gw is a LIE!

[westwall]

trakar- have you examined the story behind these two pictures? one is the faulty paper that made the front page of Nature and the other is the paper that destroyed the use of faulty methodology in that first paper. which one got more publicity? which one went through peer review which actually looked at the paper? and most importantly, which paper didnt get retracted from Nature and which paper couldnt get published in Nature?

And even more importantly which paper was reviewed by the author of the original study? A clear violation of the peer review process and ethics in general? Trakar could care less what the evidence is, he is a blind fool following other blind fools who are in it either for money or power.

 

[polarbear]

And even more importantly which paper was reviewed by the author of the original study? A clear violation of the peer review process and ethics in general? Trakar could care less what the evidence is, he is a blind fool following other blind fools who are in it either for money or power.

Here is a complete review of the entire GW crap, as summarized by CBC News Canada, the BBC + DW International. CBC had aired this already 3 times.
Scientists of many different disciplines ranging from Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Glaciologists, Scientists who are ACTUALLY STATIONED in Climate Research Stations , bot the arctic + the ant-arctic, sampling ice cores + much else have to say about "man made Global warming".
It`s what I have been posting as text, but it`s probably a lot more "user friendly"as a documentary film.
It`s 44 minutes long, but well worth the trouble to download & watch with no interruptions or distractions.

CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

 

[Old Rocks]

A very good article by Eric Steig.

RealClimate: West Antarctica: still warming

Does all of this mean that I think O’Donnell’s results are all wrong? Certainly not. I think that they are right to have retained more EOF patterns than we did, though the main impact of this is only in capturing the strong Peninsula warming.*** It is also quite likely that O’Donnell et al.’s results are more accurate than ours for the satellite era, during which most of the problems I have discussed above are less likely to arise. Although their results show much smaller trends, they agree well with the spatial patterns in weather forecast reanalysis data products (NCEP2, ERA-40) during the satellite era. This is a nice, largely independent validation of those products, and suggests that it is okay to use those products — which include detailed information on atmospheric circulation changes, for example — for investigating the causes of the temperature trends. This is something that quite a few of us have been working on, but there has always been the nagging problem that we don’t really know how much we can trust NCEP and ERA products at high southern latitudes. O’Donnell et al. should certainly be cited in support of such work.

In summary, even if their results are taken at face value, O’Donnell et al. 2010 doesn’t change any of the conclusions reached in Steig et al. In West Antarctica where there is disagreement, Steig et al, 2009 is in better agreement with independent data, and O’Donnell et al.’s results appear to be adversely affected by using procedures known to underestimate trends. Thus while their results may represent an improved estimate for the trends in data rich regions — East Antarctica and the Peninsula — it is virtually certain that they are an underestimate for West Antarctica. This probably means going back to the drawing board to write up another paper, taking into account those suggestions of O’Donnell et al. that are valid, but hopefully avoiding their mistakes.

 

[IanC]

Steig's face saving article is hliarious. His mangled methodology was called out as soon as it appeared, too bad it wasnt critically peer reviewed before it was published. The crew at Real Climate 'dared' the skeptics to write a better paper and they did, although at least one of the reviewers (Steig, as it turns out) demanded many changes and slowed the peer review process immensely. After the editor took Steig off the review panel and subsiquentially published the paper, Steig and the crew at Real Climate publically criticized the paper for a change in methodology that he DEMANDED to be made!

As far as Steig saying that both studies say the same thing- they dont. Steig's methods took all the warming in West Ant and the penninsula and smeared it into the main continent. ODonnell properly used the data to show slight warming in the west and none overall in the continent. He also showed that Steig was absurdly wrong. For Steig to say that ODonnell and him both show the same results is just more of the unethical distortions that the hockey team is known for.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Feb was .44c

wont be within the top 15 this year.

 

[Old Rocks]

Slight warming, Ian, old boy? A slight warming that results in tens of giga tons of melt as observed by the Grace satellites.

They are both measuring a warming. A warming that is resulting in the breakup of ice sheets on the perimeter of the continent, in the speeding up of the continental glaciers that deliver ice to the sea.

 

[Douger]

HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS! Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change

You are a typical murkin moron. I have farms in central and south America ( with an A)
The coffee you buy at 7/11, on yopur way to the garage, has to be grown nearly 1000 feet higher than it was 20 years ago.
I know. It's a lie because Glenn Beck didn't say anything about it.
I don't give a **** if it's the sun or murka or China.......or Jupiter The pollution needs to stop.
It's just that simple.
Man made or not. Going "Green" can't be a bad thing.

