Global Warming

[CrusaderFrank]

We can unravel the most basic elementary particles, but it's way too hard to get 2 side by side fish tanks...hmmmkay

The fact you think the Earth can reasonably be approximated as a fish tank is extremely amusing.

From a guy who thinks climate "science" is more complex than quantum physics that really means a lot

 

[saveliberty]

Your loons are trying to create a crisis in the short term to gain funding.

Sorry but the overwhelming majority of fossil fuel emissions are not due to the activities of climate scientists.

They have all but admitted they have cooked the data

There has been no data cooking. You are confusing the things that right wing bloggers tell you is true with actual truth.

You are confused, not me. The willful ignorance is pretty annoying, but I can wait until more comes to light on the manufactured crisis. Most of this information is readily available to those who bother to look it up.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have been debating them sweetie pie. You have refused to look at the debated points or the sources supporting them.

You are debating but you aren't in the same debate as I am. I am debating the validity of a scientific theory. You, on the other hand, are debating the validity of a construct you have invented in your head solely for the purpose of you having an easy debate - namely, "global warming religion".

Again, why do you believe the AGW proponents and disbelieve those who have now put out reams of scientific data disputing many or most of the science promoted by the AGW proponents?

There isn't reams of scientific data disputing most of AGW. You are confusing articles written by journalists, bloggers, economists, and politicians about science with the actual science. Do you have a link to a peer reviewed, scientific paper, written by scientists, reviewed by scientists, and published in a scientific journal debunking most points of AGW? No.

For instance, why do you believe the IPPC Summary for Policymakers and not the Independent Summary?

Are you serious? The Fraser Institute is a libertarian economic think tank. I'm not interested in what economic think tanks have to say about any physical science. Not only that but their paper is full of crap. Independent Summary for Policymakers - SourceWatch
Not subjected to rigorous peer review either. All they did was hand out a multiple choice survey to a few scientists, most of whom were not even experts in the field. That's not how its done guys, sorry.

Oh I see. If I debate that the science isn't settled and back up my opinion with that of climate scientists, I am not debating the same debate you are debating. Okay. I thought the debate was about the science of global warming. But if not, my bad. Sorry.

I do wonder on what basis you consider SourceWatch to be a less biased and more reliable source than The Fraser Institute or the ISPM for that matter, but I see that you are not interested in reviewing or discussing any materials that the radical left trashes. That puts me at a distinct disadvantage here, because if the radical left trashes it, I immediately look to see why it bothers them so much. Much more often than not, it is because the information is accurate and true.

Oh well. It's your thread and you should be able to enjoy it as you see fit. Ya'll have a good day.

 

[boedicca]

Here's a great source for the hundreds of things that are supposedly caused by Global Warming - most of which are absolutely inane.

warmlist

 

[SpidermanTuba]

We can unravel the most basic elementary particles, but it's way too hard to get 2 side by side fish tanks...hmmmkay

The fact you think the Earth can reasonably be approximated as a fish tank is extremely amusing.

From a guy who thinks climate "science" is more complex than quantum physics that really means a lot

It is. (I submit my 6 hours of graduate levelcoursework in quantum physics as qualifcation)

 

[SpidermanTuba]

but I can wait until more comes to light on the manufactured crisis.

What you mean is you can't wait for more journalists to begin to share your opinion and write stories in a way which lends more credit to your opinion.

 

[boedicca]

Jimmy Carter did post graduate work in nuclear physics - but that didn't help him any more than your studies appear to have enlightened you.

Just sayin'.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Oh I see. If I debate that the science isn't settled and back up my opinion with that of climate scientists, I am not debating the same debate you are debating. Okay. I thought the debate was about the science of global warming. But if not, my bad. Sorry.

I've highlighted the important parts:

Are you serious? The Fraser Institute is a libertarian economic think tank. I'm not interested in what economic think tanks have to say about any physical science. Not only that but their paper is full of crap. Independent Summary for Policymakers - SourceWatch
Not subjected to rigorous peer review either. All they did was hand out a multiple choice survey to a few scientists, most of whom were not even experts in the field. That's not how its done guys, sorry.

Not to mention the lead author is an ECONOMIST - not a climate scientist or a meteorologist or physicist or anything related to climate science.

I do wonder on what basis you consider SourceWatch to be a less biased and more reliable source than The Fraser Institute or the ISPM for that matter

Source watch wasn't paid $60,000 by Exxon to write their article, for one thing.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/files/corporate/giving_report.pdf

, but I see that you are not interested in reviewing or discussing any materials that the radical left trashes.

