Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It’s time to lay that misapprehension to rest. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities, and most of the “observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” Major changes are taking place in the Arctic, affecting both human and nonhuman communities, as predicted by climate models. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it. — Naomi Oreskes, the Washington Post
More than 650 scientists from around the world dispute the claims made by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore about global warming, saying that science does not support that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, according to a posting on the Senate environmental committee’s press blog. I’ve found that you’ve really got to pay close attention to how people talk about global warming or climate change. Most scientists agree that climate change indeed is occurring — they just differ on the reason why it is occurring. As for myself, I’m no scientist (or a Nobel Prize-winning former vice president), but I think that if you’re trying to find out why things are heating up, the sun would be a good place to start, especially since there’s plenty of scientific data showing that the Earth has been running hot and cold for thousands of years. — Carleton Bryant, GlobalClimateScam.com
600 Comments
More important … how does global warming affect human activities?
There will always be a few fringe people who don’t accept established science; notice the existence of creationists.
This is what they call “established” science…
“observed warming…is likely to…”
The so-called science behind AGW is based on predictions from data fed into a computer.
The simple truth is that the proponents of AGW can’t or refuse to answer some pretty basic questions.
Even if warming is happening, is that a bad thing? Why?
What is the “ideal” temperature of the Earth? What do you base that on?
How arrogantly presumptious of us to think that the Earth is at it’s perfect temperature right now and that anything different is going to be “bad”
You can’t get a straight answer out of any group of scientists as to when we will cross that line of no return they keep scaring us with either.
People like Cosmos keep warning that it is going to be “to late” to stop warming because of the feed back.
Ok, when will that happen?
Real science is based on testable, observable, and repeatable things. Not speculation from a computer model with what may or may not be the correct data.
I don’t know if anyone saw that video clip where Newt Gingrich kicked the GORACLE’s aspirin bottle right out the window on the carbon credit tax.
Evidently, Gore had used some figures that include 150 non-existent nuclear plants. Gingrich called Gore on it and classified it as was, intellectual dishonesty.
Intellectual dishonesty is what the whole AGW movement is about. They can’t be straight forward and honest with people or they would lose their funding and their fight for power.
Words like likely or consensus in a scientific context are virtually meaningless. Yet, they are the main weight-bearing crutch of the ‘Warmers.’
Computer climate models (CCM) that have left out entire portions of things like climate, like water vapor, which is 96-98 percent of all greenhouse gases. How can one leave that out?
I’ll tell you how – it didn’t fit into the agenda of the ‘Warmers’ and further, they had no scientific data on water vapor and cloud physics to understand what was going on.
Well now, they do since the launching of a sophisticated satellite. And, guess what? The data is contradicting the ‘Warmers’ and they don’t like it one bit. Look for the ‘Warmers’ to attack the scientist if the AIRS lab and anyone who supports their findings.
Lastly, if it is settle science, why do the ‘Warmers’ need a cheerleader like Gore to push it? I’ll tell you why, because global warming isn’t the real agenda, it’s about carbon taxes and control of power.
That’s the real secret to AGW – it’s a power grab.
Good old fashioned, dirty politics – not science.
I don’t need to look any further than the deniers of human caused global warming that post this forum.
Every single one of them is a picture of this or that personality dysfunction.
It’s the old carousel.
“There is no global warming.”
“Okay there is global warming but it’s all natural.”
“Okay it’s not all natural but it can’t be changed.”
“There is no global warming.”
We’ve been round and round with the deniers. Even the fossil fuel lobbyists have come out and admitted their propaganda is based on delaying the inevitable.
Nathaniel posted April 25, 2009 at 6:37 am
This is what they call “established” science…
The so-called science behind AGW is based on predictions from data fed into a computer.
———————
False.
AGW science is not based on computer models.
It is based on the science developed since the 1800’s.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
AGW deniers cannot refute that science, so they attack the climate models.
cosmos weeps:
False.
AGW science is not based on computer models.
Sure it is cosmos. All of the AGW predictions come from Computer Climate Models. Deny it all you want, but using incomplete and cherry picked data is a huge failing of the politically driven ‘Warmer’ agenda.
Talk about being deniers, the ‘Warmers’ do it daily.
Regular,
What type of computer did Arrhenius use in the 1890’s? A Cray?
And did you find those Justice Dept. and Congressional links that prove your (false) claim that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees?
cosmos_originally
Posted April 25, 2009 at 8:12 am | Permalink
Regular,
What type of computer did Arrhenius use in the 1890’s? A Cray?
————————————-
Arrhenius wasn’t part of the ‘Warmer’ movement or did he fall head first into the politically driven agenda of the IPCC.
Once again cosmos, you use the red and also ‘dead’ herring to make a point – which is highly ineffective and demonstrates your ability to flap your arms wildly, flailing about without scientific reasoning.
Regular
Arrhenius did not know how rapidly humans would change the chemistry of Earth’s atmosphere.
And Regular’s false claim re the Sierra Club proves that Regular has zero credibility.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 25, 2009 at 8:25 am | Permalink
Regular
Arrhenius did not know how rapidly humans would change the chemistry of Earth’s atmosphere.
And Regular’s false claim re the Sierra Club proves that Regular has zero credibility.
—————————-
Once again, cosmos, the non-scientist, invokes the Sierra Club ad hominem remark.
Just exactly how does your repeated attack on me, address the subject of your ‘Warmer’ theory cosmos?
Is that all you have – is to attack others?
Surely, you can come up with something to demonstrate this so-called settled, politically driven pseudo science of yours.
Well, maybe not – you have yet to produce anything resembling science or reasoning.
Come on…who needs science or verifiable facts when you’ve got Al Gore? Shoot, he got a whole D in “Natural Sciences 6 – Man’s Place in Nature”. But I guess that was just a statistical anomoly, becaue the rest of his grades that semester were C-, C, C, C+, C+ & B-….the guy’s obviously got the credentials to save the world, so we don’t need no stinkin’ actual science when you’ve got a politician who did JACK when he was VP about what he claims to have been passionate about his entire adult life…because now, he’s not just an ex VP…he’s a documentary maker!
Washington, DC — UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing
Right, “ANTI” –
The United States House of Representatives should bow down to anything Lord Christopher Monckton wants.
Monkeyhawk
Posted April 25, 2009 at 8:53 am | Permalink
Right, “ANTI” –
The United States House of Representatives should bow down to anything Lord Christopher Monckton wants.
=============================================
Right, “Monkeyhawk” –
The United States House of Representatives should pucker their lips to the rump of Algore and allow no opposing views to be heard.
(Algore made a slide show)
Carleton Bryant, GlobalClimateScam.com (header)
“More than 650 scientists from around the world dispute the claims made by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore about global warming, saying that science does not support that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, according to a posting on the Senate environmental committee’s press blog.”
————–
1) Sen. Inhofe’s (Marc Morano’s) list is not a credible source.
* Some on the list agree with the AGW theory.
* Many of the ‘650′ list are not climate scientists. . . they’re economists, TV weather-people, etc.
* The scientists on the list who disagree with the AGW theory don’t have any science to support their opinion. Most are not in the climate field, and/or they made opinions outside their field of expertise.
2) Al Gore and the IPCC are repeating the claims made by scientists worldwide.
“I’ve found that you’ve really got to pay close attention to how people talk about global warming or climate change. Most scientists agree that climate change indeed is occurring — they just differ on the reason why it is occurring.”
————–
Not really. . . most scientists agree with the AGW theory.
“As for myself, I’m no scientist (or a Nobel Prize-winning former vice president), but I think that if you’re trying to find out why things are heating up, the sun would be a good place to start, especially since there’s plenty of scientific data showing that the Earth has been running hot and cold for thousands of years. — ”
————–
The sun is only one of many factors affecting Earth’s climate. Solar activity (and GCR) does not explain the recent observed temperature trends.
Natural and anthropogenic factors combined do explain the recent observed temperature trends.
Past natural climate changes do not prevent human-caused climate changes.
This poor old horse… Thankfully, we’ve had slight global cooling over the last 8 to 10 years that derailed the Gore Express and caused thoughtful folks to stop and ask a few simple questions.
What it amounts to is that CO2 is not the only variable factor that affects the earth’s climate. This is evidenced by climate models that are notoriously inaccurate because they didn’t take this or that factor into consideration. Now, with the extended solar minimum we may be needing all the warming we can get.
Moderation is called for. Do what makes sense, but don’t fall for these ding-a-lings and their Chicken Little hysteria.
Hey cosmos,
Guess what?
Al Gore is not a Climate Scientist either.
In fact, the GORACLE made ‘C’s’ and ‘D’s” the college classes taught by his Climate Science hero.
This is your role model cosmos?
Al Gore: I was cheated out of all the fame and attention of being President!
I demand to be in the spot light!
Whah! Whah!!
Global Warming!! Whah! Slide Show!
Whah!! Look at ME!! Climate Change!!
Whah, whah, whah!!!
(stomping of feet)
As a former member of Congress, Al Gore has the traditional right to speak to the governing body.
Lord Christopher Monkton’s “right” to address Congress?
The only-est reason Climate Change has any political traction is that CONs resent Al Gore defeating George WMD Bush at the polls in 2000 and they know the next eight years were a series of policy disasters, taken straight from their dogma.
If Nancy Pelosi were to say something favorable about cats the CONs would install a Sarah Palin turkey-beheader in the well of the House and drop fluffy newborn kittens in it.
As a matter of “principle.”
Reg – Gore may not be a climate scientist….and a lousy student….and invisible when he was VP….but you forgot that he “invented the internet”!!! So how could he be wrong about GW if he got all his facts from the internet?? It’s all just a guilt play because his family got rich from tobacco & coal, which invalidates his liberal card, so now he’s got to go out an prove extra hard how liberal he can be.
MonkeyHock whines:
The only-est reason Climate Change has any political traction is that CONs resent Al Gore defeating George WMD Bush at the polls in 2000 and they know the next eight years were a series of policy disasters, taken straight from their dogma.
Say Hock, do you know what one of the questions is for new immigrants when they take their citizenship test is?
How is the President of the United States elected?
If you answered polling, you would be wrong.
The answer is, by the Electoral college.
BTW, Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in the 2000 election and those electoral votes from Tennessee would have put him over the top to win the election.
(chortles)
#
DFB
Posted April 25, 2009 at 9:14 am | Permalink
Reg – Gore may not be a climate scientist….and a lousy student….and invisible when he was VP….but you forgot that he “invented the internet”!!! So how could he be wrong about GW if he got all his facts from the internet?? It’s all just a guilt play because his family got rich from tobacco & coal, which invalidates his liberal card, so now he’s got to go out an prove extra hard how liberal he can be.
——————–
Not only that, Al Gore, Sr., the father of Al Gore, Jr., voted against the Civil Rights act in the 1960s.
The Gore’s have a history of being on the wrong side. :)
outlander,
You are claiming that solar activity will soon drop significantly more than it did during the Maunder minimum. Let’s see your proof of that.
And what happens when solar returns to normal levels, and Earth’s atmosphere is loaded with more GHG’s?
cosmos squirts:
and Earth’s atmosphere is loaded with more GHG’s?
The earth atmosphere has always been loaded with GHG’s since it’s early development.
Or didn’t you get the message? :)
LOL!
The AGW deniers here are attacking Al Gore (and even his late father), because they cannot refute the climate science. And they cannot refute Naomi Oreskes (in header).
The AGW deniers also rally to defend their infamous Lord Monckton, who foolishly insisted that casual editing for a newsletter was the same as scientific peer-review for a journal.
Cosmos,
AGW has been refuted.
Over and Over and Over, again.
Point of reality as pointed out by Oreskes:
“The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences (the national honors academy for scientists) report begins unequivocally: ‘Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.’ The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.”
In response, Carelton Bryant gives us “more than 650 scientists”, which we know is from a list cobbled togather by an aide to the thickest ideologue in the Senate, James Inhofe) and which includes people who did not consent to be put on the list, and whose only criterion to be put on the list was to oppose the consensus on global warming (although their reasons for doing so fundamentally contradict one another) and his own argument from personal incredulity.
Seriously, who are you going to believe, some guy from the Moonie Times invoking a politically motivated list, or the National Academy of Sciences, which represents the most brilliant practioners from scientific fields and, almost certainly, a full spectrum of political orientations.
The scientific method, at its best, tries to screen out biases that come from personal outlooks, including political ones. Aides to nutjob senators, they aren’t so concerned about screening out the bias.
I also wonder how many of those more than 650 scientists are in the Academy, and which of those who might be in the Academy consented to having their name put on the list.
The simple fact that Dems and Algore refuse to hear any opposition proves AWG is full of holes, and they know it.
cosmos is not a haberdasher.
DFB,
Who wrote the legislation that funded the development of the first multi-media web browser, and fought to get the legislation passed?
http://www.totic.org/nscp/demodoc/demo.html
“More than 650 scientists from around the world”
Bought off by fossil fuels, cranks, hacks, attention seekers…
The debate is over. That there are still a few shouting nuts will not change our resolve.
We will address human caused global warming. Those who will not do so voluntarily will be compelled by force of law.
The ‘jawless fish’ flails about the National Academy of Sciences, but fails to mention the failure of one of the Alarmist’s cornerstones.
National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts have made it clear that the Hockey Stick’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was unsupportable.
*The hockey stick controversy is a dispute over the reconstructed estimates of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature changes over the past millennium,[1] especially the particular reconstruction of Michael E. Mann,et al…
The self proclaimed ADD troll says:
“Cosmos,
“AGW has been refuted.
“Over and Over and Over, again.”
If that was true, and if the global cooling that outlander and, when he is here, Bullwinkle, prattle on about was so devestating to the global warming hypothesis, why does the National Academy of Sciences continue to take the idea of anthropogenic global warming so seriously? Why are the scientists in the nation’s honors society for scientists not dismissing global warming? There is a reason why coalition conservatives and free market fundamentalist like the densest of libertarians cling to Al Gore, or try to demonize an individual like James Hansen. The numbers that matter are against you, overwhelmingly so, and when political bias is factored out of sources, one almost invariably finds support for the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change (there are a few legitimately skeptical holdouts, AGW skepticism is not quite as ludicrous as creationism). When one finds a skeptic, one finds a host of political and economic assumptions that provides a primary motivation for said skepticism. Despite claims to the contrary, one stand is obviously primarily political, the other is not.
ANTI posted April 25, 2009 at 9:33 am
AGW has been refuted.
Over and Over and Over, again.
——————
Then post the link(s).
For laughs, Goggle — inhofe 650 — without quote marks.
Almost all of the first hits debunk Marc Morano’s list.
or try to demonize an individual like James Hansen.
================
James did that to himself, didn’t need any help.
Then post the link(s).
==========================
They have been posted daily on this blog.
Sorry you have remained blind.
ANTI posted April 25, 2009 at 9:53 am
Then post the link(s).
==========================
They have been posted daily on this blog.
Sorry you have remained blind.
———————
You mean the opinions (not science) such as in Inhofe’s (R-Oil) ‘650′ list?
Sorry that you don’t understand science.
Regular, I know this is soup, but you just left yourself too wide open for this:
I find it amusing that you claim that I am flailing and yet you ignore the elephant in the room. Even if one were to grant your claim that the National Academy of Sciences “made it clear that the Hockey Stick’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was unsupportable.” this still hasn’t changed the stance that the Academy regards the evidence for anthropogenic global warming as convincing (and in fact, you are just plain wrong in this claim, see below).
As it stands, your statement about what the NAS had to say about the hockey stick?
Complete and total bullsh*t.
“Continuing challenges to studies by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues by climate change skeptics in the House, led by Rep. Joe Barton (RTX), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, appear to have fizzled after the release of a June 22 National Research Council (NRC) report that supported Mann’s conclusions. Barton, however, has vowed to keep his committee actively involved in the climate change debate and has requested two new studies on research practices in the field.
“Despite the NRC report, which concluded that Mann’s statistical procedures, although not optimal, did not unduly distort his conclusions, the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held two hearings in July, each lasting more than four hours. They focused on the statistical methods used in the 1998 and 1999 studies by Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes. Barton argued that the use of the studies in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report justified a detailed examination of the methods involved. ‘A lot of people basically used that report to come to the conclusion that global warming was a fact,’ he said.”
Obviously, we know who’s really flailing here, now don’t we?
By the way, my source?
http://www.issues.org/23.1/hill.html
Issues in Science and Technology, a publication of the National Academy of Sciences.
And of course, the ADD troll entirely misses the point:
“James did that to himself, didn’t need any help.”
Since this “missing the point” was probably intentional, there is only one response from here:
Re: ANTI
DNFTADDT
Sorry that you don’t understand science.
==============================
I understand science just find.
I also understand the financial and political forces under the blanket of “Saving the Planet”. Which is at the heart of all of this, not science.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/data/Data_North.pdf
or fine
Agnatha
Posted April 25, 2009 at 10:05 am | Permalink
Regular, I know this is soup, but you just left yourself too wide open for this:
I find it amusing that you claim that I am flailing and yet you ignore the elephant in the room. Even if one were to grant your claim that the National Academy of Sciences “made it clear that the Hockey Stick’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was unsupportable.” this still hasn’t changed the stance that the Academy regards the evidence for anthropogenic global warming as convincing (and in fact, you are just plain wrong in this claim, see below).
__________________________
Using proxy temperatures as the Hockey Stick Chart did, is well outside the error for margin in temperature readings.
It’s apples and oranges.
A twenty percent deviation of skew, well known in proxy temperature use, makes the claim that the 1990s being the warmest decade, pure BEE ESS.
As I said, the entire cornerstone of AGW alarmist science is base upon a sort of, could of, might of dark, magical arts – because it certainly isn’t science.
It’s an approximation guessing game.
Since this “missing the point” was probably intentional, there is only one response from here:
Re: ANTI
DNFTADDT
===================
Or you could just keep your trap shut.
Reg – good call on Gore’s daddy, forgot about that vote. But at least Cosmos, you cleared up the man, the myth the legend and posted a link about how the chubbier Clark Kent look-a-like “wrote the legislation”, therefore he must’ve created the internet. Guess the other guy in the link you posted was just a campaign advisor for him or something, not someone who actually had the skills to “create” the internet. Gore’s nothing but a lobbyist, who’s figured out how to steer another piece of “legislation” into his own pocket with his little personal “business” that would trade emissions credits…nope, nothing to see here folks…no conflict of interest here…
ANTI posted April 25, 2009 at 10:07 am
Sorry that you don’t understand science.
==============================
I understand science just find.
—————————-
ANTI, if you actually understood science, you would know that the opinions that you claim refute the AGW theory do not refute it.
All that you have is a bunch of whining, mostly from fossil-energy and free(sic)-marketer people.
“As I said, the entire cornerstone of AGW alarmist science is base upon a sort of, could of, might of dark, magical arts – because it certainly isn’t science.”
Uh huh. I notice you completely ignored the NAS’s own assessment of their evaluation of the hockey stick data in your reply. [FE]Obviously, you know what science is better than the membership of the NAS.[/FE]
You made a claim about the NAS’s evaluation of the hockey stick, and when confronted with evidence of what the actual evaluation was, you retreated to your own interpretation and pronouncements, hoping that no one notices that you are backing off the initial claim.
Someone here is peddling the BEE ESS, but it is not me.
And of course, you know that.
And Cos, before you say it, here’s your link….and yeah, I know it’s from a Conservative site, so now’s the part where you post links from liberal sites that refute it. Just note who he’s in bed with in his little carbon trading company…Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs…yeah the same Goldman Sachs that got huge chunk of the AIG bailout money in CDS payoffs and the same one Buffet sunk billions into…small world, eh? http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663
DFB spews: “Reg – good call on Gore’s daddy, forgot about that vote. But at least Cosmos, you cleared up the man, the myth the legend and posted a link about how the chubbier Clark Kent look-a-like “wrote the legislation”, therefore he must’ve created the internet. Guess the other guy in the link you posted was just a campaign advisor for him or something, not someone who actually had the skills to “create” the internet. Gore’s nothing but a lobbyist, who’s figured out how to steer another piece of “legislation” into his own pocket with his little personal “business” that would trade emissions credits…nope, nothing to see here folks…no conflict of interest here…”
Perfect case in point about what I said earlier:
“Why are the scientists in the nation’s honors society for scientists not dismissing global warming? There is a reason why coalition conservatives and free market fundamentalist like the densest of libertarians cling to Al Gore, or try to demonize an individual like James Hansen. The numbers that matter are against you, overwhelmingly so”
That’s right, make it about algore, or James Hansen (who is not as the right wingnuts portray him anyway), or the UN. Claim it is a bunch of liberals trying to justify more gummit regulation. But for god’s sake, don’t acknowledge that the National Academy of Sciences, or the American Meteorologcal Society, or the American Geophysical Union, or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, find the anthropogenic model of climate change convincing as well as international associations of scientists. The fact is, when scientists who practice in the field, and deal with the rigorous requirements of peer review designed to weed out methodological flaws and over interpretations due to internal perceptual biases, come down on one side of “an issue”, the side that they don’t come down on are left with entirely political motivations, and they have to make it personal, they have to pick up a figure who is front and center on the “other side”, and make it about them.
Because, in the end, it is all. they. have.
Nice demonstration of this concept, DFB.
LOL!
DFB is still proving that s/he cannot refute the AGW science, by continuing to attack Al Gore.
Cosmos is not a Tibetan Sherpa.
Cos/Agatha – gee I guess your attacks on people that post here with differing opinions is different how again? If you actually read the link I posted, I didn’t attack Al Gore…I pointed out the obvious motivations and full blown conflicts of interest…think I based a Republican too in Paulson… The difference is, I don’t claim to be a scientist. I don’t declare my opinion is scientific fact. Just point out the holes in the debate that you paper over and ignore…like you just did….kinda like you ignore any actual scientist or meteorologist who disagrees with your precious religion. All I can gleen from your “argument” is that your scientists are sanctimonius and pure and all other scientists are idiots who don’t understand science. But because you say it, it’s religious doctrine. If the “right” says it…it’s just lies and innuendo. Remind me again how the US committing economic suicide via your boy’s cap & trade honeyhole makes the world a safer/cleaner place, because China/Russia/India/etc aren’t following suit like good little countries.
DFB,
If you want to prove that AGW science is driven by your claimed motive/agenda conspiracy theory, you need to do your research on all of the scientists involved — not just Al Gore.
Start with Joseph Fourier (1824), and the thousands of scientists since then, to the present time.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
Have fun. . .
Agatha – as to your comment that “The numbers that matter are against you, overwhelmingly so”, apparently your cap & trade BS only applies to GOP members right? No poor people/middle class could get hurt with “necessarily skyrocketing” utility rates or higher groceries from higher food production/delivery costs or just filling up their tank…nope, “The numbers that matter are against you, overwhelmingly so”. I hope your ilk builds massive foundations of your economy/wealth on purely govt mandate driven principles that rob the most from the those who can least afford it…it’ll be funny to see their mandates get taken away and watch them learn the “free market fundamentalist” concept of sunk costs.
DFB posted April 25, 2009 at 11:01 am
The difference is, I don’t claim to be a scientist. I don’t declare my opinion is scientific fact.
————————
LOL!
But DFB claims that s/he has the background and knowledge to declare that the AGW scientists are wrong.
“The simple truth is that the proponents of AGW can’t or refuse to answer some pretty basic questions.
Even if warming is happening, is that a bad thing? Why?
What is the “ideal” temperature of the Earth? What do you base that on?”
Actually nathan we scientists have answered that many times. And, climate change is based on OBSERVATIONS; not just computer modela.
Cosmos – read much lately? See, when you put the word “don’t” in a sentence…that’s a negative not affirmative verb… But seriously, keep attacking me, that approach has worked since the beginning of time in influencing people. Reagan still pegged you guys best in your approach: “If it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it.” Describes your gameplan on GW to a tee.
DFB,
That’s what’s so funny!
You don’t claim “to be a scientist”. . . but you keep insisting that the AGW scientists are wrong.
Again, the difference is, I don’t try to portray myself as an expert, unlike you, which btw what exactly are your “credentials” making you an expert in “climate science”..other than posting links? It’s simply logical comments like these that always go ignored that make your argument less credible, not to mention the obvious paydays for the leaders of your cause….
