Slashdot Mirror

Funny, but this gives no evidence of either man made or natural climate change. These ice sheets were created in the last ice age, which is still ending, so they were likely to melt either way.

No, the last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. There was a more recent "little ice age," but that was a local phenomenon, not global.

But you're right that this doesn't prove that the global average temperature is rising. Again, it's only a local phenomenon, and it's possible that the ice shelves are getting colder but seeing less precipitation, resulting in the loss of ice mass.

I don't know of many saying it's ok, but you should be aware that the the loan was first pushed by the Bush admin and represents ~1.3% of the DOE loan portfolio.

I'm curious what your non-gov't standard is if 1.3% bad loans qualifies as "excesses of government" .

Sigh. There was never a big concern for an incoming Ice Age.

http://www.grist.org/article/they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s

It is already starting to bite them in the ass. In most third world countries the primary cause of death is infectious disease and in most developed countries it is heart disease. In China it is cancer.

In addition to the pesticide Imidacloprid linked below in organic gardening, leaked documents pretty clearly show a known link between ANOTHER BAYER PESTICIDE, clothianidin being a contributor to CCD.

An article about the jellyfish boom:

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-08-world-oceans-jellyfish

According to every source on the internet the US produces
~20% of it's energy from nuclear. My own power company says it is 33% with 8% renewable (mostly wood burning).

So why does the linked article show US nuclear at 8%? Something is amiss here.

My guess is that we shut down a bunch of nuclear plants for upgrades as a result of Fukushima just long enough for a statistician to claim we reached some meaningless milestone.

We dumb asses on the coasts are already subsidizing your fucking corporate farmers (most of whom now work for massive agribusiness concerns) with tens of billions of dollars a year in subsidies, because they seem to be incapable of competing in the free market we're all supposed to worship. That's on top of all the dams and levees we paid for to keep their farmland from flooding every couple of years.

We'd pay a lot less for food if your farmers would switch to growing healthy crops people (and livestock) should actually eat, instead of growing corn, corn and more corn, which the government then has steal money from the rest of us in order to buy and stockpile.

http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-09-21-op-ed-corn-subsidies-make-unhealthy-food-choices

Also, food might be a bit cheaper if we stopped paying your precious farmers to not grow any crops at all...

Anyhow, flooding is good for farmland. All that flooding is why the Midwest has so much good farmland to begin with.

Be careful to not confuse computer model output with data. The two are not the same thing. Also don't forget about a fundamental pillar of the scientific method, the null hypothesis.

Yes, but the computer models have shown themselves to be pretty darned reliable so far. And what is the null hypothesis, really?

Be careful to not confuse computer model output with data. The two are not the same thing. Also don't forget about a fundamental pillar of the scientific method, the null hypothesis.

Yes, but the computer models have shown themselves to be pretty darned reliable so far. And what is the null hypothesis, really?

I don't see anything bad about that.

Sea level rise wiping out coastal cities, droughts, flooding due to excessive rainfall, to name the most important problems with warmer temperatures.

So there will be both doughts and floods? Sounds no different than we have now?

Some of the good. Uninhabitable areas of the world become habitable. The net result is we are no better or worse off.

Sea level rise wiping out coastal cities, droughts, flooding due to excessive rainfall, to name the most important problems with warmer temperatures.

GMO food presents health risks. I'm not decided on the short-term effect of GMO use/consumption, but there have been several recent studies that have shown major concerns on the long term effects which are freaky scary.

http://www.grist.org/article/gm-oh-no
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/monsanto-roundup-ready-miscarriages_n_827135.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/gmo-pesticides-linked-to-birth-defects-disruption-of-male-hormones-cancer.html

It's clear GMO isn't regulated nearly enough or with enough restrictions.

**but 'green farming' will never produce enough food. And unless you're going to shovel off 2/3's of the population to die**

What makes you say that? Especially in countries which can afford far more labor intensive farming.

As many studies point out, organic farming can get very high yields, but it also maintains very high yields over the long run.
http://www.grist.org/article/organic-farming-cant-feed-the-world-a-myth-debunked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources

Thanks for the link, however that article admits it does not take into consideration some of the costs of some of the energy sources. Such as the external costs associated with pollution, ie CO2 emissions, mining, and processing. It also doesn't consider subsidies. Coal generates a lot of the electricity produced, more in the US than any other source but behind nuclear power in France, but it is both environmentally damaging and is subsidized. The CEO of Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies.

Falcon

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-22-fossil-fuel-subsidies-dwarf-clean-energy-subsidies-obama-wants

Not only are there perfectly good substitutes, there are superior competitors which just haven't acquired the favor of Republican politicians and the accompanying tens of billions of dollars of annual subsidies that come.

