Global Warming

[Foxfyre]

Maybe so. But I'm a stubborn SOB.

 

[saveliberty]

Right. Its a worldwide 100+ year old conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, students, staff, and politicians. Now go put your tinfoil hat on.

Climate science should be done on a 10,000 year or longer time frame. Your loons are trying to create a crisis in the short term to gain funding. They have all but admitted they have cooked the data and the results must then be viewed as suspect. A true scientist would admit that. I refer to it as a religion, because it requires faith where no supporting evidence is present. It saves time. I apologize to actual religions for using them as an example in this case. Early science has often been proven incorrect in their conclusions. Usually it was the result of a flawed model, measuring or lack of understanding of how the system actually works. I suspect climate change will be one of these.

Man, you are the loon!

We do not have 10,000 years. We do not have another 20 years to go on accelerating the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, before we create feedback loops that we cannot control. If we have not done so already.

As for cooked data, what you are stating is that all the scientists in all the nations of the world have cooked the data. A grand international conspiracy!

In the market for a tin hat?

And you have yet to present a single real scientific source. Thus far all you have presented is yap-yap, and political opinions.

Seems like your boys asked for help in reviewing all their info last week. Trying to plug the credibility gap that keeps widening. Once again you revert to attacking the messenger. How sad. Climates take thousand of years to change, not 100. You know that, but are playing dumb in order to mislead others as to my point. The data has been cooked by the climatologists you worship OldRocks. That data has been used by everyone at this point for research purposes. You again, try to defuse and mislead. I see you have learned from your scientists friends well. When I find flaws in the refined data and cover-ups by the lead scientists, I am going question the results. That is what scientists are supposed to do. I have posted numerous supporting documents and sources in the past, but you choose to ignore them. Reposting them will make no difference.

 

[Oddball]

You are correct.

The predictions made by Dr. Hansen and others have not panned at that well. The speed of the change has been significantly faster than they predicted. The feedbacks have kicked in much sooner than predicted.

Absolutely, we do not know nearly enough about how fast GHGs can change the climate.

But what you are suggesting is that since we are in a car speeding with no brakes, and we do not know where the edge of the cliff is, just slam down the accelerator.

Bunk.

Cherry Picking, Black Swans and Falsifiability | The Resilient Earth

 

[SpidermanTuba]

2. The number of dissenting climate scientists is greater, by at least an order of magnitude, than the number of climate scientists who have contributed to the IPCC report. The number of dissenters is far too large to ignore.

The above claim, according to the link YOU provided, is based on the Oregon Institute Petition. Seriously. Are you fucking kidding me? You want to be taken seriously? You don't check your sources AT ALL, do you??? If it sounds good to you, it must be true, who cares where it comes from!

Bet you didn't know only 1400 of those 30,000+ actually have PhD's. Of course you didn't know YOU DON'T CHECK YOUR SOURCES

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers‐a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060823...articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21



When you're ready to talk about peer reviewed literature instead of webpages that single PhD's put together with references to petitions that were debunked years ago - let me know.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Dude, just look at all the retractions regarding the IPCC report.

Ok. List them.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

whose leader has now admitted that there has been no warming since 1995.

thats not what he said dumbo, he didn't qualify the phrase with "statistically significant" for his health, he did it because the qualifier "statistically significant" actually means something.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

That data has been used by everyone at this point for research purposes.

But you don't understand statistics, so how would you know?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I'm tired of disputing erroneous critiques and I'm going to bed. Good night everybody and sweet dreams. Chances are we'll survive the night and maybe the week no matter how passionately some feel that anthropogenic global warming will doom us all.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well I'm tired of disputing erroneous critiques and I'm going to bed. Good night everybody and sweet dreams. Chances are we'll survive the night and maybe the week no matter how passionately some feel that anthropogenic global warming will doom us all.

Hey maybe in your sleep you'll have a dream and suddenly realize what peer reviewed scientific literature actually is.

Here's a hint for you in the morning.