“I’ve found that you’ve really got to pay close attention to how people talk about global warming or climate change. Most scientists agree that climate change indeed is occurring — they just differ on the reason why it is occurring. As for myself, I’m no scientist (or a Nobel Prize-winning former vice president), but I think that if you’re trying to find out why things are heating up, the sun would be a good place to start, especially since there’s plenty of scientific data showing that the Earth has been running hot and cold for thousands of years. — Carleton Bryant”
So, DFB, do you think that the National Academy of Sciences is a liberal front? Do you think that the American Association for the Advancement of Science is a liberal front? The Meteorological Society? The Geophysical Union?
You are so invested in your talking points on cap and trade that you are ignoring the reality that people whose job it is to look investigate the world, and do so while controlling for error, including bias error, come down overwhelmingly on the side that there is considerable merit to the hypothesis that humans are causing climate change even after accounting for other variables that cause and still cause changes in climate.
Reality sometimes has a “liberal” bias, particularly when “conservatives” define liberal broadly to mean, “does not agree with our talking points.”
Either human activity aggravates climate change, or it does not. The fact that you think cap and trade is a bad idea, or a scam, does not change reality.
Cosmo – no..I claim that there are other scientists who don’t agree with you that the “debate’s over”. I attack Al Gore, because putting him up as your spokesman, is in and of itself reason to give pause to any logical person, when a politician, and not even a good one, is propelled to the head of the class as prophet of all things scientific. I claim there are specific people who profit from GW debate being over…Gore, Paulson, GE, Obama’s college buddy running the CCX, China, Russia, India…which makes me cynical. I claim that it’s funny to me that the earth’s had everything from ice ages to flooding for its entire existence. I claim that it’s economic suicide for the US to go it alone and act like somehow that will make the world a safer/cleaner place. I claim that just the global oil market is worth over $1.5T @ $50/bbl oil, not counting nat gas or coal…so why isn’t that enough “incentive” for all these scientists to create ANY form of energy that’s actually economic…and contributes taxes to the coffers instead of gobbling up subsidies/tax guarantees/investment. I’ve never once said “scientists are wrong”. I’ve even agreed that the earth’s climate is changing…because it’s ALWAYS changing. Your boy Darwin said so. So, if the primary players in the world aren’t playing along with your GW game…what exactly’s the upside for us doing it?
DFB posted April 25, 2009 at 11:25 am
Again, the difference is, I don’t try to portray myself as an expert, unlike you,
—————
The difference is, that unlike you, I don’t insist that the world’s top climate scientists are wrong because of carbon taxes.
“Again, the difference is, I don’t try to portray myself as an expert, unlike you, which btw what exactly are your ‘credentials’ making you an expert in ‘climate science’..other than posting links?”
Unlike Regular’s “cosmos is not a scientist” trolling, I suspect this is a honest question, so I will give it an honest answer.
Cosmos does not portray himself as an expert. However, that’s not the question. The question is, who is better representing expert opinion? This is not always as easy to answer as posting links. However, when one looks at the highest professional associations for scientists and the relevant associations in the relevant fields that are organized professionally and not for reasons of political advocacy, when one looks at the most prestigious natural science journals (i.e., Nature and Science) and sees what research they are publishing on the subject, the answer becomes obvious. Cosmos is by and large accurately representing the professional opinion that really matters on this issue. His opponents are not. Period.
#
Nathaniel
Posted April 25, 2009 at 6:37 am | Permalink
Real science is based on testable, observable, and repeatable things. Not speculation from a computer model with what may or may not be the correct data.
============================================
Yeppers . . . like the evidence the universe is 5000 years old; man and dinosaur shared Friday night dinner parties. Observable science all. Like anyone’s going to take anything an ultra right wing fundy gun nut says seriously? Only in his own mind, for what that’s worth.
“Your boy Darwin said so.”
Right there, this sentence is reason to doubt your ability to discuss a scientific issue from anything other than a political viewpoint that predetermines your conclusions.
DFB posted April 25, 2009 at 11:34 am
Cosmo – no..I claim that there are other scientists who don’t agree with you that the “debate’s over”.
——————–
And you insist that those “other scientists”, who offer only opinions (not science), are correct.
DFB posted April 25, 2009 at 11:25 am (copy/paste from Washington Times newspaper blog, see header)
but I think that if you’re trying to find out why things are heating up, the sun would be a good place to start,
—————-
Heh!! By golly, that there sure is a good idea!!
Which is why scientists already did it, and continue to research solar activity — solar activity does not explain the warming since the mid-1970’s.
All you AGW alarmists. Where is your evidence that refutes Dr Miskolczi peer reviewed paper that proves nature not man controls the climate?
http://miskolczi.webs.com.” “Climate challenge
Former IPCC reviewers have been convinced. They resigned because the IPCC refused to acknowledge Dr. Miskolczi’s paper. They former reviewers claim the IPCC is more political than scientific.
cosMo claims that Nick Stokes a fictional character from the TV show CSI, refuted the lengthy paper in a few paragraphs. If there are so many climate scientists that so sure about AGW, why don’t they comment of Dr. Miskcolczi’s study?
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 11:58 am
If there are so many climate scientists that so sure about AGW, why don’t they comment of Dr. Miskcolczi’s study?
———————
Maybe they don’t want to embarrass him . . .?
Nathaniel posted April 25, 2009 at 6:37 am
“The simple truth is that the proponents of AGW can’t or refuse to answer some pretty basic questions.
Even if warming is happening, is that a bad thing? Why?”
———————
Yes. Rising sea levels, crop failures, changes in water supplies, loss of coral reefs, ocean acidification, etc.
“What is the “ideal” temperature of the Earth? What do you base that on?”
———————
The one that human civilization has currently adapted to. Sea levels, food, water, etc.
“How arrogantly presumptious of us to think that the Earth is at it’s perfect temperature right now and that anything different is going to be “bad””
———————
How arrogantly presumptuous of us to think that we can improve Earth by running an uncontrolled, irreversible experiment on Earth’s non-linear climate system.
What new sea level do you desire for future generations, Nathaniel? If they don’t like it. . . well, too bad!
“All you AGW alarmists. Where is your evidence that refutes Dr Miskolczi peer reviewed paper that proves nature not man controls the climate?”
Proves it or asserts it? Why isn’t the National Academy rushing to embrace it?
“Former IPCC reviewers have been convinced. They resigned because the IPCC refused to acknowledge Dr. Miskolczi’s paper. They former reviewers claim the IPCC is more political than scientific.”
Out of how many?
“If there are so many climate scientists that so sure about AGW, why don’t they comment of Dr. Miskcolczi’s study?”
1) They probably are, but not on of political blogs.
2) They are also probably reviewing Miskcolczi’s methodology.
That’s how science works. I noticed that Miskcolczi’s papers in question are reprinted in their entirity on a political advocacy website.
If his conclusions are as compelling as you seem to think, there will be further research on them, and there will be changes in the stands of the relevant institutions and associations. But they haven’t happened yet, and someone making a political argument on a blog that Miskcikczi has “proved” that nature not man controls the climate is merely a statement of political wishful thinking.
BTW, no intelligent person arguing for the current consensus on global climate change claims that “man, not nature” controls the climate.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 25, 2009 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 11:58 am
If there are so many climate scientists that so sure about AGW, why don’t they comment of Dr. Miskcolczi’s study?
———————
Maybe they don’t want to embarrass him . . .?
_______________________
Nice try cosMo. More like, they can’t.
The fact that the IPCC won’t acknowledge his study even after some of there own reviewers have agreed, is proof that the IPCC is more political than scientific.
#
Agnatha
Posted April 25, 2009 at 10:36 am | Permalink
“As I said, the entire cornerstone of AGW alarmist science is base upon a sort of, could of, might of dark, magical arts – because it certainly isn’t science.”
Uh huh. I notice you completely ignored the NAS’s own assessment of their evaluation of the hockey stick data in your reply. [FE]Obviously, you know what science is better than the membership of the NAS.[/FE]
You made a claim about the NAS’s evaluation of the hockey stick, and when confronted with evidence of what the actual evaluation was, you retreated to your own interpretation and pronouncements, hoping that no one notices that you are backing off the initial claim.
Someone here is peddling the BEE ESS, but it is not me.
And of course, you know that.
—————————-
Sorry Agnatha,
But proxy temperatures cannot be managed well to tenths of a degree like the Hockey Stick chart claims.
Therefore, the claim that temperatures from 900-1600 which used proxies is just a ball park figure. The scientists can only guess at an accurate temperature.
What Mann did, is always assume the temperatures from proxies were on the low side to make the 1990 temperatures stand out. This is simply bad science.
They didn’t call it the Medieval Warming Period for nothing you know. It was warmer then, than it is today.
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 11:58 am
Former IPCC reviewers have been convinced. They resigned because the IPCC refused to acknowledge Dr. Miskolczi’s paper. They former reviewers claim the IPCC is more political than scientific.
——————
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 12:24 pm
The fact that the IPCC won’t acknowledge his study even after some of there own reviewers have agreed, is proof that the IPCC is more political than scientific.
——————–
Who are the those reviewers, and what are their fields of expertise.
The only requirements to be a “reviewer” are requesting the draft copy, and agreeing to not release the contents.
cosmos squeals:
Who are the those reviewers, and what are their fields of expertise.
Hmmm?
You never give the reviewers of any of the science papers you reference.
Why expect it of others?
Nor do you even post a partial of the formal paper.
You usually post junk narrative crep from the Desmog Blog or realclimate.org.
That’s how science works. I noticed that Miskcolczi’s papers in question are reprinted in their entirity on a political advocacy website.
If his conclusions are as compelling as you seem to think, there will be further research on them, and there will be changes in the stands of the relevant institutions and associations. But they haven’t happened yet, and someone making a political argument on a blog that Miskcikczi has “proved” that nature not man controls the climate is merely a statement of political wishful thinking.
__________________________
Miskcolczi’s papers were reviewed by the IPCC and were ignored and as a result the IPCC reviewers resigned.
I’m confident that the relevant institutions a associations stands will change as long as politics plays no part as it has with the IPCC.
Your statement: BTW, no intelligent person arguing for the current consensus on global climate change claims that “man, not nature” controls the climate. This makes me question your intellegence when you, having no scientific creditials, claims Dr. Miskolczi and the reveiewers are not intellegent.
Regular is hungry. What are you having for lunch, Regular? Soup and cheetos?
A typical cosmos reply – avoids the issue – plays the troll game.
cosmos – simple mind – simple results – simply wrong.
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Miskcolczi’s papers were reviewed by the IPCC and were ignored and as a result the IPCC reviewers resigned.
————-
Yes, yes, yes. . .
So who are those reviewers, and what are their fields of expertise?
And BTW: Both “man” and nature are influencing Earth’s climate.
cosmos_originally
Posted April 25, 2009 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
Who are the those reviewers, and what are their fields of expertise.
__________________
Here’s one.
Dr. Miklos Zagoni, Hungarian physicist, reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report Four.
http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/environment/climate-challenge/1486055.aspx
Agatha/Cos – still waiting on your personal credentials that make you worthy of interpreting scientific data/opinion…and of course waiting for the explanation as to how exactly it is that the world becomes safer/cleaner because of a US carbon tax. Your attacks on me or any scientist who disagrees with you, don’t make your argument any more valid that “AGW deniers!” (how does it does go…I believe it requires 4 bangs for effect…it’s the law). Just answer that simple question that you ignore…if China/Russia/India/Middle East/et al ignore cap & trade as silly….how does the world get safer/cleaner because the US self imposes taxes on all its citizens/business? How does the US placing a $20/$30/$40/whatever per ton of C02 emissions tax on itself “save the economy, save the planet and create national security” as AGW folks proclaim? Does that tax that raises the price of utilities, food production, raw materials production, etc. mixed with a little impending inflation hurt China/Russia/etc…or does it hurt the fixed income folks most at risk of the US? If the strategy of regulating energy to death is so successful, why are people leaving your shining example of California in droves? Why aren’t they attacking beef/pork/poultry production with the same zeal, if another of your leaders of the movement the Kennedy with the jacked up voice, claims that if each American would eat 1 less day equivalent per week of meat, it would be the equivalent of taking all the cars in the world off the road?
DFB,
Unlike you, I’m not personally insisting that those “other scientists”, who offer only opinions (not science), are correct.
Here are ten more peer reviewed studies that question AGW.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/ten-of-the-best-climate-research-papers-nine-peer-reviewed-a-note-from-cohenite/?cp=all
donndublin.
What is Dr. Miklos Zagoni’s field of expertise? What is his recent research?
And who are the other reviewers, who protested the IPCC?
And BTW: Both “man” and nature are influencing Earth’s climate.
__________________
Then refute Dr. Miskolczi’s paper.
My personal belief is that even if “man” can influence earth’s climate, it’s negligible and not catastrophic. BFD
Cos – again, thanks for ignoring all the other points I asked of you and going back to the same lame diatribe against me. Keep at it, I’m sure it’ll start working soon. Here’s another link you will most surely ignore, but I’m bored and trying to make an excuse to not mow my lawn (want my lawn to soak up as much C02 as possible before I release it back into the atmosphere….) so here’s some more climate debate fun….http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/meat-industry-is-top-contributor-to-global-warming-so-why-isnt-al-gore-a-vegetarian/
“Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals.
The March 2-4 groundbreaking conference, which featured about 100 speakers with over 500 people attending, presented the report of a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC. [Note: The author of this report attended and participated in the conference.]
The event, which garnered significant international and U.S. media attention, featured many current and former UN IPCC scientists from around the world.
The more than 400 scientists featured in the report thoroughly debunk the assertions that “all scientists agree” about man-made global warming. But as New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, science is ultimately not a numbers game. “As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue),” Revkin wrote. Furthermore, a Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even more evidence that the alleged “consensus” is non-existent. A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.’” According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA”s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”
During the conference, scientists revealed the lack of tolerance science journals and institutions have exhibited for skeptical climate views. “We [fellow skeptical scientists] talked mostly of work and upcoming papers and went through the standard ritual of griping about journal editors and the ridiculous hoops we sometimes have to jump through to get papers published. But some of the guys had absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-”consensus” views. Really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked,” wrote conference participant Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review, on his blog on March 4.”
http://www.realraptalk.com/f23/warming-skeptics-alleges-supression-findings-393195/
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 1:04 pm
And BTW: Both “man” and nature are influencing Earth’s climate.
__________________
My personal belief is that even if “man” can influence earth’s climate, it’s negligible and not catastrophic. BFD
————————
donndublin, your “personal belief” is meaningless compared to science.
DFB posted April 25, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Cos – again, thanks for ignoring all the other points I asked of you and going back to the same lame diatribe against me.
——————
Thanks for ignoring your problem of insisting that the AGW scientists are wrong.
I, ever the moderate, have trouble understanding the extremists on either side of this issue.
And I don’t look to WE Blog or its proffered links to determine scientific truth.
But I kinda think the deniers of greenhouse gas pollution might be reticent to have smokestack emissions pumped directly into their homes, even if it might lower the furnace bill during long cold Kansas winters.
And just about everyone on the planet realizes fossil fuels are a finite resource; the more we use the more we lose. And someday we’ll run out of dead dinosaurs and have to come up with something to replace ‘em. It might not be tomorrow or the day-after-tomorrow but someday the day-after-the-day-after-tomorrow there won’t be anymore dead dinosaurs to burn. Perhaps we might look into the matter before, y’know, tomorrow.
In a world where so many people obsess over the price of everything and don’t consider the value of anything, perhaps the only logistic approach is to nudge business and industry and the economy toward thinking about… y’know, tomorrow.
Nothing is gonna happen in our lifetime that’ll prevent you from firing up your Camaro. (And we all know the official Oklahoma State Tree is a Camaro wrapped around a telephone pole.)
So back off a moment.
Consider how burning stuff we’re running out of might not be the best policy for the future.
Consider how there are technologies which can replace that stuff we’re burning without pumping the atmosphere full of gasses you wouldn’t want piped into your house.
Stop getting distracted by fossil fuel companies desperately trying to hang on to the teat of the golden calf they’re suckling off.
Consider coming up with something better.
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
http://www.thought-criminal.org/article/node/1112
cosMo, you can’t prove that man can cause catastrophic climate change but you want the government to implement Dragonian laws that has and will cause people to die.
Monkey, If you knew anything about science you would know that pollution has not been proven to cause climate change. I doubt if they taught you that in snake oil sales school.
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Over 400 prominent scientists from . . .
———-
Goggle — inhofe 400 –
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 1:36 pm
cosMo, you can’t prove that man can cause catastrophic climate change . . .
——————-
And you, dondublin cannot refute the AGW science.
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report report — updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming ‘consensus’ — features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. (This entry is a summary of the U. S. Senate Minority Report)
Below is just a small selection of quotes and highlights from the updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears. The 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. Note how many of these scientists have peer reviewed and published studies, are former IPCC members, are long term government scientists, there are even a couple of astronauts with scientific backgrounds. So the next time someone tells you that only crackpots deny that man is causing global warming print this out for them:
‘I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.’ – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
‘Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. ‘The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system’ – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called ‘among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.’
http://www.h2oaccess.com/articles.php/20090206
And you, dondublin cannot refute the AGW science.
________________
I don’t need to, Dr. Miskoczi did and you find anybody to dispute it besides a fictional character.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 25, 2009 at 1:42 pm | Permalink
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Over 400 prominent scientists from . . .
———-
Goggle — inhofe 400 –
_______________
What makes Algore any more reliable than Inhofe.
“The 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers”
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Over 650 dissenting scientists from . . .
—————
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 25, 2009 at 9:49 am | Permalink
For laughs, Goggle — inhofe 650 — without quote marks.
Almost all of the first hits debunk Marc Morano’s list.
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Monkey, If you knew anything about science you would know that pollution has not been proven to cause climate change. I doubt if they taught you that in snake oil sales school.
—————
dondublin, you really should learn the basics about issues that you foolishly attack.
1) Science offers theories, not proof.
2) Aerosols (aka pollution) such as sulfates from coal-fired plants can cause cooling — aerosols were one of the causes of global cooling from the 1940’s thru the 1970’s.
Monkeyhawk
Posted April 25, 2009 at 1:25 pm | Permalink
I, ever the moderate, have trouble understanding the extremists on either side of this issue.
_______________
Monkey must think that Stalin and Hitler were “moderate” too.
dondublin, you really should learn the basics about issues that you foolishly attack.
1) Science offers theories, not proof.
2) Aerosols (aka pollution) such as sulfates from coal-fired plants can cause cooling — aerosols were one of the causes of global cooling from the 1940’s thru the 1970’s.
______________
cosMo, tell Algore and the alarmists that. Why don’t we just use “Aerosols (aka pollution) such as sulfates from coal-fired plants” to counter the warming then?
cosMo, Like I said before, I’ve forgotten more about science than you are capable of comprehending.
I’m outta here.
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 2:02 pm
cosMo, tell Algore and the alarmists that. Why don’t we just use “Aerosols (aka pollution) such as sulfates from coal-fired plants” to counter the warming then?
—————-
Hello? Acid rain. . .
And sulfates (at high altitudes) has long been proposed as possible AGW solution.
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 1:49 pm
‘Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.’
——————–
‘More on Inhofe’s alleged list of 650 scientists‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o.php
“Here’s a fuller quote from Simpson:
“What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical“. “
Monkey – if the GW alarmist argument included sane solutions to “getting off the golden teat” that’s a great place to start. The biggest increases in domestic energy demand (electricity) have come from every home now having multiple cell phones/ipods/laptops/gameboys/big screen/etc with their chargers always plugged in siphoning off power from the grid. We’ve managed to run calulators off solar cells for decades, why isn’t the solution attacking the most recent traunch of demand, by creating solar handheld device charging units that would probably cost the avg home $50..one time vs raising utility costs on the entire nation $50-$100/month? If the cattle/pork/poultry industries are causing far more gh gas issues than C02, why not focus on that industry vs oil & gas? I’ve never ran into a “GW Denier!” who doesn’t want a cleaner planet. The fossil fuel industry’s a $3T or more market that’s been waiting ripe for competition for decades…but the alt energy solutions need MORE incentive than that pile of cash? The “solution” promoted to save us all from GW is to tax the dog snot out of fossil fuels and subsidize/invest tax $’s in/give loan guarantees to “green” energy, hoping that nobody figures out that when you get rid of the fossil fuels carrying the tax base water….you’re left with more expensive energy, which will then need to start paying taxes instead of collecting them. They’ve tried to coopt ethanol as “green” energy, which further discredits their whole argument based on how much fossil fuel it takes to grow crops/make ethanol/run the plant/run the truck,rail & barge delivery system because you can’t put it in a pipeline…or store it together with unleaded. Ethanol was never about green energy or getting us off foreign oil. It was born out ANOTHER govt mandate for MTBE to be blended in unleaded…until they figured out they screwed up because MTBE polluted (actual pollution, not plant food) the air/water. So their answer was to mandate ethanol to replace it. The “green energy” angle was nothing but a marketing coverup for the MTBE debacle and to divert attention from them having to give subsidies to ethanol and that they legislated cover for their mandate decision to make it illegal to sue for pollution caused by their mandate. It’s the same argument for healthcare. Simple solutions would make it all cheaper and more efficient, but they hurt the trial lawyers and don’t allow govt to meddle, so they’re magic answer is “we’ll take it all over!”. Doctors are cutting the insurance company out of the loop offering fixed fee plans for less the $100/mo per person. A patient should be able to sign a liability waiver or hold harmless agreement with their doc, to keep their services from being subject to malpractice. Small business should be allowed to band together and form bigger groups to compete for better rates. But govt doesn’t like these ideas, because they can’t control them, so they regulate them out of existence, all in the name of “the people”. It’s the same story irregardless of issue…now it’s GW to be fixed by cap & trade. Fairtax/flat tax/simplified form, it’s all the same…simple freaking solutions, but take away govt’s power to engineer results that fit their desires…so…they’ll avoid the honest debates on all the issues and just keep telling us “the debate’s over” and it’s all in the name of “the people!” (think that still requires the 4 bang for effect law…).
Cos – still waiting for an explanation of how the US falling on the GW sword makes this a safer/cleaner planet.
DFB posted April 25, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Cos – still waiting for an explanation of how the US falling on the GW sword makes this a safer/cleaner planet.
—————
DFB,
And I’m still waiting for proof of your false Republican, fossil-energy, and free(sic)-marketer talking points.
If it was in one of your long, rambling, multi-issue, non-paragraphed rants, I probably missed it.
Becoming more energy efficient in the U.S., developing renewables, and increasing our global market share would be beneficial.
First of all, can we throw the whole term global warming out of the picture. There have been plenty of warming cycles throughout the earths life, without human activity. I’m not debating that human activity is affecting the earth’s environment in negative ways, because I think it is. I’m just proposing that the Scientific community starts wording it as, “human activity affecting the earths environment in positive or negative ways”. Krakatoa affected the earth’s environment more in 5 years than humans have in 2000 years, I think the earth has more power in affecting it’s optimal environment to sustain life more than people do. But trying to be kinder to the environment just makes sense anyway because I’m sure that we do negatively affect the environment. Remember, it’s the Earth’s environment, not ours, it’s just optimal right now to support us. The earth dosen’t give a crap if we’re here or not, so it probably would be wise to try and protect our optimal living conditions.
donndublin posted April 25, 2009 at 1:51 pm
And you, dondublin cannot refute the AGW science.
________________
I don’t need to, Dr. Miskoczi did and you find anybody to dispute it besides a fictional character.
———————-
Dr. Miskolczi did not refute AGW science. It seems that he has admitted that he is not a climatologist, and stopped trying to defend his flawed theory.
Cos – sorry, don’t subscribe to “talking points”, just simple FREAKING LOGIC! Here’s how the math works, call it “talking points” or “science” I don’t care which, when you RAISE the price of ALL energy and try to replace it with energy that’s MORE expensive in the first place….EVERYONE’S cost of living goes up! But since it’s a govt mandate….voila…you’re good with it and can’t see it as another tax! See Califrickingfornia…do you need more proof, or do you honestly think just blabbering your same “uh-uh..you are!” response makes you seem smarter somehow? Alt energies have a very simple way to be EXTREMLY “beneficial”…beat fossil fuels! A $3T global market isn’t enough incentive, you need taxpayers to prop it up and govt to mandate it and only then is it almost “economic”??? It’s another free market principle you know nothing about, it’s called “creative destruction”. Make alts better they win end of story. You want to shut of “Deniers!!!!!”….make alt energy better than existing sources. That’s how you got the computer you’re typing your propaganda into, because somebody made it better..NOT because some freak in DC LEGISLATED it into existence.
