97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[Old Rocks]

Kitten, the glaciers I have walked on and by for the last 45 years are not subject to interpretation or statistics. The photos from the satelites that clearly show the retreat of the glaciers on all continents are not statistics. The "Drunken Forests" of Alaska are not statistics.

There is a warming occuring, and as with all things natural, there is a reason why it is warming.

Ignoring some facts to focus on only those which support your claim ... yes they are being interpreted.

OK, Kitten, I know of four glaciers that are growing. One on St. Helens, and three on Shasta. Otherwise, all that I know of are retreating. And that is from satellite photos on all the continents.
Retreating Glaciers: Nature's Warning by VK Joshi



Kulkarni and his co-researchers selected Baspa, Parbati and Chenab basins as their area of study. They state to have monitored 466 glaciers in these basins from 1962 onwards with the help of remote sensing data. In addition they undertook expeditions to Chota Shigri, Patsio and Samundar Tapu glaciers in Chenab basin; Parbati glacier in Parbati basin and Shaune Garang glacier in Baspa basin.

Based on their data they have claimed that the glaciers studied have shown a reduction in area from 2077 sq. km. in 1962 to 1628 sq. km. at present. In other words it means an overall deglaciation of 21%. Kulkarni claims that due to heavy melting many glaciers have been defragmented, thereby the number of glaciers have increased, though the total quantity of ice carried by them has reduced. Glaciers with less than one sq. km. area have shown a retreat of more than 38% says Kulkarni.


Now I can post this kind of real research from all the inhabited continents. What can you post to support your position?

 

[Meister]

kitten, the glaciers i have walked on and by for the last 45 years are not subject to interpretation or statistics. The photos from the satelites that clearly show the retreat of the glaciers on all continents are not statistics. The "drunken forests" of alaska are not statistics.

There is a warming occuring, and as with all things natural, there is a reason why it is warming.

ignoring some facts to focus on only those which support your claim ... Yes they are being interpreted.

ok, kitten, i know of four glaciers that are growing. One on st. Helens, and three on shasta. Otherwise, all that i know of are retreating. And that is from satellite photos on all the continents.
retreating glaciers: Nature's warning by vk joshi



kulkarni and his co-researchers selected baspa, parbati and chenab basins as their area of study. They state to have monitored 466 glaciers in these basins from 1962 onwards with the help of remote sensing data. In addition they undertook expeditions to chota shigri, patsio and samundar tapu glaciers in chenab basin; parbati glacier in parbati basin and shaune garang glacier in baspa basin.

Based on their data they have claimed that the glaciers studied have shown a reduction in area from 2077 sq. Km. In 1962 to 1628 sq. Km. At present. In other words it means an overall deglaciation of 21%. Kulkarni claims that due to heavy melting many glaciers have been defragmented, thereby the number of glaciers have increased, though the total quantity of ice carried by them has reduced. Glaciers with less than one sq. Km. Area have shown a retreat of more than 38% says kulkarni.


Now i can post this kind of real research from all the inhabited continents. What can you post to support your position?

the sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Meister, we already realize you are a fool. No need to continue to demonstrate the fact. Come back when you can make better than a third grade reply.

 

[Meister]

Meister, we already realize you are a fool. No need to continue to demonstrate the fact. Come back when you can make better than a third grade reply.

I will quit acting like a third grader when you stop spewing those left wing nut sites that you worship, and start using your own mind. Your brainwashed big time, dude. Until then, I see this as no more than a push on each of our sides. Mine is just less wordy, than yours.

 

[Old Rocks]

Meister, we already realize you are a fool. No need to continue to demonstrate the fact. Come back when you can make better than a third grade reply.

I will quit acting like a third grader when you stop spewing those left wing nut sites that you worship, and start using your own mind. Your brainwashed big time, dude. Until then, I see this as no more than a push on each of our sides. Mine is just less wordy, than yours.

Left wing nut sites? You mean like the USGS? NOAA? The Royal Society? The United States National Academy of Science? The scientific journals, Science and Nature?

