# Film Top Climate Scientists Exposes Climate Change Hoax



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Didn't want to hijack the other thread

*New Major Film Featuring Top Climate Scientists Exposes Climate Change Hoax!*
Some replies:
Reply


> I&#8217;m up to the 27-min. mark and so far so really good. PROFESSIONAL.
> Gee, imagine that! The sun maybe effects our planet. Of course it does! It&#8217;s amazing that people can&#8217;t grasp that. Anyway, back to the film&#8230;
> 
> UPDATE 1: Now halfway. Yes, the alarmists are going to hate this film. It just doesn&#8217;t have the accuracy that AIT or Mann&#8217;s hockey stick had, they&#8217;ll tell us.


 This is one you can watch on line. For those that can or want to that is.

The Boy Who Cried Warming | Global Warming Initiative


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

Says the last person in America to believe Climate Change is a hoax and puts his trust in the oil companies to tell us the truth. LOL!!!!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

When you are finished with the first vid, try the real science at

Climate Change: Lines of Evidence videos Â» America's Climate Choices


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Then when you are done filling your head with GW falsehoods. 
Watch this and see the truth behind "The Inconvenient Truth" and what falsehoods Al Gore perpetrated on the American people. 
*An inconvenient truth, Al Gore Exposed by Lord Monckton Climategate*
And this guy is GOOD.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gfdiq0jbVk]An inconvenient truth, Al Gore Exposed by Lord Monckton Climategate , a clip from Apocalypse? No! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

And after watching that, _An Inconvenient Truth_ is readily available at most public libraries.

Or you can read the book: _An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It _

Then compare what resources those who deny the science use with the research that is demonstrated in _An Inconvenient Truth_ and Climate Change: Lines of Evidence videos Â» America's Climate Choices


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

You'd have to be living under a rock to not notice that our climate is changing at a pretty rapid pace. It's the pace that may keep us from adapting in time.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

AK--I agree--it is nature being natural --Seem like the same people wanting Change can't accept that change is natural --heck the changes are a hardship in some area and they do exist but the deviation in true change is min. 100 degree F as a change is very little (it is also much greater that what is happening now.) compared with the temps from the sun. Sorry man can not trump nature. Blame who ever Bush-oil fine I am going to focas on dealing with adapting because adapting is a lifeskill for the living.


----------



## heavyrebel (Oct 6, 2010)

Yeah, we'd hate to attribute the sun to any global warming, I mean, it does so little.

Much more profitable to blame a person, people or companies...sells more and allows our climate Nazi's to jet around the globe. 

Hey, I thought we were all supposed to be frozen in a global ice age by now, and at least, starving to death. Or does nobody want to talk about the 70's claim of global cooling?

Ah well, keep using your reusable grocery bags made in china and shipped over seas.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

All the 'arguments' in TBWCW are covered in Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Btw, interesting that TBWCW uses the first 5 minutes to define what science is and how it progresses.

Then, doesn't use any of those working definitions for the next 1:20.......


Maybe this is the reason:


*Expert credibility in climate change
*
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97&#8211;98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) *the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.* Expert credibility in climate change


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

As in the other AGW thread where I asked this question (and yet to get an answer), I'll ask again here. What is the optimum termperature for the earth? Are we perfect right now? Were we perfect during the "little ice age"? Or maybe during the "medieval warming"? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Just because 1,372 lemmings went off the cliff in the stampede doesn't make it right. BTW, Roberto, I'm still waitng for your reply on the proof that the Sun's activity is involved in cloud formation.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

For who or for what?


Ozarks Tom said:


> ....
> What is the optimum termperature for the earth?
> ....



Or, to keep on the topic of this thread, what do the mostly unnamed people in the vid think?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

??????????????????????????????????


Darren said:


> Just because 1,372 lemmings went off the cliff in the stampede doesn't make it right. BTW, Roberto, I'm still waitng for your reply on the proof that the Sun's activity is involved in cloud formation.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Roberte, what in the world do your mean "for who or what"? Are you trying to save the earth for garden snails, or people? I'm still waiting for an answer.

ETA: Answering a question with a question isn't an answer.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

roberte said:


> ??????????????????????????????????


Here's one of the bigger holes in the AGW models. Scientists don't understand the effects of aerosols in cloud formation. Clouds can prevent the Sun from heating the Earth.

Cloud formation study casts a shadow over certain climate models | Science | guardian.co.uk

"One of the most detailed studies to date of the particles, known as aerosols, has found serious shortcomings in existing descriptions of how they arise in nature. The work suggests that one or more unidentified organic gases â produced either naturally or from human activities â has a significant influence on the Earth's cloud cover."

The missing factor is the Sun's part in producing clouds. That is being studied at CERN. Note the weaseling in the full article. They obviously found something extremely inconvenient to the AGW alarmists.

"Secondly, we have found that natural rates of atmospheric ionisation caused by cosmic rays can substantially enhance nucleation under the conditions we studied â by up to a factor of 10. Ion&#8208;enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid&#8208;troposphere and above, where CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional vapours. This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate."

CERN Press Release

Turns out that Henrik Svensmark's theory of cosmoclimatology is being vindicated.

"Svensmark's research downplays the significance to which atmospheric CO2 has affected recent global warming."

Henrik Svensmark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems those folks that worshipped the Sun had more of a clue than the grant seeking scientists sucking up to the IPCC. The IPCC models are worthless.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Well, that's twice not I've asked for what the earth's optimum termerature is, and twice roberte has taken his "scientific facts" and disappeared.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Well, that's twice not I've asked for what the earth's optimum termerature is, and twice roberte has taken his "scientific facts" and disappeared.


 Optimum for what? Growing crops in the temperate zone of North America? Waterskiiing at the South Pole? You didnt ask a very specific question, so its no surprise you didn't get an answer.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> *Expert credibility in climate change
> *
> Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) *the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.* Expert credibility in climate change


Well yeah they do...it's all about FUNDING.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Darren said:


> Here's one of the bigger holes in the AGW models. Scientists don't understand the effects of aerosols in cloud formation. Clouds can prevent the Sun from heating the Earth.
> 
> Cloud formation study casts a shadow over certain climate models | Science | guardian.co.uk
> 
> ...


The IPCC doesn't "have" any models. It's just a collection of climate research which can include work done with a variety of models.

Clouds are not even put into most models because it is too difficult to do so. Climate models suck, really. It is a highly complex system that does not lend itself to modeling. I, personally, think they ought to quit throwing money at modelers. It's impossible.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Sure glad I'm not a scientist, intellectual, nor ignorant.
I can personally debunk said climate change without any fore thought.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Marshloft is it great to have a few classes in history and first hand experience with variations of weather trends. Just amazing the logic that comes when there is not an agenda to rip off people over carbon credits. Sort like being a simply kid -not nobility or court person when a naked king goes by --the freedom of not having to impress someone.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Marshloft is it great to have a few classes in history and first hand experience with variations of weather trends. Just amazing the logic that comes when there is not an agenda to rip off people over carbon credits. Sort like being a simply kid -not nobility or court person when a naked king goes by --the freedom of not having to impress someone.


 dunno,, you lost me when the naked king walked by.
believe it or not, I do understand your delimna. It all boils down to your mindset, and who you choose to absorb your information.
It seems to be all one sided for both sides.
Let me know when you all have it all figured out ok?
GH
ETA: In actuallity, I probably spoke out of turn. I don't live there, I don't see what you see.
With that being said,, would you share what information you have with-out getting too deep in the intellectual content?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Optimum for what? Growing crops in the temperate zone of North America? Waterskiiing at the South Pole? You didnt ask a very specific question, so its no surprise you didn't get an answer.


I disagree. He asked what Earth's optimum temp is---Earth's, not farmer's or water skiers. Depending on how you want to define it, Earth has no optimum because Earth doesn't really care if man or fuzzy bunnies continue to thrive. However, Earth does has an optimum if you want to consider optimum as a norm.

Earth has a range it sticks to and drifts up and down within that range primarily due to fluctuations in the sun. When ever it drifts to an extreme in that range, natural forces react to bring the temp back to the norm. I haven't heard anyone at IPCC say that Earth would exceed the range it has demonstrated as normal, just that it will be different than we have experienced in the last 100 years.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

CesumPec said:


> *I disagree.* He asked what Earth's optimum temp is---Earth's, not farmer's or water skiers. Depending on how you want to define it, Earth has no optimum because Earth doesn't really care if man or fuzzy bunnies continue to thrive. However, Earth does has an optimum if you want to consider optimum as a norm.


 How can you 'disagree' with a question?? :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> How can you 'disagree' with a question??


He didn't.
He disagreed with THIS, which is not a question at all:



> *You didnt ask a very specific question,* so its no surprise you didn't get an answer.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

No cigar. 


"changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are *two orders of magnitude too small *to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the *hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.*"


Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates?
Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates?


So, you'll need some real research to overcome:














Darren said:


> Here's one of the bigger holes in the AGW models. Scientists don't understand the effects of aerosols in cloud formation. Clouds can prevent the Sun from heating the Earth.
> ....
> Turns out that Henrik Svensmark's theory of cosmoclimatology is being vindicated.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The paper was "Received 3 March 2009; accepted 13 April 2009; published 13 May 2009." Have you read the full study, Roberte? Your link doesn't have any details of the study. The CERN research verifies the role of the Sun and the recent studies are more current than the three year old study you cited.

Cloud formation study casts a shadow over certain climate models | Science | guardian.co.uk

"One of the most detailed studies to date of the particles, known as aerosols, has found serious shortcomings in existing descriptions of how they arise in nature. *The work suggests that one or more unidentified organic gases â produced either naturally or from human activities â has a significant influence on the Earth's cloud cover."*

The unknown factor is just that. It's unknown unless it's the evidence found at CERN.

Do you believe that the amount of cloud cover has no effect on climate?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Darren said:


> The paper was "Received 3 March 2009; accepted 13 April 2009; published 13 May 2009." Have you read the full study, Roberte?


The study is readily available. I'd suggest that you ask either your local university or public library for a copy.

One could ask the same about the study you cited, btw...... You linked to a newspaper article that overblows the findings; even the link inside the article to the abstract doesn't state as strong a finding as your newspaper article.




Darren said:


> The CERN research verifies the role of the Sun and the recent studies are more current than the three year old study you cited.[






Darren said:


> ....
> 
> Turns out that Henrik Svensmark's theory of cosmoclimatology is being vindicated.


The research your newspaper article is talking about doesn't really answer the question because it doesn't show a correlation between the level of cosmic rays and cloud cover; it merely looks at a part of the physics / chem behind cloud formation. As the abstract says; "However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation."

Your complaint about my article not having "details" is the same problem with your link; both are the abstracts of the papers being referenced. The difference is that you linked to an overblown newspaper article that isn't a reliable resource for the science it is talking about.

And, again, note that cloud cover doesn't have the effect level of our dumping of anthropogenic CO2 into our atmosphere by the profligate burning of fossil fuels.










What we have with your attempt is yet another example of the clutching at straws those who are attempting to deny the vast body of climate science that has been developed over the past century plus of work.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> Well yeah they do...it's all about FUNDING.


Tell us about that.



Jena said:


> The IPCC doesn't "have" any models.


IPCC doesn't do original research. That is why their report is titled "Synthesis"; a review of the literature.





Jena said:


> It's just a collection of climate research which can include work done with a variety of models.


Not really accurate; a review of the literature includes analysis of the total scope of the findings of all the reports. That is why there are descriptions of the strength of confidence levels. 





Jena said:


> Clouds are not even put into most models because it is too difficult to do so.


At this point, I'd really like to know how you know that.



Jena said:


> Climate models suck, really.


At this point, I'd really like to know how you know that.



Jena said:


> It is a highly complex system that does not lend itself to modeling.


At this point, I'd really like to know how you know that.




Jena said:


> I, personally, think they ought to quit throwing money at modelers. It's impossible.


At this point, I'd really like to know how you know that.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Marsh.

Look Earth has been cold enough to have an Ice age and Warm enough to have palm trees up in the North Slope of Alaska. Mastadom roamed Alaska. With these facts I view the fear of globe warmers with all their doc's and studies as fear mongrels. History show that with or with out a human population that is large or small that the Earth varies. Now there is also a history of Sun flares and there is a history of polar shifts. So, I view the "experts" as the nobility in the Emperors new Clothes fable. Seems like logically things change and that it is normal. Man has to adapt and trying to control nature is foolish.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

However, what we have is a solid line of evidence showing that we are having an effect.

An effect that is changing the Earth's climate at rates that are unprecedented.


And we have the capability to roll that- or much of it - back.




kasilofhome said:


> ....
> Man has to adapt and trying to control nature is foolish.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

roberte said:


> However, what we have is a solid line of evidence showing that we are having an effect.
> 
> An effect that is changing the Earth's climate at rates that are unprecedented.
> 
> ...


we also have evidence to the contrary and IPCC fires anyone who dares to part from what they want to be the accepted settled science. watch the film. therefore anything they publish or fund is so subject to bias that it isn't worth considering.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

An effect that is changing the Earth's climate at rates that are unprecedented.

Where is your proof. Who was around long enough to know?

However, what we have is a solid line of evidence showing that we are having an effect.

Where is your proof. Seems to me that the proof that I have seen offered equals nothing. Nothing more than the same as claiming washing a car causes rain. Man can control only himself period --Nature is stronger than man you can't stop the rain but you can build shelter from the rain. Learn what is needed for plants to to grow and match the plants with the current conditions. Accept what you can not change.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

roberte said:


> However, what we have is a solid line of evidence showing that we are having an effect.
> 
> An effect that is changing the Earth's climate at rates that are unprecedented.
> 
> ...


On what scale? Man's or the planets?

Ice ages have ebbed and flowed for the last 6 million years. Since the closing off of the American continents it is supposed. We are currently at temperatures that would sustain Iceage. If a cosmic event or large volcanic event were to take place. We would find ourselves in one again. We are actually on the COLD side.

As for the level of CO2... If it halves. Photosynthesis about stops. Ever hear about the fine violins produced with trees grown during the little ice age(dense growth rings)? If it doubles... Plant efficiency increases 2 fold. Once again. We are on the "low" side of things.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



kasilofhome said:


> An effect that is changing the Earth's climate at rates that are unprecedented.
> 
> Where is your proof. Who was around long enough to know?
> 
> ...



Tell us when you have something substantive that supports your denial of the thousands of pieces of research from around the world.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

stanb999 said:


> On what scale? Man's or the planets?


????????????????????????


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Man can not slow down any warming that MIGHT be happening, and sure as heck can't stop it, that is a given. And al the planets are warming up to some degree. MAN caused. LOL don't make me laugh.
Yuppers lets get ALL of the CO2 out of the air. Lets get this earth a nice frozen Ice Ball which is has been several times over the last 4.5 billions years. What they call Ice Ball Earth. Yes it sure is NICE to have CO2 and the rest of the tiny tiny particles in the atmosphere. They HOLD the Heat IN.
If not, this earth is far enough away form the sun, that the earth would be in a frozen state all of the time, like other planets, that are at this distance or further away from the sun. 
Then see what the GW folks would say. 
Oh ya, man would not be on the earth now would here? LOL


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> Man can not slow down any warming that MIGHT be happening, and sure as heck can't stop it, that is a given.


So you seem to agree with Dr. Hansen's number for tipping points.





arabian knight said:


> Yuppers lets get ALL of the CO2 out of the air. .


Oh yes, a little fact free satirical hyperbole is such a fine rejoinder to the science.......



arabian knight said:


> If not, this earth is far enough away form the sun, that the earth would be in a frozen state all of the time, like other planets, that are at this distance or further away from the sun.


