[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Oh.
We're going there, are we.

You ask (several times) and you shall receive.

[Snow-i]

No response?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

No.

I completely lost interest when you provided a video by a politician and environmental activist as "proof" that "continual rising temperatures caused by C02 emissions was [declared] settled science."

Ugh.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

No.
I completely lost interest when you provided a video by a politician and environmental activist as "proof" that "continual rising temperatures caused by C02 emissions was [declared] settled science."
Ugh.

You asked for someone to show where it was stated that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures is "settled science" I wasn't saying anything about the veracity of the movie but you wanted an example of prominent figures in the debate saying it was settled science. You don't get much more prominent then Al Gore in the AGW debate. And you don't get much more "Saying its settled science" than his movie.

You're just going to take your ball and go home?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

1. I can't believe I'm responding to this. You do this to yourself, you do....

2. Al Gore can say whatever the hell he wants. Anyone can. If Obama says something is "settled science", do you accept it? Or do you require that statement from, say, the scientists involved?

3. However, since you have so kindly provided it as "proof": I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth since it debuted; I certainly didn't commit it to memory. Please quote me the part where Gore says that "continual rising temperatures caused by C02 emissions is 'settled science.'"


Thanks.

[stupendousman]

Why on Earth would he bother? You've already essentially gone on record as showing it wouldn't matter anyway, which is why I never bothered. That's troll-like behavior. ::SIGH::

We spent almost 20 years hearing people like Gore (not just Gore) refer to people who didn't believe as he did as "deniers" and all sorts of other spittle, because they wouldn't sign on to the fact that there was an oncoming global warming catastrophe that we wouldn't avoid unless we drastically curbed carbon emissions in ways that would hurt the economy. It was "settled" we were told.

Now we are being told that no such thing was claimed, once it's clear that Gore and his ilk in the environmental political science arena where plain full of shit.

Fool us once...

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why on Earth would he bother? You've already essentially gone on record as showing it wouldn't matter anyway, which is why I never bothered. That's troll-like behavior. ::SIGH::
We spent almost 20 years hearing people like Gore (not just Gore) refer to people who didn't believe as he did as "deniers" and all sorts of other spittle, because they wouldn't sign on to the fact that there was an oncoming global warming catastrophe that we wouldn't avoid unless we drastically curbed carbon emissions in ways that would hurt the economy. It was "settled" we were told.
Now we are being told that no such thing was claimed, once it's clear that Gore and his ilk in the environmental political science where plaining full of shit.
Fool us once...

This.

You're trolling now Shortcut. You really want me to find a direct quote? You haven't seen it? Go watch it. Then you tell me what its trying to say.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yes, I want you to find a [bdirect quote.[/b] That's because you made a very direct and very specific quote. It's also one I do not believe has been made by a reputable source.

So I'm asking you to tell me who and when someone made it. Broadly saying "it's in there somewhere" is not good enough.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yes, I want you to find a [bdirect quote.[/b] That's because you made a very direct and very specific quote. It's also one I do not believe has been made by a reputable source.
So I'm asking you to tell me who and when someone made it. Broadly saying "it's in there somewhere" is not good enough.

Again, you're asking for evidence while foreshadowing your imminent dismissal of the source as not "reputable" once the evidence is gathered up and presented.

You're not looking for evidence, you're dragging out an argument where you are wrong, and likely know you are wrong, because admitting that we really don't know much about any of this (but having people claim they know for sure) will make it nearly impossible for those in the environmental political sciences to enact the capitalism crushing change it needs in order to get the world to a more liberal lifestyle.

Troll-like behavior, indeed.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

That's bullshit.

I'm saying I do not believe the quote is one that has actually been made, and thus I'm asking you to show where you've gotten it.

Responding with "oh you're already biased against it so I'm not going to show you" is laughable, dumb, and stupid.

[stupendousman]

No one provided you a "quote". It was stated generally that people claimed that it was "settled science" that increases in C02 would result in continued warming. If that was not the case, then there would be no "global warming" which we would need to protect ourselves against which was the debate the world has had over the past 20 years or so. There would be no "deniers" who claimed contrary that we didn't know how C02 would effect temperatures. We are at the point where the environment political scientists hard;ly speak of "global warming" now - in fact deny they ever suggested such a thing, and in it's place put the much more generic and hard to pin down "climate change" to disguise their lack of true understanding.and how they were wrong about the "settled science" of what C02 was doing to the planet.

