How to Get Banned from a Global Warming Fanatic Group in Less Than 10 Minutes

Yes, I was unceremoniously banned from a fanatic Facebook group called Global Warming Fact of the Day where environmentalist fanatics get their, perhaps, daily dose of global warming indoctrination and quotable quotes.

I was a member of that intolerant group for less than 10 minutes.

We know some fundamentalist, extremist religions that are extremely intolerant to other religions, cultures, science, beliefs, and infidels. This suggests that religion is about blind fanaticism and faith. And we’re also aware that there are some religious fundamentalists who are willing and ready to kill in the name of their hateful god.

Now, is it possible for a seemingly secular movement or cause to embrace some of the aspects or attributes of religion?

The answer is: Yes. This doesn’t mean we have to redefine “religion”. We only need to properly understand this concept. Our traditional understanding of the concept of religion tells us that religion is all about belief in the supernatural. Some of the essential aspects or components of religion include the existence of god or supernatural beings, a church hierarchy, moral dogma, rituals, a last judgment, and life after death.

However, there are forms of religion that do not convey all of those basic components, such as animism, Shintoism, Buddhism to name a few. For example, Shintoism, a religion practiced in Japan, does not have a god, scriptures, commandments, or a founder. Animism, on the other hand, is a religious belief that natural physical entities, such as plants, animals, and even inanimate objects or phenomena, possess spirituality.

There are, of course, religions that preach the virtue of tolerance, forgiveness and acceptance of other cultures and beliefs. This means that there’s no absolutist way to describe religion and to dictate or impose its basic tenets or components.

In my own opinion, the single most important component of religion is faith, which means blind acceptance of a certain ideational content. This acceptance is primarily induced by feeling in the absence of proof or evidence.

Faith is one aspect that is present in the man-made global warming religion. The global warming faithful value propaganda, junk science that suits political and ideological agenda, dishonest strategy and intolerance more than real science and facts. Part of their dishonest strategy to fool the public, particularly the media, and to shut down opponents they label as “skeptics” or “denialists” is to distort scientific facts. That is, they use distorted facts to destroy facts and science.

Global warming religionists are also extremely intolerant to opposing views, questions, and even new scientific discoveries that could potentially harm their political and ideological agenda.

I experienced extreme intolerance first hand from global warming fanatics of this Facebook group.

After they approved my membership request, I commented on this article that uses the term “climate change” rather than “global warming”. The post’s thumbnail title states: Group seeks carbon tax to combat climate change.

My very first comment on the post in question is as follows: “Wait. Is it MAN-CAUSED global warming or climate change? Why the sudden change of name?”

An active member named Rob Honeycutt made the following response: “They are two different sides of the same coin. There’s been no “sudden change of name.” AGW refers to the rise in globally averaged temperature. Climate change is the result of rising surface temperatures.”

Since he’s simply dodging my question, I replied:

I learned from real science that man-caused or anthropogenic global warming is caused by human activities, thus it can be prevented by human intervention and government policies. Climate change, on the other hand, is a naturally occurring phenomenon. There were countless of climate changes in the past that weren’t caused by humans, such as the end of the glacial period, the medieval warming period, etc.

Furthermore, NATURAL climate change is something that cannot be prevented or mitigated by man.

Here’s how this global warming fanatic rationalized his reply: “Yes, but in general, when people are discussing “climate change” today they are referring to Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

Isn’t that both absurd and hilarious? It’s as if he’s trying to say: “Yes, the right term is man-made global warming but we don’t call it that way. We call it climate change to fool the people.”

Then I said:

Anthropogenic Climate Change = human-caused global warming. Wouldn’t that confuse the little-minded people, particularly those in the media?

Look how this Rob Honeycutt tried to evade the issue. This is part of their dishonest strategy. They use words very non-objectively and try to make their arguments more absurd and unclear as possible. The vaguer or more ambiguous it is, the better.

Rob Honeycutt said:

No one wants to (or can) stop natural climate variability. That’s not the issue. The problem is that we are increasing CO2 levels at a rate some 10,000X faster than the natural rate. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. We measure a radiative imbalance, with more energy coming in than going out. That means we are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate.

The potential repercussions are serious if we can’t slow our use of carbon emitting forms of energy.

See? His emotion-filled response shows he’s never interested in sticking to the issue and dealing only with facts.

Unfortunately, the group’s thought-police, who wasn’t part of the very fleeting discussion, thought it was time to kick me out.

I was supposed to say: “But are you saying human-caused GW and climate change are the same?”

Since I was unceremoniously banned from the group for merely questioning things, I just sent Rob Honeycutt this private message:

GLOBALWARMING

Mr. Rob Honeycutt the global warming religionist talked about “increasing CO2 levels at a rate some 10,000X faster than the natural rate”? Is there any scientific truth to this?

What this fanatic said is purely non-factual and not supported by science.

The truth is, humans added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is equivalent to about a quarter of all CO2 emissions since 1750. Yet, the dreaded warming did not occur during that period. Also, it is now universally conceded that there has been no human-cased heating for 15 years.

As to his “CO2 is a known greenhouse gas”, this merely shows he knows very little about real science. There are several types of greenhouse gases, and CO2 or carbon dioxide is just one of them. Water vapor is the principal greenhouse gas being the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Also, this fanatic doesn’t know there is naturally occurring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

You don’t have to be rude or a war freak to get banned from global warming fanatic Facebook sites. The GW zealots will ban you for merely questioning very simple things.

  • The Conversation

gw2

 

ENVIRONMENTALISM AS A NEO-ANIMIST, SECULAR RELIGION

Here’s an excerpt of Michael Crichton’s speech on environmentalism in 2003:

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

 An excellent video for AGW fanatics/religionists

 

162 thoughts on “How to Get Banned from a Global Warming Fanatic Group in Less Than 10 Minutes

  1. “Wouldn’t that confuse the little-minded people, particularly those in the media?”

    who is confused by this terminology? which person is confused?

    i’m on your side. i prefer is they use the term anthropogenic, a mouthful that may be.

    • Scientists, researchers, and even legal experts know the importance of definition. Propagandists and ideologues with sinister agenda also know how terminological confusion can distort people’s perceptions and cognition. Of course, some little-minded people (like YOU) take this matter for granted.

      From this very convincing article:

      Question: Global Warming Vs. Climate Change

      Global warming and climate change are words often misrepresented in the media and in conversation. There is a distinct difference between global warming and climate change that is often ignored or misunderstood.

      Answer:

      Global warming is the accelerated warming of Earth due to an increase in greenhouse gases, particularly from the burning of fossil fuels. The accelerated warming can be measured in Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. Evidence for global warming can be seen in retreating ice caps, dry lakes, increased habitat reduction for animals (think of the now-infamous polar bear on a lone iceberg), global temperature rises, shifts in weather, coral bleaching, sea-level rise and more. Global warming is the human-induced rise in global temperatures.

      Climate change is the natural change in global temperatures over time. More specifically, a change in Earth’s energy budget can result in both increases and decreases in global temperatures. Climate always changes. This is a fact most people tend to ignore if they decide to say they believe in climate change (or don’t believe, for that matter). Ignoring the fact that climate change is not the basis for a belief system, let’s examine the real differences between global warming and climate change.

