Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says[W:46]

smb said:

Not at all. Clinton sent Gore to endorse the Treaty but the treaty is WORTHLESS until it is ratified by the senate and signed by the president. And that happened...never.

Its really NOT about what the presidents did or did not do. Its about the Global Warming crowd and their tendency to find their voice ONLY when it is a republican in the White House.

Click to expand...

You stated just a few posts ago and I quote....



Now you are saying he may of signed it but Congress didn't ratify it. Ergo your original statement above is eithr wrong or you were intentionally trying to mislead people. Either way it doesn't matter.

The idea of relegating climate change to partisan issue is assanine.

To your point about "junk" science you are fool if you do not believe there is good science backing up AGW. The indication of which dates back to 1883. We know for a FACT that CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation and deflects it back in all directions. Solar radiation is predominantly short wave. Ergo Short wave comes in heats up the earth the earth emits long-wave radiation. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more heat gets radiated back to the earth. This really is eigth grade science. It is not junk science. It is provable, observable and recreatable.[/QUOTE]But it IS a partisan issue and you know it. Its no different than the gay community getting all up in arms over Mormon opposition to gay marriage but remaining tragically silent when the Conference of Black Ministers announces an open declaration on gay marriage. The Global Warming crowd has been silent for 6 years and will remain so when (as I believe) a democrat is elected in 2016. But should a republican be elected? We will go right back to the protests and demonstrations and demands that we save the planet that we saw for 8 years during the Bush presidency. Politics? Sure...but politics coupled with mindless ideology...thats...sad.

Did Clinton submit the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for passage? Did he push for ratification? At ANY time during the 4 years of his second admin?

Dont bother...we know the answer.

How about the fact that they don't even put co2 and temperatures on the same graph any longer... it's the simple point that then it becomes too obvious that co2 has no significant causative effect... it's really just a weak influence on climate that has a correlation with temperatures.

VanceMack said:

But it IS a partisan issue and you know it. Its no different than the gay community getting all up in arms over Mormon opposition to gay marriage but remaining tragically silent when the Conference of Black Ministers announces an open declaration on gay marriage. The Global Warming crowd has been silent for 6 years and will remain so when (as I believe) a democrat is elected in 2016. But should a republican be elected? We will go right back to the protests and demonstrations and demands that we save the planet that we saw for 8 years during the Bush presidency. Politics? Sure...but politics coupled with mindless ideology...thats...sad.

Did Clinton submit the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for passage? Did he push for ratification? At ANY time during the 4 years of his second admin?

Dont bother...we know the answer.

Click to expand...

Again YOU stated that Bill Clinton did not SIGN Kyoto. That was incorrect. He did. Whether or not he submitted for ratification is not what YOU SAID. You stated point blank that he did not SIGN Kyoto. That was in error. Either in error through ignorance or in error as deliberate attempt to decieve. I don't care which. It was in error. Your inability to accept that fact notwithstanding. It seems silly because it is in black and white for everyone to see. I cannot say that I am suprised though given the fact that the science behind AGW is sound, provable, recreatable and also in black and white and you fail to accept for what admit are partisan reasons.

I find the fact that you believe this to be a partisan as sad and pathetic.

smb said:

Again YOU stated that Bill Clinton did not SIGN Kyoto. That was incorrect. He did. Whether or not he submitted for ratification is not what YOU SAID. You stated point blank that he did not SIGN Kyoto. That was in error. Either in error through ignorance or in error as deliberate attempt to decieve. I don't care which. It was in error. Your inability to accept that fact notwithstanding. It seems silly because it is in black and white for everyone to see. I cannot say that I am suprised though given the fact that the science behind AGW is sound, provable, recreatable and also in black and white and you fail to accept for what admit are partisan reasons.

I find the fact that you believe this to be a partisan as sad and pathetic.

Click to expand...

If I 'sign' something that has no validity and I never tak the steps to make it valid, then have I really 'signed' anything?

