Problems With Scientific Models For GW

[Psychoblues]

I tried to give you good rep but the administration software prevented it. Thank You, R. Crookshank, and WELCOME TO THE USMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Annie]

Al Gore, a recent Nobel Prize and Oscar winner has a good primer for you that is well documented, cross referenced and otherwise highly aclaimed by many thousands of respectable scientists.




I can't help it if you are so ignorant and arrogant as to ignore them. There are also many more sources much less acclaimed than Al Gore's that verify the truth of man made global climate intervention and interference of the environment that God has provided for us and expected us to protect.

Are you just afraid of the gas tax?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)

Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)

INTRODUCTION:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.


The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.



Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.


Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.



“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]



Scientists from Around the World Dissent



This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)



Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”


This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)


The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.



Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.


The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.” ....

 

[Annie]

I must respectfully disagree. The overwhelming scientific evidence is that global warming is happening, and that human activity has contributed to it. Unhappily, the politics of the global warming debate is short-sighted (it doesn’t see beyond the next election); and, as I indicated, supra, the issue has been governed by politics rather than science. As to the former, one can be confident that, if need suit purpose, our political establishment would fund a study to show that the moon is made of blue cheese. As for the latter, we shall all see the truth for ourselves soon enough.

What do you disagree with? The 300+ scientists or the fact that the Committee is looking at the analysis?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again, the temperature increases do NOT corralate with CO2 causing the supposed man made global warming. But go ahead post another one liner that has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Annie]

Opinionum commenta delet dies, naturae judicia confirmat.
- Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II. ii. 5

“Time obliterates the fictions of opinion, and confirms the decisions of nature.”

Thank you! Here I thought you were agreeing with the opinion that global warming was man made. Most likely it is nature, doing what nature does.

 

[Annie]

Whether global warming is caused by natural events or human activities (or both) is not relevant to the scientific fact that climate change is happening. The relevant questions is: What can be done about it? Indeed, it is doubtful that anything can be done at this late date - we are past the tipping point. What now will stop the ice from melting? - and the effects of just a few degree’s change in the ocean currents that regulate the earth’s climate? The consequences will be catastrophic; and it will be late to counsel then, or pray, when it has come upon us. Yet, even now, there are those that still refuse to recognize what is plain for all to see. The reason, apparently, is that most people are egocentric: viz. they are only concerned about things that affect them personally. No doubt, most will come to grips with the effects of global warming at the grocery store when they are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves; others will be concerned about it when they see their beachfront property under water. Then, surely, it will be a real problem.

So you really don't agree with what you quoted?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ohh I see, We should preserve nature UNTIL it does something we do not want.

Further I will point out that the supposed major heating trend has stopped. 1 degree in 100 years is not earth shattering. And no one can provide any real estimates on what change will happen in the next 100 years. BUT we should gut our economies because it will make YOU feel better.

 

[Annie]

No, you don’t see. The overwhelming evidence is that carbon emissions (both natural and anthropogenic) are a proximate cause of global warming, which is happening before our very eyes. What is hard to see is how anyone cannot be concerned about what we are doing to the environment. Is it not in our own self-interest to see that we do not pollute the air and water - the very elements upon which all life depends - and preserve the land and sea that provides for our existence? Can there be anything more important? And, what about the future? - Can we be so selfish as not to be concerned about the quality of life of our own children and grandchildren? What will be their inheritance? Will they see us as good stewards of that which we only hold in trust? - Or will they curse us for wasting their birthright? Can we be so short-sighted as not to foresee the consequences of our actions, or so callous as not to care? Apparently so.

John Ruskin, an early environmentalist from the beginning of the industrial age, most cogently expressed this concern in one of his essays thus:

"The benevolent regards and purposes of men in masses seldom can be supposed to extend beyond their own generation. They may look to posterity as an audience, may hope for its attention, and labor for its praise: they may trust to its recognition of unacknowledged merit, and demand its justice for contemporary wrong. But all this is mere selfishness, and does not involve the slightest regard to, or consideration of, the interest of those by whose numbers we would fain swell the circle of our flatterers, and by whose authority we would gladly support our presently disputed claims. The idea of self-denial for the sake of posterity, of practicing present economy for the sake of debtors yet unborn, of planting forests that our descendants may live under their shade, or of raising cities for future nations to inhabit, never, I suppose, efficiently takes place among publicly recognized motives of exertion. Yet these are not the less our duties; nor is our part fitly sustained upon the earth, unless the range of our intended and deliberate usefulness include, not only the companions but the successors of our pilgrimage. God has lent us the earth for our life; it is a great entail. It belongs as much to those who are to come after us, and by whose names are already written in the book of creation, as to us; and we have no right, by anything that we do or neglect, to involve them in unnecessary penalties, or deprive them of benefits which it was in our power to bequeath. And this the more, because it is one of the appointed conditions of the labour of men that, in proportion to the time between the seed-sowing and the harvest, it is the fulness of the fruit; and that generally, therefore, the farther off we place our aim, and the less we desire to be ourselves the witnesses of what we have laboured for, the more wide and rich will be the measure of our success. Men cannot benefit those that are with them as they can those who come after them; and of all the pulpits from which human voice is ever sent forth, there is none from which it reaches so far as from the grave."