      Source: http://weather.about.com/od/climatechange/f/global_warming_climate_change.htm

      • like i said : WHO was confused? for it to be a real problem, ACTUAL people should be misinformed.

      • Funny, you don’t even know you are misinformed. You want actual person? It’s the alarmist guy mentioned in the blog. Also, it’s the little-minded people like you and people in the media who still use the term “climate change”.

        However, I think Pres. Obummer is not misinformed; he’s just dishonest. He knows what he’s doing…

        President Obama should issue a public apology for abusing his power to mount a smear campaign against what he calls “climate deniers.”

        According to his official website, Obummer said: “Climate change is real, it’s caused largely by human activities, and it poses significant risks to our health. Some members of Congress disagree with this simple, scientific fact.”

        This is a simple, unscientific lie. “Climate change” is a constant of nature, has always been real, and it has remained remarkably similar since we increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from .03% to .04%. The real change is that thanks to industrial development powered by fossil fuels, the climate is 98% safer to live in than it was 80 years ago. President Obama and his minions and GW cronies (like Al Gore) are the real “climate deniers”. They deny that the climate is a natural danger that their policies would make far more dangerous.

        http://www.barackobama.com/climate-deniers

      • ok. from the website, it looks like he knows he’s talking about man-made climate change.

        no one is confused here.

      • Climate Change

        An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
        (Adopted by AMS Council 20 August 2012)

        pdf version

        The following is an AMS Information Statement intended to provide a trustworthy, objective, and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.

        Background

        This statement provides a brief overview of how and why global climate has changed over the past century and will continue to change in the future. It is based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature and is consistent with the vast weight of current scientific understanding as expressed in assessments and reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Although the statement has been drafted in the context of concerns in the United States, the underlying issues are inherently global in nature.

        How is climate changing?

        Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

        The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

        Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.

        Globally averaged sea level has risen by about 17 cm (7 inches) in the 20th century, with the rise accelerating since the early 1990s. Close to half of the sea level rise observed since the 1970s has been caused by water expansion due to increases in ocean temperatures. Sea level is also rising due to melting from continental glaciers and from ice sheets on both Greenland and Antarctica. Locally, sea level changes can depend also on other factors such as slowly rising or falling land, which results in some local sea level changes much larger or smaller than the global average. Even small rises in sea level in coastal zones are expected to lead to potentially severe impacts, especially in small island nations and in other regions that experience storm surges associated with vigorous weather systems.

        Why is climate changing?

        Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.

        Water vapor also is an important atmospheric greenhouse gas. Unlike other greenhouse gases, however, the concentration of water vapor depends on atmospheric temperature and is controlled by the global climate system through its hydrological cycle of evaporation-condensation-precipitation. Water vapor is highly variable in space and time with a short lifetime, because of weather variability. Observations indicate an increase in globally averaged water vapor in the atmosphere in recent decades, at a rate consistent with the response produced by climate models that simulate human-induced increases in greenhouse gases. This increase in water vapor also strengthens the greenhouse effect, amplifying the impact of human-induced increases in other greenhouse gases.

        Human activity also affects climate through changes in the number and physical properties of tiny solid particles and liquid droplets in the atmosphere, known collectively as atmospheric aerosols. Examples of aerosols include dust, sea salt, and sulfates from air pollution. Aerosols have a variety of climate effects. They absorb and redirect solar energy from the sun and thermal energy emitted by Earth, emit energy themselves, and modify the ability of clouds to reflect sunlight and to produce precipitation. Aerosols can both strengthen and weaken greenhouse warming, depending on their characteristics. Most aerosols originating from human activity act to cool the planet and so partly counteract greenhouse gas warming effects. Aerosols lofted into the stratosphere [between about 13 km (8 miles) and 50 km (30 miles) altitude above the surface] by occasional large sulfur-rich volcanic eruptions can reduce global surface temperature for several years. By contrast, carbon soot from incomplete combustion of fossil fuels warms the planet, so that decreases in soot would reduce warming. Aerosols have lifetimes in the troposphere [at altitudes up to approximately 13 km (8 miles) from the surface in the middle latitudes] on the order of one week, much shorter than that of most greenhouse gases, and their prevalence and properties can vary widely by region.

        Land surface changes can also affect the surface exchanges of water and energy with the atmosphere. Humans alter land surface characteristics by carrying out irrigation, removing and introducing forests, changing vegetative land cover through agriculture, and building cities and reservoirs. These changes can have significant effects on local-to-regional climate patterns, which adds up to a small impact on the global energy balance as well.

        How can climate change be projected into the future?

        Factors that have altered climate throughout history, both human (such as human emission of greenhouse gases) and natural (such as variation of the Sun’s energy emission, the Earth’s orbit about the Sun, and volcanic eruptions), will continue to alter climate in the future. Climate projections for decades into the future are made using complex numerical models of the climate system that account for changes in the flow of energy into and out of the Earth system on time scales much longer than the predictability limit (of about two weeks) for individual weather systems. The difference between weather and climate is critically important in considering predictability. Climate is potentially predictable for much longer time scales than weather for several reasons. One reason is that climate can be meaningfully characterized by seasonal-to-decadal averages and other statistical measures, and the averaged weather is more predictable than individual weather events. A helpful analogy in this regard is that population averages of human mortality are predictable while life spans of individuals are not. A second reason is that climate involves physical systems and processes with long time scales, including the oceans and snow and ice, while weather largely involves atmospheric phenomena (e.g., thunderstorms, intense snow storms) with short time scales. A third reason is that climate can be affected by slowly changing factors such as human-induced changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere, which alter the natural greenhouse effect.

        Climate models simulate the important aspects of climate and climate change based on fundamental physical laws of motion, thermodynamics, and radiative transfer. These models report on how climate would change in response to several specific “scenarios” for future greenhouse gas emission possibilities. Future climate change projections have uncertainties that occur for several reasons — because of differences among models, because long-term predictions of natural variations (e.g., volcanic eruptions and El Niño events) are not possible, and because it is not known exactly how greenhouse gas emissions will evolve in future decades. Future emissions will depend on global social and economic development, and on the extent and impact of activities designed to reduce greenhouse gas and black carbon emissions.

        Changes in the means and extremes of temperature and precipitation in response to increasing greenhouse gases can be projected over decades to centuries into the future, even though the timing of individual weather events cannot be predicted on this time scale. Because it would take many years for observations to verify whether a future climate projection is correct, researchers establish confidence in these projections by using historical and paleoclimate evidence and through careful study of observations of the causal chain between energy flow changes and climate-pattern responses. A valuable demonstration of the validity of current climate models is that when they include all known natural and human-induced factors that influence the global atmosphere on a large scale, the models reproduce many important aspects of observed changes of the 20th-century climate, including (1) global, continental, and subcontinental mean and extreme temperatures, (2) Arctic sea ice extent, (3) the latitudinal distribution of precipitation, and (4) extreme precipitation frequency.

