Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.

[Nous]

Human ingenuity has continually found ways to improve our ability to find more fuel or expand the usage of the fuel we have.

There is nothing more irrational than to believe that fossil fuels will not run out.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Can't tell if satire....

I'm not a Poe, but I see the humor in atheistic worldviews. It stops my from crying more often into a box of tissues.

 

[siti]

Where in the hell do you think innovation comes from? Once you take away someone's ability to prosper from their own ideas, people will stop coming up with ideas.

Oh yes! I hadn't really thought about that...now here's an idea for you to ponder...maybe there is more to human "prospering" than financial wealth. And here's another - how many people actually prosper economically to a significant degree from their own ideas? Capitalism is not the 'mother of invention' - it is rather the 'plunderer of invention' - case in point, Gary Kildall invented CP/M - Bill Gates got Tim Paterson to copy it and call it QDOS which later developed into MS-DOS...who made money out of it - the inventor or the copy-cat? Kildall still made a few bob on other things, but plenty others weren't so lucky - Humphrey Davy, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Charles Goodyear...the list goes on. They never made money out of their inventiveness because they lacked the business acumen - other, far less capable humans made fortunes by stealing their innovations. And the really best ideas never get done because only because they would not make a fortune for someone or, more likely these days, some faceless corporate entity. This (capitalism) is the reason why we are still lumbering around the clouds in 747s instead of gliding at the edge of space in Concorde III.

 

[Debateable]

Please tell me how Socialism would be bad for the United States. This is what I'm not understanding. Also, it works in Canada, which is pretty large, so I'm not really seeing the comparison. What I'm seeing is people who are intelligent, yet can't afford to go to University; I'm seeing people with cavities who cannot afford a dentist. This rarely happens in the UK as we have government support for these lower classes.

Also, the UK is very diverse. You should see London.

If Canada's socialist healthcare is so good, why are they crossing the borders to come to our doctors?

When governments get involved it gets more expensive. Healthcare, Universities, Education, etc. Government is exceedingly bad at these things on a large scale. Especially when money and lobbyists are involved.

 

[Debateable]

Oh yes! I hadn't really thought about that...now here's an idea for you to ponder...maybe there is more to human "prospering" than financial wealth. And here's another - how many people actually prosper economically to a significant degree from their own ideas? Capitalism is not the 'mother of invention' - it is rather the 'plunderer of invention' - case in point, Gary Kildall invented CP/M - Bill Gates got Tim Paterson to copy it and call it QDOS which later developed into MS-DOS...who made money out of it - the inventor or the copy-cat? Kildall still made a few bob on other things, but plenty others weren't so lucky - Humphrey Davy, Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla, Charles Goodyear...the list goes on. They never made money out of their inventiveness because they lacked the business acumen - other, far less capable humans made fortunes by stealing their innovations. And the really best ideas never get done because only because they would not make a fortune for someone or, more likely these days, some faceless corporate entity. This (capitalism) is the reason why we are still lumbering around the clouds in 747s instead of gliding at the edge of space in Concorde III.

Umm no, capitalism has nothing to do with why we still use 747's vs Concorde III's. It's regulation. When it costs nearly half a billion dollars to certify a newly designed airplane that probably only cost 20-30 million to design, innovation tends to fall to the wayside.

I think the shortfalls you see happening a lot of the times and asserting them to Capitalism has closer ties to regulation. Regulation is used to prevent competition. The large and wealthy companies can comply with a lot or regulations easier than a small or startup. THAT is the real problem, which comes from lobbying.

As far as people stealing other people's ideas, that is always going to happen. There are deplorable people everywhere. That's not an argument against capitalism. Everyone IS more wealthy from capitalism because of all the great inventions we get to buy and use that make our lives better. You don't get that out of socialism. At least not to the degree you do from capitalism. I honestly don't understand what you hate about capitalism so much. How many societies have ended in absolute poverty and death from capitalism? How many from socialism? Case closed.

 

[siti]

Umm no, capitalism has nothing to do with why we still use 747's vs Concorde III's. It's regulation. When it costs nearly half a billion dollars to certify a newly designed airplane that probably only cost 20-30 million to design, innovation tends to fall to the wayside.

