^^the more recent temperature data isn't reliable enough, something that's been discussed ad nauseum. And even if it is, all you are showing is an increased temperature. You have a theory, nothing more. Also, what excuse are you going to use as the temperature continues to hold steady or decreases over the next decade and more? (even has CO2 concentration increases, even faster than it is now)

I'm glad to see we don't have any bias on this in our public school system, btw:

Quote :

"Language that instructed students to "analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming," which had been offered as an amendment and was adopted unanimously in an initial vote Thursday, led to outrage among environmental groups. "In a last-minute assault on science and sensibility, the board appears to be supporting its own ideological views rather than those of proven science," said Ramon Alvarez, a senior scientist with Environmental Defense Fund. The chairman of the state board, Don McLeroy, called the standards "perfectly good.""

Proven science? Interesting, since its very well known to not be. No matter, let's corrupt the youth while they're still impressionable!

http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/03/28/0328warming.html

[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 8:17 PM. Reason : k]

3/30/2009 8:15:48 PM

DG, thanks for finding reference to it.
An interesting read to say the least, but, it does substantiate the claim that we have had a decrease in cloud coverage. Something which most certainly must have an effect on temperatures. And yet, no one seems to be doing much research on that... I wonder why... Oh, right, there's no research money out there for disproving global-fearmongering, because it would steal cash from government coffers.

Quote :

"The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98 (the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight), but they all support the general conclusions that the IPCC TAR presented in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years."

And THIS has been addressed before, too! In the Wegman Report, it is plainly stated that almost all of these so-called "reconstructions" use evidence which is blatantly biased in favour of the hypothesis through CO2 effects alone. That's one of the main problems with these reconstructions. They try to show a CO2-temperature relationship by using independent-variables which are NOT independent of CO2.

3/30/2009 8:48:41 PM

Quote :

"I'm glad to see we don't have any bias on this in our public school system"

Quote :

"Proven science? Interesting, since its very well known to not be"

Kinda ironic that those who passed this amendment are probably the same ones who advocate intelligent
design.

GW is a big liberal hoax not proven by science. Yet AI is a valid theory that needs to be taught along with evolution in teh class
room. AM I RITE!?

3/30/2009 10:13:44 PM

^Thank you for bringing up something that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the current argument. Not a damn thing. Has anyone in this thread argued about teaching evolution in the classroom? No.

gtfo.

3/30/2009 11:04:18 PM

I just find it amusing that GW goes right down the party line.

Why can't i meet anyone that...

-believes in creationism and global warming

-supported George DubYa in invading Iraq since saddam was involved in 9/11 but disapprove in his not doing his part to reduce CO2 emssions in the fight against GW

- Is pro-life, wants prayer in school, and thinks humans have a role in GW.

- Is a self described "very conservative", reads Ann Coulter everday, yet think their party may be mistaken by AGW.

3/30/2009 11:12:57 PM

Damn, I was really hoping to fit into one of your examples, but unfortunately you didn't list any examples of fiscal conservatism.

Looking back at my posts from years past, as I have drifted away from the Republican party I have come to believe in a slightly more proactive policy on global warming, and now I'm bit less critical of alarmists trying to force regulations by any means necessary. But I've always attempted to use science and logic guide my beliefs rather than dogmatic ideology and party politics, so overall my stance hasn't changed much.

[Edited on March 31, 2009 at 12:17 AM. Reason : 2]

3/31/2009 12:13:04 AM

^ well most of the dominant Republicans in the national spotlight are fiscal conservatives in words only. They tend to act in the contrary; either tending to the whims of the evangelist right or being the "boy on the inside" for the corporate giants of the country.

3/31/2009 12:18:54 AM

minor correction. It is not 'the' corporate giants but 'their' corporate giants.

3/31/2009 9:26:58 AM

Is this the kind of government crap we get to look forward to?

