Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

Clearly you are not trying to have a rational discussion and clearly you are not even reading the articles. The articles are talking about the scandal with manipulating and hiding data. They are not about disproving AGW.

lol.

Seriously? Moderators?

 

Here is another thought. Ther are questions about all scientific theorys but that doesn't cause them to be thrown out. The overwhelming evidence is what counts. Man made global warming is overwhelmingly suppoted by evidence. It is a nobrainer.

 

I have read the articles and they are in my opinion useless against the weight of evidence in the scientific community. You present them as evidence to make global warming a sham. I am trying to make a point about the articles. They are wrong in the sense that the thread is "is global warming unstoppable" How do your articles reply to that? I am presenting articles that say it is stoppable if we understand the cause and do something about it. Instead you dwell on some miniscule line on a graph. The weight of evidence is tremendously in favor of humans causing global warming and I think we can stop it.

 

Please someome explain to me how his articles respond to the thread!

 

Global Warming cannot be 'stopped' -- it can however be mitigated.

 

Don't waste your time. All their links and all their information comes from denialist blogs whose goal is to waste your time and spread misinformation.

I clicked on one link and the first graph I saw was this:



they go at length on minutiae and small variations in historical proxies and completely ignore those modern hockey sticks.

For example look at the author's response to the McIntyre corrections. They actually do what McIntyre doesn't and compare both results. This is the great McIntyre and Mckitrick correction:



I can see how this is annoying to no end to climatologists that have to answer dilettante questions instead of doing more research.

 

I hope you're kidding.

I love how you completely ignore that your climate gods flipped the data These guys can't tell up from down and yet you trust them for the "fate of the world." If they can tell up from down, then they were being purposefully deceitful. Again.

Wow. I mean really.

EDIT: I've been watching RealClimate - the blog you so adore. It's been so amazingly boring and quiet since ClimateGate. You remember ClimateGate right? When all those emails and data got stolen, possibly leaked by Briffa himself. You know, the data and emails that showed Briffa was pressured to reconstruct his data to present a better picture of warming? And the data and emails that admitted to "hiding the decline." And the data and emails that showed them ignoring FOIA requests for data, and preventing dissenting scientists from being published, etc. Ok, so now that you remember ClimateGate, I've noticed that RealClimate has been almost silent on the whole thing. I mean barely anything, just basically helping do a little bit of damage control.

Perhaps they are too busy to update their blog? You know, because they are being investigated, etc.

Honestly - all of you die hard AGWers, you have got to read the other side of the story It is incredibly interesting and there are a lot of interesting developments every day. It is a personal intellectual dishonesty to pretend that the other side does not exist. Do yourself a favor.

 

So?

 

Drees -

Thankfully I am not the only one who insists upon the transparency of science and the pursuit of the truth.

“…anything short of the absolute pursuit of science cannot be accepted or tolerated.” Watts Up With That?

Mann is going down in flames

 

Here is an idea of how to stop global warming.

some of us are taking the initiative to stop this ugly mess caused by humans and stoppable by humans. Maybe we can learn enough about his to stop the
next ice age!


EPA recently held two public hearings on its proposal to require big polluters, such as coal-fired power plants and oil refineries, to finally meet modern standards for global warming pollution when new facilities are built or existing facilities are upgraded in ways that increase pollution. The vast majority of the people who testified voiced their strong support for EPA's proposal -- in fact, most were citizens concerned about global warming. However, the oil industry, National Association of Manufacturers, and other polluters called on EPA to stop ANY effort to cut global warming pollution -- even from the biggest polluters! The public comment period for the proposal ends on December

Our Federal Campaign - Environment America

 

RP,
RealClimate.org is quiet because the AGU is in progress. This is one of the downsides of reading a blog by SCIENTISTS.

 

I read this article and totally agree with it.

It is scary! Please read with caution.

Clean energy is the solution
It’s time to take back control of our energy future.

By harnessing the power of the wind and the sun, we can cut global warming pollution and transition to clean energy sources that don’t harm the environment, never run out, and create new jobs across America. But we will only succeed if we require our oldest, dirtiest and least efficient power plants -- primarily coal plants -- to stop polluting with impunity. Consider:

• Coal-fired power plants are America’s largest single source of global warming pollution.

• More than three-quarters of them were built before Ronald Reagan became president nearly 30 years ago, and these coal-fired clunkers are still exempt from modern pollution standards for carbon.

