Nearly All the sciencist and the president both are taking global warming serious

[flacaltenn]

LOL

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Like I said: Fear-mongering.

Meanwhile, the climate is refusing to cooperate with your emotionalism:

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

Bad cultist. No world socialism for you!

That article did not credit this assertion, "The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week." to any credible source.

That's old news HERE on this forum.. 15 threads about that fact... There has been no significant warming in at least 14 years as measured by the Mean Global Annual Surface Temperature.. Go look it up..

 

[itfitzme]

I've heard of James Hansen.

He was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to concoct the global warming myth

James Hansen: Global Warming Scientist for Hire | The Right Counterpoints

James Hansen has become the poster boy for Global Warming alarmism over the past few years because of his work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) which is part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). For years we have heard just how pure his research in the area of Global Warming is because he is funded by the government and not by energy industry companies.

Well it has recently come to light via Investor’s Business Daily that James Hansen was not only funded by NASA, but that he had received up to $720,000 from George Soros’ Open Society Institute most likely under their “politicization of science” program. An irony under the circumstances to say the least. So here we find out that George Soros paid up to $720,000 to have James Hansen go out and publicly evangelize about Global Warming.*


He is also a liar.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,

James Hansen?s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic ? Says Hansen ?Embarrassed NASA?, ?Was Never Muzzled?, & Models ?Useless? | Watts Up With That?

Opinions are like...


"The usual denialists (e.g. The Register) are excited because some guy they never heard of before has joined Inhofe’s merry band, writing:

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”

M. J. Murphy has some information about Theon. It seems that Inhofe’s claim that Theon was Hansen’s supervisor is completely untrue:


Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results. I did not have the authority to give him his annual performance evaluation…

Read the last bit closely. Being “in effect” Hansen’s supervisor is here contrasted with being “in reality” Hansen’s supervisor–being the guy who gives Hansen his annual performance appraisal, in other words–which, frankly, does linguistic violence to the term.

Gavin Schmidt writes:

Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen’s ‘boss’ (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His “some scientists” quote is simply a smear – which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the ‘debate’, but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations.

And Joe Romm finds some more misrepresentations in Inhofe’s press release:

The Morano post blares:

NYT’s Revkin chides Hansen for promoting sea level claims that are not ‘even physically possible’

But let’s go the link and see what Revkin actually wrote. …

Sea level is a case in point. Jim’s views are clearly at the upper boundary of what many glaciologists and oceanographers together see as realistic, or even physically possible, in a warming world.

Whether you agree with Revkin or Hansen on the science, Revkin never asserted that Hansen promoted sea level claims that were not even physically possible."

So who is John S Theon? ? Deltoid

 

[itfitzme]

Then take it up with him, and stop stamping your feet and pouting at me.

You brought it up. *You asked me, remember? *Or do you have difficulties remembering things?

Here, I'll help you.

Where did he say he was okay with that?

Nice try with the emotional bs, though.

And you evade the question. *Do I need to repeat it, or do you think you can remember?

That's one technique for avoidance, conveniently forgetting.

Oh, you mean like you evading the question that got your frilly panties in a bunch:

"Where did he say he was okay with that?"

You never got around to answering that, for some reason. *You went off on some irrational tangent about pocker players with an unmerited arrogance.

I repeat: *Take it up with the guy you're making shit up about. *I ain't interested.

And I answered, if you can't figure it out, I'm not going to explain it to you.

Sorry you don't like the answer.

 

[daveman]

You brought it up. *You asked me, remember? *Or do you have difficulties remembering things?

Here, I'll help you.



Nice try with the emotional bs, though.

And you evade the question. *Do I need to repeat it, or do you think you can remember?

That's one technique for avoidance, conveniently forgetting.

Oh, you mean like you evading the question that got your frilly panties in a bunch:

"Where did he say he was okay with that?"

You never got around to answering that, for some reason. *You went off on some irrational tangent about pocker players with an unmerited arrogance.

I repeat: *Take it up with the guy you're making shit up about. *I ain't interested.

And I answered, if you can't figure it out, I'm not going to explain it to you.

Sorry you don't like the answer.

Ummm, "I'm samrt like a pocker player!!" isn't an answer, kid. It's a lousy cover for "I'm making shit up!"

