Actually, no, it doesn’t. Of course, the way Warmists are positioning the issue is that your use of fossil fuels (which is immoral, you know, at least for you. Not for the Warmists, otherwise known as Other Guy Syndrome)
Cold weather doesn’t mean climate change isn’t happening
It’s hard to think about climate change while most of the country is in a deep freeze – the Great Lakes are almost entirely frozen over and people on the East Coast are tunnelling out of their homes. But while this part of the planet is freezing, other parts are baking, which is why climate change requires a global perspective.
A snowball was thrown in the U.S. Senate this week by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a vocal climate change denier, in an attempt to show that the unseasonably cold weather outside is proof that humans are not making the planet warmer. What he was really showing is his ignorance about the difference between weather and climate.
The phrase “Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get,†invoked by climate scientists, means that the weather we see happening outside our windows is a short-term effect, while climate is a global average measured over a longer period of time. So to judge the planet by what’s happening in your own backyard is narrow thinking.
And, of course
But a recent experiment at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California has directly measured the warming effect of our carbon emissions, using data from instruments that measure the infrared radiation being reflected back to the ground by the atmosphere – the so-called greenhouse effect.
They found that the amount of radiation coming down increased between 2000 and 2010 in step with the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So, the effect is real. And since we are continuing to increase our carbon emissions, change will continue to happen, like it or not, both warm and cold.
Interesting. The greenhouse effect is mentioned, and then blamed, due to fossil fuels, for cold. Cult.
Don’t forget, though, that the uber-crazy warmth is coming sometime. In the future. They’re certain. Because their models have been such successes.
Except for all the verifiable, testable measurements you are right.
As I’ve pointed out ad nauseum, science Deniers will not recognize any evidence that disagrees with the tenet of their religious cult. Scientists could prove that CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation from the Earth and re-radiate some of it into the atmosphere causing warming and Deniers wouldn’t believe it. Oh, they did.
Did you read that paper that Teach mistakenly linked?
Little jeffery,
Did you read where they attributed the upswing in CO2 levels to the burning of fossil fuels? It looks a leap of faith from measurement to attribution.
Keep trying…
It is proven that CO2 has increased 40% in the past century.
It is proven that the CO2 increase comes from burning fossil fuels. (We know how much we’ve burned and how much CO2 released. We know the carbon isotope ratio differences between fossil fuel carbon and other carbon).
It is proven that the Earth is warming.
It is proven that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and re-radiates it.
It is proven that the micro- and macro- variations in atmospheric CO2 correlates directly with the amount infrared radiation back into the atmosphere.
Keep sucking… Keep Denying…
Keep sucking… Keep denying…
I misoverestimated your knowledge on the topic.
Let’s try a different approach. Common sense.
For some 1 million years the atmospheric CO2 has ranged between about 200 ppm (during glacial periods) and 280 ppm (interglacials).
Since the time that humans started burning fossil-fuels, CO2 has steadily increased to 400 ppm.
You may be the last person on Earth not to understand that burning fossil-fuels is adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
It is proven that CO2 has increased.
It is not proven that CO2 has increased the worlds temperature as a result.
That is conjecture. That is why they call it a theory.
Climate models attempted to predict the rate of warming if CO2 was the culprit.
The predictions did not come true. Therefore the theory at that time should have been discounted. However, it became politized.
Propaganda kicked in to create the illustion the earth warmed more than it did. Ridiculous predictions of doom was created so that a political ideology would be implimented to solve the problem. The lack of warming is hidden from the public and continues to be hidden.
Other solutions such as massive R&D into green energy are not as favored as social and economic engineering.
When CO2 was at this level in the past the world was thought to be warmer. Why is it not warmer now?
Warmers say CO2 causes warming. Skeptics say warming may cause CO2 rise. The world if warming has not warmed as predicted if CO2 is the cause.
The jury is still out. It has not been decided. The data is not clear.
Religious people worship god. Socialists worship the state. Envireomentists worship the earth. Warmers are not enviromentists. They are socialists wearing green hats.
Let’s create a 10 billion dollar prize to the first person or people or company that creates a marketable, viable, cost effective solution to the combustible engine and non fossil fuel electricity generation. Let’s put tax payer money into venture capital companies that have expertise in investing in risky projects. Then if they succeed so does the tax payer. Let’s not put the money into a big government pot subject to the raiding of charlatans who know how to game the system and get money on the pretence of solving the problem. Let’s build nuclear power plants. Almost all have been working without incident for decades. Yes they have their problems but not as bad as human extinction.
Most skeptics would be ok with these initiatives. Most warmers will not be because their objective is not to fight AGW but to change the playing field.
If these intiatives had been introduce in 1985 we may have made great progress by now but now instead we have committee meetings all over the world with no tangible results. Instead of meeting in Kyoto, The Mexican Riviara, Paris or Puru, how about Winnipeg in February. If these people had to pay for these trips themselves would they go?
If warmers really cared they would create a volutary carbon tax. They would voluntarily engage in carbon offsetting. Why don’t they.
Their response is “I’m not doing it untill everyone else is forced too.” That in a nutshell is the problem with their entire system.
If warmers want to convince skeptics, they need to give them hard numbers and real proof that Co2 is warming the earth more than it would otherwise. They need to abandon wealth distribution schemes to solve the problem. They need to make open debate more prevalent and not shut down discourse. Scientists need to publically endorse this theory with their names. The IPCC needs to be dismantled and replaced with expert meteorologists who are not anti-western, anti- capitalist bureaucrat, like the current bunch.
They need to stop lying to the public…
Sort of. CO2 is NOT the only contributing factor to the average global surface temperature. The models cannot account for unpredictable events such as El Nino, La Nina, volcanoes etc.
Why has it warmed slightly less rapidly than models predicted? Ask Teach and the Hockey Schticker – they call them excuses.
Phillip said:
“Let’s put tax payer money into venture capital companies that have expertise in investing in risky projects. Then if they succeed so does the tax payer.”
Not a great idea. Then we just get a whole bunch of companies like Solyndra that fail, but put a few hundred $million back into Democrat coffers before they fold to keep the scam going. And the worst part of all about it is we’ll end up with more Democrats in office!
Instead, offer a reward for success. You know, the way capitalism does every day. Say, if you can make energy for 4 cents (my favorite goal) per kWhr, you get $100million. If you can only make it for 5 cents, you get nothing.
Dear Kevin:
Yes that is a good point that I am aware of. My thought was that venture capitalist would be incentivized to invest wisely to prevent the concerns that you and I have. A better option to deal with tax payer investment than this could be created, or tax payers money can stay out of it.
Disscussions or dabates on how to impliment the strategy above would be a lot more constructive than the options IPCC offers.
I think a consensus would be found that would satify most people and then if AGW is true than this may help, and it is not then cleaner air and cheaper energy will be the by product.