        Model limitations include inadequate representations of some important processes and details. For example, a typical climate model does not yet treat fully the complex dynamical, radiative, and microphysical processes involved in the evolution of a cloud or the spatially variable nature of soil moisture, or the atmospheric interactions with the biosphere. Nevertheless, in spite of these limitations, climate models have demonstrated skill in reproducing past climates, and they agree on the broad direction of future climate.

        How is the climate expected to change in the future?

        Future warming of the climate is inevitable for many years due to the greenhouse gases already added to the atmosphere and the heat that has been taken up by the oceans. Amelioration might be possible through devising and implementing environmentally responsible geoengineering approaches, such as capture and storage measures to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. However, the potential risks of geoengineering may be quite large, and more study of the topic (including other environmental consequences) is needed. The subject of geoengineering is outside the scope of this statement (for more information see AMS Statement on Geoengineering).

        In general, many of the climate-system trends observed in recent decades are projected to continue. Those projections, and others in this section, are largely based on simulations conducted with climate models, and assume that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere will continue to increase due to human activity. Global efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions have been unsuccessful so far. However, were future technologies and policies able to achieve a rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions — an approach termed “mitigation” — this would greatly lessen future global warming and its impacts.

        Confidence in the projections is higher for temperature than for other climate elements such as precipitation, and higher at the global and continental scales than for the regional and local scales. The model projections show that the largest warming will occur in northern polar regions, over land areas, and in the winter season, consistent with observed trends.

        In the 21st century, global sea level also will continue to rise although the rise will not be uniform at all locations. With its large mass and high capacity for heat storage, the ocean will continue to slowly warm and thus thermally expand for several centuries. Model simulations project about 27 cm (10 inches) to 71 cm (28 inches) of global sea level rise due to thermal expansion and melting of ice in the 21st century. Moreover, paleoclimatic observations and ice-sheet modeling indicate that melting of the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets will eventually cause global sea level to rise several additional meters by 2500 if warming continues at its present rate beyond the 21st century.

        Atmospheric water content will increase globally, consistent with warmer temperatures, and consequently the global hydrological cycle will continue to accelerate. For many areas, model simulations suggest there will be a tendency towards more intense rain and snow events separated by longer periods without precipitation. However, changes in precipitation patterns are expected to differ considerably by region and by season. In some regions, the accelerated hydrological cycle will likely reinforce existing patterns of precipitation, leading to more severe droughts and floods. Further poleward, the greater warming at high latitudes and over land likely will change the large-scale atmospheric circulation, leading to significant regional shifts in precipitation patterns. For example, the model simulations suggest that precipitation will increase in the far northern parts of North America, and decrease in the southwest and south-central United States where more droughts will occur.

        Climate-model simulations further project that heavy precipitation events will continue to become more intense and frequent, leading to increased precipitation totals from the strongest storms. This projection has important implications for water-resource management and flood control. The simulations also indicate the likelihood of longer dry spells between precipitation events in the subtropics and lower-middle latitudes, with shorter dry spells projected for higher latitudes where mean precipitation is expected to increase. Continued warming also implies a reduction of winter snow accumulations in favor of rain in many places, and thus a reduced spring snowpack. Rivers now fed by snowmelt will experience earlier spring peaks and reduced warm-season flows. Widespread retreat of mountain glaciers is expected to eventually lead to reduced dry season flows for glacier-fed rivers. Drought is projected to increase over Africa, Europe, and much of the North American continental interior, and particularly the southwest United States. However, natural variations in world ocean conditions at decadal scale, such as those in the North Pacific and North Atlantic basins, could offset or enhance such changes in the next few decades. For the longer term, paleoclimatic observations suggest that droughts lasting decades are possible and that these prolonged droughts could occur with little warning.

        Weather patterns will continue to vary from day to day and from season to season, but the frequency of particular patterns and extreme weather and climate events may change as a result of global warming. Model simulations project an increased proportion of global hurricanes that are in the strongest categories, namely 4 and 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale, although the total counts of hurricanes may not change or may even decrease. Some regional variations in these trends are possible. Simulations also indicate that midlatitude storm tracks will shift poleward. Interannual variations of important large-scale climate conditions (such as El Niño and La Niña) will also continue to occur, but there may be changes in their intensity, frequency, and other characteristics, resulting in different responses by the atmosphere. Heat waves and cold snaps and their associated weather conditions will continue to occur, but proportionately more extreme warm periods and fewer cold periods are expected. Indeed, what many people traditionally consider a cold wave is already changing toward less severe conditions. Frost days (those with minimum temperature below freezing) will be fewer and growing seasons longer. Drier conditions in summer, such as those anticipated for the southern United States and southern Europe, are expected to contribute to more severe episodes of extreme heat. Critical thresholds of daily maximum temperature, above which ecosystems and crop systems (e.g., food crops such as rice, corn, and wheat) suffer increasingly severe damage, are likely to be exceeded more frequently.

        The Earth system is highly interconnected and complex, with many processes and feedbacks that only slowly are becoming understood. In particular, the carbon cycle remains a large source of uncertainty for the projection of future climate. It is unclear if the land biosphere and oceans will be able to continue taking up carbon at their current rate into the future. One unknown is whether soil and vegetation will become a global source rather than a sink of carbon as the planet warms. Another unknown is the amount of methane that will be released due to high-latitude warming. There are indications that large regions of the permafrost in parts of Alaska and other northern polar areas are already thawing, with the potential to release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere beyond those being directly added by human activity. The portion of the increased CO2 release that is absorbed by the world ocean is making the ocean more acidic, with negative implications for shell- and skeleton-forming organisms and more generally for ocean ecosystems. These processes are only now being quantified by observation and introduced into climate models, and more research is required to fully understand their potential impacts. As impacts of climate change are of regional and local nature, more research is also required to improve climate projections at local and regional scales, and for weather and climate extremes in particular.

        Final remarks

        There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability.

        Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

        [This statement is considered in force until August 2017 unless superseded by a new statement issued by the AMS Council before this date.]

      • That long drivel from ametsoc does failed to address the issue here.

        I asked you specifically: “How much is the earth’s greenhouse effect enhanced by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere (I mean human-emitted/caused CO2)?”

        Plus, that source has been long debunked by latest studies and discoveries.

        It states: “Climate models simulate the important aspects of climate and climate change based on fundamental physical laws of motion, thermodynamics, and radiative transfer.”

        LOL! You need to update you knowledge (or lack of it) on this issue. Even your comrade admitted the climate models used by AGW alarmists CANNOT PREDICT CLIMATE.

        Ergo, almost everything that your source states is propaganda.

      • Hahaha! Someone? That really cracked me up, comrade. You don’t even know the climate models cannot and failed to predict climate. Know and study your own alleged “facts”.

        Get the facts correct.

        For instance, all of Tim Flannery’s failed.

        So your source is as bogus and fraudulent as your own arguments.

      • Ah, I see. Showing you the results of a working model is drivel. Of course. It would have to be. Or you might be proven wrong.
        🙂

      • You’re wrong. You need to study more and educate yourself on this matter. I repeat, the climate models used by AGW scientists failed to predict climate. Even NASA’s latest models and other scientists’ latest models refuted, debunked the AGW climate models. Know your facts.

