Republican-Controlled Committee Legislates That Climate Change Does Not Exist

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Thor

Why do you even try to pose a question?

Its obvious no matter what you see or hear you will continue to deny it. I mean lets just look at how you played the climategate to be the undeniable fact that global warming was a conspiracy.

Now that we know that it was an utter lie, you are just as passionately correcting your opinion and claims.

OH WAIT, your not......

Thor,

I pose the questions because they are pivotal to the case for AGW. A case that is thread bare and very circumstantial except to the hardcore believers.

[Dan02]

Wanted to make a longer post on this, but don't have time.

I'll just leave it at this. I think it's pretty well established we are causing some level of climate change, how much is too much though? It will come down to this. Does the benefit of trying to halt out CO2 production outweigh the costs?

Some people seem to be of the belief it's bad for the earth. Not so at all, bad for the current inhabitants for the earth perhaps. But the earth and life on it is gonna keep rocking well after we've done our worst to it. I don't think ant scientists are projecting we are going to alter the climate so much that the earth becomes inhospitable to complex organisms, just ones that have adapted to the current climate.

So how much effort do we put in to keep the polar bears around and Vancouver from flooding?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I'll just leave it at this. I think it's pretty well established we are causing some level of climate change, how much is too much though? It will come down to this. Does the benefit of trying to halt out CO2 production outweigh the costs?



So how much effort do we put in to keep the polar bears around and Vancouver from flooding?

'Save the planet? The planet isn't going anywhere, the PEOPLE are f***ed'

- George Carlin

Yes, it is worth the cost. If you have children, if you have grandchildren, or if you have any sympathy for the generations that will come after us, it is worth the cost.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Thor,

I pose the questions because they are pivotal to the case for AGW. A case that is thread bare and very circumstantial except to the hardcore believers.

Right, so your enthusiastic cheerleading of the climate gate emails has now been fully destroyed.

Can you comment on this?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Thor

Azure, your one of the few people I think can be reasoned with in this debate, so here I go. Firstly you assume all of us think the carbon tax is terrific.

Far from it.

All most of us climate scientists and science nerds agree on is that #### is happening. How we move forward, or how we react to this information is up to debate.

But that is NOT the debate, its utterly about denialism, while the science is clear. Which is frustrating, because if we are to rely on anything, the scientific method should be the one true thing we give more respect over political and ideological nutcases.

I don't believe that we can say with 100% certainty that humans are responsible for the changing temperatures. I'm not denying that global warming is happening. I just don't think that humans are the biggest factor, or that we can do anything to reverse the trend.

Again, I'm all for reducing emissions and keeping the planet as clean as possible, but I want to do it reasonably.

In other words, I want to move from coal to natural gas, and from natural gas to solar and other renewable resources, and in the meantime I want to go nuclear, but I do want to make sure nuclear is safe.

But no I don't agree with a carbon tax, or regulation banning pipelines, or regulation banning further oil sand development.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

'Save the planet? The planet isn't going anywhere, the PEOPLE are f***ed'

- George Carlin

Yes, it is worth the cost. If you have children, if you have grandchildren, or if you have any sympathy for the generations that will come after us, it is worth the cost.

There is no way you can say that with certainty. Which is exactly the problem some of us have.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Thor

Right, so your enthusiastic cheerleading of the climate gate emails has now been fully destroyed.

Can you comment on this?

Ok....you first. Then me.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't believe that we can say with 100% certainty that humans are responsible for the changing temperatures. I'm not denying that global warming is happening. I just don't think that humans are the biggest factor, or that we can do anything to reverse the trend.

Again, I'm all for reducing emissions and keeping the planet as clean as possible, but I want to do it reasonably.

In other words, I want to move from coal to natural gas, and from natural gas to solar and other renewable resources, and in the meantime I want to go nuclear, but I do want to make sure nuclear is safe.

But no I don't agree with a carbon tax, or regulation banning pipelines, or regulation banning further oil sand development.

So your part of the argument from political debate, not from a science viewpoint.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Ok....you first. Then me.

No, you spent a lot of time using climate gate emails to support your position. Now universally they have been debunked.

You have a comment?

[kirant]

Originally Posted by photon

Direct observations show CO2 raising significantly, and the increase correlates with the time when we started burning fossil fuels.

I remember such reports. The only thing is how much of a lag there has been with the temperature correlation. If the law holds, then our global temperature should be rising a bit faster than it has been.