I'll grant you that MightyMartian referenced some common stereotypes of conservatives that aren't optimally conducive to bridging cultural and political barriers. But on the relevant facts, the corruption is all corporate. Al Gore has pediatric oral Bidenitis, sure, but what matters is influence on government policy and no environmentalist has the power and financial resources to bribe the tens of billions of dollars out of Congress, which the oil industry receives every year.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-22-fossil-fuel-subsidies-dwarf-clean-energy-subsidies-obama-wants

The only way environmentalists ever get any policy outcomes to go our way is by being absolutely right, having all the science on our side. And we have.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

About that 2% or 3%, they're really tenured professors who can't be fired, former scientists turned corporate shills.

http://www.desmogblog.com/lindzen-wipes-hands-clean-of-oil-and-gas

Lindzen has not done respectable work for some years; since he started taking oil and gas money, not coincidentally.

Easily done

Yes, the Gates foundation is all about altruism.

Even if it's powered by the dirtiest Coal plants available, it'd still be cleaner than conventional cars.
http://imgur.com/ODyoB.png
http://www.grist.org/article/new-study-finds-that-plug-in-hybrids-rule-in-all-possible-futures/

As for batteries, both Nickel and Lithium are nontoxic, and easily recyclable.
(Not to mention, Nickel is the 5th most common element on earth. So it's not that "rare".)
_

What's more, if we are going to solve anything with global warming, we would need to upgrade our grid anyways.
And it takes about 20 years to shift over to a new car fleet. So we best get started ASAP.

Luckily, we have options:
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://www.esolar.com/our_solution
http://greyfalcon.net/egs

Maybe that was your conclusion after reading that book but it was not the same conclusion that others had..

http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/14/superfreakonomics-errors-nathan-myhrvold-intellectual-ventures-bill-gates-warren-buffet/
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-10-13-new-book-superfreakonomics-pushes-global-cooling-myths/
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/
http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/03/superfreaking-out-over-climate

Not to mention, it's a dramatically better option than dirty biofuels or liquid coal.

Trick of course being, it's not really possible to have enough biomass anyways.
So it's really a question of temporarily using coal, and moving to cleaner electricity.
Or liquefying coal, shale and tar sands, using that till it kills us.

Khosla obviously though thinks biofuels are wonderful.
http://www.grist.org/article/vinod-khosla-blows-his-credibility-dissing-plug-ins#comments

You know, coming from slashdot, I would have thought you'd have an understanding of thermodynamics.
Or at least try to make a look into things before making a kneejerk response.

Even if it's powered by the dirtiest Coal plants available, it'd still be cleaner than conventional cars.
http://imgur.com/ODyoB.png
http://www.grist.org/article/new-study-finds-that-plug-in-hybrids-rule-in-all-possible-futures/

As for batteries, both Nickel and Lithium are nontoxic, and easily recyclable.
(Not to mention, Nickel is the 5th most common element on earth. So it's not that "rare".)
_

What's more, if we are going to solve anything with global warming, we would need to upgrade our grid anyways.
And it takes about 20 years to shift over to a new car fleet. So we best get started ASAP.

Luckily, we have options:
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://www.esolar.com/our_solution
http://greyfalcon.net/egs

If coal is so cheap then why does it get more subsidies than other energy sources?

Falcon

A bit unfair to make the bank liable for the NRC's and PUC's decisions.

What's unfair is forcing everyone to pay so nuclear energy will make a profit. It's also unfair to make others pay for pollution and other external costs.

Oh, and that's not just nuclear power but fossil fuels, and all the other sources that get subsidies. In absolute amounts coal gets the most in subsidies. It also gets to pass on external costs such as green house gas emissions. Fact is is through the 1990s and 2000s until Obama came to office coal, nuclear power, and oil all got billions of dollars a year in subsidies, as did corn based biofuels whereas all other alternative energy sources had to share maybe one billion dollars a year. Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. Markey: "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" Oil Subsidies in the Dock.

Falcon

It is all just a matter of being dependent on other countries natural reserves vs. funding it with tax money.

Bullshit!!! Coal gets more federal subsidies than any other energy source in the US. That is unless the cost of war is included, in which case it's petroleum. Nuclear power is second, unless farm subsidies for corn, which is a bad feedstock, based ethanol is included. Each receives multiples of billions of US dollars in taxpayer money. Yet until Obama became president all alternative source, except the fore mentioned corn based ethanol, had to share about $1 Billion. Rep Edward Markey brags "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" In it he lists some of the subsidies various energy sources get. And Chevron CEO Dave O'Reilly agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. The article originally published in Reason: Free Minds and Free Markets" then published online by CATO Institute: Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace titled "Nuclear Energy: Risky Business" starts with "Nuclear energy is to the Right what solar energy is to the Left: Religious devotion in practice, a wonderful technology in theory, but an economic white elephant in fact (some crossovers on both sides notwithstanding)." Another CATO article, Hooked on Subsidies, first published in "Forbes" says how the Nuclear Power industry is as the title says, "hooked on subsidies". Even in countries where nuclear power is big, China, France, India, and Russia it's state actors or the government and not the market that decides what gets built. In brief the US Department of Energy answers the question How much does the Federal Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support? By fiscal year 2007 all forms of renewable energy got $4.9 billion in subsides, $3 billion of that for ethanol. All other sources had to share the other $1.9 billion. Now how much did coal get? Refined coal got about $2.4 billion and with another $854 million on other coal. And nuclear power got $1.267 billion.