 

[westwall]

HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS! Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change

You are a typical murkin moron. I have farms in central and south America ( with an A)
The coffee you buy at 7/11, on yopur way to the garage, has to be grown nearly 1000 feet higher than it was 20 years ago.
I know. It's a lie because Glenn Beck didn't say anything about it.
I don't give a **** if it's the sun or murka or China.......or Jupiter The pollution needs to stop.
It's just that simple.
Man made or not. Going "Green" can't be a bad thing.

You're a typical imbecile who doesn't understand simple concepts like over farming an area. They have had to move up becaue they have depleted the soils doofus.

 

[polarbear]

HEY GREENIES, HAVE A LOOK AT THIS! Heliogenic Climate Change | The Sun, not a harmless essential trace gas, drives climate change

You are a typical murkin moron. I have farms in central and south America ( with an A)
The coffee you buy at 7/11, on yopur way to the garage, has to be grown nearly 1000 feet higher than it was 20 years ago.
I know. It's a lie because Glenn Beck didn't say anything about it.
I don't give a **** if it's the sun or murka or China.......or Jupiter The pollution needs to stop.
It's just that simple.
Man made or not. Going "Green" can't be a bad thing.

You're a typical imbecile who doesn't understand simple concepts like over farming an area. They have had to move up becaue they have depleted the soils doofus.

See, that`s exactly what I mean, buzzword talk and every square millimeter of technical territory behind their buzzwords ist a total unknown.
Farmers only fertilize with "N.P.K." while their crops had sucked out all the other trace minerals out of the soil for a century.
Even criminals who grow pot know better and feed-back all the other trace minerals any plant needs.
And where exactly have "giga tons of ice" melted as the other chief moron claims?
Had he actually watched the documentary I linked he would have heard every glaciologist and geologist who is permanently stationed in the antarctic, and the arctic where I was stationed saying exactly what I have been posting.
During a prolonged cold period it NEVER SNOWS at the poles ...but the glaciers keep on calving, down the steep slopes and the tide breaks up the solid ice that had slid down these slopes...**** ALL IS MELTING

The only time it snows at the poles is when warm air moves in. and then the glaciers build up.
Reality is exactly the other way around as "experts" who never even been there imagine it!
Almost all of Canada works the same way as at higher latitudes...
Warm air from the south moves in and we have an instant snow storm.
If we sit as most of the time, under our (brutally cold) arctic high pressure systems, then we have >than - 30 C, blue sky, and no trace of precipitation

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk[/ame]

That is what happens when "it warms up, up North"..!!!...it "warmed up" to -15 on that day, thanks to some air You guys in the U.S. who had pity for us sent to Canada. As You can see on the Doppler Radar we also had 1 inch/hour fresh snow, because it "warmed up"


**** I have been stationed many years, year round Summer and Winter at CFS Alert and Northern Greenland...and the ice mass mechanism works EXACTLY as the documentary video says it does.

Up north or in the antarctic it works EXACTLY THE OTHER WAY AROUND WITH SNOW STORMS AS IN THE U.S. where all these armchair experts sit and write about "shrinking ice" at the poles

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#

 

[westwall]

You are a typical murkin moron. I have farms in central and south America ( with an A)
The coffee you buy at 7/11, on yopur way to the garage, has to be grown nearly 1000 feet higher than it was 20 years ago.
I know. It's a lie because Glenn Beck didn't say anything about it.
I don't give a **** if it's the sun or murka or China.......or Jupiter The pollution needs to stop.
It's just that simple.
Man made or not. Going "Green" can't be a bad thing.

You're a typical imbecile who doesn't understand simple concepts like over farming an area. They have had to move up becaue they have depleted the soils doofus.

See, that`s exactly what I mean, buzzword talk and every square millimeter of technical territory behind their buzzwords ist a total unknown.
Farmers only fertilize with "N.P.K." while their crops had sucked out all the other trace minerals out of the soil for a century.
Even criminals who grow pot know better and feed-back all the other trace minerals any plant needs.
And where exactly have "giga tons of ice" melted as the other chief moron claims?
Had he actually watched the documentary I linked he would have heard every glaciologist and geologist who is permanently stationed in the antarctic, and the arctic where I was stationed saying exactly what I have been posting.
During a prolonged cold period it NEVER SNOWS at the poles ...but the glaciers keep on calving, down the steep slopes and the tide breaks up the solid ice that had slid down these slopes...**** ALL IS MELTING

The only time it snows at the poles is when warm air moves in. and then the glaciers build up.
Reality is exactly the other way around as "experts" who never even been there imagine it!
Almost all of Canada works the same way as at higher latitudes...
Warm air from the south moves in and we have an instant snow storm.
If we sit as most of the time, under our (brutally cold) arctic high pressure systems, then we have >than - 30 C, blue sky, and no trace of precipitation

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk[/ame]

That is what happens when "it warms up, up North"..!!!...it "warmed up" to -15 on that day, thanks to some air You guys in the U.S. who had pity for us sent to Canada. As You can see on the Doppler Radar we also had 1 inch/hour fresh snow, because it "warmed up"


**** I have been stationed many years, year round Summer and Winter at CFS Alert and Northern Greenland...and the ice mass mechanism works EXACTLY as the documentary video says it does.