DFB posted April 25, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Cos – sorry, don’t subscribe to “talking points”, just simple FREAKING LOGIC!
————-
Good, I also believe in logic.
Higher energy efficiency is our cheapest “source” of energy. Carbon taxes will encourage higher energy efficiency, which will save money, increase profits, and improve our economy.
There’s also the logic of accounting for “hidden” costs, such as CO2 emitted by fossil fuels, which are causing expensive climate changes.
DFB posted April 25, 2009 at 3:46 pm
That’s how you got the computer you’re typing your propaganda into, because somebody made it better..NOT because some freak in DC LEGISLATED it into existence.
—————-
Actually, computers were first developed with federal legislation. Along with the Internet, supercomputer R&D, the Mosaic web browser, etc.
‘The Technology Challenge: How Can America Spark Private Innovation‘
http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/lazowska/faculty.lecture/innovation/gore.html
Cosmos,
I noticed you skipped over my questions. Just like usual.
“What Mann did, is always assume the temperatures from proxies were on the low side to make the 1990 temperatures stand out. This is simply bad science.”
Once again, we have Regular proclaiming that he can distinguish bad science from good science in the field of historical climatology. Furthermore, the claim that Mann intentionally assumed that the temperatures from proxies were low is unsubstantiated. There are limitations to proxy data, that is clear and the NAS review indicated just that, but they also indicated that…
“In its report, the committee’s first observation was that the warming recorded by instruments in the last century is also reflected in temperature reconstructions derived from borehole measurements, retreating glaciers, and other proxies. The report adds that there are sufficient proxy data from enough places to say with high confidence that the mean surface temperature globally was higher in the last few decades of the 20th century than during any other comparable period in the past 400 years.
“The evidence is shakier for the period between A.D. 900 and 1600, however, a time frame for which there is less proxy data and the uncertainties associated with them are larger. Uncertainties are greater surrounding decades and single years especially, because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales. So while the committee found Mann’s conclusion that the warming during the final decades of the 20th century is unprecedented in the past thousand years to be plausible, it placed much less confidence in his claims about the 1990s and 1998 in particular.
“For periods before 1600, there are fewer proxies in fewer locations to provide temperatures. Nevertheless, the committee noted that proxy data does indicate that many locations were warmer in the last 25 years than during any 25-year period since 900.
“In addition, the report finds that surface temperature reconstructions for the last millennium are generally consistent. They show relatively warm conditions around A.D. 1000 and a ‘Little Ice Age’ from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of the medieval warming is unclear and it may have varied from region to region. None of the reconstructions indicates higher temperatures during the Middle Ages than during the most recent decades, the report notes.”
http://www.infocusmagazine.org/6.2/env_temperature_reconstructions.html
Please indicate either through primary literature or through sources that do not have obvious political agendas that Mann always “assumed that temperatures were on the low side to make the 1990 temperatures stand out.” If he had consistently provided a low ball estimate for his proxy data, I suspect that the NAS and other peer reviewers would have noted it. They have not.
Regular, you are the one who made a claim about the NAS’s review of Mann’s study. And in fact, the NAS did indicate that they had lower confidence in Mann’s proxy data the further back in time that it went, and they indicated in their review that they had less confidence in some of Mann’s conclusions about 1990 and 1998, they neither rejected the study out of hand (in fact, they didn’t even come close to doing that), nor did they in any way communicate an assessment that Mann did “bad science”.
You made an unwarrented claim about the NAS’s review of Mann’s work, and you have still yet to come even close to backing it up. And you are still trying to shift the spotlight to your own review of Mann’s work, and away from your previous claim about the NAS’s review of his work. The full NAS report was supportive of Mann’s conclusions.
“Continuing challenges to studies by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues by climate change skeptics in the House, led by Rep. Joe Barton (RTX), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, appear to have fizzled after the release of a June 22 National Research Council (NRC) report that supported Mann’s conclusions.“
Poor ol’ virgin prophet “Nathaniel” whines about his questions being ignored.
It’s because your inane questions are so easy to ignore, boy.
It’s a nice day. Go out to the back yard and protect your dog from somebody shooting it. A better use of your time.
Cos – How’s that hidden cost logic working out for California? They’ve got the highest taxes on energy, with the highest per unit cost of energy anywhere in the nation….huh, weird, CA’s population’s declining….wow, who could’ve argued against higher taxes running off people/business? Just keep avoiding the question of why such a massive pile of cash waiting to get gobbled up by alt energy technology’s not a big enough incentive to cash in on green energy..but a few billion from your boy fixes it so alts will suddenly have breakthroughs….huh, wonder if that has anything to do with cap & trade policy….if you can’t beat’em…tax & regulate’m! Just as long as you keep convincing yourself it’s all about “the people” and not just another ponzi scheme to skim money off everyone…not just the evil “rich” people…..long as you keep believing govt has nothing but benign intentions…..and that govt’s what’s made this country great, not those evil “free marketers”…..you’re good. Hopefully you’re teaching as many people as possible your brand of logic….just hope none of them ever ask you questions that you ignore like you do here. Brainwashing tends to wear off.
DFB says: “Agatha/Cos – still waiting on your personal credentials that make you worthy of interpreting scientific data/opinion…”
Still irrelevant. The information as to qualified scientific opinion on subjects, particularly in relation to controversial subjects where political concerns have weighed in, is available to the public. The ability to sift through information is dependent upon recognizing the sources of bias and the agendas that leads a source to say what it does. The NAS is not a liberal political front. The Heartland Institute is a conservative, “free market” front. The IPCC, despite the claims of those who do not want to agree with the contents of their report, is not a liberal political front trying to advance the “agenda” of the UN, but Inhofe’s list is sure as hell a political stunt. That’s reality. Trying to make this about a poster’s personal qualifications rather than how a poster is representing information is just a red herring attempt to avoid the issue. Again.
“Your attacks on me or any scientist who disagrees with you, don’t make your argument any more valid that ‘AGW deniers!’”
This is straw man projection to avoid the issue. As I indicated before, one “side” of this issue is supported by professional and honors associations whose “agenda” is to be a professional and/or honors associations for professional scientists in the relevant fields. The other “side” can almost always be traced back to political or social/economic agendas that predict what their viewpoint to a scientific question or “issue” is going to be.
Whenever you see a political controversy on a scientific matter, you look to the primary sources, the published research, and especially when you are a layman the scientists who are doing the work and the professional associations and honors associations who define best practice in the fields of study, because their “agenda” is to promote best practices, not a political cause. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t politics in science (anyone who has worked in a university department knows this very well), but the best practices are promoted and the scientific method itself, including peer review and repliction, is meant to deal with just the sort of mistakes that perceptual biases, including political beliefs, can cause. Political and economic activist organizations, blog sites, and think tanks start with a conclusion first and then hunt material that supports their predetermined conclusions. By definition, starting with the conclusion first is not practicing science. Material from the “denialist” camp, right on down the line, can be found primarily at sources that start with the conclusion and then find evidence to support it. When you come across a site or a source that does that, warning bells should go off.
To wit:
Donndublin’s introduction of “Dr. (Ferenc) Miskolczi” to this discussion. One of Miskolczi’s articles of choice, originally published in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society, is published fully online by through website:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
On this website, they have this to say:
Our Opinion: It is our opinion that the Sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change.
Now, “Friends of Science’s” posting of Miskolczi’s does not automatically discredit it. However, their predetermined conclusion makes it hardly surprising that they would post that paper in its entirity, rather than papers (and there are a lot of them) that have different conclusions. More to the point, the fact that “Friends of Science” starts with their conclusion, then looks for evidence to support it, makes them a questionable source on this issue. The NAS’s position on global warming can and would change in light of new evidence. So would the position of the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union, or for that matter, bullsh*t to the contrary, the IPCC. There is no reason whatsoever to assume the same of “Friends of Science”, a shill Canadian political outfit. That is what makes groups like the NAS much more credible sources of information on the state of global warming science than “Friends of Science”.
And if you are so ideologically polluted that you can not understand this, DFB, that is your problem, not mine.
Nathaniel,
I did answer your questions, except for the unanswerable future ‘tipping’ point one.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/04/pro-con-on-whether-human-activity-affects-global-warming/comment-page-3/#comment-560806
I guess that Nathaniel didn’t like my answers. . .
Rational people generally try to avoid causing unknown, irreversible negative consequences, like the AGW ‘tipping’ point. Nathaniel instead insists that since the future risk cannot be accurately predicted, we should just pretend the risk does not even exist.
Cos – since you ignored it as well, if the largest increase in electricity demand is from everyone having multiple cell phones/ipods/laptops/gameboys/etc and their associated chargers plugged into the wall all day…and we both agree conservation would go a long way towards emissions reductions…riddle me why sugar daddy Uncle Sam wouldn’t buy every single household a couple solar (as well as ambient light from lamps) powered charger units that these devices could be plugged into instead of siphoning off the grid? $100/household, 200M households or so, call it $25B tops, plus creates some jobs and income for domestic companies that would pay a chunk of it back to sugar daddy in taxes. Why would that not be a logical step 1, vs diving headfirst into cap & trade as step 1? Did you even notice the Westar rate increases approved by the KCC for about $120M to pay for the mandated windmills they had to put up in KS? I’m all for windmills that are economic. But you and the govt are playing a shell game, thinking you’re sly and nobody notices the game. They’re not attacking the key climate problem, they’re attacking their key political problem. Dems have never been able to dominate the fossil fuel industry, which is produced predominantly in red states (TX, OK, KS, UT, WV, WY, ND, LA, AK). GW and C02 is just the “crisis” they, like politicians of BOTH parties need to cover the true motivations.
Agnatha,
It’s also ‘interesting’ that Dr. Miskolczi seems to have given up pushing his theory.
Cosmos,
And just what is that tipping point you keep warning us about?
When is it too late?
DFB posted April 25, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Cos – since you ignored it as well, if the largest increase in electricity demand is from everyone having multiple cell phones/ipods/laptops/gameboys/etc and their associated chargers plugged into the wall all day . . .
————-
Really? Do you have a link proving that? I plug the chargers, etc into power strips, and turn them off when not needed.
Agatha – didn’t even read past your comment that you & Cos’s “credentials are irrelevant”, as that was the basis for discrediting anything I posted. As for the rest..both sides have scientists…and we both know none of us are scientists. Your so “ideologically polluted” you can’t argue a single point besides “Oh yeah, well my scientists are better than yours!” I offered actual questions as to the motivations of the focus on fossil fuels and why the simple solutions are ignored and key contributors are ignored (meat industry). Actually, I don’t even care anymore, you both bore me.
Global temperature does change. I don’t know if that is bad or if humans affect it. It seems unsettled. Nontheless, we should strive for a clean environment using renewable energy sources. Not so fast of a change that we double our utility bills or give up jobs. But work towards cheap non contaminating energy sources.
There should be a thread like this every day to keep these types of posts from cluttering up other threads.
Nathaniel,
The ‘tipping’ point is when natural positive feedbacks (triggered by AGW) continue to cause more warming, despite humans sharply cutting GHG emissions.
When depends on many unknowns — the rate and amount of GHGs released by thawing permafrost, the loss of summer Arctic sea ice, slowing and/or even reversal of carbon sinks, etc.
Pretty much, this is likely to be my final response to donndublin, who reveals his trollish colors by posting escalating nonsense in the post I am responding to here.
donndublin: “Miskcolczi’s papers were reviewed by the IPCC and were ignored and as a result the IPCC reviewers resigned.”
What, did all the IPCC reviewers (presumably of Miskolczi’s paper) resign? That would be a major scandal, and I can’t imagine that that would be ignored within or without the IPCC. How many resigned (furthermore, despite claims to the contrary, the IPCC has never been of a single view on the subject of climate change) and was their resignation predictable on the basis of their previous stands on the subject of global warming?
“I’m confident that the relevant institutions a associations stands will change as long as politics plays no part as it has with the IPCC.”
Well, we will see. Because, in the end, what is, is, and what is not, is not. And the scientists in the relevant fields will continue to conduct and replicate research, and to review the applicable research. The stands of the professional associations will change if the evidence suggests that the current consensus is wrong.
That being said, the IPCC is by no means the politically monolithic organization its detractors want to portray it as being. And in fact, the pressure the IPCC gets from “the UN” has been almost universally to water down their report. Why would the NAS take the IPCC report as seriously as they do if their agenda was so obviously political? The answer is, they wouldn’t. But, they do.
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
“Your statement: BTW, no intelligent person arguing for the current consensus on global climate change claims that “man, not nature” controls the climate. This makes me question your intellegence when you, having no scientific creditials, claims Dr. Miskolczi and the reveiewers are not intellegent.”
Pure idiot troll provocation (and if this continues, expect no more soup). I said nothing whatsover about my assessment of either Miskolczi’s intelligence or the intelligence of his reviewers. In fact, I made no assessment whatsover of Miskolczi’s paper. What I did say is that you your claim that his paper “proves” that global warming is caused by “nature, not man”, is overblown, and if his paper is as important as you appear to hope it will be, it will be reviewed and replicated and the consensus will change (and that is how science works). Then I went on to say that “no intelligent person arguing for the current consensus on global climate change claims that ‘man, not nature, controls the climate’. That would hardly be a shot at Milkolczi, but rather a shot either at those who would use the straw man that those who believe in global warming believe that humans cause it to the exclusion of natural causes (a clearly absurd position) or at any protesting self declared environmentalist nitwit who would make that overblown claim (and then probably sign a petition to ban “dihydrogen oxide”).
And then, predictably, donndublin goes here:
“Scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears meeting at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City described the ‘absolute horror stories’ about how some scientific journals have engaged in “outrageous and unethical behavior” in attempting to suppress them from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals.
“The March 2-4 groundbreaking conference, which featured about 100 speakers with over 500 people attending, presented the report of a team of international scientists who formed a group to counter the UN IPCC. [Note: The author of this report attended and participated in the conference.]”
Ahh yes, the conspiracy angle. We are in the minority because there is a widespread conspiracy, a virtual horror story of our views being suppressed, I tells ya!
1) This comes from a political blog, and remember folks, watch the source (by the way, I found it hilarious that the blogger said this was a report from the non-profit side of the global warming debate). Riiight. The American Petroleum Institute and various industry and conservative think tanks don’t offer any financial incentives to self declared “global warming skeptics”. Bullsh*t.
2) This is a group of scientists who formed a group to “counter” the IPCC. Again, a predetermined agenda.
When in doubt, always look to the group whose agenda is first best professional practice, not position on an issue.
Cosmos,
Depends on many unknowns?
So, you claim that the computer models which predict future temps and climate on Earth are spot on but you can’t come up with what the tipping point is because of too many unknowns?
Ok….
How much does “science” say we need to cut our CO2 emmissions by to be ok?
Cos – gotta go, so here’s the first link I saw on the handheld device driving an increase in demand in electricity. Have a cousin that works for Westar and an uncle that lobbied for a Wolf Creek in Topeka who have confirmed the same. Not the only demand increase, but one of the easy one’s to fix…if we wanted to. http://wcbstv.com/topstories/new.york.westchester.2.625040.html
One last thing to the troll donndublin.
1) I make and have made no claims for having special qualifications on global warming, skippy.
2) That being the case, you have no idea what my professional qualifications are (and I have no intention of sharing them to preserve a modicum on anonymity on this board). However, that being said, I do have professional qualifications in an applied scientific field that has its own professional literature. I know how science works, and doesn’t work. And starting with a conclusion first, then looking for support, is not how science works.
Instead of Pro-Con, it should be Lib-Con. You know which side the pros are on.
Busy right now, but I will prepare a temperature gathering document, that will ’school’ you on methodology, errors and omissions of the Mann Hockey Stick.
Oh, and even Mann states now that his Hockey Stick chart is irrelevant.
I will be talking on methodologies in particular, why they are good and why some are bad. Also, why some make so sense at all to include them in record in the first place.
To clue you in, Mann used a compilation to temperature collections from mainly North America and compared proxy sets with air based temperature readings. Apples and oranges, Agnatha, Apples and oranges.
Lastly, before I close, Mann’s hockey stick chart was America-centric – it ignored data taken from various scientific studies around the world that confirmed the medieval warming period and the ‘little ice age.’
In short, Mann’s Hockey Stick is bad science.
Prepared to be schooled – it will take some time to compile the information.
The CONservatives always seem to be against anything that liberals are for – including science.
For future reference, CONservatives should use the following list of topics that they should be against:
Rock ‘n’ Roll, puppies and kittens, fuel efficient vehicles, steaks and potatoes, Cajun food, bicycles, gays, Bluegrass music, Tom Hanks movies, classic country music, cold beer, pickup trucks, hockey, Susan Boyle, good looking women, Buffalo Wings, blue jeans, Doc Martens, Mexican food, Golden Retrievers, Motown, sex, pizza, sunsets over the prairie, really good looking women, football, Harley Davidsons, San Francisco, television, barbecued ribs, Dances With Wolves, hot summer nights, basketball, gardens, cool spring rains, working out, Michele Obama, well made classic firearms, cargo pants, freedom of and from religion, the Godfather Trilogy, sex, Old Town, trees and plants, black tee-shirts, Colorado, Barack Obama and any other black politicians, newspapers, facts, any non-christian religion, sex, any thought of sex, and our president, a black man, Barack Obama.
Nathaniel posted April 25, 2009 at 5:46 pm
So, you claim that the computer models which predict future temps and climate on Earth are spot on but you can’t come up with what the tipping point is because of too many unknowns?
Ok….
——————-
No, you cannot accurately include the unknowns in the climate models.
DFB posted April 25, 2009 at 5:27 pm
As for the rest..both sides have scientists…and we both know none of us are scientists .
—————–
The AGW scientists have science to support their theories.
The AGW denier scientists mostly just have opinions.
Re the ‘Hockey Stick‘,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Paleo
Perhaps Agnatha should read your link cosmos. Although it won’t do much good, as the inherent fault of the Hockey Stick Chart, will be totally disassembled from top to bottom. :)
WSClark
Posted April 25, 2009 at 6:55 pm | Permalink
==============================
The Harley is the Hummer of the motorcycle world.
Why didn’t ya buy a 49cc scooter, Clark?
The Global Climate Coalition knew they were lying to the American people about global warming. Their own scientists told them the science was dead on and humans were responsible for climate change. Regardless they edited out the science and continued to promote their propaganda knowing that a bunch of fanatical zealots would buy their lies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1&hp
Their own report stated:
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”
So even the group set up to represent the oil, coal and auto industries knew climate change was real, they agreed with the scientists. But look at the deniers, they continue to believe the lies because reality is an inconvenient truth.
Clark is a Earth hating, 2 wheeled Hummer driving fascist!
Fuqin’ K^nt…
Regular will also post his Justice Dept. and Congressional links that prove his (false) claim that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees.
that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees.
========================
Every one knows the Mexicans did that, Cosmos….ya ret@rd.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 25, 2009 at 7:41 pm | Permalink
Regular will also post his Justice Dept. and Congressional links that prove his (false) claim that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees.
—————————–
No, unlike you cosmos, I don’t use distractions to get off topic.
It’s truly sad that cosmos can’t deal with adult discussion and resorts to repeated, personal attacks.
Regular,
I was just making the relevant point that because of the lies you have posted, you have zero credibility.
“Fuqin’ K^nt…”
Typical……………………………
Quite classy, ANTI, do you kiss your mother with such a foul mouth?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 25, 2009 at 7:51 pm | Permalink
Regular,
I was just making the relevant point that because of the lies you have posted, you have zero credibility.
—————————
It becomes irrelevant when you post it hundreds of time and off topic.
Regular,
The fact that you have zero credibility here is never irrelevant.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 25, 2009 at 8:43 pm | Permalink
Regular,
The fact that you have zero credibility here is never irrelevant.
—————————————–
The fact you keep saying I have zero credibility is more indicative of your short comings than mine.
Hide behind your computer more cosmos.
Regular,
Are you going to post those (non-existent) Justice Dept. and Congressional links that you said prove your (false) claim that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees?
Or continue to hide behind your computer?
“There will always be a few fringe people who don’t accept established science; notice the existence of creationists.”—the maggot
Notice how the maggot starts nearly every new thread with an attack on faith, spiritualism and religion.
A sure sign of someone trying desperately to convince others, and thereby themselves, of the lie they are trying to make truth.
That’s right Boxy, global warming deniers have faith, the rest of us have facts and science on our side. Thank you for not being in the medical professional, your dancing and chants would frighten children.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 25, 2009 at 9:12 pm | Permalink
Regular,
Are you going to post those (non-existent) Justice Dept. and Congressional links that you said prove your (false) claim that the Sierra Club “screwed” the New Orleans levees?
Or continue to hide behind your computer?
—————————
Agnatha will be highly disappointed in your conduct cosmos.
That’s too bad, you had a valuable ally.
Ha, I am in the medical profession…..fact!
Hope I get to treat you someday maggot.
You just think you have fact maggot.
As God says in the Scriptures,
“I will destroy the wisdom of all who claim to be wise.
I will confuse those who think they know so much.”
1 Corinthians 3:18-23 (Contemporary English Version)
“Don’t fool yourselves! If any of you think you are wise in the things of this world, you will have to become foolish before you can be truly wise. This is because God considers the wisdom of this world to be foolish. It is just as the Scriptures say, “God catches the wise when they try to outsmart him.”
The Scriptures also say, “The Lord knows that the plans made by wise people are useless.”
Tell me how smart you are Maggot….tell us all!
Yeah.
Well, I live in this world, not the next there bawks.
And in this world, we are altering the health of the planet and it must stop.
And it will.
Whether you like it or not.
Regular,
Your copy/paste post with a false, fictional paragraph also helped prove that you have zero credibility.
The positive aspect of Regular’s lack of credibility is that people don’t need to waste their time reading his posts.
Re Maggotpunk’s 7:35 pm post, some more info about the Global Climate Coalition. . . and other denier groups.
‘Global Warming Skeptic Organizations‘
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html
DFB says: “Agatha – didn’t even read past your comment that you & Cos’s ‘credentials are irrelevant’, as that was the basis for discrediting anything I posted.”
If you are saying that I used your perceived “lack of credentials” against you, you’re wrong. I never did that.
Regular trolls in his truly classic fashion: “No, unlike you cosmos, I don’t use distractions to get off topic.
“It’s truly sad that cosmos can’t deal with adult discussion and resorts to repeated, personal attacks.”
Please.
Re: Regular
DNFTT
“To clue you in, Mann used a compilation to temperature collections from mainly North America and compared proxy sets with air based temperature readings.”
I already know that, Regular, and so did the peer reviewers and so did the NAS committee that, at the behest of Congress, was specifically convened to review the research.
And yet, North still said in his testimony before Subcommittee:
“3. It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.”
What would you have had Mann or his fellow researchers do for this study, time travel? If proxies are all you have, proxies provide the best available evidence. And using “a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies” would be, I would suspect, best possible practice for such a study in the absence of time travel.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Surface_Temperature_Reconstructions.asp
By the way, for those who might be confused. I posted a response to Regular right after posting DNFTT.
I did not see Regular’s 6:37 as necessarily trollish. The snark to cosmos, as usual, was different (and in fact, I would wager a deliberately placed invitation for someone to…never mind).
The flaming troll spews: “Notice how the maggot starts nearly every new thread with an attack on faith, spiritualism and religion.”
Just to be clear, dismissing creationists is not an attack on faith, spiritualism, or religion, unless one assumes that creationists have cornered the market on faith, spiritualism, and religion.
And such an assumption is simply false.
Maggotpunk says: “Thank you for not being in the medical professional, your dancing and chants would frighten children.”
Oooops. Maggotpunk, the flaming troll has stated several times that he works in a medically related field (don’t know what he does, but there is no reason to assume that it isn’t in some capacity).
