Global warming: red-faced climatologist issues grovelling apology

[skookerasbil]

Today........top story on Realclear..............

Im laughing my balls off...................

Please, Global Warming Alarmists, Stop Denying Climate Change - And Science - Forbes

5 years ago........you'd have to search for one hour to find a link like this ^^^

Now?

Google "climate alarmists losing" or "green energy losing ground" or "global warming alarmists".......................you come up with dozens of links indicating escalator down for these people. And think about it.........there are thousands of members on the USMESSAGE BOARD and how many come into this particular forum? A handful.........maybe? Why? Because its a waste of time............a lost cause.

Some evidently still not getting it however............and thank God for that. This message board would be boring as hell without having the environmental nutters to publically humiliate!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How about one National Academy of Science. Even Outer Slobovia.

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

Want to talk logic?

The properties of GHGs are well-known.

They have been going up with no natural explanation.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Logic says the 'if' has been settled. The only questions remaining are 'when' and 'how bad'.

Want to talk logic? Despite the fact that man made carbon dioxide emissions have skyrocketed there is no equivalent increase in temperatures, nor is there an increase in water vapor. It seems that, despite having lived on this planet for thousands of years, we still do not know enough about what drives climate change to make accurate predictions about cause and effect.

 

[bripat9643]

How about all the scientists that are leaving those societies over the wording of their policy statements? Funny thing is, most scientific societies have no position on global warming because they are not into making policy statements. All the ones that have are political groups, not science groups.

Taking some kind of vote on scientific issues only shows that the people doing so are political hacks and not scientists.

 

[code1211]

How about one National Academy of Science. Even Outer Slobovia.

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

Want to talk logic?

The properties of GHGs are well-known.

They have been going up with no natural explanation.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Logic says the 'if' has been settled. The only questions remaining are 'when' and 'how bad'.

Warming is inevitable and yet it is not happening at the rate that was predicted if the theory is correct. This is because the effect of CO2 as it increases gets smaller and smaller.

This is a property of CO2 and you claim that the properties of GHG's are well known and yet you don't know this.

Interesting...

CO2 and the law of diminishing marginal returns | Deneen Borelli

Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the long wave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day — it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can’t make it any darker.

Another way of looking at it is by thinking of adding blankets to your bed on a cold night: if you have no blankets, adding one will have a big effect. If you have a thousand blankets, adding another thousand will have an immeasurably small effect. (Thomas J. Nelson)

 

[konradv]

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

Want to talk logic?

The properties of GHGs are well-known.

They have been going up with no natural explanation.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Logic says the 'if' has been settled. The only questions remaining are 'when' and 'how bad'.

Warming is inevitable and yet it is not happening at the rate that was predicted if the theory is correct. This is because the effect of CO2 as it increases gets smaller and smaller.

This is a property of CO2 and you claim that the properties of GHG's are well known and yet you don't know this.

Interesting...

CO2 and the law of diminishing marginal returns | Deneen Borelli

Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the long wave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day — it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can’t make it any darker.

Another way of looking at it is by thinking of adding blankets to your bed on a cold night: if you have no blankets, adding one will have a big effect. If you have a thousand blankets, adding another thousand will have an immeasurably small effect. (Thomas J. Nelson)

OK, at what point does the doubling of GHGs no longer have an effect? Tell us that and we won't have to do anymore research. If you can't, then your post doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, except as a point of fact. Are we at the point where doubling would not have an effect? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

 

[daveman]

Want to talk logic?

The properties of GHGs are well-known.

They have been going up with no natural explanation.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Logic says the 'if' has been settled. The only questions remaining are 'when' and 'how bad'.

Warming is inevitable and yet it is not happening at the rate that was predicted if the theory is correct. This is because the effect of CO2 as it increases gets smaller and smaller.

This is a property of CO2 and you claim that the properties of GHG's are well known and yet you don't know this.

Interesting...

CO2 and the law of diminishing marginal returns | Deneen Borelli

Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the long wave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day — it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can’t make it any darker.