I'm really just not interested in discussing material that isn't
A. written by scientists AND
B. undergone rigorous peer review

Your link only partially satisfies A (economist is lead author!) but not B.
If you're confused as to what qualifies, check the ISI list.


When you've got something in that vein, lemme know.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm really just not interested in discussing material that isn't
A. written by scientists AND
B. undergone rigorous peer review

Your link only partially satisfies A (economist is lead author!) but not B.
If you're confused as to what qualifies, check the ISI list.


When you've got something in that vein, lemme know.

Okay, here's the summary findings of a PhD scientist after reviewing many of the same sources I and/or many others have reviewed over the last several years. The linked site provides links to ALL those sources. I have highlighted his points that I believe best support my view that the science is in no way settled and there is no consensus of scientists that AGW is a problem. I'll just leave you with that.

What conclusions can we draw from the analysis?

As the result of my reading and analysis, the major conclusions that I draw from my analysis of the issue are as follows:

1. The extent of the GW phenomena does not appear to be as great as has been presented to the public by the IPCC and the popular media.

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.

3. The IPCC seems to have focused on the last 25 to 30 years during which a GW cycle has been observed. IPCC appears to have based its predictions of increased GW for the next century on the continuation of the recent GW trend, and ignoring prior trends in global temperatures, both warming and cooling.

4. Many climate scientists have determined that we are now entering a 25 to 30 year GC period, and not a period of GW.

5. The science behind GW is not well understood and is far from settled.

6. The economic and people costs of any proposed GW solution are not well researched or understood.

7. GW appears to be largely due to natural causes, with possibly minor contributions from man-made causes.

8. Technical contributions from hundreds of climate scientists outside of the IPCC have not been adequately considered by the IPCC in determining the extent or causes of GW.

9. Any extensive and costly action to control GW is premature because of significantly different opinions offered by different groups of climate scientists.

10. Deception, the unbalanced use of scientific data, and exaggeration by certain policy makers and politicians have damaged the credibility of the good work done by IPCC scientists.

11. Climate scientists need to regroup and be more inclusive of research done by climate scientists with opposing viewpoints in order to develop a true scientific consensus on the extent and cause(s) of GW.
Global Warming Analysis - Heinz Lycklama

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming science is made up and fact and data are doctored.

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.

 

[boedicca]

Dude, just look at all the retractions regarding the IPCC report. They printed speculation from unverified magazine articles as facts.

AGW has not been proven to any extent necessary which would mandate destroying our economy to prevent it.

 

[elvis]

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.

scientists whose asses you've kissed on here sure as hell cooked the books.

 

[Old Rocks]

You mean this Heinz Lycklama? LOL. A nuclear physicist?

My Foxy, you definately pick some real fruitcakes for your 'scientific' sources.



Cordelia For Lear: The Lie of Evolution

Friday, November 27, 2009
The Lie of Evolution
The Evidence Against Evolution
by Heinz Lycklama, Ph.D.



The Theory of Evolution is widely regarded as a “fact” in the secular scientific
community. However, it can be shown that Evolution cannot even be regarded as a
theory because it is not testable or falsifiable. Darwin proposed his theory of evolution
based on his observations and analysis at a time when he did not have the powerful
scientific instruments that we have today. For example biologists can use the electronic microscope to examine the structure of a living cell today. In the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s book on The Origin of Species, scientists have been able to use modern scientific instruments to learn about how living organisms function.

 

[elvis]

You mean this Heinz Lycklama? LOL. A nuclear physicist?

My Foxy, you definately pick some real fruitcakes for your 'scientific' sources.



Cordelia For Lear: The Lie of Evolution

Friday, November 27, 2009
The Lie of Evolution
The Evidence Against Evolution
by Heinz Lycklama, Ph.D.



The Theory of Evolution is widely regarded as a “fact” in the secular scientific
community. However, it can be shown that Evolution cannot even be regarded as a
theory because it is not testable or falsifiable. Darwin proposed his theory of evolution
based on his observations and analysis at a time when he did not have the powerful
scientific instruments that we have today. For example biologists can use the electronic microscope to examine the structure of a living cell today. In the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s book on The Origin of Species, scientists have been able to use modern scientific instruments to learn about how living organisms function.

not any worse than al whore or Jones and Mann who fudged the data.

