quote Originally posted by Phranc: 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?

No it doesn't invalidate his statement, just helps understand where he is coming from. And to answer your question, go up a few posts. .

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: No it doesn't invalidate his statement, just helps understand where he is coming from. And to answer your question, go up a few posts. .

Yes he is coming from a position of a scientist. So why bring it up other then a failed attempt to smear him as a conservative. Like I said, pathetic. When the truth isn't in your favour go for the ad-hom attack.

I looked and didn't see the exact species of plant that no longer grows in New England because its to hot. Maybe you can just give me the simple answer to the simple question.

It's been much hotter in the past......it has been much colder in the past.....it did all this without our help. Humanity is always trying to prove that it is more important than it really is. The man made GW argument is just another example of this. You connecticut are not as important as you think you are, accept it.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: 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."

I do not KNOW either way, and neither do you. This is why I will not fall in line at this point.
As long as there is debate, and there is, let them sort it out before they start issuing taxes and controls that will effect everyone's life.
For you or anyone on the other side of the issue to believe case closed, has a closed mind.
And keep in mind that much of the rest of the world is not sold to the point that they are willing to live an altered life, let alone pay through the nose to fix it, if it is fixable.
If the biggest polluter, China say to stick it, what we start a war with them so we can control their people. Tell us in your wisdom how the world will be controlled so every one conforms.
I do not want a rose shoved up my a$$ so I smell good while the rest of the world's rear end still smell like $hit.

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

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I do not KNOW either way, and neither do you. This is why I will not fall in line at this point. As long as there is debate, and there is, let them sort it out before they start issuing taxes and controls that will effect everyone's life. For you or anyone on the other side of the issue to believe case closed, has a closed mind. And keep in mind that much of the rest of the world is not sold to the point that they are willing to live an altered life, let alone pay through the nose to fix it, if it is fixable. If the biggest polluter, China say to stick it, what we start a war with them so we can control their people. Tell us in your wisdom how the world will be controlled so every one conforms. I do not want a rose shoved up my a$$ so I smell good while the rest of the world's rear end still smell like $hit.

yup. this is how it should be seen. because it is true: noone KNOWS.
and, like abortion - this has no actual place in politics. NONE. it is a personal opinion. those who do use this as a political prybar are not to be trusted. on both sides. They will smear crap in your eyes, and try and take your hand to their dark side. There is tons of good info and tons of bad info out there.

all this has happened before, and will happen again

and, those who do fear the CO2 - why the heck have you not built the little solar powered bubblers and send them into the seas? feed the algea. more important to sit and cry? or
to actually do something? if y'all had started this when they were deisgned, we could have a entire oxygen farm floating the pacific RIGHT NOW. but no...lets sit and cry.....

anyways - again - NOONE KNOWS. and, to base any public policy on this - one way or another - is foolish. this is NOT to imply we should abandon pollution controls. that is a completely different issue. pollution & global warming are NOT the same thing. CO2 is a important, and useful gas. we die without it. we are a carbon based lifeform. carbon is good. pollution is poisons, particulates, litter, etc. has NOTHING to do with global warming.

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

You seem to be discrediting everything you write on thsi forum proving it is tainted by you only agreeing with Democrats.

Also, do you believe humans cause climate change?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: I don't agree that it is at all like abortion, as abortion is a moral issue based in right and wrong. Climate change whether it exists or not, and whether we cause it is not a moral issue. I don't want to HIjack but wanted to point that out.

yes - but it has no answer - that is what I meant.

I wish it was warmer here. My heating bills are high.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: A. It's not up to him to prove GW. That has been done by climatologists.

Uh...yes it is, if he wants me to cough-up trillions in tax dollars to "fix it"

------------------
"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem." - Al Gore - May 9, 2006

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: 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 was a phenomenal post and highly instructive and I appreciate you posting it.

It is a GREAT glimpse into preconceived bias.


First of all, look at the very first question. It was SUPPOSED to be a "slam dunk" question. Are mean global temperatures higher than 1800. What is instructive here is that it wasn't 100% yes. On that very basic question, only 90% even said, yes, that's right. So they start with a slam dunk question and lose 10% right off the bat.

Second, they ask a VAGUE question. Has human activity been A, SIGNIFICANT factor. How significant? Kind of? Very? THE signficant answer? These are supposed to be SCIENTISTS. They are supposed to be interested in gathering PRECISE information. When SCIENTISTS ask vague, imprecise questions they are either stupid (which CAN'T be. They ARE scientists, after all. I mean, look at all their DEGREES!) or they are INTENTIONALLY asking a vague question to beg a certain answer. You make the call. Stupid or intentionally biased.