Yup, that is why CO2 is called a GHG.....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Tell us when you have something substantive that supports your denial of the thousands of pieces of research from around the world.


Deny the palm trees in Alaska --Deny the Great lakes carved out by the glaciers. Deny the fossils of animals and plants found where today they could not exist. Deny that something happened quick to cause the rapid death of large mammals found together? It could not be a fire as the bodies are frozen together.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

roberte said:


> ????????????????????????


Was it a difficult question? What part don't you get so I can clarify.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Maybe we're back to weather =/=climate....





kasilofhome said:


> It could not be a fire as the bodies are frozen together.


Some time reading www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/p...ort_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm would be helpful.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Rate of change.



stanb999 said:


> Was it a difficult question? What part don't you get so I can clarify.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

roberte said:


> Rate of change.


Rate of Change eh.
So you think it is changing at a faster now now then even before.
Hmmmm
I seem to see a program on the Mammoths, frozen so quickly they still were eating Green Grass. Talk about Changing quickly, NOW that IS something that changed quickly. So it has done so in the past and it sure as heck can happen now when man which has only been on this earth a tick of the clock when speaking about earth time. The earth is WY more dynamic then most think she is.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

roberte said:


> Rate of change.


Rate of Change?

What you are still of the belief that all glaciers were created over long expanses of time and that they melted the same way.. 

Well that would be a lie! Some formed over a period of a few years and have melted back the same way.. The one in Peru for example formed quickly and has been melting quickly. The scientists studying this are amazed at the prehistoric plants they are finding that were quick frozen and in good condition to study. In other words they aren't ground up by the movement of a glacier, which suggests they glacier was formed quickly and retreated quickly..

But hey keep telling us how man is the problem for everything and how if we send our money to a elite few (for purchase of carbon credits etc) the earth will be saved..


I have a suggestion to those who think it is man who is creating this.. Off yourself so the world will have one less human to contend with. If enough of you do this this should help the earth in tremendous ways and decrease the global population..

You could call it the Ecoterrorist Rapture!

As for me I will continue to do what I do until I go to Valhalla..


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Let us know when you find a reliable bit of evidence that supports your "seem to see".

And, again weather =/= climate.



arabian knight said:


> Rate of Change eh.
> So you think it is changing at a faster now now then even before.
> Hmmmm
> I seem to see a program on the Mammoths, frozen so quickly they still were eating Green Grass. Talk about Changing quickly, NOW that IS something that changed quickly. So it has done so in the past and it sure as heck can happen now when man which has only been on this earth a tick of the clock when speaking about earth time. The earth is WY more dynamic then most think she is.



The basic, the most basic, bottom line is that there are multiple lines of evidence that support Anthropogenic Climate Change. These lines are accepted by those studying the fields comprising climate science. 

Overwhelming amounts of evidence; each chapter of the various IPCC reports have pages of references. 

Overwhelming consensus based on the examination, analysis, discussion of those multiple lines of evidence.

Evidence gathered and researched by scientists with a wide variety of backgrounds, expertise, governments, cultures. Yet we have people even here claiming conspiracy.


But, other than a few pitiful examples, no real evidence. 

If you don't like what the scientists have found in their research, that doesn't mean it isn't accurate. What we are seeing here is an opinion formed, then whatever scraps that fit are proclaimed widely as 'proof'.

Meanwhile ignoring the weight of a century plus of research in every aspect of what effects the climate.


IF there were a case for some other cause for the warming, the environmental changes, the changing weather patterns, there would be evidence.

But hanging one's hat on underwater volcanoes, cosmic rays, flash glaciers, or whatever is the denier trope of the week isn't science.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Interesting.

Is that like the 60's ' Love it or Leave it'?



beowoulf90 said:


> ....
> I have a suggestion to those who think it is man who is creating this.. Off yourself so the world will have one less human to contend with.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> So you seem to agree with Dr. Hansen's number for tipping points.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hanson has a track record of being a liar, just as the IPCC does. There are thousands of reputable scientists that refute the findings of these liars, but folks like you have an agenda and refuse to look at both sides with an open mind. Carry on! Just don't force any of your religious environmental beliefs on me or anyone else.(too late!!) And Co2 as a green house gas is too funny. A gas that life on earth depends on is now a pollutant! :hysterical:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Let us know when you find a reliable bit of evidence that supports your "seem to see".
> 
> And, again weather =/= climate.
> 
> ...


The reports from the IPCC have been proven to have been incorrect on many issues. I would refer you to look up the e-mails from some of the "scientists" that proved they were playing with the numbers to show there really was warming. Too bad they got caught. Yet, some still follow that religious cult belief! So sad they cannot see the forest for the trees!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Is that like the 60's ' Love it or Leave it'?


No, it means lead by example. If you think there are too many people on earth, and it's causing problems, by all means, you go first!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

As I have said before; IF you have any sort of reliable evidence to back up your claims, this would be a really, really good time to bring it forward.






JeffreyD said:


> Hanson has a track record of being a liar, just as the IPCC does. There are thousands of reputable scientists that refute the findings of these liars,


As I have said before; -IF you have any sort of reliable evidence to back up your claims, this would be a really, really good time to bring it forward.



JeffreyD said:


> but folks like you have an agenda



Please please tell us about that "agenda".




JeffreyD said:


> and refuse to look at both sides with an open mind.


As previously stated, IF you have any sort of reliable evidence to back up your claims, this would be a really, really good time to bring it forward.






JeffreyD said:


> Carry on! Just don't force any of your religious environmental beliefs on me or anyone else.(too late!!)


Ah, is that a nod toward what you perceive as the "agenda"?





JeffreyD said:


> And Co2 as a green house gas is too funny.


As I have said before; IF you have any sort of reliable evidence to back up your claims, this would be a really, really good time to bring it forward.




JeffreyD said:


> And Co2 as a green house gas is too funny. A gas that life on earth depends on is now a pollutant! :hysterical:



How many logical fallacies....

Water btw is also deadly in the wrong concentration, in the wrong place.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> As I have said before; IF you have any sort of reliable evidence to back up your claims, this would be a really, really good time to bring it forward.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, water is deadly, under the right conditions. Is there a law against water? Is it a greenhouse liquid?

Google Dr. S. Fred Singer. I'm sure you won't like what he has to say because it goes against what your religion teaches you! The truth can be very scary when your truly ignorant of it!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> The reports from the IPCC have been proven to have been incorrect on many issues.


As I have said before; IF you have any sort of reliable evidence to back up your claims, this would be a really, really good time to bring it forward.



JeffreyD said:


> I would refer you to look up the e-mails from some of the "scientists" that proved they were playing with the numbers to show there really was warming. Too bad they got caught. Yet, some still follow that religious cult belief! So sad they cannot see the forest for the trees!


You might want to go back and read up. As I have said before; IF you have any sort of reliable evidence to back up your claims, this would be a really, really good time to bring it forward.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Rob--

You have these great big mammals that no longer roam the earth that are melting out in groups--they died in a group eating --not running--not asleep but eating and they froze together in a group this could not have taken days, weeks or years it happen FAST. There is you frozen elephant in the room for proof.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> As I have said before; IF you have any sort of reliable evidence to back up your claims, this would be a really, really good time to bring it forward.
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to go back and read up. As I have said before; IF you have any sort of reliable evidence to back up your claims, this would be a really, really good time to bring it forward.


*I've posted it here before, as have many others, do a search.*

If your really interested, do a search. If your not, carry on with your cultist nonsense, but don't expect a discussion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *As I have said before*; IF you have any sort of reliable evidence to back up your claims, this would be a really, really good time to bring it forward.


What would be the point?
You ignore anything you don't agree with, and just *repeat* the same tired lines in every post

It's like a boring broken record


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Asking me to do your homework? 


YOU are the one making the claims. That makes it YOUR job to support them.




JeffreyD said:


> Yes, water is deadly, under the right conditions. Is there a law against water? Is it a greenhouse liquid?
> 
> Google Dr. S. Fred Singer. I'm sure you won't like what he has to say because it goes against what your religion teaches you! The truth can be very scary when your truly ignorant of it!


Tell us what Dr. Singer has said.

And, rather odd that you are making unsupported statements then claiming the scientific evidence is a "religion". IF your evidence is at all scientific, this would be a really good time to show us.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Those denying the science have brought forward a movie and a newspaper article. And a bunch of claims - including not believing CO2 is a GHG.

The movie doesn't cite the claims being made. The newspaper article overstated even the abstract it linked to.

And nothing to support the string of empty claims.



Bearfootfarm said:


> What would be the point?
> You ignore anything you don't agree with, and just *repeat* the same tired lines in every post
> 
> It's like a boring broken record


And the empty claims have been repeated over and over also.
When is the evidence going to appear.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

weather=/=climate
weather NOT equal to climate





kasilofhome said:


> Rob--
> 
> You have these great big mammals that no longer roam the earth that are melting out in groups--they died in a group eating --not running--not asleep but eating and they froze together in a group this could not have taken days, weeks or years it happen FAST. There is you frozen elephant in the room for proof.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Asking me to do your homework?
> 
> 
> YOU are the one making the claims. That makes it YOUR job to support them.
> ...


Epic fail!!!

Nope, i've done MY homework. You do yours! it's REALLY, REALLY easy! I looked it all up and made decisions based on facts. I'm not making claims, you are, so do a search. Hanson is a liar, the IPCC reports are full of lies, both have been proven, yet you still "beleive" them, why? Climate change fanatics who aren't willing to do the research for themselves ARE cultists, and it has become a religion to them because they believe that humans are the direct cause of global warming(or is it climate change now)


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Those denying the science have brought forward a movie and a newspaper article. And a bunch of claims - including not believing CO2 is a GHG.
> 
> The movie doesn't cite the claims being made. The newspaper article overstated even the abstract it linked to.
> 
> ...


When you choose to open your eyes and really look at the sources of the information that the IPCC and Hanson use.

Until then, your just out to argue!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Tell us what, in your opinion, is wrong with "..the sources of the information that the IPCC and Hanson {sic} use".




JeffreyD said:


> When you choose to open your eyes and really look at the sources of the information that the IPCC and Hanson use.
> 
> Until then, your just out to argue!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

If you have, then copy pasting your sources wouldn't be a problem.

Again, you are making the claims, your job to support them. This would be a really good time to bring them forward.


But then, not doing so gives you the excuse to not continue making those empty claims.

And getting called on it.



JeffreyD said:


> *I've posted it here before, as have many others, do a search.*
> 
> If your really interested, do a search. If your not, carry on with your cultist nonsense, but don't expect a discussion.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

weather=/=climate
weather NOT equal to climate


TIME

So, is there enough time distance between mastodons roaming the earth and today? See they froze in the middle of eating a meal and they stayed frozen for a long __________________(fill in the blank)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And the empty claims have been repeated *over and over* also


You just proved my point.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Since we are getting a string of claims that seem to be evidence free....

Since many of the claims have been brought forward many times before....


It will be enlightening for many to note that those empty claims have been well dissected at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

There are also the FAQ at:

Frequently Asked Questions - AR4 WG1

and intros to the topic at

RealClimate: Start here

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Basics | Climate Change | US EPA


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

How are Temperatures on Earth Changing?
How is Precipitation Changing?
Has there been a Change in Extreme Events like Heat Waves, Droughts, Floods and Hurricanes?
Is the Amount of Snow and Ice on the Earth Decreasing?
Is Sea Level Rising?
*What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era?*---Warning came up that the site was not to be trusted --heck that is a clue to me.

Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earth&#8217;s History?
Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities?
H


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Tell us what, in your opinion, is wrong with "..the sources of the information that the IPCC and Hanson {sic} use".


Falsified information! They even admited it! Read the e-mails and you will see. I don't think your interested enough in the truth to be bothered to look things up for your self, you just parrot the same old, same old. I gave you a suggestion on where to start, how's that going? And just so you'll know, Hanson used data from weather stations that took ground temeratures from stations in parking lots, one, at a fire station, had the exhaust from one of their trucks aimed directly at the weather station. He still used the data from these and many others with similar outside infuences. You call that good science, really?

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/forestgrove.jpg

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/Marysville_issues1.JPG

http://www.surfacestations.org/images/Roseburg_OR_USHCN.jpg

http://www.surfacestations.org/images/Aberdeen_WA_450008_rear.jpg

http://www.surfacestations.org/images/Hopkinsville_current.jpg

"Yes NOAA is responsible for the operation, documentation and upkeep of the USHCN set of weather stations. In fact in 1997 there were concerns expressed by a National Research Council panel about the state of the climate measuring network. 

In 1999, a U.S. National Research Council panel was commissioned to study the state of the U.S. climate observing systems and issued a report entitled: &#8220;Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems. National Academy Press&#8221;, online here The panel was chaired by Dr. Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Center, and Dr. James Hansen, lead climate researcher at NASA GISS. That panel concluded:

"The 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme to the Third Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded that the ability to monitor the global climate was inadequate and deteriorating."

Yet, ten years later, even the most basic beginning of a recovery program has not been started. No online photographic database existed of the USHCN stations, and despite repeated requests from Dr. Robert A. Peilke Senior at CIRES the project has not been undertaken. Given the lack of movement on the part of NOAA and NCDC, Dr. Peilke also made requests of state climatologists to perform photographic site surveys. A couple responded, such as Roger Taylor in Oregon, and Dev Nyogi in Indiana, but many cited "costs" of such work to thier meager budgets as a reason not to perform surveys.

Given such a massive failure of bureaucracy to perform something so simple as taking some photographs and making some measurements and notes of a few to a few dozen weather stations in each state, it seemed that a grass roots network of volunteers could easily accomplish this task."

Hansen still uses the numbers from these bogus stations because they help bolster his conclusions.(do you think we would still have a job if he told the truth?)


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> If you have, then copy pasting your sources wouldn't be a problem.
> 
> Again, you are making the claims, your job to support them. This would be a really good time to bring them forward.
> 
> ...


Getting called on it! Your tooo funny!! ound:


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Falsified information! They even admited it! Read the e-mails and you will see.


Where?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Just let us know when you've decided to actually support a claim.....



JeffreyD said:


> Getting called on it! Your tooo funny!! ound:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Since we are getting a string of claims that seem to be evidence free....
> 
> Since many of the claims have been brought forward many times before....
> 
> ...


How about some links to indipendent reasearch? Those links all have the same global warming alarmist agenda. Same old, same old, again and again!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

See I tried you sites that you gave and well, the ICE AGE info has a WARNING --


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

I think I'll do the same thing JeffreyD is doing....

Go do a search. Even Watts has admitted that taking out what he claimed were substandard surface stations didn't change the data.

Might also want to look up what BEST has come up with also.



so........


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Rob--Where is a site, source to explain the events of the ICE AGE--That is not weather it is a climate issue JUST as the period when there really were palm trees in Alaska.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Nope, can't do it:

On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

????????????


kasilofhome said:


> See I tried you sites that you gave and well, the ICE AGE info has a WARNING --


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You have the same capability to bring your evidence forward.






JeffreyD said:


> How about some links to indipendent reasearch? Those links all have the same global warming alarmist agenda. Same old, same old, again and again!


And you could start by showing us the "agenda"

And show us why "alarmist" is your term of choice.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology 

"Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who want to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all evidence to the contrary." http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php

Delay Phrases: Script for a Climate Denier - ClimateDebateDaily.Org

Climate Change Denial: Nothing but Lies and Frauds Â« Greenfyre&#8217;s


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Dr S. Fred Singer.