You say you're in Germany. The article Spain slashes solar energy subsidies laments that Berlin decided to continue to use nuclear power. And that Madrid slashed solar subsidies. Another says the same in Germany, Germany to cut subsidies for solar energy .

Personally I'd rather see all energy subsidies eliminated. ALL!!! Let a freer market decide winners and losers not government. What governments can do is make sure the markets are kept open as long as they can compeat, and they pay all their costs including external costs.

Falcon

I'd be happy to allow the name change if the corn subsidies were discontinued. How about that?

You would like to think that they get omitted, but your questions have been addressed.

1. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years.

This has been answered.

This answer has been well refuted. This is a very simple trick of obfuscation and is disgusting in its application. By its very nature, it proves that there are much more powerful forces at play than AGW. And in itself is also unprovable. It sounds nice, can be verified in laboratory conditions, but a good scientist will also tell you that this only provides an explanation for the difference, but doesn't prove it.

2. The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O.

This has been answered too.

H2O was never a good factor for study, due to the nature of saturation (relative humidity) to temperature. A person debating either side of this should ignore it.

3. There seems to be some viking farms being uncovered in Greenland.

They have covered this one as well.

This article that your reference and its "argument" is beyond laughable. A grade school student should be able to see through its obvious agenda. Simply because an area may have a more pronounced change than another does not refute the change. If sea levels do rise 6cm in the next 50 years, then I am going to lose roughly 5 total acres of my beachfront property (due to the gentle rise of the beach). I doubt people in Denver are going to care that much. The attempts at ignoring the medieval warm period are only done by those with an agenda, not by true climate scientists who must look at, understand and incorporate all data points.

4. And finally, the polar ice on Mars seems to be also shrinking.

Wouldn't you know it, they forgot to omit this question.

Another poor choice. This grist.org site seems to be full of garbage and you may want to spread your reach a bit more. There are literally thousands of astrophysicists who would make a claim to the contrary on the effects that a star has on its own local systems, and even beyond. Quite frankly, without the sun, life doesn't happen. Water doesn't warm up enough to become a universal solvent, and saying that the sun doesn't drive climate is about as denialist as it gets. The fact that the earth is on a 23 degree angle to the sun drives our climate and weather in very dramatic ways. This one has been debated to death, but without enough consensus to provide any real final answer.

Seems to me that the global warming crowd have a bit of a secondary agenda running that has nothing what so ever to do with actual global warming.

Boy do they ever. I don't have a problem with people making a living, but the agenda seems to be to ensure that very few people are alive to do so, and those that are, they rule.

That's right, because the big companies behind the denialist movement couldn't have any agenda!

Please, this is the lamest excuse provided by those proponents of AGW. Companies will do anything to make a dollar. They don't care about voting, or about your feelings. They care about a quarterly increase in EPS. I work for a company that has a "green" policy, complete with bamboo packaging, solar panels covering outdoor parking, etc. and they squeeze every possible penny in marketing, government kickbacks, and etc. They aren't spending money to lose it. And to totally blow your argument out of the water, one of the largest contributors to driving the AGW and Green agenda is BP. BP who in 2001 changed their names from British Petrol

You would like to think that they get omitted, but your questions have been addressed.

1. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years.

This has been answered.

This answer has been well refuted. This is a very simple trick of obfuscation and is disgusting in its application. By its very nature, it proves that there are much more powerful forces at play than AGW. And in itself is also unprovable. It sounds nice, can be verified in laboratory conditions, but a good scientist will also tell you that this only provides an explanation for the difference, but doesn't prove it.

2. The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O.

This has been answered too.

H2O was never a good factor for study, due to the nature of saturation (relative humidity) to temperature. A person debating either side of this should ignore it.

3. There seems to be some viking farms being uncovered in Greenland.

They have covered this one as well.

This article that your reference and its "argument" is beyond laughable. A grade school student should be able to see through its obvious agenda. Simply because an area may have a more pronounced change than another does not refute the change. If sea levels do rise 6cm in the next 50 years, then I am going to lose roughly 5 total acres of my beachfront property (due to the gentle rise of the beach). I doubt people in Denver are going to care that much. The attempts at ignoring the medieval warm period are only done by those with an agenda, not by true climate scientists who must look at, understand and incorporate all data points.

4. And finally, the polar ice on Mars seems to be also shrinking.

Wouldn't you know it, they forgot to omit this question.

Another poor choice. This grist.org site seems to be full of garbage and you may want to spread your reach a bit more. There are literally thousands of astrophysicists who would make a claim to the contrary on the effects that a star has on its own local systems, and even beyond. Quite frankly, without the sun, life doesn't happen. Water doesn't warm up enough to become a universal solvent, and saying that the sun doesn't drive climate is about as denialist as it gets. The fact that the earth is on a 23 degree angle to the sun drives our climate and weather in very dramatic ways. This one has been debated to death, but without enough consensus to provide any real final answer.

