World leaders were duped, investing billions over manipulated global warming data

No, the Little Ice Age was global temperature returning to normal after the Medieval Warm period. There is nothing natural about the last century of warming.

 

You're not suggesting that deforestation of the amazon is a natural source of climate change, are you?

 

The idea that there are natural causes of climate change is certainly not new. I suggest you read page xiii of the IPCC First Assessment Report Policymakers Summary, which specifically addresses this topic.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf

Reglaciation was never an immediate threat while global warming is. What is the saying about the first rule of holes?

 

Climate Change legislations are ruses,
of course we should do common sense approaches to pollutions, waste, etc.
But the Ice Caps are not melting, nor is the sky falling and this sudden need for solar panels, electric cars, etc.
just stop it.

 

True. It is not. Many, like folks including me have been including it in our conversations. The IPCC said, once, that as much as ~2C of warming could be expected because of natural warming per century. Obviously, this seems to be then problematic for those who have demonstrated that substantially less than that amount of warming has happened post 1865. Which leads directly to the viability of the differentiation distinction of AGW and naturally occurring warming.

I would point out that ongoing from around 1610 or so, reglaciation was in deed a very real phenomenon. It didn't take but a few centuries to recap the Alps, or the western northern Rockies, the Hymalayas, etc. So, the climate was developing, rapidly a reglaciation, hence the term "little ice age", and then it stopped. So, as a function of the abatement of the "little ice age", the question then becomes what is reasonably expected as a temperature rebound from it. IPCC says roughly ~2C. Clearly we aren't close to being there.

Seems to significantly undercut, then, the premise that AGW is somehow driving catastrophic warming.

 

I'm suggesting that deforestation is a major source of climate change.

 

You really need to post a "don't drink and read" warning for your posts. Are you really, actually suggesting that the "correct" climate of the planet is glaciation? LOL....

 

Deforestation contributes about 3 gigatones of CO2 to the atmosphere each year, compared to about 30 gigatones from fossil fuels. When it comes to climate change, that is a distant second.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...al-warming-carbon-emissions.html#.WKdfEEaQyCo

- - - Updated - - -

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it? Where did I ever suggest there is a "correct" climate?

 

I think you have been flying too high and the lack of oxygen is getting to your brain
In fact CO2 levels are now at dangerous lows going by the history of this planet, the only times its been lower is during the ice ages

 

Please tell me, how did humans ever survive before these "dangerous low" CO2 levels?

 

Im glad you asked that question and the answer is .Not very well . we almost went extinct during the ice age.

 

You overlooked the "before" part. How did humans fare when CO2 levels were not "dangerously low"?

 

It's a double whammy. When the trees are cut down "they release the carbon they are storing into the atmosphere" AND they can no longer absorb anymore either.

 

They have always been low since we came to be. But we certainly did better with them at 300-400 than with less. Cold kills more than heat

 

Current warming is natural.



When the average temperatures of this Inter-Glacial Period exceed those of the past, then you might possibly have a case.

 

The current understanding... let me get this straight, the current understanding is not assumptions based upon theories??? Current understandings is certainty stated by the scientists who created the data??? I think not... again you miss represent the science and the scientists by alluding to the a certainty they do not. As many, even you have stated there are no absolutes yet here you say they are not assumptions.

Clearly you give far more credit to the IPCC suggesting a body that takes the data compiled by other scientists to create policy in attempt to address climate change. Perhaps you should read the IPCC's charter, it might help you here.

May I point out my point has nothing to do with the science so posting any science is simply distracting from the point of you and others misrepresenting the science.

Well it is clear you don't understand the point about the poor, you don't understand the point of making claims of others they do not make themselves. HOWEVER, since the poor are the greatest suffers of political policy created by people who want to pretend they are such great moral and decent people, I would assume instead of bashing others into submission you would actually consider how devastating your policies are to the poor. You don't seem to care about them.

Will it??? Since you have hung your hat on the climate theories which have been created from an incomplete understanding of all drivers of climate is. However, that is again you misrepresenting the scientists because they do not pretend to understand the earths warming which is why they only suggest it may be "likely" humans are contributing since they have not even proven a correlation of CO2 to warming as you assume they have.