Agnatha,
Let’s say you are a college Professor. A student hands in paper with some statistics and charts. In one chart he shows a ‘hockey stick’ type chart where he compares events of 600-900 years ago and compares them to a decade of year by year events in the 1990s. Would you question his methodology?
This is what Mann did. Tree rings are not a reliable measure of annual temperature. Yet, Mann, et al, used the decade of the 1990s, gave each year a weight in temperature measurement and compared that to ‘tree ring proxy temperatures’ that didn’t cover a single year, but decades and sometimes multi-decadal.
Comparing single year means to decadal mean temperatures is hardly statistically kosher nor is it approved scientific method. It’s intellectually dishonest.
To be more precise, these are the periods that will be discussed.
1) `Medieval Warm Period’ (AD 700 – 1300)
2) `Sporer Minimum’ cool period (AD 1300 – 1500)
3) Brief climatic warming (AD 1500 – 1560)
4) `Little Ice Age’ (`Maunder Minimum’) (AD 1560 – 1830)
5) Brief warmer period (AD 1830 – 1870)
6) Brief cool period (AD 1870 – 1910)
7) 20th century warm period (AD 1910 – 2000)
I’ll add further to the discussion as time permits.
“Oooops. Maggotpunk, the flaming troll has stated several times that he works in a medically related field (don’t know what he does, but there is no reason to assume that it isn’t in some capacity).”
Maybe Boxy is one of those “medical” types that dispenses magical water, you know, homeopathy. I doubt Boxy is in a real medical field, nobody can be a creationist and be considered a serious medical professional.
I think bigotbawks said that he sells medical devices, on commission only.
Lots of solid scientific information re the ‘Hockey Stick‘,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Paleo
“Oooops. Maggotpunk, the flaming troll has stated several times that he works in a medically related field (don’t know what he does, but there is no reason to assume that it isn’t in some capacity).”—the jawless fish
Well jawless fish, at least you are smarter than the Maggot….but that’s not saying much.
I in fact do hold a license in a health care/medical profession from the KS Board of Healing Arts as well.
comsmos has and is nothing, certainly not a ’scientist’.
“I think bigotbawks said that he sells medical devices, on commission only.”—-comatose
Oh and comatose, and I earn close to six figure income doing so as well.
How about you faux scientist?
” Well, I live in this world, not the next there bawks.
And in this world, we are altering the health of the planet and it must stop.
And it will.
Whether you like it or not.”—the BlowJ*b
You BlowJ will do nothing, as you are totally impotent, I proved that leaving you standing like the pinhead you are in a parking lot in the middle of winter.
YOU proved you could not stand up for what you believe in bawks. That is why you and those who would hold America back will be smacked down.
bigotbawks posted April 26, 2009 at 9:40 am
comsmos has and is nothing, certainly not a ’scientist’.
————-
bigotbawks seems to be dumb enough to believe that what he posts on this anonymous blog is reality.
I laugh in your face BlowJ, you will be nothing today, tomorrow and ongoing because of what you are, and what you aren’t and never will be.
I proved you to be a rather stupid immature pinhead, I stood up to that remember, ha.
You tryin’ to convince me bawks?
The forum?
No. You’re trying to convince yourself. And if you haven’t managed it after all this time, I don’t think you can be optimistic of a different outcome.
Maybe we’ve met anyway. Or maybe we will. You could be the guy sitting in an idling car wasting gasoline. Me or my son will be the person who comes along, knocks on your window and says “Hey! Let’s shut that off buddy!”
bigotbawks,
You proved that your word means nothing.
You also have proved that you do not understand climate science.
I’m not trying to convince anyone….it’s fact, plain and simple.
I just think folks, especially those new here, should occasionally be reminded how much of a nincompoop you really are.
comatose, I never proved anything one way or another about my word with that incident, I did take a foolish blog bully to school, and laughed about it.
Why don’t you ask yourself why you are such a bore and so one dimensional.
Let’s DO continue to remind folks bawks.
You said a number of things that were quite …well, silly.
I wanted to see the source of such strange thought. So, I proposed that we meet. It was not confrontational. I believe I said I wanted to look you in the eye as you repeated some of what you post here.
You agreed to meet.
SEVERAL folks who post here who are along your ideological line of thought were sure it was I who would not show up. But I was there, just as I said I would be. You were not.
THEN you changed your story half a dozen times about why you didn’t show up.
To this day, TODAY, you continue to try and declare the demonstration of the worthlessness of your word and the emptiness of your integrity as some sort of victory.
Hey? If you wanna roll in your own dump? I aint about to stop ya!
“SEVERAL folks who post here who are along your ideological line of thought were sure it was I who would not show up. But I was there, just as I said I would be. You were not.”–BlowJ
Because you are full of childishly immature challenges that only an equally childishly immature fool would respond to.
As I said….I laugh in you face.
“I laugh in you face.”
The irony of that little bit of chest thumping is probably lost on you.
Sit quietly, think hard, it may come to you!
bigotbawks,
So you believe that your saying that you will do something (like meet someone) is completely meaningless?
Okay. . .
bigotbawks also foolishly believes that a person, and their entire life, is defined by some posts on an anonymous blog.
bigotbawks: “I laugh in you face.”
LOL! Now that is good irony!
DFB posted April 25, 2009 at 5:27 pm
As for the rest..both sides have scientists…
————–
Looks like DFB doesn’t even want to try to argue that the AGW denier scientists have any credible science.
‘Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong ‘
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646
‘Past, Present, and Future Temperatures: the Hockeystick FAQ‘
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/past-present-and-future.html
I don’t waste my time or my presents with childish immature blowhards or their challenges BlowJ.
There is simply nothing to be gained and no point to it, teaching you a lesson was funny though.
Too bad you are still too stupid to learn.
Regular, you are missing the point.
The Mann study was brought up by you when you claimed that the NAS discredited it. However, the NAS, while they did properly conduct a critical review of the study that did note some shortcomings, they did not come anywhere close to dismissing it.
So far, you’re not telling me anything I didn’t already know. And you still missed the point of my last response.
Without proxy data, what else what you have Mann do?
“3. It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.”
The NAS therefore expressed “high confidence” in the proxy data Mann gathered for the past 400 years. Less confidence going from 400 plus years to the year 900, but they still did not dismiss Mann’s estimates outright.
And this review was conducted by big time college professors and researchers.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Surface_Temperature_Reconstructions.asp
presence not presents
“I don’t waste my time or my presents with childish immature blowhards or their challenges BlowJ.”
The flaming troll’s sum total of responses to or posts directed at Blue Jay in this thread: 5 (6 if you count the reference to Blue Jay in its “response” to cosmos).
The flaming troll clearly loves to waste its time with “immature blowhards”. Besides which, being called a “childish, immature blowhard” by someone who posts textbook examples of being a childish, immature blowhard? Priceless.
No more soup for you, flaming troll.
DNFTCIBFT
BTW, Regular, the NAS, through Gerald North’s testimony to the subcommittee, recommended the continued and refined use of proxy data as a suggestion for further research.
“Surface temperature reconstructions are a useful source of information about the variability and sensitivity of the climate system, and they contribute evidence that allows us to say, with a high level of confidence, that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. Further research, especially the collection of additional proxy evidence, would help to reduce uncertainties and allow us to make more definitive conclusions over longer time periods.”
Agnatha posted April 26, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Regular, you are missing the point.
——————-
It’s Regular’s “job” to miss the point(s). . . he’s a professional troll.
Agnatha posted April 26, 2009 at 12:33 pm
The flaming troll’s sum total of responses to or posts directed at Blue Jay in this thread: 5 (6 if you count the reference to Blue Jay in its “response” to cosmos).
————–
Except for 1 post correcting a typo, all of bigotbawks posts on this thread have been attacks on other posters, and/or boasts about herself.
‘Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” ‘
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
Agnatha chimes:
The NAS therefore expressed “high confidence” in the proxy data Mann gathered for the past 400 years. Less confidence going from 400 plus years to the year 900, but they still did not dismiss Mann’s estimates outright.
Less confidence going frm 400 plus years to the year 900 – yes.
Isn’t that convenient? I mean it’s right in the middle of the Medieval Warming period where record temperatures would have thrown off the whole Mann proxy data scheme to demonstrate that the 1990s were the highest on record.
Not to mention that sea surface temperatures (SST) can only be taken from isotope form and samples are rare. The sea(s) being the biggest heat sink on the planet was not included in the study.
Mann only threw his bucket with a thermometer where it would gain him an advantage on an agenda.
Nevermind, the proxy data taken from the Medieval Warming periods of Japan, China, India, Africa and etc. that spoil his theory were not even used.
Most convenient for a biased study I would say, if you want to say Global Warming and don’t include the entire globe.
‘Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” ‘
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
“MYTH #4: Errors in the “Hockey Stick” undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.”
Too bad for you cosmos, that realclimate is not peer reviewed science.
It’s a Blog, nothing more.
In other words, it’s opinion only, not science.
Too bad for you Regular, that everyone knows that you are a liar, clueless about climate science, and driven by your rabid hatred of carbon taxes.
cosmos_originally
Posted April 26, 2009 at 3:48 pm | Permalink
Too bad for you Regular, that everyone knows that you are a liar, clueless about climate science, and driven by your rabid hatred of carbon taxes
—————————————–
Did I call you names cosmos?
You appear to be the one with the hatred.
I can see that there is no sense in discussing anything in a reasonable manner with you or your buddy Agnatha.
I don’t know about you AGW worshipers, but I to read peer review reports personally and make up my own mind.
cosmos, agnatha and other AGW worshipers are simply satisfied in reading some blog written not by a scientist, but political activists.
That’s what wrong with the whole AGW movement. It is backed by people who don’t have a clue what they are writing or saying.
Very sad, science is dying and it’s all because of turning science into a religion, an object of faith readings.
Cosmos is not a North Korean Cosmetologist.
“Regular” pleas –
“Did I call you names cosmos?”
Right. We all know “Regular” is too principled to call others names.
Right. We all know “Regular” is too principled to call others names.
===========================
I know I am, Jackass.
And they say irony is dead.
Regular posted April 26, 2009 at 4:13 pm
cosmos_originally
Posted April 26, 2009 at 3:48 pm | Permalink
Too bad for you Regular, that everyone knows that you are a liar, clueless about climate science, and driven by your rabid hatred of carbon taxes
—————————————–
Did I call you names cosmos?
You appear to be the one with the hatred.
I can see that there is no sense in discussing anything in a reasonable manner with you or your buddy Agnatha.
——————–
I did not you names, Regular, JM, Republican, Republikhan, * * K H A N * *, Kansas, et al. I just accurately described your posts and behaviour on this blog.
And I do dislike people like you, who lie about important issues like levee failures and climate science — and insist that E. G. Beck, G & T, and similar ilk have done credible climate science.
And they say irony is dead.
====================
That was the purpose.
Regular posted April 26, 2009 at 4:13 pm
cosmos_originally
Posted April 26, 2009 at 3:48 pm | Permalink
Too bad for you Regular, that everyone knows that you are a liar, clueless about climate science, and driven by your rabid hatred of carbon taxes
—————————————–
Did I call you names cosmos?
You appear to be the one with the hatred.
I can see that there is no sense in discussing anything in a reasonable manner with you or your buddy Agnatha.
———————-
Some examples of Regular’s posts showing his idea of discussing things in a “reasonable manner”.
—————
“I have no idea why cosmos has such a ‘hard on’ for the Sierra Club. Maybe he’s a local president of them, I don’t know. But he’s definetely in butt lust with them.”
—————
“Yet more of cosmos denials and lies and his incessant lustful butt thrusting about the Sierra Club.
Once again, cosmos changes his story to suit the occasion. An incessant liar and toe licker for the Sierra Club.”
—————
“cosmos gasbagging his way to more one liners of attack. It’s not a wonder that cosmos large intestines are the size of fire hose and just as deadly with the expulsion of stinky fumes.”
—————
“cosmos flatus induced accusations expel 100 times more methane than the decaying swamplands of the Everglades. Not only is he guilty of accelerating global warming by his use of gaseous flatus artifice, he constantly defends himself by accusing others.
A strategy often used by those with bloated egos and bowels.”
Just from one day of cosmos’s rants:
cosmos’s unscientific responses
LOL!
Flail your arms wildly some more, multi-nic’d Regular!
Those are the forests that in the future could act like your favourite bottle of (warm) carbonated beverage.
Ask your arm-flailing friend and carbonated beverage expert, multi-nic’d Regular.
Of course! It’d be excellent proof that you AGW science deniers are very stupid, self-centered, and do not care about the future.
Thank you for yet again proving that you don’t understand short-term temperature trends.
Nathaniel believes that falsehoods from Steven Milloy, Dennis Avery, et al = contradictory “evidence”.
fleettwood,
Thank you for more reminders that you people are dumb.
Of course! It’d be excellent proof that you AGW science deniers are very stupid, self-centered, and do not care about the future.
Science is like magic for people like ANTI, who cannot understand science.
Regular wildly flails his arms some more.
============================================================
All this from one day of posting by cosmos.
Regular,
Thank you for posting (5:46 pm) some of my statements of the fact that some people here are clueless about climate science, and also rely on non-scientific nonsense from sources like Milloy and Avery.
Reggie,
Of course global warming is real; it’s brought to us through the lobbying efforts that have killed any action to prevent it by those who have the solution, an international cabal of paint manufacturers!
They are currently building stockpiles of their latest color, Albedo White, which they will gladly sell us (for approximately the net worth of the planet) to replace the melted polar icecaps and glaciers and reflect excess energy back into space. They are also negotiating contracts with major salt producers to supply enough product to restart the ocean currents for a cut of the profits. Capital to the rescue (for a small price of course)! Invention is the mother of necessity!
“I don’t waste my time or my resence with childish immature blowhards or their challenges BlowJ.”
“The flaming troll’s sum total of responses to or posts directed at Blue Jay in this thread: 5 (6 if you count the reference to Blue Jay in its “response” to cosmos).”—the dumbass jawless fish
Yes you are a dumbass, I was referring to my taking BlowJ to school, leaving him standing in a cold parking lot for issuing his repeated childish immature challenges, I was not referring to responding to his mindless posts. As are yours by the way.
Try to keep up dumbass.
‘presence’ not ‘resence’ above.
I know that clarification should be unnecessary but as I mentioned I am dealing with dumbasses.
Except for 1 post correcting a typo, all of bigotbawks posts on this thread have been attacks on other posters, and/or boasts about herself.
And confined to those that deserve it, dumbasses like yourself comatose.
By the way there were two posts correcting minor typos that anybody but you BlowJ and a few others simply read over.
Again, try to keep up.
bigotbawks posted April 26, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I know that clarification should be unnecessary but as I mentioned I am dealing with dumbasses.
—————
Correcting a minor typo. . .
What a sorry specimen of humanity you’ve become, “Boxlock20.”
Calling others “dumbass” is so middle school of you.
It’s pretty sad to watch and you’re so unaware of it.
Even those CONs who generally agree with you must cringe at some of the stuff you strut about.
Your whole “…took ‘BlueJay’ to school” litany must be particularly embarrassing to them.
I’m sure glad you’re on the other side of most political issues. I couldn’t imagine a better foe.
And ditto to you Monkey! You are all so very boring.
Comatose can’t post on anything but his asinine climate science, BlowJ is a damn Marxist, you and the Maggot are swine posters for the most part.
I go away for days at a time and when I come back it’s just the same…..boring, except for my utter amazement there are such people as yourselves in this world.
Your ridicule is praise, keep it up.
Oh and Monkey, speak for yourself if you can and don’t postulate on what others are thinking….it’s “so middle school of you” and shows your total weakness in trying to back yourself up with what you say are others opinions.
“Boxlock20″
Posted April 26, 2009 at 7:06 pm | Permalink
“And ditto to you Monkey!”
In the grand tradition of Internet comebacks, that’s not likely to make the cut.
“Even those CONs who generally agree with you must cringe at some of the stuff you strut about.”
I can confirm that. I was visiting with two posters the other day. One of them is a reasonable conservative who has given up posting here precisely BECAUSE of people like bawklots.
An exact quote:
“I find absolutely nothing good, redeeming or remotely interesting in that man.”
By way of demonstrating just HOW bad it is the cons have it?
Bawkslots TELLS us that he is a successful salesman and grandfather. I’m sure many of us read his posts and think “Gawd, THAT is someone’s grandfather?”
But his posts here reveal a strange character to find in that role. Better debate can be had with a reasonably intelligent child.
““And ditto to you Monkey!”
“In the grand tradition of Internet comebacks, that’s not likely to make the cut.”
That’s all you’re worth fella, THAT’S ALL YOU’RE WORTH.
I’m not trying to win your approval, BELIEVE me I’m not.
BlueJ, and that’s what I think about you and your poor kid. What chance to succeed does that poor kid have….none, unless he can do it on his own after getting away from your influence.
“I’m not trying to win your approval, BELIEVE me I’m not.”
Well of course not.
What you are trying to do is give self assurance to your own fading and dying ideals. Just about everything that has been part of your world is changing and in ways that frighten you. You are powerless to do anything more about it than puff yourself up and bluster. Much like when you tried to twist the hoax “McCain supporter mutilated by black Obama supporter!” every conceivable AND inconceivable way in order to FORCE it to be true.
It’s like you are small and getting smaller. Your voice grows higher and ever more shrill as your stature diminishes. Until now? Now you are little more than an insect.
I’ll be your bug light!
Pollution causes Global Cooling…the ’scientist’ are looking into pumping it into the air…to stop Global Warming…
It’s OK, I laughed too.
Blue,
“I’m sure many of us read his posts and think “Gawd, THAT is someone’s grandfather?”
But his posts here reveal a strange character to find in that role”
Nobody get st choose their ancestors, so all we can do is pity Boxic’s grandchild, and hope that DNA isn’t that powerful.
BlueJay supports pumping soot into the air, as does cosmos, the Bavarian Chimp.
I’ve gotta go unhook my boat from the trailer and attach it to my front door……..I’ll back..
ANTI posted April 26, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Pollution causes Global Cooling…the ’scientist’ are looking into pumping it into the air…to stop Global Warming…
It’s OK, I laughed too.
——————-
ANTI thinks that the need for geoengineering is funny.
Cosmos thinks that pollution…is the answer to…well, pollution..
I laugh…a lot………………still laughing…….
ANTI laughs a lot, instead of trying to think.
“What you are trying to do is give self assurance to your own fading and dying ideals.”—the BlowJ*b
Your ignorance is staggering!
Those ideals I embrace, and you reject, will never fade, ever….only you will BlowJ. And you will do so without even a footnote in history, or even anyone’s memory, at least favorable memory. You simply don’t amount to anything BJ, now, and I predict ever unfortunately. Simply look at where you are, a Marxist, broke, a petty thief (self admitted), and so immature you offer challenges that even an ordinary guy like myself can ‘punk’ you on.
Your criticism and opinions are valueless BlowJ. I doubt you have a meaningful existence and a life outside this blog, and that is pathetic in itself.
PS: Jed…crawl back under your rock, serpent.
My grandkid left today to return home from a weekend with us and we ALL were emotionally sad about our parting. But….Hallelujah we will be together again soon when we have them for a week after school lets out, and again for a week for a camping vacation in Colorado this summer.
Life is good!!!….except for the garbage in this world that lessens the quality of it all, examples of which are most visibly present on this blog.
It’s a hell of a job to try and point all this out to such dimwits.
GO COAL PLANTS! RESOLVE GLOBAL WARMING!!
A parting shot before bed.
Read closely, this is valuable.
TIME GETS BETTER WITH AGE
Read it through to the end, it gets better as you go!
I’ve learned that I like my teacher because she cries when we
sings “Silent Night”.
Age 5
I’ve learned that our dog doesn’t want to eat my broccoli
either.
Age 7
I’ve learned that when I wave to people in the country, they
stop what they are doing and wave back.
Age 9
I’ve learned that just when I get my room the way I like it,
Mom makes me clean it up again.
Age 12
I’ve learned that if you want to cheer yourself up, you should
try cheering someone else up.
Age 14
I’ve learned that although it’s hard to admit it, I’m secretly
glad my parents are strict with me.
Age 15
I’ve learned that silent company is often more healing than
words of advice.
Age 24
I’ve learned that brushing my child’s hair is one of life’s
great pleasures.
Age 26
I’ve learned that wherever I go, the world’s worst drivers
have followed me there.
Age 29
I’ve learned that if someone says something unkind about me,
I must live so that no one will believe it.
Age 30
I’ve learned that there are people who love you dearly but
just don’t know how to show it.
Age 42
I’ve learned that you can make some one’s day by simply
sending them a little note.
Age 44
I’ve learned that the greater a person’s sense of guilt, the
greater his or her need to cast blame on others.
Age 46
I’ve learned that children and grandparents are natural allies.
Age 47
I’ve learned that no matter what happens, or how bad it seems
today, life does go on, and it will be better tomorrow.
Age 48
I’ve learned that singing “Amazing Grace” can lift my spirits
for hours.
Age 49
I’ve learned that motel mattresses are better on the side away
from the phone.
Age 50
I’ve learned that you can tell a lot about a man by the way he
handles these three things: a rainy day, lost luggage, and
tangled Christmas tree lights.
Age 51
I’ve learned that keeping a vegetable garden is worth a
medicine cabinet full of pills.
Age 52
I’ve learned that regardless of your relationship with your
parents, you miss them terribly after they die.
Age 53
I’ve learned that making a living is not the same thing as
making a life.
Age 58
I’ve learned that if you want to do something positive for
your children, work to improve your marriage.
Age 61
I’ve learned that life sometimes gives you a second chance.
Age 62
I’ve learned that you shouldn’t go through life with a catchers
mitt on both hands. You need to be able to throw something back.
Age 64
I’ve learned that if you pursue happiness, it will elude you.
But if you focus on your family, the needs of others, your
work, meeting new people, and doing the very best you can,
happiness will find you.
Age 65
I’ve learned that whenever I decide something with kindness,
I usually make the right decision.
Age 66
I’ve learned that everyone can use a prayer.
Age 72
I’ve learned that even when I have pains, I don’t have to be
one.
Age 82
I’ve learned that every day you should reach out and touch
someone. People love that human touch-holding hands, a warm
hug, or just a friendly pat on the back.
Age 90
I’ve learned that I still have a lot to learn.
Age 92
With this, and my incredible blessings in mind, I wish all, even my ‘enemies’, a peaceful nights sleep. And to my enemies some intelligent insight beyond what they consistently display here.
bigotbawks,
If you keep insisting for a long enough time that you are vastly superior to other people, you might eventually convince yourself. Good luck.
“Less confidence going frm 400 plus years to the year 900 – yes.
“Isn’t that convenient? I mean it’s right in the middle of the Medieval Warming period where record temperatures would have thrown off the whole Mann proxy data scheme to demonstrate that the 1990s were the highest on record.”
And there you have it folks, the national honors academy for scientists, after reviewing Mann’s study at the behest of the US Congress, should have consulted Regular so that they weren’t taken in by a “data proxy scheme”.
“I can see that there is no sense in discussing anything in a reasonable manner with you or your buddy Agnatha.
“I don’t know about you AGW worshipers, but I to read peer review reports personally and make up my own mind.
“cosmos, agnatha and other AGW worshipers are simply satisfied in reading some blog written not by a scientist, but political activists.
“That’s what wrong with the whole AGW movement. It is backed by people who don’t have a clue what they are writing or saying.
“Very sad, science is dying and it’s all because of turning science into a religion, an object of faith readings.”
Annnnnd, the mask slips. Again.
Regular, you brought up the supposed exposure and discrediting of Mann’s data by the NAS. I consulted the primary source, and quoted the primary source, to demonstrate that is not what the NAS did. They conducted a critical review, but they still found considerable merit in the study.
And because of this, I am now incapable of conducting a reasonable discussion.
You got pwned Regular, and have reverted to full trolldom. Of course, you probably are receiving some gratification that I am responding to this, but…
…on this thread, we’re done. You made a claim, I rebutted it using material from the very agency you made the claim about. You lost. End of story.
No more soup for you.
Re: Regular
DNFTT
“My grandkid left today to return home from a weekend with us and we ALL were emotionally sad about our parting. ”
See? There’s the tell again.
WHY the need to emphasize “ALL”?
