Global Warming is a hoax.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1300641792' post='2221944']
And the fact is, one can have quite marginal scientific literacy and still follow science journalism perfectly well. E.g.,

[url="http://www.nature.com/news/index.html"]Nature[/url]
[url="http://www.sciencenews.org/"]ScienceNews[/url]
[url="http://www.newscientist.com/"]New Scientist[/url]
[url="http://www.sciencemag.org/"]Science Mag[/url]
[url="http://www.physorg.com/"]PhysOrg[/url]

Of course all the better if you can check the primary sources (Why? [url="http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf"]Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (PDF)[/url]; [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/19/bad-science-ben-goldacre"]A case of never letting the source spoil a good story[/url]), but the point is that ignorance of the basic science is intolerable and in my experience anti-AGW ideological commitment is often proportional to manifest ignorance.

Edit: There are notable exception of course, and I should be clear that rational and informed criticism of AGW is a wonderful thing.
[/quote]


So when you argue against anything you always have all the facts? I doubt it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1300840349' post='2222488']
So when you argue against anything you always have all the facts? I doubt it.
[/quote]
Irrelevant.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the facts are pretty clearly pointing to man made causes.
but in any case, i don't understand why it's so 'common sense' not by man. look at all the cars, smoke stacks from power generators, . what's nature got? 30 volcanoes a year erupt, each state in our union probably puts out as much. some animal CO2. what about cows and domesticated animals? man made. plus you don't dirty dirty ice in antarctica from natural gases, you see it from man made gases during the times of industry, and less during times of regulation of man gases. ice is an indicator of what's in the air. it seems more common sensical to think that we make more CO2 and emission.
but to each his own i guess.
even still, it doesn't detract from all the factual studies etc.
true, though, the conclusion one should draw is... "what is causing all our warming? it's not the sun or volcanoes, or other things that we can see. so what is it? we know CO2 causes temperature increases, and we have a lot of CO2 in the air, and all those other indicators" if one were to think man gases are just a drop in the bucket, then it could make sense to think what we do is inconsequential, and that there must be some other 'unknown' for why we're warming without something to attribute it to. but i don't know how one draws this conclusion that it's inconsequential.
i don't know how one can rationally be so adamaentaly against the idea of man made global warming. what i see is group think, 'i'm a republican so this is what i'll believe'. or people making assertions really without facts of any significance.

also, even if economics could solve the issue, it's only by chance. ie, we run out of oil, so global warming stops. it's not inherenlty the case that the free market would take care of this. not that anyone is saying it would.

Edited March 23, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1300639168' post='2221936']
RAAAAAAAGE RULES!! Thanks for that pic domsoul.
[/quote]

esp rageahol, rage-ahol
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rageahol

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm pistoff after some recent mind-bogglingly ignorant encounters with highly self-assured climate change deniers. Anyway, just feel like ranting. This isn't directed at anyone here...

"The hockey stick!" "It's just the sun!" "Urban heat sinks!" "Climategate!" blah blah blah..

[b]Actual Climate Science I[/b]

[i]A Few Organizations Doing Research on the Subject[/i]

[url="http://climate.nasa.gov/"]National Aeronautics and Space Administration[/url]

[url="http://ncar.ucar.edu/"]National Center for Atmospheric Research[/url]

[url="http://www.climate.gov/"]National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration[/url]

[url="http://www.ccsr.columbia.edu/"]Center for Climate Systems Research[/url]

[url="http://www.earth.columbia.edu"]The Earth Institute (Columbia University)[/url]

[url="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/"]NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies[/url]

[url="http://www.mpg.de/en"]Max Planck Society[/url]

[url="http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/"]Met Office[/url]

[url="http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/"]University of Colorado[/url]

[url="http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/"]University of Oxford[/url]

[url="http://coenv.washington.edu/"]University of Washington[/url]

[url="http://www.usgs.gov/"]U.S. Geological Survey[/url]

[url="http://english.cas.cn/"]Chinese Academy of Sciences[/url]

[url="http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/"]U.S. Department of Agriculture[/url]

[url="http://www.csiro.au/"]Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation[/url]

[url="http://www.insu.cnrs.fr/"]Centre national de la recherche scientifique[/url] ([url="http://www.cnrs.fr/inee/"]also[/url])

[url="http://www.ethz.ch/themen/energy_and_climate_change/index_EN"]ETH Zurich[/url]

[url="http://www.serc.si.edu/"]Smithsonian Environmental Research Center[/url]

