IPCC savaged for overstating climate change dangers

Cypress said:
Having fantasies of me being involved in murder and mayhem? You are a creepy vato loco, Thomas! Honestly, nothing you've ever written stressed me out, and I don't even think about you for a nanosecond if I'm not on a thread with you. Thomas, nine out of ten mental health professionals agree that if message boarding banter with dudes you don’t even know, gets you stressed out emotionally, it might be time for therapy!

Tom, well known basic physics do not require the consent of the uninformed. The undisputed physics of the greenhouse property and its relation to human emissions of gigatons of GHG do not require your approval. Or my approval. It is what it is.

I recommend this publication for all climate skeptics deniers misinformers. It’s a tad more informative and honest than blogs by mushroom researchers, or Rupert Murdoch tabloids.
Click to expand...

Your condescension is matched only by your lack of a sense of humour.
 
Did you know that humans produce a lot more C02 then volcanoes. Volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of 200 million tonnes of
C02 annually. Humans annually realease over 20 billion Tons of C02 and the amount keeps increasing.
 
Damocles said:
Channeling Cypress

Holy St. Algore of Hysteria! Have you no shame?!!

Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton? Who? Please! These Universities are nothing compared to people who make a living publishing Chicken Little stories and whom I trust because... well... Consensus!... *tick* NASA! *tick, spasm* IPCC! *eye twitch* Scientists!

/Channeling...
Click to expand...

Isn't it a shame that there's not BB Channeling code that allows you to type out an expression or opinion, and then the code automatically translates it into a poster's words? :cof1:
 
It really doesn't matter if humanity produces less CO2 than nature. The point is that the natural CO2 production has long been at a stable point, and we're throwing that stable point off. The fact that CO2 levels have generally been in status tells us that nature is absorbing CO2 as fast as it produces it. Any excess CO2 production at all throws off this stasis. This means that it's not appropriate to compare yearly natural CO2 production to yearly artificial CO2 production, since artificial CO2 production adds up over time while natural CO2 production is just absorbed back. It's only appropriate to compare ambient levels of CO2 to the amount we've put into the atmosphere over all of human history - essentially the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere before the oil age compared to now. And that has definitely lead to a massive increase. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has almost doubled due to human activity.

This is compounded by the fact that there are positive feedback loops in the environment, the classical example being that as the ice melts, less solar radiation is reflected back by ice and more is absorbed into the ocean, drawing more heat into the earth and making things even worse.
 
Last edited:
tom prendergast said:
It transpires that it was Margaret Thatcher who was one of the first to warn of global warming, but also one of the first to see the flaws in the climate change orthodoxy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...garet-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html
Click to expand...

Margaret Thatcher has a background in chemistry. Her support was actually very useful on a number of environmental issues because she could understand the chemistry behind it. If she hadn't of been there conservatives would've been up in arms about how CFC's were the greatest hoax humankind had ever known in the 80's, and no one would be able to go outside without contracting skin cancer immediately today.
 
tom prendergast said:
Your condescension is matched only by your lack of a sense of humour.
Click to expand...

TomPrendergast: Here is another climate change heretic that Cypress would have put up against a wall and shot.
Click to expand...

Who’s joking? I’ve been providing the world’s most prestigious and reputable scientific sources.... and you’ve been reduced to making petty, peanut gallery comments about your personal emotional feelings about me. I ain’t joking…….Climate change is a freaking serious issue. Almost as serious as the outright denial of science and the willful spreading of misinformation from Rupert Murdoch tabloids and rightwing blogs………

From the National Climatic Data Center:

“Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases).”

“There is no scientific debate on this point.”

“Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000 The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).”

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2
Click to expand...

From “Climate Literacy” (2010)

A publication by the US Global Climate Change Program, NASA, NOAA, National Science Foundation, Smithsonian Institute, US Environmental Protection Agency

“Natural processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere operate slowly when compared
to the processes that are now adding it to the atmosphere. Thus, carbon dioxide introduced into
the atmosphere today may remain there for a century or more. Other greenhouse gases, including
some created by humans, may remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years.”

http://www.climate.noaa.gov/education/pdfs/ClimateLiteracyPoster-8.5x11-March09FinalLR.pdf
Click to expand...


“Scientific observations and climate model results indicate that human activities are now the primary cause of most of the ongoing increase in Earth’s globally averaged surface temperature.”

March 2009

Signed,

US Global Climate Change Program
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institute
NASA
US Environmental Protection Agency
Dept. of Energy
US Dept. of Defense.
Click to expand...
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's not a serious issue, cypress. It's a lie to justify governmental encroachment and fascist directed markets.
Click to expand...

Consider the position of the climate science skeptics deniers misinformers.

Also, consider the fact that the misinformer cabal is dominated overwhelmingly by posters of dubious intellectual fortitude, and intellectual laziness like Dixie, Bravo, Asshat, Southernman, Tinfoil, Webway, et al.

They would have us believe that the overwhelming and virtually universal consensus among actual climate scientists** is systematically wrong. And that all the world’s governments, all the world’s National Science Academies, and all the world’s reputable scientific organizations are not only wrong……but purposely perpetrating a fraud, a deception based on fake data and doctored results (see, for example, Climate Gate hilarity on jpp.com).

This nonsense is so far beyond what even the 9/11 truthers have ever claimed, it boggles the rational mind. The scope and magnitude of this alleged conspiracy theory would be completely extraordinary. If the world’s climate scientists and the world’s reputable science organizations are capable of deception, incompetence, and lying on this magnitude and scale, then we are fucked.

On the other hand, it’s entirely possible that the climate science skeptic denier misinformers know they are wrong on the core facts, and are simply emotionally incapable of admitting it. Has anyone ever seen more than a handful of two-time Bush voters ever admit their Iraq war was a blunder of epic proportions?


Interestingly, Nature – arguably the planet’s most prestigious and respected science journal – goes out of its way to make note of the climate denialism and anti-science hysteria in the righwing…..
Science Scorned

Nature
September 9, 2010

The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge. There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts — including regulation of environmental and other issues and stem-cell research.

Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement.

(Rush) Limbaugh for instance, has called climate-change science “the biggest scam in the history of the world”.

The Tea Party's leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo research — which Beck has equated with eugenics. The movement is also averse to science-based regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government.

In the current poisoned political atmosphere, the defenders of science have few easy remedies. Reassuringly, polls continue to show that the overwhelming majority of the US public sees science as a force for good, and the anti-science rumblings may be ephemeral. As educators, scientists should redouble their efforts to promote rationalism, scholarship and critical thought among the young, and engage with both the media and politicians to help illuminate the pressing science-based issues of our time.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/467133a.html
Click to expand...

**footnote: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=678999&postcount=1
 
Last edited:
MakeMeASandwichBitch said:
Why does the religion of climate change denial make shit up? Same reason any religion does.
Click to expand...

Its been proved that C02 causes global warming. If their were a lot less C02 the world would be a lot colder? If their were a lot more C02 the world would be a lot hotter? It has been proven that C02 causes a green house effect this is not debated among scientists. What is debated is how much C02 is actually dangerous? Some people the current amount being realised is dangerous others believe we would have to be realising incredably more C02 to cause Climate change. No scientists says that realising CO2 can't cause C02 what scientist actually say is that we are not realising enough to effect the Climate. It means that we could potentially do so we just haven't yet reached that level and probally never will. CO2 can cause global warming? Do you believe that the world is heading into the danger zone or not is what everyone in the world needs to research and to come up with the right anwer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top