Newf, you're being a knob. If you can't win the arguement make a joke?
I really regret to see the American people paying the price for this folly. Obama is paying his dues to the Democratic forces supporting Gore. It is so painful to see real problems not being dealt with while the American government buys into this massive wealth redistribution scam.
Sure the weather changes day to day and year to year, and, no there is no such thing as anthropolically driven Global Warming.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
Newf, you're being a knob. If you can't win the arguement make a joke?
I really regret to see the American people paying the price for this folly. Obama is paying his dues to the Democratic forces supporting Gore. It is so painful to see real problems not being dealt with while the American government buys into this massive wealth redistribution scam.
Sure the weather changes day to day and year to year, and, no there is no such thing as anthropolically driven Global Warming.
Arn
Please point out the "joke" I made when you have a moment.
BTW It's disappointing that you feel the need to pipe in and call me names, don't you feel doing so reflects more on you than me? But hey if that's what floats your boat, have at it!
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-25-2011).]
Please point out the "joke" I made when you have a moment.
BTW It's disappointing that you feel the need to pipe in and call me names, don't you feel doing so reflects more on you than me? But hey if that's what floats your boat, have at it!
Your link doesn't work as it is advertised. Try it. If you behave like a nob, don't be surprised if the word is used.
“It is no accident that so many Americans misunderstand the widespread scientific agreement about human-caused climate change. A well-financed disinformation campaign deliberately created a myth about there being lack of agreement. The climate science community should take all reasonable measures to put this myth to rest,” said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.
Myth? Propaganda? Yeah, right. From a link on the same page as above:
Whether these results mean that the global temperatures will be less responsive to falling CO2 is unclear. "I don't think we know that, to be honest," remarked Dr Rosell-Mele.
Gabriele Hegerl, from the University of Edinburgh, is cautious about the result in her perspective piece published in the same issue of Science.
She says that this is just one particular climate model, and "future work with a range of models would serve to strengthen the result".
Climatologist Andrey Ganopolski, from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, went further and said that he would not make such a strong conclusion based on this data.
"The results of this paper are the result of the analysis of [a] cold climate during the glacial maximum (the most recent ice age)," he told BBC News.
"There is evidence the relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures is likely to be different [during] very cold periods than warmer."
Scientists, he said, would therefore prefer to analyse periods of the Earth's history that are much warmer than now when making their projections about future temperatures.
However, although good data exists for the last million years, temperatures during this time have been either similar to present, or colder.
"One should be very careful about using cold climates to [construct] the future," he added.
"settled" science........
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-26-2011).]
"Alberta’s Can$60 million (US$57 million) carbon-cutting programme is failing, according to the latest report from the Canadian province’s auditor-general, Merwan Saher."
The authors stress the results do not mean [the] threat from human-induced climate change should be treated any less seriously, explained palaeoclimatologist Antoni Rosell-Mele from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, who is a member of the team that came up with the new estimates. . . .
doesnt change the fact that the globe is warmer.......
but - being in Michigan - I welcome it. cant remember the last time I had to shovel snow in November. Heck we barely even get White Christmasses anymore. and I am glad. yes, I am sure this sucks for those in areas impacted by drought. the endless fires & mudslides of the SW. fun fun fun.
but, feel free to keep waving the "it wasn't me" flag - doesnt change the fact that global warming is real. keep them heads in the sand. your asses make great bike racks. and flower planters. now that we have a longer growing season. GW only makes MI a better place - so feel free - have at it.
Originally posted by Pyrthian: doesnt change the fact that the globe is warmer.......
but - being in Michigan - I welcome it. cant remember the last time I had to shovel snow in November. Heck we barely even get White Christmasses anymore. and I am glad. yes, I am sure this sucks for those in areas impacted by drought. the endless fires & mudslides of the SW. fun fun fun.
but, feel free to keep waving the "it wasn't me" flag - doesnt change the fact that global warming is real. keep them heads in the sand. your asses make great bike racks. and flower planters. now that we have a longer growing season. GW only makes MI a better place - so feel free - have at it.
The process will be enforced by an “International Climate Court of Justice” under a bureaucracy of world government that will force western nations to pay “climate debt,” as well as reparations to third world nations to pay for carbon cuts that wouldn’t be as drastic. The burden of “historical responsibility” has been applied to industrialized nations, implying they are guilty for whatever the weather decides to do and must be punished for it.