[url="http://www.jcu.edu.au/ctbcc/"]James Cook University[/url]

[url="http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim/"]Rutgers University[/url]

[url="http://climate.llnl.gov/"]Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory[/url]



[i]A Few Outlets of Anti-science Misinformation and Obscurantism[/i]

[url="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Acton_Institute"]Acton Institute[/url]

[url="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Atlas_Economic_Research_Foundation"]Atlas Economic Research Foundation[/url]

[url="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom"]Frontiers of Freedom[/url]

[url="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition"]Global Climate Coalition[/url]

[url="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute"]Cato Institute[/url]

[url="http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf"]More...[/url]

I've found that some "Catholic" junk has connections with the above think tanks. For example Michael Novak of [i]First Things[/i] and [i]National Review[/i] is a member of the Acton Institute. Not sure what this means as I don't read either of these but it is unfortunate imo.

I have no tolerance for anti-science activists marketing themselves and their agendas in Catholic terms. Anyway, please learn real science and don't be deluded by the liars and cranks. This is like tobacco research obscurantism meets creationism "teach the controversy" style propaganda.

P.S. This book looks kind of interesting.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX3y6BQd4LI[/media]

[b]Actual Climate Science II[/b]

[i]Some Journals in which Real Climate Science is Published and Reviewed[/i] (yes, I'm making fun of "Real" Catholic TV)

[url="http://www.nature.com/"]Nature[/url]

[url="http://www.sciencemag.org/"]Science[/url]

[url="http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1354-1013"]Global Change Biology[/url]

[url="http://journals.ametsoc.org/loi/clim"]Journal of Climate[/url]

[url="http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/"]Geophysical Research Letters[/url]

[url="http://www.agu.org/journals/jd/"]Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres[/url]

[url="http://journals.ametsoc.org/loi/apme"]Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology[/url]

[url="http://www.springerlink.com/content/h118xt925240/"]Climatic Change[/url]

[url="http://www.pnas.org/"]Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences[/url]

[url="http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/geophysics/journal/382"]Climate Dynamics[/url]

[url="http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/636/description"]Quaternary Science Reviews[/url]

[url="http://www.esapubs.org/esapubs/journals/applications.htm"]Ecological Applications[/url]

[url="http://www.esajournals.org/loi/ecol"]Ecology[/url]

[url="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0088"]International Journal of Climatology[/url]

[url="http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/503328/description#description"]Earth and Planetary Science Letters[/url]

[url="http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/503306/description#description"]Ecological Modelling[/url]

[url="http://geology.gsapubs.org/"]Geology[/url]

[url="http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/503355/description#description"]Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology[/url]

[url="http://www.agu.org/journals/pa/"]Paleooceanography[/url]

[url="http://www.agu.org/journals/gb/"]Global Biogeochemical Cycles[/url]

[url="http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/ecology/journal/442"]Oecologia[/url]

If you are unfamiliar with these journals, or unable to follow their contents, you really don't know anything about climate science. Sorry. You're still free to talk about of course, but please, have a little respect for those who have acquired the education and are doing the research. Don't be a moran about it. (e.g., global warming is a fraud invented by Gaia-worshiping eugenics nuts.)

[i]edit: to add the following.[/i]

[b]An Interesting Book List[/b]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Crisis-Introductory-Guide-Change/dp/0521732557/"]The Climate Crisis: An Introductory Guide to Climate Change[/url]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Paleoclimates-Understanding-Climate-Change-Present/dp/0231144946/"]Paleoclimates: Understanding Climate Change Past and Present[/url]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Climate-William-F-Ruddiman/dp/0716784904/"]Earth's Climate: Past and Future[/url]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Paleoclimatology-Thomas-M-Cronin/dp/0231109555/"]Principles of Paleoclimatology[/url]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Climatology-Atmospheric-John-J-Hidore/dp/0321602056/"]Climatology: An Atmospheric Science[/url]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Ecological-Climatology-Applications-Gordon-Bonan/dp/0521693195/"]Ecological Climatology: Concepts and Applications[/url]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-2007-Physical-Science/dp/0521705967/"]Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis[/url]

Edited May 12, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[MithLuin]

Tell us how you really feel, [b]L_D[/b]

[Ice_nine]

I read all of that. Every link.

You're wrong.

Have a nice day

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1305213541' post='2240473']
I read all of that. Every link.

You're wrong.

Have a nice day
[/quote]

[Papist]

If this climate change is true, then why did the researchers hide and fudge the numbers to conform to thier assertion?

