patrick.net

deepcgi says

The real issue is that the climate models of the supposed "experts" have been greatly and consistently inaccurate. The urgency and panic is based on the projections of computer models and not on current temperatures. If the models however, fail to predict hemispheric temperatures over periods as long as 16 years - the screams of panic should be taken with a grain of road salt.

That's an other big fallacy of denialists: computer models are mathematic abstractions that have nothing to do with reality, which is proved by the fact that they are inaccurate.

That's BS. The role of a model is not to predict the future. It is to project a possible future.

No one can predict the future because, to start with, no one knows what actions will be taken against CO2 emissions 2yrs from now.

What models do is analyze dependencies between different variables. That's all they do. IF we have so much CO2, THEN so much heat is trapped in the atmosphere, etc... The physical world is known to respect quantitative patterns known as the laws of physics, and you project what will happen according to these patterns.

That they are not strictly exact is also normal. Reality is complex and models get refined incrementally as scientists model increasingly more effects that affect the outcomes. This is similar to knowledge of the physical universe being refined when you observe something that differs from your knowledge. Models are quantitative knowledge of the climate or aspects of the climate. This the only way, in fact, humans accumulate knowledge on climate.

And this knowledge claims eloquently that under most assumptions CO2 generated by humans will cause the earth to warn enough to cause problems.

marcus says

The question isn't whether we have more than back then. The question is do we have more than if there were no regulations.

Most of the local pollution issues are long solved. The real issue on the table now is whether more resources should be poured into a bureaucracy that has run out issues to regulate and actively looking for more issues to perpetuate itself.

The historical issue about whether pollution back then would have been checked without government bureaucrats like the EPA . . . the answer is of course a Yes! There is a thing called private law suits. It is the threat of lawsuits ultimately convinced the polluters to behave themselves. The government regulators often become clearing house and/or umbrella coverage for polluters by providing "safe harbor" regulations.

Don't strain yourself.

In 1980 crime in the US had been increasing rapidly for 20 years. Was this proof that there was no point in laws or law enforcement ?

Another "liberal" lover of the jackboot. What solved the crime problem in the 1980's was job opportunity for the youth when taxes were lowered. You can see flash mob crimes on the rise today even as law enforcement bureaucrats drive municipalities into bankruptcy with their pay demands. Why? lack of legit job opportunity for the youth under the overburdening taxes and regulations.

Reality says

The CO2 output from human sources is way too small to have a real impact on the highly resilient system that is our planet.

The carbon output can be calculated easily from oil/gas/coal consumption.
You want to do the math and show us how small this CO2 is?

Reality says

Crying out loud, the first massive air pollution on this planet was carried out by green plants/algae turning CO2 into O2, which was highly toxic to most living things prior to that.

Sure you can always place yourself in a framework where O2 is pollution...

In that context, humans don't matter, human civilization doesn't matter... whatever happens bacteria can start again and evolve back to intelligent life in 500 millions yrs or so, so why care about anything?

So what is your point really? I don't know.

Once again, why is there a confusion as to general industrial pollution, like dumping dioxins into the rivers/lake, vs CO2, leading to global warming?

I think both Love Canal in Niagara NY and 'A Civil Action' in Woburn MA clearly made their points that living in industrial waste areas are hazardous to one's heath.

CO2 is what, 1+% of the air out there? And last I'd checked, our plants and planktons convert it into sugar and oxygen via photosynthesis. Plus, we exhale it; it's not toxic, as breathing on your garden is good for it.

In contrast, the planet Venus, the clear greenhouse winner is 95+% CO2 with 90 times our atmospheric pressure but that's like comparing Apples to Cantaloupes.

Sorry, but I don't think the work is done in making the conclusion that global weather changes are clearly vis-a-vis to greenhouse gases and not a solar phenomena nor a combination effect.

Reality says

Funny how "liberals" have become advocates for more jails. LOL. In case it is not obvious, jail is the very antithesis of liberty. While at any given time, some jail may be unpleasant necessity, a just society should always strive to reduce the size of jails and the number of inmates . . . by removing irrational laws and regulations, for example.

Funny how you are trying to dodge the actual conversation at hand by totally not getting the gist of my previous comments, which are to point out how ridiculous your claims are when it comes to the purpose and necessity of government and how you seem to somehow be suggesting that if we got rid of government controls and regulations that somehow EVERYONE would automatically be perfectly good citizens, companies would never-ever pollute, and it would be like paradise on earth. Do you now what the opposite of government is? Anarchy. You show me one country ( and sorry, your examples of small islands does not count) that lacks a government and succeeds. You won't. So let's move on.Reality says

So after so many years of regulating, do we have more environmental pollutions now than we did back then or less?