Up north or in the antarctic it works EXACTLY THE OTHER WAY AROUND WITH SNOW STORMS AS IN THE U.S. where all these armchair experts sit and write about "shrinking ice" at the poles

CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

Nice video! Thanks for reminding me why I live here and not there!

 

[polarbear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0462407994295#

Nice video! Thanks for reminding me why I live here and not there!

Sure my friend,...! Thanks for rubbing that in! You have probably enjoyed a few rounds on the golf course already?...while I have to wait ~ 3 or 4 more months.
I also know what You Americans are saying about Canada...: "6 months of winter and 6 months of poor sledding"

But hey I could rub in that You are already struggling with Your greenhouse gas spewing lawnmower while mine is still under a snow drift...
I just watched that documentary again and could not help but notice who the main speakers on behalf of the United States were...It`s another thing You, others and I are not supposed to notice, let alone mention!
My God (I wish there was one) almost in every democratic country around the globe we manage to elect the dumbest people to "lead" us and make these kind of fruit cake decisions.
Again, it`s not our nuclear technology or our established science that is wrong and needs an overhaul,...it`s our news media that needs a serious overhaul
By the way (Japan today) :

Den Arbeitern am havarierten Atomkraftwerk Fukushima-Daiichi ist ein wichtiger Schritt gelungen: Alle sechs Reaktoranlagen haben zum ersten Mal seit der Erdbebenkatastrophe vor eineinhalb Wochen wieder eine Verbindung zum Stromnetz

All 6 plants have been re-connected to the power grid
And only now this has been mentioned,...it was not just the flooding of the Backup Diesel power plant which caused the cooling system failed but also this :

Fukushima wurden nach Angaben des Betreibers von einer 14 Meter hohen Flutwelle getroffen. Das sei mehr als doppelt so hoch, als Experten bei der Planung der Anlagen erwartet hatten.

Fusshima has been overwhelmded by a 14 Meter high Tsunami, twice as high as what was considered at the planning stage when this facility was constructed.
In other words, the ~ #9R ground shock-waves had nothing to do at all with any of the system failures, it was the flooding!
So how would that Japan nuclear event be an issue inside continental North America?..
Where would this "tsunami" come from which would jeopardize our reactor systems ?...Our swimming pools and bath tubs?
A perfectly legitimate question if the Japan scenario is used to shut down yet another energy source as intended with these childish computer models that the IPCC uses to make the case, that our SUV`s and BBQ`s melt both poles...
Soon the claims will be expanded from the "flooded New York" Adobe photo editor pictures to nuclear power plants going super nova cartoon videos on TV and Youtube, , because they will also be flooded in a "Japan Syndrome" from the contemporary biblical Noah prophecy ice melt floods.
Did You notice how much crap these claims turned out to be how our ocean water levels have allegedly "climbed an average of 2/ 100`th of an inch per year"... as if You could actually measure something like that to begin with...!
Yet another example of "computer model" garbage in/garbage out...
Meanwhile actual measurements and forensics have shown that sea water levels have fallen by more than 20 cm over the last 200 years to date 2011 !

Reminds me of that "mistake" they had to admit to with the Himalayan glaciers, where "GW Science" was out by a few X 10`s how much "computer model ice" is melting.
They took the actual 20 cm/200 years reversed the figures, fucked up in the cm to inch conversion and published it after reversing the the minus to a plus sign.

 

[westwall]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mSfyPVQuk
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...0462407994295#

Nice video! Thanks for reminding me why I live here and not there!

Sure my friend,...! Thanks for rubbing that in! You have probably enjoyed a few rounds on the golf course already?...while I have to wait ~ 3 or 4 more months.
I also know what You Americans are saying about Canada...: "6 months of winter and 6 months of poor sledding"

But hey I could rub in that You are already struggling with Your greenhouse gas spewing lawnmower while mine is still under a snow drift...
I just watched that documentary again and could not help but notice who the main speakers on behalf of the United States were...It`s another thing You, others and I are not supposed to notice, let alone mention!
My God (I wish there was one) almost in every democratic country around the globe we manage to elect the dumbest people to "lead" us and make these kind of fruit cake decisions.
Again, it`s not our nuclear technology or our established science that is wrong and needs an overhaul,...it`s our news media that needs a serious overhaul
By the way (Japan today) :

Den Arbeitern am havarierten Atomkraftwerk Fukushima-Daiichi ist ein wichtiger Schritt gelungen: Alle sechs Reaktoranlagen haben zum ersten Mal seit der Erdbebenkatastrophe vor eineinhalb Wochen wieder eine Verbindung zum Stromnetz

All 6 plants have been re-connected to the power grid
And only now this has been mentioned,...it was not just the flooding of the Backup Diesel power plant which caused the cooling system failed but also this :

Fukushima wurden nach Angaben des Betreibers von einer 14 Meter hohen Flutwelle getroffen. Das sei mehr als doppelt so hoch, als Experten bei der Planung der Anlagen erwartet hatten.

