sound fair, but that’s really the way it looks.
Sky
P.S.- Snow doesn’t mean global cooling, snow is precipitation. To get snow, you need WARM MOIST AIR to collide with cooler air. This year, unusual amounts of warm moist air from the south collided with an air current from the north that provided record amounts of snow. This is actually evidence for global warming. Don’t believe me? There is actually more snow in Georgia than in New Hampshire. The temperatures up north are very warm for this time of year and there is little precipitation. There was not enough snow in Vancouver to host the Olympic games this year.
From FoxNews:
“And what is plainly obvious to all of us is that whether you think the cause is human-induced global warming or simply cyclical weather conditions the climate is changing up here and the ice cap is melting.”
Before coming onto these forums I honestly didn’t even know this topic was up for debate. I have lots of empirical/peer reviewed evidence, but I would have to go on a photocopying spree and the University Library is closed for the Olympics. I don’t care if you believe it’s man’s fault or not, but to doubt climate change, and not specifically warming, but heat and precipitation distribution, in addition to other factors, is for me at least, unfathomable.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
The temperatures up north are very warm for this time of year and there is little precipitation. There was not enough snow in Vancouver to host the Olympic games this year.
[/quote]
Being from Vancouver I can tell you (Canadian stereotypes aside) that we actually rarely ever get snow. About 1 day of snowfall a year on average, and it’s usually gone in hours, if it even sticks at all. Also this year has been super rainy thus far. The Olympic committee planned all along to supplement Mt. Cypress’ (mogul/jump event venue) snow supply all along.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
The temperatures up north are very warm for this time of year and there is little precipitation. There was not enough snow in Vancouver to host the Olympic games this year.
[/quote]
Being from Vancouver I can tell you (Canadian stereotypes aside) that we actually rarely ever get snow. About 1 day of snowfall a year on average, and it’s usually gone in hours, if it even sticks at all. Also this year has been super rainy thus far. The Olympic committee planned all along to supplement Mt. Cypress’ (mogul/jump event venue) snow supply all along.[/quote]
That may be true, but the temp up north is very high for this time of year. As i said, there has been more snow fall in the South than in the northern states like New York and New Hampshire. The grass is showing on the ground up here which has never happened in my memory, however short it is.
From FoxNews:
“And what is plainly obvious to all of us is that whether you think the cause is human-induced global warming or simply cyclical weather conditions the climate is changing up here and the ice cap is melting.”
Before coming onto these forums I honestly didn’t even know this topic was up for debate. I have lots of empirical/peer reviewed evidence, but I would have to go on a photocopying spree and the University Library is closed for the Olympics. I don’t care if you believe it’s man’s fault or not, but to doubt climate change, and not specifically warming, but heat and precipitation distribution, in addition to other factors, is for me at least, unfathomable.[/quote]
One of the main problems coming out right now is that the Raw data is severely flawed, so any science using that data is in question.
Phil jones (one of the main guys in the climategate scandle just did a Q and A):
Even a guy who is one of the man foundations for the man made global warming theory makes some pretty powerful admissions. This should be front page news across the globe, and no one is covering it much here.
From FoxNews:
“And what is plainly obvious to all of us is that whether you think the cause is human-induced global warming or simply cyclical weather conditions the climate is changing up here and the ice cap is melting.”
Before coming onto these forums I honestly didn’t even know this topic was up for debate. I have lots of empirical/peer reviewed evidence, but I would have to go on a photocopying spree and the University Library is closed for the Olympics. I don’t care if you believe it’s man’s fault or not, but to doubt climate change, and not specifically warming, but heat and precipitation distribution, in addition to other factors, is for me at least, unfathomable.[/quote]
One of the main problems coming out right now is that the Raw data is severely flawed, so any science using that data is in question.
Phil jones (one of the main guys in the climategate scandle just did a Q and A):
Even a guy who is one of the man foundations for the man made global warming theory makes some pretty powerful admissions. This should be front page news across the globe, and no one is covering it much here.
