Just my oinion

[onecut39]

The debate rages on even though 97% of climatologist agree there is cause for concern. Increasingly the opposition is centered in energy funded "scientists" many of whom have no expertise in climate whatever. The sole remaining group that in opposition that has some credibility are the meteorologists, and the most vocal and visible are the TV weathermen.

One of the stranger arguments seen on this board is, "Climate is changing all the time so therefore it is not our fault". Half true. Climate has changed, and in some cases has changed rather rapidly but to use this excuse to sit on our hands because we are reluctant to part with a few conveniences and a few bucks is regrettable.

I find it odd that it is recommended that we stand idly by while the American Heartland becomes the Great American Desert.

As with all things that are both political and expensive it will be left. not to solve itself but to run its course. And run it's course it will.

You will be able to chart its course not by reported temperatures (they don't mean snot) but by something much more deadly. Hunger. Keep track of the famines, especially where they are unusual, Watch the price of food, especially grain and grain supported food. Watch the drought areas and observe how they contract, expand or shift.

It is not in the news much now but pay attention to the ocean and the food harvested there. It is diminishing. Pay attention to the reasons why.

There will be winners and losers, a lot more of the former than the latter.

Cheers!

 

[Oddball]

The debate rages on even though 97% of climatologist agree there is cause for concern.

When you start out of the gate with an outright lie, why would anyone wade through the rest of it?

 

[Mr. H.]

Run that oinion under cold water while peeling.
No more tears.

 

[onecut39]

The debate rages on even though 97% of climatologist agree there is cause for concern.

When you start out of the gate with an outright lie, why would anyone wade through the rest of it?

You were saying? I could go on and on and on...........and on. I don't know why I should the thread was clearly stated as my opinion.


97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

Global Warming: Man or Myth - The Scientific Consensus

 

[Oddball]

That "survey" was rigged.

I guess you didn't get the memo.

Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats | FP Comment | Financial Post

 

[Old Rocks]

The debate rages on even though 97% of climatologist agree there is cause for concern.

When you start out of the gate with an outright lie, why would anyone wade through the rest of it?

Care to show where that is a lie?

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

 

[Old Rocks]

That "survey" was rigged.

I guess you didn't get the memo.

Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats | FP Comment | Financial Post

Really? So why don't you show us where there are some prominent scientists publishing in the field in peer reviewed journals that are stating that AGW is not a fact?

 

[onecut39]

That "survey" was rigged.

I guess you didn't get the memo.

Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats | FP Comment | Financial Post

So, you don't like throwing out those whose fields are not strictly related to climatology.

I have noticed that so many of the anti warmers seem to have unrelated expertise.

Always nice to have some veterinary opinion in the medical expertise.

 

[eflatminor]

Climate has changed, and in some cases has changed rather rapidly but to use this excuse to sit on our hands because we are reluctant to part with a few conveniences and a few bucks is regrettable.

A "few bucks", eh? Exactly who should we be sending our money to that will stop this terrible onslaught of climate change?

Tell you what. If you so damn sure you know future weather patterns, move the hell away from the water's edge, sell your car and live off tree bark. Your call.

Then there's this recent study:

Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now – and world has been cooling for 2,000 years « Emerging Truth

So tell us, which "conveniences" should the Romans have given up to stop all this global cooling...or was it warming?

 

[eflatminor]

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

So do the activities of termites...and every other living entity on this planet. Climate changes over time. Get over it. None of this gives you or anyone else the right to expand government control or redistribute wealth.

 

[onecut39]

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

So do the activities of termites...and every other living entity on this planet. Climate changes over time. Get over it. None of this gives you or anyone else the right to expand government control or redistribute wealth.

Got it! Those ******** ain't getting YOUR money!

 

[Oddball]

That "survey" was rigged.

I guess you didn't get the memo.

Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats | FP Comment | Financial Post

Really? So why don't you show us where there are some prominent scientists publishing in the field in peer reviewed journals that are stating that AGW is not a fact?

Peer review is rigged too, and you know it.

 

[Oddball]

The debate rages on even though 97% of climatologist agree there is cause for concern.