Well, yeah, but 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS believe it. No kidding. They are a field of study. They have their "models". They train each other. Of COURSE they have a consensus.

But the explanation to explain away that fact is what takes the cake:

"...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..."


UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES AND SCIENTIFIC BASIS!

Yeah. A lowly petroleum geologist, well, there is just NO WAY they are going to be smart enough to handle the NUANCES AND SCIENTIFIC basis of climatology. No way. It is WAY above them.

And don't even get me STARTED about METEOROLOGISTS. Those morons? They could never understand OUR stuff. It has too much NUANCE.

NUANCE!!!!! LOL!!! Duh. I can't even handle the FUNDAMENTALS of climatology, much less the NUANCE. Ha! It is hard for you to diss me when you are cracking me up.


Here is what their sentence SHOULD have said, to be open and honest:

So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science AS WE DEFINE IT AND MODEL IT, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Well, yeah. You don't get to BE a climatologist unless you bow down and accept their model. And they have proclaimed their models as established fact that is beyond question. OF COURSE 97% are going to agree. I can't believe 3% had the courage to stand up to that.

Groups of people that DON'T have to bow down to the climatology preconceived biased model, less than half go for their conclusions.


So connecticutFiero, I don't ask you to answer whatsoever for the article. You didn't write it. And you didn't do the study. My argument isn't with you or with even this particular issue. You could substitute ANY cause. But this study and article is SO riddled with bias from the outset, it is a classic explanation of the "majority of scientists" issue.

Frontal Lobe you missed the obvious. If everything you read was true, then Al Gore's movie would be true. The fact is that any general statement by GW enthusiasts is likely propaganda. We see enough actual scientific data from scientific sources posted here to know that the quote posted byconnecticutFIERO falls into that category. Something like me saying something to rebut a general statement being the uneducated fellow that I am.

Here is a clue. Is there such a thing as a "petroleum meterologist"? Doesn't make sense to me, unless Sun Oil company hires their own in house meteorogist instead of using the US weather service like everybody else. And why would a climatologist seek counsel with a geologist? Geologists interpret soil and rock but, can only give information about that not weather patterns.

Further, geologists can tell you if there used to be a lake in Alberta or North Dakota, but they can't tell you how cold it was 20 years ago.

It simply amazes me that people choose to believe a biassed statement as a basis in fact instead of reading the facts.

ARn

Hopefully Conn when you come back you will reply to some of the responses, I'd like to see that rather than what seems sometimes to be that responses were ignored and off to the next point as if no one responded. Though I will admit you are out numbered.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Though I will admit you are out numbered.

Not outnumbered by me, though. I only brought up one point about one article. I'm not trying to gang up on you (not accusing of others trying to gang up on him, either.)

BBC made a movie to counter Gores...also with thousands of scientists in agreement. If I remember right, somehow it wasnt 'allowed' to be aired in the US. I had to watch the whole 90 minute documentary online. They showed all the points Gorites made to be false or twisted to fit their idea. They even listed scientists Gorites said backed up their facts when in reality a lot of those same scientists said he fraudently used their names. All you had to do to be on Gores pro list was answer a question he asked whether or not you agreed. It then appeared you were in agreement when you werent...or totally opposite.

The single most thing that stands out to me was the ads about how all the polar bears were being stranded and drowned out to sea when ice prematurely melted. Remember the videos on tv of those poor bears. Well the woman who shot that very footage made her life work studying polar bears. She was on tv at the time telling how she took the video watching the bears do what they do...play on ice floating out to sea. She filmed them, watched them swim back to shore and was furious that Gorites used it, even considered sueing them for using her footage. I still see a commercial with it occasionally on tv, and get madder everytime since I know the true story. They downright LIED...end of story. Thats what they do, LIE to scare you into whatever they want. They didnt twist facts, didnt incenuate....just outright LIED.