Dr. Singer is an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a think tank on climate and environmental issues. Singer has been a leading skeptic of the scientific consensus on global warming. He points out that the scenarios are alarmist, computer models reflect real gaps in climate knowledge, and future warming will be inconsequential or modest at most. 

what's up with the weather: the debate: dr. s. fred singer

"The surface record continues to go up. But you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites." 

"A longer record, in general, will give you more statistical power, if there is a general overall trend. But, in fact, the surface record also shows a cooling. So, which part of the surface record are you going to believe? The part before 1940, that shows a warming, or the part after 1940, that shows a cooling? See, that's the dilemma.


"For example, as carbon dioxide increases, you would expect a warming. But at the same time that you get this warming or this slight warming, you get more evaporation from the ocean. That's inevitable. Everyone agrees with that. Now, what is the effect of this additional water vapor in the atmosphere? Will it enhance the warming, as the models now calculate? Or will it create clouds, which will reflect solar radiation and reduce the warming? Or will it do something else? You see, the clouds are not captured by the models. Models are not good enough to either depict clouds or to even discuss the creation of clouds in a proper way. So it's not possible at this time to be sure how much warming one will get from an increase in carbon dioxide."

"I personally believe that there should be some slight warming. But I think the warming will be much less than the current models predict. Much less. And I think it will be barely detectable. Perhaps it will be detectable, perhaps not. And it certainly will not be consequential. That is, it won't make any difference to people. After all, we get climate changes by 100 degrees Fahrenheit in some places on the earth. So what difference does a 1-degree change make over 100 years?"

Aerosols have a very short lifetime in the atmosphere, measured typically in a matter of a week, two weeks, something like that. And then they rain out, or they fall out. Carbon dioxide has a lifetime measured in decades. Some of it survives even beyond 100 years. So if carbon dioxide effects were important, then they would eventually predominate. 

But the question is: Are they important in relation to the aerosol effects? Or, put it this way: Are the aerosol effects hiding the effect of carbon dioxide now? We can tell. We can find an answer to this, because we can look for fingerprints in the climate record. Since aerosols are mostly emitted in the northern hemisphere, where industrial activities are rampant, we would expect the northern hemisphere to be warming less quickly than the southern hemisphere. In fact, we would expect the northern hemisphere to be cooling. But the data show the opposite. Both the surface data and the satellite data agree that, in the last 20 years, the northern hemisphere has warmed more quickly than the southern hemisphere. So it contradicts the whole idea that aerosols make an important difference. 

*This is very embarrassing to the modelists, because they have been using the aerosol as an excuse to explain why the models do not agree with observations. I suggest that they now will have to look for another excuse*."

"I'm not a prophet. I don't try to predict what the carbon dioxide levels will be in the future. But I can read and report on work that's being published. And certainly China and India, particularly China, will continue to increase its carbon dioxide emissions, no matter what we do. And this will soon dominate the world emissions, probably by the year 2010, at least by the year 2020. And beyond this, it really doesn't matter what we do. It will be determined by how many people are living in China and India, how much energy they consume, and whether or not they use coal or other fossil fuels. I think that's a given. The question is: Why should we be concerned about it? Is the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere any sort of danger to us?"


You can read the rest, but it goes against your beliefs, so i don't think you will, but there you go.

A top atmospheric physicist that doesn't agree with the IPCC. Whoda thunk it! Oh, by the way, Dr. Singer and over 1700 other atmospheric reasearchers sent a document to the IPCC protesting their findings as bogus.

And this:

Take an example. Take the UN Science Advisory Group, the IPCC. In their report--which is a very good report, by the way...which is close to 600 pages without an index, so no one really reads it except dedicated people like me--there's a five-page summary of the report that everyone reads, including politicians and the media. And if you look through the summary, *you will find no mention of the fact that the weather satellite observations of the last twenty years show no global warming. In fact, a slight cooling. In fact, you will not even find satellites mentioned in the summary. *

Why not?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Nope, can't do it:
> 
> On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record


Did you read that article? It was from NOAA, so of course it's biased.

This right there, say's it all!

"In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting."

Really, how could they NOT be imfluenced?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> You have the same capability to bring your evidence forward.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agenda 21, look it up! It's the bible for environmental cultists. Your falling behind! Alarmist is the term used by those who would impose their beliefs upon those who don't believe the same things, just as you are doing now! The world is going to end, we'll all die! So? It's happened before, it will happen again. I presented you with a little bit of information, do with it as you please. 

What if were hit by an asteroid? One's supposed to come extremely close in a couple of years. If that happens, what does that do for your climate models?

eta: Look up asteroid 2012 DA14.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology
> 
> "Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who want to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all evidence to the contrary." http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php
> 
> ...


I couldn't get past the first link. Johnny Rook has a career to fund so of course he's biased. But the name calling just proves he's full of something, and they're not facts! Where does his funding come from? Follow the money!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Dr. Singer:

what's up with the weather: the debate: dr. s. fred singer

Let me say something about this idea of scientific consensus. Well, you really shouldn't go by numbers. I think it's significant to straighten out misconceptions. One misconception is that 2,500 IPCC scientists agree that global warming is coming, and it's going to be two degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. That's just not so. *In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view. *For example, they came up with a conclusion--the only conclusion of this 1996 report--that there's a discernible human influence on climate. I don't know what that means. Nobody really knows what that means. On the one hand, it's easy to agree with a statement "a discernible human influence on global climate." Sure, why not? Nights are getting warmer. Maybe that's it. On the other hand, it certainly does not mean--as politicians think it does--it does not mean that the climate models have been validated, that *there's going to be a major warming in the next century. It does not mean that. And they don't say that. They just imply it*

Are you saying he's lying?


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

The reality of this whole discussion comes down to this.

We, as humans, do not know/understand what it will take to kill ourselves off through climate change. We have a lot of theories, but no actual proof. We have folks who think or blindly believe there is proof, but....If we TRULY knew what it takes/how to change the climate, and understood it completely, we could control the climate. When the global warming wackos can keep my climate moderate and nice, I will pay attention. Otherwise, they are only expelling more hot air, and contributing to changes they do not understand, but are scared to death of....


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

roberte said:


> YOU are the one making the claims. That makes it YOUR job to support them.


:umno:

Your side is saying man is causing TEOTWAWKI and that man has to change a huge amount of its economic practices. And you expect us to prove that we are not causing TEOTWAWKI or that even if we are, to prove that the costs you are asking us to pay are justifiable and will stop the calamity. 

Sounds like to me you need to come up with the proof and that means you don't quote biased sources that have been caught in fraud and lies. That should also include disproving the claims of those fired and/or defunded for having positions that do not match your religious beliefs


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> :umno:
> 
> Your side is saying man is causing TEOTWAWKI and that man has to change a huge amount of its economic practices. And you expect us to prove that we are not causing TEOTWAWKI or that even if we are, to prove that the costs you are asking us to pay are justifiable and will stop the calamity.
> 
> Sounds like to me you need to come up with the proof and that means you don't quote biased sources that have been caught in fraud and lies. That should also include disproving the claims of those fired and/or defunded for having positions that do not match your religious beliefs


^^^^^ Very well said! ^^^^^


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

OK, I'll try just one more time. Is it the assumption/position of AGW "scientists" that as of this moment, or 50 years ago, the climate of the earth was/is optimum for human existence?

Has anybody else noticed roberte not only ignores the question, but seems to let enough posts get between the question and his next post, so as to distance himself from any imperative to answer?

Reminds me of a kid who learns a new trick, and won't stop showing it off.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Ozarks Tom said:


> OK, I'll try just one more time. Is it the assumption/position of AGW "scientists" that as of this moment, or 50 years ago, the climate of the earth was/is optimum for human existence?
> 
> Has anybody else noticed roberte not only ignores the question, but seems to let enough posts get between the question and his next post, so as to distance himself from any imperative to answer?
> 
> Reminds me of a kid who learns a new trick, and won't stop showing it off.


Yup, we've noticed! Seems part of the playbook of which they follow!


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

roberte was showing to be on thread when I posted, but seems to be MIA now. Doncha just hate that?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Ozarks Tom said:


> roberte was showing to be on thread when I posted, but seems to be MIA now. Doncha just hate that?


Ah, you know, it is what it is! I do leave the computer all the time while logged on. Sometimes they get embarrassed though! :shrug:


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Watt was attempting to prove the world global average was unduly effected by what he claimed were poor siting of reporting stations.

The report walks through the methodology.

Taking out all the stations he claims were effecting the CONUS temp record resulted in...


Virtually No Change.

Now, you can claim bias if you wish. But that doesn't effect the results.

Now, if you can tell us what was wrong with their methodology........ Then you'd have a valid discussion point.

So, look far and wide. Look hard. Check on WattsUp. Let us know what those who know what they are talking about say.


So basically all we are getting again is claims of.......

No evidence.



JeffreyD said:


> Did you read that article? It was from NOAA, so of course it's biased.
> 
> This right there, say's it all!
> 
> ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Actually, what the science is saying is there are a wide range of effects. Some, in some cases could be 'positive'. For some.

Other effects, other groups, not so much. 




However, IPCC, NASA, NOAA, EPA, virtually every other government on earth, every major scientific organization, acknowledge that the science is sound.

So, it really, truly is the job of those who are denying that the science is sound to come up with a viable alternative hypothesis.

And they have had over a century to do so.

And haven't.



CesumPec said:


> :umno:
> 
> Your side is saying man is causing TEOTWAWKI and that man has to change a huge amount of its economic practices. And you expect us to prove that we are not causing TEOTWAWKI or that even if we are, to prove that the costs you are asking us to pay are justifiable and will stop the calamity.
> 
> Sounds like to me you need to come up with the proof and that means you don't quote biased sources that have been caught in fraud and lies. That should also include disproving the claims of those fired and/or defunded for having positions that do not match your religious beliefs


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Watt was attempting to prove the world global average was unduly effected by what he claimed were poor siting of reporting stations.
> 
> The report walks through the methodology.
> 
> ...


Read what Dr. Singer has to say and get back to us. And i did look at all the recording station records. If the results didn't make a difference in the outcome, why even bother in the first place. And just to let you know, if even one data set from one station was wrong, then all of it was wrong. You can't have it both way's. But you knew that!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Actually, what the science is saying is there are a wide range of effects. Some, in some cases could be 'positive'. For some.
> 
> Other effects, other groups, not so much.
> 
> ...


They wish it to be so, and they believe their own lies. Do you trust our government to tell you the truth? Other governments? Those that get funding to perpetuate the religion? Here's the truth- the earth will do what it does, we can't control it, if we could, everywhere would be a great place to live. Besides, were going to get hit with an asteroid anyway, so why worry about something that there is no clear consenses on! You can claim there is, but it's not true!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Oh.....

Now I see.....




JeffreyD said:


> Agenda 21, look it up! It's the bible for environmental cultists. Your falling behind! Alarmist is the term used by those who would impose their beliefs upon those who don't believe the same things, just as you are doing now! The world is going to end, we'll all die! So? It's happened before, it will happen again. I presented you with a little bit of information, do with it as you please.
> 
> What if were hit by an asteroid? One's supposed to come extremely close in a couple of years. If that happens, what does that do for your climate models?
> 
> eta: Look up asteroid 2012 DA14.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Oh.....
> 
> Now I see.....


Good, it's about time!(sarc)


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Got it. It is a 

c

o

n

s

p

i

r

a

c

y
.

.

.

.




JeffreyD said:


> They wish it to be so, and they believe their own lies. Do you trust our government to tell you the truth? Other governments? Those that get funding to perpetuate the religion? Here's the truth- the earth will do what it does, we can't control it, if we could, everywhere would be a great place to live. Besides, were going to get hit with an asteroid anyway, so why worry about something that there is no clear consenses on! You can claim there is, but it's not true!


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

Is the climate static or changing? Changing. So, yes, the science behind the climate changing is sound. The conclusions are the problem.

Global warming folks are akin to walking outside while it is raining and claiming the climate is tropical and we are all going to drown in the future. Sure, the science supports the facts of the rain, but not the conclusion. Next week, though, it is dry, so yes, the science supports the climate being arid, but not the conclusion we are all going to burn up, dehydrate, and die off. Then, realizing the problem behind claiming it is one or the other, folks claim it is both, simply saying it is changing all the time, and concluding man is going to kill us off because it is changing......

There is not enough data to know. We cannot truly change our climate, and if we could, we could control it. PERIOD. We do have an impact, but no one completely understands it, yet. The planet has a climate that adapts, is fluid, and changes all the time, in a way that we do not completely understand, yet, and is why life is still on this planet. Otherwise, too many cave man fires could/would/should have killed us off. The science behind that would be sound, too. If you could compare pre-fire man to post-fire man and the impact/changes on the climate.......


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Did you notice the 1996 date he referred to?

And not even mentioning that, if he had proof of the assertion, he could show what wasn't "extracted". It is in the 3rd Assessment.

And if he couldn't or wouldn't, there has been 16 or so years for someone else to do so.

And where is your - and his - evidence?



JeffreyD said:


> They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view. [/B]For example, they came up with a conclusion--the only conclusion of this 1996 report-.....
> 
> Are you saying he's lying?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Got it. It is a
> 
> c
> 
> ...


Call it what you want. You haven't even looked into Agenda 21. 
Go here:

DSD :: Resources - Publications - Core Publications

It's the UN's website and read up on it. It's already being implemented around the world. My own city used to be a participating member untill the city council found out that the planning department joined on their own. People were fired and were still listed as a member city, but were not. Cities in California had to show how were going to be in compliance with AB32(an agenda 21 bill) so we had to use the software created by the UN in order to be in compliance with state law. Yea, conspiracy if that's what you want to call it.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

The population between 'cave man' and now has changed a bit.

And few people are burning a shortterm carbon source to run their cars and trucks.


But that attempt isn't as bad as attempting to equate "change" with "control".








tgmr05 said:


> Is the climate static or changing? Changing. So, yes, the science behind the climate changing is sound. The conclusions are the problem.
> 
> Global warming folks are akin to walking outside while it is raining and claiming the climate is tropical and we are all going to drown in the future. Sure, the science supports the facts of the rain, but not the conclusion. Next week, though, it is dry, so yes, the science supports the climate being arid, but not the conclusion we are all going to burn up, dehydrate, and die off. Then, realizing the problem behind claiming it is one or the other, folks claim it is both, simply saying it is changing all the time, and concluding man is going to kill us off because it is changing......
> 
> There is not enough data to know. We cannot truly change our climate, and if we could, we could control it. PERIOD. We do have an impact, but no one completely understands it, yet. The planet has a climate that adapts, is fluid, and changes all the time, in a way that we do not completely understand, yet, and is why life is still on this planet. Otherwise, too many cave man fires could/would/should have killed us off. The science behind that would be sound, too. If you could compare pre-fire man to post-fire man and the impact/changes on the climate.......


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Oh, wow, a link....

Now, in the doc, what is the language that you think supports your claim?


I'd be curious to see a newspaper article that supports the other bits.....





JeffreyD said:


> Call it what you want. You haven't even looked into Agenda 21.
> Go here:
> 
> DSD :: Resources - Publications - Core Publications
> ...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Did you notice the 1996 date he referred to?
> 
> And not even mentioning that, if he had proof of the assertion, he could show what wasn't "extracted". It is in the 3rd Assessment.
> 
> ...



Cherry picking again i see!

Ok, your set in your ways. I'm not going to change your mind about your religion. You have presented nothing but assertions based on what some wish to be true. You know what they say about arguing on the internet!

