Limbaugh: Republicans aren’t the ones pushing abortion issue
by Kelli
The problem that I have with this is it’s not the Republicans that are pushing social issues. The Republicans are defending them, for crying out loud! The left is who’s pushing social issues, and nobody ever complains about ’em doing so. The Democrat Party is the biggest purveyor of social issues. The Democrat Party is the biggest promoter of social issues. The Democrat Party’s agenda demands movement on social issues! This idea that the Republicans are pushing social issues is absurd.
Now, I know what it really means. What it really means when some Wall Street-New York liberal Republican starts complaining about social issues, he’s talking about abortion. It’s a single issue, and they’re tired of it, and they think that the Republican Party can’t win if that becomes an important campaign issue. The reason they think that is because the left has been so successful in corrupting the culture, folks.
I mean, there are a lot of people who are very aware that America as they’ve known it – our society, culture, whatever you want to call it – is undergoing massive transformation, and not for the good, not for the betterment. And they don’t know specifically why, and they certainly don’t know how to stop it. But yet when Republicans start talking about abortion, if they do, then they think the Republicans are the problem….
Free expression is the enemy of the left. The First Amendment, free expression is the enemy of all of these leftist groups try to transform the culture. While they try to tell you that they are the epitome of liberation, they are the epitome of freedom, they are the epitome of free this and free that, it’s the exact opposite.
They are oppressors.
~ Rush Limbaugh, “Our Overnight Orwellian Unraveling,” RushLimbaugh.com, June 15
[Photo via watchdogwire.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Rush Limbaugh? Seriously? Makes the WorldNutDaily seem semi-sane.
I mean, there are a lot of people who are very aware that America as they’ve known it – our society, culture, whatever you want to call it – is undergoing massive transformation, and not for the good, not for the betterment. – you mean what, like when ‘as they knew it’ included slavery, no voting for women etc. etc.?
No, Reality. That is not what he means. Nobody alive remembers America that way.
We do remember an America in which divorce was rare, our children lived, our elderly parents were cared for, STD’s were not epidemic, and gender-confusing politics did not exist.
Aging Boomers (like Rush Limbaugh) realize that the America which we are handing down to our children and grandchildren is much poorer than the opportunities that were given to us by the Greatest Generation. They sacrificed for us. We squandered it.
Limbaugh’s point is that there is still a force in American culture who want to continue squandering and consuming our cultural legacy, changing and destroying all the things that made America great. Our faith, our families, our independence and self-reliance.
Rush Limbaugh? Seriously? Makes the WorldNutDaily seem semi-sane.
We quote people from all walks of life, all opinions, and both sides of the aisle here (and also those who aren’t on either side of the aisle). Pretty sure you’ve been around this place long enough to know that.
Alinsky says to mock, so the obedient minion does mock.
I don’t always agree with Rush, but this time he’s right.
“and they certainly don’t know how to stop it”
Prayer in my opinion.
The whole article is worth a read. Also, in my opinion.
Del: We do remember an America in which divorce was rare, our children lived, our elderly parents were cared for, STD’s were not epidemic, and gender-confusing politics did not exist.
Del, there were horrors aplenty, going all the way back through time. The ancient Egyptians wrote of it, much as you do. Now, plenty of people who knew the 1950s, for example, have zero desire to return to them.
Aging Boomers (like Rush Limbaugh) realize that the America which we are handing down to our children and grandchildren is much poorer than the opportunities that were given to us by the Greatest Generation. They sacrificed for us. We squandered it.
[Insert my normal blah-blah-blah here.]
Congress. That’s the real money deal for the country. Yeah, there is a component of “we the people” in here – we elect the members of Congress, and it’s human nature to take what we can. In our system it’s Congress that has to stave off the bad effects, there, and Congress has failed miserably, to put it mildly. Almost without exception Congresspersons have let their own human nature run out a ton of bad rope, doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing: exerting a positive force.
Forget who said it.
Even my high school years in the early 80s seem whimsical and innocent compared to the minefields I’m handing down to my own kids.
Our culture is crap. I am truly afraid for us.
Nobody alive remembers America that way. – no? What about later periods? Like I and my parents generation remember. When domestic violence and child abuse were kept secret, the sheer hypocrisy of what people said compared to what they did, gender and race discrimination.
Aging Boomers (like Rush Limbaugh) realize that the America which we are handing down to our children and grandchildren is much poorer than the opportunities that were given to us – there are far greater opportunities for more people now.
by the Greatest Generation. – what ‘greatest generation’? That’s nothing more than wishful self-aggrandizement by some.
They sacrificed for us. We squandered it. – nonsense. They gave no more thought to the next generation than we do.
the early 80s seem whimsical and innocent – that’s called ‘rose-colored glasses’. You lived in it, it felt comfortable. Your kids feel as comfortable in their era as you did in yours.
Doug,
Though the 50s were hardly perfect, there are many aspects of them I would happily return to.
My mother telling me to come home when the streetlights came on.
Walking to and from school both with friends and alone.
Respect for teachers and educators. Whatever our family circumstances, race, religion, or ethnicity we sat in the classroom and obeyed. Excuses weren’t made for us to fail.
The great diversity of race, ethnicity, and culture in my school and community. Yes you read that right. Diversity is nothing new. Only difference is we never heard of it. Yet we somehow managed to live together and talk to each other.
Neighbors sat on their front porches every evening. Children played outside. You knew your neighbors, you actually talked to them. Friends, neighbors, and families were always there in a crisis.
The majority of black children lived in two parent homes.
Thankfully much has changed as well, but its unfortunate that some things did.
Sure we had doom hanging over our heads. The Russians were going to take us out at any moment. The Communists were preparing for world domination. Chicken Littles always have and still run wild. But you learn that life, while never perfect was and is not all bad either. You also learn like I have that there will always be prophesies of impending doom, either manmade or natural. So if I laugh off and ridicule this climate change claptrap, you have a better idea why.
Reality,
Sure I remember race and gender discrimination. I also remember intact black families, integrated schools and neighborhoods, and safely walking through minority neighborhoods. I also remember a black student’s insane obsessive jealousy of me because I was white. She equally loathed a Jewish classmate and made our lives hell. Racial animosity was very much a two way street.
I well remember domestic violence being kept secret. I lived it. I also came to realize that despite efforts to help victims, and there can never be enough, abusive relationships can be considerably more complicated and require more than openness and shelters to help. Can you point to any statistics or studies that show a decrease in child abuse?
Human nature is now what it has been since the dawn of creation. The same human failings and social problems recycled again and again.
I remember discrimination too. It only seems like yesterday. Oh wait…..
I remember intact white families. I walk safely through minority neighborhoods now.
Gee, I can’t possibly imagine why a black girl might be jealous of white girls!!
Can you point to any statistics or studies that show a decrease in child abuse? – why? Did I say such has happened? How would we know, since it was largely kept secret. There is more and more evidence of historic abuse emerging.
Human nature, yes. Yet some cling to a utopian vision of the past without recognizing that it was just as much dystopian. Particularly for some.
Reality,
Seems like only yesterday? So we still have discrimination?
I remember intact white families as well. But as I recall the black family and community structure was particularly strong.
Oh, so its acceptable and understandable to you for a black girl to be jealous and hateful toward white girls? Kind of a double standard there Reality? Was it also acceptable for her to be jealous and antisemitic in regards to the Jewish student?
So we don’t know that there has really been a significant difference in the incidence of child abuse.
Utopian? Hardly. People have been seeking utopia for years. Problem is human nature keeps getting in the way.
You think discrimination has disappeared? Gender? Race? Sexuality?
I remember the white family and community structure being particularly strong.
Oh, so its acceptable and understandable to you for a black girl to be jealous and hateful toward white girls? – did I say that? Where did I say that? No, I didn’t say that. Acceptable no, understandable yes…..
Kind of a double standard there Reality? – …..therefore, not in the least.
Was it also acceptable for her to be jealous and antisemitic in regards to the Jewish student? – how about you focus on what I say rather than what you create.
So we don’t know that there has really been a significant difference in the incidence of child abuse. – show me where I said it had. That’s right, you can’t. Because I didn’t. Did you not understand the reason why that is the case?
So you didn’t comprehend what I said about peoples utopian vision of the past. Pity.
Reality,
Maybe I should have been a little more specific. The black student constantly bullied and harassed me and my Jewish friend, often ridiculing her as “little Miss Jewish”. The bullying and harassment became physical. I also saw her physically abuse other white students.
Obsessive jealousy for any “reason” is sick and dangerous, even if you find it understandable in some circumstances.
Reality,
Oh excuse me, understandable. So my animosity and jealousy toward a person because she is black, or Jewish, or Asian, is “understandable”.
I thought it was bigoted and racist.
Please answer my question: Was her antisemitic animosity and jealousy toward the Jewish student equally “understandable”.
I didn’t say anything about you making claims about child abuse. I just asked if anything has changed?
Oh I understood. People do tend to view the past with rose colored glasses. I pointed out that all was not good but it was not all bad either.
Obsessive jealousy for any “reason” is sick and dangerous, even if you find it understandable in some circumstances. – dangerous, yes. Wrong, yes. Sick? Not so sure, depends on the cause. Understandable, yes.
So my animosity and jealousy toward a person because she is black, or Jewish, or Asian, is “understandable”. – doubtful if you live in the US. Perhaps if you lived in Asia or a fundamentalist jewish community. Does the word ‘privilege’ mean anything to you?
I thought it was bigoted and racist. – I thought you said it was jealousy.
Please answer my question: Was her antisemitic animosity and jealousy toward the Jewish student equally “understandable”. – was she actually anti-semitic or just looking for a ‘hook’ on which to mount her jealous tirades.
I didn’t say anything about you making claims about child abuse. I just asked if anything has changed? – it isn’t as hidden. The past is emerging though.
Oh I understood. People do tend to view the past with rose colored glasses. I pointed out that all was not good but it was not all bad either. – good for you. What I said was that some cling to a utopian vision of the past. I said nothing about people seeking it.
Reality,
Also, why would you find it “understandable” for a black girl to be jealous of a girl because she is white? Do you perceive something so wrong with being black that jealousy is just to be expected?
I like Rush. I often listen to his show while a get things done around the house. The beauty of radio.
Here he’s absolutely right in that the Left paints itself as people who value freedom of expression. However, you are only free to express yourself if you agree with them. Otherwise shut up.
Look at the recent instances where students have wanted to start prolife clubs at public schools. It’s taken legal action over and over to get these approved. These same schools have gay straight alliance clubs. Diversity is not allowed.
Reality,
I would consider obsessive jealousy sick. You consider it understandable. Whatever.
So my animosity and jealousy toward a person because she is black, or Jewish, or Asian, is “understandable”. – doubtful if you live in the US. Perhaps if you lived in Asia or a fundamentalist Jewish community. Does the word ‘privilege’ mean anything to you? – LOLLL. Reality you are becoming incoherent!
Well she openly ridiculed the student as “little Miss Jewish” so obviously my friend’s faith was an issue to her and she viewed this as a way to demean her.
I didn’t say you said anything about people seeking utopia. That was just my opinion.
Also, why would you find it “understandable” for a black girl to be jealous of a girl because she is white? Do you perceive something so wrong with being black that jealousy is just to be expected? – you spoke of the 50’s. As I said, does the word ‘privilege’ mean anything to you?
I would consider obsessive jealousy sick. You consider it understandable – depends on the root cause.
LOLLL. Reality you are becoming incoherent! – LOLLER. So you aren’t aware of the nuances of time, place and circumstance. Shame.
Well she openly ridiculed the student as “little Miss Jewish” so obviously my friend’s faith was an issue to her – not necessarily.
and she viewed this as a way to demean her. – as I said.
Reality,
Does anything like being intelligent and a good student mean anything to you? She had that going for her and more. I enjoyed no more “privilege” than she did and any number of white students enjoyed less than she did, including another white friend who came from an abusive low income home ruled by an alcoholic tyrant, unlike this black student who came from a large and intact family. You see Reality being white was no guarantee against poverty, discrimination, ridicule, bad grades, being held back, or being bullied and harassed.
Give me an example of a “root cause” that would make obsessive jealousy “understandable”.
So she ridiculed and demeaned her as “little Miss Jewish” out of great respect for her faith? Why did she even mention her religion?
I enjoyed no more “privilege” than she did…..being white was no guarantee against poverty, discrimination, ridicule, bad grades, being held back, or being bullied and harassed. – it would appear that your knowledge of contemporary anthropology is worse than mine!
Give me an example of a “root cause” that would make obsessive jealousy “understandable”. – I already have.
So she ridiculed and demeaned her as “little Miss Jewish” out of great respect for her faith? – did I say that? No, I don’t believe I did.
Why did she even mention her religion? – I’ve already supplied you with that information. You know, you might make things easier on yourself if you paid attention.
Yes, a man with a history of drug addiction and his fourth wife (having lost none to death and each wife getting younger as he ages) is a fine example of morals and the way things used to be. Please Rush, who changes wives as casually as underwear, tell us all about morals and how all of America should act. It is about like taking parenting advice from the Duggars.
Reality,
“Contemporary Anthropology”? LOL. Your great “knowledge” of “contemporary anthropology” is more pathetically lacking than you realize Reality.
Kindly point out the “root cause” again.
Demeaning my friend as ‘little Miss Jewish” was done out of respect/disrespect for her faith. Which is it Reality?
Please point out the post where you “supplied that information” concerning the use of my friend’s religion.
