Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[stu]

And of course we have presented lots of science showing it. I just did with the spectral analysis piece. He just says it is not. Like up is down.

Stu, I have given up on jem and have him on ignore. He is probably insane. Smart yes, but insane.

I think it may be an act of masochism to continue to engage him. Maybe I'm just weak. He disturbs me.

You got close with the "mad alcoholic" I think.

I know FC, a person might as well talk with a brick than talk with Jem. It is disturbing indeed to notice Jem and those like him abuse human reasoning so much, but despite that your persistence brought a lot of good information and detail into the thread, which I'm grateful of benefiting from.

I suppose in places like this you'll always get extremes like Jem sure, but then there are those like piezo, who defends risking and arguing the contrary to AGW for no good reason but a wait and see approach! Like you would risk poisoning yourself because it might turn out for some other reason the poison wouldn't poison. sheesh Not all the science is clear, but there is more than enough to make any sensible person extremely concerned there is more than sufficient to at least comprehend a potentially massive problem .

As I know you are aware, it takes a hell of a lot of scientists and a lot of confirmed scientific fact and validated data constantly under revision for something to become and remain the scientific consensus . It takes only one scientist with similar factual information, to change that. Nothing has been forthcoming, nothing to change or prove AGW could be fundamentally wrong. So why all the resistance and denial from these people is the question, when there's so much potential downside yet lots of upside both politically and commercially in reducing man made carbon emissions. Let China cash in on the renewable industry while gormless ultra conservative tea party extremists argue black is white. Is that it? All very weird, but then there's nothing weirder than the grotesque political antics of denial.

However always remember, it is just the baby Jesus what has made Jem relentlessly Illogical, unreasonable and childish, posting his beyond insane comments on all sorts of shit, so that everyone else can be reminded what a crack pot really sounds like.

 

[futurecurrents]

I know FC, a person might as well talk with a brick than talk with Jem. It is disturbing indeed to notice Jem and those like him abuse human reasoning so much, but despite that your persistence brought a lot of good information and detail into the thread, which I'm grateful of benefiting from.

I suppose in places like this you'll always get extremes like Jem sure, but then there are those like piezo, who defends risking and arguing the contrary to AGW for no good reason but a wait and see approach! Like you would risk poisoning yourself because it might turn out for some other reason the poison wouldn't poison. sheesh Not all the science is clear, but there is more than enough to make any sensible person extremely concerned there is more than sufficient to at least comprehend a potentially massive problem .

As I know you are aware, it takes a hell of a lot of scientists and a lot of confirmed scientific fact and validated data constantly under revision for something to become and remain the scientific consensus . It takes only one scientist with similar factual information, to change that. Nothing has been forthcoming, nothing to change or prove AGW could be fundamentally wrong. So why all the resistance and denial from these people is the question, when there's so much potential downside yet lots of upside both politically and commercially in reducing man made carbon emissions. Let China cash in on the renewable industry while gormless ultra conservative tea party extremists argue black is white. Is that it? All very weird, but then there's nothing weirder than the grotesque political antics of denial.

However always remember, it is just the baby Jesus what has made Jem relentlessly Illogical, unreasonable and childish, posting his beyond insane comments on all sorts of shit, so that everyone else can be reminded what a crack pot really sounds like.

Well the kind of mind that can be deluded by religion can also be deluded by propaganda and is subject to all sorts of delusions which would normally be filtered out by more rational minds. And they allow this delusion, and in fact encourage it, because it makes them feel better. It feels bad to recognize that thyself has been wrong. The ego will jump through hoops to protect itself.

So the above may explain jem, but piezoe is a different animal. I am still astounded that he can be right on almost everything else and is obviously a very smart man, but still seems to take the denier position. And seems to jump through all sorts of intellectually dishonest hoops to do so. Very curious.

 

[jem]

below s the bullshit stu writes when he is caught bullshitting his ass off and has zero science showing many made co2 causes warming. There is no way to properly calculate odds and there is no consensus of scientists who state man made co2 is causing the warming.

How many times do I have ask you to name... even 100 scientists who state man made co2 is causing warming? I have linked to thousands who are skeptical of the consensus. You can't produce 100 who have put their names in writing who state man made co2 is causing wamring.

Nor can you produce 1 peer reviewed paper saying man made co2 causes warming that does not rely on failed models. While we have linked to 1350 skeptical papers.



you want to say hey, we are not sure if man made co2 causes warming but its a good idea if we cut back on it. Fine. I agree.

just stop lying about and using it as an excuse to waste billions of dollars and restrict freedom... until we have some real science and we can make informed decisions.

and science can show how years of heavy pollution is bad for the environment and for health.

