Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[Openmind]

Climate is constantly changing... Name a period in the history of the earth when the climate WASN'T changing.

certainly. . .
the whole concern is how fast it is changing, and how fast mankind could adapt to those changes without going the way of the dinosaures.

And, ina shorter term, it is toknow how it will affect our athmospere, ourculture (as in food supply), our water, even our dwellings and the distribution of life on this planet.

 

[GenSeneca]

certainly. . .
the whole concern is how fast it is changing, and how fast mankind could adapt to those changes without going the way of the dinosaures.

And, ina shorter term, it is toknow how it will affect our athmospere, ourculture (as in food supply), our water, even our dwellings and the distribution of life on this planet.

Do you believe changes in the climate are the fault of mankind or not?

 

[Pandora]

It has gone from spring to ice age in a matter of days in the past.

Frozen Mammoths have been found with food in their mouths, one with fresh flowers that could not grow except in spring. So if the bar is set at how fast the climate is changing then we are no where near close.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Climate is constantly changing... Name a period in the history of the earth when the climate WASN'T changing.

if you want to talk climate change by month, well then it shows you know nothing about climate change...thats like saying its real because its hot out today, or its fake because its cold out.

 

[Openmind]

Do you believe changes in the climate are the fault of mankind or not?

I believe men contribute to it in a negative way, which speeds up the process.

 

[dogtowner]

Let's start by this:

Your quote. . .which speaks of "professor Jones said YESTERDAY" actually datees from February 2010.

I doubt they would re-run old news just for you. The point is that the ones behind the4 research that th4e Berkeley group was looking into admitted some time ago that they were, um, "incorrect" regarding temps over the last 15 years.

Perhaps you misunderstand the Berkeley effort. They attempted to basically recreate East Anglea's chart with the4ir best guess at their data (best guess since th4ey lost the data as admitted). OK so it's similar. That was only part of the issue. The problems they concealed as they didn't suit the intended outcome were such things as th4e failure to warm as CO2 INCREASED.

Now, the new data are so compelling, that EVEN those scientists who WERE sceptical a year ago, had to reconsider their position.

Can you deny this?

Like new data from NASA demonstrating that the effect of CO2 as a heat trapping agent is hugely overstated in the assumptions out of East Anglia et al ? Or like new research from CERN duplicating what happened to the earth in their labs sans CO2 ?

Science is never settled by definition.

 

[GenSeneca]

if you want to talk climate change by month, well then it shows you know nothing about climate change...thats like saying its real because its hot out today, or its fake because its cold out.

Where did I say "month" Mr. Strawman?

An historical period is a huge chunk of time, some as short as 12 years and some more than 2.5 million years.

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe men contribute to it in a negative way, which speeds up the process.

By doing what, exactly?

And do you believe, whatever it is you think we're doing to contribute, we can slow or halt the process?

If so, by doing what, exactly?

 

[Openmind]

By doing what, exactly?

And do you believe, whatever it is you think we're doing to contribute, we can slow or halt the process?

If so, by doing what, exactly?

I believe men have contributed to the increased speed of climate change by polution (car and industry emissions), and by deforestation of huge areas of forest.

Since I am not (and never pretended to be) a scientist or a person very well versed in climate change, I am certain that there are other aspects of man's "development" that has affected the Earth and the Earth athmosphere, so these are two samples that I believe could easily be rectified to at least slow down the process

Instead of fighting for less EPA regulations, we should enforce the attempts made at controlling the discharge of nocious chemicals in the air. We should also stop deforestation, and instead plant trees by the hundred of thousands in areas where deforestation has already occurred.

 

[Openmind]

I doubt they would re-run old news just for you. The point is that the ones behind the4 research that th4e Berkeley group was looking into admitted some time ago that they were, um, "incorrect" regarding temps over the last 15 years.

The statement you posted in the quote WAS from 2 years ago. . .whether you like it or not

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global ... www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Climategate-U- turn-Astonishment-scientist-c...Similar
Feb 14, 2010 – Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he
lacked organisational skills, that his office was ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...mist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/03/climate_change

And whattya know, using the most rigorous of data analysis methods, and having climate sckeptics apply the data analysis, not only did not disprove the the three main models used by climate scientists, they confirmed it.

That's right, the Koch brothers funded a study they hoped would disprove global warming, but they ended up proving it instead. Ironically, their study supported the "hockey stick" they hate so much.

Here's a PDF of the testimony before congress. made by Richard Muller, a physicist who is one of the worlds most famous climate skeptics.

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011

Science is never settled by definition.

Sicence is never settled by politics and greed either!. . .so all we can do is look at data. . . and experience our earth ourselves.

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe men have contributed to the increased speed of climate change by polution (car and industry emissions), and by deforestation of huge areas of forest.

Since I am not (and never pretended to be) a scientist or a person very well versed in climate change, I am certain that there are other aspects of man's "development" that has affected the Earth and the Earth athmosphere, so these are two samples that I believe could easily be rectified to at least slow down the process

Instead of fighting for less EPA regulations, we should enforce the attempts made at controlling the discharge of nocious chemicals in the air. We should also stop deforestation, and instead plant trees by the hundred of thousands in areas where deforestation has already occurred.

What negative effects do you see as a result of what you're suggesting?

 

[Openmind]

What negative effects do you see as a result of what you're suggesting?

You are very good at asking questions in an effort to "trap" people in saying something that you can then ridicule.

This no longer works with me.

Why don't you answer some of your own questions. . .because, really that is what you will end up doing anyway. . .contradicting and belittleling anything I will say.

Have fun!

 

[dogtowner]

What negative effects do you see as a result of what you're suggesting?

You are very good at asking questions in an effort to "trap" people in saying something that you can then ridicule.

This no longer works with me.

Why don't you answer some of your own questions. . .because, really that is what you will end up doing anyway. . .contradicting and belittleling anything I will say.

Have fun!

Open has decided that since she can't justify her feelings she will just avoid. As is her prerogative.

 

[Openmind]

Open has decided that since she can't justify her feelings she will just avoid. As is her prerogative.

If that is what you want to believe. . . be my guest.

I don't see you answering questions that are purposely intended as trolling!

 

[GenSeneca]

You are very good at asking questions in an effort to "trap" people in saying something that you can then ridicule.

This no longer works with me.

Why don't you answer some of your own questions. . .because, really that is what you will end up doing anyway. . .contradicting and belittleling anything I will say.

Have fun!

I am genuinely curious to know just how much thought you'd given the subject. If I were to tell you I had a plan that could drastically reduce the amount of "pollution" pouring out of our nations power plants, you'd probably be supportive. However, if I pointed out that it would cause a dramatic rise in the cost of electricity and that our nations "poor" would suffer as a result, then I think you'd be less likely to support the plan. Am I wrong?