I don't think either of us has an educational or professional background that would qualify us to do our own tests, so we're sort of stuck relying on the word of experts.

This is from the National Research Council (emphasis added):

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.”

This is from the IPCC:

ON NOVEMBER 2ND the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents mainstream scientific opinion, said that it was extremely likely that climate change is the product of human activity. Extremely likely in IPCC speak means having a probability of over 95%.


_____


The idea that we can't separate natural, cyclical changes from man-made climate change is false. You may not understand the evidence that we have (I certainly don't understand it completely), or accept it, but it's there.

www.jamespowell.org/Stuff/Ourfault/Ourfault.html

"So we know the added carbon in the atmosphere is coming from plants, but which plants? To answer that question, we use another isotope of carbon: C14. it is radioactive and dies away to undetectable levels in 50,000 years or so. Fossil fuels, being millions of years old, have no C14 left. Adding ancient carbon should have lowered the proportion of C14 in the atmosphere—and it has, as the charts below show."

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 6:25:00 PM (view original):
I don't think either of us has an educational or professional background that would qualify us to do our own tests, so we're sort of stuck relying on the word of experts.

This is from the National Research Council (emphasis added):

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.”

This is from the IPCC:

ON NOVEMBER 2ND the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents mainstream scientific opinion, said that it was extremely likely that climate change is the product of human activity. Extremely likely in IPCC speak means having a probability of over 95%.


_____


The idea that we can't separate natural, cyclical changes from man-made climate change is false. You may not understand the evidence that we have (I certainly don't understand it completely), or accept it, but it's there.

LOL.

Nice appeal to authority.

You know what I see when I look at the National Research Council report?  I see this:

"The report recommends that a single federal entity or program be given the authority and resources to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change."

Very often, the primary goal of funded research is to come up with "findings" that will give cause to funding further research.  It's a self-perpetuating business.

I'm absolutely appealing to authority here. There's no way I can test the atmosphere or interpret the results.

I'm fairly certain that the very rich fossil fuel companies would pay a lot for research that shows that humans aren't causing climate change. Yet, there is still a scientific consensus going in the other direction.

The Laurentide ice sheet covered a good portion of North America 100,000 years ago.  It started to recede around 20,000 years ago.  It was considered to be one of the major influences on global climate during it's existence, as has it's melting.

What caused it to start melting 20,000 years ago?  Was that also due to human causes?

Here's a chart of the natural cycle of global temperatures over the past 450,000 years, based on the paleoclimatic record.  Guess where we we are today on the cycle (hint: it's on the far right).

BROUGHT TO YE FROM TEXACO STAR THEATRE

I usually try to keep this about the Presidential race, but I think the left is completely wrong on their opposition to nuclear power. If you want a clean source of energy, nothing is better than nuclear power. I think people against nuclear have their heads in the sand, and really need to give it a second look.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/12/2015 8:07:00 PM (view original):
The Laurentide ice sheet covered a good portion of North America 100,000 years ago.  It started to recede around 20,000 years ago.  It was considered to be one of the major influences on global climate during it's existence, as has it's melting.

What caused it to start melting 20,000 years ago?  Was that also due to human causes?

So, according to you, >99% of climate change is natural and the massive scientific consensus that it is man-made (95-99% of climate scientists depending on the survey) is a conspiracy to get funding.

Interesting.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/12/2015 8:07:00 PM (view original):
The Laurentide ice sheet covered a good portion of North America 100,000 years ago.  It started to recede around 20,000 years ago.  It was considered to be one of the major influences on global climate during it's existence, as has it's melting.

What caused it to start melting 20,000 years ago?  Was that also due to human causes?

Pretty sure the earth is only 10,000 years old.   I read it on the internet.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 9:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 8/12/2015 8:07:00 PM (view original):
The Laurentide ice sheet covered a good portion of North America 100,000 years ago.  It started to recede around 20,000 years ago.  It was considered to be one of the major influences on global climate during it's existence, as has it's melting.

What caused it to start melting 20,000 years ago?  Was that also due to human causes?