 

[itfitzme]

Oh, you mean like you evading the question that got your frilly panties in a bunch:

"Where did he say he was okay with that?"

You never got around to answering that, for some reason. *You went off on some irrational tangent about pocker players with an unmerited arrogance.

I repeat: *Take it up with the guy you're making shit up about. *I ain't interested.

And I answered, if you can't figure it out, I'm not going to explain it to you.

Sorry you don't like the answer.

Ummm, "I'm samrt like a pocker player!!" isn't an answer, kid. It's a lousy cover for "I'm making shit up!"

Okay, you go with that.

 

[daveman]

And I answered, if you can't figure it out, I'm not going to explain it to you.

Sorry you don't like the answer.

Ummm, "I'm samrt like a pocker player!!" isn't an answer, kid. It's a lousy cover for "I'm making shit up!"

Okay, you go with that.

What else is there to go with? That's all you've offered.

 

[Cuyo]

Nearly all scientists depend on government funding.

Nearly all the scientists who depend on government funding are on the AGW bandwagon...most scientists don't depend on government money and are not on the bandwagon. In fact, it is damned difficult to find a scientist who does not depend on grant money who is on the bandwagon.

The whole planet is "On the bandwagon," you twit.

 

[Cuyo]

Our defense department says it is the worse thing we face

???????????????????????????

C'mon Matthew -- what rabbit hole did you go down here??

Show me how committed our Euro partners are to continuing their overly expensive, extremely dissappointing commitment to renewables. We're talking about wind and solar here.. There's nothing else "green" on that list.

If Obama WAS serious and secretly KNEW we were about to burn ourselves to a crisp --- why wouldn't he be DEMANDING even a moderate push towards nuclear? Think the DOD is more afraid of nuclear than Global Warming??

I wish Obama would push nuclear far harder. Hydro, thermal and solar(for a home to home basis) are good sources of energy.

Personally, I wish Obama would put more into fusion. ITR in france expects it to work by 2020, but we could easily beat them to the chase with something far better.

Out of everything I've seen, I truly believe that fusion is the only thing that could save us. Fission plants, in addition to the inherent danger, have a TREMENDOUS net-energy cost in their construction, maintenance, and waste disposal... Which last I checked is currently stored indefinitely, because no state in the union wants it.

 

[Cuyo]

They should have been taking it serious 30 years ago.

They were as much as 25 years ago... Most of the world still is... For some reason one political party on the planet fancies it 'en vogue' to deny reality.

 

[Stephanie]

global warming aka (climate change) is like a cult and people like Al Gore and Obama who have no training in climate, weather.. they just spew that so many scientist say this and call other people stupid names like flat earthers and deniers are the Cult leaders...Like Jim Jones

what's scary is people actually follow people like this no questions asked...

 

[Old Rocks]

global warming aka (climate change) is like a cult and people like Al Gore and Obama who have no training in climate, weather.. they just spew that so many scientist say this and call other people stupid names like flat earthers and deniers are the Cult leaders...Like Jim Jones

what's scary is people actually follow people like this no questions asked...

Really? So, what do the real scientists have to say, Staph? Well, here is what the American Geophysical Union has to state, and it has more climate scientists in it's membership than any other scientific organization in the world;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[itfitzme]

global warming aka (climate change) is like a cult and people like Al Gore and Obama who have no training in climate, weather.. they just spew that so many scientist say this and call other people stupid names like flat earthers and deniers are the Cult leaders...Like Jim Jones

what's scary is people actually follow people like this no questions asked...

Really? So, what do the real scientists have to say, Staph? Well, here is what the American Geophysical Union has to state, and it has more climate scientists in it's membership than any other scientific organization in the world;

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
*Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.*

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

It seems that a common trait amongst denialists is to be focused on people and not on the actual climate. It matters not what Al Gore says when the reality of temp, co2, and time is

and

Those are really what has occured.

The single best predictor of people's future behavior is their past behavior. *And seeing as anthropogenic means people, it doesn't take a climatologist to get that temp and co2 are *moving in one direction, up. What someone said has no impact on that. He can be accurate and precise or completely wrong in the reporting, it changes nothing.

The temp has a 100 year history of increase, with an accelerated rate in the last half. Anything that has continued for 100 years can be expected to continue, all other things being equal.