The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is merely symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified.
Clinton administration

On 25 July 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd–Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[83][84] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On 12 November 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[85] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

Symbolic bull**** that meant nothing, did nothing, was never acted on, and was ignored by the global warming activists until Bush became president.

VanceMack said:

Oh I believe in science...just not the mindless junk science that is continuously promoted by the AGW crowd. The one constant in the push to prove that man has created Global Warming (again...notice how you capitulate on the global warming and lower the bar...please...GAWD let us prove man is somehow INFLUENCING the climate change) is that the science has NOT proven that man is causing global warming. Hell, they have to create computer models and manipulate data to try and get it to show what it is 'supposed' to show.

Click to expand...

Capitulate on global warming? Wth are you even talking about? I've explained the labels like 4 times now, and you still don't get it.

The evidence of global warming? Do you know what "research" is? Surely you're capable of finding this information yourself? The evidence is overwhelming, thousands of pages of it. Here it is in case you can't find it.

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

You believe in science but not agw science?

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That lists the consensus and all of the major institutions back agw. What you're looking at is "the science".

You don't believe in science, you believe in "alternative" science. Which means fringe groups that have little to no credibility and obvious ulterior motivations. You believe in junk science.

JohnWOlin said:

Let's take out of the equation the effects on the planet. **** the planet. Honestly, I won't be around when the effects really come through and it isn't just crazy weather so let's look at what we can do that benefits you and I right now. We aren't so different. What if we had roads that had solar panels in them that did a bunch of badass ****?



What if you powered your car off of the badass solar roads? What it's like to own a Tesla Model S - A cartoonist's review of his magical space car - The Oatmeal

So just think, you would have everything better, cheaper in the long run and you would be LIVING IN THE ****ING FUTURE. How can you not get behind that?

Click to expand...

Because we shouldn't push distinct technology on the basis of what we think the future is going to look like.

Or whether or not it will be " bad ass ".

Solar is extremely inneficient and its also expensive and its not new technology by any stretch of the imagination.

Decisions on which technology to support and fund shouldn't be predicated on hyperbolic threats of our imminent destruction.

The Pro AGW crowd needs to understand that it has a huge credibility problem.

When you Politicize Science and technology and then tell people that "You can save the world from certain doom " but only if the American public pays up, dont be surprised when a large portion of the population tells you to go pound sand.

Verax said:

Capitulate on global warming? Wth are you even talking about? I've explained the labels like 4 times now, and you still don't get it.

The evidence of global warming? Do you know what "research" is? Surely you're capable of finding this information yourself? The evidence is overwhelming, thousands of pages of it. Here it is in case you can't find it.

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

You believe in science but not agw science?

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That lists the consensus and all of the major institutions back agw. What you're looking at is "the science".

You don't believe in science, you believe in "alternative" science. Which means fringe groups that have little to no credibility and obvious ulterior motivations. You believe in junk science.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you kind of lose a little credibility when you tell people the worlds gonna end unless they pay you.

Because thats essentially what the Pro AGW crowd is saying.

Pay us because your'e destroying our planet.

Pay us or your'e a selfish denier and want to destroy the environment.

Its such BS.

Fenton said:

Sorry, you kind of lose a little credibility when you tell people the worlds gonna end unless they pay you.

Because thats essentially what the Pro AGW crowd is saying.

Pay us because your'e destroying our planet.

Pay us or your'e a selfish denier and want to destroy the environment.

Its such BS.

Click to expand...

You're distorting what's actually being said.

Verax said:

Capitulate on global warming? Wth are you even talking about? I've explained the labels like 4 times now, and you still don't get it.

The evidence of global warming? Do you know what "research" is? Surely you're capable of finding this information yourself? The evidence is overwhelming, thousands of pages of it. Here it is in case you can't find it.

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

You believe in science but not agw science?

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That lists the consensus and all of the major institutions back agw. What you're looking at is "the science".

