The globe is warming? Poppycock! The ExxonMobilScientists disagree! What’s the "other side" of the issue screams our poor downtrodden oil and gas industry? Inconvenient truths must be ignored, friends, lest they enlighten us.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
2007: Second Warmest Year On Record
July 17th, 2007
29 Comments
It hit 100 degrees last week where I live. And I live in Canada. Records have fallen numerous times so far this year.
“It hit 100 degrees last week where I live.”
And its been in the 80s in Atlanta. Anecdotes. Bah.
But OW, I’ve got a scoop for you and your global warming truthers. There are actually -steady now old bean- 12 months in a year. So tell scientist Al Gore and his truther buddies to hold up another six months before making sweeping judgements.
And BTW, the issue isn’t a warm six months or a near 1 degree rise in 100 years, but whether the change is permanent and if is predominately manmade. Recently they discovered plant fossils under the ice in Greenland. I guess those damn Cave Republicans didn’t listen Trog Oop Gore.
Hey Dugger,
If you read the article, you’d see they said it was -steady now old bean – the second-warmest January through June period on record, not the second-warmest year. So while Oliver’s headline isn’t accurate, the article itself does make it clear.
And thus we continue the idea that a small group of lay-people can destroy, with carefully selected factoids, the prevailing scientific consensus and the abundant body of empirical research and literature on which it’s based. I love too Dugger’s saying that scientists are, collectively, so very very stupid not to realize that there are such things as seasons, and they forgot to account winter months into their equations. All scientists. All of them every where completely forgot, when putting this global warming lie together, to account for the idea that winter exists at all.
Oh you very very stupid scientists, don’t you realize that Senator James Inhofe’s powerpoint presentations resoundingly prove you all to be so very stupid? Why my printed 2-page copy of talking points from GlobalWarmingAmConspiracy.com is clearly more informative than, fundamentally, the entire body of peer-reviewed research into the matter. Therefore I am better than science. Nanny-Nanny, as well as Boo-Boo.
the issue isn’t a warm six months or a near 1 degree rise in 100 years, but whether the change is permanent and if is predominately manmade.
Correct again! You’re on a roll this week–kudos!!
So riddle me this: Arctic ice core samples show the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is at its highest point in a million years.
What do you make of that?
It has yet to hit 100 degrees here in Texas this summer.
What’s your point?
Quaker
You have to first establish a true cause and effect relationship between atmospheric CO2 this latest modest temaperature rise – paying careful attention to time. If some true cause and effect are estblished, then how much of the mild warming spurt since 1900 is attributable to CO2 – provably. And how much can we do about it. And most importantly, how do we know those hugely strong manmade factors that led to Greenland being green, to glaciers in Illinois receding back into Canada, to their being tin mines under glaciers in the Alps weren’t also at work?
Its as clear as can be that multiple times in the past, the earth has undergone massive heating and cooling periods that had nothing to do with man – Why not some impact now?
From the How to Cherry Pick Stats to Support our Cause department:
“The NCDC report also revealed that it has been “the second driest January-June and driest April-June on record in the Southeast.”
And here in North Texas, we just missed the records for the most rainfall ever in the month of June.
Funny how that didn’t get mentioned by ThinkProgress.
May I ask if you could, for sake of clarity, make a clear and explicit statement Dugger? Do you or do you not think that, among the numerous, myriad climate scientists who, in aggregate consensus, have formed the primary basis of the Global Warming theory, that not a one, not a single damnable one has ever even thought of these things? Do you honestly believe that no scientist has yet realized that, oh my, wait a tic, Greenland used to be green dinnit? You say that global heating/cooling trends are “Clear as can be” and yet you seriously think that not a single godsdamn scientist has seen it and incorporated it into the model? You can’t honestly be trying to suggest that you’re privy to knowledge that, for all intents and purposes, the entire scientific world has just never noticed before, can you? Even you cant possibly be that arrogant.
