Why the mistrust of the IPCC?

littleendian wrote:

Wake wrote:

littleendian wrote:

1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann

Those laws about energy and radiance don't stand in conflict with the idea that global average temperatures could be rising as suggested by the rising global average temperature estimates based on measurements.

Please tell us if you believe that we should have maintained the temperatures of the 1700's to mid-1800's forever?

If so, why? And if not, why not?

That is an argument to be had once we agree that ACC is happening. I would say that a good start would be to keep the CO2 concentration close to those levels for which the ecosystem evolved, somewhere around 300-350 ppm.

littleendian wrote:

Wake wrote:
Do you think that man had anything to so with the Greek Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period? All of those were much warmer than today.

Possibly. One of the first things man did after discovering fire was to burn down vast quantities of forest.

littleendian wrote:

Wake wrote:
That being the case and the weather satellite records showing no discernable heating since the launching of these satellites in 1978 what makes you believe that any of the NASA theories should be trusted for anything?

I'm telling you the scientific consensus is that the temperature is rising.

littleendian wrote:
There will always be one-off studies that indicate something else, that is the process of science trying to find the truth.

littleendian wrote:

littleendian wrote:

Wake wrote:
Do you think that man had anything to so with the Greek Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period? All of those were much warmer than today.

Possibly. One of the first things man did after discovering fire was to burn down vast quantities of forest.

That said, I'm not denying natural climate variability. However it is incorrect to say that the Medieval Warm Period was "much warmer than today",

littleendian wrote:
the temperature anomaly back then was approximately what we have seen up until now, something like +1 degree C relative to pre-industrial.

littleendian wrote:
However, we are currently accelerating (and banking in) a further temperature increase in the 21st century of potentially 4 or more degrees C through CO2 emissions and the question is: Is that such a wise thing to do?

littleendian wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes.

littleendian wrote:
However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked.

littleendian wrote:
Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

littleendian wrote:
Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.

Wake wrote:

littleendian wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.

That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

littleendian wrote:
There are many possible explanations for why ice cores could still be a relevant measurement of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations even if the ice is permeable to CO2. It is so a couple of million times less than liquid water, so there is a good chance the CO2 concentration in the ice could still be useful. I'm not having these discussions anymore since I don't share your paranoia regarding the scientific community.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

littleendian wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.

That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't know about the evolution of plants, or just how cold it was during the ice age, but obviously there was food, since life goes on. Seems to reason that the entire planet wasn't a sheet of ice. There had to be some green areas, not just a frozen wasteland.

Plants go dormant for the winter, some during droughts. Seeds can stay viable for a very long time. I've got a strong suspicion, there are many plants, that haven't changed a whole lot, from before the ice age. Thing with plants, is they can adapt to different climates, environments, over time. Not all of them do well, but most can survive. You can't just dig something up, in the northern states, and plant it down here in Florida, but you can gradually bring later generations, moving further south. Won't argue some species need the tropical sun, and don't handle a freeze. And a lot of norther fruit trees need the cold, and dormant period of winter, to fruit the following season. Point is there are a lot of plants, that are flexible, not really evolution

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

littleendian wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.

That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.

The ignorance goes on and on from you doesn't it?

Wake wrote:
Coal and oil are fossilized plants.

Wake wrote:
But then you don't know anything about anything so there's no point in discussions with you.

HarveyH55 wrote:
"Fossil Fuels" might not be technically, or politically correct term, but this isn't a classroom,

HarveyH55 wrote:
and it's a label that's been used much longer than 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change'.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I prefer to use 'Fossil Fuels', because it includes both coal, and petroleum, save a lot of typing, and basically anyone who has finished grade school, instantly knows what is meant.

HarveyH55 wrote:
There are a whole lot of thinks not accurately labeled, just no correcting them, it's what people are familiar with, and identify with.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I fly quadcopters, but it's most commonly called a drone.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not capable of flying without a pilot on the ground sending instructions. There are several 'Smart' modes, which really aren't all that smart, no obstacle avoidance.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I like to build things, mostly electronics.

HarveyH55 wrote:
When I was younger, before home computers, it was called hacking, since I salvage parts, modified broken or crappy devices, to get something useful. Now days, hacking is what computer criminals do.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't have a lot of schooling, only a 2 year college degree, but I don't have any trouble understand what others are trying to say, if they misuse words, misspell, typos, or any number of grammatical errors.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Writing class was far from one of my favorites, think it's the picking at the tiny, insignificant little details I found most insulting.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Was never really detailed oriented, functional was just fine, didn't care what it looked like.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

littleendian wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.

