97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[Chris]

So you admit that those are the only few facts you have ... no actual connections, no biological science, not even any nuclear science data ... hmm ... of course it's not enough. Without other sciences it can be interpreted to mean anything. Like: It's the second coming of some christ ... the heat is from his halo!

There is over 100 years of science.

Do you only read right wing blogs?

The Rise of CO2 & Warming

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Global Warming -- Research Issues

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007

No, but I don't read left wing one either ...

Scientists are not left wing.

How sad that you cannot accept 100 years of scientific work and the consensus of every major scientific society on the earth in every country on the earth.

 

[Chris]

immediately after the first non-asinine kirky post and possibly not even then.
fortunately, the odds of you posting something intelligent are right up there with me getting struck by a meteor.

i don't suffer fools gladly, but i'm more than willing to insult them, fool.

I didn't say the first post to me that wasn't an insult.

I said the first post to anyone on this board that wasn't an insult.

You never post facts or even arguments, you just insult. It is really pathetic.

i'll get back to you when i find someone who cares; the two of you can have a nice cry together.

Thanks for proving my point.

My guess would be that you have no friends either.

 

[Meister]

There is over 100 years of science.

Do you only read right wing blogs?

The Rise of CO2 & Warming

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Global Warming -- Research Issues

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007

No, but I don't read left wing one either ...

Scientists are not left wing.

How sad that you cannot accept 100 years of scientific work and the consensus of every major scientific society on the earth in every country on the earth.

The ones that you read about are, Chris

 

[KittenKoder]

There is over 100 years of science.

Do you only read right wing blogs?

The Rise of CO2 & Warming

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Global Warming -- Research Issues

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007

No, but I don't read left wing one either ...

Scientists are not left wing.

How sad that you cannot accept 100 years of scientific work and the consensus of every major scientific society on the earth in every country on the earth.

Again, from only a couple of sources, this is not even close to '97%'. The data is being interpreted by someone with a stake in getting money, all of those you just posted have a financial reason to misinterpret the data.

 

[Chris]

No, but I don't read left wing one either ...

Scientists are not left wing.

How sad that you cannot accept 100 years of scientific work and the consensus of every major scientific society on the earth in every country on the earth.

Again, from only a couple of sources, this is not even close to '97%'. The data is being interpreted by someone with a stake in getting money, all of those you just posted have a financial reason to misinterpret the data.

Not really.

But if you believe that every major scientific society on the earth is in cahoots, then so be it. It really is a right wing paranoid delusion.

And by the way....CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. NO ONE denies that. And we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

 

[Meister]

Scientists are not left wing.

How sad that you cannot accept 100 years of scientific work and the consensus of every major scientific society on the earth in every country on the earth.

Again, from only a couple of sources, this is not even close to '97%'. The data is being interpreted by someone with a stake in getting money, all of those you just posted have a financial reason to misinterpret the data.

Not really.

But if you believe that every major scientific society on the earth is in cahoots, then so be it. It really is a right wing paranoid delusion.

And by the way....CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. NO ONE denies that. And we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

You can't prove that Man is the cause of it, Chris. CO2 could be a lagging indicator, and it can't be disproved. So if it's not difinitive, you can't say what you have been saying.

 

[Chris]

Again, from only a couple of sources, this is not even close to '97%'. The data is being interpreted by someone with a stake in getting money, all of those you just posted have a financial reason to misinterpret the data.

Not really.

But if you believe that every major scientific society on the earth is in cahoots, then so be it. It really is a right wing paranoid delusion.

And by the way....CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. NO ONE denies that. And we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

You can't prove that Man is the cause of it, Chris. CO2 could be a lagging indicator, and it can't be disproved. So if it's not difinitive, you can't say what you have been saying.

We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and since the Antarctic ice core record shows no variation of over 22 ppm over 600,000 years., it has to be us.

But ignore the evidence if you like.

 

[KittenKoder]

Scientists are not left wing.

How sad that you cannot accept 100 years of scientific work and the consensus of every major scientific society on the earth in every country on the earth.

Again, from only a couple of sources, this is not even close to '97%'. The data is being interpreted by someone with a stake in getting money, all of those you just posted have a financial reason to misinterpret the data.

Not really.

But if you believe that every major scientific society on the earth is in cahoots, then so be it. It really is a right wing paranoid delusion.

And by the way....CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. NO ONE denies that. And we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Ten years ago it was CO .. now CO2 ... what's next O2?

The global warming fear is the paranoia, on the coat tails of them finding out CFC was bad for the ozone layer (which was completely true) so they outlawed it and rightfully so. Gore saw the histeria which resulted in it and cashed in by doctoring the first claim completely (the original document has a LOT of black marker on it because of this) then started funding most of the major scientific groups on the subject from his profits as a result. A few of the scientists in such institute came forward after they had left and admitted the truth, so then he got them all to sign non-disclosure agreements seeing that this could happen more and more, thus hurting his profits. It's his companies that fund these research facilities now, and the government was easily conned into allowing it because of the paranoia caused by the original document. Really, follow the money sometime, ignoring who said what, just follow the money.

 

[Meister]

Not really.

