The goal is not to change the temp but to change how people act.

Ya, they want them to act like cash machines for their enterprises.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.co...&ch=4226724&src=news Here is a video link of one of the Antarctic ice shelf's collapsing. It must be too cold. Or maybe a volcano is erupting under it. Yeah that's it.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf Con Job

On 25 March the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) jointly published a press statement declaring that the Wilkins Ice Shelf “has begun to collapse because of rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica.” I’ve looked at relevant public data and I’m undecided whether this statement was a gross exaggeration, an inept interpretation of the evidence or borderline fraud, because I can see nothing about the collapse to indicate that it was anything but a natural event.

Firstly, there were no other reports of recent collapses in this part of the Antarctic during what the end of the (southern) summer melt period. If climate was the major cause then surely we would have seen other instances of ice shelf disintegration, shelves such as the nearby King George IV shelf or the several shelves along the Bellinghausen Sea just 500km to the west. Secondly and more importantly, there is nothing in the observational data to suggest a dramatic recent change in climatic conditions. The NSIDC/BAS press statement, grandly titled “Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World”, said “In the past 50 years, the western Antarctic Peninsula has experienced the biggest temperature increase on Earth, rising by 0.5 degree Celsius (0.9 degree Fahrenheit) per decade.” By accident or design that press release omitted some very vital details about that increase, details that show the warming to have very minor effect and that the likely cause of recent temperature change is quite natural.

The Wilkins Ice Shelf is located about half way along the western (i.e. Pacific) side of the Antarctic Peninsula, that tongue of land stretching towards South America and reaching latitudes comparable with central Alaska (or for European readers, the Finnish city of Oulu). The NSIDC photographs of the Wilkins Ice Shelf give a clear indication of the normal cycle of events and show a lot about the collapse. The distinct line indicates the natural boundary of thicker pack ice and thinner sea ice. The area indicated as being reformed appears to be part of an old collapse that sea ice has progressively filled. The ice in this region is rougher than the long-term pack ice.

image
Image is for January 15, 2008, prior to the partial break-up. See larger image here

A plausible hypothesis is that wind and wave conditions during the second quarter of 2007 caused internal forces that opened an old weakness in the ice. Perhaps that weakness was caused by undercutting wave action back in 2004 and the sea ice has until now had braced the pack ice. The hypothesis of previous bracing is supported by the press statement, which said “Satellite images indicate that the Wilkins began its collapse on February 28; data revealed that a large iceberg, 41 by 2.5 kilometers (25.5 by 1.5 miles), fell away from the ice shelf’s southwestern front, triggering a runaway disintegration of 405 square kilometers (160 square miles) of the shelf interior”. One collapse apparently triggered another, which is what we’d expect from bracing. This begs the question of when the Wilkins Ice Shelf last lost ice from its southwestern edge and whether the recent collapse was not some kind of “catch up” of natural processes.

There are many possible causes for this loss of ice, which in itself is hardly a momentous and unknown event, but it seems that neither NSIDC nor BAS were inclined to look beyond the reasons that we all recognize as being likely to interest the news media. If NSIDC or BAS have evidence that the ice shelf collapsed due to man-made warming then they need to produce it very quickly. Until that happens I will continue to believe that their great hype about man-made climate change is no more than a con job. It grabbed some brief media attention but now we can go back to observing falling temperatures and a very poor correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide concentration, two factors that unfortunately for many believers threaten to undermine the claims of man-made warming. See full pdf analysis here.

I think we have our eyes on the wrong ball here. Cooling leads to more ice - which reflects sunlight - leading to more cooling. Warming leads to melt - which allows more of the sun's energy to be absorbed - and water vapor in the atmosphere which hold in heat - leads to more warming. Eruptions are the wildcard and reverse the trends sporadically... Then there's the sun's cyclical nature. The way I see it, there will always be either global warming or global cooling regardless of what mankind is doing. The Earth simply doesn't exist in a steady-state condition. Extrapolation of the past data simply isn't very reliable for predicting the future longterm trends.

