Agu

[Old Rocks]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/the-agu-q-a-service-open-for-business/

The AGU Q & A Service–Open for Business
Filed under: Climate Science Communicating Climate— group @ 6 December 2010
This is just a brief notice for those members of the media who may not be aware of the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) re-vamped question and answer service for climate science questions. There are about 700 participating AGU scientists, with several answering questions at any given time. This service should be highly useful for getting relatively quick answers to specific, climate science questions during the United Nations COP-16 negotiations in Cancun, Mexico this week, as well at the AGU annual meeting which runs the following week. The service will continue some time beyond the AGU meetings as well.

Contrary to incorrect media and blog stories last month, this service is for climate science questions only from members of the media–no policy or politically related questions are fielded. Go here for more background and procedural information if interested.

Update: The Service’s coordinator informs us that bloggers are considered part of the media, and so their questions are welcome as well.

Update 2: Jeff Taylor, the service’s coordinator, has addressed, in the comments, a number of the questions and suggestions raised, and provided further links for those with more questions about climate and/or the service’s operation.

 

[Revere]

Another pro-poverty cartel I had not heard of.

 

[Old Rocks]

More answers

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
Scientific skepticism is healthy. In fact, science by its very nature is skeptical. Genuine skepticism means considering the full body of evidence before coming to a conclusion. However, when you take a close look at arguments expressing climate ‘skepticism’, what you often observe is cherry picking of pieces of evidence while rejecting any data that don’t fit the desired picture. This isn’t skepticism. It is ignoring facts and the science.

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism looks at both the evidence that human activity is causing global warming and the ways that climate ‘skeptic’ arguments can mislead by presenting only small pieces of the puzzle rather than the full picture.

 

[Old Rocks]

Another pro-poverty cartel I had not heard of.

The fact that you are ignorant of who the American Geophysical Union is says much about the depths of your ignorance on scientific matters.

 

[Mr. H.]

Is there normally an inordinate number of massive low-pressure systems in northern climates this time of year?

 

[skookerasbil]

More answers

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism
Scientific skepticism is healthy. In fact, science by its very nature is skeptical. Genuine skepticism means considering the full body of evidence before coming to a conclusion. However, when you take a close look at arguments expressing climate ‘skepticism’, what you often observe is cherry picking of pieces of evidence while rejecting any data that don’t fit the desired picture. This isn’t skepticism. It is ignoring facts and the science.

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism looks at both the evidence that human activity is causing global warming and the ways that climate ‘skeptic’ arguments can mislead by presenting only small pieces of the puzzle rather than the full picture.

What a fcukking dummy................

Far left guys cant think on the margin........

All evidence in this debate is cherry picked.

THATS exactly the point asshole..........theres the religion argument and the skeptic argument. Neither can be proven. Thats called a WASH. Exactly why the politics on this matter has fallen on its face for the radicals and in favor of the skeptics.......and there is 100% certainty of this fact.

 

[skookerasbil]

certitude = 100% s0ns

 

[Truthmatters]

Denying science for political purposes to this day.

They hate science, history, higher education, dictionary defintions, court documents and other peoples thoughts.

No wonder they are always on the idiots side of any issue

 

[skookerasbil]

Denying science for political purposes to this day.

They hate science, history, higher education, dictionary defintions, court documents and other peoples thoughts.

No wonder they are always on the idiots side of any issue

Indeed.......meanwhile, the real smart scientific guys want our electric rates to double by 2014 and put 2.3 million Americans in the coal industry out of work!!!!


Clearly brilliant..............


Idiots FTW!!!

 

[Truthmatters]

and you want all Americans to believe the lies Fox feeds you about everything.

Document your claims dicklick

 

[skookerasbil]

and you want all Americans to believe the lies Fox feeds you about everything.

Document your claims dicklick

LOL...........Idiot WIN......Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year - Taking Liberties - CBS News


And this is from lefty CBS news. Even the CBO estimates range higher.............asshole.


ALready........similar legislation in Britain is costing families $1,300/year.........The Cap and Tax Fiction - WSJ.com


All for naught though in the real world..........the climate change debate is DEAD.

Check the Chicago Carbon Trading Market from this year s0n...................

= nobody cares about 1/2 a degree of warming.

Thank God for the idiots!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Truthmatters]

Denying science for political purposes to this day.

They hate science, history, higher education, dictionary defintions, court documents and other peoples thoughts.

No wonder they are always on the idiots side of any issue

Indeed.......meanwhile, the real smart scientific guys want our electric rates to double by 2014 and put 2.3 million Americans in the coal industry out of work!!!!


Clearly brilliant..............


Idiots FTW!!!

One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."