I think the shortfalls you see happening a lot of the times and asserting them to Capitalism has closer ties to regulation. Regulation is used to prevent competition. The large and wealthy companies can comply with a lot or regulations easier than a small or startup. THAT is the real problem, which comes from lobbying.

So you advocate an unregulated air transportation system - what a very interesting idea! That might turn out to be the quickest way to get rid of capitalism altogether.

As far as people stealing other people's ideas, that is always going to happen. There are deplorable people everywhere. That's not an argument against capitalism.

Well I suppose not - its more of an inevitable result of capitalism.

Everyone IS more wealthy from capitalism

Everyone? Again I ask, when did this happen?

I honestly don't understand what you hate about capitalism so much. How many societies have ended in absolute poverty and death from capitalism? How many from socialism? Case closed.

What you really mean is how many powerful western economies have ended in absolute poverty and death? They haven't (yet) - but the collateral damage caused by maintaining them is huge and possibly irreparable.

 

[james bond]

Of course, they hardly make a secret of this, I've never met a believer that could care less about the science of the problem, it's the 'solutions' they are interested in-

global cooling, warming, weirding- the problem can be anything, the solutions are the only thing that never changes: the transfer of wealth and rights from private to public hands. Many people genuinely believe this is for the best and any literally any means are justified by that end.

I don't believe it's a transfer of wealth from private to public hands. That's for the donkey libs to believe, i.e. good for the common person. It's to transfer wealth from capitalists to socialists or people who make money from a service economy such as the silicon moguls, Hollywood, insurance, finance, education, human services and the like. They want to increase production of products, i.e. capital but also put a service component to it. For example, companies do not buy computers anymore but contracts to use the computers.

The believers could care about the science of the problem but without a solution, then they can't profit from it. Today, the Monsantos and mutators of the world have seized power and people will follow them and become worse off for it. It's still best to stand up for what one believes is right and keep capitalism alive until we can get more of our share in the profits before the next wave of socialism takes over. It's about changing to a service based economy, but still keep capitalism alive here and not globalized. Obama sold out to the Muslims and wealthy liberals.

 

[Shad]

If Canada's socialist healthcare is so good, why are they crossing the borders to come to our doctors?

Because people that tell you this stuff have no first hand experience of the system they are talking about. My nephew almost died because of that system. He was saved by the medical workers in Seattle. He was airlift from Vancouver's Children's hospital (the only on the West coast) to Seattle as they didn't have the equipment required. The only equipment they had that mattered was part of the airlift.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I am so happy I left this religion last year. They kept asking for donations at my college and I said, "nah bruh! Only the Cosmic Teapot is real."

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So what you're saying is, we're intentionally changing the economic landscape from a resource exploitative one, to a more earth conscious, resource sustainable form of capitalism or socialism. What's the big deal?

It isn't more earth conscious. The left would be on the right if they saw a path to power in it. And whether you care to believe it or not, the right is out for responsible exploitation of our resources, and if they aren't responsible, THEN it's the government's job to take them to the woodshed. But global warming, if it's happening at all, much less human caused, is easy to manipulate with changing variables, government complicity, with the backing of the useful idiots in the media. And the crisis is always in the future....further and further in the future it conveniently turns out. I guess you could call it a convenient lie.

Sir, I salute yer ability to provide us with stimulating and provocative reading material. You rarely fail to catch my attention. Now, having said that, can I ask if you intend to make any defense of the flammable material you posted above?

I posted references.

I have gotten the impression before that you know nothing at all about any of the science involved in modelling and predicting climate but instead rely completely on conspiratorial web sources that have not the least credibility. I myself know almost nothing about atmospheric science, meteorology, oceanography, weather systems or climate modelling so I'm willing to stand corrected if you are capable of correcting me.

How easily you ignore all the climategates.

I kinda hope you are right and we can celebrate the fact we aren't buggering the climate with a massive intercontinental fossil fuel bonfire party. I fear that isn't on the cards though.