But we do have pretty solid evidence that the Earth's magnetic field is in the process of getting ready to flip poles; which will very likely leave us unshielded from nasty cosmic rays and charged particles for hundreds of years. It would be a good time to start figuring out what to expect from that flip. At the present time, satellites have to be shut down and fired back up when they pass over the 'south atlantic anamoly' in order to reduce the risk of damage from solar radiation.

Scared yet ? Well I have the answer. Yes ! You can be ecologically responsible and be stylin' at the height of tinfoil fashion with my new cosmic rayshield hat. Available in all sizes at the bargain price of only $19.95. And if you call in the next 10 minutes (cause I can't do this all day) I'll throw in a second cosmic rayshield hat absolutely free (just pay shipping and handling) !

[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 01-23-2009).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I hate it when the truth gets in the way. That's why they do not call it convenient, .

LOL

Weather always has and alway will do strange things. It was a few degrees below 0 last week, and only 15 miles away it was -25* (actual, not windchill). All the huge hurricanes Gorites predicted for last 3 years never materialized. We had a few that were pretty bad, but not on the scale or numbers they predicted. Bad or good weather never happens like clockwork anywhere on earth. Just because it snowed 6" last year on March 10, dont mean get gas for your snow blower on upcoming March 9...

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I guess you missed this? Surprise! There’s an active volcano under Antarctic ice Somewhere in all that reading, I saw one of the authors of your previously mentioned paper admit that the warming is coming from below the ice (volcanic/geothermal) rather than above (air/AGW). I'm trying to find it.

Yeah, keep trying.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Yeah, keep trying.

CT, what the hell is your problem? I read about this stuff every day. I've been doing so for well over a year. I read the latest studies. I'm getting to know a LOT about this subject. If you don't want to see the evidence, then just say so. Just tell me you want to believe what you believe, and you don't care to hear anything else. Then I won't bother showing you contrary evidence.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: CT, what the hell is your problem? I read about this stuff every day. I've been doing so for well over a year. I read the latest studies. I'm getting to know a LOT about this subject. If you don't want to see the evidence, then just say so. Just tell me you want to believe what you believe, and you don't care to hear anything else. Then I won't bother showing you contrary evidence.

I know you read about global warming. The problem is, you only look for information that fits the mold for you. You are bolstering your preconceived conclusions, you have no interest in learning WHY the scientific community is in harmony about warming. You are clinging to these few outliers as evidence. Unless these outliers can disprove the work of thousands of scientists then that's all the are, outliers. It just so odd watching people like you. It's as if your life depends on proving their is some giant conspiracy about global warming. I don't get it. I don't understand why you can't let the facts speak for themselves and accept the conclusion of an entire world of people smarter than you and your handful of oddities in the system.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 01-23-2009).]

The science community isn't in harmony about warming. The skeptics aren't outliers and they aren't a handful. There isn't an entire world out there that came to a conclusion. Its funny you would talk about facts and then get so many wrong.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: The science community isn't in harmony about warming. The skeptics aren't outliers and they aren't a handful. There isn't an entire world out there that came to a conclusion. Its funny you would talk about facts and then get so many wrong.

You know what's funny? Is how little you know. You are completely and utterly wrong. But don't let that stop you, keep keeping on brutha.

Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says

http://www.sciencedaily.com.../01/090119210532.htm

ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause.

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 01-23-2009).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I know you read about global warming. The problem is, you only look for information that fits the mold for you. You are bolstering your preconceived conclusions, you have no interest in learning WHY the scientific community is in harmony about warming. You are clinging to these few outliers as evidence. Unless these outliers can disprove the work of thousands of scientists then that's all the are, outliers. It just so odd watching people like you. It's as if your life depends on proving their is some giant conspiracy about global warming. I don't get it. I don't understand why you can't let the facts speak for themselves and accept the conclusion of an entire world of people smarter than you and your handful of oddities in the system.

I came to being a skeptic about global warming for two reasons:

1. Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. That makes me skeptical of anything he says and does, right out the gate
2. When I heard phrases like "The debate is over", "The science is settled" and "scientific consensus", that threw up red flags for me. Science is NOT done by consensus. Your concept of an "outlier opinion" is meaningless. All it takes is ONE so called "outlier", ONE scientist who has a better, provable (technically the term is "falsifiable") theory, and any majority, any opinion of "thousands" of scientists is completely nullified.