[Don John of Austria]

Are global temperatures rising? Maybe, there is some debate about whether it has gone up in the last 11 years or so, but for the sake of arguement lets assume they are.



Are human emmissions such as Co[sup]2[/sup] at a very high level ? yes

Do these gases tend to retain heat more than the other gases which make up the majority of the atmosphere? Yes.

Does this mean that human activity is causeing the worlds climate to change? No, correlation is not causation.

The fact is, that geologically speaking, the world has been getting generally warmer since the glaciers began to retreat 14,000 years ago. THis time is called the Holocene Epoch. This Epoch has been punctuated by some periods of cooling, such as the Younger-Dryas and the Little Ice Age. The major temerature fluctuations are listed below.


100,000 BC- 14000 - last ice age, at coldest -5 degrees C colder than today.

14000-10000BC Gradual warming and retreat of the ice sheets.

10,000- 8500BC Younger -Dryas, decrease in Global temperature Glaciers advance

8500-5000 BC Gradual warming resumes.

5000-3000 BC -- Climatic Optimum Temp 2 degrees more than today. Tropics were much bigger, Nile 3 times current volume. Civilizations rise.

3000-2000 BC -- Global cooling - large drops in sea level islands , islands that were previously covered ( bahamas for example) rise.
2000-1500 BC-- Warming,
1500-750BC -- cooling, increased glacier development. sea level 7-10 feet below current levels
750- 150BC -- warming
150 BC - 850 AD --- Cooling -- during this period both the Black sea and the Nile river froze
850-1200 AD -- Little Climatic Optimum (also called the Medieval Warm Period) very warm, ice line in most mountians hundreds of meters above today. Greenland and iceland were settled.
1200-1850 AD -- Little Ice age --- terrible cold, glaciers increase, multiple years with out a summer, Coldest time since the beginning of the Holocene.

1850 to present -- warming, sea levels are on the rise, glaciers are retreating.



Could the current warming be related to green house gases... sure. If so then we need to get on our needs and thank God for the industrial revolution becuase the warming trend has made the world a much more friendly place.

The fact is that there is no evidence that man has changed the worl's climate, only that the world's climate is changing

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1305216884' post='2240498']
If this climate change is true, then why did the researchers hide and fudge the numbers to conform to thier assertion?
[/quote]
They don't. If you're referring to the so-called "climategate" email scandal this explains the gist of it pretty well.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us[/media]


Bottom line:

"A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming."

[url="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm"]What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?[/url]

"Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW."


More information

[url="http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1371/1/Nerlich_final_26_5_2010_(2).pdf"]‘Climategate’: Paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis (PDF)[/url]
[url="http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Climategate_Opinion_and_Loss_of_Trust_1.pdf"]Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust[/url]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy"]Climatic Research Unit email controversy[/url]
[url="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/"]Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don't change scientific consensus on global warming[/url]

But even if "climategate" was all that the likes of Glenn Beck want it to be it still wouldn't undo the mountains of data confirming global warming. Sorry. But of course it is just a success story for anti-GW propaganda.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[dominicansoul]

i think we should respect what the Good Lord has given us. I could care less if there's proof or no proof of global warming...waste not want not.. recycle what can be recycled, and let's be good stewards of the earth...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305219380' post='2240516']
The fact is that there is no evidence that man has changed the worl's climate, only that the world's climate is changing
[/quote]
Okay, well then you're one of those people who likes to pontificate about a subject that they obviously know nothing about. Knock yourself out.

[MithLuin]

Well, we know we caused the increase in atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub]. After all, the combination of deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels is pretty blatant, and not simply a matter of correlation.

And we know that increasing the ratio of CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere increases the amount of heat trapped by the planet. Just look at Venus (atmosphere 96% carbon dioxide; surface temperatures the hottest in the solar system). We've done experiments to test that out, too, so it's not simply a conjecture from correlation to say 'more CO[sub]2[/sub] = warmer'

Now, it [i]is[/i] true that the climate is in constant flux, and has altered dramatically over the years...and the atmosphere has altered as well. We used to have 2 meter spiders and scorpions , because we had more O[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere and their book lungs were efficient enough to support their size. Sadly, not anymore. Or rather, .

So, as long as we recognize that altering the atmosphere has serious, longterm, life-altering effects...then yes, climate change isn't such a big deal.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1305219634' post='2240519']
i think we should respect what the Good Lord has given us. I could care less if there's proof or no proof of global warming...waste not want not.. recycle what can be recycled, and let's be good stewards of the earth...
[/quote]

Amen.