If the answer is more, then the regulations are clearly ineffective, so the bureaucracy should be reduced if not eliminated.

If the answer is less, then the bureaucracy should also be reduced because there is less problem now for it to solve.

Amazing. Simply amazing. The answer is the levels of pollution in the air, water, and soil is far less than it was, and this is a direct result of the effects of the EPA. The answer ISN'T to then reduce their powers. That is utterly stupid. Do you have any idea how many 10's of thousands of chemicals, man-made substances, and manufacturing techniques get invented on a yearly basis? We're talking about untold numbers of chemicals and other agents that have to be evaluated and studied, sometimes for long term periods. How do you think the EPA works? One of the jobs they have is to categorize, analyze, and label a steady, continuous stream of new material. By shutting them down would reduce that ability.Reality says

Funny that's how you remembered. What really happened was that you brought up a long list of alleged inventions by the NASA . . . and everyone of them turned out to have been invented by someone else or invented before NASA was created. You are the one espoused with false history . . . although possibly not your own personal fault but the result of poor public education and NASA bureaucratic scribes' influence on the public education.

You were the one who amazed us all with your lack of even basic historical knowledge and lost that argument and yet continued to present nonsense as a response. You're doing an equally grand job of slopping this one up too.

Reality says

The historical issue about whether pollution back then would have been checked without government bureaucrats like the EPA . . . the answer is of course a Yes! There is a thing called private law suits.

Here's the story about the family vs W.R. Grace Corp in Massachusetts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action

That law firm had to file for bankruptcy

In the end, it was the EPA, who took down the deep pockets of the corporation.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

The CO2 output from human sources is way too small to have a real impact on the highly resilient system that is our planet.

The carbon output can be calculated easily from oil/gas/coal consumption.

You want to do the math and show us how small this CO2 is?

Industrial CO2 output is miniscule compared to the output by all the breathing biomass, volcanic eruptions (mostly under ocean), underground coal fires and forest fires.

Heraclitusstudent says

Reality says

Crying out loud, the first massive air pollution on this planet was carried out by green plants/algae turning CO2 into O2, which was highly toxic to most living things prior to that.

Sure you can always place yourself in a framework where O2 is pollution...

In that context, humans don't matter, human civilization doesn't matter... whatever happens bacteria can start again and evolve back to intelligent life in 500 millions yrs or so, so why care about anything?

So what is your point really? I don't know.

If we want to talk about what's good for human civilization, a little warmer climate is probably a good thing as we consume far more energy for heating than for cooling.

edvard2 says

Funny how you are trying to dodge the actual conversation at hand by totally not getting the gist of my previous comments,

No I did not. I addressed your points point-by-point in a long post, then made a separate post about your worship of jails.

which are to point out how ridiculous your claims are when it comes to the purpose and necessity of government and how you seem to somehow be suggesting that if we got rid of government controls and regulations that somehow EVERYONE would automatically be perfectly good citizens, companies would never-ever pollute, and it would be like paradise on earth.

You are once again making a strawman tactic. I already made it quite clear that I do not advocate the instant abolishment of government, but instead, reduce government: making it smaller; when we can live with a smaller one, make it even smaller yet. It's just like food cost, the overall history of human progress is making food cost less and less in terms of human labor time . . . yet it is not zero cost.

Do you now what the opposite of government is? Anarchy.

You seem to conflate "anarchy" with "chaos." The two are different concepts. LSAT test prep would have helped you clarify on the difference.

You show me one country ( and sorry, your examples of small islands does not count) that lacks a government and succeeds. You won't. So let's move on

Living standards in Somalia improved much faster during their brief brush with Anarchy than during any time in that country's history when there was a central government.

In fact, the relative advancement of West Europe in the last 500 years, compared to the centralized bureaucracies of Russia, Ottoman Empire and Chinese Empire, was largely the result of not having a centralized government ruling the entire Western Europe.

Reality says

If we want to talk about what's good for human civilization, a little warmer climate is probably a good thing as we consume far more energy for heating than for cooling.

Ahhhh! again.... how hard is this to understand? "Global warming" doesn't mean that Minnesota will suddenly become like Miami. It indicates drastic weather patterns as part of that change, meaning you get extreme weather like frigid cold, increased levels of hurricanes, droughts, and so on. Reality says

Industrial CO2 output is miniscule compared to the output by all the breathing biomass, volcanic eruptions (mostly under ocean), underground coal fires and forest fires.