Brainwashed, you stupid ass? I have walked mountains in all the western states. I have seen over half a century of change in the Pacific Northwest. I have seen the change in the glaciers of the Cascades, Blues, and Rockies.

You have yet to show any evidence for your position. Just vitriol and stupidity.

 

[Meister]

Meister, we already realize you are a fool. No need to continue to demonstrate the fact. Come back when you can make better than a third grade reply.

I will quit acting like a third grader when you stop spewing those left wing nut sites that you worship, and start using your own mind. Your brainwashed big time, dude. Until then, I see this as no more than a push on each of our sides. Mine is just less wordy, than yours.

Left wing nut sites? You mean like the USGS? NOAA? The Royal Society? The United States National Academy of Science? The scientific journals, Science and Nature?

Brainwashed, you stupid ass? I have walked mountains in all the western states. I have seen over half a century of change in the Pacific Northwest. I have seen the change in the glaciers of the Cascades, Blues, and Rockies.

You have yet to show any evidence for your position. Just vitriol and stupidity.

Yup, those are the sites I'm talking about...you brainwashed idiot. Like I said you can't do your own thinking. You need the far left wing sites to expound your point. If that's it, don't bother to respond to this post. Your mindless. It ain't Man that's causing it you blooming idiot!!! PS you left off those socialist teaching universities, you dumb ass.
THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Meister, you have definately made my point.

 

[KittenKoder]

Kitten, the glaciers I have walked on and by for the last 45 years are not subject to interpretation or statistics. The photos from the satelites that clearly show the retreat of the glaciers on all continents are not statistics. The "Drunken Forests" of Alaska are not statistics.

There is a warming occuring, and as with all things natural, there is a reason why it is warming.

Ignoring some facts to focus on only those which support your claim ... yes they are being interpreted.

OK, Kitten, I know of four glaciers that are growing. One on St. Helens, and three on Shasta. Otherwise, all that I know of are retreating. And that is from satellite photos on all the continents.
Retreating Glaciers: Nature's Warning by VK Joshi



Kulkarni and his co-researchers selected Baspa, Parbati and Chenab basins as their area of study. They state to have monitored 466 glaciers in these basins from 1962 onwards with the help of remote sensing data. In addition they undertook expeditions to Chota Shigri, Patsio and Samundar Tapu glaciers in Chenab basin; Parbati glacier in Parbati basin and Shaune Garang glacier in Baspa basin.

Based on their data they have claimed that the glaciers studied have shown a reduction in area from 2077 sq. km. in 1962 to 1628 sq. km. at present. In other words it means an overall deglaciation of 21%. Kulkarni claims that due to heavy melting many glaciers have been defragmented, thereby the number of glaciers have increased, though the total quantity of ice carried by them has reduced. Glaciers with less than one sq. km. area have shown a retreat of more than 38% says Kulkarni.


Now I can post this kind of real research from all the inhabited continents. What can you post to support your position?

Not the facts I was talking about, which proves my point. It's ALL the facts that matter. Try looking into the people who came up with the info, and no, it's not all of the scientific community that agrees, more importantly look into what those who did publish the data have to gain.

 

[Chris]

Ignoring some facts to focus on only those which support your claim ... yes they are being interpreted.

OK, Kitten, I know of four glaciers that are growing. One on St. Helens, and three on Shasta. Otherwise, all that I know of are retreating. And that is from satellite photos on all the continents.
Retreating Glaciers: Nature's Warning by VK Joshi



Kulkarni and his co-researchers selected Baspa, Parbati and Chenab basins as their area of study. They state to have monitored 466 glaciers in these basins from 1962 onwards with the help of remote sensing data. In addition they undertook expeditions to Chota Shigri, Patsio and Samundar Tapu glaciers in Chenab basin; Parbati glacier in Parbati basin and Shaune Garang glacier in Baspa basin.

