Cure for Global Warming? Pollution!

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/31/nasa-climate-data-worse-than-east-anglia-cru/

"The study" concerns temperature changes over the next couple of centuries. To that, the last couple of centuries is most relevant.
Looking millions or billions of years into the past is of peripheral importance.

If you want to speculate about temperatures five million years from now, be my guest. I won't have much of an opinion about whether they'll be higher or lower, nor will I care. But don't try to make the present question of climate change about that, because it isn't.

Where is the evidence that correlation happened to be causation that day?

Oh, a right-wing blog! How exciting!

Translation- I can't handle these facts so I will attack the source!

Typical.

There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the CRU data. That NASA data is unfavorably compared with it means nothing unless you've swallowed that kool aid in the first place.

But your left-wing and socialist sources are lily-white pristine pure places to get information.

I take my information on this matter from the scientific community.

I'm aware that you regard those people to be part of a socialist plot, but still...

:headinsand:


(New smilie! : headinsand

Talk about making shit up.

Yes, it is relevant.

It shows that the Earth is not only capable of, but historically has had large variances of climate change and will continue to do so, with or without our existence and "interference".

It is VERY relevant if that history shows that the Earth's temperature is constantly shifting. If it shows a pattern of warming and cooling and our current temps fit into that pattern it is very relevant. In fact all of these things are true. Anyone who says the climate patterns of earth's history are not relevant is either stupid or a member of the Church of AGW. In your case likely both.

That the climate varies naturally over time is not under dispute. It takes a large degree of ignorance about the subject to repeatedly use that fact as some sort of "gotcha".

To the question of whether temperatures will increase in the short-term (i.e. decades, centuries), data from the short-term is what is relevant. This is elementary logic, but it seems that even elementary logic can't prevent some from reaching into their big bag of denialist tropes.

For you to use the word logic is

Supposing your short term temp rise fits in on the long-term curve we've been discussing. That has a very different implication than if it doesn't. In science (as opposed to the Church of AGW) you can't pull one piece of a curve and extrapolate from it. The reason you don't look at the long term trend is because our current rise does fit into the long term curve quite well. Thus it disproves your faith based conclusion so you ignore it and try to pretend it's not important. Ridiculous.

FTFY

Yes. However, Rick refuses to do this, insisting we're not allowed to look more than 100 years ago. He makes no sense.

The original claim which you defended was that the short-term data sample was "completely worthless". That is false.
Nevertheless, I agree with this new statement. Does the long-term curve show the temperature increasing at the same rate as the short-term rise?

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Why must this be a point of contention? Global temperature gathering is relatively new as far as the Earth's age is concerned - heck, even the age of human existance.

So, some movies and some media have hyped this to be something spectacular. Does that mean anyone discussing the issue must be harpooned by "the other side"? - regardless of which side they're on - which is usually anyone saying that it might be man-made?

I truly don't understand the adamant resistance to the idea that human beings might be causing an environmental change in regards to global temperature.

I also don't understand the idea that people should live in filth because "it's not really doing any damage."

Ok, I've never been a fan of Global Warming/AGW because how politicized it is. There are so many factors, symptoms and theories that we'll never find the underlying cause. Those who are obsessed with AGW being caused by man ignore geological and geographical factors and causes, and that annoys me to no end.
Conversely, those who are fixated by natural causes (how many volcanoes have erupted in the last decade? How many natural disasters have fucked up major urban areas and dramatically changed energy needs on the short term on the local scale?) need consider how man affects the environment -- and I consider myself in this category.

The fact is, in the end, if the planet warms or cools, in the long run it doesn't fucking matter -- we adapt or we die. Enough with the panic mongering, character assassinations, projecting, rewriting history, etc, etc and just do the simple things like recycling, riding bicycles, etc. Those are aesthetic and quality of life things (who the fuck likes the sight of clear-cut forests?; biking's good for your legs and cardiovascular health).

To concede that we're doing damage would be to concede that perhaps we should stop. Powerful people do not want to change how the economy works, and Rightieforge have to do as their masters say.

They'd rather die than adapt. It's that simple.

We already know that the human race is completely capable of overfishing - and over hunting and over timbering and over ... everything. Just look at Europe of the 16th and 17th centuries.

FTFY

You misunderstand.

None of us are against green energy and pollution control etc. We all live here.

The difference is that we are opposed to radical business killing regulation and massive gov't expenditure on green tech that is not ready yet or is not viable.

The Left insists (without evidence) that we need this as we are in a catastrophe. They keep falsifying data and changing their tune when it doesn't come true. These wackos were saying in 2000 that by 2005 there'd be no snow in the US. They were wrong. They were just caught padding the amount of ocean rise because the actual numbers didn't fit their theory.

What we want is honest peer reviewed studies and a logical methodical approach that will bring results without destroying the world economies.

Simple really.

No they didn't. But, you are stupid. You tend to believe junk science and falsified data.