Seems to me that the global warming crowd have a bit of a secondary agenda running that has nothing what so ever to do with actual global warming.

Boy do they ever. I don't have a problem with people making a living, but the agenda seems to be to ensure that very few people are alive to do so, and those that are, they rule.

That's right, because the big companies behind the denialist movement couldn't have any agenda!

Please, this is the lamest excuse provided by those proponents of AGW. Companies will do anything to make a dollar. They don't care about voting, or about your feelings. They care about a quarterly increase in EPS. I work for a company that has a "green" policy, complete with bamboo packaging, solar panels covering outdoor parking, etc. and they squeeze every possible penny in marketing, government kickbacks, and etc. They aren't spending money to lose it. And to totally blow your argument out of the water, one of the largest contributors to driving the AGW and Green agenda is BP. BP who in 2001 changed their names from British Petrol

You would like to think that they get omitted, but your questions have been addressed.

1. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years.

This has been answered.

This answer has been well refuted. This is a very simple trick of obfuscation and is disgusting in its application. By its very nature, it proves that there are much more powerful forces at play than AGW. And in itself is also unprovable. It sounds nice, can be verified in laboratory conditions, but a good scientist will also tell you that this only provides an explanation for the difference, but doesn't prove it.

2. The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O.

This has been answered too.

H2O was never a good factor for study, due to the nature of saturation (relative humidity) to temperature. A person debating either side of this should ignore it.

3. There seems to be some viking farms being uncovered in Greenland.

They have covered this one as well.

This article that your reference and its "argument" is beyond laughable. A grade school student should be able to see through its obvious agenda. Simply because an area may have a more pronounced change than another does not refute the change. If sea levels do rise 6cm in the next 50 years, then I am going to lose roughly 5 total acres of my beachfront property (due to the gentle rise of the beach). I doubt people in Denver are going to care that much. The attempts at ignoring the medieval warm period are only done by those with an agenda, not by true climate scientists who must look at, understand and incorporate all data points.

4. And finally, the polar ice on Mars seems to be also shrinking.

Wouldn't you know it, they forgot to omit this question.

Another poor choice. This grist.org site seems to be full of garbage and you may want to spread your reach a bit more. There are literally thousands of astrophysicists who would make a claim to the contrary on the effects that a star has on its own local systems, and even beyond. Quite frankly, without the sun, life doesn't happen. Water doesn't warm up enough to become a universal solvent, and saying that the sun doesn't drive climate is about as denialist as it gets. The fact that the earth is on a 23 degree angle to the sun drives our climate and weather in very dramatic ways. This one has been debated to death, but without enough consensus to provide any real final answer.

Seems to me that the global warming crowd have a bit of a secondary agenda running that has nothing what so ever to do with actual global warming.

Boy do they ever. I don't have a problem with people making a living, but the agenda seems to be to ensure that very few people are alive to do so, and those that are, they rule.

That's right, because the big companies behind the denialist movement couldn't have any agenda!

Please, this is the lamest excuse provided by those proponents of AGW. Companies will do anything to make a dollar. They don't care about voting, or about your feelings. They care about a quarterly increase in EPS. I work for a company that has a "green" policy, complete with bamboo packaging, solar panels covering outdoor parking, etc. and they squeeze every possible penny in marketing, government kickbacks, and etc. They aren't spending money to lose it. And to totally blow your argument out of the water, one of the largest contributors to driving the AGW and Green agenda is BP. BP who in 2001 changed their names from British Petrol

You would like to think that they get omitted, but your questions have been addressed.

1. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years.

This has been answered.

This answer has been well refuted. This is a very simple trick of obfuscation and is disgusting in its application. By its very nature, it proves that there are much more powerful forces at play than AGW. And in itself is also unprovable. It sounds nice, can be verified in laboratory conditions, but a good scientist will also tell you that this only provides an explanation for the difference, but doesn't prove it.

2. The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O.

This has been answered too.

H2O was never a good factor for study, due to the nature of saturation (relative humidity) to temperature. A person debating either side of this should ignore it.

3. There seems to be some viking farms being uncovered in Greenland.

They have covered this one as well.

This article that your reference and its "argument" is beyond laughable. A grade school student should be able to see through its obvious agenda. Simply because an area may have a more pronounced change than another does not refute the change. If sea levels do rise 6cm in the next 50 years, then I am going to lose roughly 5 total acres of my beachfront property (due to the gentle rise of the beach). I doubt people in Denver are going to care that much. The attempts at ignoring the medieval warm period are only done by those with an agenda, not by true climate scientists who must look at, understand and incorporate all data points.

4. And finally, the polar ice on Mars seems to be also shrinking.

Wouldn't you know it, they forgot to omit this question.

Another poor choice. This grist.org site seems to be full of garbage and you may want to spread your reach a bit more. There are literally thousands of astrophysicists who would make a claim to the contrary on the effects that a star has on its own local systems, and even beyond. Quite frankly, without the sun, life doesn't happen. Water doesn't warm up enough to become a universal solvent, and saying that the sun doesn't drive climate is about as denialist as it gets. The fact that the earth is on a 23 degree angle to the sun drives our climate and weather in very dramatic ways. This one has been debated to death, but without enough consensus to provide any real final answer.

