Funny how 31000 scientists disagree with global warming

[elvis]

Nor have I ever pretended to be. I just post irrefutable information from scientists which ticks you fools off to no end.

It's not irrefutable, you daft ****. you only think so because you refuse to take Al gore's dick out of your mouth.

Your posts are so intellectual and informative

Kind of like how you call this "depression" we're in the second republican depression when it didn't begin until after the DEMOCRATS took control of Congress. So again, you're a stupid fuck and partisan hack.

 

[LaLinda75]

What is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warming' crap.

 

[Old Rocks]

What is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warming' crap.

And your reason for this statement is?

 

[elvis]

What is unbelievable to me is that so many have bought into all this 'global warming' crap.

And your reason for this statement is?

Maybe that she's amazed so many have bought into the global warming crap?

What a concept.

 

[Red Dawn]

Ummm, again, the petition is a PDF anyone can print out, anyone can sign, and anyone can claim they are are anything they want. There's no way to verify who signed this, or what their actual profession is.

i can't freaking believe flat earth wingnut posted this and patted themselves on the back for it.

This petition is a fucking joke

 

[Sinatra]

Have you ever talked to an atmospheric scientist?

Name one that is not endorsing a company they get funding from or funded by a government invested in controlling their population that agrees with the hoax, and a real scientist not a meteorologist with a fancy degree.

I will take that as a "no."
I suggest you go to a university near you and talk to one of the scientists about global warming. You really don't have any experience.

Such are my colleagues - I have spoken with many. Some believe in man-made contribution to global warming, while many others do not. Funding is a HUGE factor in this debate. For example, I have met Steig personally, and know his department head very well - we boat together in the summer months. Nature did NOT audit the findings of Steig - they simply ran with the premise in the hopes of getting some much needed press. (Nature is apparently teetering on insolvency) This is quite common with all pro-GW papers - the peer review is more symbolic than substantive. The entire process has been corrupted for decades.

As for academic societies - I know well how those work too. The position statements of any given society do not reflect all members - and at times, do not even represent the majority of members. It is a select few on any given board that submits those positions.

Global warming interest is falling fast - even among academia.

Now if we happen to have a couple particularly warm summers, and it appears more money is to be made available in grants and whatnot for those academics supportive of the GW position, then this will alter and once again universities will see a flurry of pro-GW activity. Currently this is not happening.

Again using Steig as an example, his report ended up being an embarrassment to the university. It was so easily disputed, the data so obviously corrupted, that even pro-GWs were left shaking their collective heads. And Steig has yet to fully disclose his the supporting data behind his conclusions. Sadly though, his data continues to be used as a citing point for those scrambling to further the GW agenda - though at present, they are failing. And the debate within the scientific community against and for Steig is quite heated. I have been privy to the residual debate going on - and it is both entertaining, and reflective of the collective shift against the absolute AGW theory that held sway the last decade.

PS - the earth keeps on cooling.

I would rather it warm up a bit....

 

[wihosa]

No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.

Of course, once we have the 'proof' it will be too late to do anything about it.

What will you tell your children?

 

[code1211]

Name one that is not endorsing a company they get funding from or funded by a government invested in controlling their population that agrees with the hoax, and a real scientist not a meteorologist with a fancy degree.

I will take that as a "no."
I suggest you go to a university near you and talk to one of the scientists about global warming. You really don't have any experience.

Such are my colleagues - I have spoken with many. Some believe in man-made contribution to global warming, while many others do not. Funding is a HUGE factor in this debate. For example, I have met Steig personally, and know his department head very well - we boat together in the summer months. Nature did NOT audit the findings of Steig - they simply ran with the premise in the hopes of getting some much needed press. (Nature is apparently teetering on insolvency) This is quite common with all pro-GW papers - the peer review is more symbolic than substantive. The entire process has been corrupted for decades.

As for academic societies - I know well how those work too. The position statements of any given society do not reflect all members - and at times, do not even represent the majority of members. It is a select few on any given board that submits those positions.

Global warming interest is falling fast - even among academia.

Now if we happen to have a couple particularly warm summers, and it appears more money is to be made available in grants and whatnot for those academics supportive of the GW position, then this will alter and once again universities will see a flurry of pro-GW activity. Currently this is not happening.

Again using Steig as an example, his report ended up being an embarrassment to the university. It was so easily disputed, the data so obviously corrupted, that even pro-GWs were left shaking their collective heads. And Steig has yet to fully disclose his the supporting data behind his conclusions. Sadly though, his data continues to be used as a citing point for those scrambling to further the GW agenda - though at present, they are failing. And the debate within the scientific community against and for Steig is quite heated. I have been privy to the residual debate going on - and it is both entertaining, and reflective of the collective shift against the absolute AGW theory that held sway the last decade.

PS - the earth keeps on cooling.

I would rather it warm up a bit....