As for "the facts speaking for themselves", where do you get that idea? I can show proof that most of the AGW theory is simply WRONG. CO2 doesn't drive temperature. CO2 is up 5% over the last decade, and temperatures are DOWN. Polar bears are NOT "drowning in great numbers", and their populations are stable or growing (there are multiple populations of polar bears), arctic ice is back to normal, antarctic ice is 5% *above* recorded norms...I could go on. And I offer proof, with scientific studies and quotes from climate scientists. I've been doing that for many months in my global warming thread.

Perhaps the better question here is - if I show evidence that disproves the AGW theory or some part of it, why do YOU cling to it so tightly?

Oh, and I found the discussion about Dr. Stieg and the source for heating on the Antarctic Peninsula. From here, comment #24:

This from George E. Smith on WUWT:

Well I read that Paper by Professor Eric Steig of WU. Strangely, although I am a paid up member of AAAS, I was not able to log in and download that “embargoed” paper, so I had to get it from somebody with a top secret clearance.

So I already e-mailed Prof Steig; and first I asked him, given that the West antarctic is warming at over 0.1 deg C per decade; when does he predict it will reach the melting point and start the global flooding by raising the sea.

He replied that he doesn’t make such predictions; but that it would be “many many decades before melting started” My guess was 3000 years.

So then I aksed him how deep down in the ice do the satellite measurements observe the temperature, and how deep in the ice does his 0.1 deg C per decade propagate. He replied that the satellites only measure the very surface temperature; that ice is a very good insulator so the rise doesn’t go very deep. He said that the major heat source of that 6000 feet of ice is warmth from the earth underneath.

In other words, a storm in a teacup. The Prof and his team used 25 years of satellite data, which can roughly cover the whole of Antarctica, and they used ground based but coastal weather station sites that date from OGY in 1957/58 to calibrate the satellite data, so they then extrapolated the coastal measured data over the whole continent.
East Antarctica is still cooling; so no problem there, but west is warming more than East is cooling, so net warm.

Please note that cooling is bounded by 0K or -273.15 C, while warming has no known upper limit.

Also note that EM radiation cooling from Antarctica goes as T^4, so a net increase overall, means that Antarctica increases its pitiful contribution to the cooling of planet earth.

So let’s hear it For a warming Antarctica.

By the Way Prof Steig was very polite, and forthright and sounds like an OK chap to me.

But it still sounds to me like a report that somebody found that a sheet of toilet tissue now absorbs water faster and will sink a little sooner.

Key point from the studies author is that the warming is due to heat from the interior of the Earth - Man Made Global Warming not involved.

