+1

Clearly civilization itself is in peril.

I don't know whether I want to cry or puke.

There is good science and quack science, and this new report definitely falls into the category of good science, and it is incontrovertibly true.

It even has a graph.

But let's just break it down for all the big oil sympathizers and hysterical climate change deniers.


First. The report clearly states "The sea level rose by a little over 6 centimeters between 1990 and 2010," as shown in the graph.

Second. Below the graph, it says "sea level appears to be rising at an average rate of 3.2 millimeters a year." Do the math, teabaggers. 6 centimeters a year, from 1990 to 2010, clearly equals 3.2 millimeters per year.

Third. The report says the sea is rising "60% faster" than the IPCC report had stated. Well, duh. The IPCC report is a debunked, discredited, outright fucking fraud that can be summed up in two words: HIDE THE DECLINE.

Fifth. The report precisely and scientifically states this disturbing trend has been going on for "the past few decades." Where do they get that precise statement? Read the graph and do the math. 1990 to 2010 is clearly "a few decades," as proved by the squiggly line before 1990.

Sixth. How do we know the seas started rising just a few decades ago, in 1990? Read the graph. 1990 starts at ZERO, as in ZERO sea level. It was at ZERO in 1990, and it's gone up 3.2 millimeters per year since then, or around 6 millimeters total, with squiggly lines all over the place.

That's rock-hard science, teabaggers. Read it and weep.

Seventh. President Obama promised that the ocean waters would recede, but none of this is his fault, because clearly he was just spewing talking points from the fraudulent false-intellectual IPCC report and he didn't know any better. No one can blame him for spewing bullshit mindlessly when he was falsely informed of what to read. Just like the teabaggers are trying to falsely tar and feather Susan Rice for her mindlessness. It's not their fault!

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not been discredited. Following the widely-reported “climate-gate” affair, several independent inquiries exonerated the scientists involved, a finding that received a great deal less media attention than the original allegations.

The IPCC does not conduct research, it simply collates the latest climate research world-wide. Useful summaries of the findings of climate scientists can be found in a plethora of other outlets, from international science organisations to the annual reports of many national academies of science.

 

*not_secure_link*www.trbimg.com/img-50b4794b/turbine/la-na-tt-global-warming-20121126-001/600

 

Despite storms and floods, humans willingly ignore global warming



By David Horsey November 27, 2012, 5:00 a.m.