Me, too.

 

[code1211]

No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.

Of course, once we have the 'proof' it will be too late to do anything about it.

What will you tell your children?

I have already told her that Mankind is pumping about 3% of all of the CO2 pumped every year. Did you know that CO2 accounts for about 3% of all GreenHouseGases? Assuming that GHG's account for about 65% of all warming, let's do the math:

The Planet has warmed by 0.7 degrees in 2000 years. 65% of that is .455 degrees. CO2 is 3% of the total so let's call that share.01365. Mankind's contribution is 3% of that so let's peg our culpability at .000409 across 2000 years. On a per year average we come up with an average annual increase that is .0000002 degrees per year.

Put aside for the moment that the rate of temperature increase slowed in the more recent 1000 years over the previous 1000 years and that the global temperature is currently spot on in the middle of the temperature range of the last 10,000 years, 0.7 variation of temperature is not a big change; it is astonishing stability.

Did you know that the global temperature has risen today to a point that it was at 7000 years ago? What has caused the decline in the intervening years?

 

[Sinatra]

No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.

Of course, once we have the 'proof' it will be too late to do anything about it.

What will you tell your children?

I have already told her that Mankind is pumping about 3% of all of the CO2 pumped every year. Did you know that CO2 accounts for about 3% of all GreenHouseGases? Assuming that GHG's account for about 65% of all warming, let's do the math:

The Planet has warmed by 0.7 degrees in 2000 years. 65% of that is .455 degrees. CO2 is 3% of the total so let's call that share.01365. Mankind's contribution is 3% of that so let's peg our culpability at .000409 across 2000 years. On a per year average we come up with an average annual increase that is .0000002 degrees per year.

Put aside for the moment that the rate of temperature increase slowed in the more recent 1000 years over the previous 1000 years and that the global temperature is currently spot on in the middle of the temperature range of the last 10,000 years, 0.7 variation of temperature is not a big change; it is astonishing stability.

Did you know that the global temperature has risen today to a point that it was at 7000 years ago? What has caused the decline in the intervening years?

Great response.

 

[KittenKoder]

No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.

Of course, once we have the 'proof' it will be too late to do anything about it.

What will you tell your children?

Hmm ... are you advocating then that all life (except plants) are forced to stop breathing?

 

[Chris]

No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.

Of course, once we have the 'proof' it will be too late to do anything about it.

What will you tell your children?

Not millions of tons...

Billions of tons of CO2 each year....

 

[Chris]

Name one that is not endorsing a company they get funding from or funded by a government invested in controlling their population that agrees with the hoax, and a real scientist not a meteorologist with a fancy degree.

I will take that as a "no."
I suggest you go to a university near you and talk to one of the scientists about global warming. You really don't have any experience.

Such are my colleagues - I have spoken with many. Some believe in man-made contribution to global warming, while many others do not. Funding is a HUGE factor in this debate. For example, I have met Steig personally, and know his department head very well - we boat together in the summer months. Nature did NOT audit the findings of Steig - they simply ran with the premise in the hopes of getting some much needed press. (Nature is apparently teetering on insolvency) This is quite common with all pro-GW papers - the peer review is more symbolic than substantive. The entire process has been corrupted for decades.

As for academic societies - I know well how those work too. The position statements of any given society do not reflect all members - and at times, do not even represent the majority of members. It is a select few on any given board that submits those positions.

Global warming interest is falling fast - even among academia.

Now if we happen to have a couple particularly warm summers, and it appears more money is to be made available in grants and whatnot for those academics supportive of the GW position, then this will alter and once again universities will see a flurry of pro-GW activity. Currently this is not happening.

Again using Steig as an example, his report ended up being an embarrassment to the university. It was so easily disputed, the data so obviously corrupted, that even pro-GWs were left shaking their collective heads. And Steig has yet to fully disclose his the supporting data behind his conclusions. Sadly though, his data continues to be used as a citing point for those scrambling to further the GW agenda - though at present, they are failing. And the debate within the scientific community against and for Steig is quite heated. I have been privy to the residual debate going on - and it is both entertaining, and reflective of the collective shift against the absolute AGW theory that held sway the last decade.

PS - the earth keeps on cooling.

I would rather it warm up a bit....

Your posts really are laughable.

The earth is warming, not cooling.

The polar ice cap and almost all of the glaciers are melting, not growing.

Keep living in your fantasy world.

 

[KittenKoder]

No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.

Of course, once we have the 'proof' it will be too late to do anything about it.

What will you tell your children?

Not millions of tons...

Billions of tons of CO2 each year....

The only way to stop that is ... wipe out all life except plants.

 

[Chris]

No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.

Of course, once we have the 'proof' it will be too late to do anything about it.

What will you tell your children?

Not millions of tons...

Billions of tons of CO2 each year....

The only way to stop that is ... wipe out all life except plants.