Sounds like you're talking more about pollution than global warming. Funny that the former has been a long standing problem, which the capitalistic US is doing an admirable job of controlling, while authoritarian governments aren't, yet, again, who's the bad guys? Wy, the capitalists of course. But that's on the back burner and we're switching to global warming because the actual cause, the Sun, is silent and you can put words in its mouth--so to speak.

Evidence - where the is your evidence. Your argument is the equivalent of suggesting that evolution is a hoax because of Piltdown Man (and yes I am very well aware that there are people stupid enough to present that argument - on this issue you are equivalent to them). I gave you several pages of evidence to look at - you have so far presented an out of context quote from a single employee of one agency who clearly doesn't even know when the industrial revolution was.

Out of the mouths of babes, or the Devil himself, the Truth is the Truth. This is Climategate 2.1. all of which encompass thousands of damning emails. You're like Hillary, claim the Russians did it, but never able to deny the Truth contained in the emails.

Nobody would take it seriously at all - if it wasn't so serious - but the real problem right now is that there are - believe it or not - a hell of a lot of people who believe (on the basis of some of the silliest right-wing media anti-reasoning ever in the history of humankind) that your argument is correct. You don't get science from IBD for God's sake - its not even a 'newpaper' - its a media vehicle for right wing diatribe.

Need I reiterate, the Truth is the Truth.

You get science from making actual measurements and interpreting them according to tried and tested models

And the emails show that the data is being altered.

The only thing I take issue with here- comparing global warming to religion is a little unfair... to religion. Climastrologers would have to at least acknowledge their own faith to rise to this level. As is it's more of a superstition, a very ancient one at that

Faith/emotion overriding reason, by any other name, would smell as bad.

Right on. I HATE blind faith. That's why I trust Jesus. My opinions on climate change vary, Jesus's power does not.

Jesus supernatural qualities are the same, except they're easier to expose. Global warming enables hearsay to be hidden in mathematical manipulations. But ultimately they both rely on emotional blind faith in either--a personal interactive God, or that socialism isn't about the acquisition of power through the manipulation of crisis.

1950s Council of Rome was a bunch of billionaires and trillionaires (Primarily banking zionist Rothschild clones/puppets) who wanted to totally control the world by getting rid of all national boundaries, and setting up their economic control as the only viable solution. They had two concepts they thought might unite the planet - space alien invasion, and total ecological crisis - either of which would mandate everyone working for a common goal.
Well, the morons went and broke the planet - by which i mean - ALL the problems of planetary significance are caused by the metaphorical "fat rich guy" in a corporate boardroom, making decisions to squeeze another nickel out of you and i - so they can pocket it.

More anti-capitalist screed. You might have an argument if governments weren't the ones with the guns and the mandate to be the watchdogs for criminality in individuals and corporations. They call it corporate cronyism. The only way corporations could do what you say is by purchasing government complicity, which does happen all to often, and with an ignorant and apathetic populace, which is cultured with bread and circuses.[/QUOTE]

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There is nothing more irrational than to believe that fossil fuels will not run out.

I'm certainly not saying they're limitless, but there's plenty for now since we keep finding more, but we also continue with science and technology to acquire knowledge which will one day facilitate fusion. And we're continuing to improve solar technology which will one day produce hydrogen in near limitless quantities. And anyone who knows anything about the solar system knows its loaded with methane. And who know what lies yet unseen.

I think the hyper-militant attitude of angry leftists betrays their underlying goal....their hunger for power at any cost. Why else would they throw their base causes (racial colorblindness, freedom of religion and equality for women, gays and infidels in the face of Sharia theocracy, and sexist rapists like Bill Clinton, and equal rights for all while nurturing an unquenchable thirst for revenge) under the bus?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry Guy - one or two extra molecules...? I'm afraid I am probably not a skilled enough teacher to reduce the science of climatology to your obviously pre-school level of understanding

nice start!

'insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat' as they say, or at least betraying one's emotional stance on a belief. They also make for pretty boring discussions so I usually don't read passed them.
But since you put some effort in here I somehow feel you still deserve a response!

- but I'll give it a shot anyway because it is important. Let me try an analogy to start with - how many of the trillions of cells in the human body need to "go rogue' to trigger a cancer that can kill you? Right just one. OK - so making the number of bad bits small and the number of good bits huge doesn't help the argument. So lets forget that line of reasoning and focus on the actual science.

