re: Nobel Winner to Obama on Global Warming: 'Mr. President, You're Wrong'

quote:

---

Finally someone who makes sense.

---

I have had a different approach and response that usually calms people down.

Lets assume Global Warming is real for sake of argument.

Then cause of said problem is CO2 from total fossil fuel use.

Fossil Fuel use is a per capita consumption unit or in other words energy used per person.

The world population has grown in my lifetime from about 4.0 - 4.5 billion in the 60's to about 6.5 billion in 2010's.

Therefore solution to said problem is to exterminate a couple billion people. Do you want to volunteer?

Just let it go and it will take care of itself.

Go look at the historical cycles of ice ages on this planet. I'm more worried about my great great great great grandkids freezing to death than some polar bear sweating to death. We are due for an ice age based on those historical cycles, maybe this is the slight bump in warmth before the great chill. Truth is, no one knows!!!

quote:

---

Totally worth the gamble, amirite??

---

What gamble? How many times have we been doomed to an ice age or a polar melting heat in the past 100 years that hasn't come true? Hurricanes can't be predicted with a 7 day certainty so we're to believe that the climate can be predicted years out?

Why THE frick are you asking me? Go ask a professional. Stop googling what you want to hear. You want a science lesson on TD poliboard? Gtf out of here.

No, the issue is on the alarmist side. They went too far with trying to scare people by coming up with these bold predictions like: there will be no snows on Kilimanjaro by 2015. Guess what? It's snowy as hell up there.

They tried to use these scare tactics yet their models were wrong, dead wrong.

They were caught fudging numbers to show a warming trend that the raw data wasn't really showing.

They used an inefficient greenhouse gas that is largely naturally occuring due to volcanic and plant activity as the culperate when we have little to no ability to monitor how much is emitted by man verses nature as their scape goat.

They ignored the ice core and plant records which showed a very weak correlation between CO2 and temperature and a very strong correlation between solar activity and temperature.

They straight up lied or mischaracterized scientists's ooinions while relying on mostly non-subject matter experts to get that false "97% concensus" statistic that they still all parrot as god-given fact.

Their models have been proven wrong over and over and over again because we simply do not understand all of the factors involved and how much each contributes like ocean salinity, the ocean heat sink, oceanic acidification which absorbs carbon, urban hea island effect (cities read hotter than rural areas on temperature data even though the climate is the same just due to the heat retension and emission qualities of concrete and asphalt), variations in solar activity, and on and on and on.

Most of the sea level rise data used to say that all of our coastal cities were in danger were dependant upon melting sea ice RAISING sea levels! Everyone knows that ice is LESS DENSE than water and it displaces water. If that sea ice melts, sea levels will go DOWN not up!

Also, most of these sea level measurements are being taken in areas where the land is naturally subsiding due to flood control and dam structures reducing the amount of settlement replenishing natural deltas. The land is sinking, the ocean isn't rising. While that may be a distinction without a difference for those residing there, it makes a huge difference when one is trying to propose solutions that don't address the actual problem.

That is the problem of global warming alarmism. It seeks to use massive socialist taxation schemes to enact solutions we don't know will help to stop changes we don't understand and cannot even prove are the actual drivers of the problem we cannot even be certain we are experiencing. Insulting others and calling them idiots for questioning questionable science just steels their resolve. Real science doesn't beed a smug elitism to prove its point nor does it require blacklisting researchers who argue a different viewpoint. Science should be all about debate, yet climate change, and only climate change, is all about concensus, and if you're not with the consensus, you must be some uncooth, inbred, anti-science lunatics. They don't say those kinds of things about string-theorists or multi-verse advocates, or em-drive developers, only climate researchers who dare to buck the fabricated "concensus".

So water doesn't expand when heated? Also the melting of grounded (not floating) ice - especially glaciers in Antarctica & Greenland are what causes the ocean levels to rise. the Antarctic ice isn't a sheet of ice floating in the ocean, it's a glacier sitting on land. (There's a continent under that ice.) Much of the south poles ice is what we're more worried about. You're right, if all ice at the caps were just floating around then water levels shouldn't change due to Archimedes principle, but this would be like holding ice cubes over a glass of water as they melt, the water levels will rise. This may be the easiest thing to understand in most of science, but you already knew all this because you've asked experts and been to places where you can ask your questions right?

I have never claimed to be an expert, only repeating what made sense to me when I was at the convention last month. Email an institution or try and visit a natural history museum.

LINK

Here's a link to asking climate scientists all skeptical questions. I'm sure there are links where you can get in touch with the professionals in this area. Neil degrades Tyson actually responded to an email I sent the Hayden planetarium website about the movie interstellar. The answers are there, the evidence is there, it should never have been politicized. If you want to find answers, look for them the way you would look for anything, which is NOT by adding 'hoax' or actively looking for websites that are trying to skew data. Hope this helps.

The sea ice is melting, as is many glaciers in Greenland, but antarctic terrestrial ice is actually not melting. In fact, those glaciers are gaining as antarctica is cooling!

If we are primarily losing sea ice, sea levels will drop, not rise! Sea ice displaces more vilune than it would if t were liquid because, ice is less dense than liquid water. It is the exception that proves the rule. That's what I am saying. The sea rise models I have seen parroted over and over by NOAA and the UN use melting sea ice as contributing to rising seas when they should actually cause those levels to drop! This is a fundamental error of basic thermodynamics and phisics built into their models that is resulting in them being wildly innacurate, yet those who call them out for this gross misapplication of factors are labeled as kooks.