What do Manhattan and Miami have in common with ancient Pompeii? They are doomed places where the residents cannot imagine that the good times will ever end.
Superstorm Sandy got our attention -- like Mike Tyson walking into the house and punching our dog. And the certainty that more freakish, savage storms will pay a visit has made it tough for global-warming deniers to keep denying. But denial is not as tough to reckon with as obliviousness. Being oblivious to approaching doom is a consistent human trait. We are a hopeful, gullible and greedy species. Most of us imagine we can be the last one out of the burning casino with hundred-dollar bills stuffed in every pocket.
Last week, PBS broadcast Ken Burns' new documentary, about the 1930s Dust Bowl, and provided a reminder of humanity’s unwillingness to acknowledge that what makes us rich today may kill us tomorrow. In the opening decades of the 20th century, real estate hucksters, railroad tycoons and even government agencies persuaded thousands of dirt-poor farmers to come to the dry and windy center of the Great Plains, plow up millions of acres of ancient grasslands and plant wheat.
CARTOONS: Top of the Ticket
There were several reasons this was a bad idea, but for a couple of unusually wet decades, bumper crops were the norm. Then, in the 1930s, inevitable drought returned. The land dried up and, quite literally, blew away in enormous black clouds that killed crops, livestock, children, old people and dreams. It was the worst man-made environmental disaster in American history.
Now, as we grow more aware that we face the worst man-made environmental disaster in the history of the world, we are proving to be no more wise than the imprudent farmers who tore up the buffalo grass. Rather than taking serious steps to curb the carbon emissions that are driving up temperatures everywhere, rather than being shocked by the rapid melting of the polar ice packs and mountain glaciers, rather than seeing drought-driven wildfires and monster storms as portents of things to come, we are redoubling our efforts to extract every last ounce of fuel from the dirtiest depths of the land.
The oil boom in North Dakota is turning that sparsely populated state into an American Arabia. Even bigger is the oil bonanza in western Canada. According to a Los Angeles Times report, recruiters from Alberta are scouring California and other states hoping to lure tens of thousands of workers north to the oil fields.
In a time of high unemployment and high gas prices, this seems like happy, hopeful news. But it is hope built on sand -- the vast deposits of oil sands that give up their black gold only through a process that requires a bottomless supply of water and poses huge environmental risks. The worst comes after the oil is extracted. That is when we burn it all up in our cars and factories and send the resulting emissions into the atmosphere.
On Sunday, the New York Times published a set of dramatic graphics showing how several coastal cities will be affected by rising sea levels that will be one result of global warming. Scientists say if immediate, dramatic measures are taken to reduce emissions, the seas may rise just 5 feet. New York City might be able to cope by erecting barriers, but Miami Beach would disappear. If the world hits just the modest emissions targets that have already been set, but largely ignored, sea level will go up 12 feet. That means all that will be left of Miami is a scattering of islands, while nearly a quarter of New York goes underwater.
But if we continue full speed ahead, drilling, fracking and burning it all up, then the coasts will see a 25-foot rise that swamps all of south Florida; all of Norfolk, Va.; big swaths of New York and Boston; every beach in California and, strangely enough, more than 60% of Sacramento.
Of course, this is all many decades in the future, our legacy to future generations. For now, in between the storms and wildfires, we will remain oblivious. After all, until the end actually came, Pompeii was a pleasant town with a fine mountain view.

 

Science vs. Pseudoscience
Richard Feynman video
*not_secure_link*www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw

 

(giggle)



Yes. Independent inquiries.

(giggle)




The National Academy of Sciences... The National Science Academy... The National Science Institute... The State Science Institute... Dr. Robert Stadtler...

(oh wait... I'm a moonbat now... didn't I agree with Stumbler that civilization is in peril?)

 

LOL, that's good, I like it!

 

I think that what all the "authorities" who are running the IPCC, the NAS, the EPA, and a plethora of other intra- and supra-governmental entities have to understand is that people are so worn down by their barrage of bullshit that they've just stopped fighting it. The IPCC has been exonerated? Whatever. You're saving a planet with the Prius that my taxes bought for you? Whatever. You want to shut down the coal industry? Whatever.

But what I do not understand is why they won't just shut up about it and do whatever they want to do, since they are running the table with my tax dollars. The green movement has limitless governmental funding and is essentially unopposed. Moreover, an entire generation of kids have been unculturated and indoctrinated to believe that the seas are rising and the polar bears are drowning, and those kids are moving up through the secondary and undergraduate education systems. Those kids are voting early at home and then voting again on election day through the farce called Same Day Registration, and they are voting Bluish-Green.

So, since the movement is unopposed, why won't it just shut the fuck up and save the world? What does it need from the people who have given up fighting them? Does it need complicity? Does it need absolution? What will satisfy them? Total Obedience? True Belief? What will it take, for the Green Movement to finally shut the fuck up? A Cultural Revolution? An Inquisition?

 

WELL SOMMABITCH,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Arizona will be under water again in just a few more millenia, and I'm not talking about the 500,000 under water mortgages..

 

Richard Feynman speaks about the scentific method and how thoeries are created and how they are disproven.

*not_secure_link*www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Svante Arrhenius greenhouse law was first published in 1896.
It stated that "if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression."

Arrhenius' original formula is below.

ΔF = α log e (C/Co)

where C = carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv)

Co = a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO2

ΔF is the radiative forcing, measured in Watss per square meter

alpha (α) = absorption rate has been assigned a value between five and seven

Arrhenius was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes were large enough to cause global warming. His calculations are still in good agreement with current predictions.