Quote :

"Question: Who decided to pay farmers to destroy ten million acres of crops and kill six million farm animals? If you answered FDR, then you would be correct. But, why did he do it and what was the end result? The markets were keeping food prices too low for farmers to make enough money for a profit, thus FDR promoted higher food prices by paying farmers to plow under some 10 million acres of crops and slaughter and discard some six million farm animals, because it primarily benefited big farmers due to the fact that they had more food crops to destroy than small farms. The end result of this policy and later programs was the victimization of millions of already starving Americans. I recently heard about a corn and soybean farmer by the name of Rex Woollen. Doing a simple Google search yielded scores of articles about this American farmer and how he is making a profit by not tilling 800 acres of his land. So, what’s the significance of this, you ask? Well, he is making about $3,000 a year (not much to him, but hey, it’s money) by preventing an estimated 470 tons of carbon (yeah, that’s plant food) from entering the atmosphere. He then banks $3,000 by purchasing “carbon credits”, which he then sells to the Chicago Climate Exchange. So, by not growing crops, Rex Woollen gets money. Though it’s not a huge amount, it does have the potential of enormous profits if Congress passes mandatory nationwide greenhouse gas limits. Wait, it may get worse. Some state lawmakers want to allow farmers to plant trees that will let them create a separate source for carbon allowances, thus allowing them to collect offsets to sell alongside government permits on carbon markets. This means that not only can farmers earn cash by not planting food crops, they also collect money by planting non food sources. Rewind back to the Chicago Climate Exchange for a moment. During its beginnings, who do you think was on the board of the charity that gave over a million dollars in funding? If you answered Barack Obama, you would be correct."

3/31/2009 7:42:39 PM

too bad the democrats of 1932 were nothing like those of 2009. Hell back then the entire south was blue.

back OMG OBAMA's COMING FOR YERR MONIES

[Edited on March 31, 2009 at 9:31 PM. Reason : j]

3/31/2009 9:30:38 PM

Quote :

"470 tons of carbon (yeah, that’s plant food)"

Please stop making yourself looks silly by emphasizing little quips like this. That is, unless you really want to get laughed into oblivion when shown that too much "plant food" actually makes plants less nutritious.

4/1/2009 12:12:27 AM

I don't see what the big deal is. We already pay welfare moms not to work. Why not pay farmers not to work, either?

btw, how exactly does planting trees "offset" any carbon? The tree just becomes part of the carbon cycle, which has no net gain or loss in carbon. CHANGE we can BELIEVE IN!!!

4/1/2009 8:33:28 AM

Quote :

"Why not pay farmers not to work"

Well the republicans already subsidize farmers throwing the market price for certain crops off fair market value and much of the crops end
up rotting in warehouses.

Quote :

"how exactly does planting trees "offset" any carbon"

Are you an absolute moron or were you smoking cigarettes behind the high school football field during 9th grade bio class.

Maybe i can not read but did you really ask how trees reduce carbon in the atmosphere that may play a role in artificial global warming

6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy = C6H12O6 + 6O2



Maybe photosynthesis is part of the liberal conspiracy also. A made up equation/theory, like evil evolution,
used by crazy green hippies to trick the American people and hinder progress
by making them think trees are good!

4/1/2009 9:30:55 AM

What a classic example of sensationalist spin on something as normal as buttered toast. Leaving a field fallow is a standard part of crop rotation.

This farmer has cleverly figured out how to offset his massive property taxes by a meager $3000. Although, the whole system of carbon offsets seems plagued with stupididty and/or corruption. He shouldn't be getting offsets for not growing plants.

^Trees turn carbon dioxide into oxygen. Forests are the biggest carbon offsets in the world. Freakin biology 101

4/1/2009 9:31:25 AM

^ forgive aaronburro

he considers science "silly stuff"

4/1/2009 10:23:11 AM

Not to mention a religion. . .