Fusshima has been overwhelmded by a 14 Meter high Tsunami, twice as high as what was considered at the planning stage when this facility was constructed.
In other words, the ~ #9R ground shock-waves had nothing to do at all with any of the system failures, it was the flooding!
So how would that Japan nuclear event be an issue inside continental North America?..
Where would this "tsunami" come from which would jeopardize our reactor systems ?...Our swimming pools and bath tubs?
A perfectly legitimate question if the Japan scenario is used to shut down yet another energy source as intended with these childish computer models that the IPCC uses to make the case, that our SUV`s and BBQ`s melt both poles...
Soon the claims will be expanded from the "flooded New York" Adobe photo editor pictures to nuclear power plants going super nova cartoon videos on TV and Youtube, , because they will also be flooded in a "Japan Syndrome" from the contemporary biblical Noah prophecy ice melt floods.
Did You notice how much crap these claims turned out to be how our ocean water levels have allegedly "climbed an average of 2/ 100`th of an inch per year"... as if You could actually measure something like that to begin with...!
Yet another example of "computer model" garbage in/garbage out...
Meanwhile actual measurements and forensics have shown that sea water levels have fallen by more than 20 cm over the last 200 years to date 2011 !

Reminds me of that "mistake" they had to admit to with the Himalayan glaciers, where "GW Science" was out by a few X 10`s how much "computer model ice" is melting.
They took the actual 20 cm/200 years reversed the figures, fucked up in the cm to inch conversion and published it after reversing the the minus to a plus sign.

The media here have mentioned it a few times but it allways gets drowned out by the other hysteria. The thing that has not been widely reported was the reason why the failure happened in the first place was the Japanese only had the one backup system and they ignored the tsunami threat. Had they mounted some diesel generators on top of the containment buildings there would have been zero problems. It was case of the Japanese getting lax becaueof their innate arrogance that makes them think they have it all figured out. Same thing happened during the Kobe quake.

Every now and then Mother Nature bitchslaps the Japanese to let them know they really havn't figured it all out yet. It's terribly sad that so many have to lose their lives for the lessons to be driven home.

 

[polarbear]

The media here have mentioned it a few times but it allways gets drowned out by the other hysteria. The thing that has not been widely reported was the reason why the failure happened in the first place was the Japanese only had the one backup system and they ignored the tsunami threat. Had they mounted some diesel generators on top of the containment buildings there would have been zero problems. It was case of the Japanese getting lax becaueof their innate arrogance that makes them think they have it all figured out. Same thing happened during the Kobe quake.

Every now and then Mother Nature bitchslaps the Japanese to let them know they really havn't figured it all out yet. It's terribly sad that so many have to lose their lives for the lessons to be driven home.

Yes I too wish they had been *****-slapped in a different way. I wished that way back when Japan shamelessly started plagiarizing everything from Cameras to Wankel engines;....and branded these "marvels of Japanese Technology" with their own names
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-MY-LwmEWI&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-MY-LwmEWI&feature=related[/ame]
@ Youtube the top comment got my attention:

Imagine how many cool things we would have it we didn't defeat the Axis of Evil.

"OldRocks" and his strange reasoning likes to celebrate that

But nevermind him, Japan`s nuclear technology also came from a Xerox copier, unfortunately as it seems now, at a time when the toner cartridge went too dry to get a good copy,

But it sure looks as though this earth quake rattled a lot more than just Japanese real estate turf.
Check it out what Google serves up with their search popularity weighted search engine:

japan +global warming
About 14,400,000 results (0.07 seconds)

japan +global warming - Google Search

Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made ? The Register

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology.

http://www.google.com/search?q=japan+%2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off&tbs=#q=japan+%2Bglobal+warming&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&prmd=ivns&ei=2F2JTdb-C6GS0QG0z5mODg&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=d0da709d28d6ead8]japan +global warming - Google Search[/

Is Japan a Leader in Combating Global Warming? The Wind-Power Problem
Japan is routinely depicted as a leader in addressing the global community's ominous energy and environmental challenges. A recent issue of Newsweek, for example, incorrectly assumed that Japan had the "feed-in tariff" mechanism that Germany in particular has used to vault itself into global leadership
In the country that hosted the Kyoto Protocol and wrote the book on solar policy, the wind-power industry has ground almost to a halt. Among the culprits: policy, cost and technology challenges.

