Science and Global Warming

[KittenKoder]

Now Kitten, you posted some You Tube sites. Anybody can say anything on You Tube, there are no constraints such as there are in peer reviewed scientific papers. The people in the last post routinely write such papers.

You didn't even watch them.

 

[Chris]

The actual science of global warming is at this link...

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

 

[Old Rocks]

You didn't even watch them.

I watched the first one for about four minutes. The sound quality stank, they spent one minute out of ten needlessly advertising their own nonsense, and the rest of the time, interviewing people who had zero to do with the science of global warming. I do not have time for shit. For that was the quality of that You Tube presentation. If you wish me to go to any site you post after this, make sure it is from a recognized source of information. I don't waste time on idiots.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

It's awesome when internet forum armchair "scientists" chime in about global warming.

They've always got some list off a rightwing blog that claims that tens of thousands of "scientists" have debunked global warming. I've looked at those lists, and the overwhelming, vast majority are people who have bachelors degrees in "botany", economics, public policy, and other pseudo science degrees. The few that have a PhD in the relevant scientific disciplines like physics, atmospheric science, or chemistry, have virtually nothing published in actual reputable peer reviewed scientific journals. None of them are actually doing their own original field, or laboratory scientific research.

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

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' ]

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…

“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.” - 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.”

"Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“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.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“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.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History')

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

source

This is just from the first page.

Also if you think that global warming alarmists are being criticized only by right-wing think tanks and so forth, think again: counterpunch is a hard left website that has dozens of articles exposing Al Gore's ties to the nuclear power industry and to the wall street interests who want to make money trading carbon credits.

 

[Chris]

Once again, here is the actual science, not opinion....

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

 

[editec]

FYI Glacier National Park won't be for much longer.

But hey!, antrhopogenic Global warming was a MYTH according to mostly the same people who are , right now, telling us that there is a vast left wing conspiracy of climatologists trying to make shit up to frighten us.

These fucking people are wrong, have been wrong and will be wrong at long as they're TOLD to be wrong by their corporate fucking masters.

Why do we even bother to listen to them?

Do we NOT REMEMBER that until about five years ago GLOBAL WARMING was, according to the psuedo scienctist nitwits, at least, NOT REALLY HAPPENING?

 

[Caligirl]

FYI Glacier National Park won't be for much longer.

But hey!, antrhopogenic Global warming was a MYTH according to mostly the same people who are , right now, telling us that there is a vast left wing conspiracy of climatologists trying to make shit up to frighten us.

These fucking people are wrong, have been wrong and will be wrong at long as they're TOLD to be wrong by their corporate fucking masters.

Why do we even bother to listen to them?

Well....

Do we NOT REMEMBER that until about five years ago GLOBAL WARMING was, according to the psuedo scienctist nitwits, at least, NOT REALLY HAPPENING?

I think you've answered your own question.

 

[alan1]

FYI Glacier National Park won't be for much longer.

But hey!, antrhopogenic Global warming was a MYTH according to mostly the same people who are , right now, telling us that there is a vast left wing conspiracy of climatologists trying to make shit up to frighten us.

These fucking people are wrong, have been wrong and will be wrong at long as they're TOLD to be wrong by their corporate fucking masters.

Why do we even bother to listen to them?

Do we NOT REMEMBER that until about five years ago GLOBAL WARMING was, according to the psuedo scienctist nitwits, at least, NOT REALLY HAPPENING?

Lets not forget about that impending ice age that was looming over the world in the mid 70's.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

 

[Chris]

Lets not forget about that impending ice age that was looming over the world in the mid 70's.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

Nice deflection.

Now get back to the subject.

 

[alan1]

Nice deflection.

Now get back to the subject.

Sorry, the topic is

Science and Global Warming

My bad for posting science articles about Global Cooling.
I'm so ashamed.

 

[editec]

Lets not forget about that impending ice age that was looming over the world in the mid 70's.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf

I was there and I was an adult when was happening.