George

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I came to being a skeptic about global warming for two reasons: 1. Al Gore is a politician, not a scientist. That makes me skeptical of anything he says and does, right out the gate 2. When I heard phrases like "The debate is over", "The science is settled" and "scientific consensus", that threw up red flags for me. Science is NOT done by consensus. Your concept of an "outlier opinion" is meaningless. All it takes is ONE so called "outlier", ONE scientist who has a better, provable (technically the term is "falsifiable") theory, and any majority, any opinion of "thousands" of scientists is completely nullified. As for "the facts speaking for themselves", where do you get that idea? I can show proof that most of the AGW theory is simply WRONG. CO2 doesn't drive temperature. CO2 is up 5% over the last decade, and temperatures are DOWN. Polar bears are NOT "drowning in great numbers", and their populations are stable or growing (there are multiple populations of polar bears), arctic ice is back to normal, antarctic ice is 5% *above* recorded norms...I could go on. And I offer proof, with scientific studies and quotes from climate scientists. I've been doing that for many months in my global warming thread. Perhaps the better question here is - if I show evidence that disproves the AGW theory or some part of it, why do YOU cling to it so tightly? Oh, and I found the discussion about Dr. Stieg and the source for heating on the Antarctic Peninsula. From here, comment #24: This from George E. Smith on WUWT: Well I read that Paper by Professor Eric Steig of WU. Strangely, although I am a paid up member of AAAS, I was not able to log in and download that “embargoed” paper, so I had to get it from somebody with a top secret clearance. So I already e-mailed Prof Steig; and first I asked him, given that the West antarctic is warming at over 0.1 deg C per decade; when does he predict it will reach the melting point and start the global flooding by raising the sea. He replied that he doesn’t make such predictions; but that it would be “many many decades before melting started” My guess was 3000 years. So then I aksed him how deep down in the ice do the satellite measurements observe the temperature, and how deep in the ice does his 0.1 deg C per decade propagate. He replied that the satellites only measure the very surface temperature; that ice is a very good insulator so the rise doesn’t go very deep. He said that the major heat source of that 6000 feet of ice is warmth from the earth underneath. In other words, a storm in a teacup. The Prof and his team used 25 years of satellite data, which can roughly cover the whole of Antarctica, and they used ground based but coastal weather station sites that date from OGY in 1957/58 to calibrate the satellite data, so they then extrapolated the coastal measured data over the whole continent. East Antarctica is still cooling; so no problem there, but west is warming more than East is cooling, so net warm. Please note that cooling is bounded by 0K or -273.15 C, while warming has no known upper limit. Also note that EM radiation cooling from Antarctica goes as T^4, so a net increase overall, means that Antarctica increases its pitiful contribution to the cooling of planet earth. So let’s hear it For a warming Antarctica. By the Way Prof Steig was very polite, and forthright and sounds like an OK chap to me. But it still sounds to me like a report that somebody found that a sheet of toilet tissue now absorbs water faster and will sink a little sooner. Key point from the studies author is that the warming is due to heat from the interior of the Earth - Man Made Global Warming not involved. George

You are confusing skepticism with proof. There are thousands of scientists working on this issue, and 97% of them say you are wrong.

But ... its your preconcieved notion because Gore and his cronies are right and everyone else is wrong. Ive seen many more scientists just as reputable that say Goreites are full of it.

The solution is you believe we are causing it and rest of us believe were not.. Going to have to wait for 25 years to see who was right. Since none of Gores predictions have so far come to pass, even remotely, Im going with hes dumber than a brick crowd myself. I will admit hes not 'completely' stupid. Look at the money him and his doomsayers are getting out of it. Just some of his crowds ideas ....put white blankets on poles/Greenland so they wont melt, put satellites up with huge mirrors/reflectors to shade the earth...pullllezzzeee. Why dont they just have everyone leave their ACs on max 24/7 ...that will cool the planet down right........

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: You are confusing skepticism with proof. There are thousands of scientists working on this issue, and 97% of them say you are wrong.

Connecticut, it's hard to take your arguments seriously when you make things up and exaggerate.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: You know what's funny? Is how little you know. You are completely and utterly wrong. But don't let that stop you, keep keeping on brutha. Scientists Agree Human-induced Global Warming Is Real, Survey Says http://www.sciencedaily.com.../01/090119210532.htm ScienceDaily (Jan. 21, 2009) — While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause. Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming. "The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon." He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists. "They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it." Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

I'm not wrong at all. Thousands of real scientists ( and actual facts ) have shown man made global warming to be a scam. But then again you were the one who said it is so warm in New England that species of plants can no longer grow there. There is plenty of debate. There is plenty of skeptics. There is plenty of evidence that shows the IPCC and Gore are wrong.

Maybe you will believe the democrat scientists? Or do they need to make fake movies?

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I don't understand why you can't let the facts speak for themselves and accept the conclusion of an entire world of people smarter than you and your handful of oddities in the system.

The people he is quoting are smarter than you, so why should your opinion carry any more weight than his.
Have you ever posted an opinion that contradicts what you believe?