When you go ahead and dismiss Gore as not reputable, and that his opinion means little, then demand a quote from him in order to further the discussion, it's clear that you're just trying to delay the inevitable - for you to have to admit that taken in context, that we really don't know all that much about any of this. We were sure that continued C02 output would equal increased warming - until it didn't happen. At this point, it's time for those who worship at the altar of Science to admit that nothing is really "settled." We can come to an understanding that something is the best idea we currently have. Science is full of examples where we were sure we knew everything we needed to know about something, until new info changed everything.

Your faith is admirable, though it's just that - faith.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Unfortunately, your post is completely full of ignorance.

The fact that you think temperatures will just "continue to rise" steadily, year-over-year, seemingly into infinity.....is mind-boggling amazing. It's completely ignorant.

The fact that you think temperatures are not rising - is also ignorant. I would think it's rather tough to make that statement when the warmest recorded year was just 2 years ago, hmmmm? Or is our subsequent failure to surpass 2010's warmth enough data for you to consider it a "downward trend"?

The fact that you do not know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that it directly leads to a warming of the earth's surface temperature - is also completely ignorant. I would recommend that you take a very, very basic - say, advanced high school level, perhaps introductory university - course in atmospheric science. There, you will "learn" about "greenhouse gases", and you will "learn" the science behind why they affect the earth's temperatures as they do. That course may also tell you about the other factors involved - factors that may lead to cooling, and the factors that make climate science such a complex discipline. You will learn that although CO2 has a certain effect, other elements can and do certainly negate its effects.

The sad fact is, however: you will do none of those things. You will continue to fail to educate yourself on this subject. And you will continue to speak about the subject as though you have an informed opinion. And you will continue to make blanket statements which are completely and utterly incorrect, and then when asked to provide proof, you will simply backpedal and avoid the subject entirely. Unlike others on this forum, you have absolutely no interest in learning about this subject: you are completely content in your ignorance..

Continue on. As you were.

[BadKosh]

CO2 used NOT TO BE A greenhouse Gas until the nutjobs started the scam.

Sine the general predictions were incorrect, when will your pop scientists fix the prediction methodology?
After all you have ALL THAT TAMPERED DATA already.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtNHuqHWefU[/VIDEO]


This video applies to your post. Early experimentation that identified atmospheric molecules such as water and carbon dioxide as "heat-trapping" date from at least the1860s. CO2 is recognized as a greenhouse gas by everyone.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yes, I want you to find a [bdirect quote.[/b] That's because you made a very direct and very specific quote. It's also one I do not believe has been made by a reputable source.
So I'm asking you to tell me who and when someone made it. Broadly saying "it's in there somewhere" is not good enough.

Really?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Really. Is that not how it works in your world? Someone can state something, and if they're asked to provide a source for their statement, they can just shrug and go on their way?

I guess it will surprise you, but that's not how reasoned and intelligent conversation is supposed to work.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

CO2 used NOT TO BE A greenhouse Gas until the nutjobs started the scam.
Sine the general predictions were incorrect, when will your pop scientists fix the prediction methodology?
After all you have ALL THAT TAMPERED DATA already.

...and what exactly do your anti-GW nutjobs have? All that NO DATA sure is conclusive.

Also, I'll mirror shortcut's video.....CO2 has been a recognized greenhouse gas for over 150 years, of course people like you remain so ignorant about even the most basic of science so it really doesn't surprise me.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Really. Is that not how it works in your world? Someone can state something, and if they're asked to provide a source for their statement, they can just shrug and go on their way?
I guess it will surprise you, but that's not how reasoned and intelligent conversation is supposed to work.

Dude, it hasn't even been a page and you're rewriting the history of the thread?

I provided you a freaking source. One that got mainstream attention and brought this debate into the political sphere.

Here it is again!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_inconvenient_truth

At least read the god damned wikipedia on it.

Originally Posted by wiki

Scientific Basis:

The film's thesis is that global warming is real, potentially catastrophic, and human-caused.

Look! Both a Primary and Secondary source!!!!!

