Thursday, July 09, 2009
|
|
Climate Change Debate on Hold
|
|
Posted by:
Meredith Jessup at
4:50 PM
|
President Obama's push for quick and decisive action in Congress on climate change legislation suffered a minor setback today. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer announced work on the bill will be delayed until after Congress returns from its August recess.
From the Washington Post:
"We'll do it as soon as we get back" from that break, Boxer told reporters. Asked if this delay jeopardizes chances the Senate will pass a bill this year, Boxer said, "Not a bit ... we'll be in (session) until Christmas, so I'm not worried about it." But Boxer did not guarantee Congress will be able to finish a bill and deliver it to Obama by December, when he plans to attend an international summit on climate change in Copenhagen. "I want to take this as far as we can take it (before Copenhagen). The more we do the better," Boxer said.
Expect the ongoing climate debate to pick back up in September. Perhaps Senators will use the extra time to read the bill?
|
|
|
|
The witless wonders in DC will do exactly what they want, regardless of how their constituents feel about it. They've got the power, and they don't care how they (ab)use it.
If just one person on the Left stood up and said: anthropogenic global warming is the hoax of the ages, and I'm going to vote for this, he/she might be surprised at what would result.
|
|
...movement gets some momentum in the meantime.
Citizens are shocked no Congressmen or women ever read the bills. And according the hooting Stenie Hoyer, Congress is shocked that the people would ever imagine such a ridiculous thing.
The bills are written by fresh-outta-liberal-college staff, special interest groups and lobbyists. The special interest groups and lobbyists make certain the bills are passed as Scarey Harry and Nutty Nancy strong arm votes for in exchange for election support.
Why would anyone every need to read? It's irrelevant to everyone except those who wrote the bills for their own benefit. |
|
|
Let there be a massive, three day blizzard in DC in December, just before the Copenhagen summit. |
|
|
Did anyone tell Ms Boxer and all of her climate friends, that there is no Gobal warming. After reading various scientist papers and not Gore dribble I have come to the conclusion that global warming is in their mind. You can read all about global warming without the hurry up and vite crap at climatedepot.com One thing that strikes me is a statement made by a scientist with reference to global warming forecasts, they say its hard for them to forecast the weather for 2 weeks yet forcast the warming effect for the next 50 yrs, |
|
Maybe you should do some more reading:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/ |
|
You shoould read way more also...Interesting Talking Points website you sent Spudder.
All the points under 2a are coming to light as actual issues with the modeling.
~The models are so flawed they wouldn't pass the litmus test to be accepted in our courts of law. The hidden assumptions of stability (i.e cloud and water vapor) alone make them inaccurate. NASA has only had a satelite in orbit for 6 years that can accurately measure cloud coverage and water vapor. And what is coming to light is that the "influence" of C02 is 4 to 6 times overestimated in the models.
~Recent NASA papers(experiments) show that aerosols have a much bigger impact than previously understood.
I could go on, but until you are actually willing to delve deeper into the current science from all sides, your talking points are just political, not scientific.
Spudder, As to why the weatherman cannot give you good weather forecasts 10 days out? Its because the input data needs to be so accurate that slight inaccuracies throw the model off in the wrong direction easily (think about measuring 0.10 degrees in the middle of the ocean atmosphere. The West Coast weathermen get it wrong the most because they cannot rely on observation like the Midwest and beyond can. |
|
It's cool enough for a sweater.
Last night on the news we heard bathing suit, sandals and summer dress sales are in the basement.
Another blow to the economy due to global warming. |
|
|
read the bill? They don't believe in science, so what would be the point? Just vote NO on everything, and stop pretending to care. |
|
in recent years. Receded by thousands of Earth Miles. Gore, The Bamma and this thread's very own Xian are about to announce a Forum on "Little Martian Greenies Spewing Pollutants and Diminishing Icecaps!!"
Bless their Ponzi Scheming little verminous hearts for remaining consistent! |
|
Why would the Flat Earth Society
read the bill? They don't believe in science, so what would be the point? Just vote NO on everything, and stop pretending to care.