4/1/2009 10:28:35 AM

Quote :

"btw, how exactly does planting trees "offset" any carbon? The tree just becomes part of the carbon cycle, which has no net gain or loss in carbon."

True, but climate change isn't about the net gain or loss of call carbon in the carbon cycle, it's about carbon in the atmosphere, which planting trees (LOTS of them...) would sequester carbon from the atmosphere.

4/1/2009 10:36:39 AM

I think aaron's failure to understand why more trees are considered to "offset" carbon *in the atmosphere* just proves his lack of understanding of these processes.

He's not stupid or even uneducated - just wrong and not up to snuff on the facts.

4/1/2009 11:33:15 AM

i was hoping it was his idea for April Fools....

4/1/2009 11:46:33 AM

You're leaving out the part about the tree dying, at which point it decomposes and gives off CO2. Thanks for playing.

And I realize the insignificance of such an article, but the basic idealogy there is wrong. Get paid to not use farm land for farming.

4/1/2009 12:39:35 PM

Quote :

"You're leaving out the part about the tree dying, at which point it decomposes and gives off CO2. "

oh damn it was those damn trees all along causing global warming; doh!

4/1/2009 12:43:32 PM

Look, I'm sorry, but the ignorance here is ridiculous.

If you think, in any way, that when a tree dies all or even most of the CO2 it took in over its (in some cases very very long) life will all just whisp up into the atmosphere, then you REALLY don't have any idea.

Obviously, a bit of CO2 will probably make its way into the air, albeit slowly.

[Edited on April 1, 2009 at 1:17 PM. Reason : .]

4/1/2009 1:16:43 PM

Don't be a fucking snob. I realize it doesn't ALL just up and go back into the atmosphere.

Why don't you make like a tree and leave? OH SNAP!

4/1/2009 1:24:30 PM

Quote :

"the basic idealogy there is wrong. Get paid to not use farm land for farming"

I already called the BS on that. Please scroll up

4/1/2009 2:17:31 PM

Quote :

"What a classic example of sensationalist spin on something as normal as buttered toast. Leaving a field fallow is a standard part of crop rotation."

Since when is growing trees, part of the standard crop rotation? When you want to use the field again, do you cut down the trees and pull up the stumps? Seems like a lot of unnecessary work.

Besides, in your same post you basically agreed with me how the carbon scheming is corrupt.

4/1/2009 2:26:55 PM

Im saying, growing NOTHING is part of crop rotation. Thats what fallow means. Its an important part of farming.

And in regards to trees, I'm sure they mean having a plot of permanent trees to provide offsets annually. Theyre not going to get cut down.

But I do agree that all this creative interpretation of carbon offsets is just BS. Businesses will cease their carbon-reduction policies, instead spending money on BS hypothetical offsets that do little or nothing to negate the increase in pollution.

4/1/2009 2:46:00 PM

^well then maybe I misinterpretted what I posted, or we disagree in some way. B/c to me it looks like he's growing trees on farmland instead of using it to grow produce.

I understand what you mean about the farming cycle my friend

4/1/2009 2:48:53 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/04/02/jupiter.red.spot.shrinking/index.html

OH GOD HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN, THERE'S NO CARS ON JUPITAR YAAARRRWWWWLLL RAWR

4/2/2009 9:12:03 AM

I am sure am glad to see the people in here who understand the carbon cycle, such as HUR and DirtyGreek. Thanks for showing how much science you truly understand.

Quote :

"oh damn it was those damn trees all along causing global warming; doh!"

You laugh, but such claims have been made by pro-AGW "scientists."

Quote :

"If you think, in any way, that when a tree dies all or even most of the CO2 it took in over its (in some cases very very long) life will all just whisp up into the atmosphere, then you REALLY don't have any idea."