      • Your bluster is wonderful. The climate models haven’t been too bad. And, with time and work, they will get better.

      • She’s also considered spam, not science. As is Steve Goddard, Bishops Hill, PSI, etc.

        Can’t you cite any real science? Something published in Nature, or Science or the AGU? Have you nothing peer-reviewed? If not you’re knowledge may actually be negative.

      • Ah, you have the caps lock of truthiness.

        You do realise that when you drift into catchphrases, such as “comrade” you’ve signalled you are a politician, not a scientist? You do realise that, don’t you?

        Every time you capitalise. Every time you chant “cult” or “alarmist” or “Al Gore” the rest of the world realises you’ve lost.

      • Stop using caps. That’s shouting.

        Stop using catchphrase. That’s politics, not science.

        Using caps and catchphrases is tantamount to admitting you’ve lost the science.

  2. Actually Rob is correct. You don’t understand the science so you pretend it is an emotional outburst. Kind of sad.

    • I’d be glad to know which of the drivel he said is “correct”. Too bad you merely expressed your feelings.

      • .” AGW refers to the rise in globally averaged temperature. Climate change is the result of rising surface temperatures.”

        “No one wants to (or can) stop natural climate variability. That’s not the issue. The problem is that we are increasing CO2 levels at a rate some 10,000X faster than the natural rate. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. We measure a radiative imbalance, with more energy coming in than going out. That means we are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate.

        The potential repercussions are serious if we can’t slow our use of carbon emitting forms of energy.”

        I could go on – basically, with your demonstrated lack of knowledge, emotional responses and logical fallacies – you would be wise to simply follow everything Rob said as Gospel. Study the issue – when you’ve learned enough to ask intelligent questions lots of people (myself included) would be glad to resolve any lingering issues.

        But your emotional wall of nonsense does not indicate a skeptic or critical thinking mindset – just willful, proud ignorance of the scientific reality that the world is warming; man is to blame and our kids are screwed.

      • Are you done? Ok. Since you claim you know what you’re talking about, let me ask you one question:

        How much is the earth’s greenhouse effect enhanced by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere (I mean human-emitted/caused CO2)?

      • .8C so far. Science tells us a doubling of CO2 will lead to ~+3C warming in the short term. The world’s governments promised to limit it to +2C – but aren’t doing anything.

        Meanwhile, the seas are rising, warming and acidifying, arctic ice is disappearing (leading to many weather-caused major problems), food prices are rising, floods and droughts on the increase.

        Insurance costs are rising and governments are raising taxes to deal with the fallout of global warming (so your position lead to larger government and higher taxes – gee thanks).

        When you drop your ideology and look at the science – the evidence is overwhelming and the results are obvious from real world observations (note obvious and observation have a common root).

      • Well, other studies say it’s only about 1C.

        “The world’s governments promised to limit it to +2C – but aren’t doing anything.”

        Do you realize what you’re talking about? I’m not a scientist but is that equivalent to more than the 100 billion tonnes of CO2 added by man to the atmosphere between 2000 to 2010?

        If that’s the case, are you saying the entire planet must totally stop industries, explorations, CO2-emitting factories, transportation, etc?

        Look! Do you realize that despite adding about a quarter of all CO2 emissions since 1750 to the atmosphere from 2000 to 2010, humans did not experience warming?

      • Humans did experience warming. As did the oceans, land and air.

        Do you think those emails melted the arctic ice? What does science tell us is reducing global ice.

        You have presented two different things here – your confusion on the science – and your emotional response to the implications – once you get the science straight on WHY we we are here (and where that is exactly – ie the world is warming; man is to blame and our kids are screwed) – we can have a great discussion about what to do about it.

        It turns out it isn’t that hard to avoid the worst of global warming – but it does require we stop pretending it isn’t happening, and unleash the free markets to solve the problem.

      • “Humans did experience warming. As did the oceans, land and air.”

        Humans did experience warming for many times in the past– or over millions of years ago. Ever heard of the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods?

        The question is, did we have the thing predicted by Al Gore and his alarmist fellow?

        Al Gore explicitly said: “When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.”

        Did we have that over the past 16 or 17 years? NO!

        I repeat, humans added 25% of all CO2 since 17th century. Yet we didn’t feel what Al Gore call catastrophic warming.

        Now it appears everything you said is not backed by science, but by junk science and pure rubbish ideology.

      • Science looks at the big picture – you are cherry picking data – one by only considering the atmosphere (least thermal mass of all the pieces of the earth) and 2 by using a very specific set of dates designed to hide the warming – there is a reason that climate is 30 years – that amount of time ensures you are not being misled by natural variability.

        If you want to find the “missing” heat – look to the oceans – otherwise you are all wet!

      • Then tell me why is it that we didn’t experience the warming warned by Al Gore over the past 16 years despite adding 100 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere?

        There’s something wrong with the AGW theory as well as with the climate models used by climate scientists. The climate models CANNOT predict climate.

      • You are correct there is something wrong – models have UNDER-ESTIMATED the speed of global warming effects – arctic ice was modeled to last for many more decades.

        The warming you seek is in the oceans – and also an artifact of your cherry picking (um cherry picking is an anti-science move).

      • And at that natural systems pull out 50% of what we add. yet we are headed to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 – once you understand THAT you will have a better handle on global warming.

        Please do your research – for all the noise – the science is well established, over 150 years old and the corroborating observations are overwhelming – as I have demonstrated with the links you find so disturbing.

      • By the way I need to go work… OK?
        But I want you to answer these:
        1. What was the mean temperature from 2000 to 2010?
        2. Do you even know humans contribute approximately 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?
        3. Are you saying we all must get rid of industries and oil and other CO2-emitting activities to “save” this planet?
        3. Tell me what’s the probable amount of CO2 that could destroy this planet through increased greenhouse effect?

      • The warmest decade was the last decade. The two warmest years were 2005 and 2010.

        We were in a cooling phase until the industrial revolution.

      • The global-average lower tropospheric temperature remained high, +0.49 deg. C in July, 2010, although the tropics continued to cool as La Nina approaches.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/03/uah-global-temperature-still-in-a-holding-pattern/

        BUT…

        “While Sea Surface Temperatures are cooling sharply as shown here, global surface temperature is still oscillating around 0.40 to 0.50C for the last four months. This is not surprising as the air temperature is strongly correlated with the SST but lags behind by about 3 months. Expect drops in the months ahead.”

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/03/global-sea-surface-temperature-cooling-continues/

      • Scientific American treats Watts as spam, “I am gradually teaching my spam filter to automatically send to spam any and every comment that contains the words “warmist”, “alarmist”, “Al Gore” or a link to Watts. A comment that contains any of those is, by definition, not posted in good faith. By definition, it does not provide additional information relevant to the post. By definition, it is off-topic. By definition, it contains erroneous information. By definition, it is ideologically motivated, thus not scientific. By definition, it is polarizing to the silent audience. It will go to spam as fast I can make it happen.”

        http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/2013/01/28/commenting-threads-good-bad-or-not-at-all/

        Please cite scientific sources, not anti-science.