Based on their data they have claimed that the glaciers studied have shown a reduction in area from 2077 sq. km. in 1962 to 1628 sq. km. at present. In other words it means an overall deglaciation of 21%. Kulkarni claims that due to heavy melting many glaciers have been defragmented, thereby the number of glaciers have increased, though the total quantity of ice carried by them has reduced. Glaciers with less than one sq. km. area have shown a retreat of more than 38% says Kulkarni.


Now I can post this kind of real research from all the inhabited continents. What can you post to support your position?

Not the facts I was talking about, which proves my point. It's ALL the facts that matter. Try looking into the people who came up with the info, and no, it's not all of the scientific community that agrees, more importantly look into what those who did publish the data have to gain.

What do these melting glaciers have to gain?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

 

[KittenKoder]

OK, Kitten, I know of four glaciers that are growing. One on St. Helens, and three on Shasta. Otherwise, all that I know of are retreating. And that is from satellite photos on all the continents.
Retreating Glaciers: Nature's Warning by VK Joshi



Kulkarni and his co-researchers selected Baspa, Parbati and Chenab basins as their area of study. They state to have monitored 466 glaciers in these basins from 1962 onwards with the help of remote sensing data. In addition they undertook expeditions to Chota Shigri, Patsio and Samundar Tapu glaciers in Chenab basin; Parbati glacier in Parbati basin and Shaune Garang glacier in Baspa basin.

Based on their data they have claimed that the glaciers studied have shown a reduction in area from 2077 sq. km. in 1962 to 1628 sq. km. at present. In other words it means an overall deglaciation of 21%. Kulkarni claims that due to heavy melting many glaciers have been defragmented, thereby the number of glaciers have increased, though the total quantity of ice carried by them has reduced. Glaciers with less than one sq. km. area have shown a retreat of more than 38% says Kulkarni.


Now I can post this kind of real research from all the inhabited continents. What can you post to support your position?

Not the facts I was talking about, which proves my point. It's ALL the facts that matter. Try looking into the people who came up with the info, and no, it's not all of the scientific community that agrees, more importantly look into what those who did publish the data have to gain.

What do these melting glaciers have to gain?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

The people publishing the data do.

Did you know that less than half what we recycle is usable, the rest turns into toxic chemicals not to mention all the toxic chemicals and gases created and used during the process. In reality recycling everything except paper is just as bad if not worse for the environment. Also the high cost of recycling has raised taxes in areas where is was mandated, all that money goes to the companies that own the recycling plants instead of helping anything. So yeah, someone does benefit from the scare tactics used here. The more people fear that the sky is falling, the more money they pay the umbrella makers.

 

[Chris]

Not the facts I was talking about, which proves my point. It's ALL the facts that matter. Try looking into the people who came up with the info, and no, it's not all of the scientific community that agrees, more importantly look into what those who did publish the data have to gain.

What do these melting glaciers have to gain?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

The people publishing the data do.

Did you know that less than half what we recycle is usable, the rest turns into toxic chemicals not to mention all the toxic chemicals and gases created and used during the process. In reality recycling everything except paper is just as bad if not worse for the environment. Also the high cost of recycling has raised taxes in areas where is was mandated, all that money goes to the companies that own the recycling plants instead of helping anything. So yeah, someone does benefit from the scare tactics used here. The more people fear that the sky is falling, the more money they pay the umbrella makers.

Absolutely clueless.

 

[KittenKoder]

What do these melting glaciers have to gain?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

The people publishing the data do.

Did you know that less than half what we recycle is usable, the rest turns into toxic chemicals not to mention all the toxic chemicals and gases created and used during the process. In reality recycling everything except paper is just as bad if not worse for the environment. Also the high cost of recycling has raised taxes in areas where is was mandated, all that money goes to the companies that own the recycling plants instead of helping anything. So yeah, someone does benefit from the scare tactics used here. The more people fear that the sky is falling, the more money they pay the umbrella makers.

Absolutely clueless.

Yes, we see that you are though I didn't need to point this out because your own statements have already proven it.

 

[Chris]

The people publishing the data do.