You don't believe in science, you believe in "alternative" science. Which means fringe groups that have little to no credibility and obvious ulterior motivations. You believe in junk science.

Click to expand...

So...you have proof that man is causing "Global Warming"? No...wait...you have proof that man is "influencing climate change".

Awesome. The 'scientists' that are continuously manipulating raw data to excuse or justify why the data isnt showing what its 'supposed' to show will be so excited.

Threegoofs said:

Wouldn't a five year moving average be a bit more....honest?

Click to expand...

Not really, acceleration is change velocity over a change in time, in this case the velocity is the increase in temperature.
calculating from an average temp/time would lead to ambiguous results.

Fenton said:

Sorry, you kind of lose a little credibility when you tell people the worlds gonna end unless they pay you.

Because thats essentially what the Pro AGW crowd is saying.

Pay us because your'e destroying our planet.

Pay us or your'e a selfish denier and want to destroy the environment.

Its such BS.

Click to expand...

:lamo

Such a silly mischaracterization.

smb said:

Thanks for the link. To me doing the data that way is a flawed way of looking at the data. The reason is it pulling data from random specific years does not take into account outliers and has a tendency to miss the large picture. A more accurate representation would be to take an average of each decade and compare them that way. That has its own problems also (taking and average of an average is fraught with inaccuracy). Their are two possible ways to get a better more accurate representation of the data. One is to perform a year by year comparison of each decades average. The second way is plot a line chart with all the data. If you apply a line chart it becomes much easier to see. You can however see it also straight from the chart. It isn't that easy but one quick way to gauge is just on the sheer number of negative temperature (temp drops). They completely disappear after 1994. If you again look closer at the chart you can tell that while the numbers may not be getting too much higher than where they were in the 90's and early 2000's the lower numbers are not anywhere near the lower numbers for the 90's.

Click to expand...

Not for calculating acceleration, for acceleration it is better to start from a fixed time/speed.
the bottom line was the decade to decade temperature was accelerating at .39 C per decade from 1993 to 2003,
from 2003 to 2013 the acceleration dropped to only .01 C per decade.
you can calculate it other ways, but that is the data.

VanceMack said:

So...you have proof that man is causing "Global Warming"? No...wait...you have proof that man is "influencing climate change".

Awesome. The 'scientists' that are continuously manipulating raw data to excuse or justify why the data isnt showing what its 'supposed' to show will be so excited.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is proof that man is causing global warming. You seem to have some kind of bizarre obsession with labels and semantics.

Oh so now you're back to the global science conspiracy involving every major institution in the world.

You're a truther.

longview said:

Not really, acceleration is change velocity over a change in time, in this case the velocity is the increase in temperature.
calculating from an average temp/time would lead to ambiguous results.

Click to expand...

What?

That's just an embarrassing retort.

I expected better from you. Really.

Verax said:

Yes, that is proof that man is causing global warming. You seem to have some kind of bizarre obsession with labels and semantics.

Oh so now you're back to the global science conspiracy involving every major institution in the world.

You're a truther.

Click to expand...

Lol...I bet you actually believe this also.

VanceMack said:

If I 'sign' something that has no validity and I never tak the steps to make it valid, then have I really 'signed' anything?

The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is merely symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified.
Clinton administration

On 25 July 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd–Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[83][84] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing nations as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On 12 November 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[85] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

Symbolic bull**** that meant nothing, did nothing, was never acted on, and was ignored by the global warming activists until Bush became president.

Click to expand...

Symbolic gestures ARE very important in politics especially international politics. That said again YOU were the one that stated clearly that Bill Clinton did NOT sign the Kyoto Accords. Now you are saying he did. Whether or not it is symbolic it is proof that your original characterization of him doing nothing was wrong and misleading.

BmanMcfly said:

Lol...I bet you actually believe this also.

Click to expand...