- All the money will be collected by the UN and whatever is left after they have taken their considerable cut will be doled out according to the wishes of UN bureaucrats. “As a senior UN diplomat told me last year, “The UN exists for only one purpose: to get more money. That, and that alone, is the reason why it takes such an interest in climate change,” writes Monckton.
Under the unapproved terms of their new world climate treaty, they want to mandate that all nations respect the rights of Mother Earth by paying their share of a climate debt. This debt would then be used to help fund the UN’s quest to become THE organization behind a one world government. Among these unapproved provisions of the world climate treaty was a provision that would require western industrialized nations to cut their CO2 emissions in half in just 8 years. That refers to all industry and manufacturing along with the use of all fossil fuels and modern forms of transportation such as cars, trains, ships and airplanes. Such a measure would have a catastrophic impact on the nations involved and ultimately lead to their unavoidable bankruptcy. Furthermore, they wanted the treaty to call for a 100% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. A 100% reduction means the total elimination of the use of fossil fuels, no industry, no transportation, no anything. The letter of the treaty at this point could be read as to encourage the extinction of humans and most animals from the earth as we all produce CO2 every time we exhale. They also wanted the treaty to establish a normal level of 210 ppmv of CO2 to be the standard to be maintained. What they fail to realize is that most plant life will begin to die off at such low levels of CO2, which would lead to the extinction of man and animals on planet earth. Under the unapproved sections of the treaty, national military forces would be replaced by UN environmental forces that would have worldwide jurisdiction. An International Climate Court of Justice would have the power to govern all nations and collect all climate fines and taxes.
The following is an outtake from Joe Berlinger’s movie Crude. At the March 4, 2007, lunch meeting between plaintiffs’ lead U.S. lawyer Steven Donziger and plaintiffs’ U.S. consultants Charles Champ, Ann Maest and Richard Kamp, they reveal the truth about plaintiffs’ lack of evidence and their intent to manipulate the Ecuadorian court. Maest tells Donziger that they need evidence of groundwater contamination, because plaintiffs did not submit any. Maest admits that, “Right now all the reports are saying it’s just at the pits and the stations, and nothing has spread anywhere at all.” Donziger responds, “Hold on a second, you know, this is Ecuador. … You can say whatever you want, and at the end of the day, there’s a thousand people around the courthouse. You’re going to get what you want. Sorry, but it’s true.” Donziger continues, “Because at the end of the day, this is all for the court just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and bulls**t. It really is. We have enough, to get money, to win.” View more outtakes at YouTube.com/TexacoEcuador. For more information about the Ecuador lawsuit, visit Chevron.com/Ecuador
finally seeing correlation of this thread & tobacco lobbyists
cry all ya like - the climate HAS changed. maybe those who live in "seasonless" environments dont notice it so much - but - here in MI - Winter is NOT what it used to be. but, fear not - I am not against it. I LIKE not having to shovel snow before X-Mas. the short 2 week summer drought every July isnt that bad.
but - who knows - maybe the first 35 years of my life was in a cold snap - but - the last 10 - been nicer & nicer. so - keep it up - Cigarettes arent killing anyone - there is no scientific proof.
but - who knows - maybe the first 35 years of my life was in a cold snap - but - the last 10 - been nicer & nicer. so - keep it up - Cigarettes arent killing anyone - there is no scientific proof.
Not to jump in on either side, but even the most ardent climate change people aren't suggesting that the earth's temperature has in creased more than 0.5 - 1 degree in the last 30+ years. "Personal feelings" of warmer or colder climates are not only unscientific, but aren't really relevant to the argument either way. I say this only in a matter of fact way, not to try and uphold or discredit either argument. It's just that emotions get carried away and take over in these kinds of debates.
[This message has been edited by DANGERUS (edited 12-15-2011).]
So, what do you do when observational data (meaning, what is actually happening and is measured) doesn't match with your computer models? Well, just dick with the real numbers until they agree with your computer model!
Hansen’s paper says the following (emphasis mine):
The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009).
I bring it up because it is climate science at its finest. Since the observations were not of the expected range, rather than figure out why the results might be wrong, they just twisted the dials to “reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models.”
Fifty New Hampshire scientists Thursday called on the Republican presidential candidates to accept the “overwhelming” scientific evidence behind climate change.
The scientists issued the joint statement just weeks before the Jan. 10 New Hampshire primary, a key early test for the GOP White House hopefuls.
“We urge all candidates for public office at national, state, and local levels, and all New Hampshire citizens, to acknowledge the overwhelming balance of evidence for the underlying causes of climate change, to support appropriate responses to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, and to develop local and statewide strategies to adapt to near-term changes in climate,” the scientists said.