That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.

littleendian wrote:
Night, is English your first language?

littleendian wrote:
Are you on the autistic spectrum?

littleendian wrote:
I mean no offense by these questions, I would consider myself introvert to the extent that I'm probably mildly on said spectrum "disorder" (I don't feel handicapped by it at all).

littleendian wrote:
But your insistance on certain definitions of words, like "fossil" in "fossil fuels" suggests to me that you don't understand that to most people language is a social game,

littleendian wrote:
that for them it is flexible,

littleendian wrote:
and that this flexibility

littleendian wrote:
can often help getting ideas from one brain to the next

littleendian wrote:
(but it can cause confusion as well).

littleendian wrote:
Insisting that "fossil" means one and only one thing

littleendian wrote:
no matter what the context of discussion

littleendian wrote:
(and that your definition is the only precise formulation of that meaning)

littleendian wrote:
makes me wonder whether you're slightly autistic

littleendian wrote:
Again, I'm not implying that this is a "disorder" at all or in any derogatory way whatsoever.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

littleendian wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.

That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.

You simply cannot go one posting without making a complete ass of yourself can you?

Wake wrote:
The definition of "fossil":

"A fossil (from Classical Latin fossilis; literally, "obtained by digging") is any preserved remains, impression, or trace of any once-living thing from a past geological age. Examples include bones, shells, exoskeletons, stone imprints of animals or microbes, objects preserved in amber, hair, petrified wood, oil, coal, and DNA remnants. The totality of fossils is known as the fossil record. "

Wake wrote:
Is there one single thing that you can ever look up instead of inventing inside your sick brain?

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

littleendian wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.

That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.

You simply cannot go one posting without making a complete ass of yourself can you?

Starting off if your usual insult.

Wake wrote:
The definition of "fossil":

"A fossil (from Classical Latin fossilis; literally, "obtained by digging") is any preserved remains, impression, or trace of any once-living thing from a past geological age. Examples include bones, shells, exoskeletons, stone imprints of animals or microbes, objects preserved in amber, hair, petrified wood, oil, coal, and DNA remnants. The totality of fossils is known as the fossil record. "

Coal is not a fossil, Wake. Coal is carbon. An element of the periodic table is not a fossil. The impurities in coal do not burn. That includes any fossils embedded in it.

Wake wrote:
Is there one single thing that you can ever look up instead of inventing inside your sick brain?

And ending with your usual insult.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

littleendian wrote:
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
[...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...]

Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change.

Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials.

That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel

We don't burn fossils for fuel, Wake. It is not a source of energy.

Sources of energy include coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.

Wake wrote:
so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power?

This argument is fruitless. What littleendian is trying to argue is nothing less than socialism. He is trying to declare 'acceptable' energy sources by dictat. The energy markets are free markets. People will buy and use whatever energy sources are locally available and that they like.

The guy is not a dictator, but he sure wants to act like one.

You simply cannot go one posting without making a complete ass of yourself can you?

Starting off if your usual insult.

Wake wrote:
The definition of "fossil":

"A fossil (from Classical Latin fossilis; literally, "obtained by digging") is any preserved remains, impression, or trace of any once-living thing from a past geological age. Examples include bones, shells, exoskeletons, stone imprints of animals or microbes, objects preserved in amber, hair, petrified wood, oil, coal, and DNA remnants. The totality of fossils is known as the fossil record. "

Coal is not a fossil, Wake. Coal is carbon. An element of the periodic table is not a fossil. The impurities in coal do not burn. That includes any fossils embedded in it.

Wake wrote:
Is there one single thing that you can ever look up instead of inventing inside your sick brain?

And ending with your usual insult.

Wake wrote:

...deleted insult, Holy Quote, insult...

Into the Night wrote: Coal is carbon, Wake. The impurities in coal do not burn. Carbon is an element, not a fossil.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Coal is carbon, Wake. The impurities in coal do not burn. Carbon is an element, not a fossil.

Your body is made up basically of carbon.

Wake wrote:
Does that mean that you are an element or that you are composed of element formed into compounds?

Wake wrote:
You are not stupid nor ignorant - you are simply insane and you make that more clear with each posting. You need to consult a psychiatrist as soon as possible before someone near and dear to you says the wrong thing and you murder them.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Actually, carbon is the basis of life.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Organic chemical, are carbon compounds that make up every cell, hormone, and enzyme.

HarveyH55 wrote:
No carbon, no life.

HarveyH55 wrote:
This is one of the things I find disturbing about messing with CO2.
The carbon, that gives us life, comes from plants, either by consuming them directly, or the food animals we eat.
Plants get that carbon from the CO2 in the atmosphere.
As the population continues to grow, at an alarming rate...
We need more CO2, for the plants, to feed everybody, and everything else.
Messing with CO2, is messing with life on this planet.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate and weather might get rough and unpleasant occasionally (only got up to 60F today), but starving the population is a greater sin.

gfm7175 wrote:
That carbon argument of Harvey's is actually quite interesting...