[Lafaso870]

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences recently released a sobering new study that found climate change and human damage to the global environment to be essentially irreversible.

[fizzissist]

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences recently released a sobering new study that found climate change and human damage to the global environment to be essentially irreversible.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Climate change. It's irreversible. Unstoppable. Unmanageable.

The climate never changed until the advent of the SUV, and now man has caused the ever-so-stable climate to start changing.

If we only had a model or 19 to predict what the climate will do. (LOL! If we only had 19 models that could predict what the climate DID do!!!)

[dynosor]

human damage to the global environment to be essentially irreversible.

Yes, and it is caused by shipping language software discs all over the planet, so stop it! That, and the production and consumption of SPAM are the primary causes.

[Mariss Freimanis]

Good. Now we can stop worrying about it and go do something else.:-)

[pofo]

I'd like to understand what the skeptics are skeptical about. That's not saying I understand it or believe it to be human-caused or the like. I do know this is a very small petri dish we're living on and eventually, through over-breeding, something is likely to happen that will have negative consequences.
People seem so polarized about this subject and I'm not understanding why people are so touchy or flippant or otherwise dismissive about it.

fizzissit, are you saying that you don't think scientists can model climate change and therefore, any conclusions they make are of no consequence?

..or that there is no climate change

..or that climate change is of consequence?

.. or that climate change is out of our hands?

.. or something else?

[fizzissist]

I'd like to understand what the skeptics are skeptical about. That's not saying I understand it or believe it to be human-caused or the like. I do know this is a very small petri dish we're living on and eventually, through over-breeding, something is likely to happen that will have negative consequences.
People seem so polarized about this subject and I'm not understanding why people are so touchy or flippant or otherwise dismissive about it.

fizzissit, are you saying that you don't think scientists can model climate change and therefore, any conclusions they make are of no consequence?

..or that there is no climate change

..or that climate change is of consequence?

.. or that climate change is out of our hands?

.. or something else?

God, I'm tired of going over the same stuff...over, and over, and over...Every time someone wanders into this thread, goes right to the last post without reading through...and asks the SAME question.

I've already answered your questions in earlier posts.

But, for the record, it isn't that I don't "think" scientists can't model climate change, I KNOW they can't....AND SO DO THEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The GCMs do NOT adequately take into account water vapor, clouds, or solar influence. They can't replicate what HAS happened, so they're invalid.

Only a moron would put stock into a computer program that adds 2+2 and gets 5.

Also for the record, I am NOT a skeptic. I work in science, and I'm not skeptical of proper science.

[fizzissist]

Good. Now we can stop worrying about it and go do something else.:-)

Good idea!

[pofo]

I read all the posts and the thread is only 7 posts long and you only posted 1 post, so I don't understand why you are taking an attitude with me. Why the temper? I'm just trying to understand people's position and what's behind it.

Since I don't know you, I don't know what is sarcasm and what is not in your post. I take it that you are saying that the effects of humans on climate change are negligible and therefore any change that may be occurring is out side of our control and therefore, let's not concern ourselves with it. Is that correct?

[fizzissist]

I read all the posts and the thread is only 7 posts long and you only posted 1 post, so I don't understand why you are taking an attitude with me. Why the temper? I'm just trying to understand people's position and what's behind it.

Since I don't know you, I don't know what is sarcasm and what is not in your post. I take it that you are saying that the effects of humans on climate change are negligible and therefore any change that may be occurring is out side of our control and therefore, let's not concern ourselves with it. Is that correct?

I do owe an apology, in that I mistakenly was referring to the most frequented thread Coming Climate Change and thought I was posting in that one.

http://www.cnczone.com/forums/enviro...te_change.html

I have never said that the climate is not changing, to the contrary, it is constantly changing, and is a chaotic system.

Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is less than 5% of the natural total. If you think that's a qualifier to be a first-order forcing, then be my guest.

Man's contribution to climate change is virtually unmeasurable relative to the natural variability, and when taking into account the error bars of measurement, claims of human forced climate change become more religious than scientific. One famous claim of increased CO2 is more frequent and intense hurricanes.

Care to comment on that one? We're at a 33 year low in tropical storms, yet there's more CO2. Where's the ocean heat that should be evident from the warming? Why are there less land based temperature measurement stations now than 20 years ago, and why are the temperature data altered without explanation...in a manner that results in higher temp trends?

Do you think Michael Mann really should be exonerated? Do you think Phil Jones is not guilty of manipulating the scientific process as revealed in the emails...whether obtained legally or not??

