Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-Made Global Warming

[Annie]

being unable to accurately ARTICULATE something is not synonymous with 'having no knowledge on the issue".

So I have not lied on this board about this subject, nor any other, for that matter...and you have..... gunny.... fucking liar.

I'm not a mod, but I think you both should back off, breathe and think.

 

[maineman]

I'm not a mod, but I think you both should back off, breathe and think.

he questions my integrity, I don't sit back and take it. I don't take it from anybody.

 

[Annie]

he questions my integrity, I don't sit back and take it. I don't take it from anybody.

Still, breathe and figure your comeback. Let's not flame a perfectly good thread.

 

[maineman]

fine...let's not ruin a perfectly good thread. Let's stay on topic... something RGS seems to have a problem with, as these quotes from the thread about the surge would indicate. I quote them here to attempt to get an answer from him in this - the appropriate venue:

As opposed to your "reasoned" intellectual belief in Man made Global warming?

but as I have said.... I am not a scientist, are you? I listen to reports, I watch documentaries, I read magazines, I try to understand global warming as best as I can. I understand full well that man is not the only possible cause for global warming. I also understand that, the preponderance of all I have read and heard and seen leads me to believe that man is having an adverse impact on the environment.

Your "reasoned intellectual belief" that man does not have anything to do with global warming must, I imagine, be as a result of your own exhaustive research and experimentation conducted over a long span of time. Could you be so kind as to maybe link me to the scientific journal that has published the results of your study?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

being unable to accurately ARTICULATE something is not synonymous with 'having no knowledge on the issue".

So I have not lied on this board about this subject, nor any other, for that matter...and you have..... gunny.... fucking liar.

Sure thing, when asked two straight forward questions your response was "gee I am not a scientist, how ever can I answer them?" Two questions that DETERMINE what one knows about global warming. You couldn't respond ( or wouldn't) either way it shows a total lack of knowledge on the issue.

 

[maineman]

Like I said: I am not a scientist, are you? I listen to reports, I watch documentaries, I read magazines, I try to understand global warming as best as I can. I understand full well that man is not the only possible cause for global warming. I also understand that, the preponderance of all I have read and heard and seen leads me to believe that man is having an adverse impact on the environment.

Your "reasoned intellectual belief" that man does not have anything to do with global warming must, I imagine, be as a result of your own exhaustive research and experimentation conducted over a long span of time. Could you be so kind as to maybe link me to the scientific journal that has published the results of your study?
Now....you have been asked this question several times and continue to run away from it. WHy is that?

 

[red states rule]

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Maineman once again is trying to dictate what is and is not allowed. His penchent for playing word games is amusing also.

When asked two very simple questions that determine what one knows about the claim that man is causing global warming his response was " gee whiz I am no scientist" and now he insists that if one has not PERSONALLY done research on the matter their input is questionable... Humm maybe he should rethink that line as it CLEARLY applies to him as well.

I have clearly stated my position AND why I believe it. To claim one can not read this thread and see why I believe what I do and how I came to the position I have is to simply claim ignorance.

Meanwhile all Maineman can do is say " gee a bunch of scientists said it so it is true", he can not even state what they claim and why they believe it.

 

[red states rule]

Maineman once again is trying to dictate what is and is not allowed. His penchent for playing word games is amusing also.

When asked two very simple questions that determine what one knows about the claim that man is causing global warming his response was " gee whiz I am no scientist" and now he insists that if one has not PERSONALLY done research on the matter their input is questionable... Humm maybe he should rethink that line as it CLEARLY applies to him as well.

I have clearly stated my position AND why I believe it. To claim one can not read this thread and see why I believe what I do and how I came to the position I have is to simply claim ignorance.

Meanwhile all Maineman can do is say " gee a bunch of scientists said it so it is true", he can not even state what they claim and why they believe it.

Are you surprised?

Situation normal

 

[maineman]

Maineman once again is trying to dictate what is and is not allowed. His penchent for playing word games is amusing also.

When asked two very simple questions that determine what one knows about the claim that man is causing global warming his response was " gee whiz I am no scientist" and now he insists that if one has not PERSONALLY done research on the matter their input is questionable... Humm maybe he should rethink that line as it CLEARLY applies to him as well.

I have clearly stated my position AND why I believe it. To claim one can not read this thread and see why I believe what I do and how I came to the position I have is to simply claim ignorance.