      • Your source is not even an authority. Between Watts and your source, Watts is more credible.

        Besides, you are funny and pathetic.

        My Watts links are merely CITING STUDIES conducted by scientists. He didn’t conduct the study, nor your source conducted its own study. Both are citing sources. Watts here cited original studies. If you want to argue properly, refute the contents of the source, not the site itself.

      • Watts is spam, he’s been caught misusing the science far too often. That’s why reputable journals, like Scientific American, simply ban it. Please, by all means, continue to cite him, because you doing so just makes the case that you are not citing science, just politics.

      • Well, so is your own source. You didn’t even read and verify your own sources.

        Do you even know the meaning of REPORTING? That’s what Watts and your sources do. You’re not even a scientist.

        Anthony Watts is a SCIENTIST. He’s a meteorologist(AMS seal holder), president of IntelliWeather Inc. and founder of the Surface Stations Project.

        Don’t pretend to be more knowledgeable than him when you’re not. If you reject him, fine. But you don’t have any qualifications at all. Just refute the facts he stated in his blog. That’s all. That’s the typical behavior of AGW ignoramuses.

      • Well, it depends upon how you define the word “scientist”. There are scientists who did not graduate from college. Your definition of “scientist” shows you’re nothing but a diploma-toting moron.

        Now if you know what you’re talking about, why not refute what he posted instead of just attacking him based on what you read online?

      • Ocean temperatures? Watts is wrong – you can’t just look at the surface. They’re rising steadily, as per NOAA.

        Citing Watts is to paint your forehead with “I can typing”. It’s pseudo-science for gullible Libertarians.

      • Further, you need to see this graph…

        You need to forget about your bogus Hockey stick— http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/31/ssts-cooler-now-than-in-the-medieval-warming-period/

        The global warming alarmists say: “The ongoing rise in average global temperatures, which has accelerated Arctic ice melt, has been largely attributed to the burning of fossil fuels and the resultant increase in greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.”

        What science says: No rise in temperatures the last 15 years even as CO2 has risen over 8% and human emissions from fossil fuels by almost 20%.

        http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/huffington_post_story_featuring_mann_and_climate_central_full_of_errors1/

      • More nonsense from Watts. The hockey stick has been recreated dozens of times. Here’s yet another version for you. Science is about replication. It’s been replicated – a lot. It’s face.

      • No. It’s more nonsense from you and your own source. Like I said:My Watts links are merely CITING STUDIES conducted by scientists. He didn’t conduct the study, nor your source conducted its own study. Both are citing sources. Watts here cited original studies. If you want to argue properly, refute the contents of the source, not the site itself.

        You’ve merely exposed HOW IGNORANT YOU ARE. A typical AGW cultist.

      • You said: “nd at that natural systems pull out 50% of what we add. yet we are headed to a doubling of atmospheric CO2…”

        THAT is the proof you don’t even understand what you’re talking about and a thing about science.

        What science says: Humans contribute approximately 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

        Know the facts and try to re-educate yourself, sir.

      • You mentioned proof that I don’t understand what I’m talking about. Please provide that proof.

        In the meantime, while at your labors, please consider the myriad facts I have presented that eviscerate your pro-tax, anti-free market approach to global warming.

      • ” You cannot destroy this planet with CO2. You can make it very inhospitable to humans, which is morally wrong.”

        That’s not the AGW theory says… You’re really the environmentalist wacko described by Mike Crichton.

      • Where in “AGW theory” does it state you can destroy our planet with CO2? You don’t appear to know what you are talking about.

      • I think it’s you who clearly doesn’t know a thing about science and the AGW theory. How many times did Al Gore and his colleagues say we are destroying this planet by emitting CO2?

        Here’s what Al Gore said: ““The relationship is actually very complicated but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.””

      • Al Gore’s statement is correct. However you have not supported your claim that greenhouse gasses will destroy the planet.

        it just isn’t true – and quoting ALGORE on a different subject doesn’t prove your claim.

        Sorry.

      • These are not science based posters – they are bloggers – people like you who are short on science but able to put together a blog.

        It obviously isn’t hard.

        You have provided NO evidence that greenhouse gasses will destroy the planet. I consider that a false statement.

        Sorry.

      • Ah, but you can. One major extinction event has been traced to a meteorite. The others all involve CO2. Crichton was wrong, the scientists are right.

      • You need to re-read my previous responses. Posting drivel and unreliable links or copy-pasta won’t help your case.

        Like I said:

        New important data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) reveal that atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase but global temperature are not following suit.
        Is this consistent with Al Gore’s AGW theory that where CO2 levels increase, temperature follows suit?
        The answer, according to science and latest studies/discoveries, is NO.
        According to NOAA, atmospheric CO2 levels rose 2.67ppm in 2012, to 395ppm or almost 400ppm. Like I said, the last time planet earth experienced over 400ppm was more than three million years ago. Was it caused by humans? That’s three million years ago!
        Today’s global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were over 10 years ago (or in 1995), when atmospheric CO2 levels were only about 360 ppm. Between 1995 and 2012, atmospheric CO2 levels rose 10%. Yet global temperatures did not increase at all.
        How’s that, comrade alarmists?

      • I’ve read your previous posts. You obviously need to absorb the basics of science. You are attempting to run before you can walk.

        You do realise that you complaining about Al Gore misses the point. Multiple studies, multiple, show that 97% of climate scientists know that that AGW is true.

      • Then just reply to this, if you know what you’re talking about: “How much is the earth’s greenhouse effect enhanced by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere (I mean human-emitted/caused CO2)?”

      • Before the industrial revolution CO2 was about 280ppm. Now it’s about 400. So man has added 30%.

      • “Before the industrial revolution CO2 was about 280ppm. Now it’s about 400. So man has added 30%.”

        That’s not the answer. Now lemme ask you then: How did that enrich the earth’s greenhouse effect?

      • Besides, it was established by scientists that CO2 follows temperature, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. That’s why the sudden surge in CO2 over the past 16 years did not lead to catastrophic warming as predicted by Al Gore and his alarmist colleagues.

      • Linking is not a good, proper substitute for arguments. I asked you:

        Do you even know how much warming man experienced over the past 16 years? I mean the mean temperature?

        Just please respond and tell me what you only know.

      • Ah! Perhaps the source of the problem – as a critical thinking I spent my time learning how to learn – I seek to leverage the knowledge of the human race when I speak – which I do by linking to the published science – much more valuable than my own knowledge – as it has both been peer reviewed and stood the test of time.

        here is where all that heat you are so desparate to find is:
        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n7/full/nclimate1863.html

      • Linking again…

        That won’t help your case.

        By the way I need to go work… OK?

        But I want you to answer these:

        1. What was the mean temperature from 2000 to 2010?

        2. Do you even know humans contribute approximately 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

        3. Are you saying we all must get rid of industries and oil and other CO2-emitting activities to “save” this planet?

        3. Tell me what’s the probable amount of CO2 that could destroy this planet through increased greenhouse effect?

      • I’m not really arguing with you – I am merely pointing out your logical fallacies and pointing you to the published science. You can choose to learn or not – that is up to you.

