97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[Dr Grump]

Do you realize how many IPCC scientists are nothing more then liberal lapdogs

Well I don't! Name them. Which ones are you talking about?
How are they lapdogs?
What results have they given that makes you believe they are not kosher and are working to another agenda?
Which of these scientists have produced work that is dodgey? And how is it dodgey?

These are just a few preliminary questions. The real questions start when you provide some answers...

 

[Andrew2382]

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming

Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.

On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

“This was startling,” reports the London Telegraph. “Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”

It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.

When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.

The figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are one of the primary sets of data used by the IPCC to promote its case for man-made global warming and they are widely quoted because they consistently show higher temperatures than other figures.

“Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question,” reports the Telegraph. “In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.”

 

[Andrew2382]

First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged 'Consensus' on Global Warming; Poll Exposes Disagreement and Confusion Among United Nations Scientists

First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged 'Consensus' on Global Warming; Poll Exposes Disagreement and Confusion Among United Nations Scientists



WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Is there really a
"consensus" on global warming among the scientists participating in the
United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? To find
out, DemandDebate.com conducted the first-ever survey of the U.S.
scientists who participated in the most recent IPCC report.

"Our results indicate that the notion of a meaningful scientific
consensus on global warming is ludicrous," said Steve Milloy,
DemandDebate.com's executive director.

During the month of October, DemandDebate.com polled each of the 345
U.S. scientists listed as contributing authors and reviewers of the IPCC's
"Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis" with a six-question survey on
climate change. Fifty-four IPCC scientists completed the survey, including
several of the most prominent global warming alarmists and several IPCC
lead authors.

Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global
temperature of 1-degree Celsius is flatly undesirable. Half of the
respondents said that such a temperature increase is either desirable,
desirable for some but undesirable for others or too difficult to assess.

"Among survey respondents, then, there's no consensus on desirability
of 1-degree Celsius of global warming -- twice the level of warming that
occurred during the 20th century," observed Milloy.

When asked about the ideal climate, only 14% said that the ideal
climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that
there is no such thing as an ideal climate.

"So if there's no agreement on what the target climate should be, what
precisely is the point of taking action on global warming? What is the
climatic goal at which we are aiming?," Milloy asked.

Another notable result is that an astounding 20% of those surveyed said
that human activity is the principal driver of climate change.

"So was there no climate change before mankind?" Milloy asked. "And if
there was natural climate change before man, why not now also?" he added.

Forty-four percent didn't think that the current global climate was
unprecedentedly warm.

"The survey results indicate that when asked routine questions about
the climatic role of manmade CO2, the IPCC scientists responded for the
most part with the Pavlovian manmade-CO2-is-bad view seemingly demanded of
them by the IPCC," Milloy noted. "But when you ask questions that are off
the IPCC script, the supposed consensus seems to readily fall apart,"
concluded Milloy.

 

[jillian]

Prison Planet? Home of the Alex Jones "conspiracies r us" show????

Awwwwwwwwww come on... that's not even a good try.

 

[Andrew2382]

I'll find you another source there are liek 10 of them

 

[jillian]

I'll find you another source there are liek 10 of them

"demanddebate" is an anti- climate change organization that is trying to undermine the accepted science in the area. Do you know who funds it? Who are the "scientists" on whose behalf they rely on for "debate"?

I'm not certain why it's so hard to believe that we contribute to climate change and it's our responsibility to be better caretakers of our planet. Is common sense in such short supply?

 

[Andrew2382]

No one argues we need to be more enviormentally sound...what the arguement is we are the sole cause that the planet is warming and we are all ging to die soon if nothing changes...when it's all a fucking farce and scare tactic.

 

[Chris]

I'll find you another source there are liek 10 of them

"demanddebate" is an anti- climate change organization that is trying to undermine the accepted science in the area. Do you know who funds it? Who are the "scientists" on whose behalf they rely on for "debate"?