________________________________________________
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! Fact is NOBODY has read the bill and those scientists in the know think that this is insane! |
|
|
Curious minds want to know. |
|
BK Who are the "scientists in the know"?
Curious minds want to know.
________________________________________________
The one's who jumped off Gore's Good Ship Lollipop! |
|
BK Who are the "scientists in the know"?
Curious minds want to know.
________________________________________________
The one's who jumped off Gore's Good Ship Lollipop! |
|
|
Just thought I would inform you I'm not sweating up here in fact supposed to hit 30 degrees tonight. |
|
|
The strangest thing about thi post is that somebody as dumb as a stump like Barbara Boxer is a committee chairperson |
|
|
Careful there. She "earned" it. Yes Ma'am she did. |
|
|
They may read it, but will they understand it? |
|
|
|
You may have missed this.
Scientist letter to Congress
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.
The facts are:
The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact
THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.
The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not just computer projections, and not false claims about the state of the science.
SCIENCE IS GUIDED BY PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS
Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Alarmists are rolling in wealth from the billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken. It is always instructive to follow the money.
Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences
|
|
|
Yes it got below freezing last night, had to scrape the windshield this morning, but it might go up to 75 today. |
|
|
I was thinking this morning that I have only had my air conditioner one once so far this summer and it is almost the middle of July. Bet I will pay for it this winter as it is expected that we will have a very cold winter. Yes real global warming taking place. |
|
|
We still have snow on the peaks here in New Mexico. It just quit snowing here,second week of june . Global warming my a$$ |
|
Everybody agrees that they must cut greenhouse gases by 80%............BY 2050!!!!!!
Wow..41 years.
What else? No measurements. No penalties. No authority. ???????????????????????????????????
Finally...if China, India and other 3rd world countries don't participate, 80% will have """"""""""""""""ZERO"""""""""""""""""""
impact on the temps or environment.
There you have it folks....nada! Hope the Lobster was good! |
|
Every time some Cons write to say that they are cold in their hometown and that proves the Earth is cooling (I know, I know, you can't argue with such incredible logic) I stop by weather.com and take a look at the US maps.
Now as we all (except Cons) know, the US represents a very small percentage of the overall surface of the Earth, and even a small percentage of the land mass, but it is telling.
So tell me Cons -- why aren't the Cons from the above-average temp area writing in and telling us about the heat? Why is it that the Cons from a few weeks ago complaining about the cool weather writing in today? Could it be that they are now warm or sweltering?
Cons need more than a science class or two. They eat up misinformation that suits their needs and ignore real science. They have no concept of the size of the US vs the Earth. They have no concept of temperature and averages. They have no concept of short, long, and very long timeframes that make up the natural and man-made temperature changes.
Sorry to lump all Cons into one large lump, but where are the sensible Cons who know that today's weather in Montana has so very little to do with a global trend? |
|
"TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING
...
Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University"
Austin's a biophysicist, specializing in DNA structures. That's about as far removed from climatology as you can get. |
|
K.G. writes: Thursday, July, 09, 2009 7:19 PM
I'm Sitting in SoCal on 9 July
It's cool enough for a sweater.
-------------
weather.com
Looks like it is 1°F cooler last night and today. Both day and night.
BRRRRR! Looks like a cold SNAP!!! OMG, OMG, start telling the world's scientists what you have found! How are you so sensitive to temperature that 1° causes you to add a sweater? Are you 90 years old?
K.G. can tell a 1° temp deviation from normal. Looks like 95%+ of the world's scientists are wrong. |
|
"The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."
Amazing how the Marxist Socialists conveniently omit opinions by scientists to make their points.
Amazing!
|
|
|
Let's get this global warming thing going. It was the coolest June on record, Europe suffered one of the coldest winters ever and, frankly, I'm getting a little tired of it. If we can actually change the weather as the ecocrazies claim, then I say we do it. Start emptying those cans of hairspray, people. |
|
Leave your cars idling
____________________________________________-
Ah, the smell of gas burning in the morning...smells like.........Victory! |
|
To Cons, the temperature of a small part of the world in a small span of time is important to note ONLY if it is cold. Forget what you know about the size of the Earth and concentrate on a small part in a small span of time that fits your ideology.
