Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 11:09:28 PM
Maybe you should go back and read this thread before you pass judgment, because I posted and reposted the evidence on a multitude of occasions.  So I know you think you sound clever, but you're really just full of shit.

Having a bad day, making claims you can't back?

Must be a weekday ending in "Y."

Quote from: quiller on November 24, 2013, 11:20:34 PM
Having a bad day, making claims you can't back?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 02:59:44 PM
So you can't find any flaws in methodology in the peer reviewed studies I just showed you?

OK then, answer this: if you don't think manmade fossil fuel emissions contribute to climate change, explain why a progressively increasing percentage of the CO2 detected in the atmosphere lack a carbon-14 footprint.  The only source that would lack such an isotope is above ground human controlled burnings of fossil fuels.

Also read this:

http://skepticalscience.com/richardson-2013-man-made-carbon.html

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 02:45:36 PM
Appeal to personal incredulity doesn't fly in the world of science.  "Five degrees, five degrees higher than average and you think I have a serious fever?   "

Now, find one flaw in the methodologies of the studies linked to here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-reviewed-impacts-of-global-warming.html

Or concede that you think you can dispute peer reviewed scientific evidence with your personal "gut feeling".

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 08:20:23 PM
The vast majority is carbon 12, while carbon 13 is maybe 1% and carbon 14 is negligible.  The C13/C12 ratio since 1850 has decreased around 0.15%, an extremely large figure by natural standards and only explained by fossil fuel emissions, which emit lower isotopes of carbon.

Yes.  Appeal to personal incredulity much?  Natural changes of such magnitude usually take thousands of years.  I would also note that natural CO2 emissions have decreased since the industrial revolution. 

If you're still skeptical here's a nice link to peer reviewed examples of negative (and a very small number of positive) impacts of such climate change, with links to peer reviewed, published studies.  If you can find any errors in methodology in any of the studies feel free to elaborate on them.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-reviewed-impacts-of-global-warming.html

What?

One source. Multiple delusions. Yay, team!.....

Quote from: quiller on November 24, 2013, 11:38:57 PM
One source. Multiple delusions. Yay, team!.....

After getting your ass kicked on your assumption that I had no sources, now you want to get your ass kicked by not bothering to even click on the link or read my descriptions; the link is a gateway to a large quantity of peer reviewed studies you will never understand, but that nonetheless support my position quite succinctly. 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 11:41:20 PM
After getting your ass kicked on your assumption that I had no sources, now you want to get your ass kicked by not bothering to even click on the link or read my descriptions; the link is a gateway to a large quantity of peer reviewed studies you will never understand, but that nonetheless support my position quite succinctly.

The only ass you're kicking is in your head, boy. You cite ONE SOURCE. The links you gave are absolute proof.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 08:59:50 PM
For one, food prices have risen as a result of an increased difficulty of maintaining an ideal weather for crops.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 10:59:48 PM
No, they're put together by various independent climate scientists with tens of thousands of hours of work and academic experience.

All being paid for by the government that is stealing money from the taxpayers.  Now why would the scientists kill the cash cow.   

"2013 Corn Harvest a Record 13.9B Bushels - ABC News" 

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 08:59:50 PM
For one, food prices have risen as a result of an increased difficulty of maintaining an ideal weather for crops.

Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 05:27:10 AM

Quote from: walkstall on November 25, 2013, 06:09:27 AM
"2013 Corn Harvest a Record 13.9B Bushels - ABC News" 

He posts this shit as gospel, while completely ignoring reality.

Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 06:22:16 AM
He posts this shit as gospel, while completely ignoring reality.

  Not one word about biofuel.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 09:40:53 PM
Do you honestly believe getting locked up and sent to a concentration camp is the same level of risk as having to pay some more taxes?

Fascinating. Your personal safety is more important than saving the planet; but even though we're 16 trillion dollars in debt, we should risk bankruptcy and possibly collapsing our economy, in order to borrow even more money to pour down the rat hole of an disproven theory.

Quote from: walkstall on November 25, 2013, 06:27:28 AM




  Not one word about biofuel.

Or how their own data works against them.

NOAA: Accelerating Global Warming Is Not Happening - CO2 Wrongly Accused
Scientifically corrupt IPCC scientists, and their disgraceful, pathetic parrots in the MSM, have claimed that global warming has been rapid and accelerating over recent years due to CO2 - in fact, these claims are easily dis-proven by the latest NOAA research



http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/01/noaa-accelerating-global-warming-is-not-happening-co2-wrongly-accused.html

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 10:55:18 PM


There's around a 98% probability by most computer models that it is manmade.  For common speech we don't always include the "probably" qualifier that technically underlies any claim.

About your reliance on computer models. GIGO. Since they only have accurate climate date for the last 100 years of the Earths 4.6 billion year life span, I would guess that some interesting assumptions would have to be built into those models. So your computer models are nothing more than WAG (Wild Ass Guess).

QuoteI've presented evidence.  I cannot force you to recognize that the laws of physics are not bound by your gut.

No you haven't presented evidence, what you've presented is someone's guess, that importantly, hasn't proven predictive. Not even predictive backward. Your theory doesn't even match the climate as we know it was at times in the past. Question. how much CO2 does a good sized volcanic eruption throw into the atmosphere.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 10:30:21 PM
OK boo man, if you're going to go down the path you need to stick to it.  Concede that global warming is as serious an issue as the entire scientific community agrees it is, and then we can discuss politics.  That you continue to mock the whole of scientific literature on the basis of your gut makes further discussion impossible.

To quote Glenn Reynolds: "I'll start taking AGW seriously, when the people who constantly keep screaming it's a menace, start taking it seriously". I don't expect to see you hear anymore, since you'll be moving to that shack in the woods, which won't have any electricity, to run your computer.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 10:55:18 PM


There's around a 98% probability by most computer models that it is manmade.  For common speech we don't always include the "probably" qualifier that technically underlies any claim.

I've presented evidence.  I cannot force you to recognize that the laws of physics are not bound by your gut.

I would love to know your background.  Because it certainly isn't a science background.  Unless you are at some liberal University or something.  You know you don't have to drink the Kool-Aid right?

There is no such 98% claim.  The total amount of CO2 production by humans compared to that naturally produced is ~6/40,000.  This means about 0.015% of the total CO2 produced is man-made.  That's not 1.5% that is 0.015%.  Furthermore, this doesn't take into account the Feedback system or what you call ecosystem.  This is modeled as k/(1 + Ak) for first order feedback or single loop with A being open loop gain; k/((1+Ak)^Nk) for higher orders of feedback (actually at least several dozen orders meteorologically speaking).

Now the GW alarmists perform very lame science in an attempt to tell us the sky is falling (Chicken Little With a Helmet Science).  According to them, if you take the 0.015% * 100 years gives 1.5% more CO2 than we would otherwise have.  They then equate a second order relationship between CO2 levels and temperatures and then another 2nd order relation between temperatures and sea levels.  This still didn't prove sufficient after the end of the last cycle so they manipulated their data.  It is JUNK SCIENCE.  Don't be a sucker.  You don't have to drink the Kool-Aid.

The Mount Saint Helen eruption produced the equivalent of ALL THE CO2 produced by ALL industrialized countries for the ENTIRE industrial revolution up to that point.  In other words all the CO2 produced by man for 120 years is equivalent to 1 extra MSH eruption.  And MSH dumped this in 9 months not 120 years.  MSH wasn't even a large eruption by historic geological standards.  Don't be a sucker.

They get funded to determine what the risk is.  They have a dog in the fight.  Of course the sky is falling.