Since 1896, scientists hav not been able to disprove the law, although they have refined it.

 

Governmental agencies like the EPA were put in place, by a conservative, to regulate, not create science. I don't mind some of my tax dollars being spent to protect the environment. What will it take for people that oppose the warnings of scientists to want to make changes that we will all benefit from in the long run?

 

I'm still unconvinced that Global Warming is a bad thing. And I'm completely convinced that it's beyond our control.

Personal note, I'm really diggin this warm winter.

 

I just dont understand why everyone just dont get it ..

I mean that guy Nostradamus in his Quatrains predicted it, what 400 years ago or more....Dont you folks watch the History channel?

*not_secure_link*www.mayanpredictions.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2012-whn-will-the-world-end.jpg

*not_secure_link*www.mayanpredictions.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2012-Prophecies1.jpg

 

and the Constitution was written by liberals who are rolling in their graves.

And yet government agencies that exist to regulate, and not to create science, commission and administer panels for the purpose of validating politically motivated and scientifically fraudulent instruments such as the IPCC report. The National Academy of Sciences has become a congressional shill, devoid of credibility, verity, or decency. The entire edifice should be razed and replaced by a tomb.


Oh wait... what am I saying... I'm a starstruck brainwashed liberal moonbat now...

Green is Good! Bless Gaia the Earthen Mother! Ohhhmmmmmmmm....

Sheesh.

 

Arrhenius thought global warming would be a benefit too.

"By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind."

"On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground", Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76

Until about 1960 most scientists doubted that global warming would occur (believing the oceans would absorb CO2 faster than humanity emitted the gas). Most scientists also dismissed the greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages, as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth (Milankovitch cycles). Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.

The effect of the extra CO2 inthe atmosphere is expected to remain for a long time, so it probably is too late to prevent the negative effects.

 

The effect of the extra CO2 inthe atmosphere is expected to remain for a long time, so it probably is too late to prevent the negative effects. Since then, scientists have determined that water vapor water vapor will increase and produce more warming as well. Thermal runaway taken too far could ake the earth warm too much even the "colder" areas.

 

cases against global warming

Ok. I m no super smart guy but this makes sense to me. First let me say that yes I believe we are effecting our climate but not nearly as much as they want us to think. Now that being said think about this. We know for a fact that the earth was warming in the 1700s than the the 1500s and hotter then then the 1200s. All of this before the industrail revolvation. Two as we know the earth has hadan ice age after the dinosaurs .it was very hot in dino days. Wouldn't it make sense if the ice caps are melting then we are coming back around to the dino climate days. Third we are told that the older a star getsz the hotter it gets. Our sun is nothing more than a star. So as it gets older shouldn't it get hotter therefore making the earth hotter. Just my thoughbts. Hope they make you think.

 

How about this? The scientists studying this have ice core samples going back for more than 600,000 years. They can specifically identify the molecules of natural CO2 as opposed to molecules produced by burning fossil fuels. They have noted, documented, and scientifically proven that none of those natural variations in temperatures have anything to do with man made caused global warming/climate change.

Now in the face of all that scientific data does that change your opinion?

 

I try not to see the doom and gloom of all the worlds problems.

We have a very human perspective of what's negative and positive. People make claims like "global warming is bad because it is going to lead to the extinction of thousands of animal species" etc. While this may be true, the only reason that becomes an issue is because we rate the lives of polar bears much higher than say a beetle.

In warmer wetter climates life is much more flourishing. Vast places like Siberia could be filled with life. The fact that global warming is an accelerated transition of climate will create several niches for evolution to solve, and perhaps bringing forth hundreds of thousands of new species. Don't forget if it were not for these fast climatic transitions, we would not be alive today. The dinosaurs would still be calling the shots, and mammals would be no bigger than a shrew.


Life will go on, with or without polar bears.

 

Your analysis is laughable considering global warming/climate change could actually result in the extinction of human beings as well.