That, in a nutshell, is the mind of a Con. Don't bother with other parts of the Earth because that may make you think about the reality of the situation. Don't mention the heat in the Great Plains and South US this past Winter when you can point to the east coast.
As Cons, note that Eastern Europe was cold this past Winter, but don't reveal the much larger swath in Western Europe that more than negates your argument. In fact, ignore the Earth.
Don't bother to mention when you are sweltering because maybe in a few months yo will be cold. Use the cold spell in the exact same location ONLY to justify your brand of science. Keep you mouth shut when your temps are warm, scream when it is cool.
Also, as Cons, be sure to cherry-pick the two years that would indicate a cooling trend (in fact, the ONLY two years that would allow you to do so) and ignore the overall graph.
Quiz: trending up or down? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 8, 9, 10
Con answer: of course, look at 5 - 4 and 9-8 to see that the trend is DOWN!
As Cons, be sure to push that we can accurately measure the temperature of another planet, but not our own. Also be sure to take the illogical leap that if another planet is warming, then that proves it is the Sun (even though there is only evidence that the Sun's output is the same or less by all accounts).
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=38419 |
|
|
Babsy Boxer as Chairman...??? Ohhhh, THAT settles it!!! We can all breath easier knowing that a true lefturd-lunatic is chairing! |
|
one damned degree since 2000. That's the period that has seen the most faux hysteria over EEEEEKKK Global Warming. Take a look at the Batshiite Crazies who support this vast Ponzi Scheming Secular Faith and we sane people(and scientists)can rest our collective case.
Would you believe that it's hot and humid here in Central Florida this July 10th..?? Rumors have it that this heat & moisture in this tropical region will be followed--EEEeeekkkKKK--by this thingy called Fall which will be cooler and dryer...The what, for Gawdsakes..?? Ohhhh, nooooooooooo, Winter will come with its terrifying 70s...Heartbreaking to see EEEeeekkkKK "Climate Change" close up. |
|
As Cons, be sure to push that we can accurately measure the temperature of another planet, but not our own. Also be sure to take the illogical leap that if another planet is warming, then that proves it is the Sun (even though there is only evidence that the Sun's output is the same or less by all accounts).
______________________________________________
Are you a scientist? Seems alot of scientists simply disagree with the manmade impacts on the environment. |
|
|
Weren't you guys screaming about polar bears drifting by on loose 'bergs, ice shelfs collapsing into the sea (during summer, whoda thunk it?) and Midwest flooding (after big spring thunderstorms, again a 'whodathunk it' moment) as your "evidence" of global warming? Ain't very compelling, dude. |
|
Your NASA reference shows the global differentials, but no quantifiable net gain/loss. Nor is there any information on the ocean surface listed. The thermal mass of water must be included in the debate. It holds far more energy than atmosphere and since there is 70% plus on earth. As we head for another El Nino episode, the ocean will cause those global fluctuations to shift. (And we could be in for big surf in So Cal this winter!)
Former Nasa scientist that does take the time to document year over year differentials. Once you get over the Character assisination of him being a Big Oil player, read his analysis. He will give you answers to why conclusions have been reached with unfinished methods.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
NASA is starting figure out that aerosols and water vapor play a much bigger role.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols _prt.htm
There is a satelite that went into orbita few years ago that can actually measure cloud formation accurately. Observations are showing a negative forcing of temps from water vapor, not positive (i.e. a cooling effect).
The sad thing is "the science is settled" camp cannot open up their mind in the rear of their behind to let new information present itself. Like someone said above, Science is about proof not consensus.
And we are called the ones that cannot be open minded?
|
|
So, I should e-mail the link to Robert H. Austin, Professor of Physics? Every single point he brought up is addressed there.
Then again, you didn't look at its arguments, so why should he? |
|
Not of this World adds good discussion, and I (and the world's scientists) agree that man-made pollutants are causing this odd warming trend.