You will find very little of it HERE

You will find most of it HERE

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate science should be done on a 10,000 year or longer time frame. Your loons are trying to create a crisis in the short term to gain funding. They have all but admitted they have cooked the data and the results must then be viewed as suspect. A true scientist would admit that. I refer to it as a religion, because it requires faith where no supporting evidence is present. It saves time. I apologize to actual religions for using them as an example in this case. Early science has often been proven incorrect in their conclusions. Usually it was the result of a flawed model, measuring or lack of understanding of how the system actually works. I suspect climate change will be one of these.

Man, you are the loon!

We do not have 10,000 years. We do not have another 20 years to go on accelerating the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, before we create feedback loops that we cannot control. If we have not done so already.

As for cooked data, what you are stating is that all the scientists in all the nations of the world have cooked the data. A grand international conspiracy!

In the market for a tin hat?

And you have yet to present a single real scientific source. Thus far all you have presented is yap-yap, and political opinions.

Seems like your boys asked for help in reviewing all their info last week. Trying to plug the credibility gap that keeps widening. Once again you revert to attacking the messenger. How sad. Climates take thousand of years to change, not 100. You know that, but are playing dumb in order to mislead others as to my point. The data has been cooked by the climatologists you worship OldRocks. That data has been used by everyone at this point for research purposes. You again, try to defuse and mislead. I see you have learned from your scientists friends well. When I find flaws in the refined data and cover-ups by the lead scientists, I am going question the results. That is what scientists are supposed to do. I have posted numerous supporting documents and sources in the past, but you choose to ignore them. Reposting them will make no difference.

Younger Dryas

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6917215.ece
Six months is all it took to flip Europe’s climate from warm and sunny into the last ice age, researchers have found.

They have discovered that the northern hemisphere was plunged into a big freeze 12,800 years ago by a sudden slowdown of the Gulf Stream that allowed ice to spread hundreds of miles southwards from the Arctic.

Previous research had suggested the change might have taken place over a longer period — perhaps about 10 years.

The new description, reminiscent of the Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow, emerged from one of the most painstaking studies of past climate changes yet attempted.


“It would have been very sudden for those alive at the time,” said William Patterson, a geological sciences professor at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, who carried out the research. “It would be the equivalent of taking Britain and moving it to the Arctic over the space of a few months.”

 

[Old Rocks]

You are correct.

The predictions made by Dr. Hansen and others have not panned at that well. The speed of the change has been significantly faster than they predicted. The feedbacks have kicked in much sooner than predicted.

Absolutely, we do not know nearly enough about how fast GHGs can change the climate.

But what you are suggesting is that since we are in a car speeding with no brakes, and we do not know where the edge of the cliff is, just slam down the accelerator.

Bunk.

Cherry Picking, Black Swans and Falsifiability | The Resilient Earth

A nice lie by the wingnut. The prediction, like most scientific predictions, was done in a cone of probability. With an upper limit, and a lower limit. The line represented in the graph was the upper limit, not the most probable median. The wingnuts have been playing this game for a couple of decades now.

However, now that we are into the period of time of the last IPCC predictions, perhaps we should also have a look there. Lo and behold, the sea level rise there is tracking the upper limit. And the sea ice melt has gone way beyond the upper limit predicted in 2006.

One might also remember that when Hansen made his predictions, the wingnuts of the time were denying that any warming at all was occuring.

 

[Old Rocks]

Foxfyre;

No way in hell. Perhaps you need to reread some of what I have said. I am saying stomp on the brakes and stop this insane rush into headlong world control of energy policy and all of us who use any form of energy.

I am saying that the evidence is that they know full well that whatever they are proposing worldwide won't make a dent in human factors they claim are causing global warming. And as for Hansen, didn't he say about a year ago that President Obama has four years to save the world. If he fails, we are doomed? Or something to that effect.

Does that honestly sound like a mentally balanced and rational assessment from a scientist to you?

I think that that assessment may be too optimistic.

The effects that we are seeing today are the result of CO2 levels that existed 30 to 50 years ago. So no matter how quickly we shift to energy that does not release GHGs, there is still that many years of increaseing heat in the pipes.

But, right now, in real time, we are seeing rapidly increasing releases of CO2 and CH4 from the permafrost regions of Siberia and North America. And there is several times as much GHGs stored there as are in the atmosphere at present.

For the last two years, we have seen CH4 releases from the Arctic Ocean Clathrates. As the north polar ice disappears, there is a high probability that we will see major outgassing of these deposits.