Another way of looking at it is by thinking of adding blankets to your bed on a cold night: if you have no blankets, adding one will have a big effect. If you have a thousand blankets, adding another thousand will have an immeasurably small effect. (Thomas J. Nelson)

OK, at what point does the doubling of GHGs no longer have an effect? Tell us that and we won't have to do anymore research. If you can't, then your post doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, except as a point of fact. Are we at the point where doubling would not have an effect? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

My goodness, you're an emotional little girl, aren't you?

 

[westwall]

Want to talk logic?

The properties of GHGs are well-known.

They have been going up with no natural explanation.

Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.

Logic says the 'if' has been settled. The only questions remaining are 'when' and 'how bad'.

Warming is inevitable and yet it is not happening at the rate that was predicted if the theory is correct. This is because the effect of CO2 as it increases gets smaller and smaller.

This is a property of CO2 and you claim that the properties of GHG's are well known and yet you don't know this.

Interesting...

CO2 and the law of diminishing marginal returns | Deneen Borelli

Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the long wave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day — it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can’t make it any darker.

Another way of looking at it is by thinking of adding blankets to your bed on a cold night: if you have no blankets, adding one will have a big effect. If you have a thousand blankets, adding another thousand will have an immeasurably small effect. (Thomas J. Nelson)

OK, at what point does the doubling of GHGs no longer have an effect? Tell us that and we won't have to do anymore research. If you can't, then your post doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, except as a point of fact. Are we at the point where doubling would not have an effect? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Well, the evidence is we are allready there. CO2 content has risen far over Hansens worst case scenario and the temps havn't risen in the last ten years at least. Pretty conclusive, especially when combined with the paleo climate record we have.

 

[Old Rocks]

97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

Great now we just need the one experiment that can be replicated in any lab proving the contention.

That experiment is located where?

It was done in England by John Tyndall in 1858 and published in 1861. Where the fuck have you been?

 

[Old Rocks]

Warming is inevitable and yet it is not happening at the rate that was predicted if the theory is correct. This is because the effect of CO2 as it increases gets smaller and smaller.

This is a property of CO2 and you claim that the properties of GHG's are well known and yet you don't know this.

Interesting...

CO2 and the law of diminishing marginal returns | Deneen Borelli

Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the long wave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day — it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can’t make it any darker.

Another way of looking at it is by thinking of adding blankets to your bed on a cold night: if you have no blankets, adding one will have a big effect. If you have a thousand blankets, adding another thousand will have an immeasurably small effect. (Thomas J. Nelson)

OK, at what point does the doubling of GHGs no longer have an effect? Tell us that and we won't have to do anymore research. If you can't, then your post doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, except as a point of fact. Are we at the point where doubling would not have an effect? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Well, the evidence is we are allready there. CO2 content has risen far over Hansens worst case scenario and the temps havn't risen in the last ten years at least. Pretty conclusive, especially when combined with the paleo climate record we have.

Good God and little fishes. Same old lies once again. Warmest decade on record. The last ten years. The warmest decade proir to that? The ten years prior to that. And so on for several decades.

The Paleo climate record we have states that we are increasing the heat in the atmosphere at a very dangerous rate.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Story

 

[Old Rocks]

Warming is inevitable and yet it is not happening at the rate that was predicted if the theory is correct. This is because the effect of CO2 as it increases gets smaller and smaller.

This is a property of CO2 and you claim that the properties of GHG's are well known and yet you don't know this.

Interesting...

CO2 and the law of diminishing marginal returns | Deneen Borelli

Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the long wave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day — it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can’t make it any darker.

Another way of looking at it is by thinking of adding blankets to your bed on a cold night: if you have no blankets, adding one will have a big effect. If you have a thousand blankets, adding another thousand will have an immeasurably small effect. (Thomas J. Nelson)

OK, at what point does the doubling of GHGs no longer have an effect? Tell us that and we won't have to do anymore research. If you can't, then your post doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, except as a point of fact. Are we at the point where doubling would not have an effect? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

My goodness, you're an emotional little girl, aren't you?