Seems to me that the global warming crowd have a bit of a secondary agenda running that has nothing what so ever to do with actual global warming.

Boy do they ever. I don't have a problem with people making a living, but the agenda seems to be to ensure that very few people are alive to do so, and those that are, they rule.

That's right, because the big companies behind the denialist movement couldn't have any agenda!

Please, this is the lamest excuse provided by those proponents of AGW. Companies will do anything to make a dollar. They don't care about voting, or about your feelings. They care about a quarterly increase in EPS. I work for a company that has a "green" policy, complete with bamboo packaging, solar panels covering outdoor parking, etc. and they squeeze every possible penny in marketing, government kickbacks, and etc. They aren't spending money to lose it. And to totally blow your argument out of the water, one of the largest contributors to driving the AGW and Green agenda is BP. BP who in 2001 changed their names from British Petrol

Your first link (about CO2 lag/lead temperature) shows this graph: http://www.grist.org/i/assets/volstok.gif
Truly then, how does one look at that graph and say sincerely "It's clear that human activity has grossly changed the natural cycles."? I look at that and see an ABSOLUTELY clear cycle of sudden (in geological terms) warming about every 100,000 years. Yes, that may show current warming is sudden....but it's just like 125k, 240k, 325k years ago. And I'd suggest that the slight changes in the current spike are more a function of record accuracy than anything.

Your second link is about water vapor. My question about water vapor is precisely in this context of dismissal. Essentially, if I understand it, water vapor doesn't force climate in any significant way over climatological timescales. However, I'd be interested to see an extended discussion about water vapor because despite its short-term impact, cloud cover has a significant affect on planetary albedo; the amount of moisture being forced into the air in the very short term is increasing significantly (look up the % of arable land being sprinklered) and almost entirely in the Northern Hemisphere. We saw that the simple elimination of jet traffic after 9/11 had an apparently large impact on weather in the US. Weather =/= climate, of course, but it's hard to believe that there is NO impact.

Your third link (Greenland used to be green!) is patronizing and dismissive. It amounts to "well it may have been nicer but it was never really nice and the Vikings were stupid." Nevertheless, the Vikings lived in Greenland, subsisting (per your link) off FARMING, for (per your link) hundreds of years. Given iron-age technology, could we do that in Greenland of today?

Rather than comment on the inherent smugness that AGW devotees can't seem to understand makes themselves so fundamentally repellant, I'll simply ask: So will you open your mind now, or just ignore all this and move on to other pesky facts that the so called "ecomarxists" have allegedly failed to mention?

You would like to think that they get omitted, but your questions have been addressed.

1. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years.

This has been answered.

2. The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O.

This has been answered too.

3. There seems to be some viking farms being uncovered in Greenland.

They have covered this one as well.

4. And finally, the polar ice on Mars seems to be also shrinking.

Wouldn't you know it, they forgot to omit this question.

Seems to me that the global warming crowd have a bit of a secondary agenda running that has nothing what so ever to do with actual global warming.

That's right, because the big companies behind the denialist movement couldn't have any agenda!

When the above independently verifiable but inconvenient little facts are explained, then I will consider the GW crowd to have done due diligence and be worth listening to.

So will you change your opinion now, or just ignore all this and move on to other pesky facts that the so called "warmers" have allegedly failed to mention.

You would like to think that they get omitted, but your questions have been addressed.

1. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years.

This has been answered.

2. The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O.

This has been answered too.

3. There seems to be some viking farms being uncovered in Greenland.

They have covered this one as well.

4. And finally, the polar ice on Mars seems to be also shrinking.

Wouldn't you know it, they forgot to omit this question.

Seems to me that the global warming crowd have a bit of a secondary agenda running that has nothing what so ever to do with actual global warming.

That's right, because the big companies behind the denialist movement couldn't have any agenda!

When the above independently verifiable but inconvenient little facts are explained, then I will consider the GW crowd to have done due diligence and be worth listening to.

So will you change your opinion now, or just ignore all this and move on to other pesky facts that the so called "warmers" have allegedly failed to mention.

You would like to think that they get omitted, but your questions have been addressed.

1. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years.

This has been answered.

2. The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O.

This has been answered too.

3. There seems to be some viking farms being uncovered in Greenland.

They have covered this one as well.

4. And finally, the polar ice on Mars seems to be also shrinking.

Wouldn't you know it, they forgot to omit this question.

Seems to me that the global warming crowd have a bit of a secondary agenda running that has nothing what so ever to do with actual global warming.

That's right, because the big companies behind the denialist movement couldn't have any agenda!

When the above independently verifiable but inconvenient little facts are explained, then I will consider the GW crowd to have done due diligence and be worth listening to.

So will you change your opinion now, or just ignore all this and move on to other pesky facts that the so called "warmers" have allegedly failed to mention.

You would like to think that they get omitted, but your questions have been addressed.