      • It’s you who needs to learn. But I don’t think it is possible to argue with someone who has long renounced the use of reason and logic.

        By the way I need to go work… OK?
        But I want you to answer these:
        1. What was the mean temperature from 2000 to 2010?
        2. Do you even know humans contribute approximately 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?
        3. Are you saying we all must get rid of industries and oil and other CO2-emitting activities to “save” this planet?
        3. Tell me what’s the probable amount of CO2 that could destroy this planet through increased greenhouse effect?

      • “But I don’t think it is possible to argue with someone who has long renounced the use of reason and logic.” Note I have posted links to peer reviewed science on every issue we have discussed.

        Let’s try some logic here. There are two of us discussing this. One of them isn’t using reason and logic. I am using reason and logic. So who, Froi Vincenton is NOT using reason and logic? Think carefully.

        1. You can Google this – I find people do better when they invest some of their own mental energy – you seem to slide away from anything other than emotional results.

        2. Yes.
        3. No
        4. You cannot destroy this planet with CO2. You can make it very inhospitable to humans, which is morally wrong.

      • I asked you simple questions… Give me the answer- figures and what your science told you.

        1. What was the mean temperature from 2000 to 2010?
        2. Do you even know humans contribute approximately 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere?
        3. Are you saying we all must get rid of industries and oil and other CO2-emitting activities to “save” this planet?
        3. Tell me what’s the probable amount of CO2 that could destroy this planet through increased greenhouse effect?

      • Asked and answered sir! Are your talking points out of gas? I look forward to your thoughtful reply regarding your current position advocating higher taxes and ignoring free market solutions.

      • An ice free arctic summer is considered by many to be catastrophic warming – sadly we will see what that means very soon.

      • Here you go with Arctic stuff… That was said by a man named N.N Zubov in the 1930s…

        He talked about “receding of glaciers and “melting away” of islands” and “rising temperature”.

        But according to real scientists, the Arctic is growing, not melting. Get your facts correct and stop embarrassing yourself.

      • Please provide a link to the “growing arctic” – it simply isn’t true. Observable reality trumps your ideology. Again.

      • I mean Antarctica… not Arctic.

        It’s growing, not melting. Get your facts correct, mister.

        You need to do more research, if you know how to research.

        LINKS–

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/04/130401-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-science-environment/

        From NASA: Opposite Behaviors? Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks, Antarctic Grows — http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23339-antarctic-ice-grows-as-climate-warms.html#.UeCn8EFQFqU

        http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-expands-antarctic-sea-ice-1.12709

      • “When you drop your ideology and look at the science…”

        Funny, I don’t think you even realize that you’re neither pro-science nor pro-man. You’re pro-death, based on the implications of what you just stated above.

        Newsflash!

        Early this year (2013), it was established that the seasonally adjusted concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 395 parts per million (ppm). That was huge! Scientists however expect the value to reach 400 ppm sometime this year.

        OMFG!!! We’re doomed! Yet, there’s no warming. Why is that?

        Did we just produce too much CO2 to destroy this planet?

        The last time Earth’s atmosphere held this much CO2 was at least 3 million years ago.

      • Your post is mostly correct. However this statement: “yet there’s no warming” is incorrect. Earth is comprised of land, air and water. Don’t fool yourself by leaving oceans out of the equation.

      • ” “yet there’s no warming” is incorrect.”

        Hahaha! I almost fell of my chair. Do you even know how much warming man experienced over the past 16 years? I mean the mean temperature?

      • You’ve not answered any of my questions nor respond directly to my arguments. You’re like the rest! Do you even understand what you’re talking about?

        I said…

        The question is, did we have the thing predicted by Al Gore and his alarmist fellow?
        Al Gore explicitly said: “When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer, because it traps more heat from the sun inside.”
        Did we have that over the past 16 or 17 years? NO!
        I repeat, humans added 25% of all CO2 since 17th century. Yet we didn’t feel what Al Gore call catastrophic warming.
        Now it appears everything you said is not backed by science, but by junk science and pure rubbish ideology.

      • “Science tells us a doubling of CO2 will lead to ~+3C warming in the short term.”

        — Does that include atmospheric or naturally occurring CO2? Do you even know there’s naturally occurring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

        Humans contribute approximately 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.
        Water vapor, which is the dominant greenhouse gas, consists of 97% of
        all greenhouse gases. This means that humans are responsible for only 1%
        CO2 of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Do you even know
        that water vapor, carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases are
        NATURALLY OCCURRING?

        So that means you’re not scientifically correct. And I think it’s even technologically and industrially impossible for man to double that amount of CO2 (if by doubling you mean including the amount of naturally occurring CO2)…

      • No. Sophistry on your part does not mean I am not scientifically correct. It means you have engaged in sophistry.

        A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a short term warming of ~+3C – you can do the research yourself to see I am correct. There are some papers showing less than +2C – and some showing greater than +4.5C – however the overwhelming evidence is +3C.

      • Do you know what you’re talking about? Do you even know how much CO2 humans contribute to the total CO2 in the atmosphere?

        I SAID…

        Does that include atmospheric or naturally occurring CO2? Do you even know there’s naturally occurring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

        Humans contribute approximately 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

        Water vapor, which is the dominant greenhouse gas, consists of 97% of
        all greenhouse gases. This means that humans are responsible for only 1%
        CO2 of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Do you even know
        that water vapor, carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases are
        NATURALLY OCCURRING?

      • “Does that include atmospheric or naturally occurring CO2”

        Oh, that one is easy. I can answer that without a degree in climate science. The laws of physics don’t care where CO2 comes from. They simply say, double CO2, temperature goes up by so much. And since we are doubling CO2 (seriously, you know that burning stuff emits CO2?) the temperature will go up.

  3. Climate change is just that; the climate changed. There is no requirement for it to be a natural source for the change. You should stop twisting words around like the propagandists.

  4. “Climate
    change is the natural change in global temperatures over time. More
    specifically, a change in Earth’s energy budget can result in both
    increases and decreases in global temperatures. Climate always changes.”

    There is no requirement for climate change to be caused by a natural process except in the context of skepticism.

    • Nobody’s denying that climate change happens. It’s been happening for millions of years. Now, are you referring to natural climate change or HUMAN-CAUSED global warming.

  5. From 2000 to 2010, humanity (particularly India and China) added 100 billion tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. That’s 25% of all CO2 produced by man since 17th century.

    Did this trend support AGW THEORY 2? Did temperature rise due to more atmospheric CO2?

    According to science, NO. This actually baffles both real scientists and AGW scientists. Ergo, the AGW theory that more CO2 leads to rise in temperature did not occur.

  6. To the global warming religionists/fanatics from that FB group, I appreciate this. And no, this blog doesn’t earn from ads.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/336682515937/permalink/10151464696895938/

    P.S.

    Please, guys, study facts and real science. Your comrade just told me “we are headed to a doubling of atmospheric CO2…”

    That is absolutely wrong and anti-science.

