Eaarth

[NeilBlanchard]

I think you doth protest too much.

You can judge for yourself about who is the better scientist -- watch the videos; unless you don't want to be challenged.

Why would Don Blankenship call global climate change a "hoax", do you think?

Why would he have clean water piped into his mansion while his neighbors were slowly killed with kidney failure, due to contaminated water from his mountaintop removal mines?

Why do the Koch brothers fund the start up of the Cato Institute?

The billionaire Koch brothers’ war against Obama : The New Yorker

And the Tea Party, and they have been trying to discredit global climate change, too -- hmmm, big oil and big coal money funding the deniers? Why is that, I wonder?

[04_Sentra]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Earth's population:
1960 3 billion
2010 6.5 billion

116.6% increase in people versus a 25.8% increase in CO. That means as a percentage of population the per capita CO has gone down, at least that which is left in the atmosphere.

And how much has the foilage that absorbs CO has been reduced in those 50 years.

regards
Mech

That means the efforts of reducing pollution over the last 50 years have paid off. Those efforts should be continued and accelerated.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I think you doth protest too much.

I think that you are not capable of thinking at all - you merely believe what you are told and regurgitate it, without doubting or questioning. You know what happens to those activists who doubt or question their masters.

You can judge for yourself about who is the better scientist -- watch the videos; unless you don't want to be challenged.

Yes, I can judge. And no, I don't need or want to review and argue against the propaganda you churn out.

Why would Don Blankenship call global climate change a "hoax", do you think?

Why don't you ask HIM that question?

Why do the Koch brothers fund the start up of the Cato Institute?

Because in America (as long as it remains a free country) one can still do what they want with their money. At least the Kochs are spending their own money rather than soliciting other people's money by pandering emotionally driven, propagandistic drivel.

The billionaire Koch brothers’ war against Obama : The New Yorker

Oh! I read it in The New Yorker! It MUST be true!

The New Yorker magazine is the perfect venue for what you consider to be a news story - a Leftist magazine that fits your criteria for agit-prop. What? Was the piece a bit too obviously long for the Left-leaning N.Y. Times to fit on their op-ed page?

And the Tea Party, and they have been trying to discredit global climate change, too -- hmmm, big oil and big coal money funding the deniers? Why is that, I wonder?

I wonder if you (or anyone?) is PRO 'small" coal or 'small' oil? Naah, its the MONEY part that bothers you, as it would rile any committed Socialist.

Now, once again we get to the root of Neil's REAL political motive: to spread anti-capitalist sentiment, provoke and promote class envy, try to incite hatred of the wealthy, and denigrate anyone who is not in the camp of the radical Left. The pretense of 'saaving the plaanet' is the foil to lure suckers in and indoctrinate them.

How much are they paying you for pimping socialism? I DO hope you are being paid. After all, you couldn't maintain a socialist activism effort without capital...

And the sheeple, the new citizens of EAarth said: "BAA, BAA, BAA!"

[04_Sentra]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

The paper I linked to is brand new.

Quote from that paper: "This certainly doesn’t mitigate the issue of global warming."

Just because arctic ice melt has more than one cause doesn't mean that global warming, actually climate change, isn't real.

[NeilBlanchard]

It's not about me, or my politics.

It is about us all and our fossil fuel consumption.

We need to transition to renewable energy as soon as possible. We can keep all the benefits, if we do it right. And if we can reduce our carbon output and get the atmosphere back below 350PPM, then we have a much better chance of getting through the next 100 years. The next 10 years or so, are critical.

Or, should we keep pissing it away as quickly as possible? What do you think? Should we keep on like we are, or should we do it better?

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It's not about me, or my politics.

Oh, no. Certainly this is not political. And denial is more than a river in Egypt.

It is about us all and our fossil fuel consumption.

We need to transition to renewable energy as soon as possible. We can keep all the benefits, if we do it right. And if we can reduce our carbon output and get the atmosphere back below 350PPM, then we have a much better chance of getting through the next 100 years. The next 10 years or so, are critical.

Or, should we keep pissing it away as quickly as possible? What do you think? Should we keep on like we are, or should we do it better?

I can remember hearing the same drumbeat of moaning and fretting about how we would soon run out of oil. That was back when Jimmy Carter was president. Scare tactics and guilt mongering always resonate with a gullible few who believe the sky will soon fall. Isn't it interesting how this monotonous, old nonsense only gets touted when there is a Democrat/Liberal/Socialist in the White House? Why should this come as any surprise? Let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. And don't forget to buy the book. And watch the videos. And denounce anyone who is anything other than a politically correct Leftist.

Nah, the hit piece on the Koch family that Neil endorsed is not political either. It's good, objective reporting, right? - just like Dan Rather was a good "journalist", as far as the Left was concerned. (Too bad he got caught at it.)

And the sheeple, the new citizens of EAarth said: "BAA, BAA, BAA!"

[Arragonis]

Hi,

I just want to pick up on this comment from the other day.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

But, you and I are not scientists and we are not qualified to make judgments one way or the other.

I'm afraid with respect I have to strongly disagree. We can all read the papers, watch the presentations and make up our own minds. We can even challenge the science if we want to. Its a free world, or maybe thats not allowed.

However as an example this appeared last year.

Scientists solve enigma of Antarctic 'cooling'

Research 'kills off' climate sceptic argument by showing average temperature across the continent has risen over the last 50 years

This referred to a paper published which reconstructed (those damn models again) temps in the antarctic region to spread them from a well measured area to the whole continent. Argument over, these are scientists after all.

Except that a few ordinary people with an interest in the maths did it again, and came up with a significantly different result, one which may question whether the original paper was valid in any way.

The debate is on as to the affect of this new paper and what it actually refutes, challenges or enhances. But it is an example of why we should be allowed to challenge the science. In fact this should be encouraged instead of the dumbing down that the media seems to want to engage in.

[gone-ot]

...three things my Dad told me to never discuss in public: religion, politics and sex.

...maybe there should've been a "fourth" thing: global atmospherics?

[NeilBlanchard]

This is too serious a problem to ignore.

Arragonis, I hope you can watch the congressional testimony videos. Those are a few of the scientists, and the one apologist/skeptic/doubter, from the Cato Institute which was founded and funded largely by oil money from the Koch brothers. See how his "science" holds up to scrutiny...

He is also the focus of some of the CRU emails, and the guy sitting next to him was the author of some of those emails. Interesting stuff, really -- eye opening, actually.

Global climate change is an overwhelming topic, and it will be the hardest thing that humankind have ever faced. We are incredibly adaptable, though -- and it helps to know the facts; to be as well prepared as possible.

I wish the scientists were making it up -- or, at least that they are all wrong on global climate change. But they have been right on many, many, many things -- things that would seem completely fanciful, or magical, or crazy.

Just as we trust that science was correct about Pangaea & Panthalassa -- we are still on one Eaarth, and we are all in this together -- right or wrong.

[04_Sentra]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Except that a few ordinary people with an interest in the maths did it again, and came up with a significantly different result, one which may question whether the original paper was valid in any way.

What the summary said (I didn't see the entire paper) was that the warming was localized in the peninsula. There is a warm ocean current flowing down the east coast of South America, presumably for the last 10k years or so. Is there any reason that it would have gotten so much warmer over the last 50 years?