Daveyboy cannot put up, he is incapable of reading the simplest scientific paper and telling you what the meaning is.

 

[Old Rocks]

How about one National Academy of Science. Even Outer Slobovia.

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

Appeal to the ignorant by the very ignorant.

 

[westwall]

97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

Great now we just need the one experiment that can be replicated in any lab proving the contention.

That experiment is located where?

It was done in England by John Tyndall in 1858 and published in 1861. Where the fuck have you been?

Actually it wasn't, here you go, read it. Obviously you, and the drones you listen too have no idea what Tyndall did..or more importantly didn't do.

"I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain.."



Tyndall (1861)

hat tip to davman for finding it...

 

[westwall]

How about one National Academy of Science. Even Outer Slobovia.

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

Appeal to the ignorant by the very ignorant.

You should know, yours is the image that shows up as the definition in the dictionary.

 

[westwall]

OK, at what point does the doubling of GHGs no longer have an effect? Tell us that and we won't have to do anymore research. If you can't, then your post doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, except as a point of fact. Are we at the point where doubling would not have an effect? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Well, the evidence is we are allready there. CO2 content has risen far over Hansens worst case scenario and the temps havn't risen in the last ten years at least. Pretty conclusive, especially when combined with the paleo climate record we have.

Good God and little fishes. Same old lies once again. Warmest decade on record. The last ten years. The warmest decade proir to that? The ten years prior to that. And so on for several decades.

The Paleo climate record we have states that we are increasing the heat in the atmosphere at a very dangerous rate.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Story

"The Story" How appropo for a work of fiction.

 

[daveman]

97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real

Great now we just need the one experiment that can be replicated in any lab proving the contention.

That experiment is located where?

It was done in England by John Tyndall in 1858 and published in 1861. Where the fuck have you been?

Oh, you mean that experiment that doesn't prove what the cult says it proves?

 

[daveman]

OK, at what point does the doubling of GHGs no longer have an effect? Tell us that and we won't have to do anymore research. If you can't, then your post doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, except as a point of fact. Are we at the point where doubling would not have an effect? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

My goodness, you're an emotional little girl, aren't you?

Daveyboy cannot put up, he is incapable of reading the simplest scientific paper and telling you what the meaning is.

I already told you what Tyndall's experiment proved. And it's not what the cult says it is.

You didn't graduate college anyway. What makes you such an expert, Roxy?

 

[tinydancer]

The 97 percent screaming headline for consensus is based on a survey of 1,372 scientists.

Good grief. Stop beating that drum. It's pathetic. And that survey was taken before Climategate I was revealed.

From Climate Depot:SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

Climate Depot Exclusive: 321-page 'Consensus Buster' Report set to further chill UN Climate Summit in Cancun
Wednesday, December 08, 2010By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report



Some great quotes (note UN Scientists are part of the skeptic crowd)

Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace".
He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed."

Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "'I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded...There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!"

See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! 'Climate change - RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence...Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives' [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!]

Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency."

Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“We're not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC's Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen...Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate...The planet's climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” -- Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” -- Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

“Those who call themselves 'Green planet advocates' should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere...Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content...Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia's CSIRO's (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens' Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity...In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” -- Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” -- Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC's Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud.” -- South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

 

[bripat9643]

The 97 percent screaming headline for consensus is based on a survey of 1,372 scientists.

Actually, it was based on a survey of only 78 scientists. They were self selected, and the question were phrased in such a way that no one would say "no."

 

[westwall]

The 97 percent screaming headline for consensus is based on a survey of 1,372 scientists.

Actually, it was based on a survey of only 78 scientists. They were self selected, and the question were phrased in such a way that no one would say "no."

Let's be super accurate, it was 79 climatologists and 74 agreed with the premise.

 

[Cuyo]

Ah......more old time religion. NO THANKS.

Now you think you're smarter than 97% of scientists. What a moron.

Nope, I just want proof, that you can not provide.

You will change your standard of proof as we provide it. I for one am done with that game.