I am not responding to what you are saying because you are creating strawman arguments and demanding I defend them. Sorry but YOU are the best quotes I can provide for people misrepresenting the science and demanding everybody adhere to your ideas of what is happening. You can defend it quoting your links and so forth, but the truth is, you mislead the forum suggesting the science is definitive evidence to prove YOUR ideals of what the climate is doing, and yet, you agree that the science is not absolute.

If you want somebody to argue your logical fallacies, go and find the gullible alarmists. BUT until you actually understand the science is far from conclusive or even close to comprehending what is occurring then you’re always going to lie about what the science is actually saying...

 

World leaders weren't duped.

They embraced it. They saw it as a vote winner and a tax raiser. And that in itself was reason enough for them to pursue it.

 

From your link:

Where do you think the other 71% of global carbon emissions come from?

 

If you think warmer temperatures are the only affect of global warming, then you're not paying attention.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

 

The Milankovitch Cycles which explain glacial/inter-glacial periods are very predictable have been in a cooling phase for the last 10,000 years, so current warming is not natural.

http://www.climatedata.info/forcing/milankovitch-cycles/

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand, it is not the magnitude or direction of temperature change that is the problem, it is the rate of change.

 

It fails to take into account what the cut down trees would take in, but nice try.

 

Yes. Current understanding is FAR more than "assumptions based on theories". And, let's remember that a theory in science is not the same as a civilian theory. In science, a theory is established only through extensive investigation, testing and review, and thus represents the best knowledge that science can produce.

Again, I didn't quote anything from the IPCC. So, you can stop complaining about me doing that. However, I will point out that the IPCC is a totally logical direction for addressing a problem such as climate where all nations are affected and where all nations are making research progress and where all solutions must be implement through public policy, and are thus political.

I haven't proposed any policies. So, you can stop your noise about that, too.

You say

Then you turn around and suggest that almost every scientist contributing to climatology is wrong!! And, you claim I'm misrepresenting science!!

Sorry - you can't have it both ways. Either you have no scientific argument (in which case stop talking about the science) or you do (in which case, you need to support your argument by citing something).

 

Complete BS. A theory is an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events. I believe you put the cart before the horse or the common statement of “testing a theory “ would not exist…

please point to where I stated, inferred or just suggested you did. You did however, suggest that the IPCC does science and now you agree that it is nothing more than a political group.

Again, look at the thread, look at the forum you’re on and stop pretending you can be oblivious to the policies and how they affect the world.

Seriously, stop building strawman. I stated no such thing I simply demonstrate how YOU misrepresent the scientists and their study to support your beliefs.

So in your opinion, if a person is laying fabricated claims of science they MUST have a scientific argument??? Since the point has nothing to do with science then NO, YOU fail again. Linking science of any kind which you then run about trying to demonstrate your supposed superior intellect with the science when the point is NOT the science but what YOU claim is being said.

Even on this page you claim the theory of science is a tested and proven fact which is factually untrue. Theory is the supposition of to what could be happening to explain certain events. You then need to test that theory to ascertain IF the theory holds up. Then it becomes fact, not theory…

 

Yes, theories explain how something works. No, theories don't ever get to the point that they aren't tested.

I didn't say that.

I stand by what I said. I haven't discussed the relative merits of any policy that could have been made due to climate impact.

I quoted you and stand by what I said.

No. Hypotheses get formed and tested. If they hold up, they may become theory. There is NOTHING stronger than theory that science produces. In science, a fact is a recorded observation - like a temp taken with a certain instrument at a specific place and time.

It's the "theory of relativity", the "theory of evolution", etc. - these are not facts, though they have been tested for decades and continue to be tested. There is no end to verification.

 

The Earth has been in a warming phase for the last 12,000 years, which is why the glaciers disappeared and have not returned to encroach upon Middle America,

The rate of change is not a problem.

Global Warming is not a problem either, when you consider the alternative is deadly Global Cooling.