I'm not certain why it's so hard to believe that we contribute to climate change and it's our responsibility to be better caretakers of our planet. Is common sense in such short supply?

Yes!

 

[jillian]

No one argues we need to be more enviormentally sound...what the arguement is we are the sole cause that the planet is warming and we are all ging to die soon if nothing changes...when it's all a fucking farce and scare tactic.

I've never heard anyone argue that we are the SOLE cause. But it is time to stop ignoring our responsibility.

As for anyone who would say we're the sole cause, I'd kind of see the difference between them and me as being the difference between a PETA loony and someone who is for animal conservation.

Maybe if people stop politicizing this we'd get to just do what's right. It's time to start getting energy independent anyway, simply as a security matter. I, personally, would like to stop us sending money to countries that distribute the money to people who hate us and want to blow us up.

just sayin'

 

[Tech_Esq]

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming

Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.

On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

“This was startling,” reports the London Telegraph. “Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”

It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.

When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.

The figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are one of the primary sets of data used by the IPCC to promote its case for man-made global warming and they are widely quoted because they consistently show higher temperatures than other figures.

“Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question,” reports the Telegraph. “In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.”

And this is why I have been saying throughout this thread that NASA is not a reputable source on this issue. James Hansen ought to be sitting in the Federal Pen right next to Robert Hanssen and for about the same thing. Selling out his country.

 

[Tech_Esq]

No one argues we need to be more enviormentally sound...what the arguement is we are the sole cause that the planet is warming and we are all ging to die soon if nothing changes...when it's all a fucking farce and scare tactic.

I've never heard anyone argue that we are the SOLE cause. But it is time to stop ignoring our responsibility.

As for anyone who would say we're the sole cause, I'd kind of see the difference between them and me as being the difference between a PETA loony and someone who is for animal conservation.

Maybe if people stop politicizing this we'd get to just do what's right. It's time to start getting energy independent anyway, simply as a security matter. I, personally, would like to stop us sending money to countries that distribute the money to people who hate us and want to blow us up.

just sayin'

The problem Jillian is not that people don't want to be more responsible stewards of the environment, this argument is not over that. The people claiming that we are the cause (that's but for causation. But for human contribution to CO2 emissions, there would be no global warming), do not want us to "be more responsible stewards," they want to make ultra drastic decisions that risk the lives and livelihoods of millions of people in this country on flimsy evidence (and as Andrew cited above, cooked books).

I'll be a good citizen, but let's not rip the heart out of the country on a mere suspicion. And that's about all the evidence they have.

 

[Old Rocks]

No one argues we need to be more enviormentally sound...what the arguement is we are the sole cause that the planet is warming and we are all ging to die soon if nothing changes...when it's all a fucking farce and scare tactic.

First, the arguement is that the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere is the primary driver, not the only one. Strawman number one. Strawman number two. No, we are not all going to die. But, down the road, and we do not yet know have far, is an adrupt climate change if we stay on the present course. And a great many of the population then alive will die.

What is a fucking farce is people like yourself that comment without the least idea of the subject on which you are commenting. You are sitting in front of the greatest research tool ever devised by man, and do not seem to have the least idea of how to use it.

 

[del]

No one argues we need to be more enviormentally sound...what the arguement is we are the sole cause that the planet is warming and we are all ging to die soon if nothing changes...when it's all a fucking farce and scare tactic.

First, the arguement is that the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere is the primary driver, not the only one. Strawman number one. Strawman number two. No, we are not all going to die. But, down the road, and we do not yet know have far, is an adrupt climate change if we stay on the present course. And a great many of the population then alive will die.

What is a fucking farce is people like yourself that comment without the least idea of the subject on which you are commenting. You are sitting in front of the greatest research tool ever devised by man, and do not seem to have the least idea of how to use it.

you should try to be more condescending.
it really strengthens your argument.