Carry on!


----------



## tgmr05 (Aug 27, 2007)

roberte said:


> The population between 'cave man' and now has changed a bit.
> 
> And few people are burning a shortterm carbon source to run their cars and trucks.
> 
> ...


Truly 'changing' an already fluid, fluctuating, changing climate would be to make it more 'static', the premise of the global warming crowd. That somehow, we will make our climate not change, and become more static, whether burning us all up, or freezing us all, or drowning us, or whatever horrid catastrophe the crowd claims is going to happen to the WHOLE planet......


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Oh, that's not the only thing wrong in that statement.



JeffreyD said:


> Cherry picking again i see!
> 
> Ok, your set in your ways. I'm not going to change your mind about your religion. You have presented nothing but assertions based on what some wish to be true. You know what they say about arguing on the internet!
> 
> Carry on!


Still waiting for any evidence. btw even Singer said 'no falsification'...... Where's your proof?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Oh, wow, a link....
> 
> Now, in the doc, what is the language that you think supports your claim?
> 
> ...


Read and gain knowledge. Google is your friend. Look it up! I gave you a link to the UN's own site read the whole thing. Or don't if you want to stay mis-informed! It's up to you.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Now "change" means 'less change'?




tgmr05 said:


> Truly 'changing' an already fluid, fluctuating, changing climate would be to make it more 'static', the premise of the global warming crowd. That somehow, we will make our climate not change, and become more static, whether burning us all up, or freezing us all, or drowning us, or whatever horrid catastrophe the crowd claims is going to happen to the WHOLE planet......


You might want to start with Mitigation of Climate Change - AR4 WGIII so you'll actually have an idea.....


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I just popped a big bowl of popcorn, this is getting good. One against many and a single is not going to make it.
For every so called GW stat there is five to debunk it. LOL
Thre is so many holes in the GW studies that it is like a dozen :donut:
But they just keep being up this and :bdh: and still do no good.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Oh, that's not the only thing wrong in that statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for any evidence. btw even Singer said 'no falsification'...... Where's your proof?


He had not seen the e-mails at the time of that pbs article because they weren't made public yet!

What about these?

In the first place, if you count the names in the IPCC report, it's less than 2,000. If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100. If you then ask how many of them agree, the answer is: You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. These scientists actually worked on the report. They agree with the report, obviously, in particular with the chapter that they wrote. They do not necessarily agree with the summary, because the summary was written by a different group, a handful of government scientists who had a particular point of view, and they extracted from the report those facts that tended to support their point of view


there's going to be a major warming in the next century. It does not mean that. And they don't say that. They just imply it

This is very embarrassing to the modelists, because they have been using the aerosol as an excuse to explain why the models do not agree with observations. I suggest that they now will have to look for another excuse."


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Well, the old just 'go look it up'.

I've read it. Show us what you've read. Your claim, you support it.



JeffreyD said:


> Read and gain knowledge. Google is your friend. Look it up! I gave you a link to the UN's own site read the whole thing. Or don't if you want to stay mis-informed! It's up to you.


Funny thing, Google tends to point to forums like this and statements like yours ....... Maybe you should get the important words up and out there.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> ....
> 
> If you count the number of climate scientists, it's about 100.
> 
> ....


Here are the references for ONE chapter of ONE report.

References - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science


Looks like far more than a hundred. And there are 3 more reports. And several chapters in that one report.


Maybe you should write him for clarification.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> ...
> 
> You can't tell because there was never a poll taken. ....


And since then, there has been a poll. 98%

And research:

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)* 97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change*, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the research"
Expert credibility in climate change


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> ....
> 
> This is very embarrassing to the modelists, because they have been using the aerosol as an excuse to explain why the models do not agree with observations. I suggest that they now will have to look for another excuse."


Maybe you could find out what "modelists" he's referring to. And look at the 16 years of research.....

The 5th assessment is coming out in about a year. You are taking a quote about the 3rd. And much of what he said then wasn't accurate.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Here are the references for ONE chapter of ONE report.
> 
> References - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
> 
> ...


First, very few are actually climate scientists.

Second, a lot of those references are by the same folks. You may want to look into who's really a climate scientist and who isn't! It cut's that list down dramaticly. Do you expect the IPCC to go against their agenda? Your smarter than that, of course they wouldn't! Need a better link than to the UN. Or anyone else with an agenda.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

And you still haven't shown us a comparison of what "they extracted from the report" and what "they" didn't use.


Where's your evidence?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You know, the AR4 has been out since 2007. If you had a case with your again unsupported claims, we'd have a list of the scientists you are attempting to claim weren't qualified to write about the science being reviewed.

And you'd have a list of those you think are.






JeffreyD said:


> First, very few are actually climate scientists.
> 
> Second, a lot of those references are by the same folks. You may want to look into who's really a climate scientist and who isn't! It cut's that list down dramaticly. Do you expect the IPCC to go against their agenda? Your smarter than that, of course they wouldn't! Need a better link than to the UN. Or anyone else with an agenda.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> And since then, there has been a poll. 98%
> 
> And research:
> 
> ...


Why has it dropped from 2600 scientists, to 1372 researchers(not scientists)? And also. it's a government agency web site. Where do they get their funding from? It's all about control! Some in your survey disagreed. And they say 97-98%! Don't they know exactly, or is this just the way they tabulate results?(kinda like their other numbers)

eta: just saw this in your link.

"not all climate researchers are equal in scientific credibility and expertise in the climate system". At least they admit it! That right there should open your eye's a wee bit.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Singer claims "100"

I gave a list of references from ONE CHAPTER OF ONE REPORT.

Those are references to papers used in that ONE CHAPTER.

And you are now claiming they aren't really scientists?

Or what?






JeffreyD said:


> First, very few are actually climate scientists.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> You know, the AR4 has been out since 2007. If you had a case with your again unsupported claims, we'd have a list of the scientists you are attempting to claim weren't qualified to write about the science being reviewed.
> 
> And you'd have a list of those you think are.


In June 2009, the first full NIPCC report was published by The Heartland Institute. It is titled Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The new report, some 880 pages in length, is the most comprehensive critique of the IPCC's positions ever published. It lists 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries and presents in an a*ppendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."*

Go here to read the report. It is 880 pages long though.

The 2009 NIPCC Report


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Where is the "2600" from?

And PNAS is a "government agency web site"? 

Please tell us how you 'know' that.


And who do you think is doing the research?



JeffreyD said:


> Why has it dropped from 2600 scientists, to 1372 researchers(not scientists)? And also. it's a government agency web site. Where do they get their funding from? It's all about control! Some in your survey disagreed. And they say 97-98%! Don't they know exactly, or is this just the way they tabulate results?(kinda like their other numbers)



OK, this is obviously a new source for you. I gave the link to the full report which includes the supplementary information. That includes the methodology for the 'tabulation'.


You have several times made claims here about falsification of data and other bizarre claims that you have consistently shown yourself to be unable to support. 

Hope you realize the world sees how you attempt to maintain a dialog.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Ah....

So, can you show us the qualifications of those "31,478 American scientists"? Especially interested in the number who have actually published research in some aspect of climate science.



JeffreyD said:


> In June 2009, the first full NIPCC report was published by The Heartland Institute. It is titled Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The new report, some 880 pages in length, is the most comprehensive critique of the IPCC's positions ever published. It lists 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries and presents in an a*ppendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."*
> 
> Go here to read the report. It is 880 pages long though.
> 
> The 2009 NIPCC Report


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Singer claims "100"
> 
> I gave a list of references from ONE CHAPTER OF ONE REPORT.
> 
> ...


I'm not claiming anything. It's the truth! Most are not scientists, their researchers. Look up their credentials!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Since there was a link to Dr. Singer's interview with PBS, it should be noted there were interviews with 5 scientists and one other person:

what's up with the weather: the debate

If you're taking the time to read one, read them all.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> I'm not claiming anything. It's the truth! Most are not scientists, their researchers. Look up their credentials!


show us.

should be easy-peasy to link to their CV


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes PBS that figures. Nice liberal sided station to listen to.

:icecream::zzz:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Ah....
> 
> So, can you show us the qualifications of those "31,478 American scientists"? Especially interested in the number who have actually published research in some aspect of climate science.


I gave you a link, go read it and verify it for yourself! I'm not your google daddy!

Ok, here:

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029
persons who hold Ph.D.s, 7,153 who hold an MS,
2,585 who hold MDs or DVMs, and 12,711 who hold
a BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD
and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in
basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in
fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to
evaluate the research data related to the petition
statement. Many of the signers currently work in
climatological, meteorological, atmospheric,
environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and
biological fields directly involved in the climate
change controversy.

Alabama
H. William Ahrenholz
Oscar Richard Ainsworth, PhD
Bernard Jeffrey Anderson, PhD
David W. Anderson
John C. Anderson, PhD
Russell S. Andrews, PhD
John Wayland Bales, PhD
James Y. Baltar
Ted B. Banner
Robert F. Barfield, PhD
Richard Barnes
Samuel A. Barr
Kenneth A. Barrett
Franklin E. Bates
Ronald G. Baxley
Sidney D. Beckett, PhD
Arthur B. Beindorff, PhD
Victor Bell
Aleksandr A. Belotserkovskiy, PhD
Fred Bender, PhD
M. Bersch, PhD
Benjie Blair, PhD
Edward S. Blair
Kevin M. Blake
Richard Lee Blanchard, PhD
James L. Box
William D. Boyer, PhD
William C. Bradford
Andrew E. Bradley
Michael W. Bradshaw
Jerome J. Brainerd, PhD
James Melton Brown, PhD
Robert Alan Brown, PhD
Dushan S. Bukvic
Donald F. Burchfield, PhD
Walter W. Burdin
John E. Burkhalter, PhD
Marshall Burns, PhD
Richard C. Burnside
Eddie C. Burt, PhD
Michael A. Butts
Thomas L. Cain
Arnold E. Carden, PhD
Jason Cassibry, PhD
Darrell W. Chambers
Kenneth E. Chandler
James D. Chesnut, Jr.
Charles Richard Christensen, PhD
Chad P. Christian
Otis M. Clarke
Stan G. Clayton
William Madison Clement, PhD
Barbara B. Clements
James H. Clements, Jr.
David N. Clum
W. Frank Cobb, Jr.
W. A. Cochran, Jr.
Ernst M. Cohn
Robert M. Conry
Robert Bigham Cook, PhD
Harry Cullinan, PhD
Joseph A. Cunningham
J. F. Cuttino, PhD
Thomas P. Czepiel, PhD
Robert S. Dahlin, PhD
Madge C. Daniel
Thomas W. Daniel, Sr.
Joe S. Darden
Julian Davidson, PhD
Allen S. Davis
Donald Echard Davis, PhD
Gene Davis
Wilfred J. Davis
Michael J. Day, PhD
Charles W. Dean
David Lee Dean, PhD
Allen C. Dittenhoefer, PhD
Wenju Dong, PhD
Francis M. Donovan, PhD
Thomas P. Dooley, PhD
Gilbert F. Douglas, Jr.
James L. Dubard, PhD
Scott A. Dunham
John R. Durant
Paul G. Durr
Z'Bigniew W'Ladyslaw Dybczak,
PhD
George Robert Edlin, PhD
Gabriel A. Elgavish, PhD
Rotem Elgavish
Tricia Elgavish
Rush E. Elkins, PhD
Jesse G. Ellard
Howard Clyde Elliott, PhD
Arthur F. Ellis
David A. Elrod, PhD
David J. Elton, PhD
Leonard E. Ensminger, PhD
George Epps
Robert D. Erhardt, Jr.
Edwin C. Ethridge, PhD
Clyde Edsel Evans, PhD
John Foshee, Jr
Philip C. Foster
Mark Fowler
Robert Dorl Francis, PhD
Richard M. Franke
Larry D. Franks
Gerald R. Freeman, PhD
Herbert J. Furman
Bob S. Galloway
Bobby R. Ganus
Ronald Gene Garmon, PhD
Henry B. Garrett, Jr.
Norman A. Garrison, PhD
David J. Garvey, PhD
William F. Garvin
Nancy K. Gautier, PhD
W. Welman Gebhart
Gerard Geppert
Thomas A. Gibson
Chris Gilbert, PhD
Ronald E. Giuntini, PhD
Marvin R. Glass, Jr.
John J. Gleysteen
Alexander C. Goforth
Roger L. Golden
Bruce William Gray, PhD
James D. Gregory
Ralph B. Groome
A. M. Guarino, PhD
Wallace K. Gunnells
Leslie A. Gunter
Freddie G. Gwin
Ronald L. Haaland, PhD
Walter Haeussermann, PhD
Leroy M. Hair
Benjamin F. Hajek, PhD
Justin Charles Hamer, PhD
W. Allen Hammack
James W. Handley
Reid R. Hanson, PhD
Richard A. Harkins
Daniel K. Harris, PhD
Gregory A. Harris
Joseph G. Harrison, PhD
John J. Harrity, Jr.
Douglas G. Hayes, PhD
James L. Hayes
Charles D. Haynes, PhD
James Eugene Heath
Paul S. Heck
Bobby Helms
Ron Helms
Robert L. Henderson
John B. Hendricks, PhD
William Henry, Jr.
William D. Herrin
Jerry P. Hethcoat
Mitch Higginbotham
David Higgins, Jr.
Hermon H. Hight
David T. Hill, PhD
Brendall Hinton, PhD
Jerry M. Hobbie
Vincent L. Hodges
Joseph A. Holifield
William A. Hollerman
Frank S. Hollis
David Hood
Joseph E. Hossley
Stephen K. Howard
Keith G. Howell
James F. Howison
James W. Huff, PhD
Dale L. Huffman, PhD
John C. Huggins
Joseph P. Huie
Chih-Cheng Hung, PhD
Hassel E. Hunter
Herbert E. Hunter, PhD
Ray Hunter
Donald J. Ifshin
Victor D. Irby, PhD
Steven K. Irvin
John David Irwin, PhD
Lyman D. Jackson
Holger M. Jaenisch, PhD
Homer C. Jamison, PhD
Donald J. Janes
Kenneth Jarrell
William W. Jemison, Jr.
Penelope Jester
Donald R. Johns
Frank Junior Johnson
Frederic Allan Johnson, PhD
Monroe H. Johnson
Joseph F. Judkins, PhD
Carl D. Jumper
David A. Kallin
James M. Kampfer
Robert Keenum
Lawrence C. Keller
Arthur G. Kelly
Russell R. Kerl
James E. Kingsbury
Earl T. Kinzer, Jr., PhD
Harold A. Kirkland
William Klein
Dorothea A. Klip, PhD
James Knight
William J. Knox
Charles Marion Krutchen, PhD
David E. Labo
Joseph E. Lammon
Philip Elmer Lamoreaux*
John H. Lary
Lloyd H. Lauerman, PhD
Thomas H. Ledford, PhD
William K. Lee
John D. Leffler
Foy K. Lewis
George R. Lewis
Baw-Lin Liu, PhD
Allen Long
James M. Long
Joyce M. Long
John F. Lozowski
Linda C. Lucas, PhD
William R. Lucas, PhD
Brian Luckianow
Randal W. Lycans
Michael A. Macfarlane
George J. Mackinaw
Robert A. Macrae
Frank L. Madarasz, PhD
John F. Maddox
Carl Maltese
I. R. Manasco
Baldev Singh Mangat, PhD
Frank C. Mann
Sven Pit Mannsfeld, PhD
Milton Mantler
Matthew Mariano, PhD
Gordon D. Marsh
David C. Marshal
Arvle E. Marshall, PhD
Paul R. Matthews
Charles R. Mauldin
David Mays, PhD
Van Alfon McAuley
Theresa O. McBride
Mark S. McColl
W. H. McCraney
Geroge M. McCullars, PhD
Phillip I. McCullough
Randall E. McDaniel
Joe A. McEachern
William Baldwin McKnight, PhD
Curtis J. McMinn
Thomas E. McNider
Jasper Lewis McPhail
B. McSpadden
Solomon O. Mester
Joseph P. Michalski
J. G. Micklow, PhD
Arthur J. Milligan
Randall A. Mills
Benjamin K. Miree
Larry S. Monroe, PhD
Dwight L. Moody
Rickie D. Moon
Meg O. Moore
Robert A. Moore, PhD
Wellington Moore, PhD
George S. Morefield
Stephen J. Morisani, PhD
Perry Morton, PhD
Herman A. Nebrig, Jr.
Gary Nelson
Floyd Neth, PhD
Robert W. Neuschaeffer
James Nhool, PhD
Grady B. Nichols, PhD
Billy G. Nippert
Nathan O. Okia, PhD
Byron L. Oliver
J. F. Olivier
Jerry M. Palmer
Edward James Parish, PhD
Michell S. Pate
Roderick J. Patefield
George D. Pattillo
W. Quinn Paulk
David M. Pearsall
Dom Perrotta
Nelson A. Perry
Kenneth F. Persin
Mark R. Pettitt
Tom Pfitzer
John G. Pfrimmer
Kenneth G. Pickett
Sean Piecuch
Donald S. Pierre, Jr.
Charles Thomas Pike
James R. Pike
Peter P. Pincura
Michael Piznar
Morris C. Place
Melvin Price, PhD
Charles W. Prince, PhD
Thaddeus H. Pruett
Jodi Purser
Danny P. Raines
Joseph Lindsay Randall, PhD
Marvin L. Rawls
Michelle B. Ray
Harold M. Raynor
Greg Reardon
Jerry Reaves
Mark Redden
Michael A. Remillard
Robert Ware Reynolds, PhD
Richard G. Rhoades, PhD
William Eugene Ribelin, PhD
Dennis Rich
Martin B. Richardson, PhD
George Richmond
Logan R. Ritchie, Jr.
Alfred Ritter, PhD
Ronnie Rivers, PhD
Hill E. Roberts
Harold Vernon Rodgriguez, PhD
Richard B. Rogers, PhD
Thaddeus A. Roppel, PhD
John W. Rouse, PhD
Eladio Ruiz-De-Molina
Leon Y. Sadler, III, PhD
Adel Sakla, PhD
Andreas Salemann, PhD
James Sanford
Ted L. Sartain
D. Satterwhite
Mark Saunders
Carl Schauble, PhD
Bernard Scheiner, PhD
Jason R. Schenk, PhD
Peter Schwartz, PhD
Edmund P. Segner, PhD
William G. Setser
Raymond F. Sewell, PhD
Raymond Lee Shepherd, PhD
Charles H. Shivers, PhD
Don A. Sibley, PhD
Gary D. Sides, PhD
Stephen T. Simpson
Wiliam F. Sims
Norman Frank Six, Jr., PhD
Harold Walter Skalka
Daniel E. Skinner
Peter John Slater, PhD
Donald W. Smaha
Roger J. Smeenge
David A. Smith
Obie Smith
Belton Craig Snyder
Michael Sosebee
Jon J. Spano
D. Paul Sparks, Jr.
Michael P. Spector, PhD
Philip Speir
John T. Spraggins, Jr.
Lethenual Stanfield
Jarel P. Starling
Alfred D. Stevens
Benjamin C. Stevens
Dale M. Stevens
Mike Stewart
J. Stone, PhD
John W. Sumrall
Marvin Laverne Swearingin, PhD
J. M. Tagg
Thomas F. Talbot, PhD
Bruce J. Tatarchuk, PhD
Oscar D. Taunton
Newton L. Taylor
Tommy L. Thompson
Zack Thompson
Eugene Delbert Tidwell
Edward R. Tietel
Timothy C. Tuggle
Charles Tugwell
Ted W. Tyson
James P. Vacik, PhD
James T. Varner
Otha H. Vaughan, Jr.
Phillip G. Vaughan
William W. Vaughan, PhD
Frank L. Vaughn
Thomas Mabry Veazey, PhD
William S. Viall
William Voigt
James E. Waite
Ron C. Waites
William Waldrum Walker, PhD
John Wallace
Edward Hilson Ward, PhD
Wyley D. Ward
Adrian O. Watson
Raymond C. Watson, Jr., PhD
Henry B. Weaver, Jr.
Donald C. Wehner
Lawrence P. Weinberger, PhD
Talmadge P. Weldon
William B. Wells, Jr.
Hans-Helmut Werner, PhD
Francis C. Wessling, PhD
Steven L. Whitfield
Rayburn Harlen Whorton
Leon Otto Wilken, PhD
Charles D. Wilkins
Michael Ledell Williams, PhD
Houston Williamson
Jay C. Willis
Harold J. Wilson
Leighton C. Wilson
Walter W. Wilson
Gregory Scott Windham
Stanley B. Winslow
Edmund W. Winston
Harvey B. Wright
Randy Wynn
Lewis S. Young
Kirk R. Zimmer

