Your argument still relies on a conspiracy theory. It requires every single climate scientist to collude. AND it, again, requires all other scientists (who aren't receiving these grants) to collude (for no reason I might add) with the climate scientists.

Claiming that climate scientists have created global warming in order to keep their jobs is just as ludicrous as arguing that medical doctors created cancer just to treat more patients.

You've also failed to delineate the difference between receiving a grant from an unbiased source (public funding) vs receiving money from a biased source (private funding).

The government does not care whether or not your study concludes that climate change exists. That's how grants work, they're unbiased.

Meanwhile, private grants are specifically designed to pay 'experts' to conclude and enforce an already existing belief/viewpoint.

Your lack of knowledge of the basic workings of science is shocking to say the least.



A well articulated and intelligent response.

Pretty much what I expected.

Except not all climate scientists agree, hell they asked TWO broad generalizations on the poll only took 77 answers into consideration and still had 2 who disagreed.
And you saying government grants are unbiased is laughable.

This post was edited by Lifebane99 on May 26 2013 08:29pm

You're still misinterpreting the point of that study.

You're becoming too thick to even debate.

You can't from a rational argument, you rely on red herrings and strawmen. Every argument you make incorporates at least one denialist tactic and you continually ignore science and basic statistics.

I am thick?
You say ALL scientists agree CONSTANTLY.
This is not the case.
Period.
Your alarmist tactics fail.

This post was edited by Lifebane99 on May 26 2013 08:38pm

"85 - 90% of the 33C elevation of GMT is due to W.vapour.
Thus the GG's are responsible for 10-15% (3.3 - 5C)

MM CO2 emissions are ~27E9 tons so allowing for MM CH4 emissions (3.0E9tons CO2 equivalent), total MM GG's are around 30.0E9tons (2005)

Total atmospheric CO2 = 3.0E12 tons (2005)

Thus MM GG contribute 1% of 3.3-5C (.033-.05C)

To double total atmospheric CO2 content from 3.0E12 to 6.0E12 solely from MM CO2 @ current increase of 30.E9/a requires 200years. (385ppm to 770ppm assuming all CO2 remains in atmosphere - wrong but never mind).

Assume direct lineal warming effect (wrong but never mind)GG's would then contribute to a further GMT rise of 3.3-5C over 200 years. This is 1.65-2.5 C /century.
or .17 - .25C/decade.

GISS data for land/Oceans:
1980-1990 show a rise of .15C
1990-2000 show a rise of .15C
2000-2007 show a rise of .10C

GISS data for met. stations:
1980-1990 show a rise of .15C
1990-2000 show a rise of .19C
2000-2007 show a rise of .12C

So it looks like we can expect GMT to rise from around 14 to 15.5 by 2107"

No easily purposefully misinterpreted graphs, just numbers. Quoted from a post on the human CO2 article on skepticalscience.

Is there perhaps excess carbon in the atmosphere that cannot be cycled due to human emissions? Yes. Is it significant? Probably not in the sense of our lifespans. In addition to that, some correlation does not imply causation. With just maybe a hundred years worth of data is not enough time to establish the validity of the relationship.

"In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years"

Nah bro 100% of scientists agree.

@ Bold - This is actually a fallacy. If P (CO2 emissions) imply Q (warming) it doesn't mean the relationship is invalid if Q is happening without P. There are other factors that contribute to higher temperatures and when temperatures go up it can cause CO2 to increase as well.
We actually have understood the causal link that CO2 would cause the Earth to trap heat for over 100 years and is something that has never been in dispute.

On top of that if we release CO2 and it causes temperatures to rise that can reinforce water vapor being more concentrated in the atmosphere and can increase the temperature further indirectly without CO2 being the primary cause so the criticism that it isn't man made because it is also caused by water vapor is bunk as well, its a much more complex system than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A
Here's also a fully cited video debunking the 800 year lag myth explaining how CO2 tends to lead warming in the southern hemisphere, but lags in the northern.



Fact of the matter about anthropological climate change is that there is very little debate and we are very close to an overwhelming consensus of data at this point. There are only something like 2 papers a year published that deny human-caused global warming, and after you take out weather-girls ("meteorologists") and scientists of completely unrelated fields there is almost nobody left on the lists of deniers.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 27 2013 03:49am

It is happening without doubt, the degree to which it will effect us is the debate.

The flipside of climate change will cause the antarctic to melt is what I said, while you suggested it was a positive thing about climage change that the ice is melting because there will be more fresh water.
And the Antarctic is losing it's ice mass, the sea ice that grows back in the winter doesn't constitute for the ice mass that it has lost, Antarctica is more then only sea ice.


(Monthly changes in Antarctic ice mass, in gigatones, as measured by NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites from 2003 to 2011. Image credit: NASA-JPL/Caltech; NASA GSFC; CU-Boulder; Technical University of Munich; Technical University of Denmark; Delft University of Technology, Aerospace Engineering, Netherlands; Durham University, UK; Leeds University, UK )

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

you consider public sources to be unbiased? That's a first.