President Obama and the EPA have a plan to cut global warming pollution and repower America with clean, renewable energy. Under new proposed rules, America’s coal-fired power plants and other big smokestack industries will have to reduce their global warming pollution when new facilities are built or existing facilities are upgraded in ways that increase pollution.

A coal industry lobby group spent at least $40 million in 2008 alone on lobbyists and advertising to fight the transition to clean energy. And they have proven themselves willing to do or say virtually anything to block progress— including hiring companies that forged phony constituent letters to Congress opposing action on clean energy.

We’re bringing the truth to Americans, so we can give President Obama and the EPA the support they need to stop global warming and repower America with clean energy.

From the same website.

 

Check it out. There is a picture of a Prius included here! A great beginning to stopping global warming! Long live the Prius. I love my Prius! Imagine using cleaner cars to stop global warming. I am all for it!!

Cleaner, Greener Cars - Environment America

 

A solution to global warming in the State of North Carolina.



North Carolina could limit its contribution to global warming over the next 15 years by implementing policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks.

Global warming poses a serious threat to......

The link:

http://www.environmentamerica.org/h...ce-global-warming-pollution-in-north-carolina

 

Dick Cheney stated after it became clear that there were no "WMD", that "Even if we were wrong, the threat is so grave that not to act would be irresponsible" (Sic)

My question, once again to the right wing, tea bagging, don't tax me for anything, deniers why is the potential of global warming any less catastrophic than any potential WMDs that Saddam had?

I have said it before and I'll say it again. Since the 1970's we have traded our energy security for cheap (mostly imported) energy. Now, in addition to trading our national security, we are willing to trade our children's et al and that of the planet for cheap energy. If we had in the 1970s embraced a cogent energy plan as the Brazilian's did, (No I am not a bio-fuels fan, but the analogy still holds!) we would be well on the way towards a more secure energy future.

What people need to realize that if we can to some extent continue to be selfish and have cheap energy. The way we do that is to have a cogent energy policy that rewards clean technology and efficiency, and penalizes waste and emissions. The net result would be a move toward alternative technologies because we would slowly be make these technologies more cost effective.

Right now, PV solar is cost competitive with "real" priced (as opposed to subsidized) grid power. For example, parts of CA, AZ that have peak demand/time of day metering, PV solar is actually cheaper than fossil fueled or even hydro power. What is missing is the ability of customers to come up with the capital to install grid tie systems. (Both commercial and residential, if the capital cost takes 10 years to pay off, people have a hard time finding a reasonable source of capital).

Continent wide, PV could be competitive if we didn't unreasonably subsidize our power gird. BPA/TVA/ indirect subsidies for coal/oil/gas/ fired generating plants all serve to make PV more expensive relative to this subsidized power. We have made all these choices based on political calculus, mostly in the name of "jobs", even though there is little or no evidence of the jobs created or maintained by this cheap energy. (Not to mention the jobs created or maintained by "green energy!)

By making subtle changes in our energy tax policy, there is a certain faction of folks who for what ever reason will never agree that paying for anything they don't like is good, and to those I say too bad, get over your little self, but it would allow ALL the rest of us to go forward and begin, however incrementally, to begin to really solve the real issue.

I believe that one way to convince the deniers that this is important is to wave the Dick Cheney, " Be scared, be very scared" flag in front of them. How they can reconcile fighting a "war on terror" to protect our energy, all the while sending BILLIONS to the same folks who are in essence funding our enemies is beyond me. If we didn't need foreign oil (See Brazil!) we wouldn't need to be squandering men and treasure in Iraq, and in the process sending untold more treasure to the Saudis.

Icarus

PS I think this is completely on topic. The question is "can global warming be stopped?"

 

If you want to get through to people, you don't start by referring to them in derogatory terms and playing the role of an alarmist. You present them with clear facts in a coherent manner.

 

Thanks for the advice! I'll give it the value it deserves. I certainly wouldn't want to alarm anybody, since it seems that there is no potential for peril. It seems that " be scared, be very scared" worked quite well for the aforementioned VP.

Once again, thank you for your advice.

 

I suspect it was Colin Powell's calm, deliberate tone during his UN speech that persuaded most Americans that Iraq possessed WMDs and that we should do something about it - not Cheney. But that is probably a subject for another thread. :focus::focus:

 

Tim,

Not only a topic for another thread, perhaps one best left to history!

 

I think the only thing Dick Cheney did was accidentally shoot someone while hunting ;P