There's a few phd's on there, eh! That's just Alabama! I don't have the space here to list them all, but you can go to the site and see for yourself, or not!

eta: had to cut a bunch off the list for this one state cause my post was too long!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

I wasn't the one who linked to the Singer interview there.....



arabian knight said:


> Ah yes PBS that figures. Nice liberal sided station to listen to.
> 
> :icecream::zzz:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> show us.
> 
> should be easy-peasy to link to their CV


Your link, you prove it!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Qualified.

In the field.


You are claiming that the IPCC report isn't written by scientists.

Then you turn around and cite a DVM as qualified.....

So, first you need to establish what you will accept as "qualified" and apply it to both lists.

And you need to justify your "qualifications". 


But for a bit of grounding, the PNAS report is based on scientists who are publishing in scientific journals. Writing reviewed by those with demonstrated expertise in that field.


So far, we have a thinktank report, a movie, and a single scientist with a bit of a dubious publication record.




JeffreyD said:


> I gave you a link, go read it and verify it for yourself! I'm not your google daddy!
> 
> Ok, here:
> 
> ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Your link, you prove it!


You are the one making the claim they are unqualified. 

You prove it.

They, and hundreds more, are there because they have written up their research for a scientific journal in the field of climate science.

Now, tell us about the qualifications on your list...... Those BS degrees, those DVM degrees...... PhD in what.....


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Qualified.
> 
> In the field.
> 
> ...


Show us their credentials then! I'll listen to a known Phd in climate physics long before i'll listen to anything the UN, or our government say's!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes sir re. 
Published in a Scientific Journal to justify their Government Grants. 
And when they are running low on money and the grants is about gone. Yuppers Lets Publish another 'story" in a "scientific Journal". So funny i forgot to laugh.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> You are the one making the claim they are unqualified.
> 
> You prove it.
> 
> ...


Your claim, your link. I claimed thousands of real scientists don't agree with human caused climate change and posted some from just Alabama, so post away with the credentials from YOUR links.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> You are the one making the claim they are unqualified.
> 
> You prove it.
> 
> ...


If you read the report, you would have seen this!

Petition project volunteers evaluate each signerâs
credentials, verify signer identities, and, if
appropriate, add the signerâs name to the petition list.
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition
Project list if they have obtained formal educational
degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher
in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been
circulated only in the United States.
The current list of petition signers includes 9,029
persons who hold Ph.D.s, 7,153 who hold an MS,
2,585 who hold MDs or DVMs, and 12,711 who hold
a BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD
and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in
basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in
fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to
evaluate the research data related to the petition
statement. Many of the signers currently work in
climatological, meteorological, atmospheric,
environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and
biological fields directly involved in the climate
change controversy. The Petition Project classifies
petition signers on the basis of their formal academic
training, as summarized below. Scientists often
pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different
from their formal education, but their underlying
training can be applied to any scientific field in which
they become interested.
Outlined below are the numbers of Petition
Project signatories, subdivided by educational
specialties. These have been combined, as indicated,
into seven categories.
1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth
sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in
specialties directly related to the physical
environment of the Earth and the past and current
phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes
935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical
methods. Since the human-caused global warming
hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer
projections and not upon experimental observations,
these sciences are especially important in evaluating
this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810
scientists trained in the fundamental physical and
molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids,
which are essential to understanding the physical
properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in
the molecular interactions and behaviors of the
substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are
composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964
scientists trained in the functional and environmental
requirements of living things on the Earth.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You are the one claiming "unqualified".

And so far, just like every other time you have been asked for the supporting proof, you have been unwilling to do so.


And that speaks volumes about the level of intellectual credibility you are bringing to the conversation.


So, prove how you 'know' there are "unqualified" scientists in that list.



JeffreyD said:


> Show us their credentials then! I'll listen to a known Phd in climate physics long before i'll listen to anything the UN, or our government say's!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

And no mention of actually having done any research.No publication history.

And the 'training' being discussed is basic critical thinking. You were probably exposed to some of that in high school.

But the evaluative skills come from having a solid base in the science that you are reviewing.

And now we're back to ....

Nothing showing that level of expertise.





JeffreyD said:


> If you read the report, you would have seen this!
> .


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> You are the one claiming "unqualified".
> 
> And so far, *just like every other time you have been asked for the supporting proof, you have been unwilling to do so.*
> 
> ...


*

If they belong to the IPCC or NOAA, or work for any government, their un-qualified!

Your turn to post their credentials now!*


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

And I thought we hit a low point with your citing of NIPCC and Agenda21....



JeffreyD said:


> If they belong to the IPCC or NOAA, or work for any government, their un-qualified!
> 
> Your turn to post their credentials now!


Your claim, your evidence.


Though that would break a perfect record.....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

off to do the cooking and garden and animals. 

Maybe by tomorrow you'll have found someone you deem "unqualified" on that list.

Maybe by tomorrow you'll have read the other interviews.

Maybe by tomorrow you'll have read at least the IPCC and other FAQ and the citations.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> And no mention of actually having done any research.No publication history.
> 
> And the 'training' being discussed is basic critical thinking. You were probably exposed to some of that in high school.
> 
> ...


Did you read any of the links i posted? It doesn't appear so because all of your answers are there. I even posted some and you STILL say i didn't provide anything. It's you who haven't provided a link to any credentials of the scientists YOU quoted! Get real man!


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> So, you'll need some real research to overcome:


Please note the error bars in this diagram, which often appear to be equal too, or greater than, the data to which they are applied. That translates into: "We really don't know, but we like making snazzy graphs and stuff".

The figure is also pretty meaningless without the text of the paper it was taken from....but it is already meaningless since it appears to mainly be showing insignificant results.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> off to do the cooking and garden and animals.
> 
> Maybe by tomorrow you'll have found someone you deem "unqualified" on that list.
> 
> ...


You haven't read anything i posted. Your just another name caller! I tried to answer your questions and you evaded all mine. You brought up the IPCC report, now post the credentials of those 1376 "researchers". That's all they've got by the way, compared to over 30,000 that disagree. I gave you a list. Being able to admit your wrong is a tough thing to do. It's clear your not up to it!

Carry on!


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> At this point, I'd really like to know how you know that.


Because I read the papers and I have a brain. Not that hard really.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Jena said:


> Please note the error bars in this diagram, which often appear to be equal too, or greater than, the data to which they are applied. That translates into: "We really don't know, but we like making snazzy graphs and stuff".
> 
> The figure is also pretty meaningless without the text of the paper it was taken from....but it is already meaningless since it appears to mainly be showing insignificant results.


It's kinda funny about graphs. I'm a quality control engineer, and have a great understanding of Lean processes, six sigma, 6S, ansi, iso, etc...

We had a Lean "expert" come in and evaluate the company. He made sooo many graphs, turtle charts, audit charts, etc... it was amazing. I was talking with the owner about all these charts and graphs, and he looked at me and said "this is all bs". The graphs and charts looked great, but were not based in reality. One said the lead time to get a machine part was 8 days, we had them in stock! And his timeline projections for a project were just the same. We was fired that same day.

Point is, you can make a graph or chart say anything you want it to say by leaving out relavent material.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> If they belong to the IPCC or NOAA, or work for any government, their un-qualified!


 Thanks for the laugh Jeffrey. You distrust climatologists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, yet think vets and doctors are authorities on climate science. Carry on, this is a fascinating conversation!


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Let us know when you find a reliable bit of evidence that supports your "seem to see".
> 
> And, again weather =/= climate.
> 
> ...


There are scientists and research that does not support the AWG.

Many of those working on IPCC actively prevented oppositional research from being published and/or included in IPCC.

Lines of evidence, such as tree ring records, ice core analysis and isotope studies are far from solid science, yet much of climate science is founded directly on these "proxy records".

Climate models are very inaccurate and often have circular thinking behind them, such as "Our model would work better if the observed weather data were more homogenous, therefore, we shall simply smooth the weather data by averaging the values and throwing out outliers, despite the fact that weather is often highly variable."

Climate science is not all it's cracked up to be. I think this type of "science" is hurting the credibility of scientists everywhere and they need to be much, much more honest about the degree of confidence that ought to be placed on their models.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Thanks for the laugh Jeffrey. You distrust climatologists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, yet think vets and doctors are authorities on climate science. Carry on, this is a fascinating conversation!


Glad i made you laugh. Usually, folks laugh when they're wrong about something and try to convince themselves otherwise! It's a nervious thing, i understand! You run off at the mouth and yet you don't even know who the scientists(and their credentials) from the ipcc report are! 1376 is the number now, used to be 2600. Why the change? And Hansen from noaa, yea he's well respcted -NOT, he's a liar and he's been caught at it and should have been fired for it too! Also, don't forget that there were over 9,029
persons who hold Ph.D.s, 7,153 who hold an MS,
*2,585 who hold MDs or DVMs*, and 12,711 who hold
a BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD
and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
*All of the listed signers have formal educations in
fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to
evaluate the research data related to the petition
statement. Many of the signers currently work in
climatological, meteorological, atmospheric,
environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and
biological fields directly involved in the climate
change controversy. *

So, let's see, 

Pro ipcc - under 1400 researchers(notice they don't even call them scientists)
Anti ipcc - Over 30,000 researchers( i'll call them the same as the ipcc)

Why so many anti's?


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Glad i made you laugh. Usually, folks laugh when they're wrong about something and try to convince themselves otherwise! It's a nervious thing, i understand! You run off at the mouth and yet you don't even know who the scientists(and their credentials) from the ipcc report are! 1376 is the number now, used to be 2600. Why the change? And Hansen from noaa, yea he's well respcted -NOT, he's a liar and he's been caught at it and should have been fired for it too! Also, don't forget that there were over 9,029
> persons who hold Ph.D.s, 7,153 who hold an MS,
> *2,585 who hold MDs or DVMs*, and 12,711 who hold
> a BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD
> ...


 They were bought by big OIL.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

stanb999 said:


> They were bought by big OIL.


How much was each of them paid?


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Tons of good info here, including a detailed and exhaustive rendition of all the ignored FOI requests:

Climate Audit

On siting issues:

New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial | Watts Up With That?

A searchable database of the climategate emails. Read it for yourself!