I Object,
“Each wife getting younger as he ages”.
Whatever you think of Rush IO, at least get your facts straight.
He first married at 26 to a woman who was employed as a radio station sales secretary. Obviously a grown woman and likely close to his young age.
In 1983 when he would have be about 32 he married a college student, most likely 10 years or so younger.
He married 35 year old Marta in 1994 when he would have been about 42. Looks like the gap is closing a bit.
In 2010 he married Kathryn who was 33, just a couple years younger than Marta though Rush was 59.
Mary: You also learn like I have that there will always be prophesies of impending doom, either manmade or natural. So if I laugh off and ridicule this climate change claptrap, you have a better idea why.
There are two different things there, Mary. Nostalgia is fine, and you’re right that there will always be people thinking that the sky is going to fall pretty soon.
Yet to note, scientifically, what is happening with the climate, is not “claptrap” nor does it have anything to do with wishing we were kids again.
On the things you’ve said about the climate – I did think there was “something going on,” but who really is claiming there is impending doom, there? Heck, even if doom was impending, ain’t much that could be done.
I Object: Yes, a man with a history of drug addiction and his fourth wife (having lost none to death and each wife getting younger as he ages) is a fine example of morals and the way things used to be. Please Rush, who changes wives as casually as underwear, tell us all about morals and how all of America should act. It is about like taking parenting advice from the Duggars.
You know, I think that if the old Rushbo and I got together, had a few drinks over a meal, we would have a bunch of laughs. He could drop the goofy blathering and the lame-brained stuff he puts on for the radio.
But yeah – for him to go on like he does is just plain silly.
Rush, 1995: if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.
What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we’re not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too
Well, Rush is fairly white, and he was one of the biggest (literally) pill-heads going. He took (again, literally) tens of thousands of OxyContin, Hydrocodone, and Lorcet pills. He was popping pills all the while, as he was calling for harsher penalties for those who did just that.
And of course the story changed when his own drug use got out. You just have to laugh….
Hi Doug,
Yes my good friend nostalgia is indeed a fine thing. But as I said it shows life, while never perfect, was not at all bad either. As you know I love history trivia and fascinating facts, the more politically incorrect the better. I like nothing more than to point out to people that history for the most part is just repeating itself. Nothing humans do now that they haven’t always done, except maybe texting…!!
Again about the climate. Ongoing conflicting findings, theories, and opinions. New information. Old news. Not that I have a problem with that. That is what makes science what it is. No one can seem to tell us anything scientifically for certain. I will just continue to respect the fact that the forces of nature are beyond anything we can understand, much less control.
Can you believe it Doug, back in the 70s I actually gave up my spray deodorant thinking I would help save the ozone layer? How embarrassing. Now before you make a smart aleck comeback I switched to roll on!! :)
Exactly, ain’t much that could be done. That’s my whole point. The climate will do what its done for eons…what it damned well pleases. Thankfully we will have advantages our poor schmuck ancestors didn’t. Central heating or air. Whatever we need.
Can you believe it Doug, back in the 70s I actually gave up my spray deodorant thinking I would help save the ozone layer? How embarrassing. Now before you make a smart aleck comeback I switched to roll on!! :)
Ha! That was good, Mary.
For sure, human history repeats itself. I think that as a race, we have to learn the hard way, over and over and over and over….
Again about the climate. Ongoing conflicting findings, theories, and opinions. New information. Old news. Not that I have a problem with that. That is what makes science what it is. No one can seem to tell us anything scientifically for certain.
That’s not really true, though. We know for certain that the CO2 content of the air, for example, has risen, and we know how much it’s risen. We know that the amount of greenhouse gases in the air makes a difference. We know how much of those humanity has produced, to a degree of accuracy to the point where any error is not significant.
I will just continue to respect the fact that the forces of nature are beyond anything we can understand, much less control.
That’s not really facing the issue head-on, though. Yeah, nature is potentially more impactful on the climate than we are, but we can understand it, either way.
“Contemporary Anthropology”? LOL. Your great “knowledge” of “contemporary anthropology” is more pathetically lacking than you realize Reality. – yet here you are claiming that you can’t think of any possible reason why a black girl might be jealous of white girls in 1950’s America. Cute.
Kindly point out the “root cause” again. – why should I make the effort on your behalf. Try harder.
Demeaning my friend as ‘little Miss Jewish” was done out of respect/disrespect for her faith. Which is it Reality? – neither. As was explained to you.
Please point out the post where you “supplied that information” concerning the use of my friend’s religion. – don’t be so lazy.
Reality,
And here you are assuming black girls are jealous of white girls just because they are white. Something undesirable about being black as far as you’re concerned Reality?
It was either demeaning or not, which was it?
“Don’t be so lazy”. LOL. Your usual response when you are unable to back up what you say.
And here you are assuming black girls are jealous of white girls just because they are white. – no. Try again.
Something undesirable about being black as far as you’re concerned Reality? – not in the least. Why do you think such?
It was either demeaning or not, which was it? – I said neither. Can’t you read?
“Don’t be so lazy”. LOL. Your usual response when you are unable to back up what you say. – it’s up there. In black and white. Are you saying you’re having reading difficulties now?
Hi Doug,
Again many factors. New research suggests CO2 may be influenced by temperature and not visa versa. Mother Nature has been burning fossil fuels for thousands of years before man and is still going strong(news to me). Since the 60s the Amazon rain forest has been “cleared” and “settled” promoting more CO2 release and abnormally high termite activity, as you pointed out.
Also the efforts to silence and discredit those who oppose the global warming orthodoxy. Why? Isn’t science about new information and ideas? Isn’t it about conflicting opinions? I thought we learned with Galileo. He was declared a heretic for going against the orthodoxy of his time, both scientific and religious. One factor remains constant throughout human history to this day: The powers that be never graciously accept being challenged, whoever they are.
Face the issue head on? To me that’s like arguing that we face volcanoes head on. They’ll erupt when they want and how much they want and heap what destruction they want on humans, the atmosphere, and the planet. We can try to predict and be prepared but that is all we can do.
I’m glad we agree nature has potentially more impact than we have. That’s been my point all along. After all, we know it wasn’t SUVs and gas lawn mowers that turned the Sahara into a desert!
Reality,
Black girls are understandably jealous of white girls.
Keep trying Reality. You might eventually worm your way out of this one.
I read fine, but referring to someone as “little Miss Jewish” as a way to express your contempt is either demeaning or not. What is your opinion?
No reading difficulties at all Reality. Just very familiar with your little ploys.
Black girls are understandably jealous of white girls. – why?
Keep trying Reality. You might eventually worm your way out of this one. – LOL. I’ve given you answers. You’re the one seemingly unable to read.
I read fine, but referring to someone as “little Miss Jewish” as a way to express your contempt is either demeaning or not. What is your opinion? – my opinion is that there is a possibility that you are half way to understanding this point. Or am I being overly optimistic about you?
No reading difficulties at all Reality. Just very familiar with your little ploys. – my little ploy of providing answers, pointing out that I have provided answers and then ‘listening’ to you say you can’t see them? Which is your little ploy.
New research suggests CO2 may be influenced by temperature and not visa versa.
Mary, the “not vice-versa” part is wrong. This confusion has been around practically forever as far as talking about global temperature change.
There are indeed times when CO2 lags temperature, as at the end of an ice age. The earth’s changing solar orbit brings the first increase in temperature. Warming ocean water releases CO2 into the air – the solubility of CO2 in water declines with warmer water. I was talking about this yesterday on Facebook; will post that in a separate post here.
The increased CO2 in the air makes for more warming, which further warms the water, driving out yet more CO2. This positive feedback is needed to get us the shifts we’ve had between glacial and inter-glacial periods. The effect, alone, of our changing orbit is not strong enough to cause that much variation.
Mother Nature has been burning fossil fuels for thousands of years before man and is still going strong(news to me). Since the 60s the Amazon rain forest has been “cleared” and “settled” promoting more CO2 release and abnormally high termite activity, as you pointed out.
Mother Nature’s production and consumption of greenhouse gases has been very much in balance for tens of thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years. The recent enormously rapid and anomalous temperature gain is the result of human activity – there is nothing to offset our production of greenhouse gases.
Also the efforts to silence and discredit those who oppose the global warming orthodoxy. Why?
There may be some BS going on. Too bad if people are playing politics, here. Has nothing to do with any rational discussion of what we do, in fact, know.
Isn’t science about new information and ideas? Isn’t it about conflicting opinions? I thought we learned with Galileo. He was declared a heretic for going against the orthodoxy of his time, both scientific and religious.
Yeah, there was some nasty stuff that went on back then. However, when silly stuff put out by pseudo-scientists can be shot full of holes, even by lay people, then you know it’s crap, plain and simple, political baloney notwithstanding.
One factor remains constant throughout human history to this day: The powers that be never graciously accept being challenged, whoever they are.
So what does that mean? That Mother Nature is gonna slap us hard for what we’ve done? To this point, she ain’t lifted a finger as far as global warming and the increased greenhouse gases due to human activity.
Face the issue head on?
Yes, to say that we cannot necessarily overpower nature is not the same thing as noting that we are doing just that, in lieu of nature making any moves.
To me that’s like arguing that we face volcanoes head on. They’ll erupt when they want and how much they want and heap what destruction they want on humans, the atmosphere, and the planet. We can try to predict and be prepared but that is all we can do.
Yeah, and that might put enough sulfur dioxide into the air to cool things off, but it ain’t been happenin’ yet.
I’m glad we agree nature has potentially more impact than we have. That’s been my point all along.
No, that’s far from all of what you have been saying. Oh well.
Without predicting any real gloom or doom, I think the changes that are occurring are fascinating – I wish I could “fast-forward” through time and see where it all does end up. For the past 800,000 years, prior to the Industrial Revolution getting cranked up, the CO2 in air bounced around from about 175 to 300 ppm. The last time it got near 300 was over 100,000 years ago. It’s risen very rapidly in the past 200+ years, 403.7 being the last figure I saw. At this point, we are thus 35% above the top end of the former range, and 131% above the low end. This is indeed significant.
Henry’s Law – at a fixed temperature, the solubility of a gas in a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above the liquid. Per the above, at the same temperature, ocean water could thus be holding from 35% to 131% more carbon dioxide.
The oceans are observed to have warmed about 0.6 degrees Celsius over the past 135 years. The average temp. of the ocean surface waters on earth is about 17 celsius. In this range, the solubility of carbon dioxide almost exactly doubles from 20 degrees C down to 0 degrees C, so 5% per degree. Here, the warming ocean water would have lost about 3% in ability to hold CO2, all other things being equal, not much of an offset compared to the increased ability to hold it with the higher concentration in the atmosphere.
Doug not all climatologists are in agreement. It is NOT settled science.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/15/forget-the-temperature-plateau-earth-undergoing-global-cooling-since-2002-climat
Mother Nature has always been in balance? You know this for a fact how Doug? Is MN in balance when another fossil fuel fire naturally ignites and continues to burn for years, even centuries? When there are massive forest fires? When a volcano erupts? Which Ice Age do you refer to? There have been at least 5 major ones. Climate changes have been triggered by volcanoes so maybe MN isn’t in as a good balance as you think.
Nasty stuff back then? They had nothing on us Doug
http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/060315-755598-sheldon-whitehouse-wants-to-use-rico-act-to-prosecute-deniers.
As I told you the powers that be, whether in government, science, religion, or medicine have never graciously accepted being challenged. Thus was Galileo declared a heretic for 300 years before the Church had to eat crow. Thus will efforts be made to silence those who challenge the concept of manmade climate change.
Do I believe climate change is going on? I’m convinced it has been an ongoing process since the dawn of creation that will continue until the end of time.
Doug I have been arguing the forces of nature all along. The human race gives itself entirely too much credit. We are totally at the mercy of nature and her forces.
Doug, 10:10PM
As I told you my friend the gods punish mortals by giving them what they ask for. You may be reincarnated into a future ice age!
Reality,
Black girls are understandably jealous of white girls. – why? –
You tell me Reality. You’re the one who said such jealousy was “understandable”.
Mary: Oh, so its acceptable and understandable to you for a black girl to be jealous and hateful toward white girls? –
Reality: did I say that? Where did I say that? No, I didn’t say that. Acceptable no, understandable yes…..
So you can’t give an opinion as to whether the snide comment “little Miss Jewish” is disrespectful or not. Apparently I was the one being overly optimistic where you are concerned.
No Reality, your little ploy of claiming that you or someone else gave an answer then refusing to point out where it was. It makes one think you are evading the question.
Mary, the second site you mentioned is one of the ones that are total junk, a joke to be played on those too gullible to know any better.
It’s put out by Marc Morano.
http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_marc_morano
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/07/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry.html#sthash.9aKezfxZ.dpuf
Mary, here is the gist of what that site is saying: the rate of change in carbon dioxide concentration in the air follows an equation that only depends on temperature change
Well yes, that is true – if that is all that’s going on. As I already said, about how ice ages give way to inter-glacial periods:
“There are indeed times when CO2 lags temperature, as at the end of an ice age. The earth’s changing solar orbit brings the first increase in temperature. Warming ocean water releases CO2 into the air – the solubility of CO2 in water declines with warmer water.
The increased CO2 in the air makes for more warming, which further warms the water, driving out yet more CO2. This positive feedback is needed to get us the shifts we’ve had between glacial and inter-glacial periods.”