Co2 isn't the one and only material used to measure pollution. When it comes to the total amount of greenhouse gasses such as CFCs, particulate matter, and other industrial pollutants, man's total contribution to those gasses is around 28%, which is significant.

edvard2 says

Amazing. Simply amazing. The answer is the levels of pollution in the air, water, and soil is far less than it was, and this is a direct result of the effects of the EPA. The answer ISN'T to then reduce their powers. That is utterly stupid. Do you have any idea how many 10's of thousands of chemicals, man-made substances, and manufacturing techniques get invented on a yearly basis? We're talking about untold numbers of chemicals and other agents that have to be evaluated and studied, sometimes for long term periods. How do you think the EPA works? One of the jobs they have is to categorize, analyze, and label a steady, continuous stream of new material. By shutting them down would reduce that ability

You are joking, right? The US EPA has a total head count of less than 18k. Do you really think they are the ones doing all the chemical research and categorization in this country? New material labeling is mostly the work of producers of the material. A jail-loving "liberal" idiots like you would fit right in in a country like Communist China or North Korea.

edvard2 says

Funny that's how you remembered. What really happened was that you brought up a long list of alleged inventions by the NASA . . . and everyone of them turned out to have been invented by someone else or invented before NASA was created. You are the one espoused with false history . . . although possibly not your own personal fault but the result of poor public education and NASA bureaucratic scribes' influence on the public education.

You were the one who amazed us all with your lack of even basic historical knowledge and lost that argument and yet continued to present nonsense as a response. You're doing an equally grand job of slopping this one up too.

Funny how you rewrite history. You brought the long list claiming NASA credit, and I shot every one of them down! Unless you think NASA also invented time machine, it simply wasn't possible for NASA to have invented the stuff before NASA itself was created.

Reality says

No I did not. I addressed your points point-by-point in a long post, then made a separate post about your worship of jails.

You are confused apparently. I did not in any way "Worship" jails. You didn't address anything because you didn't actually get what my point was, which was to compare your statements concerning the lack of need for "Bureaucratic" environmental controls to an equally absurd comparison of the lack of the need for jails. Reality says

I already made it quite clear that I do not advocate the instant abolishment of government, but instead, reduce government: making it smaller; when we can live with a smaller one, make it even smaller yet. It's just like food cost, the overall history of human progress is making food cost less and less in terms of human labor time . . . yet it is not zero cost.

I find that hard to believe. We've had a number of debates, some that included some of the most highly accepted, documented, and scientifically important programs and institutions- now in regards to the EPA- and your overall response is predictably the same every time, which is that they were wastes of money, unnecessary, followed up with the same Kum-Ba-Ya , fuzzy feelings ideology that somehow everyone would be soooo much better had none of those things existed and that humans would be free, hopping around with little to no government.Reality says

You seem to conflate "anarchy" with "chaos." The two are different concepts. LSAT test prep would have helped you clarify on the difference.

Nope. The very term "Anarchy" is a term that describes a society without a government. hence my comments in regards to people who seem to always be blabbering on and on about how EVERYTHING would be better without government, without thinking about how ironic it is that as they write that, they enjoy one of the safest, most stable, most economically successful countries in the world. Oh the irony is so rich you couldn't shovel it with a steam shovel.Reality says

Living standards in Somalia improved much faster during their brief brush with Anarchy than during any time in that country's history when there was a central government.

In fact, the relative advancement of West Europe in the last 500 years, compared to the centralized bureaucracies of Russia, Ottoman Empire and Chinese Empire, was largely the result of not having a centralized government ruling the entire Western Europe.

You seriously aren't trying to suggest that are you? Gah... amazing and depressing at the same time.

edvard2 says

If we want to talk about what's good for human civilization, a little warmer climate is probably a good thing as we consume far more energy for heating than for cooling.

Ahhhh! again.... how hard is this to understand? "Global warming" doesn't mean that Minnesota will suddenly become like Miami. It indicates drastic weather patterns as part of that change, meaning you get extreme weather like frigid cold, increased levels of hurricanes, droughts, and so on.

Nonsense. That claim is backwards curve-fitting and really bad at it. The global temperature has been going down since 1998. . . yet according to your ilk the weather pattern has been getting more extreme . . . so now not only your global warming theory is shot, but also the theory about warming weather causing extreme weather is also shot.

edvard2 says

Industrial CO2 output is miniscule compared to the output by all the breathing biomass, volcanic eruptions (mostly under ocean), underground coal fires and forest fires.

