Atmospheric Science, Climate Change and Carbon – Some Facts

neptunechimney wrote:

archer wrote:

residenttroll wrote: We are all burning up.....stop Obama and Clinton from flying around the world to make speeches.

If we just taped shut all the conservatives mouths think how much excess hot air would not be let into the atmosphere.

Think how much better it would be if you jsut shot them all.

Why would you suggest that I do that? I think duct tape would be sufficient, and more humane.

archer wrote:

neptunechimney wrote:

archer wrote:

residenttroll wrote: We are all burning up.....stop Obama and Clinton from flying around the world to make speeches.

If we just taped shut all the conservatives mouths think how much excess hot air would not be let into the atmosphere.

Think how much better it would be if you jsut shot them all.

Why would you suggest that I do that? I think duct tape would be sufficient, and more humane.

Since you mention humane, I disagree, it would be more humane to kill us. George Bernard Shaw said it better than I can.

"RUFIO
Why, I believe it, Caesar. You have convinced me of it long ago. But look you. You are sailing for Numidia to-day. Now tell me: if you meet a hungry lion you will not punish it for wanting to eat you?

CAESAR (wondering what he is driving at).
No.

RUFIO
Nor revenge upon it the blood of those it has already eaten.

CAESAR
No.

RUFIO
Nor judge it for its guiltiness.

CAESAR
No.

RUFIO
What, then, will you do to save your life from it?

CAESAR (promptly).
Kill it, man, without malice, just as it would kill me. What does this parable of the lion mean?

RUFIO
Why, Cleopatra had a tigress that killed men at bidding. I thought she might bid it kill you some day. Well, had I not been Caesar's pupil, what pious things might I not have done to that tigress? I might have punished it. I might have revenged Pothinus on it.

CAESAR (interjects).
Pothinus!

RUFIO (continuing).
I might have judged it. But I put all these follies behind me; and, without malice, only cut its throat. And that is why Cleopatra comes to you in mourning.

CLEOPATRA (vehemently).
He has shed the blood of my servant Ftatateeta. On your head be it as upon his, Caesar, if you hold him free of it.

CAESAR (energetically).
On my head be it, then; for it was well done. Rufio: had you set yourself in the seat of the judge, and with hateful ceremonies and appeals to the gods handed that woman over to some hired executioner to be slain before the people in the name of justice, never again would I have touched your hand without a shudder. But this was natural slaying: I feel no horror at it.

http://www.online-literature.com/view.p ... ?term=lion

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Sunshine Girl wrote: Sorry sweetie.......deleted my comment per our agreement that I wouldn't comment on this thread and you wouldn't comment on the Al Gore thread. I forgot. Sorry. For every scientist pro AGW there is one (and data) against it. We can (and have lol ) do this all day long, but personally, I'd rather enjoy the kids last few days before school starts. But hey, that's just me. Knock yourself out! :thumbsup:

Apology accepted. As an aside, my interest in this topic is merely to understand the science. The more I dig, the more issues I see. And it is a lot of fun digging into original publications and then comparing them to either the IPCC summaries or later papers where the original data somehow has gotten distorted in a way that helps to overstate AGW. Unfortunately, the gig is up as more and more scientists involved with IPCC are distancing themselves from the same organization.

Do you have any sources for that allegation? Because I simply have not found that to be true, but am willing to be educated.

Since you had not bothered to support your allegation with sources, I decided to investigate myself. According to this 2010 scientific survey of climate experts (note their rigorous definition of climate expert) 98% of climate experts support the theory of AGW.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf

I have not found any source that supports your allegation that more and more scientists involved with IPCC are distancing themselves. Even fossil fuel advocates are lining up behind AGW. For example, Dick Kelly CEO of Xcel , the builder of the largest and probably last coal powered electrical generation facility had this to say:

Kelly, who’s apparently moving from Minnesota (where Xcel is based) to Colorado (where Xcel is the state’s largest electric utility), went on to question those in Congress denying the science behind global climate change and the need to move away from fossil fuels.
“I think the science is pretty solid. Maybe we haven’t communicated it well enough,” Kelly said. “But I think people do believe we need a change in the way we generate and use electricity. We’ve got to get off fossil fuels. The quicker the better.”
Counters MinnPost interviewer Don Shelby: “But, there are a lot of people in Congress who wouldn’t agree.” That pretty much describes the four Republicans who make up Colorado’s GOP majority in the House.

Kelly responds: “I know it. All they are worried about is the next two or six years when they run for reelection. They just keep kicking the can down the road.”

http://coloradoindependent.com/96878/re ... he-3-plant

We are burning up! Run and turn off the air conditioners of all the libtard homes across America and take away their cars.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

Sunshine Girl wrote: Sorry sweetie.......deleted my comment per our agreement that I wouldn't comment on this thread and you wouldn't comment on the Al Gore thread. I forgot. Sorry. For every scientist pro AGW there is one (and data) against it. We can (and have lol ) do this all day long, but personally, I'd rather enjoy the kids last few days before school starts. But hey, that's just me. Knock yourself out! :thumbsup:

Apology accepted. As an aside, my interest in this topic is merely to understand the science. The more I dig, the more issues I see. And it is a lot of fun digging into original publications and then comparing them to either the IPCC summaries or later papers where the original data somehow has gotten distorted in a way that helps to overstate AGW. Unfortunately, the gig is up as more and more scientists involved with IPCC are distancing themselves from the same organization.

Do you have any sources for that allegation? Because I simply have not found that to be true, but am willing to be educated.

Since you had not bothered to support your allegation with sources, I decided to investigate myself. According to this 2010 scientific survey of climate experts (note their rigorous definition of climate expert) 98% of climate experts support the theory of AGW.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf

I have not found any source that supports your allegation that more and more scientists involved with IPCC are distancing themselves. Even fossil fuel advocates are lining up behind AGW. For example, Dick Kelly CEO of Xcel , the builder of the largest and probably last coal powered electrical generation facility had this to say:

Kelly, who’s apparently moving from Minnesota (where Xcel is based) to Colorado (where Xcel is the state’s largest electric utility), went on to question those in Congress denying the science behind global climate change and the need to move away from fossil fuels.
“I think the science is pretty solid. Maybe we haven’t communicated it well enough,” Kelly said. “But I think people do believe we need a change in the way we generate and use electricity. We’ve got to get off fossil fuels. The quicker the better.”
Counters MinnPost interviewer Don Shelby: “But, there are a lot of people in Congress who wouldn’t agree.” That pretty much describes the four Republicans who make up Colorado’s GOP majority in the House.

Kelly responds: “I know it. All they are worried about is the next two or six years when they run for reelection. They just keep kicking the can down the road.”

http://coloradoindependent.com/96878/re ... he-3-plant

Thanks for the info!