Global Warming Questioned amid Japan Quake, Tsunami, Christian News, The Christian Post

Global Warming Questioned amid Japan Quake, Tsunami
As the Japan earthquake and tsunami ignite talks of global warming, a recently released Gallup poll indicates a growing number of Americans believe the warnings about Global warming are exaggerated.
japan tsunami
Sunday, March 13, 2011.

According to the poll, the number of Americans who believe global warming is an overstated issue has grown from 30 percent in 2000 to now 41 percent. The poll was based on telephone interview with 1,012 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted March 5-8, 2009.

Newsbytes: Japan

Newsbytes: Japan’s Tsunami Threatens The Global Warming Movement[
The nuclear emergency is Japan will be a disaster for global warming activists. For a start, Japan’s own emissions will most likely rise in the medium term, now that so many nuclear plants – one of the most greenhouse-friendly power sources – have been knocked out: ‘Analysts think Japan will compensate for the shutdown of its 10 nuclear reactors by relying more heavily on traditional fossil fuels.’
Carbon dioxide emissions in Germany may increase by 4 percent annually in response to a moratorium on seven of the country’s oldest nuclear power plants, as power generation is shifted from nuclear power, a zero carbon source, to the other carbon-intensive energy sources that currently make up the country’s energy supply.
The main problem with energy supply systems is that for the last 100 years, governments have insisted on meddling with them, using subsidies, setting rates, and picking technologies. Consequently, entrepreneurs, consumers, and especially policymakers have no idea which power supply technologies actually provide the best balance between cost-effectiveness and safety.

How Japan’s tsunami threatens the global warming movement | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

How Japan’s tsunami threatens the global warming movement
For a start, Japan’s own emissions will most likely rise in the medium term, now that so many nuclear plants - one of the most greenhouse-friendly power sources - have been knocked out: Analysts think Japan will compensate for the shutdown of its 10 nuclear reactors by relying more heavily on traditional fossil fuels. It can choose from a variety of sources. The majority of Japan’s energy is produced by power plants fired by coal, most of it from Australia. It burned 37,500 tons of coal in 2009. Japan also consumed 3.3 trillion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas that year, imported mainly from Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia. Japan also operates natural gas-burning generators and a number of aging, oil-fired plants that can be cranked up when demand for energy peaks

I want to add that Japan has bought out every ton of coal ever produced by the gigantic Tumbler Ridge coal mines in BC Canada

But back to the articel:

I don’t think Earth Hour will have the same resonance again in Japan.

The conclusion: Japan will have to learn from this disaster how to make its nuclear power stations even more invulnerable. And global warming activists - or those who don’t dream of mud hits - should pray they succeed.

Japan Just Wasted $78 Billion On 'Fruitless' Projects To Solve Global Warming

Japan Just Wasted $78 Billion On 'Fruitless' Projects To Solve Global Warming
Gus Lubin | Feb. 15, 2011, 9:09 AM
Japan spent an impressive $78 billion on global warming research in the past six years. However, none of 214 projects produced effective results, according to an official report featured in Japan Times.
This "fruitless" spending is under scrutiny as the government suffers under a heavy debt burden.

Yeah looks like some jerks who really deserve it are getting *****-slapped. The world smelled the coffee and woke up
It goes on an on like that, and the only diverging Google hits are from as far back as 2007.
Looks like the Kyotiodic assembly was the last time we saw such an array of international assholes assembled on Japans soil. The Hollywood nuclear disaster scenario buzzword "China Syndrom" has given birth to an IPCC disaster syndrome namely the real world word, the "Japan Syndrome"

 

[Bern80]

Luckily, science isn't determined by what you pretend to think. If you have an issue with proposed solutions and addressments for the very real issue of global warming, why not engage in a thoughtful consideration of the problems and propose serious means to deal with and address those issues. Sticking one's head in the sand and trying to ignore or deny that there are any issues to address merely eliminates you from having any meaningful contribution to the discussion of how to deal with the widely accepted mainstream scientific realities of AGW and the changes it has, is, and will be causing.

Sticking my head in the sand is the last thing I want to do,I have been serious about finding the truth in this since I realized how the repercussions from the gw issue are affecting us so greatly, with laws and taxes and such.

An admirable position, I started to become concerned a few decades ago for very similar reasons, not to mention the costs of dealing with the death, disease, destruction of property, loss of wildlife, business disruption, and the future I was leaving to my children and grandchildren.



Which "sides" do you speak of?