If you are under the impression that the above was taken as seriously by scientists worldwide in any way shape or form anything like the current concern of Global warming that is being taken serious by serious scientists, then you have been tragically misinformed.

The ice age theory was an interesting headline and a sunday suppliment at best. It might have made the headlines of a few periodicals for a week or two at best

People read it, and then the whole thing was quickly forgotten or placed into the BIG FOOT, ALIENS ABDUCTED ME AND ATE MY FOOT realm of media poppycock.

The scientific community never rallied around that claim, which is what you are implying, now.

See if you can find tens of thousands of scientists warning us about that impedning ice age you think everyone was frightened of.

I can assure you, you cannot.

I can also assure you that the people bearly noticed that threat because it was a FLASH in PAN headline that had no impact on the public.

 

[alan1]

I was there and I was an adult when was happening.

If you are under the impression that the above was taken as seriously by scientists worldwide in any way shape or form anything like the current concern that Global warming is being taken serious by serious scientists, then you have been tragically misinformed.

The ince age threat was an interesting headline and a sunday suppliment.

People read it, and them the whole thing was quickly forgotten.

The scientific community never rallied around that claim, which is exactly what you are implying now.

Nahh, I'm just pointing out that things are quickly forgotten when the government can't tax you for them. I mean, what was the government going to do, tax you for not increasing your carbon footprint?

 

[editec]

Nahh, I'm just pointing out that things are quickly forgotten when the government can't tax you for them. I mean, what was the government going to do, tax you for not increasing your carbon footprint?

Oh, I see.

And do you think the government really needed to create a myth of global warming just to justify increasing our taxes?

Seems to me that our government has never needed any excuse whatever to increase taxes ...other than they needed it, of course.

 

[alan1]

Oh, I see.

And do you think the government really needed to create a myth of global warming just to justify increasing our taxes?

Seems to me that our government has never needed any excuse whatever to increase taxes ...other than they needed it, of course.

Well, I don't think that global warming is a myth.
In fact, I believe the planet has gone through numerous cycles of warming and cooling. This is just the first time that government has found a way to tax us for it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sorry to disturb all of you with the meanderings of real scientists. Of course dumb ass southern politicians like Inhofe know so much more about climate, adrupt climate change, and the changes we see from climate than these scientists that have only spent their whole live in the study of this kind of science. This is a report from this years American Geophyical Union;



Scientists Sound Alarm on Arctic Melting, "Abrupt" Climate Change at AGU Meeting
by Stacy Feldman - Dec 17th, 2008 in Barack Obama Scientists
Scientists reporting their findings at this week's annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco have an important message for the world: Climate change is happening faster and more extreme than predicted.

NASA, for one, has released new satellite data showing that over two trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted away dramatically since 2003. More than half of that ice loss has come from Greenland. In total, the melt has led to a global sea level rise of about one-fifth of an inch over the past five years.

The researchers used new satellite technology that measures changes in the mass of mountain glaciers and ice sheets. NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke told the AP that the losses amount to enough water to fill the Chesapeake Bay 21 times.

"The ice tells us in a very real way how the climate is changing."


Scientists Sound Alarm on Arctic Melting, "Abrupt" Climate Change at AGU Meeting | SolveClimate.com

 

[alan1]

Sorry to disturb all of you with the meanderings of real scientists. Of course dumb ass southern politicians like Inhofe know so much more about climate, adrupt climate change, and the changes we see from climate than these scientists that have only spent their whole live in the study of this kind of science. This is a report from this years American Geophyical Union;



Scientists Sound Alarm on Arctic Melting, "Abrupt" Climate Change at AGU Meeting
by Stacy Feldman - Dec 17th, 2008 in Barack Obama Scientists
Scientists reporting their findings at this week's annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco have an important message for the world: Climate change is happening faster and more extreme than predicted.

