Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Siege]

The big fight is over CO2, which is nothing more than food for plants, as the culprit of climate change, as if climate has not being always changing, with the ice ages, mini ice ages, warm periods, and so on.

Yes...and why did those climate changes occur I wonder?

Mostly solar activity.
Definitely not because of human action since the industrial revolution only happened 200 years ago.

[Razgovory]

The big fight is over CO2, which is nothing more than food for plants, as the culprit of climate change, as if climate has not being always changing, with the ice ages, mini ice ages, warm periods, and so on.

Yes...and why did those climate changes occur I wonder?

Mostly solar activity.
Definitely not because of human action since the industrial revolution only happened 200 years ago.

How do you know this?

[Valmy]

Mostly solar activity.
Definitely not because of human action since the industrial revolution only happened 200 years ago.

Well duh there were no humans around back then. But how to do you account for volcanic activity being such an important part of climate change in the past if it is solar activity?

[mongers]

The big fight is over CO2, which is nothing more than food for plants, as the culprit of climate change, as if climate has not being always changing, with the ice ages, mini ice ages, warm periods, and so on.

Yes...and why did those climate changes occur I wonder?

Mostly solar activity.
Definitely not because of human action since the industrial revolution only happened 200 years ago.

How do you know this?

Shush Raz, he's read the talking points; maybe some were on bumper stickers too.

[Admiral Yi]

Shush Raz, he's read the talking points; maybe some were on bumper stickers too.

If you ask him to explain how he came to his conclusions, that opens the possibility for a critique of evidence and logic which could possibly result in Siege changing his mind.

If you just take a piss on him and his opinions at the beginning, that possibility diminishes.

[Razgovory]

Well we know the climate was different millions of years ago.  There lived creatures hundreds of millions of years ago that could not live today, like dragon flies the size of your arm or nine foot millipedes.  For those to exist you need a much higher level of oxygen level in the atmosphere for something without lungs to breathe.

[derspiess]

[Valmy]

I don't get it.

[Tonitrus]

Looks like the death of Elvis was the turning point.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't get it.

I guess it's saying we should be scared of ISIS instead of global warming. 

[mongers]

I don't get it.

I guess it's saying we should be scared of ISIS instead of global warming. 

Maybe more along the lines of blaming the victim or Obama keeping America defenceless as he pursues his own agenda etc.

[grumbler]

I don't get it.

I guess it's saying we should be scared of ISIS instead of global warming. 

Yeah, I think it is an example of simplistic idiots trying to argue that the US can only deal with a single problem at any time.  I.E. is is standard projection by morons.  I think morons find it funny.

[Razgovory]

I don't get it.

Presumably we are all on the verge of being killed on Muslims.

[The Minsky Moment]

Since the actual measurements of global temperature didn't show any actual warming the climate fraudsters had to "adjust" the data to comport with their climate models.  Now that people are wondering how the fuck they came up with this very convenient adjustment they are clamming up and refusing to release the process that led to this conclusion, even though they are legally obligated to do so since this is publicly funded.

Well, the actually measured change of temperature is shown below:

I can't believe I missed this doozy before.
Hans presumably pulled this from this fact backgrounder on the NASA page:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page1.php

As the backgrounder explains, global warming from an increase in solar energy output would have the effect of increasing tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures alike (along with the surface).  A greenhouse effect, on the other hand, should increase tropospheric and surface temperature, but *decrease* stratospheric temperatures.  The NASA graph therefore shows that the observed surface warming effect is consistent with warming being driven by greenhouse gas effects and not from a temporary increase in solar output.  (the fact that it is nice and cool up in the stratosphere is fun to know but not useful unless we are plan to live in B-52s).

Of course, the NASA data shows increases in surface temperature and the NASA site explains the evidence for warming.

It doesn't surprise to see the likes of Hans and Lamar Smith accuse scientists of fudging data for political purposes; it reflects how they think, and it is exactly what Hans is doing right here in this thread.

[Habbaku]

I don't get it.

Presumably we are all on the verge of being killed on Muslims.

I mean, if we all book a flight to Iraq, hop the border to Syria, and sign on with one of the various militias, our odds are pretty high!