Return of the Inquisition

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Well that went well.. :grin:

And that's what happens when there's full on confrontation and little discussion.. There is undoubtably a political engine inside the GW movement. And EVERYONE can play politics. But THIS topic is a lot more interesting when you find out how little folks actually know about the science and how the media has tortured and skewed this issue.

What is the nature of this "engine" and what are it's objectives?

[flacaltenn]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Just because little folks know about global warming doesn't make it any less valid. Do you only listen to tall people?

I read the actual science and the papers. That's what I've done about it for about 12 years now. Would LOVE to find a good midget or tall person to discuss the actual details. The politics of it bore me -- because it's so totally transparently politically charged. I take a pass on stuff like activists threatening the "other side" with inquisitions.. Like this thread.

I haven't found a correlation between stature or BMI that corresponds to what anyone knows about GW claims and science and hype. Have You?

BTW -- nice to chat with you again too D-Ray !!!

[flacaltenn]

Originally Posted by Boreas

What is the nature of this "engine" and what are it's objectives?

Are you familiar with UN IPCC conferences? Ever read their "mission statement".. They are extremely honest about THEIR objectives. (even tho the IPCC is not TRULY a science driven investigation -- they "rent" scientists to provide justification for their myriad of social justice and redistributionist efforts on behalf of GW) 2/3 of the IPCC is non-science. Economists and poly sci and sociologists.. I know that technically they consider themselves part of the science -- but it's telling who actually RUNS those conferences.

Also telling that each one of them ends in protests and walkouts and hissy fits from the "have-not" countries that APPROVE all of this "science"..

Their mission statement says right there in big print that they are ONLY studying the MAN-MADE causes of Global Warming. Not truly interested in Climate Science or how all those massive thermal pathways and storage mechanism actually work.

Then -- there's "big wind and big solar" which by NOW have been over-inflated and overhyped as the SOLUTION to this problem. BUT -- I'd rather discuss the myriad of theories and projections and leave the "underlying motivators" to the political brawlers.

[nailer]

GW is consumer Science. I'm speaking to the political aspect of the wide spread observation that it does indeed appear to be getting warmer since 1980. Scientist are gathering data and feeding said data into some fairly complex computer models. Fear = Power

With all the coal and oil we've been burning since the emergence of steam power I don't see how any rational person would argue that we haven't been adding heat to the atmosphere. Lot's of carbon dioxide too. I remember when scientists were declaring that the greenhouse effect was going to bring on another ice age if we did change our ways. In addition, modern urban living also makes things warmer.

Speaking of heating up the atmosphere, there is the Sun. Data gather by scientists and massaged by computer models give indication that for a relatively short period the Sun has been putting out more energy warming things up for the inner planets. Scientists think the greenhouse effect reduces the amount of solar energy that reaches Earth's surface.

[sheltiedave]

There really isn't too much to talk about with global warming, if you look at average ocean levels and total glacial coverage area at the poles and associated mountainous glaciers.

If ocean levels are getting higher, and coverage is getting smaller, we are seeing a warming trend. If we are not seeing increased snow activity to replenish the glaciers as traditional models dictate, tipping us toward an ice age, then a new paradigm needs to be developed.

We are now arguing over the new paradigm, as the oceans rise and glaciers shrink, and we are past the tipping point. And yes, I am a scientist.

[flacaltenn]

Originally Posted by nailer

GW is consumer Science. I'm speaking to the political aspect of the wide spread observation that it does indeed appear to be getting warmer since 1980. Scientist are gathering data and feeding said data into some fairly complex computer models. Fear = Power

With all the coal and oil we've been burning since the emergence of steam power I don't see how any rational person would argue that we haven't been adding heat to the atmosphere. Lot's of carbon dioxide too. I remember when scientists were declaring that the greenhouse effect was going to bring on another ice age if we did change our ways. In addition, modern urban living also makes things warmer.

Speaking of heating up the atmosphere, there is the Sun. Data gather by scientists and massaged by computer models give indication that for a relatively short period the Sun has been putting out more energy warming things up for the inner planets. Scientists think the greenhouse effect reduces the amount of solar energy that reaches Earth's surface.

I have run into some true deniers. Folks I've battled with because they reject basic tenets of the GreenHouse theory. They INVENT science because they are too lazy to tackle the many theories of GW on their merits.

For me -- I accept the GHouse and the fact that CO2 is a critical GH gas. The disconnect on that is that CO2 has accepted powers to warm the surface. And that the GW lore has invented superpowers for CO2 beyond that basic science.

By basic Physics and Chemistry -- it's generally agreed that a doubling of CO2 concentration will "force" about a 1.1degC change in surface temp. ((that's WITHOUT the speculated "runaway feedbacks" and "climate sensitivity" multipliers that are part of the GW thesis)) The Indust. Revolution started at 280ppm and we are now at 400ppm. Not even quite to the FIRST doubling.. And the NEXT doubling won't occur until the atmos conc. reaches 1120ppm !!! That's not likely under any emissions scenario until well into the 22nd Century. So if THAT is the extent of adding our CO2 to the atmos -- it would never be a major confrontational issue.

But instead -- the CO2 "superpowers" invented to get those dire predictions of 6 or even 8degC by 2100 include dubious assumptions about release of frozen calthrates, positive feedbacks involving water vapor (clouds), the oceans refusing to take up the 50% of man's emissions that they currently do (we think) and other items of issue that are NO WHERE NEAR "settled science"..

It's also telling that the public propaganda campaign has purposely confused "carbon pollution" with CO2 emissions to attempt to make CO2 a pollutant merely for it's GHouse properties. The stuff that every living creature that IS NOT a plant emits at 4 to 8 times the concentration of the surrounding "clean air" --- and that plants consider food. If CO2 is a pollutant because of GHouse considerations -- so is the DOMINANT GHouse gas -- water vapor..

[Denier]

http://www.climatedepot.com

[Denier]

They need to put the left wing radicals involved in the climate scam in prison for life under the RICO act.

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by Denier

Its a lie. Read the links.

Edit - arguing with morons only brings everyone down.

[Denier]

http://wesupporttheblue.tk/2016/11/2...-report-story/