So, according to you, >99% of climate change is natural and the massive scientific consensus that it is man-made (95-99% of climate scientists depending on the survey) is a conspiracy to get funding.

Interesting.

Pretty much, yeah.

There's a ton of credible evidence that climate change is a cyclical, naturally occurring event.  You can basically set your watch to it (assuming your watch works on intrervals of thousands of years instead of hours).

We have barely 150-200 years of somewhat accurate weather data.  For a planet over 4.5 billion years old.  At what appears to be the back end of a natural heating up cycle.  And the "climate scientists" are using this to draw definitive conclusions, when there is no baseline to compare to.  It's like sticking your head out the window for 3 seconds, looking up into the sky, and then predicting the next six months of weather.

You can appeal to authority if you wish.  I'll stick to the credible science and common sense.

FYI . . . 40 years ago, many of the climate scientists were predicting a noticeable cooling down of the planet by the year 2000.  How accurate was that prediction?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 8/12/2015 11:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/12/2015 10:50:00 AM (view original):
I'll add that, with you getting 100s and 90s, that you're more right wing than me.    I assume you're pro-life, anti-SSM and anti-pot.    Not sure about climate change.   I took the lefty stance on abortion and didn't really have a strong opinion on the other 3.    The rest were righty. 

Pro-Choice. Don't care about SSM. Anti-pot. Don't care about Climate Change.

Anti-pot? I thought you were in favor of freedom?

Don't care about climate change? That's probably the issue that ends up having the most impact on the largest group of people. Weird place to not care.

Sirsly?  Look at any poll.  Climate change is always at the bottom.  

There are only 3 factions that care to talk about it.  

Politicians that can use it to force people to give money to the politicians against the peoples will in order for the politicians to grow government and line their pockets. 

So called scientists who are bought and paid for by the politicians (taxpayer) money so the scientist has a job and the politician gets their money to buy their yacht.

Big business who gets the taxpayer money to build crap like the Chevy Volt then turn around and give enough back to the politicians so they can fleece the taxpayer and pay off the scientists to lie and then get re-elected.  Money laundering.  

I hope you didn't make any more of these global warming posts.  I don't wish to see you humiliated. 

Posted by bad_luck on 8/12/2015 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Man-made climate change is definitely not a farce. Regardless of what you think of Gore, billions of people burning fossil fuels for a hundred years has impacted the planet negatively.

We can disagree on the appropriate course of action but denying that it is happening is completely stupid.

OMG!  WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

I think you just destroyed any credibility you may have ever had.

YOU PEOPLE said all the fish would be dead by 1990.  Then 2000.  Then 2010.  

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY WHAT I THINK OF AL GORE?  HE RAN FOR PRESIDENT AND ALMOST WON WITH JOHN EDWARDS!  MR. HAIR CHEATING ON HIS WIFE!  AL GORE WHO HELD THREE SPECIAL VOTES AND LOST EVERY TIME ONLY TO PROVE HE LOST!  AL GORE WHO GREW TOBACCO AND MINED COAL AND DRILLED OIL UNTIL HE FOUND A BETTER WAY TO MAKE MONEY AND GET THE PRESIDENCY.  EMBARRASED HIS WIFE IN FRONT OF THE WORLD AND ENDED UP WITH A DIVORCE.  MR. MASSAGE PARLOR!  WHAT THE HELL DRUG ARE YOU ON?  SMOKIN TEH BATH SALTS?  IT'S JUST THAT CRAZY!

OH YEAH!  THEN THAT PIECE OF CRAP TURNED AROUND AND SOLD HIS TELEVISION NETWORK TO THE TERRORISTS WHO JUST KILLED 3000 OF THE PEOPLE YOU PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT.  HOW ABOUT THOSE BABIES?  

  I suppose if he went to the gym and slimmed down and threw his hat into the ring tomorrow…….you'd get right behind him.  

  Stop it.  If you make another one of these climate change posts I'll have to humiliate you.  Just like your stupid abortion posts.