-----

You want to have a debate? Lets. Thats not what you're doing and you've backed yourself into a corner that no amount of wiggling will get you out of.

So what have we learned? Yes. It has been presented as settled science that CO2 is causing warming, and that man is causing it. Before this movie (which has its own experts making these claims), no one had heard of AGW.

Can we move on now? Or do you want me to provide an annotated script of the movie?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

1. But....that is not what you said. Do you understand that? THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID.



It's hilarious that you're accusing me of "rewriting history". What you said, was:

like how the assured continual rising temperatures caused by C02 emissions was "settled science."

If you don't understand why I have taken issue with the phrase "continual rising temperatures", then again: it's time for you to sit down and think about what you're actually doing in this thread.

2.

Before this movie (which has its own experts making these claims), no one had heard of AGW.

...what?!?!? Are you really making this claim?? Absolutely laughable.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Unfortunately, your post is completely full of ignorance.
The fact that you think temperatures will just "continue to rise" steadily, year-over-year, seemingly into infinity.....is mind-boggling amazing. It's completely ignorant.

The fact I never made such a claim (nor believe what you claim), unfortunately, shows the desperation of your argument. I never said "into infinity." I simply stated that it would continue until it was at catastrophic levels, which is what people like Gore claimed. It didn't happen despite the fact we were assured that all of this was "settled science."

The fact that you have to filter your rebuttals through the prism that EVERYONE who disagrees with you on this topic is just "ignorant" and it can't be because you have been duped by your blind faith in people in the political environmental science field, shows why many don't even bother with you anymore.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

What do you mean, "it didn't happen??" You keep repeating this, as though warming has or is not happening. Is it your belief that warming is not happening?

[stupendousman]

Warming, cooling. The climate changes. This is the case even absent human induced carbon. This has been the case before humans where on the planet.

However, CAGW has not occurred, and it doesn't appear likely despite Gore's insistence that this is "settled science." given that the warming trend ended about 14 years ago. That's why you don't hear much about "global warming" anymore. The PR flacks in the environmental political science field were smart enough to replace it in the media with a term that can't be refuted (climate change) since it's something that happens without human intervention, in an attempt to confuse people into thinking that because the climate does change, that automatically means that humans had something to do with it.

That's every bit as dishonest as Gore's (and many in the IPCC) claims that all of this is "settled," when the facts show it is not.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

given that the warming trend ended about 14 years ago.

14 years ago? The hottest year in recorded history was 2010. Almost all the top hottest years in recorded history have occurred since the late 1990s. In what world do you live on to say that the "warming trend ended about 14 years ago"?


I quote myself:

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The fact that you think temperatures are not rising - is also ignorant. I would think it's rather tough to make that statement when the warmest recorded year was just 2 years ago, hmmmm? Or is our subsequent failure to surpass 2010's warmth enough data for you to consider it a "downward trend"?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

1. But....that is not what you said. Do you understand that? THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID.

It's hilarious that you're accusing me of "rewriting history". What you said, was:
If you don't understand why I have taken issue with the phrase "continual rising temperatures", then again: it's time for you to sit down and think about what you're actually doing in this thread.
2.
...what?!?!? Are you really making this claim?? Absolutely laughable.

And another one for the ignore. You've got some issue with this, man.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

In what world do you live on to say that the "warming trend ended about 14 years ago"?

The part where the temperatures are not going up, but down for the most part.

We have not seen the dramatic temperature gains that where claimed would be upon us within 20 years which would cause catastrophes. It simply isn't happening despite what Gore claimed. For the most part, the warming stopped.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

That is completely, 100% wrong. I just pointed out to you that 2010 was the warmest year on record, and that the 2000s are the hottest decade on record. How are temperatures going down?

[The Final Dakar]

This seems well-timed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/08/us/temperature-record/index.html

The July heat wave that wilted crops, shriveled rivers and fueled wildfires officially went into the books Wednesday as the hottest single month on record for the continental United States.

The average temperature across the Lower 48 was 77.6 degrees Fahrenheit, 3.3 degrees above the 20th-century average, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration reported. That edged out the previous high mark, set in 1936, by two-tenths of a degree, NOAA said.

In addition, the seven months of 2012 to date are the warmest of any year on record and were drier than average as well, NOAA said. U.S. forecasters started keeping records in 1895.

