It is fascinating that over 97% of climate models have been completely off base, but those scientists are still deemed to be using "settled science".

Amazing and bizarre to me that something proven incorrect over and over and over, is called "settled".

I just don't get it....




.

incorrect. my side knows that human industries impact the ENVIRONMENT, we just also know that there is ZERO impact on CLIMATE.

And despite the hysteria, there is nothing happening with the climate that hasn't happened throughout time.

so you know it impacts the environment.. but feel there can be no way it has an affect on the climate?

riight

please produce any proof you may have.

id suggest reading up on it yourself

edit: however, if you already have, and still have the same opinion, all good.

really? all this belief in something, I'd have thought you'd have proof.

That 97% figure comes from a study that has been thoroughly discredited and shown to be wrong in both its methodology and conclusion. The author won't even release his data to people who want to test it. What is he hiding? It's a big lie that was handed off to the media and now they just run with it.

I guess 'Tyranny' is a word used by kooks to describe the end-game proposed by alarmists that "deniers" be arrested. Call me a kook if you like but proposing that people you disagree with be arrested is a road map to tyranny if you ask me.

The better question is what's the downside if we do cut carbon emissions? Plant life shuts down at 150ppm CO2. We are far closer to the dangerous bottom end of CO2 than we are to any imaginary high end.

The carbon dioxide level is dangerously low

The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production

Bingo. So why are we wasting trillions of dollars globally and crippling our economies to fight something that in all likelihood won't even be a major problem? A couple degrees of warming would probably be a net benefit.

belief.. like.. how the environment has no connection to the climate?

Are ********** and WeHatePorn brothers?

still waiting for your proof.

you don't believe the two are connected

what is the proof going to tell you?

You might want to brush up on your definitions of "climate" and "weather"

There might be such a thing as the "global climate" but that's not what you said, you said whether is local, climate is global.
For example, do you think the climate is the same at the South Pole as it is at the Equator? No it isn't, sites such as Wikipedia list the climate for each region or area of the globe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator#Climate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole#Climate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_P..._day_and_night


Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.

Weather is the state of the atmosphere, to the degree that it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy.[1] Most weather phenomena occur in the troposphere,[2][3] just below the stratosphere. Weather generally refers to day-to-day temperature and precipitation activity, whereas climate is the term for the average atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.[4] When used without qualification, "weather", is understood to mean the weather of Earth.

From Merriam-Webster:

Climate
: a region with particular weather patterns or conditions
: the usual weather conditions in a particular place or region
: the usual or most widespread mood or conditions in a place

Weather
the state of the air and atmosphere at a particular time and place : the temperature and other outside conditions (such as rain, cloudiness, etc.) at a particular time and place

Agreed. Well first off Climatologists are not scientists. At best you could call it a Pseudoscience like Psychology. They hijacked the title by labeling themselves "Climate Scientists" but with science the issue is never "settled" there is always more to learn and open discussion.

I have had Climate Change advocates give me the polite ass, condescending smile and say, "No offense but I don't debate the issue anymore. The science is settled". The hell it is and if you are not willing to look at claims and evidence from BOTH sides you are no scientist. Follower, yes. Scientist, no.

I myself am not claiming to be a scientist but I do my best to engage in critical thinking and try not limit myself to the ideas that I am most comfortable with.

It's ok for you to have fanciful beliefs.
If you don't have proof, it's also ok.

If it's settled science why do we need to spend one thin dime to prove anything further?
The answer is simple, it isn't settled. If it was these so-called "scientists" would actually have to go get a real job.

This "news" as the thread title states is nearly 4 decades old.... and the prediction of "disappearing by 2015" is also a decade and a 1/2 old. And as much as i like you, it would seem pretty obvious that the sea levels rising 2-3 feet would not just be felt in one specific area, affecting ONLY a young, coral reef... it would be noticed all over the globe. ;)

The only reason the name of that place is even known is because they have been relocating people from there since the 1980s. And why? One obvious reason that seems to only be a small footnote in any article is because a series of storms have destroyed a lot of what little vegetation there was which speeds up erosion from subsequent storms.

So lets forget about "global warming".... simple logic time. How is this one place submerging due to "rising sea levels"... and its not happening everywhere else? There are plenty of place at or below sea level. Hell, drive around Hawaii and there are tons of places where the roads are only 1-2 feet above mean sea level... yet we're not hearing about these roads going under water or anywhere else for that matter. As I said, San Marcos square in Venice for example is basically at sea level and somehow a reef is quickly slipping under the water due to "rising sea levels" and its not happening anywhere else. That should tell you there isn't much "science" in the conversation to begin with.

Hysterical rants from alarmists, is not "science".

Ugh... so much fail....

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.


Here are the results of the 'SETTLED SCIENCE" which should "NO LONGER BE DEBATED"

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/I...tions_Wide.jpg


http://sayanythingblog.com/files/201...-yr-means1.png


For you people that say that this is settled science.... please note that in the second picture, of the 75 climate model predictions..... EVERY SINGLE PREDICTION IS INCORRECT.

This is what you call "Settled Science"?????



Really????



:helpme

.

there's no money in predicting normal fluctuations of temperature

typical markprinc retort when presented with logic.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

its the liberal way.

So explain it?

Why is one island that barely breached the surface for an immeasurably small period of time in geological terms, disappearing and 1,000,000 others not "disappearing" at the same rate?

The planet is warming overall. it's been happening for over 10,000 years. That's not a debatable fact and not disputed by anyone. Everyone understands we are coming out of an ice age and the planet is warming.