1. But the fly in the ointment is that the CO2 levels *lag* the temperature changes by 40 to 50 years.

This has been answered.

2. The major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere isn't CO2. It's H2O.

This has been answered too.

3. There seems to be some viking farms being uncovered in Greenland.

They have covered this one as well.

4. And finally, the polar ice on Mars seems to be also shrinking.

Wouldn't you know it, they forgot to omit this question.

Seems to me that the global warming crowd have a bit of a secondary agenda running that has nothing what so ever to do with actual global warming.

That's right, because the big companies behind the denialist movement couldn't have any agenda!

When the above independently verifiable but inconvenient little facts are explained, then I will consider the GW crowd to have done due diligence and be worth listening to.

So will you change your opinion now, or just ignore all this and move on to other pesky facts that the so called "warmers" have allegedly failed to mention.

It's simply untrue that climate models have been unable to make accurate predictions.

See here for example.

You complain that climate change deniers are not taken seriously, but when you keep making assertions that are blatantly false, what do you expect?

Now, let me summarise the situation.

We have:

1/ evidence that the Earth is warming extremely quickly
2/ evidence that we have significantly increased the CO2 proportion in the atmosphere
3/ basic chemistry/physics shows that enough 2/ leads to 1/
4/ a huge mountain of scientific research that shows that 2/ is sufficient for 1/
5/ a dramatic scientific consensus that 4/ is correct
6/ no credible competing theories to explain 1/

Now presumably you dispute none of this, except that you think 4/ is wrong (despite 5/). And you have no 6/ either. Correct?

Calling your opponent a fucktard hardly helps make your case. In fact, reasonable undecided readers will likely write you off for using the word.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

http://www.ecosalon.com/top-10-global-warming-denier-arguments-debunked-part-2/

http://earthfirst.com/desmogblog-debunks-the-global-warming-skeptics-handbook/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200601250007

Hope this helps.

It still takes about 5 years to recoup the cost of a residential solar system-- even with huge government subsidies!

But energy is free after that whereas you have to keep paying for distributed power, even with huge government subsidies to coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels. Solar panels are warrantied 20, 25, even 30 years. I think the shortest warranty for hardware are on batteries, yet Surrette/Rolls has a 10 year warranty. On the other hand Enersys Batteries only have a 5 year warranty. Even if you have to replace the batteries every 5 years, you still save money.

Some, like you?, complain about subsidies for alternative energy but you say nothing about subsidies for "conventional" energy. Coal? It gets billions of dollars in subsidies, here's, Chevron's CEO agreeing with the Sierra Club to lobby to end coal subsidies. Rep Edward Markey practically brags that My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'. He details some of the subsidies nuclear power and other's get. How about this: Global Dirty Energy Subsidies Top $550 Billion Per Year. A blog entry on the Financial Times website says The cost of fossil fuel subsidies: $557bn. How about the US? The Policy Archive says that between 2002 and 2008 "Fossil fuels benefited from approximately $72 billion over the seven-year period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29 billion."

If you want to complain about subsidies complain about the subsidies conventional energy, and agricultural businesses, get. A Reason blog entry says Agricultural Subsidies: Corporate Welfare for Farmers.

Falcon

So how many western States do we have to pave-over with solar panels to crack water to fuel ~220 million hydrogen cars? 5? 10?

One reference I saw, sorry I didn't find a link, said that 10% of the land of Nevada or Utah developed as a solar farm could electrify the US. Ah, here's one: Solar Energy Development on Public Lands [pdf] says "According to the DOE, the solar resources available in the southwest are more than sufficient to meet all U.S. electricity demand, even using currently available technologies and operating at 10 percent efficiency." And what about how much land coal takes? Nevada Solar one is a better and smaller neighbor than a coal mine.

Falcon

[who is going] to tax all the volcanos around the world for their CO2 production?

The CO2 out gassed by active volcanoes comes to about one percent of anthropogenic emissions.

Learn to be check the numbers when you hear outrageous claims like this.

Your right... We should Tax the Oceans!

I mean with That Terrible Greenhouse gas Dihydrogen monoxide that is being emitted by world's Ocean's just have to be stopped.

[who is going] to tax all the volcanos around the world for their CO2 production?

The CO2 out gassed by active volcanoes comes to about one percent of anthropogenic emissions.

Learn to be check the numbers when you hear outrageous claims like this.

For Pete's sake, the guy was saying we should stop oil production to force people to use non-existent renewable energy.

Ever hear of geothermal? Solar? Wind? They all exist. And if they were given as much in subsidies as coal, nuclear power, and petroleum they would be producing a lot more energy.

Falcon

Um... no. No they would not.
Geothermal, while prevalent in some parts of the world, is not that big of a resource here. And most of the places where geothermal is available are national parks. Could you imagine the uproar if you tried to build a power plant at Yellowstone?
Solar is nowhere near efficient enough to power the country. It can be a nice boost, hardly economic, and government subsidies are not enough to help. For starters, government subsidies exist. There are also several tax breaks you can receive for "greening" your home, but it will never be enough to make it cost effective:

He found the cost for an installation ranges from nearly $86,000 to $91,000, while the value of the power produced ranges from $19,000 to $51,000.