    What science says: Humans contribute approximately 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Perhaps he doesn’t know there is naturally occurring CO2 in the atmosphere.

    • You are factually incorrect. Atmospheric CO2 was at 280 in the pre-industrial era. IT is now at ~400 – we are on track to double atmospheric CO2 – not sure where you are confused.

      • You said: “Atmospheric CO2 was at 280 in the pre-industrial era. IT is now at ~400 – we are on track to double atmospheric CO2 – not sure where you are confused.”

        Another proof you know NOTHING about science.

        Didn’t you read my previous reply? I said this planet had over 400 ppm three million years ago!!!

        I SAID:

        Early this year (2013), it was established that the seasonally adjusted concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 395 parts per million (ppm). That was huge! Scientists however expect the value to reach 400 ppm sometime this year.

        OMFG!!! We’re doomed! Yet, there’s no warming. Why is that?

        Did we just produce too much CO2 to destroy this planet?

        The last time Earth’s atmosphere held this much CO2 was at least 3 million years ago.

      • Both are true. Pre-industrial era does not mean all time before 1750 – it means the period to time during which human civilization developed – roughly 10,000 years.

        Your time period – 3 million years ago also had higher CO2 AND much higher temperatures (and smaller mammals).

        You are quick to come to hysterical conclusions that the facts don’t support.

      • That means you’re wrong and you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        1. You don’t know that the climate models used by AGW scientists cannot predict climate.
        2. You don’t know that CO2 levels follow temperature.
        3. You don’t know that global temp. did not increase despite the fact that we added 100 billion CO2 to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010.
        4. You don’t know there were warming periods in the past.
        5. You don’t know the official AGW theory talking points that where there’s more CO2, there’s increase in temperature.
        6. You don’t know and understand your own sources. There’s a big difference between climate change and man-made global warming.
        7. You don’t know that greenhouse gas is constant and naturally occurring.
        8. You don’t know that humans contribute approximately 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

      • I will quickly dispatch your confusion:

        1. You don’t know that the climate models used by AGW scientists cannot predict climate.

        We agree on this point, so if I am wrong so are you – at least I am good company.

        2. You don’t know that CO2 levels follow temperature.

        I disabused your misconception (that is polite for saying I proved you were wrong) with peer reviewed science.

        3. You don’t know that global temp. did not increase despite the fact that we added 100 billion CO2 to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010.

        You continue to ignore the oceans – which contain 97% of the thermal mass of the ocean/atmosphere system – you are ignoring 97% of the earth.

        4. You don’t know there were warming periods in the past.

        Really? Please quote where I made that statement. I’ll wait.

        5. You don’t know the official AGW theory talking points that where there’s more CO2, there’s increase in temperature.

        Hmmm. this is well established science – so of course I know it to be true, sadly, the same cannot be said for you DO YOUR RESEARCH – so you too can know the facts.

        6. You don’t know and understand your own sources. There’s a big difference between climate change and man-made global warming.

        I believe Rob cleared this up for you already – please take the time to review Rob’s words – you can figure it out.

        7. You don’t know that greenhouse gas is constant and naturally occurring.

        Please point to what I said that supports this conclusion – it is of course naturally occurring – “constant” is most likely false – it depends on the context. Atmospheric CO2 is of course rising due to human activity.

        8. You don’t know that humans contribute approximately 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

        please point out where I say this.

        My goodness you really don’t seem to be tracking the conversation at all!!

        Take the time to review all I’ve posted for you – most of your concerns are addressed completely.

      • I don’t think it’s possible to argue with you, but this statement of yours clearly shows you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about science and this global warming debate.

        You said: “we are headed to a doubling of atmospheric CO2…”

        Do you even realize how that statement contradicts science and what scientists have established? That means you don’t know there’s naturally occurring CO2 in the atmosphere and you don’t know the actual CO2 contribution of humans.

        It’s a waste of time arguing with someone who doesn’t know a shit. Good day!

      • Pre-industrial CO2 was 280ppm

        Today it is ~400ppm

        A doubling would require getting to 560ppm. We are (400-280) / 280 = 43% of the way to doubling atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels.

        Pre-industrial means the ~10k years of human civilization.

        Where are you getting lost? Math doesn’t lie – I can’t necessarily say the same of you.

      • Yet we didn’t have the dreaded warming predicted by Al Gore.

        Again, we had over 400ppm over THREE MILLION YEARS AGO! What caused them? Humans? Give me a break…

      • The sun. Which is, of course, the first thing the scientists ruled out when observing the current, man-made warming.

      • “we are headed to a doubling of atmospheric CO2…”

        Plus, how is that possible when we only contribute about 3% of all CO2 in the atmosphere? Tell me.

      • Every month you make 3333. And you spend 3233. You have 100 left over. Let’s say you save that. That is 3% of your income.

        By your logic your savings will never grow. But, as described, they must.

        Your logic fails. Reality trumps your ideology. Again.

      • Do you even understand what you’re talking about?

        I repeat, humans contribute only 3% of all CO2. That means the 97% is produced NATURALLY. Besides, CO2 is just one of several greenhouse gases. The most dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. So taking all greenhouse gases together, man’s contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gas is below 1%.

        Now how can you say humans have the capacity to warm this planet?

        You don’t even understand the IGNORANCE of this statement of yours: “we are headed to a doubling of atmospheric CO2…”

        The truth is, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HUMANS ALONE TO DOUBLE ATMOSPHERIC CO2. Even if we increase human CO2 contribution to 10%, I believe that’s not enough to warm this planet in a way that is not conducive to humans.

        That is why I asked you this: “How much is the earth’s greenhouse effect enhanced by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere (I mean human-emitted/caused CO2)?”

        Your answer his absolutely hilarious because it shows you know nothing about climate science.

        Your answer: “Science tells us a doubling of CO2 will lead to ~+3C warming in the short term.”

        You mean doubling the so-called 400 ppm to 800 ppm? Do you think that’s possible? LOL!

  7. To AGW alarmists and fanatics,

    New important data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) reveal that atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase but global temperature are not following suit.

    Is this consistent with Al Gore’s AGW theory that where CO2 levels increase, temperature follows suit?

    The answer, according to science and latest studies/discoveries, is NO.

    According to NOAA, atmospheric CO2 levels rose 2.67ppm in 2012, to 395ppm or almost 400ppm. Like I said, the last time planet earth experienced over 400ppm was more than three million years ago. Was it caused by humans? That’s three million years ago!

    Today’s global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were over 10 years ago (or in 1995), when atmospheric CO2 levels were only about 360 ppm. Between 1995 and 2012, atmospheric CO2 levels rose 10%. Yet global temperatures did not increase at all.

    How’s that, comrade alarmists?

      • Cherry pick what? Your source relies on flawed, erroneous info provided by climate models that don’t work. Even your comrade has the decency to concede the climate models cannot predict climate. Know your facts.

      • Pick temperatures over at least 30 years. That’s the agreement on climate. Any shorter is a misleading cherry pick.

