Fracking Has Reduced US C02 Emissions

[Anonymous]

I posted this one by George Carlin a while back. Gawd, that man was funny. He sure nails this whole anti-scientific silliness.

[RW]

You better send that shit to Nasa because they didn't get the memo.

[Anonymous]

You better send that shit to Nasa because they didn't get the memo.

Actually, they did and the people there that are interested in real science are fed up with Schmidt and former director Hansen's activism instead of science.

Some prominent voices at NASA are fed up with the agency's activist stance toward climate change.



The following letter asking the agency to move away from climate models and to limit its stance to what can be empirically proven, was sent by 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.



The letter criticizes the Goddard Institute For Space Studies especially, where director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been outspoken advocates for action.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4#ixzz3LRXLGrmc">http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-sci ... z3LRXLGrmc">http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4#ixzz3LRXLGrmc

A former NASA scientist described global warming as "nonsense," dismissing the theory that climate change is a man-made problem, and advocated that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame recent UK floods on human activity, the latest reports indicate.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6802/20140429/former-nasa-scientist-says-climate-change-is-nonsense.htm">http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles ... nsense.htm">http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6802/20140429/former-nasa-scientist-says-climate-change-is-nonsense.htm

Consensus building is for Asian politics, not science. A hypothesis has to proven by scientific evidence not failed computer models, fudged data or claiming other scientists wholeheartedly agree with you. There is nothing scientific about such an approach.

[RW]

It was a review of studies that formed that consensus not a bunch of scientists getting together and agreeing.

[Obvious Li]

no..it was faulty computer modelling that misinformed some of the more gullible among us.......and by the way ...there is no consensus.....

[RW]

no..it was faulty computer modelling that misinformed some of the more gullible among us.......and by the way ...there is no consensus.....

Faulty computer modelling is to blame for over a decade worth of scientific research around climate change?

[RW]

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.



National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:



Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]

Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]

Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7]

The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8]

The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9]



No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.



...



The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June 2009[18] that: Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change_.28IPCC.29_2014">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... CC.29_2014">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change_.28IPCC.29_2014

[Obvious Li]

RW..you should know by now there is an equal amount of wikidata that would say the exact opposite.....which is why i say there is no consensus....there are endless sources of information to support either position.....personally i believe what my eyes and surroundings tell me.....not what some alarmist bureaucrat applying for a grant opines.....there is no way to get around this fact....the scientific community uses computer modelling to predict climate changes...AND the IPCC has been proven over and over to have been using faulty and erroneous data for years....they have zero credibility outside of the climate change industry and the political left.....i do not dispute that the climate is changing..of course it is.....it makes more sense to develop technology to live with these changes rather than destroy whole economies on the off chance that maybe, just maybe, at some future date...Al Gore`s house in the hamptons may get water in the basement.....sorry me and 5 billion other people just don;t care that much...... ac_umm

[RW]

I'm just not seeing a lot of opposition to climate change.  I'm seeing issues around the causes and the effects, but not that it's occurring.  I'm also not seeing the same dissension outside of media sources.



Read the article Munday.

[Obvious Li]

I'm just not seeing a lot of opposition to climate change.  I'm seeing issues around the causes and the effects, but not that it's occurring.  I'm also not seeing the same dissension outside of media sources.



Read the article Munday.

i`m not seeing a lot of opposition to climate change as well..however, there seems to be two camps as to it`s source......one camp blames it on man made production of GHG`s particularly CO2 and the other believes it is caused by the sun and it`s relationship to earth`s climate.....i fall in the latter

[RW]

So you agree with me :)

[Anonymous]

I am getting really tired of the extreme skeptic and extreme alarmist side of this issue.



Do the extreme skeptics really believe man has had no impact on his surroundings? Do they really believe man has had no impact at all on our climate? I cannot believe their recalcitrance. They don't have to believe that climate Armageddon is around the corner, but to say climate is affected by a variety of factors including man would make them seem a little more reasonable.



Do the extreme alarmists really believe we have not experienced climate warming in the past? We have and much warmer than any changes we have experienced today. Record keeping has been a recent event in the long life of our earth. It has also changed compliments of technology which is why I wonder how any organization can seriously say with certainty that this year is the warmest year ever. The 1930's were a very hot and dry decade, but data collecting has changed a lot in the past eight five years.



Another thing that causes the hairs on the back of my neck to stand up is when extreme alarmists tell us the debate is over. Excuse me, when someone wants to spend my money on schemes to reduce carbon emissions, they better not tell me the debate is over. That is what the Ontario Liberal government told us when they forced their expensive pet green energy projects on us. From what I have read, Europe has had a similar experience as us.



It's too bad that a moderate position was not at the forefront, that climate is changing a little and man is most likely responsible for at least part of it although other factors are part of it too as they always have been. Investments from the private sector could be made in market based ways to adapt to continual climate change. The current approach of carbon emission deal cuts is not a serious approach because the developing world will always cheat. Unfortunately, the foremost authority on climate change, the IPCC has become the most unreliable in it's predictions and will not consider any other approach besides meaningless international deals on carbon cuts.

[RW]

I agree there is no consensus on the impacts of climate change, what we can do to mitigate it, or how responsible we are for it.

[Anonymous]

Do the extreme skeptics really believe man has had no impact on his surroundings? Do they really believe man has had no impact at all on our climate? I cannot believe their recalcitrance. They don't have to believe that climate Armageddon is around the corner, but to say climate is affected by a variety of factors including man would make them seem a little more reasonable.

Fuck, I know climate is in flux as it always has been. Even if one believes the doom and gloom scenarios the United Nitwits uses to scare small children we could reverse it by switching from coal to natural gas for power and more importantly replanting the thousands and thousands of acres of the Indonesian and Brazilian rain forests which suck up C02. Also, the hypocrites could walk the talk. No more carbon intensive getaways to exotic locations by the international  community. How are we supposed to take these clowns seriously?

[Renee]

Do the extreme skeptics really believe man has had no impact on his surroundings? Do they really believe man has had no impact at all on our climate? I cannot believe their recalcitrance. They don't have to believe that climate Armageddon is around the corner, but to say climate is affected by a variety of factors including man would make them seem a little more reasonable.

Fuck, I know climate is in flux as it always has been. Even if one believes the doom and gloom scenarios the United Nitwits uses to scare small children we could reverse it by switching from coal to natural gas for power and more importantly replanting the thousands and thousands of acres of the Indonesian and Brazilian rain forests which suck up C02. Also, the hypocrites could walk the talk. No more carbon intensive getaways to exotic locations by the international  community. How are we supposed to take these clowns seriously?

You can't because it has become a "for profit" issue. The extremists on both sides of the issue are making a lot of money promoting their point of view and greed has become the driving force pro and con.