[/quote]
Reread it, he admits that the last 15 years show slight warming that is just barely statistically insignificant (in other words, the earth has warmed in the last 15 years but not that much). The last two years show a slight cooling, however he says that this time frame is far too short to be of any significance. Even if the earth cooled for 5-10 more years it would not be statistically significant and would not negate global warming.
Before coming onto these forums I honestly didn’t even know this topic was up for debate.[/quote]
Well why should you have? “The debate is over,” don’cha know.
I can think of a British chap who has lots of evidence which was a principal basis for decisions on which trillions of dollars rode, except his dog ate it and it might or might not be in his office somewhere buried under all the papers, as his organizational skills aren’t the best.
Oddly enough, the fact that a given person finds something unfathomable is rather unpersuasive evidence.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I can think of a British chap who has lots of evidence which was a principal basis for decisions on which trillions of dollars rode, except his dog ate it and it might or might not be in his office somewhere buried under all the papers, as his organizational skills aren’t the best.
[/quote]
“But, I have DATA!! Wait, let me go get, uhhhhh, oh… uh, nevermind… Baaaaaaad, dog! Baaaaaaaad, doooooogieeee!!”
From FoxNews:
“And what is plainly obvious to all of us is that whether you think the cause is human-induced global warming or simply cyclical weather conditions the climate is changing up here and the ice cap is melting.”
Before coming onto these forums I honestly didn’t even know this topic was up for debate. I have lots of empirical/peer reviewed evidence, but I would have to go on a photocopying spree and the University Library is closed for the Olympics. I don’t care if you believe it’s man’s fault or not, but to doubt climate change, and not specifically warming, but heat and precipitation distribution, in addition to other factors, is for me at least, unfathomable.[/quote]
One of the main problems coming out right now is that the Raw data is severely flawed, so any science using that data is in question.
Phil jones (one of the main guys in the climategate scandle just did a Q and A):
Even a guy who is one of the man foundations for the man made global warming theory makes some pretty powerful admissions. This should be front page news across the globe, and no one is covering it much here.
[/quote]
Reread it, he admits that the last 15 years show slight warming that is just barely statistically insignificant (in other words, the earth has warmed in the last 15 years but not that much). The last two years show a slight cooling, however he says that this time frame is far too short to be of any significance. Even if the earth cooled for 5-10 more years it would not be statistically significant and would not negate global warming.
[/quote]
So we are basing economically crippling laws on a trend that is not yet statistically significant? A trend that is also seen time and again in history. He flat out admits that the debate is not settled and that there is no scientific consensus. Coming from a guy that’s one of the biggest anthropomorphic proponents, that’s a big deal.
"E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
The strongest wording he uses for his certainty of man made warming is “there’s evidence”.
What this guy says is so different from what you hear from what you hear from the political alarmists. That is what I’m pointing out.
“Even if the earth cooled for 5-10 more years it would not be statistically significant and would not negate global warming.”
Um, yes, it would mean the recent warming would never be statistically significant and global warming would be disproved in the current state. You don’t seem to understand that 10-10 years of cooling at -.12C/year (the current trend) does in fact negate 10-15 years of warming at .12C/year (the trend since 95). It doesn’t take rocket science to do that calculation.
From FoxNews:
“And what is plainly obvious to all of us is that whether you think the cause is human-induced global warming or simply cyclical weather conditions the climate is changing up here and the ice cap is melting.”
Before coming onto these forums I honestly didn’t even know this topic was up for debate. I have lots of empirical/peer reviewed evidence, but I would have to go on a photocopying spree and the University Library is closed for the Olympics. I don’t care if you believe it’s man’s fault or not, but to doubt climate change, and not specifically warming, but heat and precipitation distribution, in addition to other factors, is for me at least, unfathomable.[/quote]
One of the main problems coming out right now is that the Raw data is severely flawed, so any science using that data is in question.
