"There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity."
(Source)
Between TemperedAlchemist, Doc Ruby and I: We've completely demolished every argument you've made.
It is clear to everyone that you are badly misinformed on the topic of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change.
Those tee-shirts absolutely ARE an attack on middle-class families... But don't you dare call Timothy McVeigh, Anders Behring Breivik, Jim Adkisson, or Scott Roeder terrorists! Those were "isolated incidents".
I have been told repeatedly by "skeptics" that no Climatologist would ever publish a study that does not exaggerate the consequences of Global Climate Change because they would lose their lucrative government research grant money.
If we sample the atmosphere this year the concentration of CO2 will be approximately 388 ppm.
Using proxy data derived from ice core samples we can see that CO2 did not rise above concentrations of ~300ppm over the last 400,000 years.
Good call.
It's like the "skeptics" who keep claiming that the theory of Global Climate Change is "not falsifiable" without understanding what falsifiability actually is.
You're making a host of assumptions that you gloss over completely - simply asserting that the physical properties of a gas, as measured in a laboratory, means that that gas *must* be the primary driver of the entire global climate is just that - an assertion.
The above is why I rarely discuss climate with "skeptics": You're just making stuff up. Who ever said anything about greenhouse gasses being the *primary* driver of global climate systems? I didn't. No formulation of climate theories, that I'm aware of, have either. Basically you've invented some definition of climate change that is completely unsupported by the scientific literature.
I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that I provided you with a potential method to falsify the scientific theory of Global Climate Change. That you are unable to understand it is not my problem.
(That is to say: The scientific theory of Global Climate Change is, in its current form, already falsifiable. The above is a description of one way to falsify the theory.)
If you happen to be without a spare Earth, you do have other options!
The most obvious way that comes to mind is that the scientific theory of Global Climate Change depends on the validity of the Greenhouse effect. The lynch-pin of the greenhouse effect is that some gasses, like carbon dioxide for instance, absorb and re-emit (a scattering effect) radiation in the infrared band of the electromagnetic spectrum. This much has been experimentally verified under laboratory conditions.
Therefore to falsify AGW: Simply demonstrate that carbon dioxide and methane do not have the greenhouse gas properties described above*.
*You will probably want to consult with the climatology journals to get a more accurate and complete description of the properties of greenhouse gasses.
If this incident with Dr. Soon being paid off by the Oil industry were a one-off incident then I wouldn't be too concerned about the integrity of "skeptical" scientists.
Unfortunately this is just the most recent of the many unethical practices of the Fossil Fuel industry in the climate change debate.
It brings to mind an incident from 2010:
A lobbying firm [Bonner and Associates] working for a pro-coal industry group sent lawmakers a total of 13 fraudulent letters opposing the House climate bill — five more than initially believed, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming said Tuesday.
The fake letters... purported to be from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, senior citizens groups and Creciendo Juntos, a Hispanic advocacy organization.
Source, 2010.
It seems that the fossil fuel industry will do ANYTHING, no matter how unethical, to convince you that the scientific theory of Gobal Climate Change is a hoax.
In the end I guess it doesn't matter if they succeed in convincing you because they'll just send out letters, in your name, assigning you whatever opinion they want you to have.
I have been told in thread after thread by "skeptics" of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change to, and I quote, "follow the money".
That's what this article is about: It's about following the money all the way back to Big Oil.
I'd argue it is very different: There was a poll of climatologists conducted back during the Bush administration and even those "government grant" scientists felt pressured to downplay/minimize the consequences of Anthropegenic Climate Change.
High-quality science [is] struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo, of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists, told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. A UCS survey found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years in a total of at least 435 incidents.
"Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Grifo said.
Well said, AC.
And it's not just the legal system that is interested in the results of common sense studies like: "alcohol increases reaction time" and "driving ability worsens in people with early Alzheimer's disease".
I bet that the insurance industry is very interested in asking followup questions like "how much does alcohol increase reaction time?" and "how much does Alzheimer's disease worsen driving ability?"
"Skeptics" of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change will never tell you how many predictions you have to make because the answer is always "One more than you have now."
Scientists have never, in a laboratory, observed a strain of single cellular organisms gradually mutating into a complex multi-cellular animal.
Does that mean you consider Evolution to be "not truly tested to the degree science demands" too?
Al Gore? Oooooooh, I smell a deflection. You want to make this about individuals instead of about money spent.
