Climate sceticism rebutted

[slackjawed]

that's the OTHER south dude. great video choice though!
more like this;
Big Lake Webpage
there is a picture of me on that web site, see if you can guess which one.



if you want the kind of action that will make you squeal like a pig, you'll have to find it yourself.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's what you've been told and what you believe.

They got around 2500 so-called scientists out of the thousands and thousand there are in existence to agree with them....so that is the end of the discussion...according to them. However most of them in the field disagree with them.

It's like the media wanting to publish the feelings of one or two soldiers who are protesting the war and giving you the impression that their opinions are all that matters.

Mud, you are really stretching your lies.

Every scientific society in the world now states that the warming is real, and that the primary cause is the burning of fossil fuels. They represent the vast majority of scientists in the world.

Every National Academy of Science of every industrial nation states the same.

As does every major university in the world.

Now show me where I am wrong. Show me a major scientific society that states AGW is not occurring.

Show me a National Academy of Science that states that AGW is not occuring.

Show me a major university that states that AGW is not occuring.

You cannot because only you wingnut fruitcakes are foolish enough to deny all the sceintific evidence that has been presented. Your denial of reality is a pathetic thing.

Nothing wrong with the planet warming up. Over warm periods is when we thrive and shiver up and freeze when its cold. Betcha Siberia, Canada and other "cold spots" can't wait. We know folks loved the Medieval Warm Period when everyone thrived including the Vikings in Greenland who had to abandon the place during the "little ice" age. The Polar Bears are thriving too and have increased their numbers to over the last 50 years to 25,000 from 5,000 due to the Seal Population exploding and they can swim 200 miles. Bring on Global Warming. Did you see where the six students in Denver had their protest rally against GW snowed out in a blizzard?
In response to the "show me .......", well MIT and Professor Lindstim don't agree and the folks who do have outed themselves in their own "trick" words. I am praying the Philippine volcano won't throw us into an extended cold period and this winter is setting records. Paraphrasing Goucho Marx "Are you going to believe those GW dolts or your own lying eyes"?

Lindzen does not represent MIT, and most there consider him to be an Exxon whore.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees

 

[Diuretic]

This is why no one takes Warmers seriously.

You have to laugh, don't you?

In an era where we see the CONSERVATIVE parties of not only England, France, Germany and Holland but of countries like Kenya, Bangladesh and Mozambique all having released policies on tackling climate change, and in an era where there is total academic consensus on the collapse of glaciers, on rising ocean levels and changes in ocean ph - here is a guy with a high school understanding of science to tell us they are all wrong.

I feel so much better.

Honestly, Frank - why not step back from your ego for 5 minutes and actually read what it being posted?

I think it was Maggie Thatcher who belled the cat on climate change in UK politics some time ago. Why this is now an ideological issue is easy to see, vested interests have done so and are using useful fools to help them defeat sensible policies.

 

[Old Rocks]

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds


ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds

No rise in the atmospheric fraction of CO2 in the past 160 years? How on earth do you get that out of this article?

What the article states is that of the emitted CO2 from human activities, only 45% stays in the atmosphere, the rest is absorbed by the oceans.

The amount absorbed has increased that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 385+ ppm. And increase of roughly 40%.

No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

 

[Toro]

Why do the vast majority in the scientific field say AGS real?

That's what you've been told and what you believe.

They got around 2500 so-called scientists out of the thousands and thousand there are in existence to agree with them....so that is the end of the discussion...according to them. However most of them in the field disagree with them.

It's like the media wanting to publish the feelings of one or two soldiers who are protesting the war and giving you the impression that their opinions are all that matters.

In a poll of earth scientists and climatologists a year ago, most scientists agreed that human activity contributed to global warming.

97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Why do the vast majority in the scientific field say AGS real?

That's what you've been told and what you believe.

They got around 2500 so-called scientists out of the thousands and thousand there are in existence to agree with them....so that is the end of the discussion...according to them. However most of them in the field disagree with them.

It's like the media wanting to publish the feelings of one or two soldiers who are protesting the war and giving you the impression that their opinions are all that matters.

In a poll of earth scientists and climatologists a year ago, most scientists agreed that human activity contributed to global warming.

97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid

In other news it is discovered that 97% of active climatologists are enviromarxists who don't give a shit about the planet.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's what you've been told and what you believe.

