Flytolive

Obvious non-reality based 'thinking.' You and anyone else are free to make your case however cartoonish it is.

It must be frustrating when the data and science so clearly aren't on the side of the deniers. See cognitive dissonance.

SayAlt

NASA Exposed in Massive New Climate Data Fraud - Principia Scientific International

Tracking Climate Fraud: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...erature-fraud/

Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions - NaturalNews.com





lol

And the DNC didn't rig the system against Bernie Sanders either, right?

We all know who the frustrated folks are, and it's not the climate skeptics. See: negative psychological projections

iceman49

NASA, NOAA and the US Military are all suspect when they think Climate Change is a problem.

Who would the DNC support? Democrat or someone that has never been a Democrat...just saying.

Flytolive

Exactly. Why listen to experts when there are so many quacks on the internet who will tell you what you want to hear.



Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI was formed in 2010 around the time they published their first book, titled Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

Flytolive

https://psmag.com/whats-next-for-the...52c#.2889nidux

SayAlt

I see. Your links are "good" while mine have no merit. Because Wikipedia says so!

In fact they are suspect, as is Dept. of State, the DoJ, the IRS, the FEC, the FCC, and so many other departments of the gov't, thanks to "our" President and his neofascist goons.

Do you intend to argue that these departments of gov't, including the DoD, have NOT been politicized under the current administration??

Heck, the problem is so bad even a good many democrats were chanting "Lock her up" (Hillary) on Day 1 of the DNC yesterday! In fact, most Americans now realize the Obama administration is thoroughly corrupt and has politicized important dept's of gov't in support of it's ideology. And there is absolutely NO DOUBT whatsoever that if this were a GOP administration the political left would be going even more berzerk than it usually does.

There are some, however, who don't care because it's "their team" who did it. Neofacist progs, of course, whole-heartedly approve and love the idea, for example, of using the IRS to go after their political opposition, to say nothing of using the other dept's of gov't to promote their ideology however they can be used to do so.

Of course, they are incredibly short-sighted, because turn-about is fair play. Unless you don't believe in fair play.


lol

Experts? Like the ones who created and caused the Financial Crisis of 2008 for example? Or the "experts" who are attempting to argue that "consensus" = science, when they know if they don't they'll lose the funding that keeps them employed??

I find it highly amusing that you obviously don't think it's possible (much less probable) that YOU alarmers are the ones who are being told what you want to hear.

You, Flytolive, have no credibility here. The last 10 pages or so of this thread prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. And now you are trying to pass off Wikipedia as a source??

LMAO

Flytolive

It is obvious that this is an emotional issue for you and that your complete lack of focus demonstrates that global climate change has become a proxy for everything that frustrates you politically. Good luck with that. I'll stick the opinion of the experts and the clear evidence that is overwhelming.

PurpleToolBox

A consensus of scientists is not science. Scientists have been wrong about many theories, and there was a consensus then too. Worse the consensus is not 100%, never has been, and it's declining. The warming crowd has been doing everything they can to explain the "global warming pause".

Even the IPCC said in their last summit that they are 95% confident that HALF of the 0.8C global temperature rise is due to all anthropogenic forces. So now we're down to half of the warming. What else is causing it? They don't know. Hmmmm.

Why 95%? Because at one time that's the highest percentage of pro-warming reports published on the subject versus the naysayers. In other words, that's not scientific either. They're just guessing. "Well if 95% of the published articles say it's warming then 95% of scientist must agree." Failed logic.

And we all know professors and universities will join the cause lockstep so as to keep those federal dollars coming.

I have no doubt that humans cause warming; nearly everything we do generates heat and we exhale CO2. But the earth has been MUCH warmer and MUCH cooler before we showed up. I'm pretty sure we're going to be all right.

Flytolive

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Filed under: Climate Science FAQ Greenhouse gases Paleoclimate — eric @ 22 December 2004 - (Svenska) (Español) (Français)
Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion.

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

JamesNoBrakes

It's like the passengers who won't put their seat belt on during flight or release it as soon as the wheels touch. It would literally take them being slammed against the fuselage and breaking bones to make them understand the danger. With climate change, many people won't "believe" it until it negatively affects them in a way they can't work around. When you are mid flight halfway across the fuselage, it's too late to put your seatbelt on.