So, this can and does happen. But it’s not happening now, and it has not been happening for a long time. That kind of thing happens over a much, much longer time frame than what we are talking about – the last 200+ years.
Salby’s “work” is curve-fitted nonsense, and Pehr Björnbom realizes that:
The Murry Salbys theory agrees well with the observed data is of course no guarantee that the theory is also consistent with reality.
If Björnbom’s work is peer-reviewed (I doubt it is in earnest enough to warrant that, frankly), that would be instantly pointed out. It’s curve-fitted. It really has nothing to do with our current climate change – it’s just saying, “This would happen if this other thing would happen.” We already know that a warming world would initially increase the CO2 in the air.
What we can say is that with no other changes at work, then rising temperature will increase the CO2 in the air, as has been explained. In no way does that mean that that’s what’s been at work for the past 200+ years.
If anything, I imagine this is some attempt to again put forth the same fatuous argument as Salby did, now that Salby has been discredited.
Again, lest we forget, Salby has demonstrated that he really does not know how things work:
“I think it’s a pitfall that people look at the ice proxy of CO2 and take it literally. It’s not atmospheric CO2, and I don’t believe it’s CO2 that was even in the atmosphere when that piece of snow was layed down”
Heh.
Mary: Mother Nature has always been in balance?
Nobody told you that, Mary.
You know this for a fact how Doug?
By analyzing ice cores, we can see what was going on for the last 750,000 or 800,000 years.
Is MN in balance when another fossil fuel fire naturally ignites and continues to burn for years, even centuries?
Such fires are not big enough to be significant. Nature has two trump cards that I see, as far as changing global temperatures. One is the tilt of the earth’s axis, and the other is volcanic eruption. The change in our axis tilt (and the precession of the equinoxes in our orbit around the sun) does make a significant difference – as noted previously, not enough to bring on ice ages nor end them by itself – but it does matter.
Volcanic eruptions can make a difference, and they can do it fast, too – and this is the real deal, because all the “heating methods” of nature process very slowly, vastly slower than what we’ve seen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
But on the “cooling method” side, nature can move fast, there – enough sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, as from the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, and more solar radiation is reflected back into space, enough so that an immediate effect is noticeable.
When there are massive forest fires?
Yeah, same deal as underground coal fires – no big thing.
When a volcano erupts?
As above, this can be a big deal. It’s usually not, but a big enough eruption and bingo.
Which Ice Age do you refer to? There have been at least 5 major ones.
All the ice ages in the last 800,000 years.
Climate changes have been triggered by volcanoes so maybe MN isn’t in as a good balance as you think.
Yes, then no. We know what volcanoes have done. Other than a very few mega-eruptions, the balance has been there, i.e. the change in temperature and greenhouse gases has occurred very, very slowly, compared to what we’re talking about.
Doug I have been arguing the forces of nature all along.
Well, that’s fine, Mary, but neither you nor anybody else has any rational explanation of the incredibly, anomalously fast temperature increase and the change in greenhouse gases in the air. “Natural forces” can change the CO2 content of the air, for example, but they do it at a rate roughly 100 to 400+ times as slow as what’s been going on.
The human race gives itself entirely too much credit.
No we don’t. Strip away all the baloney, outright lies, strawmen arguments, obfuscations, etc., and our activity is what’s left.
We are totally at the mercy of nature and her forces.
That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about. Yes, nature can overpower us. But it hasn’t been doing that. In no way does that mean that we cannot affect the planet.
Thankfully we will have advantages our poor schmuck ancestors didn’t. Central heating or air. Whatever we need.
Mary, do you actually think that everyone on the planet has central air? Or is it just that the people who are least likely to have air conditioning are on continents that don’t matter to you? Let me guess–your solution to rising sea levels is that we’ll all have sump pumps.
As I told you the powers that be, whether in government, science, religion, or medicine have never graciously accepted being challenged.
This assertion is oversimplified to the point of complete uselessness in a historical context. It’s also entirely irrelevant to the validity of the theory of anthropogenic climate change.
Climate change deniers are not being silenced. Rather, their work is not being published in journals dedicated to the publication of original scientific research because “Global warming is false because conspiracy!!!!!” is not original scientific research.
“Well, Rush is fairly white, and he was one of the biggest (literally) pill-heads going. He took (again, literally) tens of thousands of OxyContin, Hydrocodone, and Lorcet pills. He was popping pills all the while, as he was calling for harsher penalties for those who did just that.”
Well Rush is literally the only conservative I’ve ever seen who actually called out sentencing disparities between minorities and whites, so I’ll give him props for that. I do wonder when he is gonna go insist they put him in jail for his drug abuse though. ;)
Doug,
LOLLLL. You are NOT serious are you?? Media Matters for America??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America
Hardly a bastion of objectivity.
Doug my point is not to win an agrument that cannot be won or lost. My point is to show you that there are opposing opinions, varying scientific data, and natural forces and people are going to look at all of it and draw their own conclusions. My conclusion is that we are subject to the forces of nature, forces we can’t even comprehend, much less control, and frankly no one can say for certain what the hell is going on or why.
Its like vaccines and autism. You do your research and draw your own conclusions. People will argue passionately for a connection, others will completely disregard it. Same with abortion and breast cancer. Have you seen the debates, studies, research, sources, countersources, arguments presented just on this blog debating this issue? Is it settled science? For some people yes, for others no. As far as I’m concerned, so long as there are studies and counterstudies the ABC connection has not been proven either way.
I am troubled by efforts to silence those who oppose “manmade climate change”. Why is this?? What are these manmade climate change people so afraid of? I would hope you find it troubling as well.
So long as there are studies, counterstudies, new theories and information, and opposing opinions..and continued effort to silence those opposing opinions… this is NOT settled science.
LisaC
Mary, do you actually think that everyone on the planet has central air? Or is it just that the people who are least likely to have air conditioning are on continents that don’t matter to you? Let me guess–your solution to rising sea levels is that we’ll all have sump pumps. –
Spare me the claptrap about certain people not mattering. Even you should be well aware that in the course of history our ancestors, whoever they were and wherever they lived, did not enjoy the luxury of central air and heating. Otherwise they might have more likely survived cyclic climate changes that occurred on their own.
What’s your solution to “rising sea levels”? Assuming they’re even rising.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/24/alarmists-are-in-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/
Unlike Doug you should be willing to consider opposing opinions.
No LisaC, check history and you will find that Galileo, now very revered in the scientific community, was vehemently opposed by the Church and scientific communities in his lifetime. He was even branded a heretic for 300 years until the Church was forced to eat crow. Never think that opposing opinions are welcome…by the powers that be.
“Climate change deniers are not being silenced. Rather, their work is not being published in journals dedicated to the publication of original scientific research because “Global warming is false because conspiracy!!!!!” is not original scientific research. -”
LOL. What do you call this LisaC? Bingo!! Silencing. You should be very troubled by this. What are these people so afraid of? Maybe exposure that they are wrong??
Who determines if their research and findings are valid or not? Let people read and decide for themselves.
http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/senator-bring-rico-charges-against-climate-wrongthink
Moderator please take me out of moderation. Thank you.
Doug,
Dr. Salby doesn’t know how it works? You may want to check out his bio.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/prof-murry-salby-presents-control-of-atmospheric-co2.html
Doug,
“Well, that’s fine, Mary, but neither you nor anybody else has any rational explanation of the incredibly, anomalously fast temperature increase and the change in greenhouse gases in the air. “Natural forces” can change the CO2 content of the air, for example, but they do it at a rate roughly 100 to 400+ times as slow as what’s been going on. -”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought.html#.VYcW-PlViko
LOLLLL. You are NOT serious are you?? Media Matters for America??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America
Hardly a bastion of objectivity.
Mary, point taken, but they are correct about Marc Morano.
In this vein, I am also not saying there are not stupid websites that proclaim doom, etc. – that go too far as far as what is happening and what will happen. If Media Matters claimed that the oceans were going to rise a foot in the next year, I’d call them on it as strongly as I would anybody else.
Doug my point is not to win an argument that cannot be won or lost. My point is to show you that there are opposing opinions, varying scientific data, and natural forces and people are going to look at all of it and draw their own conclusions. My conclusion is that we are subject to the forces of nature, forces we can’t even comprehend, much less control, and frankly no one can say for certain what the hell is going on or why.
Mary, agreed that there are natural forces (including potential ones that could dwarf manmade changes), but that does not mean that we can’t and don’t affect the world.
Its like vaccines and autism. You do your research and draw your own conclusions. People will argue passionately for a connection, others will completely disregard it. Same with abortion and breast cancer. Have you seen the debates, studies, research, sources, countersources, arguments presented just on this blog debating this issue? Is it settled science? For some people yes, for others no. As far as I’m concerned, so long as there are studies and counterstudies the ABC connection has not been proven either way.
The vaccines/autism deal is a good comparison with climate-change deniers. One perhaps could say that a thing is “never settled” with even one person in disagreement. However, as evidence accumulates, things do settle down.
Sometimes, even just one person can have quite an effect:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/magazine/mag-24Autism-t.html
I am troubled by efforts to silence those who oppose “manmade climate change”. Why is this?? What are these manmade climate change people so afraid of? I would hope you find it troubling as well.
Many of them are just plain full of BS. Many of them are financed by entities that think it in their interest to obfuscate and put out lies. I think they deserve silencing.
As far as serious, earnest research, it should not be silenced.
So long as there are studies, counterstudies, new theories and information, and opposing opinions..and continued effort to silence those opposing opinions… this is NOT settled science.
You are way over-generalizing. There is not just one “this,” there.
It is reasonable to say that we don’t know what the exact situation will be in 100 years or in the year 2100, for example.
It is reasonable to say that we don’t know the exact percentage of our current observations that are due to human activity.
It is not reasonable to say, “Nothing is going on.”
Mary: Dr. Salby doesn’t know how it works?
He’s demonstrated that by some of the things he’s said.
You may want to check out his bio. http://www.principia-scientific.org/prof-murry-salby-presents-control-of-atmospheric-co2.html
Mary, “Principia Scientific” is just a blog put out by a guy known for wacky stuff – as far as I know his name is John O’Sullivan and he’s an out-of-work art teacher.
Salby’s stuff, there, is just the same curve-fitting we’ve seen before. We already know that a warming ocean releases CO2. In no way does that mean that greenhouse gases don’t absorb solar heat and effect the world’s climate.
“Well, that’s fine, Mary, but neither you nor anybody else has any rational explanation of the incredibly, anomalously fast temperature increase and the change in greenhouse gases in the air. “Natural forces” can change the CO2 content of the air, for example, but they do it at a rate roughly 100 to 400+ times as slow as what’s been going on.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought.html#.VYcW-PlViko
I really don’t see anything new or of sense there.
We already know that warmer ocean water holds less CO2.
Previous studies have suggested that it takes between 400 and 1300 years for this to happen.
Wait a minute – who says this? What studies are they talking about? Ahem – if global ocean temperatures rise, the effect starts right away and proceeds while the warming is taking place. All I can say is that it could matter where the ice cores were taken, i.e. a warming world will feature areas that warm more slowly and others that warm faster. If the oceans as a whole are warming, and ice cares are taken from an area that warmed less than the average, then the results will be skewed to the low side – increasing the perceived “lag” in the readings (if the researchers are looking at it like that).
The article says now it could be around 200 years. So what? Why would anybody care about this, relative to what we now see going on?
And while more precise than the others, the team’s study also comes with significant uncertainty: plus or minus 200 years, meaning there could actually be no lag time between rising temperatures and gases being released from the atmosphere.
Oh good grief – they don’t mean “released from the atmosphere,” they mean from the ocean. Stuff like this really makes me wonder what is going on with such an article (though I’m not going to dismiss NewScientist outright).
Anyway, we end with with 200 years, plus or minus 200. Good grief…. So, zero to 400 years. And again – so what?
The fact is that the faster the water warms, the faster will be the gas release. And once the water begins warming, the gas release starts right then.
The article has nothing to do with anything pertinent, I think. We are observing change that is roughly 100 to 400+ times as fast as what nature has done in the past, with the CO2 in air.
You tell me Reality. You’re the one who said such jealousy was “understandable”. – I did. I did.
So you can’t give an opinion as to whether the snide comment “little Miss Jewish” is disrespectful or not. – yes. I did. It’s neither. Remember?
Apparently I was the one being overly optimistic where you are concerned. – where you are overly optimistic is in thinking that you can just pretend the answer hasn’t been provided when it’s there in black and white.
No Reality, your little ploy of claiming that you or someone else gave an answer then refusing to point out where it was. It makes one think you are evading the question. – it actually makes one think you lack either the ability or the willingness to read back through the earlier comments. Rather than look and see it you pretend it isn’t there. Your ploy is a failure.
Doug,
A matter of perspective on Marc Morano. It seems anyone who is a “denier” is a “joke”.
I consider the the term “climate deniers” demeaning. No one has proven man made climate change is going on. They offer opposing opinions. Hardly makes people “deniers”.
I most wholeheartedly agree, one person can have quite an effect.
Again Doug, “just plain full of BS” is a matter of perspective. We tend to view people who oppose our opinions as such…and they view us as such.
I’m glad we agree that serious, earnest research should not be silenced. Nor should those presenting an opposing viewpoint.
I don’t see it as “overgeneralizing”. So long as anyone is being silenced, science is not being served.
“It is reasonable to say that we don’t know what the exact situation will be in 100 years or in the year 2100, for example.” Heck, I would just be happy to get an accurate weekend weather report!