They got around 2500 so-called scientists out of the thousands and thousand there are in existence to agree with them....so that is the end of the discussion...according to them. However most of them in the field disagree with them.

It's like the media wanting to publish the feelings of one or two soldiers who are protesting the war and giving you the impression that their opinions are all that matters.

In a poll of earth scientists and climatologists a year ago, most scientists agreed that human activity contributed to global warming.

97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid

In other news it is discovered that 97% of active climatologists are enviromarxists who don't give a shit about the planet.

My, Screamy, what a lucid elegant answer.

 

[Toro]

That's what you've been told and what you believe.

They got around 2500 so-called scientists out of the thousands and thousand there are in existence to agree with them....so that is the end of the discussion...according to them. However most of them in the field disagree with them.

It's like the media wanting to publish the feelings of one or two soldiers who are protesting the war and giving you the impression that their opinions are all that matters.

In a poll of earth scientists and climatologists a year ago, most scientists agreed that human activity contributed to global warming.

97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid

In other news it is discovered that 97% of active climatologists are enviromarxists who don't give a shit about the planet.

I don't know if the climatologists are correct or not, but calling them Marxists who don't care about the planet isn't a good reflection on your position.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

In a poll of earth scientists and climatologists a year ago, most scientists agreed that human activity contributed to global warming.

97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming : Deltoid

In other news it is discovered that 97% of active climatologists are enviromarxists who don't give a shit about the planet.

I don't know if the climatologists are correct or not, but calling them Marxists who don't care about the planet isn't a good reflection on your position.

Quick! Somebody call a whaaaaaaambulance!

 

[Toro]

In other news it is discovered that 97% of active climatologists are enviromarxists who don't give a shit about the planet.

I don't know if the climatologists are correct or not, but calling them Marxists who don't care about the planet isn't a good reflection on your position.

Quick! Somebody call a whaaaaaaambulance!

Stomping your feet on the ground and calling experts who rebut your beliefs names is more in line with a petulant two year old.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

I don't know if the climatologists are correct or not, but calling them Marxists who don't care about the planet isn't a good reflection on your position.

Quick! Somebody call a whaaaaaaambulance!

Stomping your feet on the ground and calling experts who rebut your beliefs names is more in line with a petulant two year old.

Describing them with the term enviromarxist is not calling them names, it is applying an appropriate descriptor.

 

[Toro]

Describing them with the term enviromarxist is not calling them names, it is applying an appropriate descriptor.

And your conclusion that 97% of active climatologists are Marxists is based on what, that these experts contradict your beliefs?

BTW, do you know what Marxism is?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Describing them with the term enviromarxist is not calling them names, it is applying an appropriate descriptor.

And your conclusion that 97% of active climatologists are Marxists is based on what, that these experts contradict your beliefs?

BTW, do you know what Marxism is?

97% of professors, scientists, journalists, and general bozos are Marxists as based on numerous surveys. They gravitate towards positions where they can lie to influence public opinion.

 

[Toro]

97% of professors, scientists, journalists, and general bozos are Marxists as based on numerous surveys. They gravitate towards positions where they can lie to influence public opinion.

And if you ever wonder why conservatives are accused of being "anti-intellectual," just remember what you wrote here.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

97% of professors, scientists, journalists, and general bozos are Marxists as based on numerous surveys. They gravitate towards positions where they can lie to influence public opinion.

And if you ever wonder why conservatives are accused of being "anti-intellectual," just remember what you wrote here.

Are you implying that I am incorrect? That is the most absurd thing I've heard all day! What I wrote is common knowledge, everyone knows this!

 

[Toro]

97% of professors, scientists, journalists, and general bozos are Marxists as based on numerous surveys. They gravitate towards positions where they can lie to influence public opinion.

And if you ever wonder why conservatives are accused of being "anti-intellectual," just remember what you wrote here.

Are you implying that I am incorrect? That is the most absurd thing I've heard all day! What I wrote is common knowledge, everyone knows this!

I can't tell if you're being funny or not. If you are, kudos to you!

 

[Screaming Eagle]

In another generation the warmers are going to look as stupid as all the bozos who convinced the public to raise AN ENTIRE GENERATION of people on formula because breastmilk just wasn't any good.

 

[Si modo]

Christ, do folks still think science is done by a vote?

 

[Si modo]

Christ, do folks still think science is done by a vote?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Si, science is done by scientists, not ignorant people like you and Screammy.