Are you implying that I have said or somehow suggested that "I know everything"?
Well not an all knowing everything on every subject but you have claimed to "know" the truth on this subject and some others many times.
Kind of the point of my trying to get you to write the emails to the people who actually are experts in the field of climate. You have an opinion based on what you have read or been told from what I can see, no actual expertise, just opinion. Not that you are not welcome to believe or state any opinion you might have.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-21-2010).]
Newf, the way you diss any information supporting views contrary to your own, and the way you simply dismiss scientific information posted shows that you are in fact the "know it all" on the thread. Fierobear is posting article after article, again and again that shows directly that the whole Global Warming movement is a scam and yet you simply deny or criticize the authors.
Just so you know, the Obama Administration is in bed with Al Gore and the UN IPCC and NASA are all being directed by politicians. The scientists of those organizations know that they are entirely dependent on Government money so they had better produce data that is consistent with policy.
If you go elsewhere, to people like the founder of the Weather Network, or independent meteorologists you find out the truth. If you take the numbers produced by the IPCC and NASA they very often contradict their own positions. Like the CO2 figures, and El Nina treatment. They ignore the fact that the majority of weather stations are in metropolitan areas known to be heat sinks. They ignore the fact that both Australia in the Southern Hemisphere and Europe and North America in the Northern Hemisphere, are experiencing record cold periods and obnoxious levels of snow.
You really have zero credibility sir when compared to Fierobear.
Newf, the way you diss any information supporting views contrary to your own, and the way you simply dismiss scientific information posted shows that you are in fact the "know it all" on the thread. Fierobear is posting article after article, again and again that shows directly that the whole Global Warming movement is a scam and yet you simply deny or criticize the authors.
Just so you know, the Obama Administration is in bed with Al Gore and the UN IPCC and NASA are all being directed by politicians. The scientists of those organizations know that they are entirely dependent on Government money so they had better produce data that is consistent with policy.
If you go elsewhere, to people like the founder of the Weather Network, or independent meteorologists you find out the truth. If you take the numbers produced by the IPCC and NASA they very often contradict their own positions. Like the CO2 figures, and El Nina treatment. They ignore the fact that the majority of weather stations are in metropolitan areas known to be heat sinks. They ignore the fact that both Australia in the Southern Hemisphere and Europe and North America in the Northern Hemisphere, are experiencing record cold periods and obnoxious levels of snow.
You really have zero credibility sir when compared to Fierobear.
Arn
Why would I believe your or FB's elses opinion over the scientists and experts in their field.
You seem to be another know it all that loves to copy and paste from blogs and aimless sites claiming they are the truth but can't seem to back it up when it comes down to it.
WRITE THE EMAILS I POSTED!!! SUBMIT YOUR THEORIES!!! BE A HERO!!!
NO? Well then accept that you have an opinion on the subject like anyone else here. Believe what you want, post want you want but don't get your panties in a bunch if everyone doesn't agree with you.
Make sure you let us know the results of your submitted theories.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-21-2010).]
Just so you know, the Obama Administration is in bed with Al Gore and the UN IPCC and NASA are all being directed by politicians. The scientists of those organizations know that they are entirely dependent on Government money so they had better produce data that is consistent with policy.
If you go elsewhere, to people like the founder of the Weather Network, or independent meteorologists you find out the truth. If you take the numbers produced by the IPCC and NASA they very often contradict their own positions. Like the CO2 figures, and El Nina treatment. They ignore the fact that the majority of weather stations are in metropolitan areas known to be heat sinks. They ignore the fact that both Australia in the Southern Hemisphere and Europe and North America in the Northern Hemisphere, are experiencing record cold periods and obnoxious levels of snow.
Arn
Ahhhh yes, another conspiracy is it?
I suppose you have proof of that too or are the investigators of it so corrupt also that we can only trust the internet bloggers and copy and paste experts?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-21-2010).]
Well not an all knowing everything on every subject but you have claimed to "know" the truth on this subject and some others many times.
Kind of the point of my trying to get you to write the emails to the people who actually are experts in the field of climate. You have an opinion based on what you have read or been told from what I can see, no actual expertise, just opinion. Not that you are not welcome to believe or state any opinion you might have.