      • “Pick temperatures over at least 30 years. That’s the agreement on climate. Any shorter is a misleading cherry pick.”

        — Then tell me how did the CO2 added by man enrich the earth’s greenhouse effect. That’s all.

      • I have. A few times. And you could look it up. That’s what a real sceptic would do. They’d do their own study. They’d look at the literature, not just Libertarian blogs.

        That’s what a real sceptic would do.

      • Neither Nature nor Science are far left. Nor is NASA. And neither is SkS.

        But Watts 15 minutes of fame was to appear on Glenn Beck.

        I win.

      • That’s not the topic here. That’s obviously where you’re good at. How can you deny facts when you don’t even know basic facts.

      • NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

        From NASA again… http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

      • HAHAHAHA!!!

        What an epic fail…

        Predictions of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites.

        It’s 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.

      • LOL! You must be kidding me, right? Skepticalscience is a BIG JOKE!

        Hansen 1988? Here it is.

        Hansen’s predictions to the US Congress in 1988, compared to the subsequent temperatures as measured by NASA satellites

        I win!

      • As before, David Evans is a paid false sceptic.

        If you don’t provide peer reviewed material you lose. You just lost again.

      • I know, Skeptical Science is such a big joke that John Cook was invited to speak at the American Geophysical Union recent Chambers meeting.

        Scientists. Pfft. Can’t trust them.🙂

      • PSI? They’ll also tell you oil is infinite and dispute relativity theory. They’re not science at all.

        No Nature? No Science?

      • Haha! You’re a joke, comrade. You’re not even a scientist. You’re a sick-minded global warming religionist.

      • That report has nothing to do with manmade global warming. So, first, why do you cite it? Second, why do you distrust NASA when they state CO2 is the problem, and yet trust a misrepresentation of a study that says it’s not?

      • Wow! Is that how ignorant you are?

        The report doesn’t have something to do with global warming.

        It has something to do with CO2 being a natural coolant of the atmosphere.

        You’re impossibly ignorant. That study debunks all its pro-AGW study. Read it again if you have the brain to understand a scientific study. You must be squirming like a scalded fish now.

        All you can do is deny science and desperately cling to your own dogma.

      • So, when are you going to answer my question about how did the CO2 added by man enrich the earth’s greenhouse effect?

      • I have answered it. But you just want to type rather than read or think.

        CO2 stood at 280ppm at the beginning of the industrial revolution. It’s 400ppm now.

        The earth was cooling until then, now it’s warming.

      • It was 400ppm more than THREE MILLION years ago! LOL! Are you saying that was caused by fossil fuel emission? You’re an idiot indeed.

      • Hahahahaha!!! That means increases of CO2 in the atmosphere were caused by other factors, like the SUN, etc. and not by human beings! You’re indeed an IDIOT.

      • You’re indeed funny and ignoramus. Haha!

        “An instrument near the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii has recorded a long-awaited climate milestone: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there has exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history.”

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/

        ARE YOU EVEN A SCIENTIST, YOU MORON YOU?! You’re not. You’re NOTHING.

      • Well, how can an ignoramus win a debate.

        An ignoramus like you who doesn’t even know climate models failed to predict climate and that earth had 400ppm over 3 million years ago.

        You, guys, are indeed a joke. You’re all SICK IN THE MIND.

        Good day!

      • Again…

        “The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Until the 20th century, it certainly hadn’t exceeded 300 ppm, let alone 400 ppm, for at least 800,000 years. That’s how far back scientists have been able to measure CO2 directly in bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice cores.”

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/

      • What you don’t know is that the 400ppm CO2 was caused by natural warming of the earth due to the sun…and that process is called OUTGASSING.

      • Climate model predictions [11] of ocean temperature, versus the measurements by Argo[12]. The unit of the vertical axis is 1022 Joules (about 0.01°C).
        The ocean temperature has been basically flat since we started measuring it properly, and not warming as quickly as the climate models predict.

      • No peer-reviewed science? Just gullible Libertarian blogscience? Oh dear.

        What other conspiracy theories do you subscribe to?

      • Peer reviewed BS? That’s what you’ve been showing since yesterday lol.

        What do you even know?

        You don’t even know the climate models cannot predict climate.

        You don’t even know earth had 400ppm over THREE MILLION years ago. You must be saying that was caused by fossil fuel emission.

    • Froi, when you are presented with peer review science with citations your response through out this thread is “no it’s not – your wrong”. You need to take a step back, since you want to claim to have the correct knowledge, you must be ready and always be investigating your position. That is what science is as does, a theory is developed and then others for decades work to disprove it. You don’t simply run back to the same position and say no. You have witnessed a dozen or so of the folks who originally denied climate change being both the result of nature and man change positions in recent years. To be skeptical of others material you must likewise be skeptical of an challenge your own cited sources. Who has reviewed their position? Who else has endorsed it. These studies others have cited for you have been peer reviewed, which is a term you need to be come familiar with. It means they aren’t simply giving you a link, it means that study has been looked at for falsehoods by hundreds of scientists. You see Froi, those “alarmists” that you seem to think have an agenda – everyone of them is hoping they are wrong. Bthey put their study out there hoping someone can point out what is incorrect with it, that they missed something. But the science is the science. They make no additional profits from extreme weather events that are bell weather signs of a changing world. Actually the only one with profits to gain are the people who are willing to discount science and just say it doesn’t exist in an attempt to cause confusion while the fossil fuel companies make a few more profits. This isn’t a left wing right wing issue, in fact a cornerstone of conservative is conservation. To be a conservative you must look out for the future – that’s why you saw republicans create the EPA, the clean air act, the first cap n trade to address acid rain. While just saying no your wrong does not prove anything, it’s actually what my 3 year old does, if you have the answer you need to submit it. As if anyone is able to show that the thousands of scientists are wrong – is going to be the most famous person on earth, they will be hailed as a hero and will be given the Nobel peace prize – notice that hasn’t happened to the folks your citing – they are a household name because they are sadly snake oil salesman. So you may continue to buy the elixir and assume it will cure your ailments, or you can actually go to a doctor and be cured. The choice is yours.

  8. The evil scientists of the American Geophysical Union recently met to conspire to teach climate science. Hear the arch-demons tell you of the current state of research.

  9. The fifth column on physicists has joined the great conspiracy! Do not be taken in!

    Statement on Human Impacts on Climate Change

    In April 2004, the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003. The statement follows:

    “Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth’s climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth’s history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

    “Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth’s history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

    “Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

    “The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.

    “Scientists’ understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

    “The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states as an objective the ‘ . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.’ AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.

    “Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.

    “Science provides society with information useful in dealing with natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves our ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While human-induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing with climate change. AGU is committed to improving the communication of scientific information to governments and private organizations so that their decisions on climate issues will be based on the best science.

    “The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events.”

  10. FYI – (from the ‘hacked’ SkS non-public forum)

    2012-02-12 01:41:01 Potential SkS Author – John Samuel
    John Samuel does a nice job of policing the SkS Facebook page. I suggest that we ask him to join the SkS author team.
    – John Hartz

    I don’t think he ever got ‘promoted’ though….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s