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: But ... its your preconcieved notion because Gore and his cronies are right and everyone else is wrong. Ive seen many more scientists just as reputable that say Goreites are full of it. The solution is you believe we are causing it and rest of us believe were not.. Going to have to wait for 25 years to see who was right. Since none of Gores predictions have so far come to pass, even remotely, Im going with hes dumber than a brick crowd myself. I will admit hes not 'completely' stupid. Look at the money him and his doomsayers are getting out of it. Just some of his crowds ideas ....put white blankets on poles/Greenland so they wont melt, put satellites up with huge mirrors/reflectors to shade the earth...pullllezzzeee. Why dont they just have everyone leave their ACs on max 24/7 ...that will cool the planet down right........

I don't get the hostility. Just because Gore is active on the subject that doesn't discount the science. And even if Gore is a total clown in your eyes, how in the hell does that disprove thousands of climatologists work that have nothing to do with Gore. It's just plain stupid. And for crying out loud stop repeating this idea of disagreement in the science community, there will always be skeptics in any field, **** some people still think we never went to the moon. The reality is the consensus is there, and it's overwhelming. We are at the point of of near TOTAL acceptance, just because somebody can get on TV or has a bachelors from state college in predicting tomorrows weather that doesn't make them an expert on climate science..

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I don't get the hostility. Just because Gore is active on the subject that doesn't discount the science. And even if Gore is a total clown in your eyes, how in the hell does that disprove thousands of climatologists work that have nothing to do with Gore. It's just plain stupid. And for crying out loud stop repeating this idea of disagreement in the science community, there will always be skeptics in any field, **** some people still think we never went to the moon. The reality is the consensus is there, and it's overwhelming. We are at the point of of near TOTAL acceptance, just because somebody can get on TV or has a bachelors from state college in predicting tomorrows weather that doesn't make them an expert on climate science..

No the science discounts the science. The reality is there is no consensus and its not overwhelming.

http://www.populartechnolog...-global-warming.html
http://www.nationalpost.com...2c-b6d1-5c755457a8af
http://www.salon.com/news/f...bal_warming_deniers/
http://theanchoressonline.c...s-on-global-warming/


You are just like Gore. You think if you keep saying something it will become true.

[This message has been edited by Phranc (edited 01-23-2009).]

quote Originally posted by partfiero: The people he is quoting are smarter than you, so why should your opinion carry any more weight than his. Have you ever posted an opinion that contradicts what you believe?

Because this has nothing to do with my or his opinion. It's about the research of climatologists. It's OK to disagree, and there's nothing wrong with believing what you believe. But you better be prepared to be confronted if you publicly express that opinion OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, especially when you do it with hostility or with skewed statements about disagreement in the scientific community. As far as climate science is concerned, there is no meaningful disagreement. Simply, run of the mill outliers.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Laughable, go up a few posts and read the statistics on climatologists.

97% is BS.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: No the science discounts the science. The reality is there is no consensus and its not overwhelming. http://www.populartechnolog...-global-warming.html http://www.nationalpost.com...2c-b6d1-5c755457a8af http://www.salon.com/news/f...bal_warming_deniers/ http://theanchoressonline.c...s-on-global-warming/ You are just like Gore. You think if you keep saying something it will become true.

Wrong. It's pretty simple math. 97%

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Wrong. It's pretty simple math. 97%

Yes it is wrong that 97% is the number of scientists.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: 97% is BS.

Right. Saying something is BS certainly makes it so. You're a genius.

Maybe you should try finding an up to date reputable source showing the opposite of the one I quoted, ......... surveying CLIMATOLOGISTS.

You'll both find climatologists who rebuke eachothers findings.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Right. Saying something is BS certainly makes it so. You're a genius. Maybe you should try finding an up to date reputable source showing the opposite of the one I quoted, ......... surveying CLIMATOLOGISTS.

http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.petitionproject....ions_Of_Signers.html
http://sepp.org/policy%20de...idelberg_appeal.html
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/
http://epw.senate.gov/publi...ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
http://www.globalwarminghea...icle.cfm?artId=21977

Hows that for a start since you aren't capable of following links. Now in your true to form liberal hackery dismiss the source again, the skeptics as crack pots, and the scientists and not experts. Its what people like and Gore do. You demonize all dissent and dismiss them as unimportant. It isn't a new tactic for people like you.