Phil jones (one of the main guys in the climategate scandle just did a Q and A):
Even a guy who is one of the man foundations for the man made global warming theory makes some pretty powerful admissions. This should be front page news across the globe, and no one is covering it much here.
[/quote]
Reread it, he admits that the last 15 years show slight warming that is just barely statistically insignificant (in other words, the earth has warmed in the last 15 years but not that much). The last two years show a slight cooling, however he says that this time frame is far too short to be of any significance. Even if the earth cooled for 5-10 more years it would not be statistically significant and would not negate global warming.
[/quote]
So we are basing economically crippling laws on a trend that is not yet statistically significant? A trend that is also seen time and again in history. He flat out admits that the debate is not settled and that there is no scientific consensus. Coming from a guy that’s one of the biggest anthropomorphic proponents, that’s a big deal.
"E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
The strongest wording he uses for his certainty of man made warming is “there’s evidence”.
What this guy says is so different from what you hear from what you hear from the political alarmists. That is what I’m pointing out.
“Even if the earth cooled for 5-10 more years it would not be statistically significant and would not negate global warming.”
Um, yes, it would mean the recent warming would never be statistically significant and global warming would be disproved in the current state. You don’t seem to understand that 10-10 years of cooling at -.12C/year (the current trend) does in fact negate 10-15 years of warming at .12C/year (the trend since 95). It doesn’t take rocket science to do that calculation.[/quote]
Who said that environmental policy/actions are economically crippling? Do you have proof? Other countries like france and germany have much stricter environmental laws than ours and their economy’s are better for it. Besides, the most important steps towards reducing carbon emissions and pollution are simple and free: Live a modest lifestyle, buy raw healthy natural foods, eat less beef, and compost/recycle your own waste as much as possible. If people could do that the economic steps we would have to take would be mitigated.
You mention that this warming trend has been seen time and time again. This statement is misleading and ultimately false. There has never been a period of rapid warming like the one in the past 100 years. Sure the planet has warmed before, but given the industrial boom that overlaps this period of rapid warming there is evidence to support we are a factor.
You said that Jones mentioned there is no consensus. Quote please? In any case, 97% of climatologists that are actively publishing research on global warming agree that the earth is warming and that we are a factor. That is a clear consensus.
Lastly, your math does not take into account the most rapid years of warming. 1900-1950 the earth’s temperature skyrocketed, cooled for a few years, then skyrocketed again. 15 years of slight warming seems quite normal given the patterns of warming in the last 100 years.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I can think of a British chap who has lots of evidence which was a principal basis for decisions on which trillions of dollars rode, except his dog ate it and it might or might not be in his office somewhere buried under all the papers, as his organizational skills aren’t the best.
[/quote]
“But, I have DATA!! Wait, let me go get, uhhhhh, oh… uh, nevermind… Baaaaaaad, dog! Baaaaaaaad, doooooogieeee!!”[/quote]
[quote]He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.[/quote]
So, as mentioned before, in this 100 year period we have 31 years (1910-1940, inclusive) plus 24 years (1975-1998 inclusive) don’t count because he has natural explanations.
And the last 15 years don’t count because they are a blip.
Leaving 70 years out of 100 that we should pay no mind to for one reason or another. Only 30 years tell us the true story, which of course is AGW.
And now,
[quote]"E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
[Jones:] I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."[/quote]
Well, out of those 50 years (1960-2009 inclusive), 24 years (1975-1998 inclusive) have natural explanations, and the lack of significant warming from 1995 to 2009 inclusive is a blip that shouldn’t be allowed to change conclusions.
So out of this 50 year period, everything from 1975 to 2009 either has natural explanations for warming, or is a no-warming blip that should be ignored.
Leaving us, it would appear, 1960-1974 inclusive to work with so as to come to our conclusion that man is the principal cause of global warming.
I think I got it now.