So we can agree that science is not settled in exactly, precisely why man's pollutants are raising the temperature, but science has yet to discover the most damaging man-made pollution.
"Though there are several varieties of aerosols, previous research has shown that two types -- sulfates and black carbon -- play an especially critical role in regulating climate change. Both are products of human activity.
Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates."
OK, I like that you agree that NASA is doing some incredible work, but if we could get the non-scientists to stop listening to only TH and Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity/O'Reilly then we can get beyond somebody's cold aunt in Iowa. |
|
"Are you a scientist? Seems alot of scientists simply disagree with the manmade impacts on the environment."
-----------
When doctors discuss the reason the patient's heart rate is 150 bbm and increasing, they frequently disagree as to why. This does not mean rate is not increasing.
When one doctor observes that the patient has had a rate this fast in the past, it is good that the others comment that this occurred when the patient was exercising and not at rest. This was expected and normal then, but now the patient is at rest. Something is wrong.
When a doctor comments that the rate has decreased 10 bbm in the past hour, it is more important to note that the trend has been clearly up for the past day, and that the temporary drop is too short term, and to wait awhile and it will most likely rise again. Besides, it is still far too fast and has risen every hour.
So yes, many scientists disagree on exactly why the Earth's temp is increasing, but they all agree that it is increasing, and most agree that man is a major cause (a few think man is a minor cause). They do not agree on the extent -- that does not negate the known science.
Ahhhh yes, you see... those darn pointy-headed Liberal scientists were wrong all along!! The Earth is not warming because of CO2 from our fuels, but the CO2, sulfates and black carbon together from our fuels. So THERE Libs -- you were wrong (never mind that we now admit the Earth is warming and man is still a primary cause... we simply wanted to be correct something, anything). |
|
So yes, many scientists disagree on exactly why the Earth's temp is increasing, but they all agree that it is increasing, and most agree that man is a major cause (a few think man is a minor cause). They do not agree on the extent -- that does not negate the known science.
__________________________________________
Nope! Scientists also say that the warming and cooling of the earth has been going on since the beginning of time and that man has nothing to do with it. They say that the climate changes are a part of a "natural cycle".
You want to take care of mother earth...don't throw garbage on the side of the road. |
|
"Nope! Scientists also say that the warming and cooling of the earth has been going on since the beginning of time and that man has nothing to do with it. They say that the climate changes are a part of a "natural cycle"."
Sorry, but it is clear that you are not involved in science to any degree. Of COURSE warming and cooling have been going on. Of COURSE EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD agrees that man and man's actions have an effect on the temps.
There are NO scientists who say that man as nothing to do with it. None. When you write something so silly it marks you as someone who can't even begin to argue what could be a good discussion. It is the degree man contributes and which actions contribute the most, and finally what do we do about it if anything.
I'm guessing your heart rate of 180 bbm at rest is OK because an increase and decrease of heart rates always happen, to all people, for all time. Am I correct that you would agree 180 bbm at rest is an oddity? Do you agree that heart rates always fluctuate? Would you believe that one doctor who advised you to go home because he has seen your heart rate at this level in the past (on a treadmill)?
Too bad that the other 99 doctors said there was a problem. |
|
There are NO scientists who say that man as nothing to do with it. None. When you write something so silly it marks you as someone who can't even begin to argue what could be a good discussion. It is the degree man contributes and which actions contribute the most, and finally what do we do about it if anything.
_______________________________________________
CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.
“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”
Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span.
“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long,” Myers said. “That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”
“We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued.
|
|
Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told “Lou Dobbs Tonight” viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century.
"If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”
Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man.
|
|
"U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007"
So much for that "NONE" conjecture!
|
|
"Japanese Scientists Dispute Man-Made Warming Hypothesis
Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.
Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan’s native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.
JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel."
Funny hwo scientists who dispute man-made claims keep popping up!
|
|
of the dedicated secular religionists of EEeeekK "Man Made Global EEeeeeeekkkK Warming".
Too funny and entertaining. |
|
|
I had more to post but didn't want to takeover the whole thread. "NONE"! Where'd he go? |
|
"CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers ... Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy ..."