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

Thats the WWF Noah Whiley ad with the polar bears. Even the WWF will admit that the numbers of polar bears are not shrinking as a whole. You just have to hunt for it in their website.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: BBC made a movie to counter Gores...also with thousands of scientists in agreement. If I remember right, somehow it wasnt 'allowed' to be aired in the US. I had to watch the whole 90 minute documentary online. They showed all the points Gorites made to be false or twisted to fit their idea. They even listed scientists Gorites said backed up their facts when in reality a lot of those same scientists said he fraudently used their names. All you had to do to be on Gores pro list was answer a question he asked whether or not you agreed. It then appeared you were in agreement when you werent...or totally opposite. The single most thing that stands out to me was the ads about how all the polar bears were being stranded and drowned out to sea when ice prematurely melted. Remember the videos on tv of those poor bears. Well the woman who shot that very footage made her life work studying polar bears. She was on tv at the time telling how she took the video watching the bears do what they do...play on ice floating out to sea. She filmed them, watched them swim back to shore and was furious that Gorites used it, even considered sueing them for using her footage. I still see a commercial with it occasionally on tv, and get madder everytime since I know the true story. They downright LIED...end of story. Thats what they do, LIE to scare you into whatever they want. They didnt twist facts, didnt incenuate....just outright LIED.

Thank you for posting that.

Polar bears are not endagered. And that picture Gore used? It's a lie.

Australian TV Exposes 'Stranded Polar Bear' Global Warming Hoax

I think it's ironic (and not in a good way) that Al Gore has a Nobel Prize, but Stephen Hawking doesn't. But that's the type of thing that happens when science becomes politicized.

I laugh when people lament the species being impacted by climate change. I wonder how many species died out when the first ice ages hit, about 3 million years ago? Most people don't know that the ice caps on the poles are relatively recent (geologically speaking) phenomena on planet Earth. But since the whole of human evolution occurred during this short period in history, we accept it as the norm.

The basic underlying message that I get from the global warming fanatics is that they fear change. While it's perfectly normal to fear change, I don't think you should make a science out of it.

Conservatives do not win Nobel Prizes, nor will the ACLU defend conservative causes... two undeniable truths.

Antarctic Warming? Part 2 - A letter from a meteorologist on the ground in Antarctica

Think that Wilkins Ice Shelf thing is a problem? Read this to put things into perspective.

Naw, cant be...Gorites will tell you he's not 'really' a scientist and therefore has no idea what hes talking about.

They're just po'd about the 2000 election--still.

This global warming thing is starting to scare me.
This morning we had Tulare Fog roll in (CA guys know) and we never have that. Quick get Al and and his camera crew before it burns off.
The weird part was I thought I saw "Big Foot" in the mist.
But when I went to investigate, it turns out to be a polar bear looking for a glacier.
Their southern winter migration has brought them much further south this year, melting ice caps you know.

FYI: it's "tule" fog. Although it frequently happens around Tulare county!

quote Originally posted by fierobear: FYI: it's "tule" fog. Although it frequently happens around Tulare county!

I know that, I am from CA. LOL Did not know tule was only a term known to CA citizens.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I know that, I am from CA. LOL Did not know tule was only a term known to CA citizens.

Ah yes, Tule fog, good old 100 car pile-ups galore. It's been a while since we had one actually. I guess we can thank Al Gore for that too.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 01-24-2009).]

Because the central valley acts like a big bowl, cold air gets trapped at the surface and can leave that tule fog in place for day or weeks at a time. Warmer air sits on top of it, holding it in. It's interesting flying over that stuff. The temperature can be in the 60s or 70s just above the fog layer, and go down to the 50s and 40s in it.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Ah yes, Tule fog, good old 100 car pile-ups galore. It's been a while since we had one actually. I guess we can thank Al Gore for that too.

My grandfather coined the term "Tule Fog" Back in 55 when he, my father and I went to visit my grandmothers grave in Visalia.
Her maiden name was Nolan.
My dad was driving the new Crown Victoria hard top that my grandpa had just bought with the life insurance money he got.
My grandmother totaled the family car and got killed while driving in the Tulare fog.
When we hit the fog my dad sad, "this is truly some fog". To which my grandpa said, "this is not truly fog, this is "Tule fog", and if you don't slow down we all will be "Tule gone for good", just like your mother".

We get some pretty good fog up here too. Currently there are mornings with ice fog. This is caused by really cold air over warmer snow. Happens alot further north.