I am still waiting for you to provide that link to your super secret climate denier data.

longview said:

Not for calculating acceleration, for acceleration it is better to start from a fixed time/speed.
the bottom line was the decade to decade temperature was accelerating at .39 C per decade from 1993 to 2003,
from 2003 to 2013 the acceleration dropped to only .01 C per decade.
you can calculate it other ways, but that is the data.

Click to expand...

That is not how you would calculate whether warming is accelerating or not. The reason for that is because as I said before, choosing a random year can skew the results because of outliers. The only worthwhile way to view it is on a single line graph with all the temperatures put in place. Not just choosing single year points and comparing them.

smb said:

That is not how you would calculate whether warming is accelerating or not. The reason for that is because as I said before, choosing a random year can skew the results because of outliers. The only worthwhile way to view it is on a single line graph with all the temperatures put in place. Not just choosing single year points and comparing them.

Click to expand...

That is a proper method of calculating acceleration, over a fixed unit of time, and my time frame was not random but an even decade.
the start of my timing also was not random, as I started with the most current date.
I will see if I have time to run the series in year by year.
The reality, is I did not know how the data would turn out until I ran the difference series, I accepted the results because I followed proper methodology.
You did not like the results, because it was counter to what you have been told.

Verax said:

:lamo

Such a silly mischaracterization.

Click to expand...

Such a dishonest rebuttal, but then again the Pro AGW people aren't known for their integrity.

From Carbon Taxes to grant money to paying more for energy due to stupid new regulations, the Sky is falling false narrative has always been about money.

Al Gore didn't sell his network to a Company that makes Solar panels and he has a tendency to purchase property on the very same coast lines that, according to him are going to soon be under water.

You're just too dishonest to admit it.

Fenton said:

Such a dishonest rebuttal, but then again the Pro AGW people aren't known for their integrity.

From Carbon Taxes to grant money to paying more for energy due to stupid new regulations, the Sky is falling false narrative has always been about money.

Al Gore didn't sell his network to a Company that makes Solar panels and he has a tendency to purchase property on the very same coast lines that, according to him are going to soon be under water.

You're just too dishonest to admit it.

Click to expand...

:lamo

Did the radio tell you this? Right before they go into their commercial asking you to buy gold before Obama ruins the U.S.

Verax said:

:lamo

Did the radio tell you this? Right before they go into their commercial asking you to buy gold before Obama ruins the U.S.

Click to expand...

So there are no such things as Carbon taxes ?

And Obama's war on Coal and Coal fired plants wont raise electricity rates ?

Al Gore didn't take Petroleum money for his network ?

Why is it that the pro AGW people always devolve down into insolent chidren when they are called out on their BS ?

You didn't address one thing I said, didn't try to counter it, you just turned into a 5 year old.

More evidence of the huge credibility issue the pro-AGW side has I guess.

Fenton said:

So there are no such things as Carbon taxes ?

And Obama's war on Coal and Coal fired plants wont raise electricity rates ?

Al Gore didn't take Petroleum money for his network ?

Why is it that the pro AGW people always devolve down into insolent chidren when they are called out on their BS ?

You didn't address one thing I said, didn't try to counter it, you just turned into a 5 year old.

More evidence of the huge credibility issue the pro-AGW side has I guess.

Click to expand...

I'll talk to you like an adult when you act like one.

Fenton said:

So there are no such things as Carbon taxes ?

And Obama's war on Coal and Coal fired plants wont raise electricity rates ?

Al Gore didn't take Petroleum money for his network ?

Why is it that the pro AGW people always devolve down into insolent chidren when they are called out on their BS ?

You didn't address one thing I said, didn't try to counter it, you just turned into a 5 year old.

More evidence of the huge credibility issue the pro-AGW side has I guess.

Click to expand...

You will come to expect that sort of thing from the AGW side. It's very very similar to the experience of debating with the God squad.

smb said:

I am still waiting for you to provide that link to your super secret climate denier data.

Click to expand...

Ok, do you know what RAW data is?

This response implies that you don't.