“It is reasonable to say that we don’t know the exact percentage of our current observations that are due to human activity.” While I think humans have nothing to do with it, I will consider any evidence of such.
“It is not reasonable to say, “Nothing is going on.” I agree. I feel something has continually gone on since the dawn of creation.
BTW my friend, Happy Father’s Day!! I hope you had a good one.
Doug,
“He’s demonstrated that by some of the things he’s said.” – You may have an issue with some of the things he has said, but he definitely has some very impressive credentials. We all will draw our own conclusions concerning what he has to say.
Well the guy can be a former male stripper for all I care, what he has put out about Dr. Salby seems pretty much on the mark. Can you point out any inaccuracies?
As for the ocean article it offers a possible option as to how CO2 levels can rise faster than was once thought. Did the oceans warm around the start of the Industrial Age releasing CO2? Did this lead to increased warming? Does this account for the increased CO2 you mention? Just something to consider.
There may have been a typo Doug. They likely meant “into the atmosphere”.
You think it has nothing to do with anything pertinent? Well Doug, maybe it does.
Reality,
You tell me Reality. You’re the one who said such jealousy was “understandable”. – I did. I did. – I know
So you can’t give an opinion as to whether the snide comment “little Miss Jewish” is disrespectful or not. – yes. I did. It’s neither. Remember? – Still can’t give a straight answer I see.
No Reality, your little ploy of claiming that you or someone else gave an answer then refusing to point out where it was. It makes one think you are evading the question. – it actually makes one think you lack either the ability or the willingness to read back through the earlier comments. Rather than look and see it you pretend it isn’t there. Your ploy is a failure.- Keep trying your little ploy Reality.
Mary: A matter of perspective on Marc Morano.
No, there’s no rational defending that clown.
It seems anyone who is a “denier” is a “joke”.
No, it depends on what they are saying. I agree that the extent of the effect of human activity is the real argument, and no problem with people having differing opinions, if they make any sense.
Again Doug, “just plain full of BS” is a matter of perspective. We tend to view people who oppose our opinions as such…and they view us as such.
If that’s all that was going on, that would be one thing. But what we have is an enormous number of people and websites giving outright lies, logical impossibilities, mathematical falsehoods, etc.
Example: one report, one study from 1982, saying that termites are chowing on newly-downed forest organic matter and are emitting an increased amount of carbon dixoide, around twice as much as are humans, the researchers thought. Now, we have multiple deliberately false websites saying “ten times as much.”
I don’t see it as “overgeneralizing”. So long as anyone is being silenced, science is not being served.
Where you were overgeneralizing is in treating things like there is one monolithic deal here, and that’s not true. While there are areas of legitimate doubt, there are also many people denying known truths.
I hope you’re having a good day, too Mary. My father-in-law died in June of last year, and though he was often irascible, peevish, cross and petulant, he’s really missed now.
I know – then why did you keep pretending I hadn’t.
Still can’t give a straight answer I see. – so is it that you don’t understand what ‘neither’ means, don’t like the answer ‘cos it’s not the one you want, or what?
Keep trying your little ploy Reality. – my little ploy of providing answers, pointing out that I have provided answers and then ‘listening’ to you say you can’t see them? Your ever-failing little ploy.
He’s demonstrated that by some of the things he’s said.”
You may have an issue with some of the things he has said, but he definitely has some very impressive credentials. We all will draw our own conclusions concerning what he has to say.
Any sane person that looks at what he has said – as I have quoted him, here – will see that he is either severely incompetent or purposely being false.
Well the guy can be a former male stripper for all I care, what he has put out about Dr. Salby seems pretty much on the mark. Can you point out any inaccuracies?
As I’ve quoted him, at least twice – it’s plain to see.
Yeah, he does have an impressive resume. I’m not saying he’s never done anything good. Then too, there is the “Doctor” David Reardon approach, where one just sends money to a place and voila – they are awarded a doctorate. So, who really knows what it all means? Either he is sensible or not, and he’s given evidence of not being sensible in some areas.
As for the ocean article it offers a possible option as to how CO2 levels can rise faster than was once thought.
Okay, and again – so what?
Did the oceans warm around the start of the Industrial Age releasing CO2?
They’d been warming since the end of “the little ice age.”
Did this lead to increased warming? Does this account for the increased CO2 you mention? Just something to consider.
Yes, some increased warming and CO2 in the air – no doubt. But we are talking about very tiny increments of change, a rate some 100 to 400+ times slower than what we’ve observed after the start of the Industrial Revolution.
There may have been a typo Doug. They likely meant “into the atmosphere”.
Yeah, could be. The level of proof-reading and fact-checking comes into question, here; it’s supposed to be an article about science, after all. Not that big a deal – we all make mistakes….
Hi Doug,
You don’t like Marano. I respect that. He means nothing to me either way. I have found some informative material on his blog.
Well these blogs can’t be any worse than that clown Al Gore, who was treated as some global warming expert. I am more interested in the research and studies that are often posted on these sites. If they are people with impressive credentials, I am interested in what they have to say.
Point taken about the termites, though I did post a scientific study that said less than 1% of the species studied expelled 2% of the CO2. Not negligible according to the researcher. Considering there are thousands of species and the little buggers are feasting on the continuously decimated Amazon rain forest(an ecological and human tragedy in my opinion), one has to wonder what potential these little gasbags have.. in addition to everything else in nature.
Personally I don’t know that there are “known truths”, just a lot of opposing opinions. Silencing and demeaning people who disagree does not further the cause of science.
Thank you. We did. We went to a sushi bar for the first time and the food was very good. We had the kids order. My condolences on the loss of your father in law.
I know – then why did you keep pretending I hadn’t.- I didn’t.
Still can’t give a straight answer I see. – so is it that you don’t understand what ‘neither’ means, don’t like the answer ‘cos it’s not the one you want, or what?- Let me make it as simple as I can for you Reality. Do you consider it disrespectful? Yes or no?
Keep trying your little ploy Reality. – my little ploy of providing answers, pointing out that I have provided answers and then ‘listening’ to you say you can’t see them? Your ever-failing little ploy.- Well then point them out to me!
I didn’t. – indeed you did.
Let me make it as simple as I can for you Reality. Do you consider it disrespectful? Yes or no? – neither. As I have said. Do you understand what the word ‘neither’ means? Yes or no?
Well then point them out to me! – don’t be so lazy. Are you unable to scroll up the page or something?
Doug,
You may disagree with him but I would hardly call him incompetent.
Quotes from Dr. Salby that you disagree with don’t prove the website provider is posting inaccuracies. That is what I asked you about.
I would hardly think Salby used the David Reardon approach.
You don’t answer my question about the Industrial Revolution. Yes the oceans have been continually warming since the little ice age, but did they release more CO2 around the time of the Industrial Revolution for some reason? Is this a possible explanation? I don’t know Doug, I just look at it as a possibility. Did the warming trend prior to the little ice age have something to do with the oceans? Just pondering.
I would hardly think the level of fact checking and proof reading comes into question. Good grief I’ve seen books published with typos. It can happen.
Reality,
Point it out.
So you can’t decide if a snide comment in regard to someone’s faith is disrespectful.
LOLL. Your typical ploy.
Point it out. – up the page. How’s that scrolling bit working out for you?
So you can’t decide if a snide comment in regard to someone’s faith is disrespectful. – so you don’t know what the word ‘neither’ means. And I did tell you why such is the case.
LOLL. Your typical ploy. – is this all part of some grand scheme of yours? You have previously provided sources supposedly in support of your claims which proved to be anything but. You keep asking for answers you’ve already been given and claim you can’t see them. And now you don’t even know what you’ve written? I’d love to know what you think you’ll achieve.
Reality,
Still won’t address my questions I see.
No Mary. You don’t see. That’s your problem.
And once again, I am quite happy to sit back and let you take the stage while I relax and watch your little performances. Script-writing not enough for you now?
Reality,
Well relax then since you’re obviously too lazy to back up what you say.
You must already be relaxing since you have been too lazy to read previous comments. Can’t scroll up eh?
I told you quite clearly in two words why your classmate didn’t like you and your friend. Although, given what I’ve witnessed since it may have been as simple as her finding you obnoxious.
I also told you why your classmate made references to your friend’s brand of faith. But it appears to have been too complex a concept for you.
Reality,
LOL, I’m not the one having problem a problem scrolling, you’re the one with the problem backing up what you say.
Moderator,
Will you please take me out of moderation?? 2:15PM Thank you.
You may disagree with him but I would hardly call him incompetent.
Mary, Salby said this: “I think it’s a pitfall that people look at the ice proxy of CO2 and take it literally. It’s not atmospheric CO2, and I don’t believe it’s CO2 that was even in the atmosphere when that piece of snow was layed down”
That is absolute nonsense. Salby is denying physical laws, and what we know to be true about the world, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
As far as his “temperature increase is responsible for the increased CO2,” he is incompetent and beyond.
Even a layman such as I can readily see that. We have a world that has warmed up less than 1 degree Centigrade, and we have CO2 parts per million that have gone from around 275 to over 400.
If it was actually temperature that was driving the CO2 concentration in the air, then a similar decrease in temperature would result in a decrease in the atmospheric CO2, too. In the range of temperatures that the world’s oceans have been in for the past hundreds of thousands of years, we do see a very consistent 5% difference in the solubility of carbon dioxide in seawater, per degree Centigrade change.
In recent ice ages, global temperatures have been 8 or 10 degrees Centigrade lower than what they are now. Per Salby’s analysis, this would mean that the CO2 content would be quite a bit negative, an impossible thing, and thus we see his reasoning is no good.
Well these blogs can’t be any worse than that clown Al Gore, who was treated as some global warming expert
Heh – perhaps not. What did Gore say that was actually false?
Quotes from Dr. Salby that you disagree with don’t prove the website provider is posting inaccuracies. That is what I asked you about.
If we are talking about the newscientist.com website, I’m not saying they are deliberately lying. I am saying they have no meaningful point about climate change and global warming. The rate at which the oceans release CO2, etc., and the lag before the levels show up in ice cores do not matter – nobody is arguing about them and it’s not germane to the current discussions. We already know that each degree Centigrade in the current range means another 5% solubility for CO2, for example. We know what goes in and comes out with water temp. change.
You don’t answer my question about the Industrial Revolution. Yes the oceans have been continually warming since the little ice age, but did they release more CO2 around the time of the Industrial Revolution for some reason? Is this a possible explanation?
No, not a possible explanation. CO2 went from about 180 ppm, roughly 20,000 years ago, at the bottom of the last ice age, to roughly 275 when the Industrial Revolution began. Global temps. went up about 8 degrees in that time.
So, the change was 95 ppm for 8 degrees, or about 12 ppm per degree. (And it took almost 20,000 years.)
Since then, we’ve gained less than a degree of temperature, but now, rather than less than 12 ppm of CO2, we’ve gained over 125, a far different thing.
Well quite obviously you are either incapable or unwilling to scroll up so that the answers that you have been provided with are quite clearly there.
Although, given the things you have said, I’m finding it more and more unlikely that your classmate was driven by jealousy.
Reality,
Well quite obviously you are either incapable or unwilling to back up what you say.
I pointed out she was driven by racial animosity and anti semitism. She expressed her racial hatred to me. She referred to my Jewish classmate as “little Miss Jewish”, though you are confused as to whether or not a demeaning comment based on someone’s faith is disrespectful.
Doug,
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_global-warming.html
An excerpt: Salby hasn’t been working in a vacuum. Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has replicated his finding that temperature drives CO2 emission. University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect.
Well quite obviously you are either incapable or unwilling to back up what you say. – since my answers are quite clear and in black and white, we’ll just let your denial speak for itself.
I pointed out she was driven by racial animosity and anti semitism. – well, so you claimed. I now find myself very much doubting such was the case.
She expressed her racial hatred to me. – or was it simply hatred.
She referred to my Jewish classmate as “little Miss Jewish”, though you are confused as to whether or not a demeaning comment based on someone’s faith is disrespectful.
– well, if she did actually say such a thing, it may well have been for the reason I advised you of earlier. The one you claim you can’t see. No confusion on my behalf.
Reality,
Then you should have no problem pointing them out.
LOL. You can doubt all you want. The hatred was very specific. She even shook her finger in my face telling me how bad I was because I was white. But then you seem to have a problem determining what is racial and religious hatred.
She indeed said it because I heard her say it. So please enlighten me as to her “reason”.
Doug,
Mary: Well these blogs can’t be any worse than that clown Al Gore, who was treated as some global warming expert
Doug: Heh – perhaps not. What did Gore say that was actually false?
Al Gore’s credentials as a climatologist, or scientist of any sort are…what?? Do you have any issue with this clown writing a book or being treated as some global warming guru??
No, that wouldn’t be a problem. But it’s more fun to watch you show yourself to be either incapable or unwilling to acknowledge what is there. As usual.
LOL. You can doubt all you want. The hatred was very specific. She even shook her finger in my face telling me how bad I was because I was white. – I find your story less and less believable with each telling.
But then you seem to have a problem determining what is racial and religious hatred. – not in the least. Now you on the other hand…
She indeed said it because I heard her say it. – yeah, we’ve heard about what you ‘hear’ before.
So please enlighten me as to her “reason”. – still either incapable or too lazy to scroll up eh.
Reality,
And its fun to watch you try to weasel your way out when you can’t back up what you say.
Suit yourself. I think you find you just can’t dispute the obvious: her hatred was racially motivated.