I don't know about you, but I don't have an extra $91,000 sitting around to spend on something that will save me $51,000 over the next 20 years. Also, this study fails to consider the sunk costs. In other words, if I were wisely invest that $90 G's instead of blowing it on solar panels, it would grow. Take whatever money it would have made and add that to the loss. I'm not alone here. A very small percentage of Americans have $900.00 to spend, much less $90,000.00. Oh, and then there are cloudy days, night, snow covered roof tops, hail, shadows from when the sun crosses to the other side of your house and so on that make solar an even less economic proposition.
Now, if you are talking about massive power plants located in the desert, when then you have other issues. See, you green buddies at the Sierra Club tend to block most of these programs because, even though they could save the earth, they may endanger a turtle that lives in the sand. That pretty much stands for any of these green projects. Someone, somewhere is going to get their feelings hurt. And these someones tend to have lawyers. So, don't bitch at me. Call the Sierra Club!
Finally, Wind! Wow! This is a fun one. I'll start with this quote:

Another interesting point with wind systems is that fossil fuel plants normally run on standby to support the wind fluctuations that occur. So, not only do we see only 8 to 10% of a rated power output, but this is offset by the fossil fuel consumed an not delivered to the grid. The net result is that most wind packages deliver less then zero power, when you consider the wasted fuel at the fossil fuel plant.

Of course, as the Kennedys showed us, some people don't like the way they look. You remember Ted Kennedy, right? That big green liberal that BLOCKED wind power because it might disrupt the view from some of his mansions?

So, in to put it more succinctly, renewable energy does not exist, at least not to the point where it can completely replace fossil fuels. While all these other ideas do produce energy and will reduce our fossil fuel dependence for producing electricity, I believe the only viable solution is nuclear. Oh, your green buddies blocked that too!
Now the elephant in the room that I've ignored until now is that all the proposals yo

For Pete's sake, the guy was saying we should stop oil production to force people to use non-existent renewable energy.

Ever hear of geothermal? Solar? Wind? They all exist. And if they were given as much in subsidies as coal, nuclear power, and petroleum they would be producing a lot more energy.

Falcon

If someone actually comes up with a feasible, scalable alternative to fossil fuels, the switch to using that idea would just take care of itself due to market forces.

Only if that were true, but it's not. Those who use fossil fuels get to pass on the external costs to others. One way to make polluters pay is by taxing carbon. But of course some complain that that harms businesses or people. Are you one of them?

And that's only half of it. Fossil fuel supporters complain about how alternative energy sources get subsidies. Well, guess what? So do fossil fuels. Here's Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) bragging about how his bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'. He starts by saying the Nuclear Power industry has received $145 Billion in federal subsides over the years. But combined solar and wind have only gotten $5 billion. In another video the CEO of Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. Those subsidies for nuclear power above? The Freemarket CATO institute reprinted a "Forbes" article printed on 26 November 2007 about how the Nulear Power Industry is Hooked on Subsidies. Among other things it says "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors." In 2007 in the US all alternative energy sources including the $3.0 Billion corn based ethanol got, when corn is not a good feedstock for ethanol, got $4.875 Billion dollars. Subtract that $3 Billion and geothermal, solar, wind, and others only got $1.875 Billion. Coal got $3.760 Billion. Itself, oil has gotten the majority of federal energy incentives.

What is happening is the government and not a free market is picking winners and losers. The government should end all subsidies, including allowing industries to pass external costs to others, and let the different players compeat.

Falcon

But again, by your assertion, we could have one temperature station in the pacific, one temperature station in the Mojave, and measure CO2 atop Mauna Loa, and have plenty enough information to determine both the global climate today, and any significant trends.

If you have a model, then you have a basis for judging what density of recording stations you need to detect a trend. But you don't have a model, do you? You just insist that whatever they have must be inadequate because you don't like the conclusions--a God of the Gaps argument: "if you took more measurments, you would see that I am right."

Look closer at the graph you're citing -> the spikes are pretty significantly higher than the low rumbling that goes on usually. I'm certain if you looked at the geologic record, you'd find spikes even higher than pinatubo, which should be a good test of the "magical added CO2" theory of lag or lead.

You miss the point--the impact of the volcanic eruptions on atmospheric CO2 is so small as to be undetectable. Here's yet another plot showing the absence of any detectable blip from volcanic eruptions.

Here's your question - take a set of x,y values that has no trend. Add small fixed values for low y values, and large fixed values for high y values. You'll find that you've created a slope where none existed originally.

Wow, you really don't understand statistics at all, do you? You really should try these things before you pontificate about them. What you describe will increase the mean, but the slope will still be within error of zero. And the more points you create like that, the closer it will get to zero.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/ [wattsupwiththat.com] - Your model is still wrong.