Are you going to say the same thing to anyone else on this forum (or on the internet, for that matter) who you don't think is qualified to discuss a subject?
Are you going to say the same thing to anyone else on this forum (or on the internet, for that matter) who you don't think is qualified to discuss a subject?
If they claim to be an expert on a subject that they clearly just have an opinion on while saying others are wrong. Hell yes.
Newf, Fierobear started the thread to talk about the "evidence against anthropogenic global warming". Fierobear is entitled to post whatever information supports that premise. Fierobear has spent hundreds of hours researching and posting relevant information to support the point. I, for one, appreciate the effort.
You on the other hand are behaving like a blatant troll. Your objective appears to not discuss anything. You simply post to disrupt, repudiate and discredit the poster or whomever they quote.
No one has said they are an expert but some do often state opinion, or interpret the facts. However, please don't state that because someone quotes information they've read that they make themselves the expert. You, on the other hand, by dissing people and casting stones at credible scientists set yourself up as the expert.
And to be fair, I cast stones at people on the thread too. And I am no expert. But, after extensive reading of what my betters have written, I can say the evidence shows that Anthropological Global Warming is a scam and is entirely fabricated. That is my belief based on research I have done. You keep quoting the same scammers and liars to support your premise. Maybe you really don't know that they are scamming you but any reasonable person could see that they are.
So you really are swimming up stream here. I recommend you read the posts over, and cherry pick the information you can prove is wrong, and question the things you don't understand. That would be better IMHO.
The AGW skeptics on this thread have said (repeatedly) that climate scientists have predicted weather patterns (like warmer winters across Europe) that are in conflict with the current observed reality. The predictions have not borne out, and so the climate scientists are, in effect, crying "wolf". But is the "wolf" already at the door, in terms of acidification of the world's oceans, driven by increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
Newf, Fierobear started the thread to talk about the "evidence against anthropogenic global warming". Fierobear is entitled to post whatever information supports that premise. Fierobear has spent hundreds of hours researching and posting relevant information to support the point. I, for one, appreciate the effort.
You on the other hand are behaving like a blatant troll. Your objective appears to not discuss anything. You simply post to disrupt, repudiate and discredit the poster or whomever they quote.
No one has said they are an expert but some do often state opinion, or interpret the facts. However, please don't state that because someone quotes information they've read that they make themselves the expert. You, on the other hand, by dissing people and casting stones at credible scientists set yourself up as the expert.
And to be fair, I cast stones at people on the thread too. And I am no expert. But, after extensive reading of what my betters have written, I can say the evidence shows that Anthropological Global Warming is a scam and is entirely fabricated. That is my belief based on research I have done. You keep quoting the same scammers and liars to support your premise. Maybe you really don't know that they are scamming you but any reasonable person could see that they are.
So you really are swimming up stream here. I recommend you read the posts over, and cherry pick the information you can prove is wrong, and question the things you don't understand. That would be better IMHO.
Arn
I will challenge anyones beliefs when they claim to "know" for certain something that they cannot know or prove. Sometimes I'll challenge/ask someone if I think they are right OR wrong so I can see their facts so I can learn more.
You may consider it Trolling to be challenged on your beliefs but why I don't know. Just because you believe something and take it as fact doesn't mean it is, especially on a complex matter like this. You are just some guy on the internet who believes the fiction you are fed IMO.
You can't handle the fact that I shoot down your sources or theories or even question them? Don't post them or post them somewhere else or ignore my rebuttals.
You guys having a little love-in about how Climate Change is a scam and blah blah blah is fine in my books, have at it, just don't bother calling someone that challenges you a troll. Like I said it's a Message Forum, open to all opinion as far as I know. For a man you might want to do a little growing up in this regard.
You want only one opinion expressed and everyone to buy in to the (IMO) real scam? Start a blog or accept the fact that the majority of scientists with knowledge and expertise in the field of Climate agree with CLimate Change and it's reasons while YOU are a member of the minority of internet experts and consiracy theorists that believe the half truths and all out lies confirmed on blogs and partisan websites.
There will always be a faction of non-believers or conspiracy theorists no matter what is shown, it's actually a good thing at times IMO. Keeping the majority in check helps keep them honest, so keep at it just don't complain when you are challenged or shown to be wrong or biased.