Well when someone tells me to my face what they think of me as a white person and its hateful, and demeans another person’s faith, … why gee Reality even you might be able to figure it out!
Well how else would I know she said it if I didn’t hear it genius? I was sitting right in front of her and my friend was across from me.
Still can’t give me an answer.
Nowhere near as much fun as watching you repeatedly claim that what is there isn’t. Your questions were answered.
It is not at all obvious that her hatred, real or imagined, was racially motivated. Sounds like you might just be the one with the chip there.
I’m now thinking it’s more likely she just told you what she thought of you as a person. There’s no evidence she demeaned someone’s faith.
A ‘Big Al’ moment was it?
You already have the answer. I can lead a horse to water…..
Reality,
Please show me where.
LOLLL. Only in Reality world does someone get in your face, express their racial animosity, but it isn’t racially motivated. She was hitting, shoving, and pushing me, but I had the “chip”. Again, only in Reality world.
She just told me what she thought of me. No Reality, I told you she told me what she thought of white people, so likely her opinion of you would have been no better.
Who’s Big Al??
Well thank you for the answer. In your world, hatefully referring to someone as “little Miss Jewish” does not demean that person or their faith.
Please show me where. – still incapable or too lazy I see.
LOLLL. Only in Reality world does someone get in your face, express their racial animosity, but it isn’t racially motivated. She was hitting, shoving, and pushing me, but I had the “chip”. – ah, the tale expands. Thought so.
Again, only in Reality world. – more like in your imaginary world.
She just told me what she thought of me. – now that I can believe.
No Reality, I told you she told me what she thought of white people, – yeah, that’s what you told me.
so likely her opinion of you would have been no better. – nothing like a bit of pre-judging eh.
Who’s Big Al?? – or is it ‘Big Joe’?
Well thank you for the answer. In your world, hatefully referring to someone as “little Miss Jewish” does not demean that person or their faith. – wrong. Stop making up stuff I haven’t said.
Reality,
You only get more laughable. Rather than acknowledge the fact that you can’t dispute what I’m saying you resort to the rather childish tactic of suggesting I’m making it up.
so likely her opinion of you would have been no better. – nothing like a bit of pre-judging eh. – Not at all, assuming you are white.
Well thank you for the answer. In your world, hatefully referring to someone as “little Miss Jewish” does not demean that person or their faith. – wrong. “There’s no evidence she demeaned someone’s faith”.
Oh and Reality, Big Joe is dead. I don’t commune with the dear departed. Perhaps you do??
Less laughable than your repeated ignoring of your questions having been answered. And your having ‘expanded’ your tale.
Not at all, assuming you are white. – not to mention a few other assumptions.
wrong. “There’s no evidence she demeaned someone’s faith”. – now you’re getting it.
Oh and Reality, Big Joe is dead. – yeah, I picked up on that from the start.
I don’t commune with the dear departed. – no?
Perhaps you do?? – no, that would be impossible.
Reality,
On what evidence do you base your claim that I “expanded” my tale?
So you think then that hatefully calling someone “little Miss Jewish” isn’t demeaning their faith. Thank you for your answer.
I’m glad you finally figured out one cannot commune with the dear departed. Since you keep asking me about him, I had to wonder if you thought this was possible.
On what evidence do you base your claim that I “expanded” my tale? – what you have written.
So you think then that hatefully calling someone “little Miss Jewish” isn’t demeaning their faith. Thank you for your answer. – your thanks are premature. That wasn’t, and isn’t, my answer. You are making false assumptions. Stop making up stuff I haven’t said. I’m not your impending ‘Big Joe’.
I’m glad you finally figured out one cannot commune with the dear departed. – I’ve always known such to be the case. Doesn’t seem so for everybody else though.
Since you keep asking me about him, I had to wonder if you thought this was possible. – since you keep talking about him as if he were alongside you, I had to wonder if you thought this was possible.
Reality,
On what evidence do you base your claim that I “expanded” my tale? – what you have written. – What specifically is that?
So you think then that hatefully calling someone “little Miss Jewish” isn’t demeaning their faith. Thank you for your answer. – your thanks are premature. That wasn’t, and isn’t, my answer. You are making false assumptions. Stop making up stuff I haven’t said. I’m not your impending ‘Big Joe’. – So you do consider it demeaning then. My “impending ‘Big Joe’????
I’m glad you finally figured out one cannot commune with the dear departed. – I’ve always known such to be the case. Doesn’t seem so for everybody else though. – Well that’s certainly good to know!
Since you keep asking me about him, I had to wonder if you thought this was possible. – since you keep talking about him as if he were alongside you, I had to wonder if you thought this was possible. -Uh Reality, I didn’t say a thing about him. You’re the one who brought him into the conversation.
What specifically is that? – your own words. Up there. Have a look. Oh yes, that’s right, you’re either incapable of or too lazy to scroll up. Tough, I’m not doing your work for you.
So you do consider it demeaning then. – that wasn’t, and isn’t, my answer. You are making false assumptions. Stop making up stuff I haven’t said.
My “impending ‘Big Joe’???? – well if you’re going to keep claiming I’ve said things I haven’t….
Well that’s certainly good to know! – so you think it’s good that some people think they can commune with the departed.
Uh Reality, I didn’t say a thing about him. You’re the one who brought him into the conversation. – well, since you have history on this.
Reality,
What specifically is that? – your own words. Up there. Have a look. Oh yes, that’s right, you’re either incapable of or too lazy to scroll up. Tough, I’m not doing your work for you. – Which words?
So you do consider it demeaning then. – that wasn’t, and isn’t, my answer. You are making false assumptions. Stop making up stuff I haven’t said. – You answered the question.
My “impending ‘Big Joe’???? – well if you’re going to keep claiming I’ve said things I haven’t…. – Reality you are a little incoherent here.
Well that’s certainly good to know! – so you think it’s good that some people think they can commune with the departed. – Uh no Reality.
Which words? – what? You don’t know what you’ve said?
You answered the question. – despite your earlier repeated denials, yes I did. But not as you are trying to claim I did. Stop making up stuff I haven’t said.
Reality you are a little incoherent here. – not at all. It’s all quite obvious.
Uh no Reality – yet that’s what you said.
Reality,
I said a lot of words. Which ones specifically are you referring to?
Well OK. You never said that referring to someone as “little Miss Jewish” is demeaning to the person and their faith.
I said a lot of words. – too many to remember?
Which ones specifically are you referring to? – the ones about what your classmate allegedly did.
Well OK. You never said that referring to someone as “little Miss Jewish” is demeaning to the person and their faith. – that’s right. Nor did I say that it wasn’t.
Reality,
So which ones are evidence that I am making it up?
Well OK. You never said that referring to someone as “little Miss Jewish” is demeaning to the person and their faith. – that’s right. Nor did I say that it wasn’t.- Thank you Reality, you’ve addressed my question.
So which ones are evidence that I am making it up? – the ones about what your classmate allegedly did. Good grief!
Thank you Reality, you’ve addressed my question. – I answered your question quite some time back but you refused to acknowledge that fact. I said ‘neither’. Have you looked the word up yet?
Reality,
Directly quote me lying.
As I said Reality, you addressed my question. Thank you.
Directly quote me lying. – who said you were lying?
As I said Reality, you addressed my question. Thank you. – and it took you how long to acknowledge it. Goodness gracious me.
Reality,
Making it up, lying, “expanded” my “tale”. What’s the difference? Now please directly quote me.
Oh it didn’t take me long to acknowledge it. Maybe it took you a while though.
Making it up, lying, “expanded” my “tale”. What’s the difference? – quite a bit. Beyond your scope?
Now please directly quote me. – why? What you wrote is plainly visible.
Oh it didn’t take me long to acknowledge it. – yes it did. You claimed I hadn’t answered the question. Then you tried to claim my answer was something it wasn’t. It’s only now that you claim to acknowledge the answer I gave.
Maybe it took you a while though. – LOL. What a joke. You exhibited deny, deny, deny. Followed by create, create, create. Now you say you see my answer but also seem to want to hush it up.
Reality,
Well its obvious you can’t give me any direct quotes and you’ve been kind enough to finally address my question.
First you can’t find my words. Now you can’t find your own. Goodness me, is there a name for your condition?
“finally”? What cheek. Your question was addressed some time back but you refused to acknowledge that fact. I said ‘neither’. Have you looked the word up yet?
I’m going to try to type up a response to the science issue later today. For now, I’ like to point out that it is arrant nonsense to say that “the Republicans aren’t the ones pushing the abortion issue.” Any reader of this blog or any other pro-life news site knows that abortion opponents have gotten scores of antiabortion laws passed in the past few years, and anyone who thinks that those laws have not originated with Republican legislators fundamentally misunderstands party politics in the US. (Technically the laws usually originate with ALEC, but they’re introduced to state legislatures by Republicans.)
Given that Republican-introduced antiabortion laws are usually celebrated on this blog, it’s hard to account for the cognitive dissonance that produced this headline. My best guess is that the temptation to play the victim was too strong to resist.
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_global-warming.html
Mary: An excerpt: Salby hasn’t been working in a vacuum. Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has replicated his finding that temperature drives CO2 emission. University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect.
Mary, the problem is that we already know that “temperature drives CO2 emission.” This is not news. This is not anything that refutes manmade global warming. This happens as part of the process that ends ice ages. It happens very slowly – which has nothing to do with what we’ve observed in the past 200+ years. It’s happened several times over the past 800,000 years, involving 8 or 10 degrees Celsius of temperature change – which also has nothing to do with what we’ve observed over the past 200+ years.
In the range of temperatures where the world’s oceans are, the solubility of carbon dioxide declines almost exactly 5% per degree Celsius of temperature increase. That’s it, no magic, no mystery. It also proves that Salby is wrong, as the oceans have no warmed up nearly enough to account for the increase of CO2 in air we’ve seen.
To say that the fact that temperature can drive CO2-in-air levels somehow dispels the notion of manmade global warming is like saying that since the sun warms things up, that explains why the house burnt down (rather than examining things like arson, electrical malfunctions, etc.).
A high school physics student (and perhaps even Al Gore) should be able to see right through Salby’s claims.
Mary: Well these blogs can’t be any worse than that clown Al Gore, who was treated as some global warming expert .
Doug: Heh – perhaps not. What did Gore say that was actually false?
(I’d add that those blogs also can’t be any better than Gore.)
Al Gore’s credentials as a climatologist, or scientist of any sort are…what?? Do you have any issue with this clown writing a book or being treated as some global warming guru??
Hey, if Gore was right, he’s right, and if he was wrong, he’s wrong. Salby, for instance has demonstrated that he’s wrong, and it’s easy to quote him and prove it. You’re welcome to think what you want about Gore, but if he didn’t say stuff that was demonstrably false, then he’s well ahead of Salby, et al.
Doug,
Apparently some of the experts in the article would disagree with you as to Salby being “wrong”.
Excerpt: Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist at MIT, believes that Salby is correct about the IPCC’s failure to evaluate the effects of diffusion in ice cores on the proxy CO2 record and to consider sources of lighter carbon other than fossil-fuel burning. Salby is a “serious scientist” whose arguments deserve a hearing, Lindzen says.
Was this what you said Salby was wrong about?
Geez Doug he almost sounds like your kind of guy:
Excerpt: Starting in the late 1990s, Salby began a project to analyze changes in atmospheric ozone. His research found evidence of systematic recovery in ozone, validating the science behind the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which introduced specific steps for curtailing ozone-depleting gases.
Turns out that some would argue that CO2 is only secondary anyway. There’s a much bigger culprit: Water!!
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/water/
You should google water and climate. Fascinating.
Turns out the sun may play a bigger role than scientists ever thought.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf
An interesting excerpt:
However, recent satellite radiometer measurements and modeling studies indicate that small changes in total solar irradiance could produce global temperature changes of the magnitude suggested for climatic events such as the Little Ice Age (A.D.1550–1700).
And you and I thought it was that blasted volcano!
BTW the article also points out that until recently, scientists discredited the notion the sun influenced the climate.
Doug, I have no doubt the industrial revolution may well have meant an increase in CO2. The human population rapidly increased, there was deforestration for building and farmland, fossil fuels were burned. Man was a contributing factor, but by no means THE factor. Now with these new theories on the sun and water….”manmade” climate change just doesn’t wash with me.
BTW Doug, you better hope you’re not reincarnated. Just when you think things can’t get any worse:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11690772/Latest-victim-of-global-warming-loaves-of-bread-will-be-smaller-in-future-warn-scientists.html
Maybe the scientists were just lousy bakers. Even under the best climatic conditions, whatever those are, I could never produce a decent loaf of bread.
Mary: Apparently some of the experts in the article would disagree with you as to Salby being “wrong”.
Mary, it’s just a blog, nothing serious, nothing that will be peer-reviewed, and it’s purposely misleading.
Nobody is saying that “Salby is wrong in thinking that temperature can drive CO2 out of water.” The implication, for those too gullible to know any better, is that this somehow disproves manmade global warming. It does not.
Turns out that some would argue that CO2 is only secondary anyway. There’s a much bigger culprit: Water!!
If the amount of water in the atmosphere had changed meaningfully, then maybe there’d be something there, but it hasn’t.
However, recent satellite radiometer measurements and modeling studies indicate that small changes in total solar irradiance could produce global temperature changes of the magnitude suggested for climatic events such as the Little Ice Age (A.D.1550–1700).
Sure, it could, but it hasn’t. Solar irradiance only varies 0.1%, maybe 0.2% at the most.