What problems and evidence are you speaking of? can you cite mainstream science sources for these problems and discussions of evidence?



again, can you cite legitimate, unbiased references that support these assertions?



The science factually identifies with empiric evidences the nature of the problem, your beliefs are irrelevent to the facts. I have found there isn't much productivity in discussions with people about their beliefs when they hold cling to those beliefs regardless of empiric evidences and established scientific understandings. If you feel that you know all you care to, or need to, know about the subject and have made your mind up, then there is little sense in further discussion.

If global warming was real I would be as supportive of making the necessary changes to protect our environment as anyone, I have nothing to gain by denying truth.

so what evidence would you find convincing and compelling in helping you to understand and accept the mainstream science of this issue?

I believe that there are many intelligent people on this forum, and as intelligent people, we should always be searching for the Truth which is unchanging, not merely looking for evidence and opinions which only support our own agendas, that is what is wrong with our government.

I see a lot of people say this when they believe that they hold the truth in their understandings, but very few that actually walk the walk, and openly and fairly consider issues they disagree with and actually change their position when their position falters and is shown to be incorrect, hopefully this forum is different, we shall see.

This post as much as any hilights that a lot of people really don't have any perspective on this issue.

First terminology: it isn't really accurate for one side or the other to say that don't believe in global warming, in the literal sense of the term that is. Of course the earth is warming, just as it has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled as it has in a cyclical manner for millions of years. What people I guess are saying when they say the believe or don't believe in global warming is that they believe or don't believe man is primarily the drive behind it.

So when true believers like dumb as rocks claims all scientific organizations have signed off on global warming or their's scientific consensus on global warming, that's rather misleading. It would not surprise at all that all those scientific bodies agree the earth is warming. That's something fairly observable. Does every credible scientific body agree that man is causing it? I don't believe so.

And whether we should actually do anything about climate change really does depend on that. Because if it is getting warmer, yes it will be something that will have many negative consequences from more flooding in coastal regions to more erratic weather. But if we aren't the cause of the warming, what right does man have to monkey with earth's thermostat just because the change will be inconvenient for him? Who ever said man should not have to adapt to a changing environment.

We as a species simply have the right perspective on climate change to make a credible statement one way or the the other as to what we should do about it. You can't credibly discuss it by looking at climate change through man's eyes and history. Man has been here the mere blink of an of earth history. Do none of you true believers not get how much life on this planet would suck for humankind had we evolved a few 10 of thousands of years earlier during the ice age. Most of this planet was rather inhospitable. Even when were in warm cycle that lasts several thousands of years, the avg. temp on this planet is something like mid 50 degrees. More perspective? Look at how we have adapted to deal with a mostly cold planet; all of our heavy clothes that we wear, the buidlings we have to keep us warm. Without the technology of those things we would likely not survive on this planet. Not because it's too warm, but because it's too damn cold most of the time. If you really had to focus on just surviving like every other animal on this planet, how long could you do it with no clothes or shelter. Not very long. You'd have to move move wear it was warm. You'd have to migrate to other climates. Think about it people people. Most of us have to heat our homes most of the year at a temperature WARMER than the air outside.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sticking my head in the sand is the last thing I want to do,I have been serious about finding the truth in this since I realized how the repercussions from the gw issue are affecting us so greatly, with laws and taxes and such.

An admirable position, I started to become concerned a few decades ago for very similar reasons, not to mention the costs of dealing with the death, disease, destruction of property, loss of wildlife, business disruption, and the future I was leaving to my children and grandchildren.



Which "sides" do you speak of?



What problems and evidence are you speaking of? can you cite mainstream science sources for these problems and discussions of evidence?



again, can you cite legitimate, unbiased references that support these assertions?



The science factually identifies with empiric evidences the nature of the problem, your beliefs are irrelevent to the facts. I have found there isn't much productivity in discussions with people about their beliefs when they hold cling to those beliefs regardless of empiric evidences and established scientific understandings. If you feel that you know all you care to, or need to, know about the subject and have made your mind up, then there is little sense in further discussion.



so what evidence would you find convincing and compelling in helping you to understand and accept the mainstream science of this issue?

I believe that there are many intelligent people on this forum, and as intelligent people, we should always be searching for the Truth which is unchanging, not merely looking for evidence and opinions which only support our own agendas, that is what is wrong with our government.

I see a lot of people say this when they believe that they hold the truth in their understandings, but very few that actually walk the walk, and openly and fairly consider issues they disagree with and actually change their position when their position falters and is shown to be incorrect, hopefully this forum is different, we shall see.

This post as much as any hilights that a lot of people really don't have any perspective on this issue.