You guys want to admit you don't "know" anything for certain and just have an opinion like most of us non-experts? I'm fine with that but don't expect me to believe what you do and don't get upset if I challenge you.
Name calling and complaining about others on a forum is kind of little girlish IMO, not that I don't understand that tone and inflection are hard to get accross and debates on subjects can get heated. (Pun intented )
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-21-2010).]
Originally posted by newf: Start a blog or accept the fact that the majority of scientists with knowledge and expertise in the field of Climate agree with CLimate Change and it's reasons while YOU are a member of the minority of internet experts and consiracy theorists that believe the half truths and all out lies confirmed on blogs and partisan websites.
You keep repeating this, so I can only assume that you don't get it - number of scientists, majority versus minority of scientists, consensus, vote...doesn't matter in science.
The AGW skeptics on this thread have said (repeatedly) that climate scientists have predicted weather patterns (like warmer winters across Europe) that are in conflict with the current observed reality. The predictions have not borne out, and so the climate scientists are, in effect, crying "wolf". But is the "wolf" already at the door, in terms of acidification of the world's oceans, driven by increasing levels of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
You're playing games, newf. It's basically a straw man argument. You're setting up the conclusion. Nice try.
If you don't like this thread, and don't agree with the information and conclusions presented, you don't have to read it, you know.
You say you're not an expert and then you are, which is it?
Speaking of not having to read stuff, you guys are the ones getting so upset with the facts, not me. You shouldn't be afraid of some questions and challenges if you are so sure of what you believe in.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You keep repeating this, so I can only assume that you don't get it - number of scientists, majority versus minority of scientists, consensus, vote...doesn't matter in science.
No, I get it, one person can bring down a theory or find something new that changes everything, it's unlikely but it does happen.
Keep wishing for it to happen and it might happen some day in this case.
You are just some guy on the internet who believes the fiction you are fed IMO.
Like I said, I am the skeptic. It is you who have bought the IPCC and AL Gore propaganda hook line and sinker.
quote
accept the fact that the majority of scientists with knowledge and expertise in the field of Climate agree with CLimate Change and it's reasons while YOU are a member of the minority of internet experts and consiracy theorists that believe the half truths and all out lies confirmed on blogs and partisan websites.
There will always be a faction of non-believers or conspiracy theorists no matter what is shown, it's actually a good thing at times IMO. Keeping the majority in check helps keep them honest, so keep at it just don't complain when you are challenged or shown to be wrong or biased.
You seem to conveniently ignore the fact that polling firms have universally agreed that a majority of the American people now believe that Global Warming is overstated and inaccurate. It is you, Newf, who is the minority.
I don't mind at all when someone has a legitimate argument that contradicts what I have been told. What I mind is some guy who just spouts off and doesn't back up what he is saying with independently researched information.
You seem to conveniently ignore the fact that polling firms have universally agreed that a majority of the American people now believe that Global Warming is overstated and inaccurate. It is you, Newf, who is the minority.
I don't mind at all when someone has a legitimate argument that contradicts what I have been told. What I mind is some guy who just spouts off and doesn't back up what he is saying with independently researched information.
It is very adolescent behaviour.
Arn
Seriously what haven't I backed up? What is it you are looking for?
In fact you just made a claim there with no evidence to speak of, plus most of what I have linked to is from the scientific organizations themselves (Oh yeah they must be all corrupt right?) 90 something percent of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
Spouts off? I say that I'm not an expert and trust the vast majority of true ecperts and I LINK THE MOST REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS IN THE WORLD. PROVE WITH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THE SCIENCE IS FALSE.
Their research is peer reviewed not conjecture and cherry picked accusations. Oh wait, all the peer rreviewers are corrupt as well, right? PROVE IT. You believe the science that you copy and paste? Good for you, cobble it together and submit it to review.
You bring up all these "facts" that you "know" but are frightened to try and prove your theories?
Be a man and prove it if you "know" instead complaining when someone doesn't believe your opinion or calling others names and being the one acting adolescent.
You seem to conveniently ignore the fact that polling firms have universally agreed that a majority of the American people now believe that Global Warming is overstated and inaccurate. It is you, Newf, who is the minority.
Arn
Make sure you are specific on what you are claiming there now.