Are you trying to self assure again? Was I right when I surmised that your grandkids must regard you as something that fell out of a tree?
Did the grandkid seem happy to go and you are trying to make yourself feel better?
The poor kid has probably been taught better. He or she has been told by mom and dad to humor grampy. And while you aren’t very bright, you seem to have picked up on that.
No Agnatha,
You don’t discuss it. You use the usual brain washing from the Web, as does cosmos.
Neither one of you know how to discuss science, because both of you are too dependent on hyperlinks and Web propaganda.
There is no point in discussing any subject with brainwashed individuals such as yourself and cosmos.
You both are incapable of independent thinking.
BlowJ*b, you are dumber than an fu*king rock!
:If you keep insisting for a long enough time that you are vastly superior to other people, you might eventually convince yourself. Good luck.”—comatose
And that would take about a nanosecond with respect to you comatose. Get a life, you have none outside the global warming hysteria.
Calling me names will not make your grandchild think better of you bawks.
bigotbawks posted April 26, 2009 at 10:27 pm
:If you keep insisting for a long enough time that you are vastly superior to other people, you might eventually convince yourself. Good luck.”—comatose
And that would take about a nanosecond with respect to you comatose. Get a life, you have none outside the global warming hysteria.
—————-
If that’d only “take about a nanosecond”, bigotbawks, why do you spend so much time lying about my life over and over and over again?
Regular,
Tell us again how the well-mixed global atmospheric CO2 levels made the wild swings claimed by E. G. Beck, in his non-peer-reviewed, not for citing, draft PDF paper.
Agnatha posted April 26, 2009 at 10:18 pm
You got pwned Regular, and have reverted to full trolldom.
———————–
As usual. . . Regular regularly gets pwned, and Regular regularly trolls.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 26, 2009 at 10:46 pm | Permalink
Agnatha posted April 26, 2009 at 10:18 pm
You got pwned Regular, and have reverted to full trolldom.
———————–
As usual. . . Regular regularly gets pwned, and Regular regularly trolls.
==============================
Not really cosmos…
It’s because you and agnatha do not know how to discuss anything without extreme prejudice and pre-formed opinion.
I doubt you’ll ever learn.
You are both sheep of your own making. Incapable of independent thought.
There is nothing to be lost in addressing human caused global warming pro-actively.
At the worst, we become more conscious of our impact on the planet and more thoughtful in our consumption and wise use of the resources it provides.
The only people with something to lose are those defending a position for no more than to defend it and those with money invested in holding America and the world back from innovation.
AS their cause is worthless to anyone but themselves, they have nothing to lose in defending it past any hope of victory.
What a waste. But then, that TOO is what they defend.
BlueJay posted April 26, 2009 at 11:21 pm
The only people with something to lose are those defending a position for no more than to defend it and those with money invested in holding America and the world back from innovation.
AS their cause is worthless to anyone but themselves, they have nothing to lose in defending it past any hope of victory.
—————
They continue their denial of AGW science, because they’re unable to understand that they’re wrong. Or because they’re immature, and just refuse to admit that they’re wrong.
They’d have to admit that they were deceived for a long time on a very important issue, by obviously unreliable sources.
The above post by cosmos is exactly why he would lose a public debate.
– cosmos classifies those who oppose as deniers
Let me clue you in cosmos, science is supposed to be challenged, proven false and each step critically accessed. To not do so makes science turn into articles of faith, not scientific theory.
Other reasons why cosmos would lose a public debate.
– There are no pre-written, propagandized hyperlinked blogs for cosmos to reference.
In a debate – notes are allowed yes, in depth attempts at explanations, no.
Name calling and addressing your opponent in a formal debate in a disrespectful manner is not allowed.
I could go on, but I think the smarter ones will get the picture. In the rules of a formal debate, where a subject is highly technical, one must rely on acquired and trained knowledge. cosmos has demonstrated repeatedly he does not possess these skills.
cosmos and his blind followers accept AGW science as immutable. In other words, they put it on the same level as a deity – indeed they do worship it, calling others deniers.
I find it interesting that those pretending to stand for science, refuse to discuss science – which is sad, because that is what science is all about.
Discussing, re-evaluating, testing, re-testing, continuing to critique the works of your own and others.
If we never did this, nothing would improve, nothing would be gained.
“If that’d only “take about a nanosecond”, bigotbawks, why do you spend so much time lying about my life over and over and over again?”—comatose
Prove you have an some existence outside of global warming. Post on anything besides that, I don’t think you can, at least in earnest.
cosmos_originally
Posted April 27, 2009 at 1:12 am | Permalink
They continue their denial of AGW science, because they’re unable to understand that they’re wrong. Or because they’re immature, and just refuse to admit that they’re wrong.
They’d have to admit that they were deceived for a long time on a very important issue, by obviously unreliable sources.
**********************************************************************************
LMFAO.
That is sooooo going in my archive. Hey cos? When the globe continues to cool for another 8 years, I’ll repost this and see what you have to say.
“deceived for a long time ” indeed.
Fudging the numbers…
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf
1. The climate of the Earth depends on the interaction between the surface and the atmosphere, both of which are heated by solar radiation characterized by a cyclical, variable intensity. The climate is influenced by the Earth’s yearly revolution around the Sun, thermics, changes in ocean waters flow, air mass movement, mountain massif position, their uplift and erosion in time perspective as well as changes in the continents’ position as a result of their permanent wandering.
2. Geologic research proves irrefutably that the permanent change is the fundamental characteristic of the Earth’s climate as throughout its entire history, and the changes occur in cycles of varied length – from several thousand to just a few years. Longer climate cycles are provoked by the extraterrestrial factors of astronomic character as well as by the changes of the Earth’s orbital parameters, in brief – by regional and local factors. Not all reasons for climate change or their phenomena are fully known yet.
3. Although in the history of the Earth, a considerably warmer climate than today had dominated, there had been repeated occurrences when the Earth experienced massive global cooling which always resulted in vast ice sheets that sometimes even reached the subtropics. Therefore, reliable forecasts of changes in the Earth’s climate (not to mentioned efforts to prevent, shape, or act against them) must take into account the results of its research of the Earth’s geological history – a time when humanity (and the industry) were not on our planet.
4. Since twelve thousand years ago, the Earth is in the another phase of cyclical warming and is near the maximum of its intensively. Just in the last 2.5 million years, periods of warming have on several occasions intertwined with ice ages, which have already been well identified.
5. The current warming is accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: water vapour is dominant among them, and in smaller quantities there are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and ozone. This has always happened because it is an occurrence that accompanies cyclical warming and cooling. The periodic increase in the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, sometimes a value even several times larger than at present, has accompanied previous warming even before man inhabited the Earth.
6. Over the past 400 thousand years – even without human intervention – the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar 4 times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times, in total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, therefore the changes mentioned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.
7. After a warm period in the past millennium, by the end of the thirteenth century, a cold period had begun and it lasted up to the mid-nineteenth century, and then a warm period in which we are living had begun. The phenomenon observed today, in particular the temporary rise of global temperature, are the result of the natural rhythm of climate change. Warmer and warmer oceans have a smaller ability to absorb carbon dioxide, and reducing the area of the long term permafrost leads to more rapid decomposition of organic compounds in the soil, and thus to increased emissions of greenhouse gases. For billions of years, Earth’s volcanic activity along the lines of lithosphere plate boundaries, hidden mainly beneath the surface of the oceans, has been constantly providing the atmosphere with CO2 with various levels of intensively.
In the geo-system gas is removed from the atmosphere to the biosphere and from the lithosphere through the process of photosynthesis that is bound in the living organisms – including the shell carbonate marine organisms and after their death it is stored in the huge limestone on the bottom of the seas and the oceans, while on land it is bound in various organic sediments.
8. A detailed monitoring of climate parameters has been carried out for slightly over 200 years; it only regards parts of continents, which constitute only 28% of the world. Some of the older measuring stations established – as a result of progressive urbanization, in the peripheries of the cities, are now within them. This factor, among other things, is the reason for the rise of the measured values of temperature. The research of the vast areas of the oceans has only been launched 40 years ago. Measurements taken for this kind of short periods of time can not be considered as a firm basis for creating fully reliable models of thermal changes on the surface of the Earth, and their accuracy is difficult to verify. That is why far-reaching restraint needs to be kept regarding blaming, or even giving the biggest credit to man for the increased level of emissions of greenhouse gases, for such a theory has not been proven.
9. There is no doubt that a certain part of the rise of the level of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, is associated with human activity therefore, steps should be taken to reduce the amount on the basis of the principles of sustainable development, a cease of extensive deforestation, particularly in tropical regions. It is equally important to take up and pursuit appropriate adapting actions that will mitigate the effects of the current warming trend.
10. Experiments in natural science show that one-sided observations, those that take no account of the multiplicity of factors determining certain processes in the geo-system, lead to unwarranted simplifications and wrong conclusions when trying to explain natural phenomena. Thus, politicians who rely on incomplete data may take wrong decisions. It makes room for politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits. It has little to do with what is objective in nature. Taking radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change, may turn out counterproductive.
The PAN Committee of Geological Sciences believes it necessary to start an interdisciplinary research based on comprehensive monitoring and modelling of the impact of other factors -not just the level of CO2 – on the climate. Only this kind of approach will bring us closer to identifying the causes of climate change
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html
People like Roy Spencer, climatologist formerly with NASA; Ryan Maue, Florida State University researcher; the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science; the Max Planck Institute of Meterology in Germany; the University of Wisconsin; Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University; Joe D’Aleo, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project; et al. All of these renowned persons and institutions tell us we have turned the corner gradually back to global cooling.
Hurricanes have decreased, Arctic sea ice has grown more on a percentage basis this winter than it has since 1979, the number of polar bears has risen 25 percent in the last decade.
Somehow I don’t think this is good news for the environmental community.
They seem to have an agenda attached to global warming and now it’s blowing up in their faces. They must be frantic hoping most of us will remain in the dark.
Fire up the stokers; it’s going to get cold.
Roger A. Anderson
Marion, Va.
http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/article/global_cooling_now_a_prevailing_theory/23330/
It would be easier to lend some credibility to the deniers of science IF they had even a few better advocates.
But just look.
Ya got your crazy “Regular”, your cranky bawks, and your kooky solie. Is it just me or do the reasoned, other ways proved calm deniers of science even exist? Seems like just a bunch of variously motivated nuts.
Those who refuse to discuss science in debate are the losers.
Those who hold science as immutable are stuck in the past.
Regular posted April 27, 2009 at 8:36 am
Those who refuse to discuss science in debate are the losers.
Those who hold science as immutable are stuck in the past.
————
Regular,
Science is based on scientific methodology, not “debate”.
Those who fail (the AGW deniers) to refute the AGW science developed since the 1800’s are the “losers”.
Those who fail to recognize scientific methodology are ignorant and/or stubborn deniers.
Cosmos, so when do we get to burn tires to save the planet?
soldevvb,
Thank you for posting the ‘letter to the editor’, the Washington Examiner, and SPP link.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
You definitely proved my earlier point
“They’d have to admit that they were deceived for a long time on a very important issue, by obviously unreliable sources.”
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 27, 2009 at 10:03 am | Permalink
Regular posted April 27, 2009 at 8:36 am
Those who refuse to discuss science in debate are the losers.
Those who hold science as immutable are stuck in the past.
————
Regular,
Science is based on scientific methodology, not “debate”.
Those who fail (the AGW deniers) to refute the AGW science developed since the 1800’s are the “losers”.
Those who fail to recognize scientific methodology are ignorant and/or stubborn deniers.
——————————
Then you have failed.
You have demonstrated zero scientific methodology on this blog.
The only thing you demonstrate on this blog is repetitious spew and insult.
From Anthony Watts’ blog.
This QOTW is from Congressman Henry Waxman, who is pushing (or maybe bribing) the carbon cap and trade bill through congress. The statement made by Waxman can be corrected by a third grader; it is that bad.
From an interview on NPR as relayed by Tavis Smiley:
“We’re seeing the reality of a lot of the North Pole starting to evaporate, and we could get to a tipping point. Because if it evaporates to a certain point – they have lanes now where ships can go that couldn’t ever sail through before. And if it gets to a point where it evaporates too much, there’s a lot of tundra that’s being held down by that ice cap..”
That’s probably the scariest statement on “science” ever uttered by a Congressman.
Let me go on record by saying Waxman is stunningly and stupidly misinformed and intellectually inadequate for the tasks at hand that bears his name: The Waxman-Markey bill
This is what Waxman works on in Congress:
Committee on Energy and Commerce (Chairman)
* Subcommittee on Health
* Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
* Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Perhaps we should drop Congressman Waxman in the center of the arctic North Pole region and he can return later to see just how fast the ice is evaporating (if he survives.)
BlueJay posted April 27, 2009 at 8:33 am
It would be easier to lend some credibility to the deniers of science IF they had even a few better advocates.
But just look.
Ya got your crazy “Regular”, your cranky bawks, and your kooky solie. Is it just me or do the reasoned, other ways proved calm deniers of science even exist? Seems like just a bunch of variously motivated nuts.
————-
Yep.
They’ve got multi-nic’d, carbon tax hating Regular, who insists that the long, arduous process of scientific methodology is supposed to be demonstrated on this anonymous newspaper blog.
outlander,
You should compare the statements made by Sen. Inhofe (R-Oil) to science.
Only a goofball leftist/lib would ask for more taxes.
What a maroon.
What’s the matter Regular? Are you grumpy because you can’t get a payroll tax cut, because you don’t work?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 27, 2009 at 11:06 am | Permalink
What’s the matter Regular? Are you grumpy because you can’t get a payroll tax cut, because you don’t work?
———————————————
I have income from several sources.
Besides cosmos, what does your comment have to do with Climate Change?
Are you hoping to score blog points?
You failed, as usual.
Regular,
Explain why you often rant against carbon taxes when the issue being discussed is Climate Change.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 27, 2009 at 11:15 am | Permalink
Regular,
Explain why you often rant against carbon taxes when the issue being discussed is Climate Change.
———————————
Explain why you call me a denier, when I’m the one with science degrees.
Explain why you call me a denier, when I’m the one with science degrees.
=============================================
What science degrees do you hold?
Multi-nic’d Regular has an ‘ I’ll believe anything that denies AGW science ‘ degree.
Regular insisted that E. G. Beck’s bogus claims were credible science.
‘More Nonsense about CO2 ‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
#
Daniel
Posted April 27, 2009 at 11:28 am | Permalink
Explain why you call me a denier, when I’m the one with science degrees.
=============================================
What science degrees do you hold?
===========================
Safety and Environmental Science B.S. and M.S.
and A.S. if you want to count that. :)
Notice the attacks continue from cosmos.
His typical pattern…
cosmos is nothing more than a blog eco-terrorist.
Regular posted April 27, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Notice the attacks continue from cosmos.
————-
Regular,
So you admit that you were wrong when you insisted that E. G. Beck’s bogus claims were credible science?
‘More Nonsense about CO2 ‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
Okay. . .
What field of work or type of job would one who holds those degrees go into, generally speaking?
Would one be more likely to work in the private or public sector?
Some examples of Regular (aka Republican, aka Republikhan, et al) insisting the Beck’s bogus CO2 claims were credible science.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/is_there_a_carb/#comment-253687
cosMo has a B.S.(bull sh it) degree in Anthropogenic Global Warming he got on a match book cover. Just like the political blogggers he always links to.
cosMo,
You admit you were wrong when you posted a link to a fictional character, Nick Stokes, who falsely claimed to refute Dr. Miskolczi’s study contradicting AGW.
#
Daniel
Posted April 27, 2009 at 12:28 pm | Permalink
What field of work or type of job would one who holds those degrees go into, generally speaking?
Would one be more likely to work in the private or public sector?
———————–
Both are very diverse fields.
One can be a generalists in either field.
There is transportation safety, industrial safety, manufacturing safety, Hospital safety, etc. etc.
Safety involves equipment, protective gear, preventive measures, etc. etc.
Environmental is similar, but specializes in the measurement of the measurement of physical, biological, chemical, etc.
It’s probably more diverse than Safety with about as many sub-fields as there are fields.
In both safety and environmental science, one can work in Public or Private sector.
Most famous or infamous in the Government are:
- The environmental protection agency (EPA)
- Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA)
- National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
- United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (food safety and the environment they operate in)
- U.S. Military – Has environmental and safety officers covering just about every aspect their civilian counterparts do.
- Schools and University, generally at least one or two slots for the school itself and of course teaching positions
Private:
Too many to mention…
But Environmental Scientists who take care of by measuring, evaluating, analyzing risk assessment, controlling hazards, etc.
That’s a very generalized statement of what each can do. It’s very diverse and about any field you can think of, has a safety or environmental trained person associated with it.
donndublin,
Dr. Miskolcz himself seems to have admitted that his theory was wrong.
And thank you for attacking (anonymous) me, instead of all of the scientists and other people whose research developed the AGW theory.
Thanks for the info.
Regular,
Do you admit that you were wrong when you insisted that E. G. Beck’s bogus atmospheric CO2 claims were credible science?
Yes? No? Or maybe you’re confused, and don’t know the answer?
cosmos_originally
Posted April 27, 2009 at 1:07 pm | Permalink
donndublin,
Dr. Miskolcz himself seems to have admitted that his theory was wrong.
______________________
cosMO,
Says who, Nick Stokes?
Explain to me how E.G. Beck’s measurements were wrong.
They were contemporary complicit to his time and were indeed credible science in his time and field.
Measurement of temperature in today’s instrumentation can be done in hundredths up to millionth of a degree.
Does the temperature taken by a thermometer in 1890 make it any less credible?
There is a difference between accuracy and precision.
Both you and Ben cherry picked one aspect of Beck’s work and hopped on it.
You didn’t bother to look at the others.
I can find an error in just about any work done today. What does that mean? If it is statistically significant – maybe by a lot. If it is statistically insignificant, then it is meaninglessness for the most part if used out of context of the discipline.
Trying to find a bone in your fish dinner isn’t anything new cosmos, nor is it helpful to keep whining about it.
cosMo,
If you knew how to spell Miskolczi, you would know who you were talking about. No wonder you have no credibility.
donndublin,
Don’t you understand the word “himself”? Dr. Miskolczi admitted that he was not a climatologist, and seems to have quit defending his theory.
Poor Regular doesn’t seem to understand the difference between “claims” and “measurements”. Or he wants more soup, again?
‘More Nonsense about CO2 ‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 27, 2009 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
Poor Regular doesn’t seem to understand the difference between “claims” and “measurements”. Or he wants more soup, again?
‘More Nonsense about CO2 ‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
—————————-
Sorry cosmos, but the ’soup’ remark is getting really old and tiresome.
I agree that Beck’s conclusion on the compilation of the co2 measurements were wrong in assessing climate change.
However, I have nothing against the conclusions of the methodologies in the environments the samples were taken from.
Urban environments are not well mixed when it comes to co2. Cloud cover, wind, humidity, structures prevent area co2 coverage.
If you keep on harping on this matter cosmos, I will just ignore you. Beating a dead horse over and over proves nothing.
You are pathetically anal cosmos.
Regular posted April 27, 2009 at 1:58 pm
I agree that Beck’s conclusion on the compilation of the co2 measurements were wrong in assessing climate change.
——————-
That’s kinda ambiguous. Are you saying that Beck was wrong when he claimed that well-mixed global atmospheric CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in the 1940’s? As shown on his graph here.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
I’m saying that making an assessment about climate using one gas, is at best ludicrous.
cosMo, Don’t you understand that quit defending is not the same as “admit it’s wrong”. That’s a typical lie that AGW alarmists use. Twist the facts, censor the studies, attack those who don’t agree.
Climatologists are defending Dr. Miskolczi’s paper.
BTW: I see that your pal Nick Stokes is a avid AGW blogger like you are. Why don’t he have the balls to reveal who he really is?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 27, 2009 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
donndublin,
Don’t you understand the word “himself”? Dr. Miskolczi admitted that he was not a climatologist, and seems to have quit defending his theory.
________________
If you had a link you would post it even if it were a non-credible political blog. We can assume it is only your non-scientific opinion.
Cosmos is a Haitian Witch Doctor.
By Christopher Leake
Last updated at 10:27 PM on 25th April 2009
Add to My Stories
Prince Charles is being accused of hypocrisy after it was revealed that he is chartering a luxury private jet for a five-day tour of Europe to promote environmental issues.
The Prince and the Duchess of Cornwall, plus ten Clarence House staff, will fly from London to Rome this evening. Then they will fly on to Venice and Berlin, before returning to Britain.
Clarence House aides stress that the trip is at the request of the Government to promote its climate change policies.
But instead of using scheduled flights, the Royal party has hired a private plane, thought to be an Airbus A319.
According to experts from the Carbon Managers company, which carries out environmental audits, the aircraft’s four European flights over 2,200 miles will leave a carbon footprint of 52.95 tons – nearly five times the average person’s 11-ton footprint for an entire year.
Each member of Charles’s party will leave a carbon footprint of 4.41 tons – 13 times more than if they had used a scheduled flight on the same type of plane, which can carry up to 156 passengers.
The flights on the specially converted jet, which boasts a master suite with its own lavatory and shower, will cost an estimated £80,000 – five times more than business-class fares on scheduled airlines.
Scheduled flights would cost £1,525 per person, a total of £15,250 for the Royal party. They could have included a British Airways flight from London to Rome (£200), Alitalia from Rome to Venice (£528 economy, no business class available), Lufthansa from Venice to Berlin (£597), and BA from Berlin to London (£200).
Last night Clarence House refused to confirm which type of plane Prince Charles was using or how much it would cost.
cosmos_originally posted April 27, 2009 at 2:20 pm
That’s kinda ambiguous. Are you saying that Beck was wrong when he claimed that well-mixed global atmospheric CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in the 1940’s? As shown on his graph here.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
——————–
Regular posted April 27, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I’m saying that making an assessment about climate using one gas, is at best ludicrous.
————–
Actually, Regular is proving that he is an immature troll, by refusing to answer my question.
Thank you Regular, for proving that my earlier post was accurate:
“They continue their denial of AGW science, because they’re unable to understand that they’re wrong. Or because they’re immature, and just refuse to admit that they’re wrong.”
No more soup for Regular.
donndublin,
It seems that you also don’t understand the word “seems”.
Please post the names of the “Climatologists are defending Dr. Miskolczi’s paper”. And also their field of expertise.
Anti, The AGW crowd wants the rest of the world to conserve so the liberal self proclaimed elitists can have all they want.
climatologists are Dr. Roy Spencer and John Chrisy, Dr. Patrick J. Michaels.
Then there’s the 650 scientists that attended the 2008 conference.
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork08/newyork2008-video.html
cosMo,
Please post the names of the Climatologists who are refuting Dr. Miskolczi’s paper. And also their field of expertise.
donndublin,
All that you have is two satellite researchers, and a fossil-energy shill? That’s all. . .?
cosMo,
And there’s the 650 scientists some climatologists and almost every other discipline.
All you have is a fictional character. That’s called nothing, zilch, nada.
Cosmos is not Mr. Peanut.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm | Permalink
donndublin,
All that you have is two satellite researchers, and a fossil-energy shill? That’s all. . .?
_______________
AND THE LIST GROWS:
Robert C. Balling, Jr. is the former director of the Office of Climatology and is a professor of geography at Arizona State University
Craig D. Idso is the founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
William Kininmonth is an Australian climate scientist head of Australia’s National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998
Carter, Robert Merlin, PhD Cantab Hon FRSNZ 1997 Professor of Geology, James Cook University of Northern Queensland, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is a Senior Fellow for the National Center for Policy Analysis
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008
With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.
We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.
Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
James Goodridge, California State Climatologist, (retired)
Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
Antonio Zichichi, Ph.D, President, World Federation Of Scientists
FOR THE REST OF THE LIST:
http://markstorer.com/?p=1216
donndublin posted April 27, 2009 at 4:33 pm
And there’s the 650 scientists some climatologists and almost every other discipline.
————–
Mostly other disciplines, like coal journal editor.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 27, 2009 at 7:08 pm | Permalink
donndublin posted April 27, 2009 at 4:33 pm
And there’s the 650 scientists some climatologists and almost every other discipline.
————–
Mostly other disciplines, like coal journal editor.