First terminology: it isn't really accurate for one side or the other to say that don't believe in global warming, in the literal sense of the term that is. Of course the earth is warming, just as it has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled as it has in a cyclical manner for millions of years. What people I guess are saying when they say the believe or don't believe in global warming is that they believe or don't believe man is primarily the drive behind it.

So when true believers like dumb as rocks claims all scientific organizations have signed off on global warming or their's scientific consensus on global warming, that's rather misleading. It would not surprise at all that all those scientific bodies agree the earth is warming. That's something fairly observable. Does every credible scientific body agree that man is causing it? I don't believe so.And whether we should actually do anything about climate change really does depend on that. Because if it is getting warmer, yes it will be something that will have many negative consequences from more flooding in coastal regions to more erratic weather. But if we aren't the cause of the warming, what right does man have to monkey with earth's thermostat just because the change will be inconvenient for him? Who ever said man should not have to adapt to a changing environment.

We as a species simply have the right perspective on climate change to make a credible statement one way or the the other as to what we should do about it. You can't credibly discuss it by looking at climate change through man's eyes and history. Man has been here the mere blink of an of earth history. Do none of you true believers not get how much life on this planet would suck for humankind had we evolved a few 10 of thousands of years earlier during the ice age. Most of this planet was rather inhospitable. Even when were in warm cycle that lasts several thousands of years, the avg. temp on this planet is something like mid 50 degrees. More perspective? Look at how we have adapted to deal with a mostly cold planet; all of our heavy clothes that we wear, the buidlings we have to keep us warm. Without the technology of those things we would likely not survive on this planet. Not because it's too warm, but because it's too damn cold most of the time. If you really had to focus on just surviving like every other animal on this planet, how long could you do it with no clothes or shelter. Not very long. You'd have to move move wear it was warm. You'd have to migrate to other climates. Think about it people people. Most of us have to heat our homes most of the year at a temperature WARMER than the air outside.

Site one that says otherwise.

 

[westwall]

An admirable position, I started to become concerned a few decades ago for very similar reasons, not to mention the costs of dealing with the death, disease, destruction of property, loss of wildlife, business disruption, and the future I was leaving to my children and grandchildren.



Which "sides" do you speak of?



What problems and evidence are you speaking of? can you cite mainstream science sources for these problems and discussions of evidence?



again, can you cite legitimate, unbiased references that support these assertions?



The science factually identifies with empiric evidences the nature of the problem, your beliefs are irrelevent to the facts. I have found there isn't much productivity in discussions with people about their beliefs when they hold cling to those beliefs regardless of empiric evidences and established scientific understandings. If you feel that you know all you care to, or need to, know about the subject and have made your mind up, then there is little sense in further discussion.



so what evidence would you find convincing and compelling in helping you to understand and accept the mainstream science of this issue?



I see a lot of people say this when they believe that they hold the truth in their understandings, but very few that actually walk the walk, and openly and fairly consider issues they disagree with and actually change their position when their position falters and is shown to be incorrect, hopefully this forum is different, we shall see.

This post as much as any hilights that a lot of people really don't have any perspective on this issue.

First terminology: it isn't really accurate for one side or the other to say that don't believe in global warming, in the literal sense of the term that is. Of course the earth is warming, just as it has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled as it has in a cyclical manner for millions of years. What people I guess are saying when they say the believe or don't believe in global warming is that they believe or don't believe man is primarily the drive behind it.

So when true believers like dumb as rocks claims all scientific organizations have signed off on global warming or their's scientific consensus on global warming, that's rather misleading. It would not surprise at all that all those scientific bodies agree the earth is warming. That's something fairly observable. Does every credible scientific body agree that man is causing it? I don't believe so.And whether we should actually do anything about climate change really does depend on that. Because if it is getting warmer, yes it will be something that will have many negative consequences from more flooding in coastal regions to more erratic weather. But if we aren't the cause of the warming, what right does man have to monkey with earth's thermostat just because the change will be inconvenient for him? Who ever said man should not have to adapt to a changing environment.

We as a species simply have the right perspective on climate change to make a credible statement one way or the the other as to what we should do about it. You can't credibly discuss it by looking at climate change through man's eyes and history. Man has been here the mere blink of an of earth history. Do none of you true believers not get how much life on this planet would suck for humankind had we evolved a few 10 of thousands of years earlier during the ice age. Most of this planet was rather inhospitable. Even when were in warm cycle that lasts several thousands of years, the avg. temp on this planet is something like mid 50 degrees. More perspective? Look at how we have adapted to deal with a mostly cold planet; all of our heavy clothes that we wear, the buidlings we have to keep us warm. Without the technology of those things we would likely not survive on this planet. Not because it's too warm, but because it's too damn cold most of the time. If you really had to focus on just surviving like every other animal on this planet, how long could you do it with no clothes or shelter. Not very long. You'd have to move move wear it was warm. You'd have to migrate to other climates. Think about it people people. Most of us have to heat our homes most of the year at a temperature WARMER than the air outside.