You should go back to telling us all what Obama really meant to say since you don't have much to stand on here.
So what species of plant was it that can no longer grow in New England like you claimed? You never did answer that question last time you brought it up.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I don't get the hostility. Just because Gore is active on the subject that doesn't discount the science.

Look at how much money Gore makes on the carbon credit swindle. The more people who believe him the more he makes. People -**cough** gore **coughcough**- will make up a lot of bs to "earn" that much. Follow the money.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: You'll both find climatologists who rebuke eachothers findings.

Yup and some are using real world data while others are going off of cherry picked data from the IPCC and Hansen and following computer models that are so bad its an affront to science.

The global warming crowd have actually resorted to making things up when all their predictions never see fruition. Not that they weren't making things up before just doing it even more now.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: You'll both find climatologists who rebuke eachothers findings.

That infers that for every article written by a climatologist, there is a disagreeing article written by a climatologist. That's not the case at all.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: None of those are an answer to my post. They are links. They are all against global warming. But they are nowhere near proof of disagreement of global warming within the climate science community. It's true there are people who don't agree, but that is NOT the same as disproving consensus. There IS overwhelming consensus on GW with the both the larger scientific community and more importantly near total consensus among the climate science community.

Um those links go to petitions signed by deserters and other applicable sites. If people disagree that does prove there is no consensus. It is not a near total consensus, many thousands disagree, many of them are in the forefront of their fields. But you don't want to be honest about it.

What species of plant no longer grows in New England because its to hot?

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: None of those are an answer to my post. They are links. They are all against global warming. But they are nowhere near proof of disagreement of global warming within the climate science community. It's true there are people who don't agree, but that is NOT the same as disproving consensus. .

Wow, a lot of the links to where scientists talk about their doubt that it is caused by man are no longer available. A little cover up action going on?
Here are some quickies

http://www.populartechnolog...-global-warming.html

http://www.nationalcenter.o...matologists1097.html

http://current.com/items/89...e_global_warming.htm


"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-23-2009).]

so - how many "climatologists" would be employeed if they did NOT agree to the pony show?

or, maybe while we are at it, we can look for athiest preachers......

and - next - while we be having so much fun with these guys: how's about a actual fix? how much CO2 must be removed? when are we allowed to breath again? and what shall we use to replace fire?

if you believe ANY of that Al Gore stuff - you must also beleive we are ALREADY over the edge. which means reducing greenhouse gas output is not enough. we must not only ELIMINATE greenhouse gas output, we must in fact scrub off greenhouse gases. is that possible? how long can you NOT heat/cool your home, cook, drive, and, of course, breath.

what is being asked is actually impossible. what these people are asking is much like trying to stop a train with a toothpick. actually even lamer than that. more like everyone bailing out the Titanic with a shared thimble. and, that is if you actually beleive Al Gore.

have any of you actually watched "An Inconvienant Truth"? did you know, based on that movie, that we should be dead already? being none of us are living in an apocolyptic hell, what might be wrong? maybe that data used in that movie?

but, anyways - back to the opening statement:
so - how many "climatologists" would be employeed if they did NOT agree to the pony show?

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: You don't need alot of heat for storms. I know a lot of guys on the forum have never experienced a Canadian blizzard. Winds can hit 100mph driving snow with them.

How do you think blizzards get started? Do they run on baby farts? j/k

Storms (of all kinds) are a heat engine. Without heat, there would be no storms and there would be no wind. Movement of heat is what fuels our planet's weather.

quote Originally posted by Phranc: Um those links go to petitions signed by deserters and other applicable sites. If people disagree that does prove there is no consensus. It is not a near total consensus, many thousands disagree, many of them are in the forefront of their fields. But you don't want to be honest about it.

No again, you are wrong. Consensus is:

Definition:

The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field.

Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that:

* all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress,
* the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.

Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".

But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is lacking, the best choice is to rely on the Consensus.

quote Originally posted by Phranc:What species of plant no longer grows in New England because its to hot?

WARMING IS FOUND TO DISRUPT SPECIES

http://query.nytimes.com/gs...=&spon=&pagewanted=2

"By comparison, the world took some 18,000 years to climb out of the depths of the last ice age and warm some five to nine degrees to current conditions.