I love it when right-wingers pretend to understand science, especially when they use as an authority someone whose main talent is pointing at invisible things in front of a green screen. Or an expert on groundwater who draws his salary from Exxon.
"U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007"
In contrast, there's a list of a THOUSAND scientists *named Steve* who support it. Just to give you an idea of the relative numbers. |
|
I love it when right-wingers pretend to understand science, especially when they use as an authority someone whose main talent is pointing at invisible things in front of a green screen. Or an expert on groundwater who draws his salary from Exxon.
______________________________________________
Facts is facts son, deal with it. Or do you want to continue with your good little boy Marxist Socialist goosestep? Baaaaa Baaaaaa
But you will believe anything from a scientific genius named "AL"! Bwahahahahahahaha! |
|
"But you will believe anything from a scientific genius named "AL"!
No, it was "Steve;" a thousand scientists named "Steve."
Is that all you have in the way of argument? The ability to type "ha" over and over? Come on, say some science stuff! It's always so cute, like four-year-olds playing grown-up. |
|
The climate is ALWAYS changing! What part of that don't you stupid mouth-breathing nutters understand?!?
Obama will command the sun to be cooler and lo! We have a period of no sunspots. Obama did it! Obama is awesome. |
|
It's always so cute, like four-year-olds playing grown-up.
____________________________________________
I'm glad you can recognize when you act like a 4 year old. That's some progess for you. You have made zero points or backed up anything that you post. Bob..you just taking up space. If you can't justify your statements, I suggest you just quit posting.
Right now, you just looking like a fool! You just keep following along like the sheep that you are. Have some more Kool-aid! |
|
"Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, ?I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.? ?After that, I changed my mind,? Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book ?Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,? with chemical engineer Richard Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society . Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, ?'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ?noise.'? "
|
|
"The climate is ALWAYS changing!"
So we agree.
What we don't agree about is: if this is a bad thing; if man had anything to do with it; or if we could change anything about the climate by altering our lifestyles. My guess is NO, NO and NO. But I only have a Master of Science degree from an Ivy League school, so I couldn't possibly understand any of this! |
|
But I only have a Master of Science degree from an Ivy League school, so I couldn't possibly understand any of this!
_______________________________________________
Careful, Munck is going to say that your degree is fake and you know nothing about what you say. Believe Al, believe Al, believe AL......
Convinced yet? |
|
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
|
|
"My guess is NO, NO and NO."
You're just guessing? |
|
|
At least I'm honest. What is an hypothesis other than an educated guess? No one has proved the hypothesis of AGW by observation and experimentation, all they have done is made predictions (that is, guessed) based on computer models. |
|
BK writes: Friday, July, 10, 2009 8:41 PM
From the senate committee report:
"U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007"
So much for that "NONE" conjecture!
------
So much for assuming you can teach a Con any science. If you can't understand the issue, stop writing. If you think there is even one scientist (not on Lithium) that thinks we have no impact whatsoever, then you understand nothing. |
|
"What is an hypothesis other than an educated guess?"
A postulate is an educated guess; an hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a single or small number of observations; a theory is an explanation that has been substantiated by a large number of observations or experiments, with few or none that contradict it. Global warming is at the level of a theory, not an hypothesis.
"No one has proved the hypothesis of AGW by observation and experimentation"
OK, that worries me. No one who is educated in the fundamentals of science would talk about "proving" anything in science. "Proof" is a concept found in mathematics, not science.
"all they have done is made predictions (that is, guessed) based on computer models."
That's nowhere near true; there are many thousands of solid observations of phenomena that support the theory of global warming, published in peer-reviewed journals. Again, you worry me; no one with an ScM from an Ivy League school would make such a fundamental error.
How up are you on the quality of climate modeling that is being done with current petaflop supercomputers? Moore's Law makes it risky to judge current results by past ones. |
|
As BK predicted, you are questioning my credentials. That's okay. I never claimed to be a climatologist. Do you?