Climategate 2 FOIA 2011 Searchable Database | README.TXT

GCM's and clouds:

Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information - - Document #962208
Climate Dynamics, Volume 36, Numbers 1-2 - SpringerLink
Energy Citations Database (ECD) - - Document #951779

and I got to go. More later


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

roberte said:


> Actually, what the science is saying is there are a wide range of effects. Some, in some cases could be 'positive'. For some.
> 
> Other effects, other groups, not so much.
> 
> ...


Nope, a bunch of gov't orgs that depend on their AGW being true to get funding is not science. A bunch of countries who want to back AGW to cause the USA to curtail its economy while they do nothing is not science. Science doesn't work by coercion, majority votes, or someone repeatedly saying prove me wrong.

There is an existing alternative hypothesis, it's nature, that collection of global and solar forces and phenomenon that we do not fully understand. And since nature has done these climate changes on multiple occasions, by Occam's Razor, it's up to you to prove your thesis over the explanation that is simple and obvious. And using charts to show hockey stick graphs where the data is manipulated through fraud, fear, or financial necessity, is not proof. 

I had a genuine LOL over this, "And they have had over a century to do so." :umno: I have no idea what you were going for there. When I was a kid in the 70s it was people like you telling the world we had to prove why the earth wasn't cooling.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

roberte said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Is that like the 60's ' Love it or Leave it'?


Not at all!

It's more like "Practice what you preach" 

IF man is the cause because of too many humans, then a logical solution is to eliminate some people, you know "cull the herd". It would then be logical to cull the herd from those that believe that man is the problem.. This way they can go to their "rapture" believing they help the earth..

I find it "funny" that a lot of the man made global warming folks drive around in big SUV's and such and tell the rest of us to get rid of our trucks.. Because only they know how to drive them properly...

Yea Right, get over yourself and your self importance and practice what your preach!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Wow, some of you are very bitter over this. How about this... forget the kooks, the 'end of the world' extremists, forget Al Gore, forget 'carbon credits', 'cap and trade' and all the other scams out there designed to enrich people who are taking advantage of this... and just look at the BASIC SCIENCE. Now tell me how putting 250million+ years worth of buried hydrocarbons back into the atmosphere in a few short generations will not have an effect. Is it 'the end of the world'? I highly doubt that. It will be change. Thats all. 
We know the climate is always changing through various natural causes,but that has NOTHING to do with our current actions and influence. We are changing the atmospheres capacity to store heat through the release of long-buried fossil fuels...which are really nothing more than concentrated, stored solar energy. Again, it won't be the end of the world, but it will be a change. And as Roberte pointed out, it may even have some positive aspects. 
Its really not complicated how we can influence the climate... The earth was much warmer in the past...During the Devonian Period, the atmosphere had MUCH more CO2 in it, mainly due to volcanic outgassing. The plant life flourished in this warm, CO2 rich environment. After a few hundred million years, towards the end of the Carboniferous period, after the plants had absorbed much of that CO2, the climate began to cool. Now we are bringing much of that carbon out of the ground and putting it right back into the atmosphere. Its like a slow motion science experiment on a grand scale. 
Now Al Gore and the rest of the carbon credit scammers, as far as I am concerned, can take a long walk off a short pier.. because we as humans are NOT going to stop burning all that fossil fuel. Its just not going to happen. We like our cars, or jets, our refrigerators too much, with good reason. But to deny we are having an effect is to deny basic science and ignore reality.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> There is an existing alternative hypothesis, it's nature, that collection of global and solar forces and phenomenon that we do not fully understand


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

actually linked to.....



arabian knight said:


> ....For every so called GW stat there is five to debunk it. ....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Since we are getting a string of claims that seem to be evidence free....

Since many of the claims have been brought forward many times before....


It will be enlightening for many to note that those empty claims have been well dissected at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

There are also the FAQ at:

Frequently Asked Questions - AR4 WG1

and intros to the topic at

RealClimate: Start here

The Discovery of Global Warming - A History

Basics | Climate Change | US EPA


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology 

"Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who want to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all evidence to the contrary." http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/05/crank_howto.php

Delay Phrases: Script for a Climate Denier - ClimateDebateDaily.Org

Climate Change Denial: Nothing but Lies and Frauds Â« Greenfyre&#8217;s


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

greg273 said:


> Wow, some of you are very bitter over this. How about this... forget the kooks, the 'end of the world' extremists, forget Al Gore, forget 'carbon credits', 'cap and trade' and all the other scams out there designed to enrich people who are taking advantage of this... and just look at the BASIC SCIENCE. Now tell me how putting 250million+ years worth of buried hydrocarbons back into the atmosphere in a few short generations will not have an effect. Is it 'the end of the world'? I highly doubt that. It will be change. Thats all.
> We know the climate is always changing through various natural causes,but that has NOTHING to do with our current actions and influence. We are changing the atmospheres capacity to store heat through the release of long-buried fossil fuels...which are really nothing more than concentrated, stored solar energy. Again, it won't be the end of the world, but it will be a change. And as Roberte pointed out, it may even have some positive aspects.
> Its really not complicated how we can influence the climate... The earth was much warmer in the past...During the Devonian Period, the atmosphere had MUCH more CO2 in it, mainly due to volcanic outgassing. The plant life flourished in this warm, CO2 rich environment. After a few hundred million years, towards the end of the Carboniferous period, after the plants had absorbed much of that CO2, the climate began to cool. Now we are bringing much of that carbon out of the ground and putting it right back into the atmosphere. Its like a slow motion science experiment on a grand scale.
> Now Al Gore and the rest of the carbon credit scammers, as far as I am concerned, can take a long walk off a short pier.. because we as humans are NOT going to stop burning all that fossil fuel. Its just not going to happen. We like our cars, or jets, our refrigerators too much, with good reason. But to deny we are having an effect is to deny basic science and ignore reality.


Bitter?

No, just fed up with the scam from ecoterrorists and the legislation they keep pushing through to keep the people under the governments control. Global Warming has become the new socialism, because of all the regs and control they have pushed upon us..

But I'm just a evil fiscal/Constitutional racist conservative according to liberals and ecoterrorists... But don't cry because I don't believe your claims and I act upon them.. I've seen the science and I've seen how the data was twisted.. I've also shown / posted here where the Socialists/Global Warming folks of 1908 - 1922 pushed Global Warming and blamed the Ranchers and the cattle they raise.. You know just like now they blame the ranchers and the cattle. So imagine how funny I find it when history repeats itself, with the same "social engineers" pushing it, the only thing that has changed is the names of the people..

But hey don't let me stop you from doing your part to rid the world of humans..


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

My take is simple.
Whether you believe in God or the big bang.
Something bigger, badder and much more important than mankind created this planet.

There fore it will take something bigger, badder and much more important than mankind to destroy it.

We are just a speck, to think WE count for much is so conceited it is laughable.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

beowoulf90 said:


> Bitter?
> 
> No, just fed up with the scam from ecoterrorists and the legislation they keep pushing through to keep the people under the governments control. Global Warming has become the new socialism, because of all the regs and control they have pushed upon us..


 Let me see if I follow you here... you think anyone who espouses global warming is an ecoterrorist and a socialist out to control you? Maybe read my post a little slower where I denounce all the 'carbon credit' scammers, then get back to me if you find any fundamental flaws in my simplified explanation of how humans could influence the climate. Not everyone who believes the science is out to control you. You still seem to be equating the science with the politics and the bloodsucking politicians and scam artists who are trying to make a buck off of this. 

And by the way, a lot of those 'regs' promulgated by the EPA actually DO improve the quality of life for a vast number of people. Should we let private industry decide what level of pollution they are allowed to pump out into the common air we all need to survive? No way. The need of the few to make a quick buck does not trump the right of the many to breathe cleaner air or drink uncontaminated water. Sorry pal, we all you are a rugged individualist, but we DO share the land, the air and the water.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

MJsLady said:


> My take is simple.
> Whether you believe in God or the big bang.
> Something bigger, badder and much more important than mankind created this planet.
> 
> ...


 To think we have NO effect is even more laughable.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

MJsLady said:


> My take is simple.
> Whether you believe in God or the big bang.
> Something bigger, badder and much more important than mankind created this planet.
> 
> ...


worth repeating


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Since we are getting a string of claims that seem to be evidence free....
> 
> Since many of the claims have been brought forward many times before....
> 
> ...


Your evidence was well dissected by many top physists and proved to be bogus, yet you still cling to your "evidence" as the truth.

You've been givin plenty of information that gw is not what many make it out to be. You chose to ignore all of it because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs. Ignorance is something that is hard to change.

Presenting evidence that is clearly biased does not help your side at all. Why ignore the science presented to you by over 30,000 scientists and researchers?


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Hmmmm I never said no impact.
I believe we have an impact just not enough of one to destroy the planet.

It stands to reason the earth is heating up. The earth is coming off an ice age. Who knows how hot it was before that?

Egypt/Palestine at least had one drought that lasted 7 years. 
So we know these things have happened since ancient times. 

I refuse to let guys who stand to make tons of money off what could be natural ebbs and flows scare the stuffing out of me. 

I mean with out all this the sky is falling hysteria, there is no rush for green jobs/taxes on fuels and so on. 

Seriously, yes it has been a bit warm in Texas. However most days we have not hit the highs. What happened in the past to make things so hot?

According to what I found the hottest day ever in my city was back in 1960. Our record low was in 1989. The highest temp in the state was 120 degrees in 1936.

Now, since I do believe in God and the Bible, I know all this has been prophesied. Perhaps that is why I am not so worried, because I KNOW mankind is NOT in control, even though it deludes itself into thinking it is.

Plus there has been an increase in volcanic activity and earthquake activity. It would seem to me perhaps the earth's core is getting more active, moving closer to the surface and that may account for some of the variance. We also know there is increased solar activity. There is NO WAY that can account for the heating up of things... It has to be those pesky humans and their blasted desire for heat, transport and beef. 

There are a lot of reasons other than it must be caused by man. We are not that big a speck.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

greg273 said:


> Let me see if I follow you here... you think anyone who espouses global warming is an ecoterrorist and a socialist out to control you? Maybe read my post a little slower where I denounce all the 'carbon credit' scammers, then get back to me if you find any fundamental flaws in my simplified explanation of how humans could influence the climate. Not everyone who believes the science is out to control you. You still seem to be equating the science with the politics and the bloodsucking politicians and scam artists who are trying to make a buck off of this.
> 
> And by the way, a lot of those 'regs' promulgated by the EPA actually DO improve the quality of life for a vast number of people. Should we let private industry decide what level of pollution they are allowed to pump out into the common air we all need to survive? No way. The need of the few to make a quick buck does not trump the right of the many to breathe cleaner air or drink uncontaminated water. Sorry pal, we all you are a rugged individualist, but we DO share the land, the air and the water.


So you want to play this game, Fine!

I read your post.. I've also seen the science.. Most of it is faulty at best and hypothesizes the over all out come.. A proven fact is something that can be done repeatedly.. Global Warming science can't be done once without ASSUMING some parts of it...

But again typical of a liberal mind set, you claim that I want dirty air and water. When we all know that is the last thing we want.. But the EPA doesn't use science to set it's agenda, it uses politics and supports whom ever is giving them money.. 

Sorry pal, I don't want your lead an mercury in the land fill and in our water supply from your battery hog cars and CFL bulbs etc...

But of course you are above us peon working folks who can't afford the prices of anything anymore, because of all the regulation of everything in the nth degree


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You've had plenty of opportunity to bring your best case forward - the best evidence, the most reliable resources - what you use to inform your thinking.

But all we've gotten is the anti-IPCC 'project' that used less than reliable sources, a long and old to the point of being out of date quote, and a list of people who signed a petition. And claims of conspiracy, fraud, falsification.



What you haven't been able to bring is a solid body of research with an alternative hypothesis that actually stands up to rigorous discussion.

What you haven't been able to bring is the evidence that supports your claims.

What you have been able to bring is the demand I do your homework.


So, once again, here is a small graph showing how strong each forcing is.










Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

IF you want to focus on cosmic rays or solar or whatever as your alternative hypothesis, then you need to come up with a body of evidence - the research - that shows the numbers on that chart to be inaccurate.

And while we have a fair amount of evidence of thinktanks, etc attempting to derail the established science, we don't have that body of evidence.

Which makes crying conspiracy a modus operandi. Which makes laying false accusations a modus operandi. Which makes calling on posters to do your homework a modus operandi.




JeffreyD said:


> Your evidence was well dissected by many top physists and proved to be bogus....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Which makes crying conspiracy a modus operandi. Which makes laying false accusations a modus operandi. Which makes calling on posters to do your homework a modus operandi.


What do you call posting the same chart 20 times?
(Besides boring?)


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What do you call posting the same chart 20 times?
> (Besides boring?)


Now that's just funny!

He's posting it again in case you missed it the first 19 times.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

From The Economist












Txsteader said:


> Now that's just funny!
> 
> He's posting it again in case you missed it the first 19 times.




I'm guessing the quips are easier to come up with than the evidence supporting the claims those denying the science have posted.....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Arctic sea ice falls below 4 million square kilometers | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis



Bearfootfarm said:


> What do you call posting the same chart 20 times?
> (Besides boring?)


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Should we let private industry decide what level of pollution they are allowed to pump out into the common air we all need to survive? No way. .


You are so naive in this regard.

Who forms the panels of "experts" on which the EPA sets regulations? 

Who decided that burning more fuel and producing more CO2 is preferred in cars? Why is emissions testing based not on total out put, but percentage of particular gases? Why is a modern car "cleaner" than a fuel sipping carbureted older car when one can use 25% of the fuel for the same task?



We have been over this before. The EPA was setup by big business to protect them from tort. It has never been about a clean environment.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What do you call posting the same chart 20 times?
> (Besides boring?)


You guys remember Moonies, those shave headed, robe wearing, airport terminal pests who answered every argument with, "But Reverend Moon says..." If it was pointed out to them that Rev Moon is a fraud, they would tell you, "but Reverend Moon says..." I think that chart is code for "but Reverend Moon says..."

Sorry to roberte, I realize that is kind of mean, but IPCC holds no weight because of proven errors, fraud, and suppression of contrary evidence. If they had withdrawn the hockey stick graph and admitted to the fraud, as well as created true scientific processes to ensure all past and future studies were tested, peer reviewed, and contradictory results were not purged and covered up, then IPCC might one day have some relevancy. 

I just did a google of solar causes of global warming and learned more than I want to know about 11 year, 1500 year, 41000 year solar cycles. I saw numerous scientists publishing info about why the sun is causing Earth, Jupiter, Titan, and Neptune to warm. roberte can post that chart as many times as he likes, but his opinion nor mine really matter. Until scientists, not NGO bureaucrats paid to spout the party line, can convince each other with science that there is AGW that is both bad and controllable, we should do nothing to hurt people or the economy.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> .... but IPCC holds no weight because of proven errors, fraud, and suppression of contrary evidence.
> .....


Show us where you learned about that.

Your best resources.

So far, in a 150+ posts, the evidence is pretty skimpy for any of the claims being proffered as support for those denying the science.

A 16 yr old interview

A link to Agenda21

A claim about one piece of research upsetting the whole body of evidence.

A list of people who have earned a variety of science degrees.

And lots, lots, lots of claims.....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

stanb999 said:


> ...
> Why is a modern car "cleaner" than a fuel sipping carbureted older car when one can use 25% of the fuel for the same task?....


RITA | BTS | Table 4-23: Average Fuel Efficiency of U.S. Light Duty Vehicles

Maybe it would be a good time to try to tell us what you meant to say.

Unless I'm not reading you correctly, you need to show us some 120 mpg 4 passenger "fuel sipping carbureted older car(s)"


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> ...I saw numerous scientists publishing info about why the sun is causing Earth, Jupiter, Titan, and Neptune to warm. ....