I'll play your game: The Koch brothers, James Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Cato institute, and every fossil fuel company on the planet (the gnat made some excellent points about how much weight they can throw around).
Unfortunately it seems that you've constructed a circular argument to support your position: You seem to think the evidence is wrong because it doesn't support your pre-defined conclusion. Basically, you've let politics define what is good science vs bad science.
If what you meant to say was "there's an awful lot of money in convincing people that [climate change] is real too" then I'd say:
For every dollar spent convincing people that climate change is real there is probably a hundred dollars spent trying to convince people that climate change is a myth.
The sad part here is that had the inquiries been honest, they could have possibly recovered some of their lost credibility. Instead, we now have yet again baseless appeals to authority in order to justify a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
Unfortunately it seems that you've fallen victim to the popular counterpart of the appeal to authority: The appeal against authority.
I would remind you that "the authorities say it is true, therefore it is not true" is no more credible than "the authorities say it is true, therefore it is true".
I think it is worth while to point out that, of the 5 independent investigations that were launched as a result of the so-called "Climategate", all 5 have exonerated the Climatologists under investigation. None of the 5 were able to find any evidence of scientific malpractice. I'd call that, coupled with the endorsement of the G-7 national academies of science, a pretty unequivocal vindication of the science of Global Climate Change.
I would think that divesting abortion services from the more routine services, like mammograms and contraception, would be contrary to the purpose of Planned Parenthood as an organization: The protection of women's rights.
Turning the tables on a law meant to push religion into politics can have some interesting consequences:
[Republican convention in Denver 2008, former pastor of Grave Evangelical Free Church Arnold Conrad] Arnold Conrad:"There are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that [McCain’s] opponent wins, for a variety of reasons... And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day."
Basically, Arnold called the election a "referendum on Jesus".
When McCain's supporters lost the election I wonder how many of them lost their faith with it?
For the last seven years we haven't seen any party with a clear majority. I'm thinking, as a country, we're headed into the realm of, by necessity, forming multi-party coalition governments.
Slashdot Mirror
"There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity." (Source)
Between TemperedAlchemist, Doc Ruby and I: We've completely demolished every argument you've made.
It is clear to everyone that you are badly misinformed on the topic of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change.
Those tee-shirts absolutely ARE an attack on middle-class families... But don't you dare call Timothy McVeigh, Anders Behring Breivik, Jim Adkisson, or Scott Roeder terrorists! Those were "isolated incidents".
I have been told repeatedly by "skeptics" that no Climatologist would ever publish a study that does not exaggerate the consequences of Global Climate Change because they would lose their lucrative government research grant money.
You're not the only one.
As for "what happened"? I'll tell you what happened: A right-wing smear campaign was organised against the elected Democrat.
When Bush was in office he received approximately 8 death threats per day. That's pretty bad, but it gets worse.
Since Obama has been elected death threats against the President have risen to ~30 death threats per day. That's a 400% increase.
If we sample the atmosphere this year the concentration of CO2 will be approximately 388 ppm.
Using proxy data derived from ice core samples we can see that CO2 did not rise above concentrations of ~300ppm over the last 400,000 years.
Good call.
It's like the "skeptics" who keep claiming that the theory of Global Climate Change is "not falsifiable" without understanding what falsifiability actually is.
"A million people can call the mountains a fiction,
yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them."
link
You're making a host of assumptions that you gloss over completely - simply asserting that the physical properties of a gas, as measured in a laboratory, means that that gas *must* be the primary driver of the entire global climate is just that - an assertion.
The above is why I rarely discuss climate with "skeptics": You're just making stuff up. Who ever said anything about greenhouse gasses being the *primary* driver of global climate systems? I didn't. No formulation of climate theories, that I'm aware of, have either. Basically you've invented some definition of climate change that is completely unsupported by the scientific literature.
I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that I provided you with a potential method to falsify the scientific theory of Global Climate Change. That you are unable to understand it is not my problem.
(That is to say: The scientific theory of Global Climate Change is, in its current form, already falsifiable. The above is a description of one way to falsify the theory.)
If you happen to be without a spare Earth, you do have other options!
The most obvious way that comes to mind is that the scientific theory of Global Climate Change depends on the validity of the Greenhouse effect. The lynch-pin of the greenhouse effect is that some gasses, like carbon dioxide for instance, absorb and re-emit (a scattering effect) radiation in the infrared band of the electromagnetic spectrum. This much has been experimentally verified under laboratory conditions.