 

[Old Rocks]

No one argues we need to be more enviormentally sound...what the arguement is we are the sole cause that the planet is warming and we are all ging to die soon if nothing changes...when it's all a fucking farce and scare tactic.

First, the arguement is that the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere is the primary driver, not the only one. Strawman number one. Strawman number two. No, we are not all going to die. But, down the road, and we do not yet know have far, is an adrupt climate change if we stay on the present course. And a great many of the population then alive will die.

What is a fucking farce is people like yourself that comment without the least idea of the subject on which you are commenting. You are sitting in front of the greatest research tool ever devised by man, and do not seem to have the least idea of how to use it.

you should try to be more condescending.
it really strengthens your argument.

I have little toleration of fools. In my trade, they get people killed.

 

[Old Rocks]

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming

Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.

On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

“This was startling,” reports the London Telegraph. “Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”

It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.

When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.

The figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are one of the primary sets of data used by the IPCC to promote its case for man-made global warming and they are widely quoted because they consistently show higher temperatures than other figures.

“Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question,” reports the Telegraph. “In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.”

And this is why I have been saying throughout this thread that NASA is not a reputable source on this issue. James Hansen ought to be sitting in the Federal Pen right next to Robert Hanssen and for about the same thing. Selling out his country.

You silly ass. The claim is that the hottest decade is the one that we are in, and the claim is not for the US, but for whole world. The continental US comprises 2% of the worlds area, so while it may have been very hot here in 1934, it was not all that hot for the rest of the world.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Hey I am about as far right as anyone in the San Francisco Bay Area. Downright heretic as far as liberals are concerned.
I am a religious white american who is anti-abortion, pro-gun and yes on 8. I also can barely stand to listen to Al Gore speak. It shivers me timbers.
But I think there is truth to global warming, I think the whole truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe in conserving the environment and producing as many forms of energy as possible. That, I think would regulate the prices of the different energies. I am for responsible off-shore drilling and the twirly light bulbs which I think perform very well.
I think we can contribute to global warming by pollution but not to the extent that it will cause an apocalypse. I believe in not spending more than we make and not using more than we need. I think obesity plays as much a part to pollution as anything. I think the government should regulate the food industry and stop making excuses for our kids to stay fat and overwhelm our hospitals.... We need to get our citizens out of the hospital so that those who really need the care(illegal immigrants) get what they need.

I am not middle of the road on too much so enjoy this while it lasts.
__________________

 

[del]

First, the arguement is that the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere is the primary driver, not the only one. Strawman number one. Strawman number two. No, we are not all going to die. But, down the road, and we do not yet know have far, is an adrupt climate change if we stay on the present course. And a great many of the population then alive will die.

What is a fucking farce is people like yourself that comment without the least idea of the subject on which you are commenting. You are sitting in front of the greatest research tool ever devised by man, and do not seem to have the least idea of how to use it.

you should try to be more condescending.
it really strengthens your argument.

I have little toleration of fools. In my trade, they get people killed.

blah. blah. blah.

 

[Red Dawn]

its ok...god forbid you actually read shit with scientific data thaty proves you are wrong..you just expect people to only read your shit that you believe and you won't open your pea seized brain to something different.

Just some contributors to the report

Frano Battaglia- Professor of chemical physics and Enviromental Chemistry

Bob Carter- Paleoclimatologist and professor

Richard Courtney- Engineer for fuel use and climate consequence

Joseph D'Aleo- Meteorolgist elected councilor of AMS, first director of meteorolofy for the Weather Channel

Fred Goldberg- PHD Polar expert, organizer of 2006 Stockholm Climate Conference

Vincent Gray- PHD (Chemistry) publisger of New Zealand Climate Newsletter

Klauss Heiss- PHD Economist

Craid Idso- PHD Meteorology

Madhav Khandekar-- PHD Meteorologist, formelly with Enviorment Canada, Expert Reviewer for the IPCC 2007

Fred Singer- Atmorspheric Physicist and former director of US Weather Satellite Service

Anton Uriarte- Professor of Climatology PHD


Yeah, you're right no scientists...its ok ignore the report and dont read it cause it could prove you wrong

I see you gave up providing links, because every single wingnut link you guys have been putting up has been shredded.