And modus operandi for those denying the science seems to be not to provide any proof.


Good to know.

BTW, here's some science; http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-neptune.htm give it a try.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

roberte said:


> Show us where you learned about that.
> 
> Your best resources.
> 
> ...


I know this sounds kind of crazy, but since you are responsible for a goodly percentage of the 150 posts in this thread and at least 180 of them contain your chart, perhaps, just maybe, well...watch the film in the OP. 

Then get back to me after you shave your head again.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

stanb999 said:


> You are so naive in this regard.
> 
> Who forms the panels of "experts" on which the EPA sets regulations?
> 
> ...


And being the earth has always and is still in a constant change. WHO sets what is Normal? Who knows 100% is sure what is the set temperature the set amount of CO2 is?
There is NO normal when something is in Constant Change~!
And the Earth is and always has been and always will be in repeating set of standards. Nothing is set in concrete that is Normal for the earth. And Who does set what Normal IS IF the earth ever was in a set of stable conditions?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Ahhh, glad to see that rather than make a minimal effort to substantiate any of the myriad of empty claims, we get some too witty by half comments and some attempt at a personal attack.


And probably why:








PAST CHARTS | UT Energy Poll



CesumPec said:


> I know this sounds kind of crazy, but since you are responsible for a goodly percentage of the 150 posts in this thread and at least 180 of them contain your chart, perhaps, just maybe, well...watch the film in the OP.
> 
> Then get back to me after you shave your head again.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Good video.



> Charlton Heston reads the intro of STATE OF FEAR, researched and written by the late Michael Crichton who wrote Jurassic Park, Congo, Sphere & many other famous books. State Of Fear affirms that *"the science that supports or does not support the theory behind global warming is so incomplete that no reasonable conclusions can be drawn on how to solve the 'problem' (or if the 'problem' even exists)."*


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGodDOLvBxw]Charlton Heston People versus Earth - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I'm guessing the quips are easier to come up with than the evidence supporting the claims those denying the science have posted.....


All the *pretty pictures* in the world won't make up for you* ignoring* thousands of years of extreme climate change that had nothing to do with humans, and basing all your "evidence" on just a few years of reports from *organizations with a definite agenda.*


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Ozarks Tom said:


> OK, I'll try just one more time. Is it the assumption/position of AGW "scientists" that as of this moment, or 50 years ago, the climate of the earth was/is optimum for human existence?
> 
> Has anybody else noticed roberte not only ignores the question, but seems to let enough posts get between the question and his next post, so as to distance himself from any imperative to answer?
> 
> Reminds me of a kid who learns a new trick, and won't stop showing it off.


Sometimes when some person on here is harrassing me and being demanding about some question - or making personal insults and just being rude and ignorant - or simply demanding stupid things that aren't worthy of an answer .... I have a tendency to just ignore them. You know, because there's no law that says anyone has to dignify somebody else's demands for answers. Maybe that's what he's doing with you.

As to your question about what would be the optimum temperature for earth - personally I think 65 degrees farenheit would be the ideal temperature for the whole world, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Of course it ain't going to happen, but it would be luverly if it did.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> You guys remember Moonies, those shave headed, robe wearing, airport terminal pests who answered every argument with, "But Reverend Moon says..." If it was pointed out to them that Rev Moon is a fraud, they would tell you, "but Reverend Moon says..." I think that chart is code for "but Reverend Moon says..."


Did you know that Reverend Moon died this week?

Just thought I would mention that.

.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All the *pretty pictures* in the world won't make up for you* ignoring* thousands of years of extreme climate change that had nothing to do with humans[/B]


 It is pretty obvious who is doing the 'ignoring', and it isn't Roberte...
And since we know climate has changed in the past without humans, it shouldn't be that hard to understand how it can change WITH humans.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> You've had plenty of opportunity to bring your best case forward - the best evidence, the most reliable resources - what you use to inform your thinking.
> 
> But all we've gotten is the anti-IPCC 'project' that used less than reliable sources, a long and old to the point of being out of date quote, and a list of people who signed a petition. And claims of conspiracy, fraud, falsification.
> 
> ...


I will ask once again...what is so significant about a graph with error bars which appear to be greater than or equal to the data which they are displaying???? That's just BS pure and simple. It means "We don't know but we like this graph!"


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> From The Economist
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where's the text to go with the graph??? It's meaningless without knowing the methods behind it.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

greg273 said:


> It is pretty obvious who is doing the 'ignoring', and it isn't Roberte...
> And since we know climate has changed in the past without humans, it shouldn't be that hard to understand how it can change WITH humans.


Greg - Your statement can not be denied. Climate can change WITH humans. 

But...

You can fill the Bay of Fundy with the bodies of 1M humans and the tides will change WITH humans. But the tide won't change BECAUSE OF humans. The tides change because of natural forces and while man can alter nature in small localized ways, he can not stop the natural forces of change.

See, all of us who have noticed that the earth has had numerous global warnings and climate changes over the past eons were not of the belief that global warmings and climate changes would stop just because man was here and finds change to be inconvenient. 

So back to the question that plagues us, can climate change BECAUSE OF humans. I remain a skeptic but I remain open minded as long as the science is convincing to scientists who specialize in climate and astrophysics, is testable and repeatable, and not filtered through or manipulated by biased sources like the IPCC.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

Roberte,

You haven't responded to anything I posted. What's up with the graph with a huge error bars??? What about the problems with proxie records???? How can you claim that climate "science" is right when it's based on such fundamentally flimsy science??? Models? Really? Do you really believe what the models say??? They distort the true observed weather records to suit their models and still fail to predict even the most limited climatic data! There is no "climate science". It's all a bunch of guess work, which is fine, as long as they are HONEST about the limitations and confidences of what they report. Climate change is the scientific cash cow of today and not much more. What do you say to that?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Jena - you made a good point. Remember in 2005 they told us hurricanes that would be larger, more frequent, and more damaging than we had ever seen? Global Warming was going to stop the snow from falling too. But all those models didn't get the next 7 years right so I'm wondering how they are going to get any better over the next 100 years.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Where's the chart the proves, unequivocally, that global warming is anthropogenic?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Txsteader said:


> Where's the chart the proves, unequivocally, that global warming is anthropogenic?


Now, where is the chart that proves, unequivocally, that anthropogenic effects aren't causing what we are observing?

That's assuming that someone isn't going to post 'proof' that there is no warming, ice melting, glaciers retreating, species migrating......


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

roberte, there has ALWAYS been warming and ice melting and species migrating. Except during the ice age. There is no proof that there even were glaciers in ancient times. Actually they have found that even in areas like Siberia there used to be no ice, they have found intact mammoths that seemed to die suddenly while grazing in grass lands, in the ice. 

The earth is righting itself. It is going back to what it was. 

That is why the same dinos found here can be found world wide.

The ONLY real difference is that mankind is now here to squawk about it and try to "fix" it. 

Get a grip, it was hot before the ice age, it stands to reason it will be hot and hotter as the earth recovers from the ice age. Again there is increased activity from both the earths core and the sun. Mankind is just a small fish in a very big sea.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

??????????????



MJsLady said:


> The earth is righting itself. It is going back to what it was.
> 
> That is why the same dinos found here can be found world wide.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Jena said:


> .... with a huge error bars??? What about the problems with proxie records????


 Do you understand the data behind the range of probability?

The ends of the error bars are less than 10% probability. 

Now, where is ANY science that supports the alternative hypotheses being touted in this thread?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It is pretty obvious who is doing the 'ignoring', and it isn't Roberte...
> And since we know *climate has changed in the past without humans*, it shouldn't be that hard to understand how* it can change WITH humans*.


Yes, it *can* change "with" humans, and WILL change in SPITE of humans, so to pretend its all *because* of humans, based on 150 years of data is IGNORING all the extremes that came before

Some just *parrot *the science they AGREE with, and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

We don't KNOW the "record highs" or "record lows" in the past, so to pretend they are radically different now is arrogant.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, it *can* change "with" humans, and WILL change in SPITE of humans, so to pretend its all *because* of humans, based on 150 years of data is IGNORING all the extremes that came before
> 
> Some just *parrot *the science they AGREE with, and pretend the rest doesn't exist.
> 
> We don't KNOW the "record highs" or "record lows" in the past, so to pretend they are radically different now is arrogant.



Still waiting for some actual science that supports the claims.......


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

History has proven that science has been wrong before and people suffered because of it. Sorry but Science is simple a search for knowledge it is not simple knowledge.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

????????????????????????



kasilofhome said:


> History has proven that science has been wrong before and people suffered because of it. Sorry but Science is simple a search for knowledge it is not simple knowledge.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

roberte said:


> ????????????????????????


????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? what are you not grasping as this is a frequent issue for you.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

So you are advocating doing away with all science?

Or just the parts you don't like?




kasilofhome said:


> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? what are you not grasping as this is a frequent issue for you.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I didn't get it either, K. 

Come again? 



kasilofhome said:


> History has proven that science has been wrong before and people suffered because of it. Sorry but Science is simple a search for knowledge it is not simple knowledge.


That can be said of everything, not just science.

.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Bobby 

Just expressing that you have a question is useless if you NEVER state what your question is. In fact it truly discredits you in my view (I speak for myself) because your doing that is what I label trolling.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Thank you Nature.

History has shown that the respected authorities of the day are often wrong. The earth was claimed as the center of the Universe. Is that true? No, but leading persons of the day dismissed all other views. 

Now, it seems that no one has yet to dismiss that the Earth has has warm periods and cold periods and no one is disclaiming that cars were there to end the Ice age No one is disclaiming that once Alaska and other areas that are today viewed as naturally cold were once vast tropical and grassy plains. YET it is shocking this reality back 100 percent with hard facts is being min and shoved to the darkess areas just to push the evils of man where the solution is to "spread the wealth" ---That is the end game and sorry but some of us are willing to stand up and say there is some major kinks in the claims the GW people hold to.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

K, I understand.
I mean look at old National Geographic pictures of the dinosaurs... Way way off.

R, I used common language that should be easy to grasp. 

I do not think what the charts and graphs show is NEW. I think it has happened on and off since the earth began. I do not think mankind can stop it.

Carbon dioxide btw is a naturally occurring thing. Plants need it to survive. They make oxygen out of it so we can survive, win win.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

kasilofhome said:


> ....
> YET it is shocking this reality back 100 percent with hard facts is being min and shoved to the darkess areas just to push the evils of man where the solution is to "spread the wealth" ---
> ....


....
Really, three people here couldn't explain that one


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Bobby

A theory is not a fact and making major decisions on a theory when there is fact against the theory is foolish. No matter if is science or canning or growing vegs. Theory is a stage of understanding knowledge and should not be valued as fact till proven. I am not against studying theories but to basically force 100 percent of the human race as a animal study is inhuman. There are too many facts of hard proof that the Earth is stable in change as change is stable for the involving universe.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Bobby re read the words written by m. lady or myself --we can't read them to you-- you have to do that yourself. Sorry no pictures or graphs most of us used words.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Still waiting for some actual science that supports the claims.......


LOL
So you can ignore it and post your same chart again?

Global Warming - Global Warming Facts and Global Climate Change Information

*GLOBAL WARMING LEADER ADMITS MISTAKE*


> *James Lovelock, the famed 92-year-old "Gaia Theory" British scientist says: &#8220;All right,&#8221; he said, &#8220;I made a mistake.&#8221; *
> &#8220;The problem is *we don&#8217;t know what the climate is doing*. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books &#8211; mine included &#8211; because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn&#8217;t happened &#8230; &#8220;The climate is doing its usual tricks. There&#8217;s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now &#8230; *The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium.* Twelve years is a reasonable time&#8230; it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;All right,&#8221; he said, &#8220;I made a mistake.&#8221; He added of his 2006 book, Revenge of Gaia, in which his language was over-the-top, &#8220;I would be a little more cautious &#8211; but then that would have spoilt the book.&#8221;
> ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

And square it against your claims.


And what's with the "Bobby"? Or is attempts at belittling par for the course in your definition of dialog?



kasilofhome said:


> Bobby
> 
> A theory is not a fact and making major decisions on a theory when there is fact against the theory is foolish. No matter if is science or canning or growing vegs. Theory is a stage of understanding knowledge and should not be valued as fact till proven. I am not against studying theories but to basically force 100 percent of the human race as a animal study is inhuman.






kasilofhome said:


> There are too many facts of hard proof that the Earth is stable in change as change is stable for the involving universe.




Where can I see those "...too many facts of hard proof that the Earth is stable..."?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> And square it against your claims.
> 
> 
> And what's with the "Bobby"? Or is attempts at belittling par for the course in your definition of dialog?
> ...


What is your solution?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

to the science that James Lovelock used to develop his thinking? Seems breitbart.com didn't bother to ask him.

Might want to explain why breitbart.com wants to claim JL as a "leader". 

While you are at it, could you tell us why citing the WSJ is proof?
_QUICK FACTS ABOUT CO2
from the Wallstreet Journal 
"The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant._ your link.





Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> So you can ignore it and post your same chart again?
> 
> Global Warming - Global Warming Facts and Global Climate Change Information
> ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

The belittling (and the personal attacks in this thread) or kasilofhome's (and others )inability to bring any science to support their claims?



JeffreyD said:


> What is your solution?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Facts have been given READ --no sense retyping for you to overlook. 

Clue--Think Elephant like mammal frozen solid in large groups while eating. Think palm trees in Alaska. 

Do you prefer R?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Where can I see those "...too many facts of hard proof that the *Earth is stable..."?*[/QUOTE]

Shortening the statement really changes the statement 

Originally Posted by kasilofhome View Post
There are too many facts of hard proof that the *Earth is stable in change as change is stable for the involving universe.*


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I have see with my eyes a mastdon eroding from a clift along the Cook inlet in Alaska. 4 more teeth made their way to the beach below. They were again collected by specialist.

I saw, I touched, others with a background confirmed, it has been published. Such and animal did live on vegetation not around Alaska today. So, it has been proven and accepted that Alaska was once a warm area and with areas of tropical zones. --Trust me I live here to day. Say 22 miles from that cliff and it is not like that today. It is far from a warm area. It gets cold here. We have a limited window to grow things. ---Things have changed quite a bit. That is scientifically accepted.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

8 pages in this thread. Mastodons were mentioned previously. Any links?

So, tell us about them; what's the connection to the topic? 



kasilofhome said:


> Facts have been given READ --no sense retyping for you to overlook.
> 
> Clue--Think Elephant like mammal frozen solid in large groups while eating. Think palm trees in Alaska.





kasilofhome said:


> Do you prefer R?


I'm showing you the respect to use your name. What's so difficult in doing the same?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Almanac: Chipping away at a mystery &#8212; Scientists ponder ...
redoubtreporter.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/&#8203;almanac-chipping-away-at...

Sep 14, 2011 Â· Redoubt Reporter. Soldotna geologist Dick Reger is quick to point out that what he ... peninsula also home to prehistoric horses, the scimitar cat, the mastodon ..


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

The full quote is above my truncation. I didn't want somebody to complain that I was poking fun of your syntactic mishap.



kasilofhome said:


> Where can I see those "...too many facts of hard proof that the *Earth is stable..."?*
> 
> Shortening the statement really changes the statement
> 
> ...


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

How are mastodon bones related to the topic?



kasilofhome said:


> Almanac: Chipping away at a mystery â Scientists ponder ...
> redoubtreporter.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/&#8203;almanac-chipping-away-at...
> 
> Sep 14, 2011 Â· Redoubt Reporter. Soldotna geologist Dick Reger is quick to point out that what he ... peninsula also home to prehistoric horses, the scimitar cat, the mastodon ..