Have you actually READ any of the IPCC AR4 reports?

[pofo]

Thanks fizzissist. Can you site some sources of material that you would consider unbiased on the subject (besides what you already mentioned)? I'd like to read more.

[Frode1]

its getting warmer, that is true but at some point the planet was covered in ice its something happening even without us here. but anyways this has nothing to do with a CNC forum.

[fizzissist]

its getting warmer, that is true but at some point the planet was covered in ice its something happening even without us here. but anyways this has nothing to do with a CNC forum.

Nope. Not a thing.

Unless it's getting warmer, and you wanna turn up the AC, and you can't afford it because you've voted to implement cap & trade, hooked up your CNC to those cutesy new fangled solar cells on the roof, and suddenly discover that ... you can't afford it, or there simply isn't enough power available.

...Then again, maybe you're CNC won't run because a) it's night so there's no sun to power your machine, b) there's no wind to power your windmills, or maybe c) it's not your turn to be on the grid.

Nope. Not a thing.

[Frode1]

No sun no life no problem.

[fizzissist]

"There’s a litany of excuses. The National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) claims NZ has been warming at 0.92°C per 100 years. But when some independent minded chaps in New Zealand graphed the raw NZ data they found the thermometers show NZ has only warmed by a statistically non-significant 0.06°C. They asked for answer and got nowhere until they managed to get the light of legal pressure onto NIWA to force it to reply honestly. Reading between the lines, it’s obvious NIWA can’t explain nor defend the adjustments."

New Zealand – Where did that warming go? « JoNova


Someone mentioned reading material.....Here's some food for thought.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/P...gwarmeryet.pdf

Now. Just exactly how much warmer is it??

[fizzissist]

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

Popular Technology.net: 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

[Dard1950]

OOOh, guys we have a good solution! You are genius!!!

[ImanCarrot]

I think it riles most folk because it's such a blatant lie.

We're paying these folk via our taxes to lie to us and we have no option to say "funding not approved".

Couple that with the fact that this is a CNC forum and most folk that are into CNC deal in measurable things so (for example) seeing a temperature measuring station placed next to a factory heat exchanger output won't go missed. There's a piccy on this site somewhere of that one.

[fizzissist]

When the AGW crowd began to demand we all bow down to a so-called scientific "consensus", the religious fervor was revealed. Consensus is not a word that belongs in science..it belongs in politics and religion. Paradoxically, the word skeptic is the core value that drives good science. Denier is an ad hominem attack. You'll notice that religious fervor is exactly what the AGW camp is trying to generate, evidenced by their own pronouncements.

But let's be fair here, and show an example of both sides of a very critical issue, that of Michael Mann's work. Read both sides, and come to your own conclusion.

From Michael Mann's own camp:

RealClimate: Cuccinelli goes fishing again

From the people who claim that Mann's Hockey Stick was basically a "garbage in/hockey stick out" program:

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Mann | Watts Up With That?

(I admit to being fairly biased towards the findings of McIntyre, btw)

[TomB]

There are a lot of reasons the deniers and skeptics turn to. Some feel it is ’power grab,’ some ‘follow the money’, some worry about ‘black UN helicopters’ and some don’t see the consistency or validity of the science. I only want to comment on the last reason. When I look at the publicly proclaimed science I see several possible tests. (1) Since the models used do extrapolation then the historic line that they are extrapolating must match what we know to be historically true. (2) The event that the models predict must justify the alarm claimed by the proponent. (3) The modeling and experiments related to the theory must be independently verified.

Global warming fails all three tests. (1) The data that has been used to drive the predictions does not include the temperature dip for the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period. (2) The advocates' historic temperature data was derived from the proxy, ‘tree ring spacing’, and is therefore limited to about 1000 years of history. There are other proxies, for example ice cores. They show a 5000 year temperature history and in that 5000 years there are 3 other warm periods that each lasted about 150 years, started abruptly like the current one and each ended abruptly. They are spaced about 1000 years apart and this one is about on schedule. With that perspective it’s hard to see why this one is unique or should be alarming. (3) As the scandals of last year illustrate, data and models are not ever openly shared so there can be no independent verification.

[jhowelb]

There are a lot of reasons...snip... I only want to comment on the last reason. ............snip.....

News flash!

Computer models are not science.

Tree rings and ice cores are fossils, and like dinosaur bones lead to conjecture. Like "what color were their eyes?" and "what did they sound like?".

Contemporary data have been corrupted.

All this leaves only one conclusion.....HOAX!!!