You keep trying to come off like you have legitimate questions to ask climate science, which is itself a good thing as all science thrives on reasonable challenges to existing theories, (and no, just saying “Mars, Duh!” is not a reasonable challenge) but keep approaching the concept like some kind of fucking secret agent that has managed to find the information that’ll blow this whole “science” thing wide-open! However, if you actually are interested in finding answers to your questions, and if understanding them will help you better come to grips with GW, then can I make a simple suggestion?
How about you take those questions, and ask them to an actual real life no foolies climate scientist?
Seriously, instead of just using our laymans inability to immediately provide answers to your questions that Google will not just outright hand us as self evident proof that you’re right and we’re a-tarded, why don’t you take your questions to someone in the best position to provide the best answer? What do you have to lose besides uncertainty?
Oh, I’m sure many have thought of various factors I have mentioned Rex. Do you think the global cooling advocates of a few decades ago did not try to think how they could be wrong too, but still stuck to wanting to coat the poles with soot to melt the icecaps. How about Al Gore already being wrong about the rising sea levels? Did he and his science buddie sconsider alternatives. What do you think? they were wrong weren’t they. What bothers me is that Global Warming truthers always want to argue in terms of X number of scientists believe this (a consensus!)so it must be true. But when you get down to specifics, it dries up. Why can’t the causes be mostly natural? Which scientist has figured out that it is provably not natural at all? Not a bit.
It’s time I break out the old point that the anti-science loonies absolutely HATE;
Considering that the pollution that is responsible for global warming also leads to other problems, such as the depletion of the O-Zone layer, acid rain, and poisoning the air, and that developing a renewable clean source of energy would be cheaper in the long run as well as lessen our dependence on foreign oil, are you actually saying that we should continue to pollute and pretend these problems don’t exist?
I expect one of three responses:
1. Pretend that I never posted anything.
2. Refuse to answer the question for some idiotic reason.
3. Say what they think everyone wants to hear, and completely miss the point.
Frankie chose ‘3′. What will you choose?
Speaking of Frankie… where’d that guy go, anyway?
Dugger, you’re right… CO2 levels being higher now than anytime in the past 1,000,000 years? Bah, probably natural causes for that. The fact that it happened alongside the rampant industrialization of much of the globe is probably just a coincidence. Yeah, that sounds about right.
Speaking of Frankie… where’d that guy go, anyway?
Eh, must’ve ran off in a hissy fit. He’ll be back by August.
“But OW, I’ve got a scoop for you and your global warming truthers. There are actually -steady now old bean- 12 months in a year. So tell scientist Al Gore and his truther buddies to hold up another six months before making sweeping judgements.”
Hey Dugger, you ignorant shit, 2006 was hot as well. So was 2005, 2004, 2003, etc. How long do we have to hold off before we can make a conclusion?
Ignoramuses.
Can’t see how they are being played for fools by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and other liars-for-hire paid for by the Energy cartels.
The Conservative Media have made it a point of Honor never to be swayed by any argument or fact, and fools like Dugger will fight to the death for….
Pollution?
Waste of our natural resources?
Stupidity?
It’s beyond belief.
You have to first establish a true cause and effect relationship between atmospheric CO2 this latest modest temaperature rise
No, I don’t. I asked a simple question. You ducked it with a lot of bullroar.
It’s simple: the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is at an all time high. How do you suppose that happened?
Nature is responsible for the huge majority of CO2 in the atmosphere, not man – its not even close. I saw one estimate of 97% versus 3%.
I saw one estimate of 97% versus 3%.
It’s a shame you didn’t trouble yourself to share that one.
Over the last 400,000 years, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 stayed steadily in the range of 200-300 parts per million. With the onset of the industrial age, the concentration shot up to 370 ppm–a leval not seen, ever, in the past.
So what “force of nature” do you suppose is responsible for the sudden increase?