And the past 12 months have been the warmest of any such period on record, topping a mark set between July 2011 and this past June. Every U.S. state except Washington experienced warmer-than-average temperatures, NOAA reported.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I believe on a world-wide basis, up to the point of June, the year 2012 was on track to be a moderately hot one - perhaps in the top 10 hottest recorded years, but not at the same level as 1998, 2005, or 2010.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

No. We absolutely, 100% affect earth's climate. That's something we figured out quite some time ago.
That is the first step that you should make. From there, yes, it does get somewhat more unsteady.

Proof? I mean to be 100% absolute, you must have some pretty incredible proof that has been overlooked by all the scientist on this planet still debating it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

There are "scientists" on this planet who claim that smoke from cigarettes doesn't harm you. If you pick any mildly controversial subject - asbestos, tobacco, alcohol, lead paint, AIDS, cancer...anything - you'll find scientists who strongly hold views that are wildly in the minority. Sometimes you'll find that they're in fact paid by interests on one side or another. Sometimes they're just contrarians. Sometimes they're scientists from another field, and no more versed on the topic than you or I; other times, they just hold opinions that they think are true, but they don't have the necessary proof to convince anyone else.

Having said that: you're mistaken as to the actual controversy that is being debated. Only the truly uninformed - BadKosh, stupendousman, Snow-i, et al. - would claim that humans don't affect climate. We do. The controversial issue is to what extent we affect climate above and beyond pre-existing background levels, and whether the reduction of that amount would justify the money and/or effort that would be involved to reduce anthropogenic emissions to the necessary degree. That is what lies at the heart of the argument for people such as ebuddy, for example. (I don't want to speak for him on this subject but I think that's a fair comment to make.)

The number of scientists who would argue that humans don't affect earth's climate would be incredibly, infintismally small.

[Athens]

All it takes is common sense to realize that we affect the environment.

What I find sad is our unwillingness to make the changes needed, not just for saving the planet, but for saving our own individual personal health. And it really all comes down to how cheap we are and the drive for profits. I mean who really would have a big problem paying 35 cents more for produce that is locally grown at a higher cost to save on long distance transportation of the produce. Or more local factories to chun out products, and environmentally sound factories. Sure that toaster you bought at Wal-Mart was only $10.00 made half way around the world very cheaply so you need to replace it in 2 years. It was $10.00 but would it really kill a family to buy a toaster that costs $60.00 because it was manufactured here at home under tighter environmental and labor codes.

15-16 of those super large cargo ships produce the same amount of pollution in a year as all the cars on this planet produce in a year. That says something about globalization. Not only have we off loaded good jobs to other places, but the economics which makes it cheap to produce over seas is causing a lot of pollution we don't really need in the first place.

On a collective level we are all failures. Born into it, we are all to blame and down the road we will see massive changes around the globe. Shore lines will be changed from rising waters. Nations will fall apart through war for resources. In a few hundred years instead of being 10 Billion + people on this planet I can see us being at levels closer to 400 million. And it will be because we failed to adapt, to make changes in our thinking, the ways of doing things because as it stands right now we really don't need to on a personal level.

I would much rather see small communities of very dense living designed around walking and bikes with electric rapid transit bridging the communities. Products built to last in a safer more sustainable way. The reduction and elimination of Air, Land and Water pollution, no to save the planet, but to save our selves individually. Who wants to breath in air pollution all day long?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Errrrrrr.......that post was approaching freudling-level schizophrenic.

[mattyb]

Interesting article in The Register about an ex-Cabinet Minister (Trade and Industry/Social Security) in Thatcher's government.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/04/beyond_stern_climate_morality/

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This seems well-timed.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/08/us/temperature-record/index.html

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I believe on a world-wide basis, up to the point of June, the year 2012 was on track to be a moderately hot one - perhaps in the top 10 hottest recorded years, but not at the same level as 1998, 2005, or 2010.

Not forgetting that the world isn't just the USA : http://blogs.channel4.com/liam-dutton-on-weather/state-water-resources-wettest-summer-100-years/1979

[Waragainstsleep]

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Haha

In all fairness, I think the main thrust of the argument is that this "creating" is hardly "for nothing"......it costs a huge, huge amount.