But, I can't believe you're trying to sneak this shit in again. Did you really think we wouldn't look up the "qualifications" of your scientists.

Chris already shredded Fred Singer. That guy has no credibility in the international science community.

And for fucks sake, your trying to sneak in "Bob Carter" again? Skull pilot tried to pass him off, and I shredded "Bob Carter". And skull pilot dissapeared from the thread.

"Bob Carter" is a adjunct professor at the "James Cook University" Who the fuck has ever heard of "James Cook University"??

Do you know what an adjunct professor is? Its a dude who works part time and isn't on tenure track. Because he wasn't good enough to be offered a full time tenured faculty postion.

And his degree is in paleontology. Get fucking real man. He's not a real climate scientist and he is not considered anywhere remotely close to being an internationally recognized expert in the field.

 

[Old Rocks]

Geeze, old rocks, it's too late for that. Lived in Ca. for 40 years. Seen it all, especially Ca. going to the damn spend everything, and more democrats. They're giving out IOU's for tax refunds this year. Going to be 42 billion dollars into the red until Obama bails them out with your tax dollars. I had to move to the great state Idaho to fine some sanity. I do love to fish for Ore. Salmon, though. Maybe we will meet some day and have a cup of jo. See how nice I am now that I know your from the "progressive" state of Ore? PS might have pinched an arrow point or two from Christmas Valley.

Christmas Valley. Fort Rock, Hole in the Ground. Lost Forest. Been there, done that, going to do it again. Went from Fort Rock to the Green Mountain Lookout. From there through the Lost Forest until we hit a gravel road north to 20. Didn't look for arrowheads. Been spoiled for that. Eastern end of the John Day Valley and Logan Valley are where I have done most of that kind of hunting. The old lake country that is now high dessert is full of the first nation artifacts. And some are very old. On the West side of the Steens, they have found Clovis points, putting the habitation of that area much further back than previously thought. Also extending the range of the Clovis culture far further than previously thought.

An off topic thought on this off topic post. Last year, I was at Hot Springs, South Dakota, and stood beneath the skeleton of a Columbian Mammoth, and held my hands at the angle that I would have had to thrust to strike a vital organ. Almost straight up. Those people were very serious about getting their meat.

 

[jreeves]

JR Reeves:

From your article:

While some may see this as evidence in direct opposition to global warming trends, NASA-funded research from 2005 indicates that expanding Antarctic ice may actually be proof positive of such warming (Warmer air may cause increased antarctic sea ice cover). “Most people have heard of climate change and how rising air temperatures are melting glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic,” said Dylan C. Powell, lead author of the paper and a doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. “However, findings from our simulations suggest a counterintuitive phenomenon. Some of the melt in the Arctic may be balanced by increases in sea ice volume in the Antarctic.”

Ooops.

Expanding sea ice is a consequence of the melting of land ice, and is consistent with predictions of global warming. Makes sense to me. As land ice melts and chucks of it slide into the ocean, it increases sea ice.

OOPS.

Here's the deal dude. First, you should read your articles before posting them.

Second, nobody is really that concerned about sea ice. Other than its albedo properties. Melting land ice is what is of grave concern. Because melting land ice is what increases sea level. Melting ambient sea ice doesn't increase sea level.

And guess what? The last decade has been the warmest in recorded history, and land ice contines to melt at a rapid pace.

OH, good job in pointing that out....you missed a key word....MAY BE.....Not for fact...

Try to think while you read....that actually helps.

In the same article it says that climate models didn't predict this either...

So again think before you post, what you think someone else should be reading....

Thank you and thanks for playing