Skeptic finds he now agrees global warming is real

[Common Sense Al]

Hey - I thought you were the guy that only like FACTS?!

No, I like opinions too, when they're right.

By the way, I'd say the guy's "opinion" is based on fact, but I know that you don't like fact when it disagrees with the GOP party line.

[JKTex]

Especially for you josh.

Climate Canard No. 1: A ‘Crime Against Humanity’ (and the Central Fear About Global Warming)

Hey - I thought you were the guy that only like FACTS?!

You're a funny guy!! Thanks for the Monday morning laugh!

[Uther]

Well, the *fact* is climate change is observable. At dispute is whether man-made pollutants are causing an accelerated cycle that might ultimately be detrimental to our survival. OTOH, I have my eye on a piece of prime real estate in Antarctica. Incidentally, you do know that the driest spot on earth is somewhere in Antarctica, right? It hasn't had rain or snowfall in so long it makes Death Valley look like a tropical rain forest.

[Common Sense Al]

At dispute is whether man-made pollutants are causing an accelerated cycle that might ultimately be detrimental to our survival.

I don't think "respectable & reputable" scientists dispute that. The consensus among "non-special interest scientists" is that this time it is man-made.

The world’s scientists report that computer models of earth’s climate over the past 130 years (during which earth’s temperature has been rising in step with the increasing injection of greenhouse gas into the air) show that if just one of the many variables fed to the computers is removed — the excess greenhouse emissions of the industrial age — then our current average temperatures would be flat or slightly cooling.

[FreecitizenFM]

Even Richard Muller, who was the subject of the original thread did not conclude it was manmade..he just acknowledged temperature changes..period. If one bothered to read the WSJ article referenced and not the Yahoo abridged, masticated, doctored version, one whould know that.

The most recent link is indeed another opinion piece stating the opinions of an Eco zealot. Since Hansen is using inflamatory terms like "Crimes against humanity" and calling for carbon taxes and the like- his motives become clear. In the absence of facts, his garbage opinion can therefore be disgarded... it just mimics the Far Left Extremist- Democratic agenda of taxing for the sake of power and redistribution.

Here's the link that Josh posted earlier: 31,000 is large number..
Here is a link to over 31,000 scientists who reject the idea of man-made global warming. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers as well.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Common Sense Al]

Even Richard Muller, who was the subject of the original thread did not conclude it was manmade..he just acknowledged temperature changes..period. If one bothered to read the WSJ article referenced and not the Yahoo abridged, masticated, doctored version, one whould know that.

Some important things to note with that:
1. "The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil."
2. Richard Muller did not conclude that it WASN'T man-made.
3. Richard Muller still said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels. I suspect if he did further study & research on the matter, then he would conclude #1 with the other climate scientists. It seems he is leaning that way since he still thinks CO2 should be reduced.

Here's the link that Josh posted earlier: 31,000 is large number..
Here is a link to over 31,000 scientists who reject the idea of man-made global warming. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers as well.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

I consider this garbage... truth isn't determined by how many people sign a petition or how many people think a certain way. There could easily be (and there probably is) an even larger petition of scientists who agree with man-made global warming, but it wouldn't mean anything (unless the people signing it were clearly climate scientists "in the know"). If you want the truth, then go to unbiased sources "in the know" & go to the facts, not a petition.

[FreecitizenFM]

Your suppositions are irrelevant. You want to draw conclusions from what was not stated by the scientist in question? The vague term "overwhelming majority" doesn't prove squat. It just means you can't attach a fact to your opinion.
Sorry, no sale..just more BS Al.

You consider the petion garbage because hard numbers interfere with your prejudices. The names scroll down one side incidentally..actual names of the signers not some "vast majority" named for political ends.

Where is that Petition you mention? Otherwise, 31497 trumps 1.

It would be interesting to know what your unbiased sources are since you apparently live in your own bubble. There is a whole wide world beyond the confines of Lantana.

[Common Sense Al]

Your suppositions are irrelevant. You want to draw conclusions from what was not stated by the scientist in question? The vague term "overwhelming majority" doesn't prove squat. It just means you can't attach a fact to your opinion.

The facts are there... I'm sure there are people who still think the moon landing didn't happen or that smoking is good for you, but what can you do?

Where is that Petition you mention? Otherwise, 31497 trumps 1.

Who cares? I'm not wasting time searching for it (you can if you want)... obviously you missed my point that truth isn't decided by how many people sign a petition, but you seem to think that.

It would be interesting to know what your unbiased sources are since you apparently live in your own bubble. There is a whole wide world beyond the confines of Lantana.

Sources: The consensus of global climate scientists who do the actual research, and NASA

But you keep believing what makes you feel better... I'm not going to waste more time on this.

[FreecitizenFM]

I agree that you opinion on this subject (and numerous others) is a waste of time. You keep bleating your opinion until others tire and/or high tail it when confronted with fact or numbers that run contrary to your prejudices.

I didn't miss your point- it just isn't worth taking it seriously. It, like so many of your opinions just repeats dubious garbage published by agenda driven outlets as if they were fact.

[Pipeline]

I agree that you opinion on this subject (and numerous others) is a waste of time. You keep bleating your opinion until others tire and/or high tail it when confronted with fact or numbers that run contrary to your prejudices.

I didn't miss your point- it just isn't worth taking it seriously. It, like so many of your opinions just repeats dubious garbage published by agenda driven outlets as if they were fact.

And I didn't have to tell him! Sweet.

[skiing1974]

I can't take a side in an issue that has been politicized as much as this one has been. And that is a shame (not that I can't a side, but the fact that it is simply a political game from both sides).

[sandy brake]

Here is an abstract from Chemical Biological Engineering published April 12:

"Our modern society must solve various severe problems to maintain and increase our quality of life: from water stress to global warming, to fossil fuel depletion, to environmental pollution. The process intensification (PI) strategy is expected to contribute to overcoming many of these issues by facilitating the transition from a resource-intensive to a knowledge-intensive industrial system that will guarantee sustainable growth. Membrane operations, which respond efficiently to the requirements of the PI strategy, have the potential to replace conventional energy-intensive separation techniques, which will boost the efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of separations as well as conversion processes.”

Example of recent Membrane Operations:

New Projects Explores Membrane Process to Convert Landfill Gas Into Useful Fuel; Multiple Test Sites Sought (January 2012)

"EPA recently awarded MTR with a contract to develop a simple and low cost membrane process to convert landfill gas and other dilute methane waste gas streams into useful fuel. Such streams, containing 10-40% methane, are often vented without capturing the fuel value (estimated at $US200-300 million per year), and contribute up to 1 Tg of methane to U.S." greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is the second largest contributor to global warming, after carbon dioxide.

Interesting

[FM7]

NCS Al:

Forget the number of signatures - read the Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research. The correlation to solar activity seems much more relevant than man-made CO2.

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_artic ... e_HTML.php

[Pipeline]

Methane is the second largest contributor to global warming, after carbon dioxide.

Interesting

So, outlaw jalapenos, BBQ, and kill all bovines, if you want to really control methane. I could quite possibly be the single largest contributor to methane gas pollution, anywhere. (passing gas and blaming it on the dog. Bad dog, bad dog, it wasn't me)

[Uther]

Synchronicity. I posted about methane in the other thread before I read this one.... cross my heart.