What i am talking about is the hysteria and horrible science... and impossibly shitty examples like the one cited in this thread which is backed up with absolutely ZERO science or even logic whatsoever.

So... what is this atoll all about? Every single article about it says its sinking due to "global warming" and "rising sea levels". Some passively mention as a footnote the horrible series of storms that wiped out a huge portion of the vegetation, leading to severe erosion. Some mention as a footnote, the dropping water table due to human pressure, under the atoll causing it to fall. Are these not contributing factors? So if its ONLY "rising sea levels"... then is the argument that there is a magical low pressure system hovering over ONLY this particular atoll? Islands rise out of the water adn sink constantly. The trailing end of the Hawaiian islands are sinking back into the sea as we speak. Plate tectonics can't possibly be a contributing factor?

There are literally countless numbers of atolls that are similar. Why is one disappearing because of "rising sea levels"? Why is only one in the news? Why aren't hysterical alarmists showing the other many 1000s which are very similar in terms of barely being above the water which also must be disappearing to make a solid case?

I can understand logic and reason aren't your strong points given your incessant, one sided political rants... while insisting you are not biased at all... but surely this very simple logical dilemma is one you can understand.


Also... funny to note that the world got involved trying to relocate these people and in typical hippie asshole fashion where we are only allowed to see good in everyone... they relocated them into the middle of a civil war on a nearby island that left over 10,000 people dead.

sucks, i was going to buy island.

:1orglaugh thanks

here you go, Ron:

http://i.imgur.com/ersAB7p.png

http://mashable.com/2014/04/08/carbo...VlYzcxcWNlZiJ9

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/c...-a-month-17189

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5

Zero impact on climate? Is that your official position, and is it based on fanciful belief

oh my god! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! from a high of 300 parts per 1,000,000 to 400 parts per 1,000,000. And yet NOTHING has changed.
Also, just for fun, you have a chart that measures ice core samples for CO2 without knowing that it is a reflection of CO2 in the atmosphere. Its a theory, not a proven fact. Odder still, you and the alarmists want to switch from measuring ice to measuring atmosphere and pretending its the same.

I applaud your attempt but as I said, The small change in CO2 from 300 parts per 1,000,000 to 400 parts per 1,000,000 has not changed the climate one little bit. :thumbsup

and i am assuming you base that on your extensive education, research, and experience.

For the rest of us, however, we are left to wonder what happens when the atmosphere matches what it was when giant lizards roamed the earth, and what happens when the BRIC matches the pollution output of the rest of the world.

btw, the only person saying 'the sky is falling', is you.

CO2 is not pollution.

http://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=233

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/html/PlantPPM2.jpg

http://plantsneedco2.org/html/WoodyF...Enrichment.jpg

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pa...s/image277.gif

i see.

so you're saying, that because CO2 exists in nature, it is 'not pollution'

with that logic, nothing is pollution, because it was always 'a part of nature'?

The definition of pollution is:

the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects.

and your position is, because it already exists, the massive increase we are causing 'isn't pollution'.

please feel free to correct me where i am mistaken.

we, this tiny fucking blip in the earth's timeline, have both destroyed the earth, and are capable of saving it and changing the course of nature even in the face of the grand scheme of things. that about right?

You are mistaken in believing that CO2 has harmful or poisonous effects. The three images I posted above demonstrate the exact opposite.

The fact that the alarmists and their acolytes in the media have convinced people that CO2 is a pollutant will go down as one of the greatest feats of propaganda of our time.

i see.

enjoy your conspiracy theory then.

Where is the conspiracy theory? These people, like you, actually believe what they preach. The problem is that what they preach is wrong. CO2 is not pollution.

the global devious plot to fool the world that there is something called global warming?

the fact you believe that CO2 is not pollution, is terrifying.

I agree, CO2, by itself, as it occurs naturally, is not pollution.

however, human activity increasing it in our atmosphere? do you seriously believe that isn't pollution?

The plants on Venus would disagree with you.

let him work through it.

Who said anything about a devious plot? Those are your words not mine. I don't believe in grand conspiracy theories.

Where do you suppose the CO2 we are releasing comes from? Do you think god put it there? Or do you think it too occurred naturally, was once in the air, and it has just been trapped underground for a few million years? Look at the graph I posted above. CO2 used to be around 2000ppm at the time of the dinosaurs. Was there a runaway greenhouse effect with catastrophic global warming? No there wasn't. Life survived and flourished.

That's genius. Except for the fact that we are not even anywhere near the same concentration of CO2 that exists on Venus and we never will be. At the levels we are at now plants will thrive with lots of extra CO2. Besides that CO2 is not the sole determining factor of temperature on Venus. The atmospheric pressure is 95 times higher there than here and a similar pressure here might also raise temps above 400 degrees C.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/0...ting-on-venus/

Also don't forget that the atmosphere of Mars is also 95% CO2. Where is the greenhouse effect there?

No, I think you need to work through a few things. Stop toeing the line and look at some facts for yourself. The catastrophe that you hope and pray for isn't unfolding like they promised you and it isn't going to.

so you loop the conversation around, reiterate your beliefs, and feel good about yourself.

ok.

you assume a great deal.

The child like alarmists in this thread will ignore the fact that very few if these SI called scientists' predictions have come thru.
Near her will the one that started this thread. When nothing bad continues to happen, the Richards and **********s of the world will just move into the next lie as if the previous lies never happened