The Global Warming Scam

Which "hockey stick"? Be specific. You're aware that there are over a dozen independent models that show anomalous warming and CO2 levels, right? That's yearly. And if that's, say, 3% more than the natural carbon sinks are able to absorb, that's an accumulating tonnage of atmospheric CO2 due entirely to anthropogenic causes. Over a year? Not a big deal. Over the hundred years that we've been doing that as a species? A very big deal indeed. Anthropogenic activity now accounts for an additional 100 ppmv of atmospheric carbon dioxide.Keep in mind that we know from the paleoclimate record that shifts in CO2 concentration on the order of 3-4 ppm can cause dramatic climate change. We don't measure atmospheric gas concentrations in pixels, but in ppm. Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas because it has no dipole moment and is therefore IR-inactive.Climate change is very real. The last decade had the highest recorded global average temperatures of any point in human history. (Claims that "global warming has ended" or that we're now experiencing "global cooling" are outright falsehoods.) Global CO2 levels are now the highest they've ever been in 650,000 years. To deny that the two are unrelated is idiotic. To deny that human release of CO2, primarily from fossil fuel combustion, is the height of irresponsibility.

Don't expect much sympathy from me after your absurd and insulting accusations. They don't even make sense: If nobody wants to consider what you have to say why are so many people responding? You're welcome. You did seem kind of confused about it, and you still do: Right, but again - we don't measure gas concentrations in pixels, so the size of a computer monitor it would take to display a line a million pixels tall is a complete irrelevancy. You're right. Nitrogen gas is completely irrelevant - that's 80% of our atmosphere we can eliminate from the graph, saving 60,000 pixels or so. Same with oxygen (same reason, no dipole moment), so we can take out 15,000 pixels. Argon, neon, H2 - also IR inactive.Water vapor? Water vapor doesn't force warming, it's forced by it, because atmospheric water vapor has such a short half-life of suspension due to the hydraulic cycle. So water vapor is irrelevant to climate change, as well - the atmosphere is always going to have just as much water vapor as it should, there's no way to have extra vapor because the excess simply falls out as rain.So, you're right. Just by taking out the gases that really aren't relevant to consideration, suddenly we're talking about a lot narrower graph. We're not lying; you are. The lies are coming from your side, the side that denies anthropogenic climate change. There is no time lag, so there's nothing to explain. Increased CO2 warms climate almost immediately. No, it is exactly the other way around - CO2 increases lead climate warming, which feeds back by releasing CO2 from temperature-sensitive sinks. There's no "time lag", that's a lie promoted by climate change denialists like yourself. I heard he's fat. Therefore climate change is a hoax, right?

Indeed, one way in which they're similar is that both evolution by natural selection and anthropogenic climate change are supported by an enormous weight of verified scientific evidence. Well, but you don't understand. Your frequent errors of fact make that abundantly clear. Are we supposed to pretend otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore that your arguments are wrong because you have no understanding of the underlying science and patronize you?I mean, make your choice, I guess. Do you want to be patronized or not? There is room for discussion. For instance, what is the best method to curb human greenhouse gas emissions? Should we structure the marketplace to make releasing carbon dioxide gas a more expensive proposition, and thus stimulate demand for alternative technologies? Or should we put top-down limits on emissions and allow businesses to trade emissions credits?Should we engage in geoengineering, or is that a risky proposition that may do more harm than good to the environment?As you can see, there's plenty of room for discussion about global warming. The policies are nowhere near as certain as the science. But you can't be a part of that discussion until you're on the same page as the rest of us. Until you're talking about reality instead of the made-up fantasy world of climate change denialists. The discussions about climate change are happening at the conferences you so recently lampooned. The discussions about evolution are happening in the offices and labs of biological sciences. If you want to be a part of those discussions, nobody is stopping you but you.

Only cranks are talking about those things because a vast weight of evidence, convincing to anyone who approaches the subject with an open mind, indicates that evolution is the scientifically accurate explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth, and that human activities are the primary cause of a recent and anomalous climate warming trend that stands to wreak an enormous cost on human society. The notions that climate change and evolution are hoaxes are not part of any serious discussion because these notions aren't serious. They're crank conspiracy theories. There are no serious shortfalls of evolution. (Nobody calls it "Darwinism" but creationists, because we've significantly expanded the theory since Darwin. For instance, evolution now is informed by molecular genetics. Because anthropogenic cause has been proven. (Anthropogenic effect seems stupidly obvious; obviously, we live on Earth so changes to Earth's climate would affect humans.) Anthropogenic cause is a reality. Being a part of a reality-based discussion means accepting reality. If you'd rather talk about a fantasy world, as you apparently insist on doing, that's fine, but that's not going to be a serious discussion. Al Gore is fat - therefore climate change is a hoax. Climate change deniers like yourself have no other argument.

Nobody replying to you is named "AlGorian." Please follow the forum guidelines and correctly attribute quoted material. You're exactly right.Therefore arguments about how many pixels CO2 would be are completely irrelevant. But we measure atmospheric CO2 in parts per million, not in the size of graphs or in pixels. These arguments of yours are irrelevant to the issue, as you've just proven. You came to our website, friend, and then immediately started calling people names. Complaining about the shoddy response is a bit rich, don't you think?

Oh, naturally. That must be why we're passing laws against pornography, making drugs illegal, telling people where they can or can't build a mosque, and dictating the contents of the nation's school textbooks.Oh, wait. That's not us doing any of those things at all, is it? They're not. You're simply making things up, like your made-up notion that CO2 is measured in pixels. I see a list of information about conferences, not any list of any individuals. Could you elaborate?

"Bring it on!" "Waah! Mommy, they hit me back!" Who is doing all this flying? Be specific. Who is "everyone who is anyone"? Be specific.Why do you give the impression that the "global warming proponents" you're railing against exist only in your mind? Why would 80% reduction in CO2 emission necessitate an 80% reduction in consumption? Be specific.

Ah, I see. Technological pollyannaism is ok when you do it. Why is it that when we show you science, you reply with celebrities?

Ok, but he's wrong - we just ended a decade that was the warmest decade in recorded history, and the warmest single year ever recorded was last year - 2010.That's not what it looks like when you're over the peak, that's what it looks like as you're headed up the hill. If you don't know who to believe, you can always go to the data yourself. And the data indicates that global warming is far from over.