Therefore to falsify AGW: Simply demonstrate that carbon dioxide and methane do not have the greenhouse gas properties described above*.
*You will probably want to consult with the climatology journals to get a more accurate and complete description of the properties of greenhouse gasses.
Unfortunately this is just the most recent of the many unethical practices of the Fossil Fuel industry in the climate change debate.
It brings to mind an incident from 2010:
A lobbying firm [Bonner and Associates] working for a pro-coal industry group sent lawmakers a total of 13 fraudulent letters opposing the House climate bill — five more than initially believed, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming said Tuesday. The fake letters ... purported to be from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, senior citizens groups and Creciendo Juntos, a Hispanic advocacy organization.
Source, 2010.
It seems that the fossil fuel industry will do ANYTHING, no matter how unethical, to convince you that the scientific theory of Gobal Climate Change is a hoax.
In the end I guess it doesn't matter if they succeed in convincing you because they'll just send out letters, in your name, assigning you whatever opinion they want you to have.
I have been told in thread after thread by "skeptics" of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change to, and I quote, "follow the money".
That's what this article is about: It's about following the money all the way back to Big Oil.
High-quality science [is] struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo, of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists, told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. A UCS survey found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years in a total of at least 435 incidents. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Grifo said.
Source, 2007.
You limp wristed academics are turning this country into a bunch of WIMPs!
Well said, AC.
And it's not just the legal system that is interested in the results of common sense studies like: "alcohol increases reaction time" and "driving ability worsens in people with early Alzheimer's disease".
I bet that the insurance industry is very interested in asking followup questions like "how much does alcohol increase reaction time?" and "how much does Alzheimer's disease worsen driving ability?"
"Skeptics" of the scientific theory of Global Climate Change will never tell you how many predictions you have to make because the answer is always "One more than you have now."
Scientists have never, in a laboratory, observed a strain of single cellular organisms gradually mutating into a complex multi-cellular animal.
Does that mean you consider Evolution to be "not truly tested to the degree science demands" too?
Al Gore? Oooooooh, I smell a deflection. You want to make this about individuals instead of about money spent.
I'll play your game: The Koch brothers, James Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Cato institute, and every fossil fuel company on the planet (the gnat made some excellent points about how much weight they can throw around).
Unfortunately it seems that you've constructed a circular argument to support your position: You seem to think the evidence is wrong because it doesn't support your pre-defined conclusion. Basically, you've let politics define what is good science vs bad science.
If what you meant to say was "there's an awful lot of money in convincing people that [climate change] is real too" then I'd say:
For every dollar spent convincing people that climate change is real there is probably a hundred dollars spent trying to convince people that climate change is a myth.
Well sure, but they had help from the People Front of Judea.
The sad part here is that had the inquiries been honest, they could have possibly recovered some of their lost credibility. Instead, we now have yet again baseless appeals to authority in order to justify a non-falsifiable hypothesis.
Unfortunately it seems that you've fallen victim to the popular counterpart of the appeal to authority: The appeal against authority.
I would remind you that "the authorities say it is true, therefore it is not true" is no more credible than "the authorities say it is true, therefore it is true".
I think it is worth while to point out that, of the 5 independent investigations that were launched as a result of the so-called "Climategate", all 5 have exonerated the Climatologists under investigation. None of the 5 were able to find any evidence of scientific malpractice. I'd call that, coupled with the endorsement of the G-7 national academies of science, a pretty unequivocal vindication of the science of Global Climate Change.
I would think that divesting abortion services from the more routine services, like mammograms and contraception, would be contrary to the purpose of Planned Parenthood as an organization: The protection of women's rights.
Turning the tables on a law meant to push religion into politics can have some interesting consequences: ... And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day."
[Republican convention in Denver 2008, former pastor of Grave Evangelical Free Church Arnold Conrad]
Arnold Conrad: "There are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that [McCain’s] opponent wins, for a variety of reasons
Basically, Arnold called the election a "referendum on Jesus".
When McCain's supporters lost the election I wonder how many of them lost their faith with it?
For the last seven years we haven't seen any party with a clear majority. I'm thinking, as a country, we're headed into the realm of, by necessity, forming multi-party coalition governments.