You are saying it is a fact that all polling firms have agreed that the American people now believe that Climate Change is real but overstated and Inaccurate? Or are you saying they don't believe in it and it's a conspiracy? Or it's Sun spots? ....Or (place other most used skeptic arguement here)...
Essentially there has been a dramatic shift in the past year. Most of the polls done in 2009 or prior are simply irrelevent, but those are the most quoted.
Your question about America is well founded. Congratulations on questioning something specific
This is the equivalent American poll. It shows a strong and steady drift south for GW support, but a slight majority of the general population still persuaded.
Essentially there has been a dramatic shift in the past year. Most of the polls done in 2009 or prior are simply irrelevent, but those are the most quoted.
Your question about America is well founded. Congratulations on questioning something specific
This is the equivalent American poll. It shows a strong and steady drift south for GW support, but a slight majority of the general population still persuaded.
Check out how it is analysed by political persuasion, age, and other factors.
Interesting stuff. Aren't you glad you asked?
Arn
hahahaha, Oh I'm damn glad I asked, seeing as this is what you said.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT:
You seem to conveniently ignore the fact that polling firms have universally agreed that a majority of the American people now believe that Global Warming is overstated and inaccurate.
You then show me ONLY gallup polls when you said polling firms have universally agreed.
You said "American people now believe GW is overstated and innaccurate" then show me a majority are still "persuaded" and some other one from Australia.
I've seen these polls before but thanks for reassuring me that I am in the majority.
See if you can find some that show how many believe it's all a scam or sunspots like you say.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-21-2010).]
Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009)
Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson, London's mayor
The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game
Well, folks, it's tea-time on Sunday and for anyone involved in keeping people moving it has been a hell of a weekend. Thousands have had their journeys wrecked, tens of thousands have been delayed getting away for Christmas; and for those Londoners who feel aggrieved by the performance of any part of our transport services, I can only say that we are doing our level best.
Almost the entire Tube system was running on Sunday and we would have done even better if it had not been for a suicide on the Northern Line, and the temporary stoppage that these tragedies entail. Of London's 700 bus services, only 50 were on diversion, mainly in the hillier areas. On Saturday, we managed to keep the West End plentifully supplied with customers, and retailers reported excellent takings on what is one of the busiest shopping days of the year.
Advertisement: Story continues below We have kept the Transport for London road network open throughout all this. We have about 90,000 tons of grit in stock, and the gritters were out all night to deal with this morning's rush. And yet we have to face the reality of the position across the country.
It is no use my saying that London Underground and bus networks are performing relatively well - touch wood - when Heathrow, our major international airport, is still effectively closed two days after the last heavy snowfall; when substantial parts of our national rail network are still struggling; when there are abandoned cars to be seen on hard shoulders all over the country; and when yet more snow is expected today, especially in the north.
In a few brief hours, we are told, the snowy superfortresses will be above us again, bomb bays bulging with blizzard. It may be that in the next hours and days we have to step up our de-icing, our gritting and our shovelling. So let me seize this brief gap in the aerial bombardment to pose a question that is bugging me. Why did the Met Office forecast a "mild winter"?
Do you remember? They said it would be mild and damp, and between one degree and one and a half degrees warmer than average. Well, I am now 46 and that means I have seen more winters than most people on this planet, and I can tell you that this one is a corker.
Never mind the record low attained in Northern Ireland this weekend. I can't remember a time when so much snow has lain so thickly on the ground, and we haven't even reached Christmas. And this is the third tough winter in a row. Is it really true that no one saw this coming?
Actually, they did. Allow me to introduce readers to Piers Corbyn, meteorologist and brother of my old chum, bearded leftie MP Jeremy. Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.
Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its "mild winter" schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year's mythical "barbecue summer", and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.
He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people - notably in farming - are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.
He looks at the flow of particles from the Sun, and how they interact with the upper atmosphere, especially air currents such as the jet stream, and he looks at how the Moon and other factors influence those streaming particles.
He takes a snapshot of what the Sun is doing at any given moment, and then he looks back at the record to see when it last did something similar. Then he checks what the weather was like on Earth at the time - and he makes a prophecy.