What is really of more interest to me now is in this sentence, "Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity".

There are a few more specific issues here. *

The first is that, in general, while the global mean changes by 2C, the average temp at different latitudes changes by varying degrees. *A 1C change for half the planet and a 3C change for the other half is a 2C mean change. *And the impact is different across latitudes.

The second is that variability is expected to increase across longitudes. *And that variability amplifies the effect of the latitude differences.

The last issue is the biology in response to the climate changes. *Plants, our food crop, was discovered over thousands of years. Of all the diversity in biology, only a small fractiom serves our food basket. This food basket has been furthe developed over the course of the centuries, with large leaps occuring since the early 1900s. *The food crops are tuned to the environment, very specifically, in terms of both timing and resiliance to pests. *As the climate changes, so changes the timing of water and temperature, as well as the onset of pests.*

The best predictor of environmental changes, in the future, are the environmental chamges of the past. That predicts the future. *And that accurate prediction gets our behavior ahead of the game, in being proactive rather than reactive. *I wear a seatbelt because others have been in accidents and seatbelts predict survivability. Sure, a few people, oddly drunk, walk away from an accident unscathed, but the rare occurance isn't a predictor. *The typical occurance is the predictor. And, prudence demands that the consequence times the probability is the measure of appropriate action. *Large consequence times small probability plus modest consequence times large probability far outweighs small probability of small consequense. *We don't sit around hoping to get lucky.

Al Gore and models aside, the questions that remain for me is what have been the consequences of past climate change on more local climate and how has our food basket respond to changes in climate and disease. *

What, specifically, does the history of crop development in the 1900s tell us about crop resilience? *How well have crops responded to seasonal variability? And, are all the farmers, in the midwest, prepared to move to Canada?

None of that is dependent on the accuracy and precisionnof Al Gore, in bringing attention to the matter. *And seeing as many people need to get a traffic ticket, before they will wear a seatbelt, I'm hardly surprised if he highlighted the high consequence, low probability scenario.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nearly all scientists depend on government funding.

Nearly all the scientists who depend on government funding are on the AGW bandwagon...most scientists don't depend on government money and are not on the bandwagon. In fact, it is damned difficult to find a scientist who does not depend on grant money who is on the bandwagon.

The whole planet is "On the bandwagon," you twit.

The score is actually US Senate 98 NOs --- Kyoto Protocol ---> 0...

If this was a clear emergency, we'd build 100 nuclear power plants.. OBVIOUSLY, the greencult is more scared of modern physics than they are about being burnt to a crisp.

You know that Cuyo -- because you don't have a inate fear of nuclear physics.. Others do....

 

[Mr. H.]

If the AGW crowd had science on their side, they wouldn't have to resort to hyperemotional fear-mongering.

If the denialists like you had the least bit of science on your side, you would present it, instead of the flap-yap you just posted.

The science of, say, hydraulic fracturing has precise empirical science along with demonstrated proof of success.

Yet Liberals and environmentalists spread hype, lies, and fear based on films such as Gasland and movies like Promised land.

So really just who doesn't believe in science?

 

[itfitzme]

If the AGW crowd had science on their side, they wouldn't have to resort to hyperemotional fear-mongering.

If the denialists like you had the least bit of science on your side, you would present it, instead of the flap-yap you just posted.

The science of, say, hydraulic fracturing has precise empirical science along with demonstrated proof of success.*

Yet Liberals and environmentalists spread hype, lies, and fear based on films such as Gasland and movies like Promised land.*

So really just who doesn't believe in science?

Really, so what is not empirical about the Beer-Lambert Law for absorbtion of light? *Or not empirical about the recent temp vs CO2? *I'm looking for the non-empirical part. I see you claim this, but don't provide a single detail.

Maybe you don't understand what empirical means, as you present no empirical evidence of this claim of non-empirical. *It means, based of evidence.

As you are so big on evidence, I'd expect that you would present it when you make claims.

 

[flacaltenn]

If the denialists like you had the least bit of science on your side, you would present it, instead of the flap-yap you just posted.

The science of, say, hydraulic fracturing has precise empirical science along with demonstrated proof of success.*

Yet Liberals and environmentalists spread hype, lies, and fear based on films such as Gasland and movies like Promised land.*

So really just who doesn't believe in science?