————————–
Wow cosmos, according to the math the majority of the remaining 640+/- are coal journal editors.
Lack objectivity cosmos or is that splinter in your eye?
Reggie, Donnie Boy,
Yeah, well, I used to know a professor of psychology who thought that mental illness was a punishment from god for having impure thoughts too. You like to throw around that supposed 650 scientists, but even if that’s true, out of the 3.8 million scientists and engineers listed in the US census report, that amounts to what, .006%? Wow, some consensus you got there!
Heartland’s infamous conferences were just media PR events.
‘What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?‘
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/langswitch_lang/it
January 2008 was the planet’s second-coldest January in 15 years.
January 2009: Coldest since 1994
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA
Cos tries to bash Heartland by linking…
Wait for it…
RealClimate
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Coldest March Since 2000, Colder Than 1990, 1998, GISS Global Temperature Anomaly Options
February in Kansas: Warmest average temperature by FAR for that month.
About time we stopped playing dice with the planet. You never know what you’re gonna get.
Coldest winter for a decade
25 February 2009
#
BlueJay
Posted April 28, 2009 at 8:36 am | Permalink
February in Kansas: Warmest average temperature by FAR for that month.
About time we stopped playing dice with the planet. You never know what you’re gonna get.
————————————–
One state does not make a climate region.
Fail…
BlueJay
Posted April 28, 2009 at 8:36 am | Permalink
February in Kansas: Warmest average temperature by FAR for that month.
Thank you for proving you can’t understand global
coolingwarming junior. Temperatures in Kansas do not reflect globalcoolingwarming.2008 will be coolest year of the decadeGlobal average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C
November 30, 2007
Warmist polar expedition was cancelled due to extreme cold
A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
“Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey,” said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.
On Monday, the pair was at Canada’s Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to Minneapolis later this week.
**************************************************************
How much carbon did the rescue plane produce?
The debate is over.
Just ask the kids!
Global warming is happening and human activity does contribute to it. We WILL be addressing it and the time is coming when participation in addressing the problem can no longer be left to just the more responsible among us.
soldevvb,
You’re confused. Reality bashes the Heartland Institute.
The debate is over.
Just ask the kids!
=====================
Science…at it’s best folks.
BlueJay
Posted April 28, 2009 at 8:45 am | Permalink
The debate is over.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Yeah, guess that is why we are still pumping BILLIONS into it right? Cause everyone knows you need to heavily fund settled science.
You want to prove AGW? Cut off the money. See how many still produce research pointing to our catastrophic end.
LMFAO. Too funny.
Just ask the kids!
Indoctrinating the children with lies and propaganda. And junior supports it. Color me shocked. But only if it is some idiotic government/political mantra that junior supports.
Hey junior, how about they start military classes? Teach the kids about the constitution and forming militias?
Will your ret@rded @ss be singing then?
soldevvb posted April 28, 2009 at 8:39 am
Temperatures in Kansas do not reflect global cooling warming
—————–
Long-term global temperatures since the mid-1970’s do show AGW.
cosmos_originally
Posted April 28, 2009 at 8:49 am | Permalink
soldevvb,
You’re confused. Reality bashes the Heartland Institute.
****************************************************
And the arm flailing libtards at realclimate? Yeah…
A political blog site. Great source cosmo.
How about the last 650 million years cos? Why just cherry pick 30+ years? You want to go back? Go back 650,000,000.
Oh the pretty peaks and vallies. Guess humans caused those too.
Long-term global temperatures since the mid-1970’s do show AGW
And that is an absolute lie. The temeratures may have risen, but there is absolutely no proof of what caused it.
And to that point, why are the IPCC’s temp data so different from their first assesment to the fourth?
Gotta keep fudging those numbers to get the results you want.
Long-term global temperatures since the mid-1970’s do show AGW.
Long term…. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
30 years is long term to cos. What a total tard.
It MIGHT be interesting to get to the individual agenda of the various deniers of human caused global warming.
IF those people could still be considered in any way relevant.
What we do know, is that
1. these people have various reasons for wanting to hold their country back. To keep it making the same mistakes that we have the last 30 years.
2. they are a decided and diminishing minority.
They don’t need to be made to understand. They refuse to. SO there is little point in understanding them.
BlueJay,
You should be very careful, someone might slap a helmet on you and chain you to a clothes line.
soldevvb,
List the errors made by RealClimate re the Heartland NY conference.
these people have various reasons for wanting to hold their country back.
Total lie. The folks that want to tax us into the stone age are looking to hold the country back.
Hey junior, do a little research. What killed the steel industry in the US?
they are a decided and diminishing minority.
Another complete lie. The exact opposite is actually the truth. More people are waking up and looking a OBSERVED changes and realizing we’ve been lied to.
But hey, what ever helps you sleep at night…
7 years’ global cooling unequivocally confirmed by NCDC
7 years’ global cooling confirmed by Hadley, NCDC, RSS, and UAH
soldevvb posted April 28, 2009 at 8:55 am
Long-term global temperatures since the mid-1970’s do show AGW
And that is an absolute lie. The temeratures may have risen, but there is absolutely no proof of what caused it.
——————-
List what did cause the rise in temperatures, if it wasn’t AGW.
realclimate is sponsored by a known Bush hater, Betsy Endsley, who is a subsidizer to the far left online hysteria shriekers, moveon dot org.
#
Jed
Posted April 27, 2009 at 10:37 pm | Permalink
Reggie, Donnie Boy,
Yeah, well, I used to know a professor of psychology who thought that mental illness was a punishment from god for having impure thoughts too. You like to throw around that supposed 650 scientists, but even if that’s true, out of the 3.8 million scientists and engineers listed in the US census report, that amounts to what, .006%? Wow, some consensus you got there!
_______________
Wow Jed, how long did it take to ask all those 3.8 million scientists and engineers? Do you have any proof that those 3.8 million all believe, 1.Global warming is manmade. 2. Global warming will lead to catastrophic consequences. 3. Carbon trading and carbon taxes will turn it around.
“A Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even more evidence that the alleged ‘consensus’ is non-existent. A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.’” According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.””
“The skeptical scientists at the conference presented diverse views on climate change, but generally they rallied around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) “Consensus” has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes. ”
cosmos vomits:
List what did cause the rise in temperatures, if it wasn’t AGW.
You list them, you lazy bass terd.
Stop making requests of others of which you have no scientific background to muster on your own.
AGW deniers continue their denial of AGW science, because they’re unable to understand that they’re wrong. Or because they’re immature, and just refuse to admit that they’re wrong.
They’d have to admit that they were deceived for a long time on a very important issue, by obviously unreliable sources.
There can be no better demonstration of the utter foolishness of the deniers of science than the posts here from the deniers themselves.
They call names. They rant and overuse punctuation. These are not people who can be dealt with rationally. Rather, they serve as good examples that any such effort would be a waste of time and diplomacy.
We are at the place where we need not….humor them.
Regular posted April 28, 2009 at 9:08 am
cosmos vomits:
List what did cause the rise in temperatures, if it wasn’t AGW.
You list them, you lazy bass terd.
—————-
LOL!
Multi-nic’d Regular wants some more soup!
The reasons are listed in AGW science. Read that Regular, instead of E. G. Beck and your other heros.
List what did cause the rise in temperatures, if it wasn’t AGW.
______________________
The same thing that caused the last umpteen thousand rises over the last several million years dimwit.
AGW deniers continue their denial of AGW science, because they’re unable to understand that they’re wrong.
7 years’ global cooling unequivocally confirmed by NCDC
7 years’ global cooling confirmed by Hadley, NCDC, RSS, and UAH
I’ve got a port and black peppercorn sauce recipe that will help you swallow your words, or eat crow, whichever you choose.
#
BlueJay
Posted April 28, 2009 at 9:10 am | Permalink
There can be no better demonstration of the utter foolishness of the deniers of science than the posts here from the deniers themselves.
They call names. They rant and overuse punctuation. These are not people who can be dealt with rationally. Rather, they serve as good examples that any such effort would be a waste of time and diplomacy.
We are at the place where we need not….humor them.
________________
I couldn’t think of a better example of irony and this from a someone who has a scientific mind of two year old.
BJ, When are you going to graduate from kindergarten?
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 28, 2009 at 9:13 am | Permalink
Regular posted April 28, 2009 at 9:08 am
cosmos vomits:
List what did cause the rise in temperatures, if it wasn’t AGW.
You list them, you lazy bass terd.
—————-
LOL!
Multi-nic’d Regular wants some more soup!
The reasons are listed in AGW science. Read that Regular, instead of E. G. Beck and your other heros.
——————————-
You list them you lazy bass terd.
It’s your claim that your pseudo science has all the answer.
Put up or shut up.
List the reasons or be silent.
List the reasons or be silent.
And do cite the irrefutable proof. No theories now, proof.
List what did cause the rise in temperatures, if it wasn’t AGW.
____________________________________________
The Earth, The Sun. Both are more powerful than us.
BlueJay,
But the AGW deniers are good for some laughs. . .
For example, there’s a ‘Professional Engineer’ who insists that because nature caused changes in the past, only nature can be causing the changes now. Now there’s some real science for ya!
And another person loudly screams in bold type, that observations that were expected and explained by AGW science prove that AGW science is wrong. You can get a headache trying to find the logic(sic) in that argument.
LOL!
Regular wants more soup. Maybe he’s having soup and cheetos for lunch?
Didn’t think you could. But do continue the ad-hominem. Bout all you got isn’t it?
“But the AGW deniers are good for some laughs. . ”
Oh no doubt that.
I’m just glad they are a shrinking and ever more discredited minority. Never underestimate the damage that even idiots can do.
But honestly? These people may as well be screaming at the top of their lungs that they can make lobsters crawl out of their ears.
fleetwood,
Don’t forget Earth’s “greenhouse” effect, which keeps us about 60 degrees F. warmer, and prevents wild day/night temperature swings.
Humans have changed the chemistry of Earth’s “greenhouse” effect.
Cosmo’s Denier HitParade:
_____________________________________
AGW science deniers believe that their opinion is science.
But the AGW deniers are good for some laughs. . .
Your friend and fellow AGW denier, soldevvb, is better at insults than you.
AGW deniers continue their denial of AGW science, because they’re unable to understand that they’re wrong.
The boring AGW deniers keep repeating the same old falsehoods over and over and over again.
Multi-nic’d Regular has an ‘ I’ll believe anything that denies AGW science ‘ degree.
AGW deniers cannot refute that science, so they attack the climate models.
The AGW deniers here are attacking Al Gore (and even his late father),
‘When Deniers Deny Their Own‘
The AGW denier scientists mostly just have opinions.
Looks like DFB doesn’t even want to try to argue that the AGW denier scientists have any credible science.
Re Maggotpunk’s 7:35 pm post, some more info about the Global Climate Coalition. . . and other denier groups.
soldevvb doesn’t really need a trophy. . . his being an excellent example of you AGW deniers is enough of a reward.
That’s one reason you should get your facts from the scientists, instead of the media, and AGW science deniers.
And poor Nathaniel has to attack me, because he cannot find any credible science to support his AGW denial.
They continue their denial of AGW science, because they’re unable to understand that they’re wrong.
Those who fail (the AGW deniers) to refute the AGW science developed since the 1800’s are the “losers”.
Those who fail to recognize scientific methodology are ignorant and/or stubborn deniers.
You AGW science deniers are very weaselly.
You deniers lost the AGW science debate decades ago,
It’d be excellent proof that you AGW science deniers are very stupid, self-centered, and do not care about the future.
Let’s list Regular’s ignorance and denial of climate science. . .
That basically sums up the AGW deniers arguments.
You were/are too dumb, and/or too deep in denial, to understand the carbon cycle.
So you could not find any proof that you, and the other AGW deniers here, understand scientific methodology?
Now that there is some AGW deniers science fer ya.
Now list Happer’s paper(s) out of those “over 200? that support his AGW science denial.
How much does your beloved ignorant denial of climate science reduce emissions by?
That’s “true” only for ignorant and/or dumb AGW deniers.
you silly AGW science deniers.
You AGW deniers sure have some “interesting” comments
climate science that supports their AGW denial
AGW deniers Shimkus and Lord Christopher Monckton
soldevvb is a liar. I’ve said that they do not have any credible science to support their AGW science denial.
Ignorance sustains your AGW denial, soldevvb.
Yes soldevvb, David J. Bellamy is a shiny object for you silly AGW science deniers.
Guess that is why the senate killed the cap and trade Obama tried to force down their throats. Yeah cause of all that settled science right?
Humans have changed the chemistry of Earth’s “greenhouse” effect.
0.11%
soldevvb posted April 28, 2009 at 9:39 am
Didn’t think you could. But do continue the ad-hominem. Bout all you got isn’t it?
—————-
soldevvb, I’ve got the AGW science that you cannot refute — and that you’ve also proven that you cannot understand.
Long-term global temperatures since the mid-1970’s do show AGW.
cosmo is a liar.
soldevvb, I’ve got the AGW science that you cannot refute
=======================
My ‘pimp hand’ is strong.
You betta check yo’self!
cosmos is obviously incapable of backing up his words because he does not understand science. He won’t list any proofs for AGW, because there are only untested theories.
Fudging those numbers…
Bias over time: The GISS global-temperature dataset, after adjustment, as it stood in 1999 (left) and in 2008 (right). The data peak in the 1930s has been reduced in the later version of the dataset, and the 1998 peak has been markedly increased, artificially increasing the warming rate over the period.
Why do they have to keep changing their numbers?
theories = hypothesis
soldevvb, I’ve got the AGW science that you cannot refute
*******************************************************************
He won’t list any proofs for AGW, because there are only untested theories.
********************************************************************
And climate models that can’t even reproduce the past. That there is some strong science for you.
There is no proof of AGW. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Cosmos is not a meth-addicted Carnie.
Cosmo’s Understand HitParade:
_______________________________________
Perhaps donndublin does not understand
soldevvb, I’ve got the AGW science that you cannot refute — and that you’ve also proven that you cannot understand.
It seems that you also don’t understand the word “seems”.
AGW deniers continue their denial of AGW science, because they’re unable to understand that they’re wrong.
Don’t you understand the word “himself”?
Sorry that you don’t understand science.
Poor Regular doesn’t seem to understand the difference between “claims” and “measurements”.
It’s not my fault that you don’t understand Miskolczi’s misuse of Kirchoff’s Law, and his other errors.
Yes, soldevvb loves to keep proving that he cannot understand climate science
No, we were talking about how you do not understand that the GWP is not the only factor.
Actually, soldevvb is just proving that he does not understand the carbon cycle, and other basics of climate science.
Poor Regular cannot understand the obvious
You also have proved that you do not understand climate science.
They continue their denial of AGW science, because they’re unable to understand that they’re wrong.
Thank you for yet again proving that you don’t understand short-term temperature trends.
Of course you are donndublin. You cannot understand issues like future positive natural feedbacks,
soldevvb has proven with her posts that she cannot understand climate science.
And you also do not seem to understand the projections.
Science is like magic for people like ANTI, who cannot understand science.
Nathaniel does not understand the obvious differences between:
You do not seem to understand the climate projections.
And you are unable to understand the obvious differences that I listed.
soldevvb does not even understand what the 3.2% number means.
Do you not understand the word “vulnerable”,
And also try to post some proof that you, and the other AGW deniers here, understand scientific methodology.
So you still could not find any proof that you, and the other AGW deniers here, understand scientific methodology?
soldevvb is unable to understand the obvious differences between suggesting research, and “wants” to implement.
Poor soldevvb just cannot understand that nature “sinks” the CO2 that it “sources”.
soldevvb has already proven, multiple times, that he is unable to understand climate science.
Thank you soldevvb, for yet again proving that you are unable to understand scientific methodology.
soldevvb is unable to understand credible science, which is based on scientific methodology.
It’s obvious from soldevvb’s post that he does not understand scientific methodology.
If you can’t understand the obvious problems with our big global “experiment”,
And do you really not understand the obvious, donndublin?
You do understand scientific methodology. . . don’t you?
No bigotbawks, you’re “so disrespectful” to climate science, because you do not understand climate science.
Plus you do not seem to understand the possible dire consequences
Is Hank unable to understand the difference between journalism and science?
and does not even understand the meaning of the word “can”.
Thank you soldevvb, for again proving that you do not understand climate science.
soldevvb,
Keep attacking me, if you are not smart enough to understand that does not make the draft credible.
bigotbawks is so stupid, he cannot understand that it’s not about the climate models.
Cosmos is not a meth-addicted Carnie.
From her posts, it would appear that she prefers “crack”
Regular insists that E. G. Beck’s bogus claims are completely credible science.
‘More Nonsense about CO2 ‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
I smell corn dogs.
And cosmo still has no proof.
About those temp swings over the last 650 million years? Now that there is long term.
Stop avoiding the questions cosmos, post the hypothesis, that you claim prove AGW.
LOL! Regular wants more soup!
soldevvb,
Your being unable to understand climate science definitely does not prove that climate science is wrong. Everything personal.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 28, 2009 at 10:24 am | Permalink
LOL! Regular wants more soup!
Regular
Posted April 28, 2009 at 10:17 am | Permalink
Stop avoiding the questions cosmos, post the hypothesis, that you claim prove AGW.
Your being unable to understand climate science definitely does not prove that climate science is wrong.
________________________________
Another one for the list.
soldevvb, I’ve got the AGW science that you cannot refute
Long-term global temperatures since the mid-1970’s do show AGW.
Hypothesi?!? Hell cos has proof. Let’s see that proof. Or are you a liar?
fleettwood posted April 28, 2009 at 10:29 am
Your being unable to understand climate science definitely does not prove that climate science is wrong.
________________________________
Another one for the list.
——————-
Another accurate one, for the accurate list.
If only our faith was stronger, we would understand.
Praise be.
Regular wants more soup!
Guess this is the current realClimate approved dodge.
soldevvb,
You should use more credible sources than SPPI and Monckton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
soldevvb,
Actually, I’m waiting for Regular to publish his paper that shows how changes in Earth’s orbit are the cause of the warming since the 1970’s.
You should use more credible sources than SPPI and Monckton.
Dodge # 498,239,389
If you can’t refute facts, attack the source.
Actually, I’m waiting for Regular to publish his paper that shows how changes in Earth’s orbit are the cause of the warming since the 1970’s.
Beat him to the punch wimpy. Publish a paper that proves the Earth’s orbit does not affect climate.
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 28, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink
soldevvb,
Actually, I’m waiting for Regular to publish his paper that shows how changes in Earth’s orbit are the cause of the warming since the 1970’s.
========================
No cosmos, you are demonstrating what a world class, politically driven, non-scientist, A-h.o.le you really are.
Why did hansen’s climate model show global cooling in the 70’s and warming in the late 80’s?
Guess where the money was at the time….
soldevvb posted April 28, 2009 at 10:48 am
Why did hansen’s climate model show global cooling in the 70’s and warming in the late 80’s?
Guess where the money was at the time….
—————–
Thanks soldevvb, for yet again proving that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/to_rasool.php
The Earth is around 4,500 million years old.
How do I know that? I don’t. I believe the scientists who study those things.
I have Faith they are right.
Praise be.
soldevvb, I’ve got the AGW science that you cannot refute
Long-term global temperatures since the mid-1970’s do show AGW.
Let’s see that proof. Or are you a liar?
No it doesn’t. Rasool and Schneider didn’t predict another ice age, but more importantly, Hansen was not one of the authors of their paper. What twisted logic does the IBD use to claim that Hansen said we were headed for an ice age?
I agree. They just used his model. It produces whatever trend you like it to.
If the data doesn’t show a drastic enough change? Fudge the numbers some more.
Oh whoops, missed this part.
Apparently the IBD thinks that if someone uses a program you wrote as a tool in their analysis you must agree with their conclusions. By their logic, if I borrow a pen from you, you must agree with everything I write with your pen. The public deserves to know how people this stupid get hired to write editorials.
So yes, they used hansen’s model to get the results they wanted.
So again, for the link-challenged, why did hansen’s model show cooling in the 70’s and warming in the 90’s?
Must be Global Warming causing the 47 degrees F here today in Wichita at one hour before noon in the latter part of April.
Funny thing though, people living here in Wichita in 1910 on this date had a temperature of 90 degrees F.
Yeah, a minus 43 degree temperature swing here in Wichita, must be due to Global Warming.
Regular posted April 28, 2009 at 10:48 am
No cosmos, you are demonstrating what a world class, politically driven, non-scientist, A-h.o.le you really are.
————
No, that describes you perfectly Regular, with your insistence that theories like Beck’s bogus CO2 claim are credible, because of your “Republikhan” affliction.
cosmos has nothing. He’s becoming repetitious and boring.
And still no proof from cosmo.
You got the politician al-Gore, hansen’s “tell me what you want the outcome to be” models, the political farce IPCC.
Yeah, I can see why you’re having problems.
Oh, whoops, and 7 years of global coolong, even with cooked numbers. Damn, sucks to be you.
KHAN!!!
cosmos has nothing. He’s becoming repetitious and boring.
It is not my fault Fleetwood that you can not understand repititious and boring.
Thank you for proving that you do not understand repititious and boring.
It is not my fault Fleetwood that you can not understand repititious and boring.
Thank you for proving that you do not understand repititious and boring.
It is not my fault Fleetwood that you can not understand repititious and boring.
Thank you for proving that you do not understand repititious and boring.
It is not my fault Fleetwood that you can not understand repititious and boring.
Thank you for proving that you do not understand repititious and boring.
Whose day is it to be a buffon?
Regular posted April 28, 2009 at 11:13 am
Whose day is it to be a buffon?
————–
Obviously you AGW science deniers. . . as usual.
Still no proof.
0.11%
7 years of cooling.
Running out of koolaid cosmo?
No soldevvb. . . I’m tired of people like you who cannot understand the basics of climate science.
cosmos_originally
Posted April 28, 2009 at 11:32 am | Permalink
====================
Take note, Fleet.
Go home and weep cosmos, no one cares about you.
No soldevvb. . . I’m tired of people like you who cannot understand the basics of climate science.
Translation:
My siht is weak. I got nothing.
Regular posted April 28, 2009 at 11:35 am
Go home and weep cosmos, no one cares about you.
————–
Sit in your basement and post your non-scientific rants against AGW science, Regular. No one believes you, and you’re not going to stop the carbon policies.
and you’re not going to stop the carbon policies.
Nah, the senate already did.
Donnie Boy,
“Wow Jed, how long did it take to ask all those 3.8 million scientists and engineers?”
Didn’t need to. Rather obvious your people did, and got a sum total 650! And it appears that at least some of those were offered substantial cash to sign on. So far, all I’ve seen is a relentless propaganda campaign to do absolutely nothing in the face of massive data from considerably more than “650 scientists” that climate change is real.
Now the big question is, why do you want to do nothing?
Mr. Karl suggested that the global temperature downtrend of the past seven years, if it existed, was a consequence of natural variability in the climate.
However, since the recent downtrend was indeed caused by natural variability, then by the same token the global warming of the past 300 years, during the first 270 of which humankind could not – on any view – have had any appreciable influence on temperature, might also have been caused by natural variability.
#
SolDevVB
Posted April 28, 2009 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
and you’re not going to stop the carbon policies.
Nah, the senate already did.
soldevvb,
Senate? Global carbon policies.
And the U.S. will probably enact carbon policies within a few years. Also, Sen. Specter switched parties.
Kinda like the globe will probably heat up, even though it has cooled the last 7 years.
All the probablies, might, could be’s???
Praise be.
soldevvb posted April 28, 2009 at 12:13 pm
might also have been caused by natural variability.
Let’s assume the US does enact “Global Carbon Policies”. At what rate will the CO2 drop directly proportionate to these policies? At what rate will the globe cool in direct proportion to the policies?
What percent of atmospheric CO2 is directly contributed by humans burning fossil fuels?
You are working on a month now of dodging that question.
When you take that percentage, then take away the fraction of a percentage (possibly) from carbon taxes, makes the whole thing absurd and silly.
But you don’t really care about that right? It isn’t about the environment after all. It is about those eeeevil fossil fuels.
That, by the way, is a tiny fraction – TINY – of atmospheric CO2.
Refute that.
might also have been caused by natural variability.
You have a comprehension problem? Which word confused you?