I beg your pardon? This is a not a climate model at all, but a toy model that does not even attempt to consider the physics of CO2 or water vapor. It is assuming a fixed and unalterable greenhouse layer made of steel! It has nothing to contribute to the topic at hand. If that is the closest thing to a model that anti-AGW advocates can muster, it is truly pathetic.

That being said, historic CO2 sensitivity can be addressed with a simple thought experiment based on the historic CO2 record -> any highly sensitive system would already have had runaway warming due to a positive feedback effect. Of course, you can ad hoc your way out of that by saying that some magical negative feedback effect in the past stopped runaway warming, but that this magical negative feedback doesn't work when it's humans "adding" the CO2, but that's an assertion, not science.

Once again, we see the folly of conducting "thought experiments" without the discipline of carrying out a "sanity check" with actual calculations. You assert that the models would cause runaway warming, yet the existing models do not exhibit this effect, and they don't have to assume "magical negative feedback" to prevent it--only careful modelling of known physical mechanisms.

There is abundant evidence from satellite data that the surface measurement estimation methodology is horribly out of sync with reality.

Wait.. are you talking about the satellite data that was shown to have huge systemic flaws due to timing anomalies and was corrected years ago? http://www.grist.org/article/the-satellites-show-cooling

they actually delete their copy of the data, but more embarrassingly they also destroyed the documentation of exactly how the value-added dataset they produced was actually produced.

You have a reference for that?

I think its a little more than amusing that you're screaming at the top of your lungs that the data has been deleted and we have no way of reconstructing it because they deleted the documentation, yet you are 100% positive they are WRONG.

It's the Apocalyptic Global Warming crowd that needs to prove

If you're looking for proof in science, you're doing it wrong.

1. The Globe has warmed significantly
      2. the warming is unprecedented and therefore man-made
      3. the warming is not do to UHI, Urban Heat Islands, or land use changes
      4. reducing CO2 to pre-industry revolution levels will return temperatures to pre-industry revolution levels also;

Of course you would never stop to think about the uncontrolled experiment we're running right now. You know, the one where we are dumping millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every day. After all, humans are way too small to affect our environment, right?

I think the burden of proof should be upon the polluters to show that doing this to our planet is in fact not harmful. Too bad there is too much momentum to take a step back and have an objective look at what we're doing as a species.

Yeah. But then you're talking in a certain political climate, not real prices.

You don't see the real price from the power company either. They are all subsidized. At least in the US, and I'd imagine even more in other countries. Here's where the CEO of Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. And here Rep Edward Markey crows "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" He doesn't tkl just about coal subsides but subsides for nuclear and other power sources. Coal, corn based ethanol, and nuclear power get billions of dollars in subsidies. Yet if you add up all the subsidies for geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative/renewable energy sources it doesn't add up to $1 Billion.

Quite simply coal, nuclear, and other energy sources individually get way more in subsidies than geothermal, solar, wind, and other alternative/renewable energy sources. Without subsides nuclear power plants would not be built, and power from coal would cost way more than it does.

It's the same in germany; it's profitable for a home-owner to install solar-cells on his roof. But that's only true because there's a state-guaranteed lowest-price that he gets for the electricity produced, and this price is substantially higher than the real market-value of electricity.

Wow! A quick google and I find this: Breakthrough Deal May Eliminate German Coal Subsidies :
"After months of negotiations, politicians and leaders from the coal industry reached a breakthrough Sunday night. Government subsidies -- not jobs -- are to be cut back drastically and may be history as early as 2018." Actually that was the first result googling germany coal subsidies. Now let's substitute nuclear for coal... and the first result is Subsidies and Public Support for Energy. It doesn't have much but it does say ways in which nuclear power is assisted. BusinessWeek reports a split in Chancellor Angela Merkel's government about extending the lifespan of nuclear power. Some plants there are approaching the end of their lifespan, so some want to extend the lifespan. One member of the coalition says "The nuclear power plants are designed for 40 years -- not 60, but 40 years".

It doesn't look like business determines what exists but government in Germany too.

Falcon

Only because coal is subsidized and it is allowed to pass external costs to others.

If I could pay less than 10k and have a 10 year pay back time

You can pay less than that, you may or you may not find it worthwhile though. And today the payback period is less than 10 years. For residential systems New Jersey has a payback period of 1.5 years. "New York and Delaware are next in line with payback in 3-6 years, and California, Maryland, Massachusetts and Wisconsin all tied for fourth at seven years."

The fact that governments keep trying to shift this cost to individual households tells me that it just isn't worth it.

First, I'd rather taxpayers be subsidized before megacorporations are. What I really want is for the federal government to stop all subsidies and return the money back to taxpayers. Then allow them to decide what they will pay for themselves. As it is now though your electricity from coal and nuclear power is subsidized. Chevron's CEO agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies. And here's Rep Edward Markey crowing about how My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'. In that speech he lists some of the subsidies large power companies including coal and nuclear power get. It comes to tens of billions of dollars. If however you add up all the subsides geothermal, solar, wind and other alternative and renewable energy sources get, it doesn't add up to $! Billion.

Fact is is conventional energy sources are massively subsidized with taxpayer money.

Falcon