BTW the article also points out that until recently, scientists discredited the notion the sun influenced the climate.
That sounds “all-or-nothing,” which really is not the deal. Of course the sun has an effect, but it’s very, very small, since the sun’s output is so constant.
Doug, I have no doubt the industrial revolution may well have meant an increase in CO2. The human population rapidly increased, there was deforestation for building and farmland, fossil fuels were burned. Man was a contributing factor, but by no means THE factor. Now with these new theories on the sun and water….”manmade” climate change just doesn’t wash with me.
There’s nothing else that even remotely explains the increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We know how much CO2 results from human activity, to a high degree of accuracy. The earth absorbs 30 or 40% of what we produce. What’s left accounts for the observed increase in the gases in the air.
Even setting the crackpot theories about imaginary sources for the oberved CO2 aside, the question for the crackpots remains: If it’s not the manmade CO2 that accounts for the change, then what happens to all the manmade CO2?
Doug,
On what do you base your claim it is purposely misleading?
But didn’t YOU say Salby was wrong and incompetent?
As for your statement about the amount of water in the atmosphere, an excerpt from my source concerning water:
The intensity of the effect of water on climate is not accurately known, because the current water vapor-cloud-climate feedbacks are incompletely understood. Uncertainties related to such feedbacks are a key source of the differences among various climate models that project human-induced climate change. Limited observations of the hydrologic state of the Earth System further restrict understanding.
Doug, did you even read my source concerning the sun??
An excerpt:
A direct connection between solar irradiance (solar constant) and weather and climate has been suggested for more than 100 years but generally rejected by most scientists, who assume that the effect of solar variations would be small. However, recent satellite
radiometer measurements and modeling studies indicate that small changes in total solar irradiance could produce global temperature changes of the magnitude suggested for climatic events such as the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1500-1700)
Sounds to me like markedly advanced technology is giving scientists information they could not access before and they may have been wrong in their assessment of the sun’s influence on the climate.
Also another interesting article about Old Sol:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity
An excerpt from that article:
Long episodes of low solar activity were seen during the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 and the ‘Dalton Minimum’ from 1790 to 1830.
Both periods coincided with colder than normal global temperatures earning the title from scientists of “little ice age”.
1790-1830. Um, wasn’t the Industrial Revolution in progress at this this time? Is it possible another explanation is just that the earth was ending a cold period and cycling into a warm one because of solar activity and that mankind had nothing to do with it? That’s not to say increased human activity didn’t lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere, just that it may not have been the most important factor, if a factor at all. Could the planet warming have also led to more CO2 in the atmosphere?
See what I mean Doug. Nothing is ever settled science.
If these cooling predictions are true, just be thankful you have central heat. Imagine if you had to chop wood to keep warm like our ancestors did, or burn coal in a stove? Or ride a horse and buggy??Brrrrrr!!
Reality,
Yes I suppose my question was addressed back then. When you would not condemn a bigoted statement.
[Galileo] was even branded a heretic for 300 years until the Church was forced to eat crow.
Actually, he wasn’t. Heresy was (and is) a very complex and nuanced topic.
Never think that opposing opinions are welcome…by the powers that be.
History is fascinating, and I hope that one day you will learn some. But of your various misunderstandings of the Scientific Revolution, the most salient here is that you’re missing the fundamental premise of modern science, which is that scientific knowledge is dynamic, not static. There’s a profound difference between the mindset of the modern scientific community and that of the pre-modern intellectual establishment, although Galileo’s trial must obviously be considered within its specific political, religious, and intellectual context. Ahistorical pablum is of little use in understanding it.
LOL. What do you call this LisaC? Bingo!! Silencing. You should be very troubled by this. What are these people so afraid of? Maybe exposure that they are wrong?? Who determines if their research and findings are valid or not?
Sorry, I forgot that you don’t know what a journal is. Briefly, a “journal” is an academic or professional publication dedicated to the advancement of knowledge in some particular field. Any reputable journal receives more submissions than they can publish, and so the editorial board decides how to allocate their limited space by using a process called “peer review.” That means that a proposed article is sent to a couple readers knowledgeable in the field who evaluate it on quality of research, relevance to the journal, and originality. The editorial board then uses these evaluations to determine what to publish. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s currently the best way for a journal to maintain quality control.
Let people read and decide for themselves.
This reminds me of a talk I once heard by a professor who taught at a university in Texas. He was approached by the local chapter of the KKK, who demanded time to make a presentation in his class on medieval Jewish history “to add balance.” Like you, the Klansmen thought that all opinions are equally valid and that they were therefore entitled to an audience to declaim to. The professor refused, because his professional obligation was to present his students with the best scholarship relevant to the course topics and the Klan had nothing to offer toward that end. But it’s a pretty safe bet that the story they told anyone who would listen was that they didn’t get to take up class time because the professor was part of a Jewish conspiracy to silence opposing viewpoints. Likewise, climate change deniers are not owed space in a journal if their work does not meet its standards. Not the same thing as being silenced.
As for your statement about the amount of water in the atmosphere, an excerpt from my source concerning water: “The intensity of the effect of water on climate is not accurately known.”
It is true that your source says that the effect of water on climate is not accurately known. Which makes it odd that you assert above that water is a “bigger culprit” in climate change than CO2. Perhaps it’s just a matter of how you express yourself, but it rarely seems that you understand the material that you cite.
1790-1830. Um, wasn’t the Industrial Revolution in progress at this this time?
Indeed it was. Carbon emissions steadily increased during that window of time, and so the warming trend around 1830 is correlated to the increase in greenhouse gasses. Looks like you’ve proved that human activity causes global warming. Congratulations!
Speaking of learning some history:
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy
No in fact you will find that history repeats itself and the powers that be, be they government, the church, the scientific community do no welcome dissenters. I know this well working in the medical area.
I agree science should be dynamic. Sadly all do not. You are living in a fantasy world if you think modern day thinkers, and I use the term loosely, are any dynamic bastions of enlightenment.
http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html
Thank you for enlightening me on journals and how they choose to publish. My daughter is a published researcher so I have some knowledge on the subject, especially when you could use a little enlightening yourself:
An excerpt from my source:
Will the scientific community pursue the questions that Salby has raised? Vahrenholt is doubtful. “Upholders of AGW don’t take part in discussions where their orthodox view is challenged,” he complains. One way they block off inquiry is to ensure that papers by dissenting climate scientists are not included in the peer-review literature—a problem that Lindzen and Bengtsson have encountered.
If you want to read the entire article here is the link:
http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_3_global-warming.html
Vahrenholt is a former environmental official and CEO of an energy renewable company. Sounds like your kind of guy.
Interesting that you would make the Klan analogy given that climate change advocates refer to those who dare, dare! to oppose their opinion as “deniers”. Kind of sounds like “holocaust deniers”. You know, people who as you say have nothing to contribute but a biased, uninformed opinion.
Well if you do a little research into water and climate you will make the amazing discovery that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas. I was being sarcastic about the term “culprit”. It was my way of saying that maybe the geniuses had better go after our water if anything. But then how do you put a cap on water, right? Can people leave a “water footprint”?
Did you read my post to Doug?
Excerpt from my source:
Long episodes of low solar activity were seen during the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 and the ‘Dalton Minimum’ from 1790 to 1830. Both periods coincided with colder than normal global temperatures earning the title from scientists of “little ice age”.
Looks like the planet, which had been experiencing cooling during the years of the Industrial Revolution was now warming up due to a change in solar activity! Yes CO2 levels increased but they likely had nada to do with the planet getting warmer. It could well have been the change in solar activity and the planet was entering a warming cycle on its own. Certainly a rapidly increasing human population, and our exhaled CO2, along with deforestration, the burning of fossil fuels (even though Mother Nature has been burning fossil fuels for thousands of years), as well as the planet naturally warming may well have contributed to the higher CO2 levels.
Nope, in fact it looks like you should have read a few more of my posts, especially the sources about the activity of the sun.
Mary: On what do you base your claim it is purposely misleading?
Because it misrepresents some things we know are physical fact, as if they somehow refute manmade global warming and manmade increase in greenhouse gases, when they most certainly do not.
We already know that warmer water holds less CO2, and that since the world’s oceans have warmed up a little – less than one degree C. – that this would mean 12ppm or less of CO2 added to the air. We’ve observed a rise of about 130 ppm, so for Salby or the many pathetically lame websites to pretend that would explain the increase in CO2 is just stupid.
Any high school physics student should be able to see through such stuff immediately.
But didn’t YOU say Salby was wrong and incompetent?
Based on several things he has said, and his “make-believe” stuff, as above, yes.
As for your statement about the amount of water in the atmosphere, an excerpt from my source concerning water:
The intensity of the effect of water on climate is not accurately known, because the current water vapor-cloud-climate feedbacks are incompletely understood. Uncertainties related to such feedbacks are a key source of the differences among various climate models that project human-induced climate change. Limited observations of the hydrologic state of the Earth System further restrict understanding.
So what? The amount of water in the air has not changed anywhere near enough to mean anything, here. Whatever the exact effect is, we already know that warmer air can hold more water, just as cooler water can hold more CO2, and we know that neither the air temperature nor the amount of water in it has changed meaningfully in the time period we’re discussing.
Doug, did you even read my source concerning the sun??
Yes, definitely, and there’s nothing there that bolsters your case, at all.
An excerpt: A direct connection between solar irradiance (solar constant) and weather and climate has been suggested for more than 100 years but generally rejected by most scientists,
No, as stated, that is false. Of course solar irradiance can affect our climate. Nobody is rejecting that. What is operative is that the sun’s output has been so constant that there’s no case to be made for it being behind the anomalously large and fast changes we’re observing. What most scientists – any sensible scientists – reject is that anything else is the case. What we’ve had is at most a 0.1% or perhaps a 0.2% variation.
who assume that the effect of solar variations would be small.
No, that’s just plain silly. It is a fact that solar variations have been small. No assumptions involved.
However, recent satellite radiometer measurements and modeling studies indicate that small changes in total solar irradiance could produce global temperature changes of the magnitude suggested for climatic events such as the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1500-1700)
Meaningless. What does “small change” mean, there? Perhaps a little old 10% change in solar irradiance? The truth is that that would be 50 or 100 times as much as what we’ve actually had. “Could produce…” Heh, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.
Sounds to me like markedly advanced technology is giving scientists information they could not access before and they may have been wrong in their assessment of the sun’s influence on the climate.
No, not at all, as above. We know what the sun’s been doing. What it could do is not the deal.
Long episodes of low solar activity were seen during the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 and the ‘Dalton Minimum’ from 1790 to 1830.
Both periods coincided with colder than normal global temperatures earning the title from scientists of “little ice age”.
Sunspots are much more variable than the heat we receive from the sun. The “little ice age,” was not a big deal, globally – the notably “cold” places were selectively regional, with global temperatures actually only going down about 1 degree C.
1790-1830. Um, wasn’t the Industrial Revolution in progress at this this time?
Yes, it was just getting going then, but nothing much happened on the temperature or greenhouse gas fronts for a long time. Of the entire time from 1790 to the present, over 70% of the fossil fuels have been burned since 1950, and of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2, 73% of it has come since 1950.
Is it possible another explanation is just that the earth was ending a cold period and cycling into a warm one because of solar activity and that mankind had nothing to do with it? That’s not to say increased human activity didn’t lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere, just that it may not have been the most important factor, if a factor at all.
No, that’s not “another explanation.” The real “ending a cold period” came as the last glacial period (or the “Younger Dryas” time) ended, about 11,500 years ago. The world warmed up 6 or 7 degrees C. For it to chill out by 1 degree in a more regional, versus global, area of effect, is not very significant. Global temperatures have been quite steady, overall, for the past 8,000 years, roughly, until we get to the recent rapid rise.
Could the planet warming have also led to more CO2 in the atmosphere?
Not just “could.” It definitely did, but again – we are talking about perhaps 12 ppm difference for CO2 in the atmosphere. Does nothing to explain the rise since 1790.
See what I mean Doug. Nothing is ever settled science.
You haven’t presented anything meaningful and relevant, Mary. Plenty is settled – we have an understanding of physics and mathematics. While we don’t know everything, we know well more than enough to dismiss the silly websites which for idealogic reasons cannot face the physical truths staring them in the face.
Doug,
You really need to be more specific. What was said and by who that was misleading and do you have a source to counter them?
Doug, apparently there are expert opinions that differ markedly from yours, an admitted layman. I find this all very fascinating, all this new information and research. The world has gone through cycles of climate change throughout its history, could old Sol just be the source? BTW, my source said “colder than normal GLOBAL temperatures”, not regional.
Did we just go through a warming cycle that occurred naturally, no matter what humans did? Are we possibly entering another period of lower solar activity, and colder weather, as the article suggests?
The possibilities can be debated forever Doug. As I said I agree CO2 likely rose because of human activity, but this doesn’t prove it has affected the climate, not when there are other factors like water, which was pointed out cannot be accurately measured, and the sun, which we are only beginning to better understand. Scientists do not all agree and those who have so proclaimed AGW are not fond of opposing ideas. Why is that? I thought this is what science is all about.
The NOAA and usgs.gov are “silly websites”?
Doug,
Over 70% of fossil fuels burned since 1950. Now when we discuss the Industrial Revolution are we on the same page, considering it took place over a few hundred years?