Actually, it releases CO2, as well as methane (which we know is a far worse GHG), but that is beside the point. The point was that trees DO NOT remove CO2 from the atmosphere. They convert it to O2, at which point an animal or some other creature breathes it in and exhales *gasp* CO2!!! holy shit! To quote a dumbass in this thread:

Quote :

"Freakin biology 101"

Quote :

"What a classic example of sensationalist spin on something as normal as buttered toast. "

If you want to talk about sensationalism, then you are pointing the finger at the wrong place, buddy.


BTW, I neglected to address this before:
DG, it is disingenuous to claim that the missing greenhouse-signature is a lie. The whole point of the signature was that GHG-induced warming would have a certain signature of warming. To claim that the signature "wasn't missing," as your reference states, because there was in fact warming, is foolish! Of course there was warming in the atmosphere. We kind of fucking know that. The meat and bones of it is that for years, we were told that the GH-signature was going to be the smoking gun. And when the data was FINALLY crunched, it turned out that the warming profile mirrored that of all the other natural forces combined, minus GHG. THAT was the point. And the profile matched suggested profiles for natural forces that were given years before the actual profile was compiled.
By the way, what was the response of the so-called "scientists" to this? Oh, right, "ummm, the temperature probes on ALL of the data recorders must have been faulty. Let's run the information from other sensors on the recorder to get the 'real' temperatures." Riiiiiiiiiiight

So, the main pro-AGW points that have been refuted still stand as refuted.
Hockey-Stick: fraud
Reconstructions: fraud
GH-Signature: absent, pointing to natural causes

4/2/2009 6:40:41 PM

Quote :

"They convert it to O2, at which point an animal or some other creature breathes it in and exhales *gasp* CO2!!!"

um... wow

4/2/2009 8:20:29 PM

I know, the carbon cycle is amazing, aint it?

4/2/2009 8:29:20 PM

^^

We better petition congress RIGHT NOW to cut down all them evil polluting trees releasing CO2 into the air causing global warming.

4/2/2009 8:30:45 PM

uh, you do realize there's no transfer of carbon in your sentence there, right?

4/2/2009 8:38:06 PM

^^ don't be daft. A quick google search yields results that link trees with releasing GHGs. shocker!

^ and? Is it false that animals also breathe out CO2? The point is that planting a tree does nothing to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, because the CO2 ends up there again through some mechanism, whether it be ocean absorption and subsequent release or animal respiration

4/2/2009 8:48:32 PM

well, my initial point was that ignorant statements like you posted make it easy to discount whatever else it is you're trying to say

but otherwise, with regards to carbon cycling, it's all about timescales

4/2/2009 9:53:30 PM

there's nothing ignorant about what I said. It's 100% factual. do you deny that animals exhale CO2?

4/2/2009 11:31:27 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_sc/sci_sea_ice

yet another dagger into the leftwing moonbats heart

4/3/2009 3:13:06 AM

Who cares? It isn't like any humans live there (except for maybe those hippie scientists). If it can't be exploited for monetary gain then what is the point of having it around? Isn't that right, "you people"?

4/3/2009 5:21:17 AM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – Arctic sea ice is melting so fast most of it could be gone in 30 years. A new analysis of changing conditions in the region, using complex computer models of weather and climate, says conditions that had been forecast by the end of the century could occur much sooner."

You know who else had a "complex computer model?" Mann and his hockey-stick. I love it when "science" includes making biased and fraudulent computer models and has nothing to do with actual repeatability and predictability or experimentation.

4/3/2009 8:30:40 AM

Quote :

"They convert it to O2, at which point an animal or some other creature breathes it in and exhales *gasp* CO2!!!"

the ignorant part of your statement was implying that the exhaled CO2 was ultimately coming from the trees

while living/growing, mature trees are net carbon sinks

(even the O2 breathed in from the trees doesn't get exhaled as CO2, that comes from water in respiration - the animals in your example would have to be eating the trees to ultimately be releasing carbon from them)

4/3/2009 10:52:47 AM

^^^um isnt there all kinds of minerals and diamonds and oil? i seem to remember russia a few years ago planting a flag like they owned the shit...maybe in 30 years if theres no ice there will be more competition for the space etc? think dude

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

4/3/2009 10:52:57 AM

What's hilarious to me is when you show someone evidence that they're incorrect, and they say NOPE, I'M STILL RIGHT!!!11

4/3/2009 11:22:14 AM

haha you mean like with you and nuclear power?