Meanwhile all Maineman can do is say " gee a bunch of scientists said it so it is true", he can not even state what they claim and why they believe it.

you have posted some temperatures from the United States....which really is not indicative of the planet as a whole, but why sacrifice impact for honesty, eh RGS? and from then on, you have spewed your opinion that scientists don't know what they are talking about. That is your position .... is the list of temperatures from the US the sole reason why you believe it? Are you aware of how global warming could easily cause a rapid decrease in temperature in the northern hemisphere? I am.

 

[red states rule]

Now the NY Times says the Weather channel is a target of Fox News and the conservatives

One paragraph that caught my eye was

The lightning rod for controversy, so to speak, is Heidi Cullen, the network’s resident climate expert.

In December, she raised the ire of Fox News and others by writing on her weather.com blog that the American Meteorological Society should not give its “seal of approval” to any meteorologist who “can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change.” (There are now more than 1,700 comments on that one post.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/business/media/04weather.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

No debate - that is what the gloabl wamring nuts want

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you have posted some temperatures from the United States....which really is not indicative of the planet as a whole, but why sacrifice impact for honesty, eh RGS? and from then on, you have spewed your opinion that scientists don't know what they are talking about. That is your position .... is the list of temperatures from the US the sole reason why you believe it? Are you aware of how global warming could easily cause a rapid decrease in temperature in the northern hemisphere? I am.

Now you want to obfusicate and change the subject. You ask me what I believe and why and demanded to know how I could believe it if I hadn't personally done research on the matter. This of course applies to you as well, maybe you could tell us all the personal research you have done to prove Man made Global warming? Using your criteria, your opinion is worthless without it.

You think if you play enough word games you win.

 

[maineman]

Now you want to obfusicate and change the subject. You ask me what I believe and why and demanded to know how I could believe it if I hadn't personally done research on the matter. This of course applies to you as well, maybe you could tell us all the personal research you have done to prove Man made Global warming? Using your criteria, your opinion is worthless without it.

You think if you play enough word games you win.

no....you claim that my belief is crazy because it is different than your belief. you claim that you have made your case in this very thread and I pointed out that you really had not done so.

I have, as I said, read a fair amount of articles, listened to a fair amount of panel discussions and interviews, watched a fair amount of documentaries. After all of that, I have come to the belief that man probably has something to do with climate change. You post temperature figures for America and act as if that PROVES your case. You also show your ignorance of the issue by implying that an ice age is somehow totally inconsistent with global warming.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no....you claim that my belief is crazy because it is different than your belief. you claim that you have made your case in this very thread and I pointed out that you really had not done so.

I have, as I said, read a fair amount of articles, listened to a fair amount of panel discussions and interviews, watched a fair amount of documentaries. After all of that, I have come to the belief that man probably has something to do with climate change. You post temperature figures for America and act as if that PROVES your case. You also show your ignorance of the issue by implying that an ice age is somehow totally inconsistent with global warming.

No, I disagree with your position and told you why. Further I ask you two simple questions and you couldn't answer them and still haven't. You are the one trying to "prove" I and anyone that doesn't agree with you is "crazy".

Your ridiculous demand to know how much research I had done is a PERFECT example. I ask again, HOW much research have you done? Using your criteria you have no leg to stand on.

Because I don't fall down and worship at the sight of certain journals or opinions YOU claim I am nuts. You do this on every matter, you DEMAND that someone have read or heard something you have and then if they haven't suddenly their opinion means nothing. You talk about everything you have read, seen and "studied" and then declare that if someone hasn't read or studied exactly what you demand they have, that the things they HAVE read, studied or heard are simply wrong.

You play word games and then declare some victory or some point. You demand people answer your questions and when they do you ignore the answer.

 

[maineman]

No, I disagree with your position and told you why. Further I ask you two simple questions and you couldn't answer them and still haven't. You are the one trying to "prove" I and anyone that doesn't agree with you is "crazy".

Your ridiculous demand to know how much research I had done is a PERFECT example. I ask again, HOW much research have you done? Using your criteria you have no leg to stand on.

Because I don't fall down and worship at the sight of certain journals or opinions YOU claim I am nuts. You do this on every matter, you DEMAND that someone have read or heard something you have and then if they haven't suddenly their opinion means nothing. You talk about everything you have read, seen and "studied" and then declare that if someone hasn't read or studied exactly what you demand they have, that the things they HAVE read, studied or heard are simply wrong.

You play word games and then declare some victory or some point. You demand people answer your questions and when they do you ignore the answer.

ask me your two questions again

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why? You have finally googled up a response?