Did you know that less than half what we recycle is usable, the rest turns into toxic chemicals not to mention all the toxic chemicals and gases created and used during the process. In reality recycling everything except paper is just as bad if not worse for the environment. Also the high cost of recycling has raised taxes in areas where is was mandated, all that money goes to the companies that own the recycling plants instead of helping anything. So yeah, someone does benefit from the scare tactics used here. The more people fear that the sky is falling, the more money they pay the umbrella makers.

Absolutely clueless.

Yes, we see that you are though I didn't need to point this out because your own statements have already proven it.

Why are these glaciers melting?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

 

[KittenKoder]

Absolutely clueless.

Yes, we see that you are though I didn't need to point this out because your own statements have already proven it.

Why are these glaciers melting?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

Because that's what nature does ... changes.

The only reason people want to rant and rave about it is because you either have stock in an environut company that's making a fortune on the fear or you have to have something to fight for and just can't find a good cause to fight for. Might I suggest you turn all that fight against ... I don't know ... cancer, diabetes, you know, something that's real.

 

[jreeves]

What mechanism is causing it to warm?

The Sun, you dumb ass. Have you ever heard the term, "Keep it simple, stupid"? Well the Earth and the Sun have been doing it for billions of years.

No, the sun has nothing at all to do with the increase in the warming in at least the last 50 years. We have had solar observatories in orbit for that long, and there has been no increase in the total solar irradiance. So, no increase in solar irradiance, then it has to be another factor.

What other major factor in the Earth's heat budget has changed? Were the Earth totally dependent on just the sun, our planet would be permentanly frozen. Without the CO2 that the atmosphere contains, the average temperature of the Earth's surface would be well below the freezing point of water. However, the earth's atmosphere does contain GHGs, and we enjoy, for the most part, a temperate climate. But, we have changed the control on our heat budget. We have added nearly 40% more CO2 in just over 150 years. And the temperature is climbing as a result.

Have there been other periods in the Earth's history where there was a rapid increase in GHGs? Yes, a number of them. The P-T extinction event, the PETM event in the late Paleocene, early Eocene, that also involve a minor extinction event, are just two of several. So we know what happens when there is a rapid buildup of GHGs in the atmosphere. What we do not know is at what point the process becomes irreversible. But we are on our way to finding out.

When are you becoming a vegan?
If never is the answer, STFU.

 

[Old Rocks]

JR;

When are you becoming a vegan?
If never is the answer, STFU.

When are you going to get a second brain cell?
I can see the answer is never.

 

[jreeves]

JR;

When are you becoming a vegan?
If never is the answer, STFU.

When are you going to get a second brain cell?
I can see the answer is never.

Hypocrite you really don't believe the crap that spews from your mouth. If you did you would personally eliminate 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emmissions.

 

[Meister]

Well, Meister, you have definately made my point.

OK, I've made your point...now you can make my point...if you have the 'nads. I have read....one of my sites...of coarse not yours, because yours is nothing but BS. You cannot prove that the temperature rising is a lagging indicator to the CO2. It could very well be that the temperature rising is primary and the CO2 is a lagging indicator. Which would mean that CO2 would not be the cause, and your religion may very well be nothing more than a cult. Also...if you really look at what man has put in the atmosphere...it ain't that much in percentages, rockhead.

 

[Swoop187]

POZNAN, Poland - 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.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

200808191759 | Global Warming Skeptics Prominently Featured At International Scientific Meeting | / | Energy & Environment

Global Warming Skeptics Prominently Featured At International Scientific Meeting PDF Print E-mail

Indian Scientist Mocks Nobel Prize Award to Gore
August 19, 2008 -- A major international scientific conference prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. The International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Oslo, Norway, from August 4-14.
[The conference was criticized by the activists at RealClimate.org (who apparently are threatened by any challenges to their version of ‘consensus' on global warming science) for being too balanced and allowing skeptical scientists to have a forum. RealClimate's Rasmus E. Benestad lamented on August 19 that the actual scientific debate during the conference "seemed to be a step backwards towards confusion rather than a progress towards resolution." ]