Like I said Doug, even the experts can’t agree among themselves and have to “explain” their failed “predictions”. But heck, even those who oppose AGW can’t agree among themselves either.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years-un-climate-change-report-says-105475/
Like I also said there is always new information, though this is a few years old:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/is-global-warming-part-of-earths-natural-cycle-mit-team-says-yes.html
So Doug this debate will continue and like what “causes” autism and cancer it will never be resolved. Thankfully there does not seem to be an effort to silence the various opposing opinions in these areas. I remain convinced that no matter what humans do, we are at the mercy of the forces of nature, forces we can’t even comprehend or agree on.
In the meantime Doug, stock up on some decent bread! You sure don’t want that crumbly crap that comes from grains grown in an environment with too much CO2!
Also, I hope they remove those methand measuring prods from poor Flossie and Buttercup’s… well you know.
You really need to be more specific. What was said and by who that was misleading and do you have a source to counter them?
Mary, it’s all there. What Salby is quoted as saying, in several different instances, is demonstrably wrong. And – the websites may be deliberately quoting him out of context, i.e. if Salby was right here discussing this with us, he’d have to admit that of course the “temperature drives CO2” deal does not explain the temperature rise nor does it explain the anomalously large and fast rise in atmospheric CO2, as it’s mathematically impossible that it could.
Doug, apparently there are expert opinions that differ markedly from yours, an admitted layman.
No, that’s not really it, Mary. Where Salby is correct, as an example, I agree with him, but it’s easy for me to see that it only goes so far, and the same for any decent high school physics student, as I have previously noted. Salby can explain 8 or 10, maybe even 12 ppm of CO2 in air increase. Nothing he has said addresses the rest of the observed 130 ppm increase. Now of course the silly websites are not going to mention that fact, as they are aimed to people too gullible or too willfully blind to know any better, or see the physical truth staring them in the face.
The world has gone through cycles of climate change throughout its history, could old Sol just be the source?
Not in the past 800,000 years or so, Mary, and certainly not in the past 200+ years.
Honest question here – why do you fix on things like that, rather than at least consider the things that are physical fact, and what we know about how the world works?
The sun could have incredible impact on climactic change if the energy it put out changed meaningfully. It has not. The same for water vapor in the air – it could make for some real climate-forcing, but there too, it hasn’t changed. And a warming climate will itself put more CO2 into the air, as the solubility of CO2 in water decreases as the water warms. The warming we have observed does not even account for 10% of the increase in atmospheric CO2, and yet people, irrationally, want to make it big deal of it.
As I said I agree CO2 likely rose because of human activity, but this doesn’t prove it has affected the climate,
That’s not even in the ballpark, Mary. If anything, the objection (though quite hard to sustain that one) could be to humans increasing the CO2, but to say that the increased CO2 doesn’t affect the climate is just plain silly, no offense meant.
We know that CO2 in the air absorbs solar energy, just as we know that sulfur dioxide reflects it. If volcanoes meaningfully increase the amount of SO2 in the air, the climate cools down, all other things being equal. And if the greenhouse gases increase meaningfully, the climate warms up, again – all other things being equal.
not when there are other factors like water, which was pointed out cannot be accurately measured, and the sun, which we are only beginning to better understand.
Anybody can say anything, and there are people who will latch onto it like it’s their savior, “Thank God somebody can explain this, without it being due to human activity…”
There couldbe other climate-forcing things like changes in the sun or the water vapor in the air, but those are not present and have not been in the time period we are talking about.
Scientists do not all agree and those who have so proclaimed AGW are not fond of opposing ideas. Why is that? I thought this is what science is all about.
I have not seen any credible scientist say that things have not warmed up. I really haven’t even seen any say that the warming has stopped. There are websites that say the opposite, but take out the outright lies, misquotes, etc., and there’s nothing even half-credible there. The oceans continue to warm – this is the main thing – yet we see localized cold weather as far as the air, and people are taking it that global warming really isn’t happening. Such people really do not understand what is going on.
Where there is real debate is about what the future holds, and here I say great, I’m all for it, and I realize that climate models are imperfect. I’m not taking any position about what the exact global temperatures will be in the year 2100, for example. From all I’ve seen, I’d say it’s pretty much guaranteed that they will be hotter than now, that’s about it.
Mary: Over 70% of fossil fuels burned since 1950. Now when we discuss the Industrial Revolution are we on the same page, considering it took place over a few hundred years?
Yes, why not? Human activity affecting the atmosphere “began” when the first human made a fire or farted, but that didn’t meaningfully affect the world’s climate. From 1790 to 1950, there was a ramping-up of fossil fuel consumption, so it’s like an upside-down pyramid as far as cumulative amounts and effect.
This is one thing I run into a lot – people not realizing just how fast (practically instantaneously as far as global and historical norms) things are changing.
Like I said Doug, even the experts can’t agree among themselves and have to “explain” their failed “predictions”. But heck, even those who oppose AGW can’t agree among themselves either.
There’s not much there, though, Mary. What’s wrong with saying, “We’ve increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the air, and it’s having an effect – the climate is warming. Both our addition of greenhouse gases and the temperature continue to increase.”?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/earth-hasnt-warmed-in-15-years-un-climate-change-report-says-105475/#sthash.kTEEEwkD.dpuf
Mary, I quote from that site: “The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a new report showing that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years.”
That’s hogwash. It’s a flat-out lie, to begin with, and it’s also cherry-picked data that is no rational refutation of anything. It’s common to see BS sites pick 1998 as a year for comparison, because it was an unusually hot one (now 4th on the all-time list). Nevertheless, except for 1998, the ten hottest years in recorded history (since 1880) are all since 2000, and 2014 was the hottest year ever, and May 2015 was the hottest May ever. Take 1998 out and such baloney interpretations such as that site gives fall apart, immediately. In any event, 2010 was the hottest year ever to that point, and then so was 2014, and looks like 2015 is on track to take the crown when it’s done.
The upward trend is unmistakable, and to go by air temperatures alone is ludicrous anyway, as the oceans have 4000 times the thermal mass of the air. As long as the oceans are warming, the year-to-year fluctuations on land don’t matter hardly at all, and the localized phenomena (El Nino, etc.) only make for minor blips that don’t affect the overall trend.
Methane plays a very minor part in global warming. Until such time as the amounts of it would be changing in meaningful quantities, it’s no big thing.
So Doug this debate will continue and like what “causes” autism and cancer it will never be resolved.
Science is never “really resolved.” There is the weight of the evidence, but much is always open to question.
I remain convinced that no matter what humans do, we are at the mercy of the forces of nature, forces we can’t even comprehend or agree on.
We can comprehend them. We can agree on them. If they aren’t forcing the climate one way or another – which they are not – then we are what’s left.
You could as well question gravity or evolution, on the basis that we “don’t know everything about them.”
This sums up my stand on this issue and why. You can agree or disagree. Its an argument that will never be settled.
http://web.mit.edu/effects/www/zjinman/GWFalse.htm
Speaking of learning some history: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-convicted-of-heresy
Galileo was convicted of being “vehemently suspected of heresy,” which is actually different from being condemned as a heretic. A heretic was someone who persisted in error after correction. The difference is nuanced and you are certainly not the only person over whose head the distinction flies, but it is significant. Although it was more than 300 years before a pope said that Galileo should not have been tried in the first place, the church made a de facto declaration that his works were not heretical by removing everything but the unedited version of the Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.
Incidentally, what is your explanation for why the church authorized the Dialogue in the first place?
No in fact you will find that history repeats itself and the powers that be, be they government, the church, the scientific community do no welcome dissenters.
Gabbling an catchphrase over and over does not make it anything more than a catchphrase. I am sincerely sad that you prefer parroting a cartoonishly simplistic maxim over making an effort to learn something, because history really is fascinating. What two authors created the cosmology against which Galileo dissented? Were those two authors always accepted by the church? When was their work adopted? Why was it adopted? What was the empirical evidence against Galileo’s cosmology? And obviously, why was the Dialogue first licensed and then prohibited? Finding the answers to these questions and thinking about them would give you a better understanding of if, when, and how history repeats itself. But it would require you to do work.
You are living in a fantasy world if you think modern day thinkers, and I use the term loosely, are any dynamic bastions of enlightenment.
Certainly some people who fancy themselves enlightened thinkers are not. Some people actually believe that repeating innumerable variations of “I don’t understand something, therefore it isn’t true” constitutes critical reasoning.
My daughter is a published researcher
It’s hard to believe that she is to blame for your failure to understand peer review. No doubt she did the best she could with you.
”Upholders of AGW don’t take part in discussions where their orthodox view is challenged,” he complains. One way they block off inquiry is to ensure that papers by dissenting climate scientists are not included in the peer-review literature
Yes, I know that they say that. It’s not evidence that the papers being turned away are of the quality and originality that warrant publication.
Nope, in fact it looks like you should have read a few more of my posts, especially the sources about the activity of the sun.
I read them. You didn’t understand them.
Yes CO2 levels increased but they likely had nada to do with the planet getting warmer.
And you’ve got zilch to confirm that assertion.
The NOAA and usgs.gov are “silly websites”?
Neither of them asserts that climate change is not caused by human-produced CO2. You didn’t understand the articles you read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
What I am pointing out to you is that some things don’t change, hardly a catchall phrase but a sad state of human affairs, and minds do not necessarily become any more enlightened.
I thought I made it apparent enough for even you to understand. The various scientific theories and opinions make this unsettled science. The ongoing acquiring of new information make this unsettled science. I just don’t mindlessly accept that something is true. When there is too much controversy, I have to be skeptical of what the truth is, and am. This applies to vaccines and autism, abortion and breast cancer, etc.
Yes I understand peer review very well. Extremely rigid, as it should be. My daughter has often been rejected. For the most part she brushes it off, accepts it as just part of the process. Now I gave you a link that shows how those who oppose the AGW are regarded. I mean RICO for heaven’s sake? “Deniers”. Is it beyond the realm of possibility to me that there are other efforts to silence these “deniers” and John Gotti wannabes? Frankly no.
They didn’t claim it was evidence, just gave it as an example. I gave you other examples.
I understood the articles on the sun just fine. Markedly improved technology is making some scientists rethink the role of the sun after 100 years.
Well according to some scientists the CO2 levels increased because of increasing temperature and the planet warmed naturally. So which is it? Some argue that nature dumps more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans. Maybe humans and nature worked in concert. Who knows? Do I think humans may have caused increased CO2? Sure. Do I think this proves it caused global warming? No.
Both articles offer alternative explanations for what can effect the climate and how. They may think humans contribute. So what? Others don’t. Even among the “deniers” and John Gotti wannabes there isn’t universal agreement.
Which is exactly my point.
Mary: This sums up my stand on this issue and why. You can agree or disagree. Its an argument that will never be settled.
Much actually already is settled, Mary, and that site misrepresents a ton of things.
Let’s look at some things that are said, there:
Scientists that try to disprove statements that the Earth is warming with time are fighting a tough battle these days.
Oh good grief – nobody with any sense is saying that the Earth is not warming. You just have to laugh…
These scientists say that the global warming proponents are using faulty models to show the Earth is warming.
To the speaker, “are you insane?” “Faulty models” – how would that even come into it? It does not. We have recorded temperature readings that prove the Earth is warming. Talk of “models,” there, can only be some silly attempt at misdirection, obfuscation, and mischaracterization of what the legitimate discussion is about.
[1] According to their models, over the last one hundred years, the average temperature of the Earth should have increased by one degree Celsius. It has not. It has increased by roughly half a degree Celsius (.45-.6C; which is 1 degree Fahrenheit). [2] It is believed that since the temperature has not risen the full amount, the Earth is not warming.
Lunacy. Who claims “what their models say”? The actual temperature rise is 0.6 to 0.8 degrees C., by observation, depending on whether we are talking about the world’s air or the world’s oceans. Moreover, anybody can see that the last sentence, the one after “[2]” above, is ridiculous, fatuous, and just downright stupid.
The next step in this argument is a logical one. Why is the temperature going up even slightly? Scientists believe that this is due to natural fluctuations in climate.
No, this is unsupported baloney. Scientists really don’t believe that, not at the pace with which change is now occurring.
Earth’s climate has varied significantly more than this over its six billion year history.
You just have to laugh – it would be true, but that has nothing to do with the current situation. Why I say “would be true” is that that this “six billion year history” is also not in line with any significant amount of scientific research or thought. Try 4.5 billion years. Good grief…
This planet has gone through many ice ages and has always reversed them.
Obfuscation. Has nothing to do with what’s now going on. Shows gross misunderstanding of physical reality, physical principles, and what we’ve observed.
The climate has also been much hotter than it is now
Meaningless. It’s also been much colder than it is now.
and returned to a more temperate level.
Not in anything like the time frames that we are speaking of. Seriously, the person that wrote the stuff about “and returned to a more temperate level,” is an idiot, plain and simple.
Nature will adjust accordingly.
Nonsense. It is the fact that no such thing has occurred that makes for the concern than many people have.
Mary, to LisaC: Well according to some scientists the CO2 levels increased because of increasing temperature and the planet warmed naturally. So which is it?
It’s nothing, there. The increasing temperature doesn’t even explain 10% of the observed increase in CO2. Anybody pretending like anything else is the case is definitely full of crap.
Some argue that nature dumps more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans.
No, that’s not any meaningful argument here, Mary. That’s a given – we all know that nature makes more CO2, but it also consumes a lot more CO2 – nature’s production and consumption of CO2 are quite in balance. It’s human activity that makes the difference.