 

[maineman]

Why? You have finally googled up a response?

no. I don't remember what your questions were.

If I were going to "google up a response", don't you think I could have done so when the questions were first asked, or do you think I somehow learned how to "google" in the interim?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm

As I said on another thread: you cannot believe, can you, that mankind dumping tons of pollutants into what is a finite atmospheric space is actually a good thing or even a neutral thing?

Name another of God's creatures that routinely and continually shits in its own nest.

And you want to argue for the right to continue that defecation unabated and claim that those of us who are arguing against such soiling are wackos?

but please ask your questions and I will do my best to answer them....

unlike you, you fucking pussy, who never answers any question....you and RSR...like frick and frack.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no. I don't remember what your questions were.

If I were going to "google up a response", don't you think I could have done so when the questions were first asked, or do you think I somehow learned how to "google" in the interim?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm

As I said on another thread: you cannot believe, can you, that mankind dumping tons of pollutants into what is a finite atmospheric space is actually a good thing or even a neutral thing?

Name another of God's creatures that routinely and continually shits in its own nest.

And you want to argue for the right to continue that defecation unabated and claim that those of us who are arguing against such soiling are wackos?

but please ask your questions and I will do my best to answer them....

unlike you, you fucking pussy, who never answers any question....you and RSR...like frick and frack.

Every species left unchecked in some manner DO in fact shit all over themselves, they bred until there is no food left and they die out.

Nature has caused a LOT more "pollutants" and C02 to be spewed into the air then man has in his entire existance. Funny how we have survived those Volcanos, isn't it?

Man IS already working to lessen his pollution on nature, well except those emerging nations no one wants to "hinder".

I repeat 15 years is NO indicator of a trend worth destroying economies over. Especially when there are theories that explain the heating, like an over active sun or historical indications of other rapid heat gains in short periods that didn't last and were not blamed on man.

The "science" doesn't exists to accurately predict the future. We simply do NOT know enough about nature and climate to program any realistic reliable computer program.

No one knows what for sure has caused the current short term increase so claiming that it will continue and for a hundred years is nothing more than a wild guess and fear mongering.

 

[red states rule]

As chief meteorologist it was my job to manage the forecast function of weather stations at locations worldwide: RAF Station, Manston, England; Hahn Air Base, Germany; Can Tho, Vietnam; Williams AFB, Ariz., NORAD Headquarters in Cheyenne Mountain, Col.; and in Marquette, Mich. Also, I served as technical adviser to the Air National Guard in Louisville, Ky., and as staff adviser to NORAD units in the United States and Greenland. In 1977-78 I was president of the Colorado Springs Chapter of the American Meteorological Society.

With these credentials, I’m telling you global warming is a myth. However, please check the Internet (Al Gore’s invention) and ask about greenhouse gases.You will find that there are five. The most plentiful is water vapor making up 35 to 70 percent of all greenhouse gases. Mankind’s total contribution to all greenhouse gases — this includes cars, trucks, manufacturing plants, boats, planes and any pollution producer you can name — the total is less than 1 percent. Mother Nature provides the other 99 percent. It’s on the Net.

Paul G. Becker

Webbers Falls

http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/opinion/local_story_154213535.html




Is this guy in the pocket of special interest groups as well?

 

[bobn]

With these credentials, I’m telling you global warming is a myth.

None of the credentials he gave indicated he must know any more about the subject of global warming than any average person. You can be a meteorologist and know nothing about the greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases or global warming.

However, please check the Internet (Al Gore’s invention) and ask about greenhouse gases.You will find that there are five.

There are more than five. His internet source probably only lists the 5 most important ones.

The most plentiful is water vapor making up 35 to 70 percent of all greenhouse gases.

More than that even, water vapor makes up well over 98% of greenhouse gases.

Mankind’s total contribution to all greenhouse gases — this includes cars, trucks, manufacturing plants, boats, planes and any pollution producer you can name — the total is less than 1 percent. Mother Nature provides the other 99 percent. It’s on the Net.

The effect of greenhouse gases differs from their quantity alone. Some greenhouse gases have more effect per molecule. They also have different properties. It's when you take all this into account that human contribution is significant.

Is this guy in the pocket of special interest groups as well?

More likely he hasn't seen the details and thinks the issue is simpler than it actually is. Intuition alone implies that his arguments must be faulty, because the alternative is that scientists who do study the greenhouse effect have somehow missed such simple and obvious arguments.