How could I have ever found this stuff questionable? This has got to be hands-down about the bestest science ever.
From FoxNews:
“And what is plainly obvious to all of us is that whether you think the cause is human-induced global warming or simply cyclical weather conditions the climate is changing up here and the ice cap is melting.”
Before coming onto these forums I honestly didn’t even know this topic was up for debate. I have lots of empirical/peer reviewed evidence, but I would have to go on a photocopying spree and the University Library is closed for the Olympics. I don’t care if you believe it’s man’s fault or not, but to doubt climate change, and not specifically warming, but heat and precipitation distribution, in addition to other factors, is for me at least, unfathomable.[/quote]
One of the main problems coming out right now is that the Raw data is severely flawed, so any science using that data is in question.
Phil jones (one of the main guys in the climategate scandle just did a Q and A):
Even a guy who is one of the man foundations for the man made global warming theory makes some pretty powerful admissions. This should be front page news across the globe, and no one is covering it much here.
[/quote]
Reread it, he admits that the last 15 years show slight warming that is just barely statistically insignificant (in other words, the earth has warmed in the last 15 years but not that much). The last two years show a slight cooling, however he says that this time frame is far too short to be of any significance. Even if the earth cooled for 5-10 more years it would not be statistically significant and would not negate global warming.
[/quote]
So we are basing economically crippling laws on a trend that is not yet statistically significant? A trend that is also seen time and again in history. He flat out admits that the debate is not settled and that there is no scientific consensus. Coming from a guy that’s one of the biggest anthropomorphic proponents, that’s a big deal.
"E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?
I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
The strongest wording he uses for his certainty of man made warming is “there’s evidence”.
What this guy says is so different from what you hear from what you hear from the political alarmists. That is what I’m pointing out.
“Even if the earth cooled for 5-10 more years it would not be statistically significant and would not negate global warming.”
Um, yes, it would mean the recent warming would never be statistically significant and global warming would be disproved in the current state. You don’t seem to understand that 10-10 years of cooling at -.12C/year (the current trend) does in fact negate 10-15 years of warming at .12C/year (the trend since 95). It doesn’t take rocket science to do that calculation.[/quote]
Who said that environmental policy/actions are economically crippling? Do you have proof? Other countries like france and germany have much stricter environmental laws than ours and their economy’s are better for it. Besides, the most important steps towards reducing carbon emissions and pollution are simple and free: Live a modest lifestyle, buy raw healthy natural foods, eat less beef, and compost/recycle your own waste as much as possible. If people could do that the economic steps we would have to take would be mitigated.
[/quote]
You ask for proof then throw out claim sans proof in the very next sentence, nice.
But really and truly it boils down to simple math and logic. You take the amount you are spending divide by the jobs created, and compare that to an estimate of how many jobs were taken out of the free market by taxation. The cost of each green job is ridiculous when you look at money spent per job. Depending on sector and study, I’ve seen estimates as high as 9 to 1 (destroyed to created). Subsidized markets amount to nothing more than wealth destruction. If you spend more money on something than it is worth (wind, solar, est.) (return on investment is negative) you effectively remove wealth from the system (not even factoring in loss through administrative costs).
To cut CO2 emissions by 23% would destroy 80,000 jobs in the coal industry alone according to the CBO. They also detail cost increases on individuals and such.
Really? That isn’t what he says. The only time he talks about evidence of manmande warming is 1950+ and more rapid warming periods are seen before that. And if there wasn’t significant warming before the industrial age, explain how we got out of the ice age.
He makes the claim that the only thing that sets 1950+ apart from common historical trends is that there doesn’t seem to be a natural explanation. Something I’ve seen contradicted on many occasions. (i can track some of those down for you if you’d like)
Besides the fact that there is no real reliable data for before the past 100 years. Even modern estimations of global temperature are debatable.
"N - When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean - and what don’t they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well. "
Yet even according to Mr. Jones that period was a natural trend not caused by man.