Yes, might have been natural. So why enact idiotic taxes on a tiny fraction of a trace gas.
You have any proof – PROOF – that reducing 0.11% by half will reduce the global temperatures? Can you prove that?
Hell I’ll make it easy on you. What can you prove?
Take note, Fleet.
______________________
Got it!
ARCTIC ICE FREE
For example, one crew member aboard the USS Skate which surfaced at the North Pole in 1959 and numerous other locations during Arctic cruises in 1958 and 1959 said:
“the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.” – Hester, James E., Personal email communication, December 2000
I must have missed the part where the seas rose and the world ended…
I must have missed the part where the seas rose and the world ended…
========================
That did happen!
Then machines took over our minds and used our bodies as batteries….wait, this is sounding familiar…
I think I may have unplugged myself…
The red pill? Or the blue one…
It isn’t about the environment or “Global Warming” ™. Never was. It is about money and power.
To get votes, Waxman offers cap-and-trade breaks
By Susan Ferrechio, Washington Times
In exchange for votes to pass a controversial global warming package, Democratic leaders are offering some lawmakers generous emission “allowances” to protect their districts from the economic pain of pollution restrictions. Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, represents a district with several oil refineries, a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions. He also serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which must approve the global warming plan backed by President Barack Obama.
Green says Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who heads the panel, is trying to entice him into voting for the bill by giving some refineries favorable treatment in the administration’s “cap and trade” system, which is expected to generate hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming years. Under the plan, companies would pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide, but Green and other lawmakers are angling to get a free pass for refineries in their districts.
“We’ve been talking,” Green said, referring to a meeting he had with Waxman on Tuesday night. “To put together a bill that passes, they have to get our votes, and I’m not going to vote for a bill without refinery allowances.”
Democratic leaders are offering some lawmakers generous emission “allowances” to protect their districts from the economic pain of pollution restrictions.
_____________________________________
That’s Same You Can Believe In!
Recent satellite observations from the Arctic indicate that spring ice melting is beginning at a lower rate than normal this year. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the area of ice-covered ocean has decreased only about 750,000 km2 from its peak value at the end of February, compared to a normal decline of 1.1 million km2 by late April. If this trend continues, the annual ice melt in 2009 may be less than in recent years, and the late summer Arctic ice extent may rebound from its well-publicized downtrend.
NASA GISS NOW suggests aerosols play a large role in Arctic warming
Since the 1890s, surface temperatures on Earth have risen faster in the Arctic than in other regions of the world. Usually, discussions on global warming tend to focus on greenhouse gases as the culprit for the trend. But new NASA research suggests about half the atmospheric warming measured in the Arctic is due to airborne particles called aerosols.
Aerosols are emitted by both natural and human sources. They can influence climate by reflecting or absorbing sunlight. The particles also affect climate by changing cloud properties, such as reflectivity. There is one type of aerosol that, according to the study, [reduces] rather than increases in its emissions seem to have promoted warming.
soldevvb,
You cannot even accurately quote a ridiculous falsehood that you got from some source, like the very non-scientific Steven Milloy.
Nothing can be proven to someone like soldevvb.
Cosmo,
WTF are you talking about? Don’t prove it to me, post it on the blog. Prove it to everyone.
And refute the falsehood. Who the F is Milloy?
Man, you really got nothing don’t you?
soldevvb,
Post your source for your “0.11%” claim.
Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctor from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.
cos,
Refute it, not the source. You have never been able to do that. All you can do is attack a source.
If the number is wrong, post the correct one.
C’mon lil girl, you can do it !!!!
Hey, cosmo! Get to work!
___________________________________________
He has recently offered a prize of $500,000 to anyone who can “prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming,” stating that “JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any.”
fleettwood
Posted April 28, 2009 at 3:20 pm | Permalink
So basically he knows his siht?
C’mon cos,
You’ve had almost a month now. What is the correct number if not 0.11%????
You try realClimate yet?
Giant corks are the answer! I mean really big.
And fireproof.
______________________________________
However, it’s worth noting Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, causing global temperatures to drop over 0.4°C. If you remove the volcano induced dip from 1992 to 1994, the overall trend from 1991 to 1997 is an actual cooling of 0.08°C per decade.
So basically he knows his siht?
_________________________________
Well, the pass out degrees at Johns Hopkins like playing cards. Don’t they?
Cosmos is not a Water Meter Reader.
But he did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
I think cos has been sleeping in the dumpster behind the Super 8
I think cos has been sleeping in the dumpster behind the Super 8
============================
I’ll bet it’s sticky in there.
soldevvb,
So you don’t know where you got the 0.11% falsehood from? Did you just make it up?
And soldevvb, you really should try to understand the obvious difference between the % of the total “greenhouse” effect, and the % of CO2 emissions.
I have asked you for about a month now. Here we go again.
What is the total percentage of atmospheric CO2 contributed by humans burning fossil fuels? What is the margin of error for that prediction?
Why is this so hard for you to understand? The number should roll right off the tip of your tongue.
Is it because you don’t know? Because the number is embarrassingly low and your diatribes here are comical?
What is it cosmo? What is the number? Why are you so afeared to post it?
But he did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
___________________________
He does stay at the Holiday Inn.
In the dumpster.
Cosmo is not a Hotel Manager.
soldevvb,
I already explained about the amounts of anthropogenic CO2. Did you forget?
Why is soldevvb so afeared to post his source for his “0.11%” claim? Is it because he does not have a source? Is it because he has misquoted it?
Hey cosmos, get a clue – to ask a question – one does not need a source.
answer the question.
Hey Regular!
Maybe you can help soldevvb find her source for her (misquoted) “0.11%” claim?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy
#
Jed
Posted April 28, 2009 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
Donnie Boy,
“Wow Jed, how long did it take to ask all those 3.8 million scientists and engineers?”
Didn’t need to. Rather obvious your people did, and got a sum total 650! And it appears that at least some of those were offered substantial cash to sign on. So far, all I’ve seen is a relentless propaganda campaign to do absolutely nothing in the face of massive data from considerably more than “650 scientists” that climate change is real.
Now the big question is, why do you want to do nothing?
______________
To use cosMo’s words. It is obvious that the inbred hillbilly Jed “does not understand scientific methodology”. “Do you not know how to read?” I forgot that inbreds are math challenged as well. Let me type real slow so it might sink in. 6 8 % o f 5 1 , 0 0 0 i s g r e a t e r t h a n 2 6 % o f 5 1 , 0 0 0 by
m o r e t h a n 2 t o 1.
Where’s your proof that those attending the conference were “paid off”? Are you getting paid by Algore’s carbon trading scam or GE who makes batteries and wind turbans or the globalist George Soros to blogg?
If you really think taxes can alter the climate, I’ve got some bridges in New York city I could sale you which has just as much a chance as your taxes have.
Inbred Jed believes that all 20 of of his relatives love road-kill stew then the rest of the world does too.
#
donndublin
Posted April 28, 2009 at 5:07 pm | Permalink
Inbred Jed believes that all SINCE ALL 20 of of his relatives love road-kill stew then the rest of the world does too.
Outside opinion on RealClimate dot org
RealClimate dot org,
That’s like taking a Marlboro paid PR Firm’s website as truth.
According to Internet Records Found at WHOIS:
Domain ID105219760-LROR
Domain Name:REALCLIMATE dot ORG
Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
Last Updated On:30-Oct-2005 21:10:46 UTC
Expiration Date:19-Nov-2007 16:39:03 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:B133AE74B8066012
Registrant Name:Betsy Ensley
Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services
Betsy Ensley, Web Editor/Program Coordinator: Betsy joined the staff of EMS in April 2002 as a program assistant for EMS’s toxics program.Presently, she manages BushGreenwatch.org, a joint EMS-MoveOn.org public awareness website, and coordinates environmental community media efforts to protect and improve environmental and public health safeguards.Before coming to EMS, Betsy interned at the U.S. Department of State in the office of the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.Betsy graduated with honors from the University of Iowa in 2000, where she majored in Global Studies with thematic focus on war, peace and security.She minored in Asian languages.
So “RealClimate.org” is part of the EMS group of loud, paid activist. It’s even part moveon.org.
So by all means, please Jfuh, and others, keep pushing “RealClimate.org” as non-biased, and we’ll spend time laughing at you.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/Environment/42789-realclimate-org-solid-source-pr-firm-fear.html
Regular posted April 28, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Outside opinion on RealClimate dot org
RealClimate dot org,
That’s like taking a Marlboro paid PR Firm’s website as truth.
—————————-
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/
“The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions.
RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J._Milloy
Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations.
I wonder if the Republican party can afford to continue to tacitly support the deniers of human caused global warming and other assorted happy despoilers of the Earth.
Environmental awareness and activism are on the rise. Slashing and burning the planet for laughs is NOT cool.
On a day like today that saw one Republican Senator defect the GOP to become a Democrat, Republicans may have to decide if they can continue to be allied with the enemies of the environment.
They already have so many other causes that remove them from the American mainstream. They MAY have to start picking and choosing.
But I don’t count on it:)
They’d welcome purging the RINO environmentalist as well.
Regular wrote:
theories = hypothesis
=======================================
Do you actually believe this statement to be a true statement?
The header at the top of the thread accurately sums up the debate — it’s science, versus confusion spread by Marc Morano et al.
#
Daniel
Posted April 28, 2009 at 7:14 pm | Permalink
Regular wrote:
theories = hypothesis
=======================================
Do you actually believe this statement to be a true statement?
——————
I was correcting an error.
I meant to write hypothesis.
RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked.”
————————————
Sorry, but Endsley is the site owner and is associated with move on dot org.
She owns the content and what is said, lock, stock and barrel. That’s what websites and blogs do. There is no if or but about what’s printed on a blog, the owner is ultimately responsible for it and thus, the credit goes to the extreme left wackos for real climate dot org.
Taks some responsibility will ya?
Daniel,
Regular believes that some mysterious, unknown process caused incredibly huge quantities of CO2 to enter and leave Earth’s atmosphere in the 1940’s, and other times. Check out the funny graph here,
‘More Nonsense about CO2 ‘
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
Sorry cosmos, you don’t get say what I believe.
What is ludicrous to me is your ‘one gas’ theory that controls the bulk of the climate.
I find that laughable.
fleettwood wrote:
The Earth is around 4,500 million years old.
How do I know that? I don’t. I believe the scientists who study those things.
I have Faith they are right.
Praise be.
================================================
Let us suppose that ten years from now that scientists who study those things develop a method to better determine the age of the Earth. Let us suppose that they determine that the Earth is actually closer to 4,700 thousand years old.
Will you disregard everything you’ve been taught, known, or believed to be true about Earth science because the initial estimate was off? Will you reject Earth science entirely because it is fallible and cite that fallibility as proof that scientists are stupid and have know idea what they are talking about?
Regular posted April 28, 2009 at 7:23 pm
There is no if or but about what’s printed on a blog, the owner is ultimately responsible for it . . .
Taks some responsibility will ya?
——————-
Poor Regular does not understand ‘disclaimers’.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/04/pro-con-on-whether-human-activity-affects-global-warming/comment-page-15/#comment-562691
[from RealClimate's 'About']
The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions.
Do you actually believe this statement to be a true statement?
——————
I was correcting an error.
I meant to write hypothesis.
============================================
Ok, looking back I can see that now. I didn’t catch that the first time I read through.
My mistake.
Sorry cosmos, but current laws governing the Internet, states that the blog owner is responsible for the content and what is published.
Endsley, of moveon dot org is the primary force of realclimate dot org.
Or do you think your bloggers over there are incapable of running a blog that can be hosted and ran for free?
Anyone can have a blog and get them free.
It’s more than curious that the bloggers need, Betsy Ensley to run their blog for them.
Regular posted April 28, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Sorry cosmos, you don’t get say what I believe.
What is ludicrous to me is your ‘one gas’ theory that controls the bulk of the climate.
I find that laughable.
——————-
If I misstated your belief about E G Beck’s CO2 claims, you are free to correct me.
And Regular lies (again) about what I’ve said.
I’ve never claimed that ‘one gas’ controls the bulk of the climate.
Oh sweet Jesus! Three flames in a row from our Irish friend donnybrooks. I must’ve really hit a nerve there!
cosmos has written several times on this blog that computer climate models are inaccurate, so they must average the results to ‘cook’ the numbers, so the come out with what they want.
Regular again wants some more soup.
In Wichita, it was 96 °F on April 29, 1910.
Must have been the horse-drawn SUV’s causing all that heat.
Reggie,
No, it was all that coal-burning to heat homes, run generating stations fuel trains etc. Burning off range grass and inefficient cars of the day didn’t help either. Any time organic fuel is burned for whatever reason, CO2 is generated. Moonshine operations a few years later grew to the point that they were creating more CO and CO2 that all the trains in the country. Interesting, especially in the light of the current ethanol industry!
Poor cosmo. I offered no source for the 0.11% human contributed CO2. Instead of refuting the facts, she tilts at windmills and desperately tries to discredit someone or something. Why can’t she just post the percentage of CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fuel every month or every year? Is she too embarrassed by the tiny number? A fraction of a percent of a trace gas.
Then she tries to defend the legitimacy of a left wing web site by, wait for it, posting the “About” section of the afore mentioned left wing web site.
All cosmo can do is attack using left wing websites. She can not refute facts, just attack sources.
You should be proud of your faith cosmo. Look at how Nathan and others get treated on this blog because of their faith. Nathan is right there backing it up. You? Not so much. It is a shame that you are embarrassed by your religion.
If you are not a “single gas” alarmist, why are you not railing against other gases? You champion carbon trading but no other gas. Why is that cosmo?
I have already posted where Waxman, the congressional champion of your single gas taxation, is bribing other members to sign the illogical draconian scheme. He is trying to buy of the congressmen of the districts that contain refineries, some of the largest contributors.
If the “big boys” get a carbon free pass, what is the point of the ponzi scheme? It surely isn’t protecting the environment.
Why can’t you post the percent of carbon in the atmosphere contributed by burning fossil fuels? Why does your congressional champion have to buy votes? Why are you a single gas alarmist?
Your faith appears weak cosmo. More and more people are waking up to that fact. The science, and debate, are far from settled. Quite the opposite in fact.
“SolDevVB” –
A little light morning reading for you –
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/climate-lobbying-group-ignored-its-own-science-advisors.ars
I’ve never heard of the GCC. I am not all that interested in a memo they produced in 1995. As per the climate models, they were wrong in the 70’s and still are today. They can not even accurately reproduce the past.
Light reading indeed.
Oh. So we’re limited to stuff you’ve heard of, huh, “SolDevVB?”
That certainly limits the range.
I suppose you’ve never heard of Mobil Oil either?
What does Mobil Oil have to do with anything I’ve posted? You find some relic memo from 1995 from some unheard of group and you expect, what exactly?
Limited to what I’ve heard of? By no means. Maybe you would be better at revealing the amount of CO2 humans contribute to atmospheric levels (by percent) than cosmo. She is too afraid to post it. Are you?
Maybe you would be better at defending Waxman bribing congress critters to sign off on the cap & trade ponzi scheme. If the refineries get a carbon free pass, then what is the point of the ponzi scheme? It surely isn’t protecting the environment now is it?
Or what else would you like to discuss? Please be reminded that relic memos from 1995 from some unknown group will not be the best topic.
But…but…Monkeyhawk, the global warming skeptics are the NON-PROFIT side of the issue!!!!
And the Ron Paul worshipping Bullwinkle taking cosmos to task for his “faith” is just so….cute. Any time now, huh?
[FE]The National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorology Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union, are all mindless worshippers at the alter of algore.
Or, they all want a piece of the pie of the FOR PROFIT side of the global warming “controversy”. [/FE]
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
The fact that CO2 increases in the past 150 years are due virtually entirely to human activities is well established. Yet is is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.
There are actually multiple, largely independent lines of reasoning, discussed in some detail in the IPCC TAR report. One of the best illustrations of this point, however, is not given in IPCC. Indeed, it seems not all that well appreciated in the scientific community, and is worth making more widely known.
Carbon is composed of three different isotopes 14C, 13C and 12C of which 12C is the most common and 14C (used for dating purposes) is only about 1 in 1 trillion atoms. 13C is about 1% of the total.
Over the last few decades, isotope geochemists have worked together with tree rings experts to construct a time series of atmospheric 14C variations over the last 10,000 years. This work is motivated by a variety of questions, most having to do with increasing the accuracy of the radiocarbon dating method. A byproduct of this work is that we also have a very nice record of atmospheric 13C variations through time, and what we find is that at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is no surprise because fossil fuels have lower 13C/12C ratios than the atmosphere.
The total change is about 0.15%, which sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. Although it has proved quite challenging to do the analyses, there are a limited number of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in ice cores. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03% 00 or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years. The ice core data also agree quite well with the tree ring data where these data sets overlap.
(Oh, and if you’d been paying attention you would have realized Mobil Oil funded the originally cited climate-change deniers who quashed their own scientists’ findings regarding the threat of greenhouse gasses.)
The fact that CO2 increases in the past 150 years are due virtually entirely to human activities is well established.
That there is a lie you can’t back up. Stopped there. Try again?
Monkey, copies and pastes this from left wing political blog Realclimate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/attic/
If he had read comments he would have read this:
“This post is obsolete and wrong in many respects. Please see this more recent post for links to the answer.”
(I hit the “Post Comment” button too soon.)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/
You should stick to snake oil sales instead of plagiarizing leftist blogs Monkey.
Agnatha, you should keep up to date. Your link was published more than 4 years ago. The science is evolving and many scientists are changing their opinions based upon recent findings.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Monkeyhawk
Posted April 29, 2009 at 7:36 am | Permalink
The fact that CO2 increases in the past 150 years are due virtually entirely to human activities is well established. Yet is is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.
======================
Oh let’s see, according to the Alarmist hypothesis, as co2 rises, temperature goes up, correct?
Also, the measurement and standard of co2 measurement by the Alarmists cannot be questioned right?
Then, explain to me, according to the Alarmist own co2 computer generated records, why temperature went in the period 1910-1937 when co2 was very low.
BTW, in the 1930s, temperature was equal to and one time exceeded that of the 1990s.
Can any of the Alarmists explain during a period of low co2 that temperatures rose equaling that or exceeding that of the 1990s?
Any one?
Any one?
Oh yes, temperature started falling after 1937, even though the Alarmists claim co2 levels were rising?
Any one?
Any one?
Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.
No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.
This is where there is a consensus.
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
* the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by …
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
… in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
* NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
MonkeyHock spews:
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
* the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue;
===============================
So, why were there falls in temperature in the 20th century, even though co2 levels were rising?
How come, for the past eight years, temperatures are falling, even though co2 are supposedly at a record high?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Politically, you ravagers of the Earth are about 6 inches tall now.
Monkeyhawk
Posted April 29, 2009 at 8:12 am | Permalink
Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect….
________________
Monkey,
Which leftist political blog did you plagiarize this from?
The fact is the number of skeptics it growing and will continue to grow.
Here it is.
http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-consensus
#
BlueJay
Posted April 29, 2009 at 8:23 am | Permalink
Politically, you ravagers of the Earth are about 6 inches tall now.
___________________
The fact is Reg, Sol, myself and other AGW skeptics on this blog have and done 10 times more to clean the environment than you, cosMo, Monkey and other AGW nuts ever will.
How tall does that make you BJ? About half an inch.
Considering some of you Climate Change deniers contend the universe is 9,000 years old, your constant pot shots at science deserve nothing more than a rapid cut-and-post.
The carousel keeps going around. “There is no climate change,” “There is climate change but it’s natural,” “There may be human contributions to climate change but there’s nothing we can do about it,” “If we did something about climate change it would ruin the fossil fuel instustries,” “There is no climate change….”
Carry on.
Monkey continues to regurgitate the left wing AGW talking points.
Show us where anyone said “There is no climate change,” or “If we did something about climate change it would ruin the fossil fuel instustries,”
That’s just another one of your delusional hysterical rants.
Daniel asks:
___________________________
fleettwood wrote:
The Earth is around 4,500 million years old.
How do I know that? I don’t. I believe the scientists who study those things.
I have Faith they are right.
Praise be.
================================================
Let us suppose that ten years from now that scientists who study those things develop a method to better determine the age of the Earth. Let us suppose that they determine that the Earth is actually closer to 4,700 thousand years old.
Will you disregard everything you’ve been taught, known, or believed to be true about Earth science because the initial estimate was off? Will you reject Earth science entirely because it is fallible and cite that fallibility as proof that scientists are stupid and have know idea what they are talking about?
Daniel:
If the scientist’s estimate went from 4,500 million years old to 4,700 years old, then, yes, we would have to say they were stupid and have no idea what they were talking about. When the errors are large, the ramifications are large.
From 1940 to 1975 globally-averaged temperature declined (giving rise to a much-hyped scare about a looming ice age) while manmade CO2 emissions increased. Global temperature has fallen since 1998 despite ever-increasing CO2 emissions. So for 27 of the last 50 years, globally-averaged temperatures have declined while CO2 emissions have increased.
Gore versus Climate Scientists:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU
Monkey,
Good Riddance.
So can anyone here post the percentage of CO2 directly contributed to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels?
This is the tenet of the alarmist’s faith, and not one of you can answer it. You all just swallow whatever they put in your mouth.
soldevvb posted April 29, 2009 at 5:39 am | Permalink
Poor cosmo. I offered no source for the 0.11% human contributed CO2.
—————-
Because soldevvb does not want to admit that she misquoted a non-scientific falsehood that she got from Steven Milloy, or a similar fossil-energy shill.
donndublin posted April 29, 2009 at 8:04 am
Agnatha, you should keep up to date. Your link was published more than 4 years ago. The science is evolving and many scientists are changing their opinions based upon recent findings.
—————-
donndublin again pushes Marc Morano’s bogus ‘650′ list that was mentioned in the header.
As I’ve posted before upthread, Goggle:
inhofe 400
inhofe 650
for some debunking, and good laughs about the AGW deniers.
Because soldevvb does not want to admit that she misquoted a non-scientific falsehood that she got from Steven Milloy, or a similar fossil-energy shill.
Still afraid to post the % cos? Man that is weak.
All you want to do is attack sources. Tilting at windmills.
Regular posted April 29, 2009 at 8:19 am
So, why were there falls in temperature in the 20th century, even though co2 levels were rising?
How come, for the past eight years, temperatures are falling, even though co2 are supposedly at a record high?
Anyone?
Anyone?
—————-
Regular,
Were you already looking for soup at 8:19 am?
Were you pushing the falsehood that only CO2 can influence Earth’s climate?
Do you not know that higher levels of industry-added aerosols caused global cooling during periods of the 20th century?
And do you not know that there was cooling the last few years, caused by a solar minimum, and La Nina?
And Regular. . . you really should learn how correctly summarize data from graphs.
soldevvb,
I’m laughing at your misquoting your anonymous falsehood in a feeble attempt to refute the human-caused 100 ppm CO2 level rise.
So you are still too afraid. I understand cosmo. You should be embarrassed.
Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, resulting from the combustion of petroleum, coal, and natural gas, represented 82 percent of total U.S. anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2006
*From the Energy Information Administration (EIA) is an independent statistical agency, within the U.S. Department of Energy. whose purpose is to provide reliable and unbiased energy information.
Now, all one has to do, is pump in the information of what percent is man-made co2 and you have your answer.
Care to answer cosmos?
The numbers are official from the Department of Energy.
Cosmos, what percent of co2 is man-made and what in the percent of natural co2?
This should be easy cosmos.
How do you misquote an anonymous falsehood anyway? You’re losing it sister.
soldevvb posted April 29, 2009 at 10:27 am
How do you misquote an anonymous falsehood anyway? You’re losing it sister.
——————–
soldevvb,
You copy/pasted a false 0.11% claim from a source that you refuse to give (probably Steven Milloy).
You later re-worded (aka misquoted) the 0.11% claim that you had copy/pasted.
So what is the correct number then cosmos? Why so afraid?
the human-caused 100 ppm CO2 level rise.
__________________________
A hundred parts per MILLION??
Cosmos, what percent of co2 is man-made and what in the percent of natural co2?
How many hundreds are in a MILLION?
#
fleettwood
Posted April 29, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink
How many hundreds are in a MILLION?