Really, so what is not empirical about the Beer-Lambert Law for absorbtion of light? *Or not empirical about the recent temp vs CO2? *I'm looking for the non-empirical part. I see you claim this, but don't provide a single detail.

Maybe you don't understand what empirical means, as you present no empirical evidence of this claim of non-empirical. *It means, based of evidence.

As you are so big on evidence, I'd expect that you would present it when you make claims.

This is sad.. Truly sad.. Playing a scientist on TV does not entitle you to mangle and circularize the definition of empirical.. NOR does it con ANYONE into believing that you know SQUAT about the origin or confirmation of the Beer-Lambert law.

 

[itfitzme]

The science of, say, hydraulic fracturing has precise empirical science along with demonstrated proof of success.*

Yet Liberals and environmentalists spread hype, lies, and fear based on films such as Gasland and movies like Promised land.*

So really just who doesn't believe in science?

Really, so what is not empirical about the Beer-Lambert Law for absorbtion of light? *Or not empirical about the recent temp vs CO2? *I'm looking for the non-empirical part. I see you claim this, but don't provide a single detail.

Maybe you don't understand what empirical means, as you present no empirical evidence of this claim of non-empirical. *It means, based of evidence.

As you are so big on evidence, I'd expect that you would present it when you make claims.

This is sad.. Truly sad.. Playing a scientist on TV does not entitle you to mangle and circularize the definition of empirical.. NOR does it con ANYONE into believing that you know SQUAT about the origin or confirmation of the Beer-Lambert law.

What are you talking about?

The phrase is "empirical evidence". What part of "empirical evidence" don't you grasp?

Shine light through gas, measure amount coming out. Change thickness, measure again. Empirical.

btw, creating an imaginary picture, in your head, that someone plays a scientist on TV so you can "feel sad", is not empirical. *It's called psychosis.

 

[usmcstinger]

Nearly All the sciencist and the president both are taking global warming seriously. Maybe we should too?

Maybe we should go completely to renewables as fast as we can. They're acting like they know something we do NOT. Like we're completely fucked if we do not. Our defense department says it is the worse thing we face...Think about that for a second...

Obama is in Africa saying that it is worse then things that kill million per year!

I suggest going to
Nuclear
hydro
wind
solar
thermal
wave

This is either the greatest fraud ever played on this country or it is true. Think about that for a second. EVERY GOVERNMENT ON EARTH wouldn't be doing this if they didn't know something.

If the left would allow us to add 10-15% more nuclear it wouldn't be that hard. Think about it. They may really think that our planet is heading to 8-10c and don't want us to be afraid. Aka riot and burn our cities down.

Chicken Little
Name the Scientists that believe in climate change and those who do not.

 

[itfitzme]

Nearly All the sciencist and the president both are taking global warming seriously. Maybe we should too?

Maybe we should go completely to renewables as fast as we can. They're acting like they know something we do NOT. Like we're completely fucked if we do not. Our defense department says it is the worse thing we face...Think about that for a second...

Obama is in Africa saying that it is worse then things that kill million per year! *

I suggest going to
Nuclear
hydro
wind
solar
thermal
wave

This is either the greatest fraud ever played on this country or it is true. Think about that for a second. EVERY GOVERNMENT ON EARTH wouldn't be doing this if they didn't know something.

If the left would allow us to add 10-15% more nuclear it wouldn't be that hard. Think about it. They may really think that our planet is heading to 8-10c and don't want us to be afraid. Aka riot and burn our cities down.

Chicken Little
Name the Scientists that believe in climate change and those who do not.

Oh, I know....they can all drop by your house so you can count them all, personally. We can also list the exact location of every CO2 molecule too.

 

[daveman]

Shine light through gas, measure amount coming out. Change thickness, measure again. Empirical.

There it is, ladies and gentlemen: The entire basis for the AGW scam.

A simple experiment with three variables -- tops -- is supposed to accurately model the oceans and atmosphere of an entire planet -- oh, and don't forget the star in the immediate neighborhood -- with literally millions of variables.

By the way -- there are many ways to measure gas. Thickness isn't one of them.

You really have no basis to rationally claim superior scientific knowledge. So maybe you ought to stop.