I have not a clue whether his methods are sound or not. But when so many of his forecasts seem to come true, and when he seems to be so consistently ahead of the Met Office, I feel I want to know more. Piers Corbyn believes that the last three winters could be the harbinger of a mini ice age that could be upon us by 2035, and that it could start to be colder than at any time in the last 200 years. He goes on to speculate that a genuine ice age might then settle in, since an ice age is now cyclically overdue.
Is he barmy? Of course he may be just a fluke-artist. It may be just luck that he has apparently predicted recent weather patterns more accurately than government-sponsored scientists. Nothing he says, to my mind, disproves the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists, that our species is putting so much extra CO? into the atmosphere that we must expect global warming.
The question is whether anthropogenic global warming is the exclusive or dominant fact that determines our climate, or whether Corbyn is also right to insist on the role of the Sun. Is it possible that everything we do is dwarfed by the moods of the star that gives life to the world? The Sun is incomparably vaster and more powerful than any work of man. We are forged from a few clods of solar dust. The Sun powers every plant and form of life, and one day the Sun will turn into a red giant and engulf us all. Then it will burn out. Then it will get very nippy indeed.
Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009)
Newf, your data is from January 2009. It confirms the data I posted.
When you look at 2010 the picture changes.
Rasmussen report published this in December 2010 (it's right up to date)
"A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters finds that 41% think global warming is caused primarily by human activity, while 47% say long-term planetary trends are to blame."
So 47% is not a simple majority but is outweighs 41% but a gun shot.
If you look at the 2010 polls you find that Government sponsored polls show support, and private polls not so much support for the IPCC agenda. You also find there are organizations which support the IPCC agenda and their polls won't show the same results as independents like Rasmussen.
The Pew Poll conducted in January 2010 showed that 83% of Americans were concerned about the economy while only 28% were concerned about Global Warming.
In my circumstance the people I deal with on a day to day basis are largely conservative and largely skeptical of the IPCC. As you can see the polling varies but, the really telling thing is that Pew Poll.
The area of public perceptions is not clear as you know, but I still maintain that currently the skeptics outweigh the dedicated followers in North America.
Originally posted by newf: You say you're not an expert and then you are, which is it?
Are you a smartass, or demented? YOU implied that I said I was an expert, I said I wasn't and never had said so, then you say I'm saying I'm an expert then saying I'm not. You're arguing against yourself, not me.
quote
No, I get it, one person can bring down a theory or find something new that changes everything, it's unlikely but it does happen.
Are you a smartass, or demented? YOU implied that I said I was an expert, I said I wasn't and never had said so, then you say I'm saying I'm an expert then saying I'm not. You're arguing against yourself, not me.
Well which is it are you an expert on this subject or just another guy on the internet with an opinion?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-22-2010).]
Newf, your data is from January 2009. It confirms the data I posted.
When you look at 2010 the picture changes.
Rasmussen report published this in December 2010 (it's right up to date)
"A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters finds that 41% think global warming is caused primarily by human activity, while 47% say long-term planetary trends are to blame."
So 47% is not a simple majority but is outweighs 41% but a gun shot.
If you look at the 2010 polls you find that Government sponsored polls show support, and private polls not so much support for the IPCC agenda. You also find there are organizations which support the IPCC agenda and their polls won't show the same results as independents like Rasmussen.
The Pew Poll conducted in January 2010 showed that 83% of Americans were concerned about the economy while only 28% were concerned about Global Warming.
In my circumstance the people I deal with on a day to day basis are largely conservative and largely skeptical of the IPCC. As you can see the polling varies but, the really telling thing is that Pew Poll.
The area of public perceptions is not clear as you know, but I still maintain that currently the skeptics outweigh the dedicated followers in North America.
Arn
Yes, the graph I posted is from 2009 and indeed confirms that your assertion that "polling firms have universally agreed that a majority of the American people now believe that Global Warming is overstated and inaccurate" is wrong.
I also doubt the results from the climatologists response in the graph has changed significantly in one year.
I totally agree with the results of the Pew Poll you referenced with the economy struggling peoples concern about other things like the environment become secondary (or much less according to that poll). However we are not discussing how much climate change is a priority to people are we?
The Pew poll is meaningless in terms of what people believe about Climate Change or it's causes and does nothing to back up your earlier statement. You can maintain the skeptics outweigh the people who trust the science all you like but you have shown with statistics that it's likely not true.
)