I didnt see any proof of your numbers in that link

 

[Mad Scientist]

RealClimate: The AGU Q & A Service–Open for Business

The AGU Q & A Service–Open for Business
Filed under: Climate Science Communicating Climate— group @ 6 December 2010
This is just a brief notice for those members of the media who may not be aware of the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) re-vamped question and answer service for climate science questions. There are about 700 participating AGU scientists, with several answering questions at any given time. This service should be highly useful for getting relatively quick answers to specific, climate science questions during the United Nations COP-16 negotiations in Cancun, Mexico this week, as well at the AGU annual meeting which runs the following week. The service will continue some time beyond the AGU meetings as well.

Contrary to incorrect media and blog stories last month, this service is for climate science questions only from members of the media–no policy or politically related questions are fielded. Go here for more background and procedural information if interested.

Update: The Service’s coordinator informs us that bloggers are considered part of the media, and so their questions are welcome as well.

Update 2: Jeff Taylor, the service’s coordinator, has addressed, in the comments, a number of the questions and suggestions raised, and provided further links for those with more questions about climate and/or the service’s operation.

Why no political questions? The Global Warming scam is entirely political.

 

[skookerasbil]

Denying science for political purposes to this day.

They hate science, history, higher education, dictionary defintions, court documents and other peoples thoughts.

No wonder they are always on the idiots side of any issue

Indeed.......meanwhile, the real smart scientific guys want our electric rates to double by 2014 and put 2.3 million Americans in the coal industry out of work!!!!


Clearly brilliant..............


Idiots FTW!!!

One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."

I didnt see any proof of your numbers in that link

I dont care about proof. The politics are with my side s0n.........its not even debatable. The science is no longer considered "science" by the public since Climategate. Oooooops..........and sorry.

Nothing is happening with Cap and Trade for a long long time.........if ever.

 

[Old Rocks]

RealClimate: The AGU Q & A Service–Open for Business

The AGU Q & A Service–Open for Business
Filed under: Climate Science Communicating Climate— group @ 6 December 2010
This is just a brief notice for those members of the media who may not be aware of the American Geophysical Union’s (AGU) re-vamped question and answer service for climate science questions. There are about 700 participating AGU scientists, with several answering questions at any given time. This service should be highly useful for getting relatively quick answers to specific, climate science questions during the United Nations COP-16 negotiations in Cancun, Mexico this week, as well at the AGU annual meeting which runs the following week. The service will continue some time beyond the AGU meetings as well.

Contrary to incorrect media and blog stories last month, this service is for climate science questions only from members of the media–no policy or politically related questions are fielded. Go here for more background and procedural information if interested.

Update: The Service’s coordinator informs us that bloggers are considered part of the media, and so their questions are welcome as well.

Update 2: Jeff Taylor, the service’s coordinator, has addressed, in the comments, a number of the questions and suggestions raised, and provided further links for those with more questions about climate and/or the service’s operation.

Why no political questions? The Global Warming scam is entirely political.

Other than flap yap, have you anything to back up your statement?

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Kookybil, other than dismally stupid cartoons, have you anything to say that is even faintly backed by evidence? I thought not.

 

[code1211]

Denying science for political purposes to this day.

They hate science, history, higher education, dictionary defintions, court documents and other peoples thoughts.

No wonder they are always on the idiots side of any issue

Indeed.......meanwhile, the real smart scientific guys want our electric rates to double by 2014 and put 2.3 million Americans in the coal industry out of work!!!!


Clearly brilliant..............


Idiots FTW!!!

One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."

I didnt see any proof of your numbers in that link

It's obvious that alternative energy will one day a viable option. That day has not arrived.

It's also obvious that we are in a severe economic crisis. That day has arrived.

We need to address the exportation of our jobs and our dollars and can do so by using home grown energy harvested from oil shale and coal gasification. We can create an entire new heavy industry right here in the USA, keep our currently exported petrol dollars here at home and help with our balance of trade and employment problem, probably correcting both, with this single move.

We can build this through the taxation of imported oil using those taxes as subsidies on the liquified coal and the harvested oil shale. Think of it as a Moon shot for this century.

By the year 2100 when the alternative energy sources are available and robust, we can adopt them and the world will be saved.

 

[Old Rocks]

Neither coal gasification or oil shale are economically competative with alternatives at present. And they would both be huge sources of pollution and GHGs.

 

[code1211]

Neither coal gasification or oil shale are economically competative with alternatives at present. And they would both be huge sources of pollution and GHGs.

The problem with the alternatives is that they are not available and not portable.

The cost of oil shale is always just above that of oil. All of the off shore and inland oil could be used if the misdirected would just get the hell out of the way and realize what's happening.

Because the Greens don't seem to be in touch with reality, they don't realize that we have a real world problem right now today with a real world solution right now today.

Untill Unicorns live on oil, they just won't see the need for it.