''If we're already seeing such dramatic changes'' among species, ''it's really pretty frightening to think what we might see in the next 100 years,'' said Dr. Terry L. Root, an ecologist at Stanford University who was the lead author of one of the new studies.

The two teams of researchers used different statistical methods to analyze data on hundreds of species, focusing mainly on plants and animals that have been carefully studied for many decades, like trees, butterflies and birds. Both teams found, with very high certainty, a clear ecological effect of rising temperatures.

Several of the researchers said the effects of other, simultaneous human actions, like urban expansion and the introduction of invasive species, could greatly amplify the effects of climate change.

For example, the quino checkerspot butterfly, an endangered species with a small range in northern Mexico and Southern California, is being pushed out of Mexico by higher temperatures while also being pushed south by growing suburban sprawl around Los Angeles and San Diego, Dr. Parmesan said. "


Plants and Animals Move as Climate Warms

By Andrea Thompson, Senior Writer

posted: 12 August 2008 12:39 pm ET

http://www.livescience.com/...812-birds-north.html
Climate change has shifted the boundaries of plant and animal habitats, with some birds in the United States extending their boundaries northward and trees moving farther up mountains, new studies show.

Between 2000 and 2005, New York state's Department of Environmental Conservation had thousands of volunteers all over the state observe and report the birds they could identify, creating a Breeding Bird Atlas of the various species' breeding ranges.

Researchers at the State University of New York (SUNY) compared this atlas to another one conducted between 1980 and 1985 for 83 species of birds that traditionally have bred in New York and found that many had extended their range boundaries northward, some by as many as 40 miles (64 kilometers).

"But the real signal came out with some of the northerly species that are more common in Canada and the northern part of the U.S.," said Benjamin Zuckerberg, a Ph.D. student at SUNY. "Their southern range boundaries are actually moving northward as well, at a much faster clip."

Some of the species making this southern boundary shift are the Nashville warbler, a little bird with a yellow belly; the pine siskin, a common finch that resembles a sparrow; and the red-bellied woodpecker, considered the most common woodpecker in the Southeast.

The shifts, announced today, are occurring in a relatively short amount of time, the researchers also pointed out, happening in a matter of decades. These changes are also consistent with the predictions of regional warming, they added.

Warming is also forcing some mountain plant species to adapt by moving to higher altitudes as it kills them in their traditional ranges. In Southern California, for example, warming temperatures and longer dry spells have killed thousands of tree and plants, while pushing their habitats an average of 213 feet up the Santa Rosa Mountains over the past 30 years, according to a new study detailed in the Aug. 11 issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.ucar.edu/news/fe...hange/ecosystems.jsp

Warmer winter nights and fewer cold snaps in New England have helped reduce yields of maple syrup. This climate-related decline is one of several factors involved in shifting syrup production from the United States to Canada over the last 40 to 50 years.

New England’s climate will no longer support maple trees by later this century, according to the U.S. National Assessment of climate

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: How do you think blizzards get started? Do they run on baby farts? j/k Storms (of all kinds) are a heat engine. Without heat, there would be no storms and there would be no wind. Movement of heat is what fuels our planet's weather.

But you offer no proof that we are causing this, and that is the debate.
Are you so sure that man is to blame that you are willing to have your life totally controlled, and taxed through the nose.
If not don't wish it on others.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: " - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard Conservative. NOT a climatologist.

And that invalidates his statement about science and consensus how exactly?

That's right it doesn't. You attempt to discredit him is pathetic and not a surprise.

What was the species of plant that no longer grows in New England because its to hot?

quote Originally posted by partfiero: But you offer no proof that we are causing this, and that is the debate. Are you so sure that man is to blame that you are willing to have your life totally controlled, and taxed through the nose. If not don't wish it on others.

A. It's not up to him to prove GW. That has been done by climatologists.

B. You are exposing yourself as to the reasons why you don't believe GW. It's not about the science for you, that's obvious.

C. Admitting GW is real and it's anthropogenic does not equal "you are willing to have your life totally controlled, and taxed through the nose.
If not don't wish it on others."