My understanding is that observations have been made of temperature changes and their effects, for example, on ice caps. Where is the EVIDENCE that MAN has caused these changes? Where is the evidence that capping CO2 emissions will stop these changes? So, therefore, it seems to me that *Anthropogenic* global warming is merely an hypothesis, which is a tentative explanation with insufficient evidence. Even if it were a theory, that only means that there is a greater range of evidence and greater LIKELIHOOD of truth. Insisting your hypothesis or even your theory IS TRUTH is not science, it is dogma. And dogma is not enough to effect massive changes in our way of life. In case you think scientists are incapable of holding to dogma, try reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.
Bob, I am old enough to remember when scientists predicted that pollution would cause another ice age. I must have missed that freeze. I am also old enough to remember the "alar on apples will kill children" hysteria. "Science" also gave us birth defects caused by thalidomide and vaginal and cervical cancer caused by diethylstilbestrol. Far too often, in modern history, scientists have jumped on bandwagons and went charging headlong into programs that turned out to be disastrous. At the very least, there should be much more observation and testing before we impoverish our country and tell the developing world it cannot advance its technology. What is the big rush? |
|
"Far too often, in modern history, scientists have jumped on bandwagons and went charging headlong into programs that turned out to be disastrous."
Should say: Far too often, in modern history, "science" has been used by well-meaning people to jump on bandwagons and charge headlong into actions that were ill-conceived and even disastrous in some cases. |
|
"No one who is educated in the fundamentals of science would talk about "proving" anything in science."
Quite right, of course. The proper term would be to *validate* the hypothesis by observation and experimentation. Again, I ask how has AGW been validated by experimentation other than in computer models? Furthermore, testing must be repeatable. Where have decreased CO2 emissions been shown, by repeated testing, to affect the temperature of the world?
This is just so preposterous to call this farce science and demand (and enforce through government coercion) changes in our energy usage that haven't been shown to effect global temperatures in the real world! |
|
If you think there is even one scientist (not on Lithium) that thinks we have no impact whatsoever, then you understand nothing.
_________________________________________________
Not me son. These are the scientists that I'm quoting. Maybe you better get your crayon out and write them a letter.
Again from the US Senate report:
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - 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.”
|
|
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet."
|
|
BK writes: Saturday, July, 11, 2009 7:21 AM
inthe majority writes:
If you think there is even one scientist (not on Lithium) that thinks we have no impact whatsoever, then you understand nothing.
"Not me son. These are the scientists that I'm quoting. Maybe you better get your crayon out and write them a letter."
Daft, daft, daft.l You are telling us that if a scientist thinks we are not the MAJOR cause or DOES NOT THINK IT IS WORTH SPENDING TIME AND MONEY ON, that they throw out all science and pretend that man's actions do not affect the Earth's climate.
Planet Con. A non-science, non-logic place to be. If you cannot understand the difference, please stop quoting from people who OBVIOUSLY know enough that they would NEVER say we have NO effect.
Geeeze. Can't we get an Con who can understand science on here?? Do all your crayons come in black and white? |
|
Not only is there no evidence that CO2 is the main culprit during the modern warming period, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against CO2.
The CO2 theory makes certain specific predictions one of which is that the troposphere over the equator will warm at a higher rate than the ground. It doesn't.
CO2 by itself could warm the earth about 1 degree C for every doubling of CO2 concentration. The IPCC projected increases of 2.5 to 4.5 degrees C for such a doubling of CO2. To arrive at these numbers the computer models employed positive feedback. However, actual measurements of the earth's long wave infra-red emissions show that the feedback is almost certainly negative. This means that CO2 could not even warm the earth the full 1 degree C.
Michael Mann produced a plot of historical temperatures over the last thousand years purporting to show that temperatures were completely stable up until the industrial revolution. His work was shown to contain numerous statistical errors as well as employing tree ring studies from species of trees that were known to be more sensitive to CO2 concentrations than to temperature. His work was nonsense yet it is still quoted.
Sea ice extent has been stable for thirty years contrary to Gore's proclamations. Sea water temperatures should be rising but they're not according to the robot thermometers used for the ARGOS project which are the most accurate instruments ever developed for measuring sea temperature.