Though this is something where I'd HATE to take a "wait and see" approach on. If the correlation holds to the [CO2] in the atmosphere, we're in a lot of trouble whenever the lag in the earth's reaction finally catches up (not to say we might not have reached that naturally. Coming out of the Ice Age still, we may have problems knowing what our artificially raised new temperature is and what our non-GHG influenced result would have been). I'd much prefer we cut back on our CO2 emissions just to so we'll never tempt fate like that.

Originally Posted by photon

Changes happen for a reason, and the only thing that fits the signature of the observed changes currently is warming due to human released CO2.

Possible other reasons (and I don't say that I agree with them. Some arguments have scientific holes and are contended) include:
- Sun activity, using sun spots the Maunder Minimum as arguments for overreaction (where smoothing has been used in the 2000's and seems to hide the fact that the data doesn't agree with the hypothesis there)
- Geothermal emissions increasing (kind of a silly argument. Chances of us riding a slowing increasing heat generation from the earth is pretty low...I'm not even sure the science checks out on this)
- Still coming out of the Ice Age (If memory serves, we're still a bit below average)

Originally Posted by photon

Sure, it's a question of which effect is greater. I think at this point the evidence is growing that the net effect of clouds is as a positive feedback (warming) and that if it is negative it's very small.

That's what I'd be leaning towards. The reflection rate of vapour would logically seem pretty low compared to their absorption rate.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Thor

No, you spent a lot of time using climate gate emails to support your position. Now universally they have been debunked.

You have a comment?

You used universally like it makes your position stronger. Well, I will universally comment on the Climategate emails after you universally answer the 2 questions I asked....universally.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Ok....you first. Then me.

I'll go.

Do you concede that when Photon posted this to you in the thread ....

Originally Posted by photon

That you have judged them guilty before the investigation has even been started shows your bias.

Rather than innocent until proven guilty, you're just thrilled that it appears to you that there's something to support your pre-conceived bias.

... that he was bang on the money?

Given that ...

Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...es_and_reports
... do you now accept that there was no wrongdoing and your hysteria was misguided. If not, why?

Furthermore, in light of the above ... do you agree that premature statements like this ...

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Fraud has been committed.

are just downright silly?

Finally .... you still reading Ian Plimer?

Please answer all questions.

[photon]

Not to mention he outright called me a liar and never retracted it or apologized when he was shown to be wrong.

Also not to mention that when I finally explained out for him what he'd been nagging me for and I didn't want to give, he didn't even read it and in the very next post still claimed I hadn't given the info.

Attacking science is dirty work!

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

There is no way you can say that with certainty. Which is exactly the problem some of us have.

You fiddle while Rome burns.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

Not to mention he outright called me a liar and never retracted it or apologized when he was shown to be wrong.

Also not to mention that when I finally explained out for him what he'd been nagging me for and I didn't want to give, he didn't even read it and in the very next post still claimed I hadn't given the info.

Attacking science is dirty work!

Umm are you talking about me? If you are when did I do this?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Umm are you talking about me? If you are when did I do this?

+1 to Photon.

Do you want to fight? Or do you want to admit you were wrong?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I'll go.

Do you concede that when Photon posted this to you in the thread ....


... that he was bang on the money?

Given that ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...es_and_reports
... do you now accept that there was no wrongdoing and your hysteria was misguided. If not, why?

Furthermore, in light of the above ... do you agree that premature statements like this ...
are just downright silly?

Finally .... you still reading Ian Plimer?

Please answer all questions.

Umm this is not answering my 2 questions. I will ask them again since they have been forgotten....so quickly.

1. When did humans start driving the climate?
2. If so by how much or what is the climate suppose to be like?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Daradon

+1 to Photon.

Do you want to fight? Or do you want to admit you were wrong?

Sure Daradon....at the bike racks after school.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Sure Daradon....at the bike racks after school.

'I'll be there, even though you made my point.

[MelBridgeman]

Even in the face of strong science, it should always be challenged.
There is no doubt that we don't have the total picture, but that really doesn't matter, the climate is changing. I would imagine continuing to challenge climate science should only serve to make it stronger.

But i also don't think you can totally and blindly pin this all on CO2 emissions....human impact on the climate stretches much further from the concrete jungles we have built, modifying the landscape, clear cuttings, deforestation ect....after (simpleton argument alert) all it was only 20,000 years ago that Calgary was under 2 miles of ice....the industral age is less than 300 years old..


Carbon tax - taxes solve problems? News to me..the GST was brought in as a tax to pay off the debt....suckers...