So one or two extra CO2 molecules in 10000 are actually potent, because they reproduce themselves by attacking and taking over other molecules? you are right, my pre-school education didn't cover that!

But you do identify an unambiguous truth by this analogy, that this trace amount cannot itself trap enough heat to produce any significant warming, something else is required

You know - I presume - that the 'greenhouse effect' is a real phenomenon. If not you can do an experiment yourself. Close all the windows in your car on a sunny day and sit inside. After a short time it will hotter inside than it is outside. This is because the heat energy (infrared radiation) is trapped inside - it can get through the glass but as it interacts with the stuff in the car (causing molecules to vibrate) on the way in it loses energy (lower frequency, higher wavelength) and when it is re-emitted it can't get back through the glass and remains trapped causing the atmosphere inside the car to heat up.

Well, the same thing happens with CO2 and other gases (like methane) in the earth's atmosphere acting like the glass of the windows. A proportion of the radiation from the sun arriving at the earth's surface is re-emitted but at lower energy, lower frequency, higher wavelength and cannot escape back into space because the CO2 (and other) molecules trap it just like the glass in the car window. This is not a bad thing because it is for this reason (in part) that the earth is not a frozen ice world.

Now you're on the right track, the GH effect is what makes life possible on this planet, and it's driven primarily, overwhelmingly by water vapor, not CO2

(The Ordovician ice age had >4000 ppm CO2)

But...if the levels of CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases becomes much higher than the levels that are normally present, then, it should be obvious, more energy is trapped within the atmosphere and it gets hotter.

True, water vapor. the principle driver of the GH effect, is measured in tens of thousands of ppm, so it should be obvious, and to scientists it is, that 1 or 2 extra per 10000 CO2 makes no significant addition to this.

This is the phenomenon of 'global warming' and we are - without any question whatsoever - in a period during which this is happening.

are we in a period where the stock market is going up or down? yes and no, depending on the timescale you give that 'period'. Post El Nino, the globe has been cooling relatively quickly since about the time of the US elections. And to use Al Gore's correlation = causation rule, it is an inconvenient truth that Trump has personally reversed global warming!

We have been actually measuring the average global temperature for 137 years

you think? So what were the temps at the south pole 137 years ago? - 30 years before the first explorer reached it? Let me guess, it was (very) remotely 'reconstructed' not measured

The only measurements that come anywhere close to an accurate average of the entire globe, are satellite measurements dating back to 1979, which show little or no statistically significant warming

and whether you are looking at the land, the ocean, or the overall average or at the global, northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere the coolest years were all between 1907 and 1911 and the hottest have all been since 2012. It has been getting gradually hotter for the last century. We have also been measuring the actual CO2 levels directly for more than 50 years and they follow the same trend as the temperature.

Again according to our most accurate data source, no,

2016 was the only year warmer than 1998.... by .02 C. hardly a terrifying increase over 18 years. But it's actually cooler again already than at one point in 1988. This is why there is no statistically significant warming, because the increase over the entire data set, is smaller than the amplitude of noise in that data.

e.g. if you are on a road with 2 ft dips and bumps, and after a mile you are 1 ft higher, you cannot conclude an upward trend for the road.


But all this is a moot point, because correlation does NOT = correlation. Try to think of the two most unrelated measurable sets of data you can. what are the odds that both will show an overall correlation (up or down)?
50%. i.e. not only does this not prove a casual correlation, it doesn't even hint at one.

The only causal correlation ever measured is the other way around, beyond dispute, higher global temps lead to higher atmospheric CO2 levels with a lag of around 900 years. This alone is good evidence that the opposite cannot occur to any significant degree, or we have a runaway feedback loop without a single SUV

We can also take ice cores and measure the amount of CO2 trapped in them. By correlating this with measured data we can estimate the atmospheric CO2 going back hundreds of thousands of years. By also examining pollen etc. we can find out what kinds of plants were growing and from that we can deduce information about the climate - whether it was a relatively hot or relatively cold climate (I am assuming that you know that there is a reason we don't currently grow bananas in Alaska so I don't need to go into this any deeper). I also assume that you know that the earth has gone through numerous cycles when the temperature has fluctuated between glacial (ice age) periods and interglacials (warmer climates). Well it turns out that the CO2 measurements we got from the ice core samples I just mentioned follow a trend that exactly matches these fluctuations - i.e. the more CO2 the hotter the atmosphere - and we know for certain (from archaeology) that these fluctuations are also mirrored by significantly rising and falling sea levels.