======================
Ten thousand (10,000)
How many hundreds are in a MILLION?
At least 7 right?
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink
Cosmos, what percent of co2 is man-made and what in the percent of natural co2?
still waiting cosmos…
That would be about .01%
So I shot too high giving 0.11%? Is that why cosmo is afeared to post the number?
#
SolDevVB
Posted April 29, 2009 at 10:59 am | Permalink
So I shot too high giving 0.11%? Is that why cosmo is afeared to post the number?
———————————
You evidently weren’t in the ‘pivot position’ when you shot that load.
fleettwood posted April 29, 2009 at 10:51 am
That would be about .01%
—————-
BDP, you’re repeating soldevvb’s misquoted, anonymous falsehood.
Humans have caused well-mixed global atmospheric CO2 levels to rise from about 280 ppm to about 380 ppm.
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 10:50 am | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink
Cosmos, what percent of co2 is man-made and what in the percent of natural co2?
still waiting cosmos…
I’m waiting for your answer cosmos.
What percent of atmospheric CO2 has been directly contributed by humans burning fossil fuels cosmo?
I said 0.11%, but when you do the math as shown above (misquote? are you really this retawded?) it looks closer to 0.01%.
So if this number is incorrect, please prove how and why.
You’ve been at this for about a month now. Still too afeared to answer?
“Agnatha, you should keep up to date. Your link was published more than 4 years ago. The science is evolving and many scientists are changing their opinions based upon recent findings.”
1) Not one of the organizations I have mentioned have changed their official stands on the state of the science regarding the question of global warming/climate change through anthropogenic activity. The age of the link is irrelevant if the information as to the stands of the organizations has not changed, and it has not.
2) The Senate Minority list is, as I have stated up thread, clearly political, and the means for selecting people for that list was political. Not all of the people put on that list volunteered to be put on it (and some have indicated that being put on the list grossly misrepresents their position), and the list, gathered by aides (primarily a single aide as I understand it) to James Inhofe, whose inclination to cling to ideology regardless of evidence is well known. The list has people on it who differ fundamentally as to:
a) Whether there even is global warming.
b) If there is global warming, what is causing it. Several non-anthropogenic causes are advanced by the people on the list.
The difference is clear. The National Academy of Sciences is a national honors society for scientists (that is expected to advice policy makers as to the state of a science topic or issue from time to time). The American Meteorological Society is a professional association for meteorologists, and among the other activities of professional scientific associations is to promote and advocate for best practices in a field. These are not, by any stretch of the imagination, groups whose purpose is to promote any sort of political ideology.
On the other hand, a Senate Minority Report is meant to represent the position of the minority party. In this case, it is the position of a professional politician, James Inhofe, who proudly proclaims his ideology. No one is going to wonder where Inhofe is going to want to come down on an issue like global warming before hand, not because of his scientific knowledge, but because of his political beliefs.
Like I said before, when in doubt on a scientific issue that has become contentious, go with the professional associations and organizations whose existence is to promote and reward best practices within a field over an organization whose political orientation and stated beliefs predict what their position before they even present their case. The political hacks start with a position and then look for those who express support for it, or in the case of Inhofe’s list even stated something that could be construed as support for it (in this case, anyone who said anything that could be construed as opposition to the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change was put on the list). For those who proudly identify themselves as being on Inhofe’s list, the fact still stands, the compilers started with the conclusion, then looked for those who supported it.
That is not science. That is nothing even remotely resembling science. Science starts with observations, hypotheses, and hypothesis testing. And while the practioners may have bias, they are to take measures to control for that bias, and other practioners will replicate the research to counteract possible bias. And what they will find can not predicted by their political ideology, because the practioners are connected by their field of practice, not their ideology. Unlike James Inhofe, his aides, and the activist wing of the Republican party.
“Not one of the organizations I have mentioned have changed their official stands on the state of the science regarding the question of global warming/climate change through anthropogenic activity. The age of the link is irrelevant if the information as to the stands of the organizations has not changed, and it has not.”
In addition to this, I might add that much of the information I have posted here and linked to comes from the NAS website as it exists now. There is nothing on that website that indicates anything even remotely resembling a sea change on the “issue” of global warming.
Again, when dealing with a controversial scientific issue and you are a layman, then go with the positions coming from the professional organizations organized around a field of practice and whose purpose is to promote best practice, not the organizations that have a pre-announced political position that predicts what they will say before they even start to make their case.
Sen Inhofe’s (R-Oil) ‘400′ and ‘650′ lists were compiled by Limbaugh’s former “Man in Washington”.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
The lists even include scientists who agree with the AGW theory. . . Morano quote-mined their statements to falsely imply they disagreed.
Still too afeared to post the percentage.
‘What Scientists Have to Say About Global Cooling‘
http://www.desmogblog.com/what-science-has-say-about-global-cooling
7 years of cooling cosmo. Even with cooked numbers.
By the way, what is that percentage again?
What is the net increase in global temperatures over the last 8 years?
Negative number?
What thermometers are saying about global cooling…
So who’s behind DeSmogBlog?
James Hoggan
The B.C. Liberal Party received six donations totaling $8,943 from James Hoggan and Associates from 2005 to 2008. Hoggan’s company was paid $353,855 by the B.C. government from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, according to Public Accounts. Contracts included the Sea-to-Sky Highway expansion project and Canada Line.
“I don’t think it’s any secret that I’m a Liberal supporter,” Hoggan told 24 hours.
So who’s behind DeSmogBlog?
John Lefebvre
John Lefebvre, the so-called “teddy bear hippie” millionaire from Saltspring Island who recently ran into legal troubles in the U.S. on allegations of promoting illegal Internet gambling, is listed on the site as a benefactor.
Lefebvre, 55, remains in the U.S. on a $5-million bond pending a court hearing which is scheduled to begin Wednesday.
So who’s behind DeSmogBlog?
Kevin Grandia
The site is managed by Kevin Grandia, a former political aide to Liberal MP Raymond Chan…
Not another left wing blog cited as cosmo’s source !!!!
OMG is this thread still freakin’ going?
It is like a middle school playground argument on here!
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 11:08 am | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 10:50 am | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink
Cosmos, what percent of co2 is man-made and what in the percent of natural co2?
still waiting cosmos…
I’m waiting for your answer cosmos.
—————————-
still waiting cosmos
If bushfires in Australia equal global warming, does the coldest April temperature ever recorded equal global cooling?
A new Australian record was set early this morning, a temperature of minus 13 degrees, at Charlotte Pass on the Snowy Mountains.
This is the lowest temperature recorded anywhere in Australia in April and is 13 below the average. Nearby at Perisher it dipped to minus 11 degrees and at the top of Thredbo it dipped to minus 10.
brian_nuevo posted April 29, 2009 at 12:35 pm
OMG is this thread still freakin’ going?
It is like a middle school playground argument on here!
——————————
For some good laughs, check out soldevvb’s responses to a paper written by David R. Easterling and Michael F. Wehner.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/04/pro-con-on-whether-human-activity-affects-global-warming/#comment-563141
What is that percentage cosmo?
What has been the net increase in global temps over the last 7 years?
Why you so afeared cosmo?
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 12:35 pm | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 11:08 am | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 10:50 am | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink
Cosmos, what percent of co2 is man-made and what in the percent of natural co2?
still waiting cosmos…
I’m waiting for your answer cosmos.
—————————-
still waiting cosmos
========================================
STILL WAITING COSMOS
Why is soldevvb so “afeared” to admit that she does not understand climate science?
Why is soldevvb so “afeared” to post her source for her misquoted 0.11% claim?
Still afraid of that tiny little number cosmo?
Can’t address the number, you have to attack a source.
Still tilting at windmills.
Praise be.
Why is soldevvb so “afeared” to admit that she does not understand Earth’s carbon cycle?
Methinks cosmo is on a loop.
cosmo is not human.
Do you not understand?
_______________________
Perhaps donndublin does not understand
Why is soldevvb so “afeared” to admit that she does not understand Earth’s carbon cycle?
Why is soldevvb so “afeared” to admit that she does not understand climate science?
Poor Regular does not understand ‘disclaimers’.
And soldevvb, you really should try to understand the obvious difference between the % of the total “greenhouse” effect, and the % of CO2 emissions.
No soldevvb. . . I’m tired of people like you who cannot understand the basics of climate science.
Your being unable to understand climate science definitely does not prove that climate science is wrong.
soldevvb, I’ve got the AGW science that you cannot refute — and that you’ve also proven that you cannot understand.
It seems that you also don’t understand the word “seems”.
AGW deniers continue their denial of AGW science, because they’re unable to understand that they’re wrong.
Don’t you understand the word “himself”?
Sorry that you don’t understand science.
Poor Regular doesn’t seem to understand the difference between “claims” and “measurements”.
It’s not my fault that you don’t understand Miskolczi’s misuse of Kirchoff’s Law, and his other errors.
Yes, soldevvb loves to keep proving that he cannot understand climate science
No, we were talking about how you do not understand that the GWP is not the only factor.
LMFAO.
Poor little cos has to have a source to attack. She can’t refute the facts.
0.11% humand contributed CO2. 0.11%.
Goat a ss, Cosmos…look into fuqin one cause that is where you are.
To me more or certainly just as important is what kind of effect would a country with less than 1/4 of the world’s population whose environmental footprint continues to drop have?
Or is it 0.01% cos? Which is it? What is the % of human added CO2 in the atmosphere?
Been asking for almost a month. Poor little cos can’t come up with a number. She just wants a source to attack.
Tipping at windmills.
No facts to back herself up.
Praise be.
soldevvb posted April 29, 2009 at 2:51 pm
LMFAO.
Poor little cos has to have a source to attack. She can’t refute the facts.
0.11% humand contributed CO2. 0.11%.
———————
Actually, I’m waiting for soldevvb to realize that her “fact” (0.11%) is her own misquote.
But I guess that she cannot even understand that she misquoted her (anonymous) source. . .
Then correct it cosmos.
You’ve been afraid of the answer for almost a month.
If my number is so wrong, post the correct one!
What’s wrong cosmo? All you can do is attack posters and sources.
Bring on the fact. What is the % human contributed CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
Let’s see a link to a peer reviewed study that gives us the percentage.
Let’s hear and original thought from you. What is the percentage?
C’mon cosmo, you’ve been bobbing and weaving around this for almost a month.
Put up some facts cosmo. SHOW ME THE SCIENCE !!!
soldevvb,
I’ve already explained to you that it’s not a simple percentage amount contributed by humans burning fossil fuels — it also depends on the amount that nature can sink, the long lifetime of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, positive feedbacks, and other factors.
And the amount that nature can sink (and source) has changed, and will continue to change.
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 12:35 pm | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 11:08 am | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 10:50 am | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted April 29, 2009 at 10:42 am | Permalink
Cosmos, what percent of co2 is man-made and what in the percent of natural co2?
still waiting cosmos…
I’m waiting for your answer cosmos.
—————————-
still waiting cosmos
========================================
STILL WAITING COSMOS
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
STILL WAITING COSMOS
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 29, 2009 at 3:46 pm | Permalink
soldevvb,
I’ve already explained to you that it’s not a simple percentage amount contributed by humans burning fossil fuels — it also depends on the amount that nature can sink, the long lifetime of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, positive feedbacks, and other factors.
And the amount that nature can sink (and source) has changed, and will continue to change.
———————————————-
That’s pure BEE ESS cosmos and you know it.
You know the answer, but don’t want to answer it directly.
What you said is like describing the volume of a lake by its evaporation rate.
Come on cosmos, talk straight…be honest…quit your BEE ESSing.
Since China became the world’s largest emitter of CO2 two years ago and is still developing, why isn’t cosMO attacking them? Could it be that he is Chinese?
Why do you hate America cosMo?
LOL!
Regular still wants some more soup!
And donndublin seems to (incorrectly) believe that CO2 has a lifetime in Earth’s atmosphere of only a few years.
Just answer the question cosmos.
Just answer the question cosmos.
Just answer the question cosmos.
Just answer the question cosmos.
Just answer the question cosmos.
Just answer the question cosmos.
Just answer the question cosmos.
“Regular” trolls –
Just answer the question cosmos.Just answer the question cosmos.
Just answer the question cosmos.
Just answer the question cosmos.
Just answer the question cosmos.
Just answer the question cosmos.
Just answer the question cosmos.
You misspelled:
“Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
‘Safe’ climate means ‘no to coal‘
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8023072.stm
No MonkeyHOCK,
cosmos plays games.
He demands answers from everyone else, but the moment someone asks him a question, they are a troll, liar, want some soup or some other excuse.
cosmos needs to be ignored as a sad, little clown.
Monkeyhawk posted,
“Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
Are we there yet?
——————
Heh! We’re getting closer. . .
‘Satellite Imagery Shows Fragile Wilkins Ice Shelf Destabilized‘
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090428154833.htm
Regular,
You cannot refute the AGW science. You’re the “sad little clown” who believes any non-scientific claim that supports your denial.
Factors like CO2 lifetime, future positive feedbacks, etc. make it unrealistic to try to calculate simple CO2 “percentages”.
“And donndublin seems to (incorrectly) believe that CO2 has a lifetime in Earth’s atmosphere of only a few years.”
__________
How do you get that out of what I said?
cosMo, Do you not understand English?
“The United States emitted 16.3% more GHG in 2005 than it did in 1990.[42] According to a preliminary estimate by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the largest national producer of CO2 emissions since 2006 has been China with an estimated annual production of about 6200 megatonnes. China is followed by the United States with about 5,800 megatonnes. However the per capita emission figures of China are still about one quarter of those of the US population.
Relative to 2005, China’s fossil CO2 emissions increased in 2006 by 8.7%, while in the USA, comparable CO2 emissions decreased in 2006 by 1.4%. The agency notes that its estimates do not include some CO2 sources of uncertain magnitude.[43] These figures rely on national CO2 data that do not include aviation. Although these tonnages are small compared to the CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere, they are significantly larger than pre-industrial levels.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
______________
The U.S has been decreasing emissions while China is increasing. At this rate China will double the amount of the U.S. in less than 10 years.
I guess since China is already a authoritarian country, cosMo thinks it’s alright for them to continue.
“…needs to be ignored as a sad, little clown.”
DO remember I’ve seen you and DO remember your posting record here. Your word is not good for a rainy day.
And solie too, must now be consigned to the ranks of kookdom.
I asked a number of people today, “Do you think global warming is happening?”
All said yes.
I then asked if they believed human activity contributes to it.
All but two said yes. The two said they did not know.
To continue to argue settled science?
How ridiculous can you be?
BlueJay,
You are lying again. You saw me from a moving vehicle 80 feet away.
BlueJay is a liar and always has been.
When your buddy cosmos can’t answer a simple question, then he’s just playing games.
BTW, here is the question. It’s not biased, it’s very elementary.
Cosmos, what percent of co2 is man-made and what in the percent of natural co2?
Now tell me why anyone would avoid answering that question?
There isn’t a good reason.
Period.
cosMo, Here’s a look at the big picture.
“Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.
“Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally,” Dr Allison said.”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
“You are lying again. You saw me from a moving vehicle 80 feet away.”
As far as you know, you mean?
Forget your appearance.
(I wish I could.)
Let your posts here stand for you.
#
BlueJay
Posted April 29, 2009 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
“You are lying again. You saw me from a moving vehicle 80 feet away.”
As far as you know, you mean?
Forget your appearance.
(I wish I could.)
Let your posts here stand for you.
———————————–
So you are admitting like cosmos, you can’t or just are incapable of answering this simple question?
What percent of atmospheric co2 is man-made and what is the percent of natural co2 in the atmosphere?
Regular posted April 29, 2009 at 5:29 pm
When your buddy cosmos can’t answer a simple question, then he’s just playing games.
—————–
I’ll let you answer that “simple question” Regular, and also explain why CO2 levels rapidly rose from 280 ppm to 380+ ppm.
cosmos just admitted he doesn’t have the education or a basic understanding of science to answer the following question. cosmos avoids answering this like the plague.
What percent of atmospheric co2 is man-made and what is the percent of natural co2 in the atmosphere?
#
BlueJay
Posted April 29, 2009 at 5:25 pm | Permalink
I asked a number of people today, “Do you think global warming is happening?”
All said yes.
I then asked if they believed human activity contributes to it.
All but two said yes. The two said they did not know.
To continue to argue settled science?
How ridiculous can you be?
________________
More proof that BJ is a retawd. Just like thinking that a warm February in Kansas is proof that man causes the warming he asks a few people what they think, and poof, it’s settled.
Hey BJ, the world is bigger than your back-yard. I can’t believe you can be so stupid to even post such a comment but then again the mentally challenged are the last to realize who they are.
Regular,
You cannot answer the “simple question” that you asked?
Okay. Whatever.
cosmos and BlueJay still are incapable of answering the question.
What percent of atmospheric co2 is man-made and what is the percent of natural co2 in the atmosphere?
donndublin posted April 29, 2009 at 5:24 pm
“And donndublin seems to (incorrectly) believe that CO2 has a lifetime in Earth’s atmosphere of only a few years.”
__________
How do you get that out of what I said?
————–
Due to CO2’s long lifetime, and the U.S. having much higher emissions for a much longer time than China, our 5% of Earth’s population is responsible for much more CO2 in the atmosphere than China.
Regular cannot explain why CO2 levels rapidly rose from 280 ppm to 380 + ppm.
donndublin posted April 29, 2009 at 5:37 pm
cosMo, Here’s a look at the big picture.
“Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison . . .
—————
donndublin,
You do know that Dr. Allison agrees with the AGW science? Or maybe you don’t?
‘The ice caps are in trouble‘
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/earth-hour/the–ice-caps-are–in–trouble-20090324-983y.html
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 29, 2009 at 6:06 pm | Permalink
Regular cannot explain why CO2 levels rapidly rose from 280 ppm to 380 + ppm.
—————————————
Explain this cosmos:
Why did temperatures in the 20th fall in some decades, while you claim co2 rose?
“Due to CO2’s long lifetime, and the U.S. having much higher emissions for a much longer time than China, our 5% of Earth’s population is responsible for much more CO2 in the atmosphere than China.”
_____________
cosMo can you not understand logic? That does not justify letting China to continue emitting CO2 until their per-cap is equal to that of the US. Unless of course your motive is anti-capitalist/pro-socialist.
donndublin,
You do know that Dr. Allison agrees with the AGW science? Or maybe you don’t?
____________
He said nothing about AGW only global warming. That’s another lie perpetrated by AGW alarmists.
Dr. Allison seems to contradict Garrett’s (politician) statements.
“Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.
Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. “I don’t think there’s any doubt it is contributing to what we’ve seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica,” he said.
Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. “The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west,” he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.”
“What percent of atmospheric co2 is man-made and what is the percent of natural co2 in the atmosphere?”
What a stupid question.
What percentage of atmospheric co2 was added by human activity before the middle 1800’s?
Nearly none.
Therefore ANY human added atmospheric co2 is playing dice with the climate.
Readers need to know, while “Regular” claims to be some sort of professional or expert, he is in reality a social misfit with nothing better to do than put forward his own cockeyed theories.
#
BlueJay
Posted April 29, 2009 at 6:55 pm | Permalink
“What percent of atmospheric co2 is man-made and what is the percent of natural co2 in the atmosphere?”
What a stupid question.
What percentage of atmospheric co2 was added by human activity before the middle 1800’s?
Nearly none.
Therefore ANY human added atmospheric co2 is playing dice with the climate.
Readers need to know, while “Regular” claims to be some sort of professional or expert, he is in reality a social misfit with nothing better to do than put forward his own cockeyed theories.
——————————
Sorry, you failed the cosmos test for human added co2.
Organized farming and tree clearing contributed to the rise of co2 as farms made co2 rose and tree clearing eliminated recycled co2. (according to IPCC) Farm animal production went up, adding co2 and methane to the atmosphere. (according to the IPCC)
The burning of coal for industrial use started in the 18th and 19th century.
BlueJay, you don’t know what you are talking about. You may get kicked from the ‘Warmer’ team of Alarmists.
donndublin posted April 29, 2009 at 6:40 pm
donndublin,
You do know that Dr. Allison agrees with the AGW science? Or maybe you don’t?
____________
He said nothing about AGW only global warming. That’s another lie perpetrated by AGW alarmists.
————————–
“Global warming”, unless stated otherwise and/or used in a different context, usually means AGW. Note the use of GW (not AGW) in the pro-con posts in the header.
And if Dr. Allison doesn’t agree with the AGW science, why was he one of the lead authors of Chapter 4?
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
‘The ice caps are in trouble‘
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/earth-hour/the–ice-caps-are–in–trouble-20090324-983y.html
“Allison and many of the world’s top climate scientists met in Copenhagen last week to update the warnings on climate change that the intergovernmental panel delivered in 2007.”
BlueJay posted April 29, 2009 at 6:55 pm
“What percent of atmospheric co2 is man-made and what is the percent of natural co2 in the atmosphere?”
What a stupid question.
What percentage of atmospheric co2 was added by human activity before the middle 1800’s?
Nearly none.
—————–
Correct.
Atmospheric CO2 levels didn’t start to rise sharply until near the end of the 1800’s (according to the IPCC).
The industrial age and the widespread use of fossil fuels is humanities dice game with the air we breathe.
It does not help that the Amazon jungle, lungs of the planet, is being slashed and burned for cheap cattle grazing for poor Latin American nations.
But the burning of a forest, while it DOES remove trees that breathe co2 and exhale oxygen, is otherwise carbon neutral, while stupid.
The burning of fossil fuels over the last 150 years releases co2 sequestered in the Earth over millions of years. It is ALSO an unrealistic grip and shortsighted use of finite resources.
BlueJay,
But Regular can scientifically prove that AGW is not happening — it’s just another “natural” cycle that is being caused by a change in Earth’s orbit, or something. And E. G. Beck has scientifically proven that global well-mixed atmospheric CO2 levels were higher in the 1940’s. /huge sarcasm OFF, and LOL!
donndublin posted April 29, 2009 at 6:40 pm
donndublin,
You do know that Dr. Allison agrees with the AGW science? Or maybe you don’t?
____________
He said nothing about AGW only global warming. That’s another lie perpetrated by AGW alarmists.
———————–
donndublin,
Have fun denying this statement by Dr. Allison.
‘Q+A: How great is the threat from melting ice sheets? ‘
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKTRE53G3H820090417
“”I think it is now unequivocal that warming of the world is occurring and I think the last IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusively showed that a major cause of warming is greenhouse gas emissions from mankind.“
In The Thick of It
A German radio station – Radio Bremen — is reporting that an expedition by 20 American, Canadian, Italian and German scientists has found that ice in parts of the North Pole is thicker than previously thought.
The Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research says that earlier measurements had indicated what it called a strong decrease of ice thickness in the central Arctic. So the researchers expected the areas they were surveying, many of which had never been measured before, to be about two meters thick. But they discovered the ice was actually four meters thick.
The study’s full results will be available in coming weeks.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518419,00.html
#
cosmos_originally
Posted April 30, 2009 at 8:17 am | Permalink
donndublin posted April 29, 2009 at 6:40 pm
donndublin,
You do know that Dr. Allison agrees with the AGW science? Or maybe you don’t?
____________
He said nothing about AGW only global warming. That’s another lie perpetrated by AGW alarmists.
———————–
donndublin,
Have fun denying this statement by Dr. Allison.
‘Q+A: How great is the threat from melting ice sheets? ‘
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKTRE53G3H820090417
“”I think it is now unequivocal that warming of the world is occurring and I think the last IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusively showed that a major cause of warming is greenhouse gas emissions from mankind.“
_______________
cosMO, That does not change the face that he also said,
“sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica….
Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally,”
Donndublin denies he understands.
donndublin,
Yeah. . . the climate models projected what is now being observed — fastest warming at the upper Northern latitudes.
fleettwood posted April 30, 2009 at 11:04 am
Donndublin denies he understands.
————–
donndublin claims that climate science is wrong, because what climate science projected to happen is now happening.
What Dr. Allison said about Antartica does not contradict what he said about the northern hemisphere.
Point, cosmos. Again.
And re: Fleetwood
DNFTDBT
Agnatha doesn’t understand.
donndublin,
You should learn the basics about AGW science before you try to insist that it’s