Science is on the side of the skeptics. |
|
Geeeze. Can't we get an Con who can understand science on here??
______________________________________________
Still waiting on your Nobel Prize education and studies on the environment and their causes. Did we miss the award ceremonies? Did you tape it? Is it on yourtube?
From the Senate Committee report:
Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. "Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."
|
|
Does man affect the climate? Yes, but not primarily through CO2. Urban heat islands certainly exist and land use changes may have contributed to the loss of snow cover on Kilimanjaro. But CO2? It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Since 1998 the earth has not warmed although the IPCC's projections (not predictions) were for a substantial increase. In 1998 the IPCC took the position that no natural processes could produce a temperature change of the magnitude measured from 1975 to 1998, but when the warming stopped they said that natural processes were masking the CO2 induced warming.
Natural processes, it seems, could produce large effects but only when needed to cover the deficiencies of an obviously flawed theory.
This kind of special pleading is quite common during the terminal stages of a dying theory.
Why then, has the theory not quite made it to the grave? When billions of dollars are being spent on research it's hard for scientists to conclude that their work is headed for the scrap heap. Remember, not every scientist is a wing-nut political advocate like James Hansen. Most are honest but letting go of one's fondest ideas is difficult, even for the best of them.
The theory once had some merit and when considering the possible consequences of it being true was well worth investigating. But that time is over and now scientific efforts should be directed to things that have more promise. |
|
It's proponets simply wish to seize power.
A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."]
Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.
“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.
Resist if you value freedom!!!!!! |
|
Religionists. Deep. That's what'cha'are. Yessirrreee, DEEP. Deeply Deep. Yep.
Globe hasn't raised in temp 1-nanno degree in the last 10-years. Seas haven't risen an inch.
Gore has become a Very Wealthy Grifter-Ponzi Schemer. Albert Gore Sr. lives in sonny boy's head 24-7. "I gotta be something on my own...for DADDY. I'll show him, by Gawd." Bammy is a Hard Lefty who wants CONTROL. The much heralded Tax & Ponzi Climate Bill is ALL about Big Nanny's CONTROL. It pays NO heed whatsoever to American principles of Freedom & Liberty.
Now, where were we. Oh, yeah, you climate religionist lefturds were scurrying to find the Martian Made Emissions Causes for the Icecaps on Mars to have receded thousands of earth miles in less than an earth decade. OMGawd...It was the SUN, you say?? LOL...at an idiocy that cannot be quantified. |
|
when he is not being a film queen par excellence, relating his show biz stories to a rapt audience, he is a scientist who can give us the straight skinny on global warming. did i also mention he is a brilliant psychologist? that too. he scarcely bothers with the substance of argument, as his penetrating mind moves directly to the heart of the matter--the deep and pitiful mental illness of us center-left types.
his love of baseball is real and sincere. that is one redeeming quality.
oh i know, i know. the mere fact i am speaking to Neo's posts is proof that he is the king and i am but a needy slave. but notwithstanding the nonsense that cascades through his brain and out his yap, conservatives need to understand that the route to a strong and vibrant American conservatism tomorrow is not through the castigating and self-satisfied American conservatism of today. |
|
"... exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."
OK, so you agree with me now? I'm using your quote to show you why you should quietly slink away.
You say there are scientist who think man has no impact, then quote a scientist who says that the impact is exaggerated. So... say it with me BK... the scientist in your quote agrees with me that there is an impact.
Are you going to try for another scientist? Maybe mine for another quote? |
|
provokingly predictable as Martian Icecaps receding due to Mars Critters' Emissions! 11:16am sad-faux comment from my Stalker, Mr.Envy-Jealousy-Needy Boy.
I see, as usual, that I'm sprawled out comfortably occupying the Rent Free Space in his pointy Head. Owning him has become so tiresome. Snicker. |
|
Are you going to try for another scientist? Maybe mine for another quote?
______________________________________________
I quoted the Japanese guy who says that thinking man has any impact is arrogant.