No, most of it comes from coal powered power plants and cars.

 

[KittenKoder]

Not millions of tons...

Billions of tons of CO2 each year....

The only way to stop that is ... wipe out all life except plants.

No, most of it comes from coal plants and cars.

Yeah ... is there some little tag on each CO2 molecule that says "Made in ..."?

 

[driveby]

Not millions of tons...

Billions of tons of CO2 each year....

The only way to stop that is ... wipe out all life except plants.

No, most of it comes from coal powered power plants and cars.

You fucking clown ,with the trading of cap-and-trade credits we run the risk of simply creating another example of quasi-wealth that will crumble when the market realizes absolutely no value has been created. In this scenario, large companies, (which Obama is supposed to be against) such as GE, would help establish the value of the credits, attempt to corner the market, and create false shareholder value by selling these trade credits that hold no value whatsoever. Once the market discovers there is no value in the paper, suddenly the market for them will crash, as will the companies holding them. Kind of like what's happening to the economy today due to the "fake" paper that made the banks and the credit market look much healthier than it really was. Then comes more bailouts, more spending, more debt that will be impossible to sustain, the same redundant cycle Oblahblah is shoving down our throats now. Then dumbasses like you will still try to find a way to blame Bush .........

 

[code1211]

I will take that as a "no."
I suggest you go to a university near you and talk to one of the scientists about global warming. You really don't have any experience.

Such are my colleagues - I have spoken with many. Some believe in man-made contribution to global warming, while many others do not. Funding is a HUGE factor in this debate. For example, I have met Steig personally, and know his department head very well - we boat together in the summer months. Nature did NOT audit the findings of Steig - they simply ran with the premise in the hopes of getting some much needed press. (Nature is apparently teetering on insolvency) This is quite common with all pro-GW papers - the peer review is more symbolic than substantive. The entire process has been corrupted for decades.

As for academic societies - I know well how those work too. The position statements of any given society do not reflect all members - and at times, do not even represent the majority of members. It is a select few on any given board that submits those positions.

Global warming interest is falling fast - even among academia.

Now if we happen to have a couple particularly warm summers, and it appears more money is to be made available in grants and whatnot for those academics supportive of the GW position, then this will alter and once again universities will see a flurry of pro-GW activity. Currently this is not happening.

Again using Steig as an example, his report ended up being an embarrassment to the university. It was so easily disputed, the data so obviously corrupted, that even pro-GWs were left shaking their collective heads. And Steig has yet to fully disclose his the supporting data behind his conclusions. Sadly though, his data continues to be used as a citing point for those scrambling to further the GW agenda - though at present, they are failing. And the debate within the scientific community against and for Steig is quite heated. I have been privy to the residual debate going on - and it is both entertaining, and reflective of the collective shift against the absolute AGW theory that held sway the last decade.

PS - the earth keeps on cooling.

I would rather it warm up a bit....

Your posts really are laughable.

The earth is warming, not cooling.

The polar ice cap and almost all of the glaciers are melting, not growing.

Keep living in your fantasy world.

The Earth was warming until about 5 years ago. It started to warm again in about 1980 after cooling for some time. The warming and cooling trends lately seem to go in several decade spans. CO2, in contrast, rises with amazing consistancy. Warming and cooling and CO2 seem to be acting independantly lately.

The Arctic Sea ice Extent seems to have gotten bigger this year than last year which is a neat trick since the CONSENSUS of experts was that the ice would be almost entirely gone this year. Oh, well. Just when you thought that a consensus meant something.

The glaciers that are melting today are finishing an advance that began for most of them 5000 to 7000 years ago. The glaciers are not remnants of the last Ice Age. They are remnants of the cooling period that start at about 5000 BC. We are returning to the climate that led to that time.

The climate of that time had nothing at all to do with SUV's or Coal fired power plants. It was, however, much warmer than it was in 1650. That cold snap also had nothing to do with CO2. Warming out of that cold snap also had nothing to do with CO2.

This might be a fantasy world, but it's the one we live in.

 

[Meister]

No minds will be changed here. We will just have to wait for the proof that pumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere will change the way the weather behaves.

Of course, once we have the 'proof' it will be too late to do anything about it.

What will you tell your children?

Not millions of tons...

Billions of tons of CO2 each year....

The only way to stop that is ... wipe out all life except plants.

Actually, K.K., when a plant dies and decays it gives off quite a bit of CO2. So I think we just need to destroy all life on Earth to make these global warming nuts happy.

 

[Red Dawn]

another exciting thread with people with absolutly no formal education or training is science, pretending to be arm chair scientists.


Me? I'm no expert in climate physics. I'll leave it to the experts to make conclusions.

Oh, by the way, I think every single bonafide scientific organization on the planet with expertise in climate science, agrees with what Chris and Old Rocks are saying.

Every. Single. One.