Of course I've not seen worse fog than in Prince Edward County on the Island of Quinte. I have driven in fog there that was so thick I could not see more than 1 car length with the headlights on. Yellow driving glasses also helped some. I drove by rolling down the window and looking into the ditch, or at the center line right beside the car. Everybody in the area knew that you just don't stop in fog. It was a wonder people weren't killed frequently. Now that I am "mature" age, I just don't like fog at all and won't drive in it unless I have to.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: We get some pretty good fog up here too. Currently there are mornings with ice fog. This is caused by really cold air over warmer snow. Happens alot further north. Of course I've not seen worse fog than in Prince Edward County on the Island of Quinte. I have driven in fog there that was so thick I could not see more than 1 car length with the headlights on. Yellow driving glasses also helped some. I drove by rolling down the window and looking into the ditch, or at the center line right beside the car. Everybody in the area knew that you just don't stop in fog. It was a wonder people weren't killed frequently. Now that I am "mature" age, I just don't like fog at all and won't drive in it unless I have to. Arn

The Tule fog gets so thick you can't see your hood ornament.

hmmm..... global warming..... the human race is doing it.... let's create a tax system on carbon emissions to stop people from hurting the earth.... yeah carbon credits, I'll put money into a system that has no product but creates money for me....

This is what i get out of Al Gore and his followers when ever they speak. Carbon taxation is like taxing the sunlight (you pay a tax for each window you have on your house, a king did that in England centuries ago). The reason Al Gore is toting his horn so much is that if the carbon credits system is allowed to happen he will make millions a year for something that is really frivolous.

The earth natural cycle has a greater effect on the mean temperature that the human race has ever done collectively (add all the pollution up from the dawn of the human race).

Volcano put more harmful emissions than we can. Forests are dying around mammoth mountain right now because of the CO2 emissions from volcano vents. Where have you seen a whole forests dye off by the average emissions of man? More than likely you'll probably quote man caused forest fires, deforestation or even acid ran. most acid rain has been experienced after an volcanic eruption or by the algae in the north sea feeding off of fertilizer run off from farmland.

All I have to say is that CO2 is a heavier gas than O2 and if we were producing so much to effect the mean temperature of the earth then we would be dead right now from asphyxiation.

Do the human race affect the local climate? Yes, all the concrete and asphalt absorb heat as insulators and release it over time.

I have experienced it here in AZ in the summer. In the early evening of 100+ degree days, when i get out of the populated areas of the phoenix metro on the way home, there are pockets of 20 degree cooler air from the fields next to the road. then i pass a group of homes or a farm the air warms back up until i pass it and i'm in the cooler air again. Having no A/C and the windows open you'll see.

Is this bad? Depends on the point of view. If we can build things that reflected heat instead of adsorbing it would be a start but at what cost to you as a consumer? I haven't tried to drive on a mirror before but it has to be like driving on ice. I'll take local climate affect as a price to live and work where you want to. No matter how much you try to stop climate affect think about this at rest your body puts the same amount of heat as a 100w light bulb. To be comfortable in the summer and keep your food cool there has to be heat transfer (today's technology a/c). Unless you insulate your home to R30+ and seal it, your home will heat the outside air during winter. With that the air inside your home is sure going to be stale and unhealthy in a short period of time.

As stated before in this thread, a politician who promotes a theory is not to be trusted for they are in it for their own interests (getting paid (Al Gore)) not the interests of the greater good. I do not want to live like a caveman because of some political hack who does want to face the fact that climate change is a factor we can not control or use it as a weapon of changing our country into the soviet union since they are the same ones who believe that we as a people do not know what is good for us.

Sorry for going a little astray but i wanted to put my 2 cents in.

Here is an excellent article titled "Scare Watch: 'Arctic warming is unprecedented". It is too long and complex to reproduce here, including illustrations. It dispels many incorrect notions about alleged warming in the Arctic.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-27-2009).]

I was looking for raw temp data to inform myself about potential 'climate change'. Everywhere I looked the data that I found was 'corrected' or averaged or something. Finally I looked at The Weather Channel. If you drill down a little bit you can get the record high temp and the record low temp for every day of the year and the year in which it occurred. I'm thinking that since the data goes back like 100 years that if there is a trend I should be able to see it.

What I did was look up the record high and low for each day of the year (except Feb 29). If the record high ocurred in a more recent year than the record low I tallied a 1 in the high column. If the record low ocurred in a more recent year tallied a 1 in the low column. Pretty simple.

Then I added up the tallies. I figured if the results were 10% one way or the other it would mean that things were pretty random. If the differance was greater than 10% it might mean something. All things being equal, because of the "heat island" effect I would expect to see the data skewed a bit toward "highs".

The results were stunning!

More recent highs, 154
More recent lows, 211

The results speak for themselves.

I'd be interested to hear you thoughts. If there is a flaw in my reasoning I can't see it. Perhaps y'all can help me.

------------------
Steve AT 88GTP DOT com
88 GT