As above, all of what you say is true, but you have the causal correlation reversed, don't take my word for it. If you zoom out far enough on the chart, you can make them appear co-incident- as Al Gore did in his movie, and reverse the implied casual effect- but this is a slight of hand. The warmer the ocean, the more CO2 is released into atmos hundreds of years later. This is not even controversial scientifically

(900 years ago was the medieval warm period btw)

All of this is a natural cycle. All of this is going to happen with or without human activity or industry. This is called climate variability and we know it happens.

But...in all of the measurements that have been done on ice cores dating back to 600,000 years ago, we have never measured a level of CO2 higher than around 280 parts per million from any core dating to before about 200 years ago. The current level is about 400 parts per million. This is fully 40% higher than at the highest point of any interglacial period in the last 600,000 years. To suggest that this extra '1 or 2 molecules per 10,000' will not make any difference is equivalent to saying that making your car windows 40% thicker would have no effect on the atmosphere inside the car. Its almost like double-glazing your home and expecting it not be any warmer after you have done so.

No,
because adding 2 molecules in 10000 CO2 is not equivalent to adding 40% to GH gasses,it's somewhere around a hundredth of one percent

remember that water vapor represents the vast majority of GH gasses in quantity and effect

and I'm being an alarmist here, since we have only introduced about an extra 1.25 molecules per 10000!

The only question left is to determine what the cause of this extra CO2 is. And this is your homework. Get graphs of world population, global industrial productivity, agricultural productivity, oil production...any other measure of human activity you can plot on a global scale since, say, 1800 and put them side by side with a plot of atmospheric CO2, atmospheric methane and/or average global temperature and tell me what you notice. Correct, they're all pretty much the same shape. They have followed the same upward trend. They are, as we say in the trade, correlated. There IS - no question - a correlation between the unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, increasing global temperature and human agricultural and industrial production.

partly human activity and partly a natural response to the medieval warm period yes.

again though, correlation ≠ causation. There is a casual link we can identify, but only in the other direction,

You can critique this with data that shows otherwise - if you can find any - but please don't post any more silly remarks that simply display your profound ignorance of the subject or attempt to replace data with poorly written and baseless right-wing invective.

So your entire post came in the form of an insult sandwich. Very nice!

For the record; I don't have anything disparaging to say about your intellect. You seem like a perfectly intelligent, thoughtful, well meaning person to me. At the very least this assumption makes for a more interesting debate.

The bottom line here, is that this tiny trace of CO2 cannot trap enough heat to make any significant difference. If you disagree, you would have to argue this with practically every scientist on the planet on either side.

That's why the entire theory relies 100% computer simulated feedback loops, involving principally water vapor, not CO2. We can debate the validity of those simulations, but there is no disputing that they are key to any significant anthropogenic warming.

And that's before any debate about whether a little warming would even be a bad thing at all, or whether transferring vast and unprecedented wealth and freedoms to politicians to 'tackle' it would be a good idea.


But it is an important issue to understand for ourselves, we agree on that! There are hospitals in Africa that can't afford to put gas in their ambulances, rapidly increasing numbers of energy poverty deaths even in 'western' countries like Spain. You and I are incredibly lucky to have been born after a century of massive growth in standards of living worldwide, driven unambiguously by fossil fuels. Returning to pre-industrial standards is a real possibility, we can't take anything for granted.

 

[Yerda]

I posted references.

Other than the article in the OP? Can you direct me to them?

How easily you ignore all the climategates.

Not at all. All of the most damning evidence I've seen presented by the denialist side has been misunderstanding, misrepresentation or lies.

What would you say is the most pressing finding to come out of the hacked emails episodes?

Sounds like you're talking more about pollution than global warming.