But if you believe that every major scientific society on the earth is in cahoots, then so be it. It really is a right wing paranoid delusion.

And by the way....CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. NO ONE denies that. And we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

You can't prove that Man is the cause of it, Chris. CO2 could be a lagging indicator, and it can't be disproved. So if it's not difinitive, you can't say what you have been saying.

We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and since the Antarctic ice core record shows no variation of over 22 ppm over 600,000 years., it has to be us.

But ignore the evidence if you like.

No, it doesn't have to be us, Chris. There are a lot of variables to this complex problem. The warmer the atmosphere the more that ice shelves melt. The more the ice shelves melt, the more CO2 gets into the atmosphere that has been stored in the ice. If the Sun warms the atmosphere this can occur. Hence, the CO2 is a lagging idicator, not Man made. Other planets were warming at the same time, Chris...not just ours.

 

[del]

Sorry Del (well not really sorry because it's just who you are) but this is one (probably the only) time Chris is correct. Worse is that you don't really contribute to the discussions, perhaps you have just grown tired of it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's all you have done lately.

get in touch with chris and bring a hanky.

So, do you support the topic of the thread like Chris or agree with me and say it's all a bunch of hogwosh?

neither.

i agree that the climate is changing but i don't agree that increased CO2 is the causative agent, nor that any effort we make other than intelligent conservation/stewardship of the planet is called for. i think that an industry has sprouted up around the hysteria that chris and his ilk have espoused and that it is every bit as repugnant as any other flimflam job.

i believe that most of the "science" that chris and his pals attempt to bring to the table is for the most part junk science or at best the kind of "publish or perish" crap that our modern higher education system has enshrined as part of academia.

intelligent allocation of resources and weaning ourselves from fossil fuels is something we should be doing, but it is my belief that the effect those efforts wil have on the climate will be negligible. we should be taking those actions because they make sense, not because they're some kind of silver bullet that will magically stop climate change.

oh, and al gore is as full of shit as a christmas goose, or if a christmas analogy offends you-chris.

 

[del]

I didn't say the first post to me that wasn't an insult.

I said the first post to anyone on this board that wasn't an insult.

You never post facts or even arguments, you just insult. It is really pathetic.

i'll get back to you when i find someone who cares; the two of you can have a nice cry together.

Thanks for proving my point.

My guess would be that you have no friends either.

you're every bit as right about my friends as you are about any other subject you spout off about, kirky.

 

[Chris]

i'll get back to you when i find someone who cares; the two of you can have a nice cry together.

Thanks for proving my point.

My guess would be that you have no friends either.

you're every bit as right about my friends as you are about any other subject you spout off about, kirky.

Thanks for confirming my belief.

 

[del]

Thanks for proving my point.

My guess would be that you have no friends either.

you're every bit as right about my friends as you are about any other subject you spout off about, kirky.

Thanks for confirming my belief.

yeah, there's a real challenge.....

 

[KittenKoder]

get in touch with chris and bring a hanky.

So, do you support the topic of the thread like Chris or agree with me and say it's all a bunch of hogwosh?

neither.

i agree that the climate is changing but i don't agree that increased CO2 is the causative agent, nor that any effort we make other than intelligent conservation/stewardship of the planet is called for. i think that an industry has sprouted up around the hysteria that chris and his ilk have espoused and that it is every bit as repugnant as any other flimflam job.

i believe that most of the "science" that chris and his pals attempt to bring to the table is for the most part junk science or at best the kind of "publish or perish" crap that our modern higher education system has enshrined as part of academia.

intelligent allocation of resources and weaning ourselves from fossil fuels is something we should be doing, but it is my belief that the effect those efforts wil have on the climate will be negligible. we should be taking those actions because they make sense, not because they're some kind of silver bullet that will magically stop climate change.

oh, and al gore is as full of shit as a christmas goose, or if a christmas analogy offends you-chris.

Okay, good post, now why poke for trolls instead of posting more like this? Or are you now the troll mod? If so then excuse my pushing for this, if not, then pointing out the actual flaws in anothers thinking is more of an insult than ... well ... plain old insults which, if you hadn't noticed, do not work so well.

 

[elvis]

So, do you support the topic of the thread like Chris or agree with me and say it's all a bunch of hogwosh?

neither.

i agree that the climate is changing but i don't agree that increased CO2 is the causative agent, nor that any effort we make other than intelligent conservation/stewardship of the planet is called for. i think that an industry has sprouted up around the hysteria that chris and his ilk have espoused and that it is every bit as repugnant as any other flimflam job.

i believe that most of the "science" that chris and his pals attempt to bring to the table is for the most part junk science or at best the kind of "publish or perish" crap that our modern higher education system has enshrined as part of academia.

intelligent allocation of resources and weaning ourselves from fossil fuels is something we should be doing, but it is my belief that the effect those efforts wil have on the climate will be negligible. we should be taking those actions because they make sense, not because they're some kind of silver bullet that will magically stop climate change.

oh, and al gore is as full of shit as a christmas goose, or if a christmas analogy offends you-chris.