4/3/2009 11:24:18 AM

I didn't know where to post this. This thread seems good enough so here we go:

Quote :

"The Thune Amendment The ability of Congressional legislation on cap and trade to result in actual emissions reductions was dealt a serious blow yesterday. An Amendment was introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) on the Budget Resolution and its text is as follows: To amend the deficit-neutral reserve fund for climate change legislation to require that such legislation does not increase electricity or gasoline prices. What is this? Climate change legislation cannot increase electricity or gasoline prices? The entire purpose of cap and trade is in fact to increase the costs of carbon-emitting sources of energy, which dominate US energy consumption. The Thune Amendment thus undercuts the entire purpose of cap and trade. What was the vote on the Thune Amendment? 89-8 in favor of the Amendment, 48 Democrats and 41 Republicans. Only 8 members of the Senate were willing to go on record saying that they support the purpose of a cap and trade bill, to make carbon-emitting energy more expensive. "

This is fantastic news. Carbon Cap and Trade cannot exist with this amendment. And given the support shown for it in the Senate, one can hope this will stay around. I was curious how long it would take for these politicians to see voting for higher energy costs = political suicide.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-thune-amendment-5096

4/3/2009 1:19:17 PM

^ Which is why, despite the obvious economic superiority of a carbon tax (in as far as reducing carbon emissions go), it would never fly: it is too obviously transparent to its purpose.

Everyone loves to be against AGW and for reducing CO2 emissions. Very few will actually step up to the fact that doing so isn't free.

4/3/2009 2:00:37 PM

Quote :

"the ignorant part of your statement was implying that the exhaled CO2 was ultimately coming from the trees"

False. The CO2 isn't coming from trees in that respect. You are misinterpreting what I said. quit it.

Quote :

"even the O2 breathed in from the trees doesn't get exhaled as CO2, that comes from water in respiration"

What exactly do you think respiration is? It's BREATHING/EXHALING. durkadurrrrrrrrrrrrrr Trees don't "exhale" CO2. And I never said that. If you read that quote, you'll see that I am saying ANIMALS exhale CO2. DURKADURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. reading is fundamental, dude.

4/3/2009 8:50:58 PM

Quote :

"reading is fundamental, dude."

oh dear, i quit

please please please tell me you don't have a degree from nc state, i fear the value of my diplomas has taken a huge hit

4/3/2009 9:44:39 PM

i fear if YOU have a degree from NCSU.

if you take from my post where I said that ANIMALS exhale CO2 and make it to mean "Trees exhale CO2," then there is something seriously wrong with your reading comprehension skills

4/3/2009 9:52:51 PM

where on earth in what i wrote does it say that trees exhale CO2? it seems pretty clear to me that i was referring to the animals in your example breathing in O2 from the trees, and then the animals exhaling CO2

my point was that the O2 the animals breathe in doesn't even get exhaled as CO2, the actual oxygen atoms come from water

(and on top of that, trees actually do respire CO2, as i'm sure you know -- though i wouldn't phrase it as 'exhaling' per se)

4/3/2009 10:01:42 PM

and yet, does it truly matter if the CO2 we breathe out comes from water? No. We breathe in O2, and breathe out CO2. Where do we get the O2? Right, plants, bacteria, trees. Ergo, my point stands. Without the O2 from trees, humans don't have a way to exhale CO2.

and yes, I am aware that plants can "exhale" things other than CO2. Some plants even use O2 in the absence of light. As a keeper of fish, I am well aware of this fact.

4/3/2009 10:14:08 PM