Nah, I'm saying that if you're right and climate change isn't a problem that warrants a party. It would be nice to know we weren't making dangerous changes to the climate.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Not at all. All of the most damning evidence I've seen presented by the denialist side has been misunderstanding, misrepresentation or lies.

What is misunderstood, misrepresented or lied about in those climategate episodes?

What would you say is the most pressing finding to come out of the hacked emails episodes?

That they jiggered the data, how do you get any further than that.

 

[The Hammer]

It isn't more earth conscious. The left would be on the right if they saw a path to power in it. And whether you care to believe it or not, the right is out for responsible exploitation of our resources, and if they aren't responsible, THEN it's the government's job to take them to the woodshed. But global warming, if it's happening at all, much less human caused, is easy to manipulate with changing variables, government complicity, with the backing of the useful idiots in the media. And the crisis is always in the future....further and further in the future it conveniently turns out. I guess you could call it a convenient lie.

Exploitation is exploitation, "responsible" or not. The crisis has never been "conveniently" further in the future, and in fact the timetable has been moving closer and closer to current times. I see no harm in utilizing all green resources, I mean, why not be sustainable? We only have one Earth after all.

 

[Jose Fly]

I've yet to see a denialist explanation for their denialism that doesn't amount to a massive, long-running, global conspiracy.

A conspiracy among the world's climatologists to..........enrich themselves? I guess that explains the climatologists I've met who show up for meetings driving Ferraris and such, and then go back to their multi-million dollar mansions.

As opposed to the fossil fuel executives who are all barely scraping by.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Exploitation is exploitation, "responsible" or not. The crisis has never been "conveniently" further in the future, and in fact the timetable has been moving closer and closer to current times. I see no harm in utilizing all green resources, I mean, why not be sustainable? We only have one Earth after all.

I'm all for sustainable energy

Energy production that can still be sustained when the wind drops, the sun goes down, and the subsidies dry up...!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Exploitation is exploitation, "responsible" or not. The crisis has never been "conveniently" further in the future, and in fact the timetable has been moving closer and closer to current times. I see no harm in utilizing all green resources, I mean, why not be sustainable? We only have one Earth after all.

We exploit the Earth when we sow a seed and gather the crops.

In the 80s & 90s, global warming and rising sea levels were only 10 years out. Now its climate change in 50...lesson learned.

I've yet to see a denialist explanation for their denialism that doesn't amount to a massive, long-running, global conspiracy.

Worldwide socialism is a conspiracy, global warming is just one of their demagogic tools for manipulation, like bread and circuses.

A conspiracy among the world's climatologists to..........enrich themselves? I guess that explains the climatologists I've met who show up for meetings driving Ferraris and such, and then go back to their multi-million dollar mansions.

Yes, some climatologists sell their souls for research grants, but they're still just useful idiots for the socialist establishment power elite. A few libs drive Ferraris, but most do the limo shtick or SUV convoys.

As opposed to the fossil fuel executives who are all barely scraping by.

Yeah, well I don't see the hypocritical liberal elite powering their limos and Lear jets with windmills and solar panels.[/QUOTE]

 

[Debateable]

So you advocate an unregulated air transportation system - what a very interesting idea! That might turn out to be the quickest way to get rid of capitalism altogether.

Where did I ever say we should be completely unregulated? I'm only suggesting that the regulations have gone too far and need to be dialed back. Hell even congress mandated that the FAA needed to dial back their certification requirements because the costs were too great and the FAA basically gave congress the finger.

Well I suppose not - its more of an inevitable result of capitalism.

Everyone? Again I ask, when did this happen?

What you really mean is how many powerful western economies have ended in absolute poverty and death? They haven't (yet) - but the collateral damage caused by maintaining them is huge and possibly irreparable.

How in the hell can you claim it's a result of capitalism? Proof please. People have been stealing from one another since the beginning of time. Don't be an idiot. I think you have such a hate for capitalism (reasons being I have no idea) that you are seeing things for what they aren't.

 

[Debateable]

There is nothing more irrational than to believe that fossil fuels will not run out.

Nobody said they won't, but it's equally irrational to put a date on when that will happen because mankind has continually been able to find more and find ways to be more efficient.