“Ignoring the issue of climate change places our health, our quality of life, our economic vitality, and our children’s future at risk.”
The Durban conference was the seventeenth conference of its kind. They have been held annually since 1995 in places such as Geneva (in July 1996) and Bali (in December 2007). Don’t hold your breath for one to be held in Newark, New Jersey, or Fargo, North Dakota.
The meeting in Durban provided an opportunity for Progressives to make their latest argument that ordinary people should surrender their freedom and hand all money and power over to unelected, unaccountable “experts” like, well, the people at the conference. This is, of course, in order to “save the planet” from “climate change”. (The issue that had for years been called “global warming” was rebranded as “climate change” when the most recent decade’s worth of data proved uncooperative.)
Is human activity causing the climate to change? We don’t know, and there is no way, even in principle, that we can know. It is difficult enough to determine the “what” of climate change. To determine the “why”, we would need to do controlled experiments. And, for this, we would need another planet, identical in every way to our own earth, which we could use as a “control”.
But wait! Isn’t the science “settled”, thus making anyone who questions the climate change “consensus” an anti-intellectual Luddite? No. Nothing in science is ever settled.
When I research this topic it comes up overwhelmingly supported by science that climate change is directly affected by co2 emissions. 75% of scientists believe that it is increased by emissions. 99% of climate scientists believe that it is increased by emissions. Corporations will not concede. I'm not sure, but I think that they won't concede because it hits their profit margins in a bad way. There are 1% of climate scientists who are not sure so if your agenda is to deny climate change influenced by humans, there is your 1% that although they won't say there is no connection, they are not sure. I'm a 99%er in more than one way. Why would any intelligent person choose a 1% opinion to argue against a 99% opinion. Those are not the best odds and the repercussions are enormous if we pick the wrong side of this argument. I can live through anything that comes from this, but it would be morally wrong for me to ignore it because it was inconvenient for me. No other species has ever been able to cause this. Human beings are a parasite on the planet capable of causing irreparable damage like no other and easily potentially fatal to this planet. We can do better!
When I research this topic it comes up overwhelmingly supported by science that climate change is directly affected by co2 emissions. 75% of scientists believe that it is increased by emissions. 99% of climate scientists believe that it is increased by emissions. Corporations will not concede. I'm not sure, but I think that they won't concede because it hits their profit margins in a bad way. There are 1% of climate scientists who are not sure so if your agenda is to deny climate change influenced by humans, there is your 1% that although they won't say there is no connection, they are not sure. I'm a 99%er in more than one way. Why would any intelligent person choose a 1% opinion to argue against a 99% opinion. Those are not the best odds and the repercussions are enormous if we pick the wrong side of this argument. I can live through anything that comes from this, but it would be morally wrong for me to ignore it because it was inconvenient for me. No other species has ever been able to cause this. Human beings are a parasite on the planet capable of causing irreparable damage like no other and easily potentially fatal to this planet. We can do better!
A couple of things...
1. It doesn't matter how many or what percentage of scientists believe something. Science is not by vote or a popularity contest. The data either supports the conclusion or it doesn't. Currently, the REAL data - as opposed to computer models, upon which the warmist scientists rely heavily - shows that CO2 is up but temperature is NOT. Period.
2. We have the warmist scientists, in their OWN WORDS, talking about how they've manipulated data and rigged the peer review process. I even posted a quote by one of the biggest warmist scientists of them all, NASA's James Hansen, who admits that he manipulated the data because it didn't match his computer models and his preconceived conclusion. Wow. Talk about "WTF?" They are DECEIVING us and the rest of those (alleged) "99% of the scientists."
You'd think that people would be *relieved* that the awful scenarios that have been painted about this aren't coming true, and don't appear to be an issue anywhere on the horizon. I wonder what it will take for people to let go of this apocalyptic fantasy that the world is going to end, and it is *our* fault?
quote
We can do better!
I agree that we can improve our stewardship of this planet, but we can certainly do better than give in, unquestioningly, to a false scenario and a whole bunch of unnecessary expenditures to fix a problem that (so far) does not appear to exist.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-30-2011).]
I'm ok with the science not being a voting thing, but I don't think that I will throw in my lot with the 1% of scientists who are not sure. I remember the manipulation of which you speak. I was under the impression that it was one incidence and that the majority of science supported his conclusions but not his methods. I will admit that I haven't researched deeply.
Go Newf GO!! 
They are DECEIVING us and the rest of those (alleged) "99% of the scientists."