Site one that says otherwise.

Who cares. They make millions and millions of dollars chasing the dragon of AGW. The work is easy (no scientific protocols to require real work, your friends are able to support whatever BS you decide to come up with, the various journals are no longer following proper peer review processes, write some silly paper with a lot of "coulds" and "maybe's")
so why rock the boat. They get to live very comfortable lives without having to actually work.

If I wasn't ethical I could have done that too.

 

[Bern80]

An admirable position, I started to become concerned a few decades ago for very similar reasons, not to mention the costs of dealing with the death, disease, destruction of property, loss of wildlife, business disruption, and the future I was leaving to my children and grandchildren.



Which "sides" do you speak of?



What problems and evidence are you speaking of? can you cite mainstream science sources for these problems and discussions of evidence?



again, can you cite legitimate, unbiased references that support these assertions?



The science factually identifies with empiric evidences the nature of the problem, your beliefs are irrelevent to the facts. I have found there isn't much productivity in discussions with people about their beliefs when they hold cling to those beliefs regardless of empiric evidences and established scientific understandings. If you feel that you know all you care to, or need to, know about the subject and have made your mind up, then there is little sense in further discussion.



so what evidence would you find convincing and compelling in helping you to understand and accept the mainstream science of this issue?



I see a lot of people say this when they believe that they hold the truth in their understandings, but very few that actually walk the walk, and openly and fairly consider issues they disagree with and actually change their position when their position falters and is shown to be incorrect, hopefully this forum is different, we shall see.

This post as much as any hilights that a lot of people really don't have any perspective on this issue.

First terminology: it isn't really accurate for one side or the other to say that don't believe in global warming, in the literal sense of the term that is. Of course the earth is warming, just as it has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled as it has in a cyclical manner for millions of years. What people I guess are saying when they say the believe or don't believe in global warming is that they believe or don't believe man is primarily the drive behind it.

So when true believers like dumb as rocks claims all scientific organizations have signed off on global warming or their's scientific consensus on global warming, that's rather misleading. It would not surprise at all that all those scientific bodies agree the earth is warming. That's something fairly observable. Does every credible scientific body agree that man is causing it? I don't believe so.And whether we should actually do anything about climate change really does depend on that. Because if it is getting warmer, yes it will be something that will have many negative consequences from more flooding in coastal regions to more erratic weather. But if we aren't the cause of the warming, what right does man have to monkey with earth's thermostat just because the change will be inconvenient for him? Who ever said man should not have to adapt to a changing environment.

We as a species simply have the right perspective on climate change to make a credible statement one way or the the other as to what we should do about it. You can't credibly discuss it by looking at climate change through man's eyes and history. Man has been here the mere blink of an of earth history. Do none of you true believers not get how much life on this planet would suck for humankind had we evolved a few 10 of thousands of years earlier during the ice age. Most of this planet was rather inhospitable. Even when were in warm cycle that lasts several thousands of years, the avg. temp on this planet is something like mid 50 degrees. More perspective? Look at how we have adapted to deal with a mostly cold planet; all of our heavy clothes that we wear, the buidlings we have to keep us warm. Without the technology of those things we would likely not survive on this planet. Not because it's too warm, but because it's too damn cold most of the time. If you really had to focus on just surviving like every other animal on this planet, how long could you do it with no clothes or shelter. Not very long. You'd have to move move wear it was warm. You'd have to migrate to other climates. Think about it people people. Most of us have to heat our homes most of the year at a temperature WARMER than the air outside.

Site one that says otherwise.

The American Physical Society for starters.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/27/american-physical-society-reviewing-its-climate-stance/

 

[Old Rocks]

What kind of bullshit are you pedeling?

Climate Change

National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

 

[Old Rocks]

Post from a known liar and you appear to be a liar. The APS is has been one of the strongest voices concerning AGW, and remains so. As do almost all scientific societies. For they deal in reality, not in "the way things ought to be".
APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society’s Current Climate Change Statement « Physics Frontline

APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society’s Current Climate Change Statement
The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming. The Council’s vote came after it received a report from a committee of eminent scientists who reviewed the existing statement in response to a petition submitted by a group of APS members.

The petition had requested that APS remove and replace the Society’s current statement. The committee recommended that the Council reject the petition. The committee also recommended that the current APS statement be allowed to stand, but it requested that the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) examine the statement for possible improvements in clarity and tone. POPA regularly reviews all APS statements to ensure that they are relevant and up-to-date regarding new scientific findings.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now that you have been educated on Watts' lies, care to find a real scientific society that states that AGW is non-existant?