 

[Old Rocks]

Dude, just look at all the retractions regarding the IPCC report. They printed speculation from unverified magazine articles as facts.

AGW has not been proven to any extent necessary which would mandate destroying our economy to prevent it.

All the retractions? A number transposed from 2350 to 2035? Actually the IPCC report was far too conservative. The sea level rise has been running right at the top of the probability cone, and the Arctic Ice melt is off the chart, in the wrong direction. Even East Antarctica, which was supposed to be gaining ice, has been shown to be losing it.

In a report that big, there are bound to be minor errors. The major error has been the underestimation of the speed of events. And that is what all the bullshit is all about. Divert attention from reality, and you suckers are falling for it as normal.

 

[Foxfyre]

You mean this Heinz Lycklama? LOL. A nuclear physicist?

My Foxy, you definately pick some real fruitcakes for your 'scientific' sources.



Cordelia For Lear: The Lie of Evolution

Friday, November 27, 2009
The Lie of Evolution
The Evidence Against Evolution
by Heinz Lycklama, Ph.D.



The Theory of Evolution is widely regarded as a “fact” in the secular scientific
community. However, it can be shown that Evolution cannot even be regarded as a
theory because it is not testable or falsifiable. Darwin proposed his theory of evolution
based on his observations and analysis at a time when he did not have the powerful
scientific instruments that we have today. For example biologists can use the electronic microscope to examine the structure of a living cell today. In the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s book on The Origin of Species, scientists have been able to use modern scientific instruments to learn about how living organisms function.

Actually I was in a semi formal debate a few months ago and was assigned the role of opposing the case for evolution. I used Lycklama's essay on evolution as one of my sources. It was an interesting exercise, because I had not seriously prepared myself to argue that position previously. (That's how I stumbled across his assessment re global warming.)

I am not opposed to Darwin in theory, and I emphatically support it being taught in school science, but I do join with those, including PhD scientists, who recognize that while there is a solid record of how many life forms have evolved, there are many, many things that evolution cannot explain. And there have been some things claimed for evolution in the past that simply cannot be supported by any scientific evidence now. And that should be in the science curriculum too.

And whether or not I would eventually come to agree with Lycklama, his theories are not that of an unformed ideological wacko either. And they do belong in the debate.

It's just like no credible scientist would say that there has not been an overall warming trend on Earth since the last ice age. But there are many credible scientists that are convinced that we do not have all the answers for known anomalies in climate cycles, nor do we have models that can reliably predict future trends based on the known trends that we have. So far every prediction the AGW 'experts' have made have not panned out too well. And that fact belongs in that debate too.

 

[boedicca]

Dude, just look at all the retractions regarding the IPCC report. They printed speculation from unverified magazine articles as facts.

AGW has not been proven to any extent necessary which would mandate destroying our economy to prevent it.

All the retractions? A number transposed from 2350 to 2035? Actually the IPCC report was far too conservative. The sea level rise has been running right at the top of the probability cone, and the Arctic Ice melt is off the chart, in the wrong direction. Even East Antarctica, which was supposed to be gaining ice, has been shown to be losing it.

In a report that big, there are bound to be minor errors. The major error has been the underestimation of the speed of events. And that is what all the bullshit is all about. Divert attention from reality, and you suckers are falling for it as normal.

You need to consider how much the IPCC depended on the CRU, whose leader has now admitted that there has been no warming since 1995.

Much of the Global Warming hysteria pins the bogometer.

You can find a whole bunch here:

warmlist

 

[Old Rocks]

You mean this Heinz Lycklama? LOL. A nuclear physicist?

My Foxy, you definately pick some real fruitcakes for your 'scientific' sources.



Cordelia For Lear: The Lie of Evolution

Friday, November 27, 2009
The Lie of Evolution
The Evidence Against Evolution
by Heinz Lycklama, Ph.D.



The Theory of Evolution is widely regarded as a “fact” in the secular scientific
community. However, it can be shown that Evolution cannot even be regarded as a
theory because it is not testable or falsifiable. Darwin proposed his theory of evolution
based on his observations and analysis at a time when he did not have the powerful
scientific instruments that we have today. For example biologists can use the electronic microscope to examine the structure of a living cell today. In the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s book on The Origin of Species, scientists have been able to use modern scientific instruments to learn about how living organisms function.

Actually I was in a semi formal debate a few months ago and was assigned the role of opposing the case for evolution. I used Lycklama's essay on evolution as one of my sources. It was an interesting exercise, because I had not seriously prepared myself to argue that position previously. (That's how I stumbled across his assessment re global warming.)