NASA, for one, has released new satellite data showing that over two trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted away dramatically since 2003. More than half of that ice loss has come from Greenland. In total, the melt has led to a global sea level rise of about one-fifth of an inch over the past five years.

The researchers used new satellite technology that measures changes in the mass of mountain glaciers and ice sheets. NASA geophysicist Scott Luthcke told the AP that the losses amount to enough water to fill the Chesapeake Bay 21 times.

"The ice tells us in a very real way how the climate is changing."


Scientists Sound Alarm on Arctic Melting, "Abrupt" Climate Change at AGU Meeting | SolveClimate.com

I'd sure like to know at what point in global history that the climate hasn't changed.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'd sure like to know at what point in global history that the climate hasn't changed.

Now what exactly are you saying with a statement like that? Does rate of change, and a population of 7 billion dependent on stable climate for agriculture ring a bell with you? Sometimes climate change is very slow, with minor variations, such as the last 10,000 years. Sometimes, it is rapid, with major swings, such as the Younger Dryas period when most of the large North American mammals died out, as did the dominent culture of that time in North America, the Clovis Culture.

Tday we are seeing a rapid rise in tempertures. We are also seeing major changes in the ice caps, and the beginning of major feedback in the form of clathrate outgassing of CH4. From prior adrupt climate changes, we know that the climate reacts in a chaotic manner from forcings. There is not a nice linear curve as the climate cools, or warms. Rather, as in the begining and end of the Younger Dryas, the change was done in the period of a decade. Were that to happen today, in either direction, a very high percentage of the worlds population would die as a result of the change in areas where agriculture was possible.

 

[alan1]

Now what exactly are you saying with a statement like that? Does rate of change, and a population of 7 billion dependent on stable climate for agriculture ring a bell with you? Sometimes climate change is very slow, with minor variations, such as the last 10,000 years. Sometimes, it is rapid, with major swings, such as the Younger Dryas period when most of the large North American mammals died out, as did the dominent culture of that time in North America, the Clovis Culture.

Tday we are seeing a rapid rise in tempertures. We are also seeing major changes in the ice caps, and the beginning of major feedback in the form of clathrate outgassing of CH4. From prior adrupt climate changes, we know that the climate reacts in a chaotic manner from forcings. There is not a nice linear curve as the climate cools, or warms. Rather, as in the begining and end of the Younger Dryas, the change was done in the period of a decade. Were that to happen today, in either direction, a very high percentage of the worlds population would die as a result of the change in areas where agriculture was possible.

Actually, the change occurred over 3 decades.
Remember those Global Ice Age articles I posted right here on this very same thread not so long ago?
Seriously, the ego of man to think he can affect the entire planets temperature in such a short time frame is quite entertaining to observe.
It's just as ridiculous as thinking one can pray to god and affect the outcome of something.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, the change occurred over 3 decades.
Remember those Global Ice Age articles I posted right here on this very same thread not so long ago?
Seriously, the ego of man to think he can affect the entire planets temperature in such a short time frame is quite entertaining to observe.
It's just as ridiculous as thinking one can pray to god and affect the outcome of something.

I find willfull ignorance by people such as yourself not at all entertaining. To think that we can add 39% more CO2 to the atmosphere and not have an effect is an extroidenery statement. The science of greenhouse gases has been well established for decades. You really should do something about your very apparent ignorance concerning that science.

 

[alan1]

I find willfull ignorance by people such as yourself not at all entertaining. To think that we can add 39% more CO2 to the atmosphere and not have an effect is an extroidenery statement. The science of greenhouse gases has been well established for decades. You really should do something about your very apparent ignorance concerning that science.

So, what do the 100% of radio waves created by man cause in negative effects to the planet?
Seems that those radio waves (created by man) are roaming about the atmosphere also.
And we all know that cancer rates in humans has increased since radio was invented. There must be a correlation.
Want to buy a tinfoil hat?