Co2 isn't the one and only material used to measure pollution. When it comes to the total amount of greenhouse gasses such as CFCs, particulate matter, and other industrial pollutants, man's total contribution to those gasses is around 28%, which is significant.

Utter nonsense. What's the unit and rate of conversion between "CFC, particulate matter, and other industrial pollutants" vs. CO2 to arrive at your 28%? The particulates produced by forest fire and volcanic eruption are far greater than any human industrial process. There isn't even a comprehensive number on the total amount of CO2 produced by undersea volcanic eruptions and underground coal fires around the world.

Reality says

Funny how you rewrite history. You brought the long list claiming NASA credit, and I shot every one of them down! Unless you think NASA also invented time machine, it simply wasn't possible for NASA to have invented the stuff before NASA itself was created.

You actually didnt because just as seen in the majority of the statements I've made, you did not understand the original statement. The technologies I listed are in fact Spinoffs from Nasa, and if you want to see this database, you can easily see it here:
http://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinhist.html

Reality says

Utter nonsense. What's the unit and rate of conversion between "CFC, particulate matter, and other industrial pollutants" vs. CO2 to arrive at your 28%? The particulates produced by forest fire and volcanic eruption are far greater than any human industrial process. There isn't even a comprehensive number on the total amount of CO2 produced by undersea volcanic eruptions and underground coal fires around the world.

Nope. Not nonsense. Look it up dude.

But before we continue, I really want to understand what people like yourself think in regards to limate change and pollution in general. I fail to understand why some folks seem to have this absolute fear of even suggesting even a teeny bit that all of the millions and billions of metric tons of carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and chemicals we release into the environment could possibly cause problems, not just for the environment, but MORE importantly, problems for the areas they live in. Its like arguing for the sake of arguing. Most of us think that living with less pollution is a good thing. Not sure why others don't

edvard2 says

You are confused apparently. I did not in any way "Worship" jails. You didn't address anything because you didn't actually get what my point was, which was to compare your statements concerning the lack of need for "Bureaucratic" environmental controls to an equally absurd comparison of the lack of the need for jails.

You don't seem to understand the most basics of human society: more and more bureaucrats and more and more jails don't solve problems. There is a natural human yearning for liberty and freedom (including bureaucrats to engage in corruption when they are sufficiently numerous and anonymous). Decreasing jails and decreasing bureaucratic head count make for efficient and functional societies. Of course your accusation that any suggestion about reducing jails and reducing bureaucracy means instant closing of all jails and instant shutting down of all bureaucracy is absurd strawman tactic.

edvard2 says

I already made it quite clear that I do not advocate the instant abolishment of government, but instead, reduce government: making it smaller; when we can live with a smaller one, make it even smaller yet. It's just like food cost, the overall history of human progress is making food cost less and less in terms of human labor time . . . yet it is not zero cost.

I find that hard to believe. We've had a number of debates, some that included some of the most highly accepted, documented, and scientifically important programs and institutions- now in regards to the EPA- and your overall response is predictably the same every time, which is that they were wastes of money, unnecessary, followed up with the same Kum-Ba-Ya , fuzzy feelings ideology that somehow everyone would be soooo much better had none of those things existed and that humans would be free, hopping around with little to no government.

There's no need to "believe." My writings are out there for you to read. You are the one who has been projecting instant shut-downs. Conversely, should I assume that you advocate there should be one EPA agent standing behind you every time you take a leak and put "pollutant" in the toilet, just because you advocate more EPA? That's how absurd your assumptions are when you accuse me of advocating instant shutdown of all government agencies. Reduction and shutdown have to take place over time.

edvard2 says

You seem to conflate "anarchy" with "chaos." The two are different concepts. LSAT test prep would have helped you clarify on the difference.

Nope. The very term "Anarchy" is a term that describes a society without a government. hence my comments in regards to people who seem to always be blabbering on and on about how EVERYTHING would be better without government, without thinking about how ironic it is that as they write that, they enjoy one of the safest, most stable, most economically successful countries in the world. Oh the irony is so rich you couldn't shovel it with a steam shovel.

In case it is not obviously, the US historically was the place where regulations and bureaucratic interventions had been the least intrusive, compared to most other large countries. The US became the most stable, safest and economically most successful (large) country in the world largely because of a relative lack of regulations compared to other major countries.