If a scientist makes a statement that is alarming, one should at least look at the evidence that he bases his statement on. If 20 scientists concur in the statement, then one should be thinking preventive policy while examining the evidence. When virtually the whole of the scientific community is sounding the alarm, then you had better damned well realize that something is going on.

And that is where we are today.

 

[saveliberty]

Scientists issued a tsunami warning for Hawaii Saturday. When it failed to materialize, the scientists said, it was better to be overly concerned. I think climatologists use the same rational.

 

[Foxfyre]

Scientists issued a tsunami warning for Hawaii Saturday. When it failed to materialize, the scientists said, it was better to be overly concerned. I think climatologists use the same rational.

Possibly some do, but if you follow the money, you will see virtually all the primary alarmists are receiving grant monies or government funding that depend on them being able to keep the global warming scare going. I do not pretend to be an expert on paleoclimatology nor current climatology and I am not privy to know all the underlying factors in the mix, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that none of this has anything to do with climate change.

But after following the money and just using plain common sense, I think if they were genuinely concerned about human generated CO2 levels you would see a much different lifestyle among the 'experts' and they wouldn't be jetting all over the world to exotic locations to expound on how to combat global warming. They are all quite well off and could afford to be 'greening up' their primary houses and vacation homes and time shares etc. etc. etc. They aren't doing that, and that includes the great Guru himself, Al Gore.

And there wouldn't be any talk about cap and trade either. If human generated CO2 is such a danger they would be lobbying to shut it all down as much as possible and penalizing those who won't instead of just shifting around permissions to emit it.

I am beginning to believe that this is all about powerful people taking more and more control of the people so that they can enrich themselves or for whatever purpose they have in mind. They hope to accomplish it by continuing to scare to death the most ignorant and gullible among us and by persuading governments to relinquish control to them. There is simply no other explanation for the wide disparity in "scientific" opinion.

 

[boedicca]

I am beginning to believe that this is all about powerful people taking more and more control of the people so that they can enrich themselves or for whatever purpose they have in mind. They hope to accomplish it by continuing to scare to death the most ignorant and gullible among us and by persuading governments to relinquish control to them. There is simply no other explanation for the wide disparity in "scientific" opinion.

That's exactly what is going on. Al Gore joined Kleiner Perkins for a reason - to capitalize on the global warming scare-mongering he has fostered. The KP partners kick in a bit of capital to control a green start up, with huge heaping helpings of government pork via the Al Gore connection. If the start up hits big, Gore & KP get the equity pop - while taxpayers have footed most of the expenses.

That's the gig.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I am beginning to believe...

Sounds like a religion to me.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am beginning to believe that this is all about powerful people taking more and more control of the people so that they can enrich themselves or for whatever purpose they have in mind. They hope to accomplish it by continuing to scare to death the most ignorant and gullible among us and by persuading governments to relinquish control to them. There is simply no other explanation for the wide disparity in "scientific" opinion.

That's exactly what is going on. Al Gore joined Kleiner Perkins for a reason - to capitalize on the global warming scare-mongering he has fostered. The KP partners kick in a bit of capital to control a green start up, with huge heaping helpings of government pork via the Al Gore connection. If the start up hits big, Gore & KP get the equity pop - while taxpayers have footed most of the expenses.

That's the gig.

And I think there is more to the gig too. General Electric, for instance, has some deals in the works that will net them hundreds of millions if not billions if Cap & Trade passes, so of course if you follow that money you'll find a lot of GE monies funneled to pro-AGW groups and doing cap & trade lobbying. To me that is a lot more suspect than is say an industry that is fighting for its life and putting money into combating the propaganda.

ConocoPhllips for instance, even as they are profiting from utilizing 'green' industires such as bio fuels--all of which they know are not energy efficient but if the government will pay them to produce them they won't turn it down--are fighting cap & trade that will cost them hundreds of millions. Who can fault anybody from resenting the government singling them out for that kind of expense?

And we won't be seeing personal benefit to the mega money going to GE, but we sure as hell will incur the costs to ConocoPhillips and the other energy producers. That is why cap & trade is the largest, most insiduous and pervasive tax ever imposed on human kind.