Ahem:
>From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to 315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994 [Battle] [C.Keeling][Schimel 94, p 43-44]. All the signs are that the CO2 rise is human-made:
* Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year 1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and 290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago,
but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94,p 44-45] [White]
* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].
LINK!
It matters not a bit whether CO2 levels are primarily due to nature rather than man. What does matter is the relative shift in the distribution in the origins of CO2 production. Your argument is supremely idiotic on its face, anyway… are you saying that as long as nature accounts for 51% of carbon emissions, then manmade global warming cannot occur? That’s stupid even for you, Dugger.
You lose. Why can’t you be a man and admit it?
Nature is responsible for the huge majority of CO2 in the atmosphere, not man – its not even close. I saw one estimate of 97% versus 3%.
Trnaslation: #1
“What does matter is the relative shift in the distribution in the origins of CO2 production. ‘
As the Geico cave man said:
What!?
It doesn’t matter if 97% of the C02 is natural, but rather the ‘relative shift’ in origins of the 3%?
yeah.
Some basics. CO2 is trace element. It is per Wikipedia not even close to be the dominant greenhouse gas. Thats water vapor – by far. CO2 contributes about 12% – they say. Further CDIAC (not my source) says that of the current CO2 level in the air, they say manmade portion is about 14% (111 pgc versus 787). Thus, for about a 1 degree increase since 1900, 12% of 14% (less than net 2%) is due to manmade CO2 – maybe.
Yes, I’m skeptic. And the Lysenkoish attempts to squash debate makes me more skeptical.
Thus, for about a 1 degree increase since 1900, 12% of 14% (less than net 2%) is due to manmade CO2 – maybe.
That’s entirely bogus.
1) You’re assuming straight-line causality between CO2 concentration and temperature. You’d be hard pressed to find such an idea written anywhere.
2) You’re balling together percent of total and percent of increase. Two different things.
3) Lysenkoish attempts to quash debate? That’s a joke, right? The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with the work cited above: the increase in CO2 concentration correlates with the rise of industrial society. Crackpot deniers are the ones doing the shouting.
Here’s that LINK! again. Apparently I messed it up last time.
According to this scientist and the work he cites, man-made carbon emissions account for MORE than the increase in atmospheric CO2. What doesn’t stay into the air, goes into the oceans and forests.
And: Shoot! You’re trying to derail again. You’re jumping ahead to the effect of increased CO2 concentration before we’ve come to an understanding on basic facts.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently around 370 ppm, about a third higher than the trend of the last half million years. This increase correlates to the use of fossil fuels.
These are simple facts, Dugger. Do you accept them or not?
It isn’t bogus. The truth is that I don’t know and you don’t know how much of a factor CO2 has been. I pointed out the relative statistical insignificance of CO2. You can straight line it or show me where somebody has proven better numbers. But you are going to have to extrapolate some unholy multiplier effect for CO2 to be that important. Regardless, it sure looks like manmade fossil fuel derived CO2’s contribution is very small: 12% of 14% is not a huge starting point.
And I do call attempts to ruin the careers of meteorologists who don’t tow the Gore line Lysenkoish. And I actually think calling skeptics of predominant man made global warming ‘deniers’ is not much better. Denier being commonly associated with ‘holocaust denier’. I believe the holocaust happened but I firmly doubt predominant man made global warming.
And I actually think calling skeptics of predominant man made global warming ‘deniers’ is not much better. Denier being commonly associated with ‘holocaust denier’.
What? We have to retire the word because it is sometimes used to describe really awful crackpots? It can’t be used to describe ordinary cranks anymore? Hardly seems fair. At that rate we’ll run out of choice words before this session of Congress ends.
Once again, you’re jumping ahead:
Last half-million years – CO2 concentrations between 200-300 ppm.
Last 200 years – CO2 concentrations one-third highger, rising in correlation with the use of fossil fuels.
Yes or no?
I still choose #1 there, chief.