Rin says

Sorry, but I don't think the work is done in making the conclusion that global weather changes are clearly vis-a-vis to greenhouse gases and not a solar phenomena nor a combination effect.

Okay so you wave your arms and say basically you feel it in your gut that we don't know. (not even hiding the fact that this is simply what you want to believe)

Meanwhile virtually the entire science community is in agreement. 97%
of climate scientists agree. Someone above suggested that it's human hubris that would lead people to assess this as a legitimate risk and problem.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

I think what you say sounds far more ego based.

Republican by chance ?

We don't need to know with 100% certainty for it to be worth addressing.

edvard2 says

Utter nonsense. What's the unit and rate of conversion between "CFC, particulate matter, and other industrial pollutants" vs. CO2 to arrive at your 28%? The particulates produced by forest fire and volcanic eruption are far greater than any human industrial process. There isn't even a comprehensive number on the total amount of CO2 produced by undersea volcanic eruptions and underground coal fires around the world.

Nope. Not nonsense. Look it up dude.

No, you look it up. Your "28%" was simply nonsense pulled out of thin air.

edvard2 says

But before we continue, I really want to understand what people like yourself think in regards to limate change and pollution in general. I fail to understand why some folks seem to have this absolute fear of even suggesting even a teeny bit that all of the millions and billions of metric tons of carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and chemicals we release into the environment could possibly cause problems, not just for the environment, but MORE importantly, problems for the areas they live in. Its like arguing for the sake of arguing. Most of us think that living with less pollution is a good thing. Not sure why others don't

Like I mentioned several times already, you are conflating local pollution issues that do matter with "global cooling"/"global warming" nonsense that do not matter.

edvard2 says

Most of us think that living with less pollution is a good thing. Not sure why others don't

It's because this is part of the democratic party's platform, and democrats are the enemy.

He really is that stupid. Either that or he's a libaral troll who's on here to make right wingers look like morons.

Once again, CO2 is not the same as Dioxins or Organochlorides.

There is no need to confuse a harmless by-product of respiration & input for photosynthesis with toxic industrial waste & pollution.

Outside of the planet Venus, the jury is out on whether or not CO2 causes runaway global warming.

Reality says

In case it is not obviously, the US historically was the place where regulations and bureaucratic interventions had been the least intrusive, compared to most other large countries. The US became the most stable, safest and economically most successful (large) country in the world largely because of a relative lack of regulations compared to other major countries.

What a bunch of crap. back when there were hardly any regulations- as in as recently as the 60's- the workplace, environment, and even the home were FAR less safe than they are today as a result of the implementation of later regulations. It was the formation of these regulatory agencies that created the higher levels of safety we now enjoy.Reality says

No, you look it up. Your "28%" was simply nonsense pulled out of thin air.

http://answerit.news24.com/Question/What%20are%20the%20top%205%20producers%20of%20carbon%20dioxide%20emissions?/84587

Reality says

Like I mentioned several times already, you are conflating local pollution issues that do matter with "global cooling"/"global warming" nonsense that do not matter.

See- and this is why your argument is wrong to begin with: human created pollution IS in fact a contributing factor not only to global warming, but climate change as well. Break it down to the most basic of conversational elements, and again- the example of particulate matter in the air produced by diesel and coal exhaust, where it is undeniably true that yes- in fact sun hitting those particles will cause these particles to collect and retain heat and hence warm the surrounding atmosphere. If you don't believe that... check out solar heating blankets for pools. They are simply black plastic bubble wrap that covers the whole pool: Sunlight hits this and the warmth the darker color of the cover exudes heats the water.

Now multiply that same principle on a huge magnitude from the billions of tons of particular matter- created from human sources- floating around in the air as we speak.

End of debate.

Ceffer says

Trees eat carbon dioxide and shit oxygen.

Yay, trees, more oxygen for flame throwers.

This is why deforestation is one of the things that needs to be addressed relative to global warming.

Ya'all remember that big volcano in Iceland?
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2010/04/icelands-volcanic-eruption-what-will-be.html?m=1
Looks like we got that climate change "reprieve" for a few years. The winters following the eruption were the rainiest on record here in SoCal, and other northern hemisphere areas had cooler rainier climates as well.
It appears that the effect is finished now, though. Global warming has resumed and we are headed back into drought with a vengeance.
This time the arctic methane reserves may be cracked wide open and then we are all in the hot shit.
Someone get me a volcano, stat!

In the same way that a lot of people don't really understand what exponential growth is, I think a lot of people also don't understand the concept of feedback loops very well.