- John Ruskin, The Lamp of Memory (1849)

I respect history as much as anyone:

[/QUOTE]

 

[Bern80]

Whether global warming is caused by natural events or human activities (or both) is not relevant to the scientific fact that climate change is happening. The relevant questions is: What can be done about it? Indeed, it is doubtful that anything can be done at this late date - we are past the tipping point. What now will stop the ice from melting? - and the effects of just a few degree’s change in the ocean currents that regulate the earth’s climate? The consequences will be catastrophic; and it will be late to counsel then, or pray, when it has come upon us. Yet, even now, there are those that still refuse to recognize what is plain for all to see. The reason, apparently, is that most people are egocentric: viz. they are only concerned about things that affect them personally. No doubt, most will come to grips with the effects of global warming at the grocery store when they are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves; others will be concerned about it when they see their beachfront property under water. Then, surely, it will be a real problem.

Not quite. Shouldn't the question be, What should we be doing about it (if anything)?

It is essentially the opposite argument. Those that say we are causing the problem say we need to return earth to a natrual state. Well, if we aren't causing it why are you propossing we remove earth from a natural state? Simply because it is inconvenient (albeit a big one) for us in our insignificant time on this planet?

 

[Annie]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

and here's the response that Goresters could come up with after over 400 disagreed with him:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATION/844993096/1001

...

After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

"Recycling of that kind of discredited conspiracy theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real challenge facing society and the energy industry," he said. "And that challenge is how are we going to provide the energy needed to support economic and social development while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."

...

 

[MtnBiker]

Whether global warming is caused by natural events or human activities (or both) is not relevant to the scientific fact that climate change is happening. The relevant questions is: What can be done about it? Indeed, it is doubtful that anything can be done at this late date - we are past the tipping point. What now will stop the ice from melting? - and the effects of just a few degree’s change in the ocean currents that regulate the earth’s climate? The consequences will be catastrophic; and it will be late to counsel then, or pray, when it has come upon us. Yet, even now, there are those that still refuse to recognize what is plain for all to see. The reason, apparently, is that most people are egocentric: viz. they are only concerned about things that affect them personally. No doubt, most will come to grips with the effects of global warming at the grocery store when they are fighting in the isles for the food on the shelves; others will be concerned about it when they see their beachfront property under water. Then, surely, it will be a real problem.

Fear!

 

[Psychoblues]

I've never seen a more clear or certain Republican claim to fame.

Fear!

Disrespect for science, facts, common good will, etc. can oly be justified by:

Fear!​

Thank you, mb, for clearing that up!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thank you for the information climate history that you provided. I apologize that I cannot respond in kind; however I am informed that the forum rules preclude my posting URL’s until I have made 15 posts or more (which, hopefully will be soon).

29 posts now, where are your links?

 

[Bern80]

I've never seen a more clear or certain Republican claim to fame.




Disrespect for science, facts, common good will, etc. can oly be justified by:

Fear!​

Thank you, mb, for clearing that up!!!!!!!!!!!

What else, besides fear mongers, would you call a group of people who say we are haveing a global emergency when we know:

1) it has been warmer in the past (with many benefits I might add)


2) Less than half of the scientific community is convinced man is the culprit of the current warming trend

and

3) who's lead proponent, Algore, is not a scientist

 

[Shogun]

29 posts now, where are your links?

HOLY SHIT.. the IRONY which is YOU insisting for evidence!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

HOLY SHIT.. the IRONY which is YOU insisting for evidence!

Ohh look dumb shit is even in this thread making personal attacks with no basis on the posted thread, hey? Aren't you a mod?

 

[Shogun]

No.. it's pretty relevant when there are at least 3 other threads making your insistence of evidence in this thread a giant punchline.


Maybe this will prompt you to follow your own advice in those threads.