Can you read?
Again, what is your background?
Ever notice how a Marxist Socialist grabs at strings when he doesn't get the answer he's looking for.
Keep them sheep moving says AL!
|
|
had an impact. Okay...and, your tiny point being...?? :-)
Carry on with the spanking, BK. Diverting Saturday fun, eh?
Now, back to my dog eared copy of Bjorn Lomborg's, "The Skeptical Environmentalist". THE Best. |
|
"The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)"
|
|
Diverting Saturday fun, eh?
_____________________________________________
It's raining so I gots nothin better to do today. Wait, I may need a "sammich" later. LOL |
|
|
"In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 and 2009 as the years the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. AN INTERNATIONAL TEAM OF SCIENTISTS COUNTERED THE UN IPCC, DECLARING: """"NATURE, NOT HUMAN ACTIVITY, RULES THE CLIMATE""""" |
|
"As BK predicted, you are questioning my credentials."
No, I'm pointing out where you fall short of them. There's a great difference between that and asserting that someone with a PhD in Economics is not a credible authority on climate change.
"I never claimed to be a climatologist."
No, but you are implicitly claiming to know more about climate than they do.
"Do you?"
Never have; I'm a (retired) computer scientist. Note that my arguments are not about the science of climate change, but about the validity and believability of science itself. Interestingly, it's exactly the same argument that I have with creationists about evolution, and it seems to be the same people arguing against science in both cases, and making the same arguments.
"Where is the EVIDENCE that MAN has caused these changes? Where is the evidence that capping CO2 emissions will stop these changes?"
It's in the professional journals and conferences of climatologists, which I'd surmise you've never read. You don't read them, and yet then deny their contents.
"Insisting your hypothesis or even your theory IS TRUTH is not science, it is dogma."
No one has insisted it is TRUTH; scientists don't do that.
"And dogma is not enough to effect massive changes in our way of life."
Who says that? Who makes that judgement? You? You admit you're not a climatologist, so how could you possible have the knowledge or authority to contradict the general consensus of the climatological scientific community? |
|
"Bob, I am old enough to remember when scientists predicted that pollution would cause another ice age."
I'm more than old enough -- 64. And my memory is that a few scientists advanced that as a postulate, but the discussion was mostly about the possibility that global thermonuclear war could cause an ice age: Nuclear Winter. You'd be hard put to find much of the professional literature of that period making your claim about pollution, but maybe could find a few sensationalist articles in the popular literature, probably TIME, the Enquirer, and Mad.
"I am also old enough to remember the "alar on apples will kill children" hysteria. "Science" also gave us birth defects caused by thalidomide and vaginal and cervical cancer caused by diethylstilbestrol."
So what? Shall we make contrasting lists of all the good and bad results of science, and then decide whether to accept or reject it in toto? The fact that scientists once thought that the Earth was a sphere or that neutrinos were massless doesn't mean that all science is wrong. |
|
"I ask how has AGW been validated by experimentation"
You're insisting on experiments? Several major fields of science don't lend themselves to experimentation -- astronomy, geology and planetary science in general, astrophysics -- and yet they're as much true science as chemistry or botany and their theories are just as valid. Do you reject theories about the evolution of the Sun because no one has done any experiments with stellar evolution?
"This is just so preposterous to call this farce science"
Are you saying that because you've done enough personal research to convince yourself, or because it's one of the central beliefs of the far right wing and you've heard it said by pundits over and over? |
|
Glad you picked my last posting apart and made agreements out of context.
Next time read the entire paper posted before chosing parts.
A little science definition;
Negative forcing=cooling
I enjoyed how you stated pollutants cause warming. That is not all true. They also cause cooling. The irony of China and Inida burning dirty air is its cooling the Indian Ocean. |
|
With petitions in hand:
SHOW UP AT THEIR town hall meetings
their State Fair events
Their home state offices
revolt against double energy costs
which become doulbe food costs
DEMAND drill
Clean coal
NUKE power
UNTIL they deliver 100% "alternative" energy that works and is not 100% more expensive than what we already have: |
|
|
|