Like science shows CO2 can cool, science shows alcohol can be healthy too. But the science in both cases shows how it's dangerous to have too much CO2 or too much alcohol at which point serious damage can occur.

There's a good chance that man made co2 is simply getting off gassed or absorbed is there? Well you know what, if it were only you that were taking that chance like the alcoholic, against all the advice of science stats and charts that says it isn't enough to stop the problem, then I'd be happy for you to take your chance.

Thankfully others are less reckless with the environmental prospects for this and future generations and take some heed and apply at least a modicum of common sense which tells it is foolhardy to the extreme and highly dangerous to be unbalancing any natural equilibrium on such a gigantic scale and potentially beyond control, especially of things essential to life.

But no worries, you have a few charts and stats to go against all the odds and all the consensus science, so there's a good chance it may be ok. You are absurd.

 

[stu]

you want to say hey, we are not sure if man made co2 causes warming but its a good idea if we cut back on it. Fine. I agree.

there aren't enough face palms on the interwebs to do that proper justice

unless science is telling you man made CO2 is harmful so it's a good idea to cut back on it ........why the fuck cut back on it when you're denying it's doing harm.

for goodness sake

 

[WeToddDid2]

http://www.clim-past.net/12/1485/2016/cp-12-1485-2016.pdf

A 368-year maximum temperature reconstruction based on tree-ring data in the northwestern Sichuan Plateau (NWSP), China

"The longest warm period extended from 1655 to 1668, and the warmest period in AD 1719–1730 had a mean of 20.37 ◦C. However, we should point out that the rapid warming during the 20th century was not especially obvious in our reconstructed RLST."

 

[jem]

I have noticed many idiots face palm when they get hit with real science and logic.

I say why not because I am a conservationist and I have read many of the the studies and I have worked out my own hypothesis.

As NASA says CO2 is a thermostat. I suspect that as you come out of ice age co2 acts as a blanket but as you get warmer and get more co2 in the atmosphere it starts to cool.

We have NASA studies showing that co2 cools.
We have studies showing co2 warmming properties decrease logarithmically as you add more.


Since I don't know where we are on that curve and a don't know if man made co2 even makes a difference... and you lefties are all bothered by it... I say fine. That is what realconservatives and real conservationist should do. We conserve the environment.

there aren't enough face palms on the interwebs to do that proper justice

unless science is telling you man made CO2 is harmful so it's a good idea to cut back on it ........why the fuck cut back on it when you're denying it's doing harm.

for goodness sake

 

[Ricter]

We have NASA studies showing that co2 cools.

What's this again, the NASA observation that high level CO2 molecules block incoming solar particles? That's not cooling.

 

[futurecurrents]

What's this again, the NASA observation that high level CO2 molecules block incoming solar particles? That's not cooling.

Really! Stop the presses! We must let the American Geophysical Union and all the climatologists of the world know about this! How could they have missed this?!

Amazing.....the climate science being done on trading forums by real estate lawyers.

 

[jem]

ricter how many times do I have to link you to the study and show that that co2 blocks some of the warming rays?

or are you trying to be cute and arguing that blocking us from warming is not a cooling impact?

is that all that is?

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

 

[gwb-trading]

Scientists: Global Warming Will Only Cost About 1% Of World Economy
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/19/scientists-global-warming-will-only-cost-about-1-of-world-economy/

Global warming will cost about $1.9 trillion, or 1 percent of the world economy, by 2030, according to a new report published Tuesday and sponsored by the United Nations.

This sum is considerably less than the minimum scientific estimates of the $12.1 trillion it would cost to meet the U.N.’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030. The cost of meeting the U.N. goal would likely rise as high as $16.5 trillion when energy efficiency measures are included.

Much of the damage would occur in India and China, which would both experience economic losses of about $458 billion. Other countries among the worst affected would include Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.

Many scientists believe the U.N.’s global warming goal of limiting temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius is both politically motivated and not scientifically plausible. Previously, the U.N. defined a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius as the threshold of “dangerous global warming,” and stated a lower target was unfeasible and “naive.”

The Obama administration’s plans to fight global warming would incur enormous costs to hardly reduce rising temperatures.

The Clean Power Plan would eliminate most cheap coal and natural gas power with expensive sources like solar and wind, costing America an expected $41 billion annually. Yet, the plan likely won’t have a large impact on global warming. According to analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute using models created by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Clean Power Plan will only advert 0.019° Celsius of warming by the year 2100, an amount so small it can’t be detected.

The EPA and President Barack Obama’s justification for the plan is that cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in America would theoretically encourage other countries to also reduce emissions.

The benefits of actually reaching such a low target would mostly benefit very small island nations threatened by rising sea levels. When island nations previously proposed it at a U.N. climate conference, they were met with vehement opposition.