During the Geologic conference, Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia of the Center of Advanced Study in Geology at Punjab University and a visiting scholar of the Geology Department at University of Cincinnati, openly ridiculed former Vice President Al Gore and the UN IPCC's coveted Nobel Peace Prize. [An online video of an August 8, 2008, conference climate change panel has been posted and is a must-see video for anyone desiring healthy scientific debate. See: HERE ]

"I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," Ahluwalia, a fellow of the Geological Society of India, said during a question and answer panel discussion. [Ahluwalia's remarks can be viewed beginning at 22:14 of the online video] - [ Ahluwalia's full bio here: ]

‘Elite IPCC'

Ahluwalia, who has authored numerous scientific studies in the fields of geology and paleontology, referred to the UN climate panel as the "elite IPCC." "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds." [See other critiques of IPCC here: UN IPCC 'a purely political body posing as a scientific institution' - & here: Report Debunks So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming ]

Ahluwalia, a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet (Planet Earth - Earth Sciences for Society) also criticized the promoters of man-made global warming fears for "drawing out exaggerated conclusions" and took the UN to task for failing to allow dissenting voices.

"When I put forward my points in the morning, some IPCC official got up to say that what I was [saying was] ‘nonsense.' See, when we have that sort of attitude, that sort of dogma against a scientific observation that would not actually end up in very, very positive debate. We should maintain our sense of proportion, maintain our sense of objectivity, allow a discussion -- not have fixed mindset about global warming," he said to applause from the members. [Note: Ahluwalia was also joined by another Indian scientist at the conference, see video at 17:18 - In addition, the government of India and several prominent Indian scientists have recently voiced their skepticism about climate change science. See: India Issues Report Challenging Global Warming Fears - July 9, 2008 -

Panel participants at the August 8 debate included skeptical Physicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Centre and Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University, former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council, who has published numerous peer-reviewed papers and is an outspoken dissenter of Gore and the UN IPCC's climate claims.

Prominent scientist Professor Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, was also on hand during the panel's question and answer session.

A Canadian paleoclimatolgist/sedimentary geologist openly dissented from UN IPCC views during the panel's Q & A session. "I think the scientific community is putting way too much faith on these models, especially given the fact that they have not been able to predict 5-day weather forecasts yet and weather systems are simpler than the climate, and every 5 days they have a chance to test the model and improve it," the Canadian scientist said. [ At 43:30 and 44:35 of online video]

"A lot of the predictions made by modelers and models do not match very well to the longer term geologic record and even more scary, most atmospheric scientists are not aware of that," he explained.

‘For how many years must cooling go on?'

Another scientist stood up to a key question about the recent global cooling trend.

"We know temperature goes up and down, we know there is tremendous amount of natural variations, but for how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand -- we politicians and scientists-- that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" the scientist asked to applause from the audience.

97% of the climatologists disagree with you.

So sorry....

Are you that naive, stupid or both?

97% of what?

Let me guess those 650 or so dissenters dont count?

Are you trying to claim their are 60,000 UN recognized climatologists that concur with man made global warming?

No sorry their are 58 people that agree and 650 that dont...

Now with those numbers you can clearly see their is an agenda!

 

[Swoop187]

Yes, we see that you are though I didn't need to point this out because your own statements have already proven it.

Why are these glaciers melting?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

Because that's what nature does ... changes.

The only reason people want to rant and rave about it is because you either have stock in an environut company that's making a fortune on the fear or you have to have something to fight for and just can't find a good cause to fight for. Might I suggest you turn all that fight against ... I don't know ... cancer, diabetes, you know, something that's real.

I agree, however, there are some people who just pathologically loathe man kind.

I'm not going to deny natural climate change but to blame it on man is ridiculous.

What these man made global warming nuts wont tell you is that ONE volcanic eruption spews more poison into the atmosphere then man kind has produced since the industrial revolution.