Okay, good post, now why poke for trolls instead of posting more like this? Or are you now the troll mod? If so then excuse my pushing for this, if not, then pointing out the actual flaws in anothers thinking is more of an insult than ... well ... plain old insults which, if you hadn't noticed, do not work so well.

can't we do both? point out the flaws and THEN call chrissy a douchebag?

 

[KittenKoder]

neither.

i agree that the climate is changing but i don't agree that increased CO2 is the causative agent, nor that any effort we make other than intelligent conservation/stewardship of the planet is called for. i think that an industry has sprouted up around the hysteria that chris and his ilk have espoused and that it is every bit as repugnant as any other flimflam job.

i believe that most of the "science" that chris and his pals attempt to bring to the table is for the most part junk science or at best the kind of "publish or perish" crap that our modern higher education system has enshrined as part of academia.

intelligent allocation of resources and weaning ourselves from fossil fuels is something we should be doing, but it is my belief that the effect those efforts wil have on the climate will be negligible. we should be taking those actions because they make sense, not because they're some kind of silver bullet that will magically stop climate change.

oh, and al gore is as full of shit as a christmas goose, or if a christmas analogy offends you-chris.

Okay, good post, now why poke for trolls instead of posting more like this? Or are you now the troll mod? If so then excuse my pushing for this, if not, then pointing out the actual flaws in anothers thinking is more of an insult than ... well ... plain old insults which, if you hadn't noticed, do not work so well.

can't we do both? point out the flaws and THEN call chrissy a douchebag?

LOL ... of course, but I was just pointing out how little simple insults accomplish other than completely derailing a thread.

Almost forgot: "Case in point here."

 

[Skull Pilot]

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Apocalypse Now? Highly Unlikely

Apocalypse Now? Highly Unlikely
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- A corollary of Murphy's Law ("If something can go wrong, it will") is: "Things are worse than they can possibly be." Energy Secretary Steven Chu, an atomic physicist, seems to embrace that corollary but ignores Gregg Easterbrook's "Law of Doomsaying": Predict catastrophe no sooner than five years hence but no later than 10 years away, soon enough to terrify but distant enough that people will forget if you are wrong.

Chu recently told the Los Angeles Times that global warming might melt 90 percent of California's snowpack, which stores much of the water needed for agriculture. This, Chu said, would mean "no more agriculture in California," the nation's leading food producer. Chu added: "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going."

No more lettuce for Los Angeles? Chu likes predictions, so here is another: Nine decades hence, our great-great-grandchildren will add the disappearance of California artichokes to the list of predicted planetary calamities that did not happen. Global cooling recently joined that lengthening list.

In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950" (The New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the "cooling trend" could result in "a return to another ice age" (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The "continued rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery" (International Wildlife, July 1975). "The world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of "ominous signs" that "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," meteorologists were "almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century," perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, "The Cooling World," April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from central European forests, the North Atlantic was "cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool," glaciers had "begun to advance" and "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).

Speaking of experts, in 1980 Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford scientist and environmental Cassandra who predicted calamitous food shortages by 1990, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon. When Ehrlich predicted the imminent exhaustion of many nonrenewable natural resources, Simon challenged him: Pick a "basket" of any five such commodities, and I will wager that in a decade the price of the basket will decline, indicating decreased scarcity. Ehrlich picked five metals -- chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten -- that he predicted would become more expensive. Not only did the price of the basket decline, the price of all five declined.

An expert Ehrlich consulted in picking the five was John Holdren, who today is President Obama's science adviser. Credentialed intellectuals, too -- actually, especially -- illustrate Montaigne's axiom: "Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."

As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

An unstated premise of eco-pessimism is that environmental conditions are, or recently were, optimal. The proclaimed faith of eco-pessimists is weirdly optimistic: These optimal conditions must and can be preserved or restored if government will make us minimize our carbon footprints, and if government will "remake" the economy.

Because of today's economy, another law -- call it the Law of Clarifying Calamities -- is being (redundantly) confirmed. On graphs tracking public opinion, two lines are moving in tandem and inversely: The sharply rising line charts public concern about the economy, the plunging line follows concern about the environment. A recent Pew Research Center poll asked which of 20 issues should be the government's top priorities. Climate change ranked 20th.

Real calamities take our minds off hypothetical ones. Besides, according to the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade, or one-third of the span since the global cooling scare.
[email protected]

Copyright 2009, Washington Post Writers Group

 

[del]

Okay, good post, now why poke for trolls instead of posting more like this? Or are you now the troll mod? If so then excuse my pushing for this, if not, then pointing out the actual flaws in anothers thinking is more of an insult than ... well ... plain old insults which, if you hadn't noticed, do not work so well.

thanks for your input

 

[Old Rocks]

Dang. Will is pretty good at politics, but an ignoramous concerning science. There was not a major scientific concern about a cooling planet in the '70s. That was a media generated myth concerning a National Academy of Science paper published in 1975 that said just the opposite.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

 

[del]

Dang. Will is pretty good at politics, but an ignoramous concerning science. There was not a major scientific concern about a cooling planet in the '70s. That was a media generated myth concerning a National Academy of Science paper published in 1975 that said just the opposite.

What 1970s science said about global cooling

gee, why does that sound familiar?