When you start out of the gate with an outright lie, why would anyone wade through the rest of it?

Care to show where that is a lie?

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

"Consensus" ain't science, and you know that, too.

 

[eflatminor]

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

So do the activities of termites...and every other living entity on this planet. Climate changes over time. Get over it. None of this gives you or anyone else the right to expand government control or redistribute wealth.

Got it! Those ******** ain't getting YOUR money!

Damn straight.

 

[Trakar]

The debate rages on even though 97% of climatologist agree there is cause for concern. Increasingly the opposition is centered in energy funded "scientists" many of whom have no expertise in climate whatever. The sole remaining group that in opposition that has some credibility are the meteorologists, and the most vocal and visible are the TV weathermen.

While there are certainly political ideologues who once held jobs as meteorologists that try to base their beliefs on a distortion of the science, the majority of the professional, field employed meteorologists as well as all of the national and international meteorology professional groups, acknowledge and support the mainstream climate science understandings. A few bad apples shouldn't be mistaken as representative of the entire profession.

 

[Trakar]

Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now – and world has been cooling for 2,000 years « Emerging Truth

So tell us, which "conveniences" should the Romans have given up to stop all this global cooling...or was it warming?

Except, of course, that isn't what the study says, nor does it offer any compelling evidences regarding global climate.

The actual conclusion of the study from which these article distortions are presumably summarized states:

...Whereas our results on orbitally forced climate trends in a 2,000-year MXD chronology seem to be in line with coarseresolution Holocene proxies2,3 and are supported by CGCM evidence7,8, little attention has been paid to the lack of these trends in long-term tree-ring records and implications thereof.The JJA temperature reconstruction presented here closes this gap, a finding that largely stems from the exceptionally strong and temporally stable climate signal, and the unprecedented length and replication of the new N-scan MXD chronology. The ability of MXD data to retain millennial scale temperature trends seems to result from a number of properties, including a reduced age trend24 and biological persistence25 resulting in less distortion of retained trends through regional curve standardization26 (RCS), the ability of tree populations to develop cell walls of continuously changing thickness over millennia and the non-plastic response of the termination of cell-wall lignification with respect to the integrated heat over the high and late summer seasons27. It is the combination of these properties that seems to enable the retention of a millennial scale trend in the MXD record and the lack of this lowest frequency variance in existing TRW records. These findings together with the trends revealed in long-term CGCM runs suggest that large-scale summer temperatures were some tenths of a degree Celsius warmer during Roman times than previously thought.
It has been demonstrated4 that prominent, but shorter term climatic episodes, including the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age, were influenced by solar output and (grouped) volcanic activity changes, and that the extent of warmth during medieval times varies considerably in space.

So the paper confirms that our planet has been following the Milankovitch cycles and from the models and evidences they looked at, at least northern europe has been in a general but slight cooling trend for the last 2000 years and that this group's proxy studies and computer models indicate that we should add a few tenths of a degree to summer temperatures in the southern European temperatures 2262 to 2412 years ago. Interesting work to be sure,but I'm not sure what you seem to be all breathlessly worked up over?

 

[eflatminor]

Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now – and world has been cooling for 2,000 years « Emerging Truth

So tell us, which "conveniences" should the Romans have given up to stop all this global cooling...or was it warming?

Except, of course, that isn't what the study says, nor does it offer any compelling evidences regarding global climate.

The actual conclusion of the study from which these article distortions are presumably summarized states:

...Whereas our results on orbitally forced climate trends in a 2,000-year MXD chronology seem to be in line with coarseresolution Holocene proxies2,3 and are supported by CGCM evidence7,8, little attention has been paid to the lack of these trends in long-term tree-ring records and implications thereof.The JJA temperature reconstruction presented here closes this gap, a finding that largely stems from the exceptionally strong and temporally stable climate signal, and the unprecedented length and replication of the new N-scan MXD chronology. The ability of MXD data to retain millennial scale temperature trends seems to result from a number of properties, including a reduced age trend24 and biological persistence25 resulting in less distortion of retained trends through regional curve standardization26 (RCS), the ability of tree populations to develop cell walls of continuously changing thickness over millennia and the non-plastic response of the termination of cell-wall lignification with respect to the integrated heat over the high and late summer seasons27. It is the combination of these properties that seems to enable the retention of a millennial scale trend in the MXD record and the lack of this lowest frequency variance in existing TRW records. These findings together with the trends revealed in long-term CGCM runs suggest that large-scale summer temperatures were some tenths of a degree Celsius warmer during Roman times than previously thought.
It has been demonstrated4 that prominent, but shorter term climatic episodes, including the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age, were influenced by solar output and (grouped) volcanic activity changes, and that the extent of warmth during medieval times varies considerably in space.

So the paper confirms that our planet has been following the Milankovitch cycles and from the models and evidences they looked at, at least northern europe has been in a general but slight cooling trend for the last 2000 years and that this group's proxy studies and computer models indicate that we should add a few tenths of a degree to summer temperatures in the southern European temperatures 2262 to 2412 years ago. Interesting work to be sure,but I'm not sure what you seem to be all breathlessly worked up over?

Breathing just fine thank you. But to your point, I'm in no way concerned about the science of climate and predictions made thereof. That's all fine and good. You may be correct about the direction of climate...or perhaps Lord Munckton is right. Either way, it does NOT justify expansion of government powers or redistribution of wealth. That's the part to get worked up over.

Again, if you are 100% sure that the ice caps will melt and sea levels will rise, move inland and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[Trakar]

Either way, it does NOT justify expansion of government powers or redistribution of wealth. That's the part to get worked up over.

(first off, you do realize, don't you, that the government isn't some royal aristocracy? Here in the US the government is the people, it is expressing the understandings and will of the people, The reason our forefathers didn't want the ordinary, average citizen to vote on issues of governance is because they feared what would happen if we turned control of the nation over to uneducated rubes easily persuaded by rumour, gossip and self-serving rhetoric, I fully understand their fears, but I still have faith in the democratic process.)

What expansion of powers do you feel I am advocating? The only money I am seeking is the money that is required to clean up the mess that a very small percentage of people should have paid out of their profits all along, and would have been, if it weren't for the market failure and distortion that let these sellers not account for the externalities of their products. This is money stolen from everyone on the planet. I don't seek to take anyone's money, I just want to see the money that was stolen from us all, put to work cleaning up the mess that was created in our name.

Again, if you are 100% sure that the ice caps will melt and sea levels will rise, move inland and leave the rest of us alone.

Unfortunately, sea level rise is probably the least concerning consequence.

 

[onecut39]

That "survey" was rigged.

I guess you didn't get the memo.

Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats | FP Comment | Financial Post

Really? So why don't you show us where there are some prominent scientists publishing in the field in peer reviewed journals that are stating that AGW is not a fact?

Peer review is rigged too, and you know it.

Got it! If does not agree with you it is rigged. No proof needed. Everyone knows THAT!

 

[onecut39]

Either way, it does NOT justify expansion of government powers or redistribution of wealth. That's the part to get worked up over.

(first off, you do realize, don't you, that the government isn't some royal aristocracy? Here in the US the government is the people, it is expressing the understandings and will of the people, The reason our forefathers didn't want the ordinary, average citizen to vote on issues of governance is because they feared what would happen if we turned control of the nation over to uneducated rubes easily persuaded by rumour, gossip and self-serving rhetoric, I fully understand their fears, but I still have faith in the democratic process.)

What expansion of powers do you feel I am advocating? The only money I am seeking is the money that is required to clean up the mess that a very small percentage of people should have paid out of their profits all along, and would have been, if it weren't for the market failure and distortion that let these sellers not account for the externalities of their products. This is money stolen from everyone on the planet. I don't seek to take anyone's money, I just want to see the money that was stolen from us all, put to work cleaning up the mess that was created in our name.

Again, if you are 100% sure that the ice caps will melt and sea levels will rise, move inland and leave the rest of us alone.

Unfortunately, sea level rise is probably the least concerning consequence.

I agree. There are much worse things that can happen