poquas wrote:
Denying the likelihood of the climate warming up is typically as a result of one of three motives. The first is simply fear that it might be true and the trauma of dealing with it is too much to bear.
Typical catastrophist nonsense. The reason most people are immediately skeptical of talk of catastrophe is, so far, such prophesies have always turned out to be incorrect.
I've heard so many end of the world catastrophe predictions, I can't even remember how many, but I'm still here.
Nobody "denies" the world warms, anymore than they deny it cools. At present we have been in a slight warming trend going back hundreds of years as we came out of the little ice age.
Is the present (last 15 years) short term leveling and dipping of temperatures a sign we've peaked? Who knows?
Quote:
The second motive is the simple fact and its associated bias of being in bed with the source of the problem (ie: working in the oil patch or one of its derivatives). Much like the tobacco industry of the past. “Smoking can’t hurt you”.
Big oil boogeymen stories. You mention the possibility so it must be true, right? That's the way catastrophists work.
However...80 billion dollars so far from the US alone to support warmism, when there's only something like 20 million from Exxon going to the other side in the same time period. What either side does with that money can be debated, but the sheer, staggering discrepancy of funding overwhelming the warmist side is immediately obvious.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massiv ... g-exposed/That's just governments. $300 million dollars dropped into Gore's lap last year from unknown sources to fund propaganda.
Some of the Climategate letters show alarmist bigwig Mick Kelly trying to swing deals with Shell oil for funding.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails. ... 691929.txtQuote:
Then there is the third which is simple stupidity as a result of lack of knowledge or the indoctrination like religions that inspire blind following.
You're smart and knowledgeable, right? We who require proof of a coming catastrophe, before we run out with gifts to Gaia are dumb and ignorant, is that the way it goes. You plan on proving that sometime soon. If not, I'm just going to use the "I'm rubber, and you're glue" defense.
Quote:
Most of the denials tend to focus on a very short time span and the associated anomalies that then become a focus for argument.
No they don't. What you mention is one tiny point. It goes If temperatures are supposed to rise with CO2, why hasn't that being happening in the last decade, or so? Why didn't it happen from about 1950 to about 1980 when CO2 levels first started their serious rise, but temperatures declined?
Another time you'll see the recent short term trend response is to claims of "we are, or it is", as in "polar ice is melting right now". No it's not. Right now it's returning in the arctic, recent increases, and longer term stability in the antarctic.
Quote:
There are some facts which are indisputable when viewed with the most basic level of objectivity.
I know, I've just shown you a few.
Quote:
The ice at the poles and at altitude in almost all cases is melting.
No it's not. The South pole has been setting records for ice extent the last few years. Long term it's stable. The 2 year increase in Arctic ice was a record high jump in sea ice. Last year the increase was the size of British Columbia.
Ice at altitudes is a trickier argument. Things are not so clear one way or the other. Some places snow and ice is returning, some places there's reasons for the disappearance other than atmospheric warming, some records can be called into question.
Quote:
The sea has risen somewhere in the 5 cm range.
You lost me man. From when to when, and so what?
Quote:
A rapid rise took place between 15,000 and 6,000 years ago at an average rate of 10 mm/yr which accounted for 90 m of the rise; thus in the period since 20,000 years BP (excluding the rapid rise from 15-6 kyr BP) the average rate was 3 mm/yr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_ ... _sea_levelI'm pretty sure 3 mm/yr is the claim where we're sitting right now (I think they use 1993 to 2003). Nothing unusual is happening even with that inflated figure. And this is interesting if you want to talk about sea level rise in the tense of right now, as in as we speak...
Check it out from 2006. We're leveling out. Of course I know that doesn't mean anything, but here's the thing. You guys want to have your cake, and eat it too. If you want to talk about short term trends, let's talk about them.
Quote:
We pump enormous amount of carbon into the atmosphere
It depends on your perspective. The earth seems huge when you're standing on it, but if you could view it from Alpha centauri, not so much.
4% of atmospheric gases are greenhouse gases. 4% of greenhouse gas is CO2, 3% of the CO2 released each year can be traced to man.
Quote:
which cannot be absorbed by the planet as fast as we produce it.
Says who?
We're nowhere close to the CO2 levels we've seen in the geologic past.
OK, so if those CO2 levels were higher in the past, than they are now, what happened to them? And if nature decides to do whatever it did again, are you saying that 3% of 4% of 4% is going to stop it?
Quote:
I’m over 60 now, and until recently, I also doubted the causes. I never doubted the climate change. I’ve seen enough and heard enough anecdotally to understand something is happening.
Keep studying. You missed some stuff.
CKA Super Elite 
CKA Uber 
CKA Uber 
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