I am not opposed to Darwin in theory, and I emphatically support it being taught in school science, but I do join with those, including PhD scientists, who recognize that while there is a solid record of how many life forms have evolved, there are many, many things that evolution cannot explain. And there have been some things claimed for evolution in the past that simply cannot be supported by any scientific evidence now. And that should be in the science curriculum too.

Scientific cases are not made in spouting amorphous generalities. State what things there are in the record of life that modern evolutionary theory cannot explain.

And whether or not I would eventually come to agree with Lycklama, his theories are not that of an unformed ideological wacko either. And they do belong in the debate.

First, his statements are not theory, they are not even hypothesis.

It's just like no credible scientist would say that there has not been an overall warming trend on Earth since the last ice age. But there are many credible scientists that are convinced that we do not have all the answers for known anomalies in climate cycles, nor do we have models that can reliably predict future trends based on the known trends that we have. So far every prediction the AGW 'experts' have made have not panned out too well. And that fact belongs in that debate too.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

You mean this Heinz Lycklama? LOL. A nuclear physicist?

My Foxy, you definately pick some real fruitcakes for your 'scientific' sources.



Cordelia For Lear: The Lie of Evolution

Friday, November 27, 2009
The Lie of Evolution
The Evidence Against Evolution
by Heinz Lycklama, Ph.D.



The Theory of Evolution is widely regarded as a “fact” in the secular scientific
community. However, it can be shown that Evolution cannot even be regarded as a
theory because it is not testable or falsifiable. Darwin proposed his theory of evolution
based on his observations and analysis at a time when he did not have the powerful
scientific instruments that we have today. For example biologists can use the electronic microscope to examine the structure of a living cell today. In the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s book on The Origin of Species, scientists have been able to use modern scientific instruments to learn about how living organisms function.

Actually I was in a semi formal debate a few months ago and was assigned the role of opposing the case for evolution. I used Lycklama's essay on evolution as one of my sources. It was an interesting exercise, because I had not seriously prepared myself to argue that position previously. (That's how I stumbled across his assessment re global warming.)

I am not opposed to Darwin in theory, and I emphatically support it being taught in school science, but I do join with those, including PhD scientists, who recognize that while there is a solid record of how many life forms have evolved, there are many, many things that evolution cannot explain. And there have been some things claimed for evolution in the past that simply cannot be supported by any scientific evidence now. And that should be in the science curriculum too.

Scientific cases are not made in spouting amorphous generalities. State what things there are in the record of life that modern evolutionary theory cannot explain.

And whether or not I would eventually come to agree with Lycklama, his theories are not that of an unformed ideological wacko either. And they do belong in the debate.

First, his statements are not theory, they are not even hypothesis.

It's just like no credible scientist would say that there has not been an overall warming trend on Earth since the last ice age. But there are many credible scientists that are convinced that we do not have all the answers for known anomalies in climate cycles, nor do we have models that can reliably predict future trends based on the known trends that we have. So far every prediction the AGW 'experts' have made have not panned out too well. And that fact belongs in that debate too.

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.

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?

 

[elvis]

Actually I was in a semi formal debate a few months ago and was assigned the role of opposing the case for evolution. I used Lycklama's essay on evolution as one of my sources. It was an interesting exercise, because I had not seriously prepared myself to argue that position previously. (That's how I stumbled across his assessment re global warming.)

I am not opposed to Darwin in theory, and I emphatically support it being taught in school science, but I do join with those, including PhD scientists, who recognize that while there is a solid record of how many life forms have evolved, there are many, many things that evolution cannot explain. And there have been some things claimed for evolution in the past that simply cannot be supported by any scientific evidence now. And that should be in the science curriculum too.

Scientific cases are not made in spouting amorphous generalities. State what things there are in the record of life that modern evolutionary theory cannot explain.

And whether or not I would eventually come to agree with Lycklama, his theories are not that of an unformed ideological wacko either. And they do belong in the debate.

First, his statements are not theory, they are not even hypothesis.

It's just like no credible scientist would say that there has not been an overall warming trend on Earth since the last ice age. But there are many credible scientists that are convinced that we do not have all the answers for known anomalies in climate cycles, nor do we have models that can reliably predict future trends based on the known trends that we have. So far every prediction the AGW 'experts' have made have not panned out too well. And that fact belongs in that debate too.

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.

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?

Rockhead is a stalinist. there is no point arguing with him.