Either way, the time is far past for such passive intervention as "reducing carbon emissions." Even were it possible to establish draconian regulations on a global basis, we are already past the tipping point. The end now is inevitable, unless drastic intervention happens. Hint: volcanos.

Rin says

the jury is out on whether or not CO2 causes runaway global warming.

Apparently this is what "the jury is still out" looks like to him.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Oh, I almost forget, science and facts are liberal propaganda.

MY thing is, why not trust people who are way smarter and way better at reasoning than you are ?

Quigley says

The end now is inevitable, unless drastic intervention happens. Hint: volcanos.

Nuclear winter is not an option?

marcus says

Okay so you wave your arms and say basically you feel it in your gut that we don't know. (not even hiding the fact that this is simply what you want to believe)

Meanwhile virtually the entire science community is in agreement. 97%

of climate scientists agree. Someone above suggested that it's human hubris that would lead people to assess this as a legitimate risk and problem.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

I think what you say sounds far more ego based.

Republican by chance ?

We don't need to know with 100% certainty for it to be worth addressing.

BTW Marcus, you already know that I have a degree in Applied Chemistry/Chemical Engineering from prior posts.

And I don't vote. Plus, I'm from Massachusetts, a democratic state so let's dispense with the ad hominem maneuvers.

Next, the graph says nothing about CO2. All I see is a temperature recovery from a prior century of colder temperatures, the 1800s, a flatline between 1940 and 1980, the time of extreme industrial activity within our nations and allies. And then, a trend of warming afterwards with another band of consolidation in the 2000s.

Remember, correlation does not equal causation.

Just like your graph, I can throw one on solar cycle and temperature.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

So yes, out of my so-called "gut", I dreamed up a fantasy that perhaps the sun may have an influence on the temperature and weather patterns on the earth.

And now, researchers, meaning independent ones (not just the grant grubbers), need to study the dynamical system, which correlates all the factors affecting weather, including subterranean and underwater changes.

Rin says

BTW Marcus, you already know that I have a degree in Applied Chemistry/Chemical Engineering from prior posts.

Sorry I don't do a better job of keeping track of who's who.

Rin says

Just like your graph, I can throw one on solar cycle and temperature.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

Not impressed. As you say about causation. THe theory about cycle lenthgs seems like a stretch. Somebody was working overtime to find correlation there. If cycle length were the cause, surely there would be other evidence of that. And besides both parts of the cycle are lengthened.

The consensus of so many that are more learned than you means little to you ?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

chuck a couple hydrogen bombs at some active smokers...it's not out of the question...

Quigley says

Someone get me a volcano, stat!

marcus says

The consensus of so many that are more learned than you means little to you ?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

I've worked in R&D, both academia and private sector. The problem is when funding is too tied to a political end. And this case, the goal is to tie all weather effects to a single culprit.

In other words, in place of understanding that weather is a highly dynamical system, with yes... the sun, as a major contributor to the energy flows, along with everything else, seismic changes, ALL chemical emissions, and so forth, we have instead a panel, somewhat analogous to the Warren Commission, looking for a lone molecule ... CO2.

And my response is ... why not Freon? Didn't that contribute to the *Ozone hole* and thus, change the planet's UV thermodynamics, whereas before, our radiation absorption spectrum was different? And aren't a lot of nations producing CFC and like molecules, regardless of Montreal or Kyoto limitations, since these molecules are highly reactive under numerous conditions, esp photochemistry/UV solar effects, whereas CO2 is mainly stable.

So yes, I want more evidence.

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

Other individual statements from Scientific Associations

AAAS emblem

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3

ACS emblem

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4

AGU emblem

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

AMA emblem

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6

AMS emblem

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

APS emblem

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

GSA emblem

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

Rin says

And my response is ... why not Freon? Didn't that contribute to the *Ozone hole* and thus, change the planet's UV thermodynamics, whereas before, our radiation absorption spectrum was different? And aren't a lot of nations producing CFC and like molecules, regardless of Montreal or Kyoto limitations, since these molecules are highly reactive under numerous conditions, esp photochemistry/UV solar effects, whereas CO2 is mainly stable.

So, in other words you'll put your very small amount of time thinking about this and researching it up against what the entire scientific community says. Wow.

marcus says

So, in other words you'll put your very small amount of time thinking about this and researching it up against what the entire scientific community says. Wow.

Ok, so you're not worried about true chemical emissions. I get it now. You're just another political type.