Maybe humans and nature worked in concert. Who knows?
There is a total production and consumption, yes.
Do I think humans may have caused increased CO2? Sure. Do I think this proves it caused global warming? No.
Right there you have totally damned your argument, in lieu of any other rational cause for the warming, other than human activity.
Doug,
“Much” in your opinion is settled, but much is not everything is it Doug? What is much? Half, three quarters?
No we don’t all “know” anything. This is an ongoing raging debate and has been for years and will continue, assuming of course the AGW people don’t get their way and silence their opposition. I understand that even as great a genius as Einstein challenged people to prove his theories wrong and encouraged opposing opinions and research. So what are the AGW alarmists so afraid of?
You look at the research and draw your conclusions. I look at the research and find I can only come to the conclusion that this is unsettled science. I’m very fond of you Doug but I must admit I find more validity in the opinions and findings of credentialled scientists and researchers than I do in what you…or Al Gore…have to say. I respect your POV and your right to have it, but its not the only one.
As I have pointed out on this blog there have been ongoing debates over the abortion/breast cancer link. For some on this blog the connection is definite. For others it is non-existent. Studies are posted. Studies are heatedly debated. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Because of this, for me the link, which at one time was conclusive is now inconclusive. As far as I’m concerned this is what science is all about.
As my daughter has taught me, no study “proves” anything or settles any argument. So long as there are studies, there will be opposing ones. However thoroughly peer reviewed, a study can still be ripped to shreds by critics. And on it goes.
Anyway Doug here it is the end of June and we just put the heat on. Well that’s happened before in my lifetime, which has been extensive. Heck, many years ago one freak snowfall in May did a real number on my tulips, Also, take comfort in the fact you don’t have to eat that crappy bread until 2050. In the meantime I’ll just be happy just to get an accurate weather report.
Mary: “Much” in your opinion is settled, but much is not everything is it Doug? What is much? Half, three quarters?
Mary, it’s enough that to say, “It’s not settled,” is really no rational argument. There is the physical reality of how the world’s atmosphere works, including greenhouse gases. The nutjob websites naturally don’t tell people that, as they deliberately try to deceive readers. Science is never totally “settled,” anyway, but in no way does that mean that we don’t know some things, for sure.
No we don’t all “know” anything.
That’s not true, Mary, not if we are honest with ourselves.
“nature makes more CO2, but it also consumes a lot more CO2 – nature’s production and consumption of CO2 are quite in balance. It’s human activity that makes the difference.”
There’s nothing else that comes close to explaining the rise in CO2.
This is an ongoing raging debate and has been for years and will continue, assuming of course the AGW people don’t get their way and silence their opposition. I understand that even as great a genius as Einstein challenged people to prove his theories wrong and encouraged opposing opinions and research. So what are the AGW alarmists so afraid of?
There really is not much disagreement at all on the things that we do know for sure – humanity’s contribution to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and the effect of them. You can say that we don’t know, exactly, what’s going to happen in the future, but in no way is that any rational refutation of global warming or man’s effect on it.
Yeah, Einstein was open to people challenging his views, but he would have laughed at stuff like what the denier-websites pretend. It would be like telling Einstein that there’s no matter or energy in the universe.
You look at the research and draw your conclusions. I look at the research and find I can only come to the conclusion that this is unsettled science.
I don’t see that you’re looking at the research, Mary. I see you referring to website after website that either outright lies, or misquotes, or takes things out of context, or that does all of those in the effort to deceive readers. It’s clear that it works on some people – witness the comments on many of the blogs, comments that show a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and mathematics.
I’m very fond of you Doug but I must admit I find more validity in the opinions and findings of credentialled scientists and researchers than I do in what you…or Al Gore…have to say.
The problem is that you’re not hearing from those scientists directly, you’re reading about them (supposedly) on websites that purposefully and drastically distort the truth, at the least.
Salby and the “temperature drives CO2” deal is a perfect example. It does operate, and it can explain 8 or 10 ppm of increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere, and that’s it – it can’t address the rest of the 130 ppm increase we’ve observed. But the silly websites purposely don’t tell you that, and “Salby” is presented as if what he’s said is some refutation of global warming and humanity’s part in it. The truth is that he hasn’t refuted it at all.
Yet you and others still prefer to think that somehow “Salby has refuted manmade global warming,” rather than consider the physical facts that are in evidence.
I respect your POV and your right to have it, but its not the only one.
Heh, I guess not. My point of view is taking the physical facts that are in evidence, and keeping in mind what we know about physics. Nothing beyond that. I’m not saying I have a model which will perfectly predict the next decades or centuries, and no doubt such models will have at least some flaws.
You can say that such models are almost surely flawed, and you’d have a point. But it’s not any rational point to deny the physical facts and the physical nature of our world. That we cannot exactly predict the future doesn’t mean we can’t have accurate observations as time goes along.
As I have pointed out on this blog there have been ongoing debates over the abortion/breast cancer link. For some on this blog the connection is definite. For others it is non-existent. Studies are posted. Studies are heatedly debated. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Because of this, for me the link, which at one time was conclusive is now inconclusive.
The biggest and most accurate studies show no link. Some smaller “Case-control” studies (more subject to recall bias) have found an increased risk, and other similar studies have found no difference or even a decreased risk of breast cancer for women who have had an abortion.
This is always going to be a statistical thing, though, quite different from the global warming debate. It’s just “finding the numbers,” whereas with global warming, the numbers really are not in doubt.
As far as I’m concerned this is what science is all about. As my daughter has taught me, no study “proves” anything or settles any argument. So long as there are studies, there will be opposing ones. However thoroughly peer reviewed, a study can still be ripped to shreds by critics. And on it goes.
It’s true that science is a body of work, and that one study won’t necessarily be that big a deal. Studies can’t necessarily be ripped to shreds by critics, not if their methodology was sound. Being peer-reviewed is a good start. Not that it’s the end-all of everything, but at least let’s get that far before we start making silly, purposefully deceptive blogs that lie and take things out of context, as if they are presenting some real truth.
Doug,
Sorry but I am forced to disagree with you.
First of all you brush off my soures as “nutjob websites”. Doesn’t wash and you know it. You offer no sources to discredit the scientific ones I have posted.
It is quite true Doug we do not “all know” anything. Opinions and theories conflict. The debate is ongoing.
Doug I am open to the possibillity humans caused a rise in CO2 but I will keep an open mind about other possibilities. I also remain unconvinced human activity alters the climate. This is an area where there is much debate. As I said Doug I take the opinions of credentialled scientists and researchers over yours.
Doug: I don’t see that you’re looking at the research, Mary. I see you referring to website after website that either outright lies, or misquotes, or takes things out of context, or that does all of those in the effort to deceive readers. It’s clear that it works on some people – witness the comments on many of the blogs, comments that show a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and mathematics.
Kindly refrain from patronizing me Doug.
Salby is hardly alone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Apparently more than a few credentialled scientists do not agree with you.
Peer review studies can’t be ripped to shreds? My daughtter assures me that people can and do. Fault can always be found by somebody and my daughter expects it every time she has published.
Mary: First of all you brush off my soures as “nutjob websites”. Doesn’t wash and you know it. You offer no sources to discredit the scientific ones I have posted.
Mary, you’ve not referenced any sensible websites yet. If they are out there, that is one thing – and they likely would not go beyond the truth, but I’ve yet to see one mentioned on this blog, as far as denying human effect on the climate.
It is common knowledge that the CO2 content of the air has increased, and by how much, in the time period we are talking about. It is common knowledge – or it certainly should be – how CO2 is released from seawater as that water warms, and how much. No “sources” are needed to prove this, just an understanding of the physics involved.
Same for how much fossil fuels have been burned. There is no “mystery” or “magic” here, and there is nothing else, other than human activity, that even remotely explains the increase in greenhouse gases.
It is quite true Doug we do not “all know” anything.
I disagree. Somebody may be out there, pretending that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have not increased, for example, but they know better, if they would be honest. It’s a known fact.
Doug I am open to the possibillity humans caused a rise in CO2 but I will keep an open mind about other possibilities.
What then, other than human activity, do you think caused it?
I also remain unconvinced human activity alters the climate. This is an area where there is much debate.
Yes, there is some debate, but it does not stem from any physical evidence that anywhere rivals the human burning of fossil fuels. It stems from people who, due to political positions, just can’t really stand the idea of us affecting the planet that way, even while the overwhelming majority of evidence points directly to that.
As I said Doug I take the opinions of credentialled scientists and researchers over yours.
You are taking certain websites’ versions of a minuscule portion of scientists’ opinions over the astounding majority of credentialed scientists’ opinions, not to mention the only sensible explanation, given what we’ve observed.
Kindly refrain from patronizing me Doug.
No offense meant, Mary, but then how about you give a sensible explanation for the increase in greenhouse gases, other than the human burning of fossil fuels. Hey, if there was something even remotely in the ballpark, it would be different, but there isn’t anything, just vague notions that “nature could be the cause….”
Apparently more than a few credentialled scientists do not agree with you.
There’s hardly anything there, Mary. I quote, from that link:
“As of August 2012, fewer than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature.”
“Fewer than 10.” And that is not to say they are disagreeing with what I have said – they may be disagreeing with the IPCC forecasts.
Such lists are usually baloney, too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
Peer review studies can’t be ripped to shreds?
Not what I said. Here’s what I said: “Studies can’t necessarily be ripped to shreds by critics, not if their methodology was sound. Being peer-reviewed is a good start. Not that it’s the end-all of everything, but at least let’s get that far before we start making silly, purposefully deceptive blogs that lie and take things out of context, as if they are presenting some real truth”
I understood the articles on the sun just fine. Markedly improved technology is making some scientists rethink the role of the sun after 100 years.
You evidently didn’t notice the date on that article. It’s fifteen years old. Subsequent research indicates that the sun’s influence on global climate chance is present, but limited.
What I am pointing out to you is that some things don’t change, hardly a catchall phrase but a sad state of human affairs, and minds do not necessarily become any more enlightened.
You’ve said three separate times that Galileo is proof of an immutable tendency by “the powers that be” to suppress dissent. You’re eager to teach, and I’m eager to learn. The Dialogue was the basis of Galileo’s heresy trial and therefore is fundamental to any argument about Galileo that you wish to make. If “the powers that be” are so obdurately set against challenges to the intellectual status quo, why was the Dialogue ever licensed in the first place?
Now I gave you a link that shows how those who oppose the AGW are regarded. I mean RICO for heaven’s sake?
Yes, let’s look at that. Context: a couple months ago a FOIA request revealed that several fossil fuel companies were funding the research of a scientist whose work has been cited in Congress as evidence that CO2 is not causing global warming. The scientist hid this information from the journals in which he published, in spite of their requirement that such funding be disclosed. Review of the documents, which referred to the research that the scientist would produce as “deliverables,” showed that one of the companies had made its funding contingent upon the scientist’s agreement not to identify them and to send them his papers for review before he submitted them for publication.
As a general rule, when you hide something, it looks like you have something to hide. A senator then called (inappropriately, IMHO) for a RICO civil suit to be filed against fossil fuel corporations to force disclosure of internal records on the science of climate change. The senator’s justification for this proposed lawsuit was that a similar suit against tobacco companies showed that they conspired to sell their products by promulgating “information” that they knew to be false about the health effects of smoking. In contrast, the RICO case against John Gotti was a criminal prosecution of an individual, which is a horse of a different color. Ergo, scientists who disavow climate change are not being treated either like Galileo or like John Gotti.
Closing point on RICO: although you, Mary, may not know the difference between a criminal and a civil suit or between a corporation and an individual, the websites that fed you the “John Gotti” line certainly do. Why are you so blindly relying upon sources that are so obviously preying on your ignorance?
Doug,
“Hardly anything there”. Is this an opinion or can you back it up with any sources?
Well I beg to differ Doug. These are credentialled scientists and sorry but as much as I like you, they have considerably more credibility to me than you do. Another excerpt:
For the purpose of this list, a “scientist” is defined as an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology.
Now as I said we can debate forever. But when even the great minds of science can’t all agree, and gasp(!) offer perspectives that differ from yours, then I have to consider this is unsettled science, that there is much we don’t know and continue to learn, and what we thought we “knew”…maybe we don’t.
As for your link Doug, it does nothing to prove my list is “baloney”, only that another one was. Is that the best you can do to discredit mine?
So the “overwhelming majority” of scientists think this is AGW? Really? Didn’t the “overwhelming majority” of scientists think the sun revolved around the earth? You should read some old medical texts Doug, you’d be aghast what the “overwhelming majority” of doctors and scientists aceepted as scientific and medical “fact.
In fact Doug as someone who shares my perspective on the Vietnam War, didn’t the “overwhelming majority” in the Senate give LBJ carte blanche to conduct the war as he saw fit? Only two senators vehemently opposed it. The senator’s response to being questioned on his minority opposition? Being in the minority does not make you wrong. How prophetic those words were.
I think these are words we all need to live by.
Mary, one thing – we can’t “debate forever,” here. : (
You can have the last word. debate.org is a good site – there are a huge number of things always on the go, and anybody can start a debate or “opinion” discussion on just about anything.
I hope to see you out there in internet-land… Maybe even not usually as an opponent. You mentioned you like political trivia, old stuff, etc. Me too (and I think Teddy Roosevelt was a great President).
Vietnam – I think it was a shame, a waste, after the fact.
I don’t think the hearts of the South Vietnamese were really in it, and how were we going to win, then?