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I not a greenhouse flower I have a backbone and accept that my writing has not evolved to the level of others. Remember only you can can prevent how you accept words or labels.

Now, do I understand that it is your position that never before within the 8 pages that there has been no mention of Mastodons?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

kasilofhome said:


> Now, do I understand that it is your position that never before within the 8 pages that there has been no mention of Mastodons?





roberte said:


> 8 pages in this thread. Mastodons were mentioned previously. Any links?
> 
> So, tell us about them; what's the connection to the topic?




Again, tell us about them; what's the connection to the topic?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well, to whom it matters, the mastodon once were more that bones, they once were alive but the died. It was warm and grasses no longer found here but were "flash frozen" inside the guts and mouth of the mastodon ---so perfectly frozen that id'ing the plants is not that hard for those that do that. So to freeze that fast was a historical and significant climate event. That kinds like shows that there have been changes that were by many peoples standard dramatic. 

Do you agree that there were fewer cars being driven when the mastodons roamed???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> The belittling (and the personal attacks in this thread) or kasilofhome's (and others )inability to bring any science to support their claims?


Your condesending attitude is what brings these types of responses, remember, you started it! So, with that in mind.....

You have proven you lack the ability to understand evidence presented to you. You continue to claim some of us have presented no evidence to refute your claims, your wrong. You can't even answer a simple question. This is typical behavior for un-balenced environmentalists. All the "proof" you have shown has been reviewed by tens of thousands of scientists and researchers and proven false, yet you still cling to them as your bible. 30,000+scientists and researchers against 1376 and you still believe the ipcc. Simply amazing!

What is your solution to "global warming"? Question is, will you answer it truthfully or evade it again?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

and climate.




kasilofhome said:


> ....So to freeze that fast was a historical and significant climate event.








kasilofhome said:


> Do you agree that there were fewer cars being driven when the mastodons roamed???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????



That needs some sort of connection...... 

You might want to start with: The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So, how much grant money is on the line here.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Agnotology "... the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data."


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Your condesending attitude is what brings these types of responses, remember, you started it!



Really, where?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> ....
> All the "proof" you have shown has been reviewed by tens of thousands of scientists and researchers and proven false, yet you still cling to them as your bible. 30,000+scientists and researchers against 1376 and you still believe the ipcc.
> 
> ....


The Petition Project accepted signatures based on the signer having achieved a basic or better degree in science. No restrictions on topic. No proof of any knowledge in any of the fields of climate science.

IPCC used research done by scientists with demonstrated expertise in their specific field. Research that has been vetted, discusses, repeated, verified.

For you to claim "...tens of thousands of scientists and researchers ..." would put the onus on you to show us how you know those "..tens of thousands..." have demonstrated their expertise.


A friend of mine is a certified auto mech with many hrs of specialized training and working at a dealership.

I can tune up a lawnmower.

Both use gas engines.

So my expertise equals his? According to your claim, it does.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Really, where?



Go back and read your own posts! :shrug:

I didn't think you would answer the question! That was expected! :bored:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

roberte said:


> Agnotology "... the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data."




AN Example is Globe Warming. (truncated perhaps)


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> The Petition Project accepted signatures based on the signer having achieved a basic or better degree in science. No restrictions on topic. No proof of any knowledge in any of the fields of climate science.
> 
> *Lie!*
> 
> ...


Where did i claim that? What's your solution?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Agnotology "... the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data."


Perfect term for the ipcc. Since they have a proven track record of lying about their statistics it truly fits.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

roberte said:


> to the science that James Lovelock used to develop his thinking? Seems breitbart.com didn't bother to ask him.
> 
> Might want to explain why breitbart.com wants to claim JL as a "leader".
> 
> ...


 
Once more, your *typical response*.
You ignore all that was presented, and ask silly questions as a diversion.

If you really wanted "evidence" you'd at least devote a little effort in to RESEARCHING what's shown to you.

Then you'd know why Lovelock is consdered a "leader" in the field.
It's known as experience:


> In early 1961, Lovelock was engaged by NASA to develop sensitive instruments for the analysis of extraterrestrial atmospheres and planetary surfaces. The Viking program, that visited Mars in the late 1970s, was motivated in part to determine whether Mars supported life, and many of the sensors and experiments that were ultimately deployed aimed to resolve this issue. During work on a precursor of this program, Lovelock became interested in the composition of the Martian atmosphere, reasoning that many life forms on Mars would be obliged to make use of it (and, thus, alter it). However, the atmosphere was found to be in a stable condition close to its chemical equilibrium, with very little oxygen, methane, or hydrogen, but with an overwhelming abundance of carbon dioxide. To Lovelock, the stark contrast between the Martian atmosphere and chemically dynamic mixture of that of our Earth's biosphere was strongly indicative of the absence of life on the planet.[7] However, when they were finally launched to Mars, the Viking probes still searched (unsuccessfully) for extant life there.
> Lovelock invented the electron capture detector, which ultimately assisted in discoveries about the persistence of CFCs and their role in stratospheric ozone depletion.[8][9][10] After studying the operation of the Earth's sulfur cycle,[11] Lovelock and his colleagues developed the CLAW hypothesis as a possible example of biological control of the Earth's climate.[12]
> Lovelock was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1974. He served as the president of the Marine Biological Association (MBA) from 1986 to 1990, and has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford (formerly Green College, Oxford) since 1994. He has been awarded a number of prestigious prizes including the Tswett Medal (1975), an American Chemical Society chromatography award (1980), the World Meteorological Organization Norbert Gerbier Prize (1988), the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for the Environment (1990) and the Royal Geographical Society Discovery Lifetime award (2001). In 2006 he received the Wollaston Medal, the Geological Society's highest Award, whose previous recipients include Charles Darwin [4]. He became a Commander of the British Empire CBE in 1990, and a member of the Companions of Honour in 2003.


But since you won't bother to read it, and you'll counter by REposting the SAME thing as most of your other posts, I wont play your *game *anymore, as it's obvious that's all it is


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

roberte said:


> Again, tell us about them; what's the connection to the topic?


The connection is that the earth was warmer in the ice caps than it is now.

The ice is the anomaly not its melting. As late as 10,000 years ago (using common sciences numbers) it was a grass land with butter cups. 

Then it froze. Now things are thawing out. I believe they have been thawing out since way before cars were invented. 
Mammoth in siberia

In my googling I also stumbled on this prison planet forum, Which seems to be an in depth conversation on this whole scam. It was under an article on how the founder of the weather channel says cw is a scam.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Roberte,

Answer this: What is your solution to "global warming"?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

work any better than the 'go READ', 'google it', or 'I posted it before' attempts.



JeffreyD said:


> Go back and read your own posts! :shrug:
> ....



Still waiting for some science that supports the claims......


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

And not a word about any research in the fields of climate science. 

And that doesn't answer 'leadership'. 

The point being, we have a plethora of claims - ranging from 'it isn't warming' to 'it may be warming, but that's natural', to 'well, in the future it will get cold', to 'the scientists were wrong'.

And nothing, really nothing, to support those claims. 

Other than Lovelock and elephants and a movie. And the petition...... And some conspiracy .......




Bearfootfarm said:


> Once more, your *typical response*.
> You ignore all that was presented, and ask silly questions as a diversion.
> ....


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> work any better than the 'go READ', 'google it', or 'I posted it before' attempts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Still won't answer, eh?

There has been a lot of evidence given to you, you choose to ignore it, That's your choice. I'm still waiting for you to provide a reputable source by tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientists and researchers. You haven't presented any that aren't full of misinformation.

What is YOUR solution for "global warming"?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> And not a word about any research in the fields of climate science.
> 
> And that doesn't answer 'leadership'.
> 
> ...


What is YOUR solution for "global warming"?


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Ancient history sir, trumps iffy science. 
good gravy you must just like to try and argue. 

What was posted btw was not about elephants. It was about animals that died suddenly and were frozen so quickly modern science can not figure out HOW it happened. 

So, the historical line goes, warm climate, sudden change to cold climate, slowly warming climate back to the norm. 

To me historical evidence disproves infantile science (a science still in its infancy, with no real evidence other than maybe this and maybe that just like evolution, a theorem not a fact.)

Since you can not disprove history and you can not prove the future there is no need to keep trying to explain anything. 

Especially about this mess from the guy who thinks he created the internet.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

MJsLady said:


> Ancient history sir, trumps iffy science.
> *good gravy you must just like to try and argue*.
> 
> What was posted btw was not about elephants. It was about animals that died suddenly and were frozen so quickly modern science can not figure out HOW it happened.
> ...


Isn't that the truth!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

roberte said:


> The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is ONLY 4.5 Billions YEARS of prove. That sure sure be enough. That the earth is in constant change with or without man on this earth which in earths time is only a Tick on the clock of time.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I'd like to know what evidence there is that shows how many times in the past the oceans have died from CO2 saturation and how long it took them to die and then to recover each time. Now that all the oceans are dying and have dead zones all over the world it would be nice to have some kind of estimate on how long it will be for them to change and recover.

Does anyone know?

.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I'd like to know what evidence there is that shows how many times in the past the oceans have died from CO2 saturation and how long it took them to die and then to recover each time. Now that all the oceans are dying and have dead zones all over the world it would be nice to have some kind of estimate on how long it will be for them to change and recover.
> 
> Does anyone know?
> 
> .


What is the Co2 saturation number that causes the oceans to die? The ocean in front of our beach house(Oxnard, Ca) looks like it always has(been surfing there for over 40 years), and the whale watchers have been having a great time. Fish caught off the piers and from boats look and taste great!

We(I) missed you for a while! Hope everythings good!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> What is the Co2 number that causes the oceans to die?


I have no idea.

CO2 saturation is called acidification, it's what causes dead zones where sea plants die and it causes crustaceans and sea molluscs to not be able to grow their shells, so they also die. When they all die all the other marine life that depends on them will also die (everything else eats vegetation, crustaceans and molluscs or other things that depend on those organisms). So when the vegetation and all the marine life is dead then the ocean will also be dead, nothing but stagnant acid water.

CO2 saturation and acidification is what's happening now, extremely rapidly. What I want to know is where I can find the evidence that it's a natural occurrence and however many times that it's happened in the past and how long it took to happen and then to recover again.

I haven't been able to find any history or evidence of it happening before.

.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Its been mentioned MANY times that climate has changed without mankinds industrial influence. So it is still changing, but this time there is a NEW factor. The industrial revolution and the burning of 250MILLION+ YEARS worth of fossil fuel. Burning all those stored hydrocarbons forms CARBON DIOXIDE, a wonderful plant food and very efficient greenhouse gas. When the levels of it are HIGH in the atmosphere, the Earth warms. 

And Kasilofhome, very interesting story on the mammoths, but it is essetially irrelevant to the topic of human-influenced climate change. Because, again, WE KNOW THE CLIMATE HAS CHANGED BEFORE. NO SCIENTIST DISPUTES THAT. The evidence is there for all to see. Even the author of your mammoth story recognizes that. 



> The good news is that both dates fit neatly into what is believed to be the Middle Wisconsin interstade, the name given to the approximately 30,000-year warm, wet period between the last two ice ages. If mammoths lived on the peninsula between 30,000 and 60,000 years ago, the conditions for their survival should have been quite favorable. Mammoths liked to dine on the kind of tough, silica-rich grasses and other low plants that could have thrived in the open peninsula country below the mountains.


 Almanac: Chipping away at a mystery


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> We(I) missed you for a while! Hope everythings good!


Thanks. :happy2: I was away from internet for awhile. I gave away everything I had that I didn't really absolutely need to keep and I moved out of the city (again) out into the valley (again) and am starting a new life for myself (again). Now I'm temporarily using a friend's computer at her place (I killed my laptop) until I get myself set up with new computer and wireless internet again so I'm only on the board in fits and starts right now when I get a chance. 

Oh, and I also killed my car very unexpectedly, dramatically and thoroughly. The past couple of months have been an adventure and the adventure continues. :smack :hysterical: LOL. C'est la vie!

.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I have no idea.
> 
> CO2 saturation is called acidification, it's what causes dead zones where sea plants die and it causes crustaceans and sea molluscs to not be able to grow their shells, so they also die. When they all die all the other marine life that depends on them will also die (everything else eats vegetation, crustaceans and molluscs or other things that depend on those organisms). So when the vegetation and all the marine life is dead then the ocean will also be dead, nothing but stagnant acid water.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure either! Something always seems to adapt and survive! I've been going through some searches and some of the info is very interesting! Iron oxide is said to be something that can increase photosynthisis by up to 30 times the normal rate(would hate to do that). Some also say that underwater fumeroles(sp) may have a lot to do with the increase of Co2 levels due to more siesmic activity around the globe! :shrug:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

MJsLady said:


> roberte, there has ALWAYS been warming and ice melting and species migrating. Except during the ice age. There is no proof that there even were glaciers in ancient times. Actually they have found that even in areas like Siberia there used to be no ice, they have found intact mammoths that seemed to die suddenly while grazing in grass lands, in the ice.
> 
> The earth is righting itself. It is going back to what it was.
> 
> ...


 Wow,perhaps you should crack open a geology book sometime.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yeah, I know about the fumeroles but nobody really knows much about what kind of effect they have or how long they have been happening because fumeroles are only a recent discovery. They were discovered only a few short years ago. I imagine they have most likely been occurring for a long time though and we just never knew about it because we didn't have the technology to discover them more than 50 years ago. I do know that the marine life that exists in the hot waters around the fumeroles are unlike sea life in all other places.

.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Some also say that underwater fumeroles(sp) may have a lot to do with the increase of Co2 levels due to more siesmic activity around the globe! :shrug:


 Sure, volcanoes add CO2 to the atmosphere... but mankind adds A LOT more.



> *Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 *,release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world&#8217;s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
> 
> *The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year* The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. *The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. *It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year.


 Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Sure, volcanoes add CO2 to the atmosphere... but mankind adds A LOT more.
> 
> 
> 
> Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview


What about others critters like insects(termites, ants,et...)?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

naturelover said:


> Yeah, I know about the fumeroles but nobody really knows much about what kind of effect they have or how long they have been happening because fumeroles are only a recent discovery. They were discovered only a few short years ago. .
> 
> .


 Fumaroles have been occurring since the planet was formed.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> What about others criters like insects(termites, ants,et...)?


 Those critters ADD NOTHING to the CO2 balance. They merely move it around, by eating plants and releasing already stored CO2. That CO2 was pulled from the atmosphere by the plants, so there is NO NET GAIN of CO2.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Fumaroles have been occurring since the planet was formed.


Black smokers and white smokers and their chimneys are also a type of fumarole but they have only recently been discovered, just a few years ago.

.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Those critters ADD NOTHING to the CO2 balance. They merely move it around, by eating plants and releasing already stored CO2. That CO2 was pulled from the atmosphere by the plants, so there is NO NET GAIN of CO2.


This is a link to that article! journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982)

Ah, you need to be a member, but you can read the abstract!

Termites: A Potentially Large Source of Atmospheric Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Molecular Hydrogen

Termites: A Potentially Large Source of Atmospheric Methane, Carbon Dioxide, and Molecular Hydrogen


The public has been led to believe that increased carbon dioxide from human activities is causing a greenhouse effect that is heating the planet. But carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our atmosphere and is a very weak greenhouse gas. Although it is widely blamed for greenhouse warming, it is not the only greenhouse gas, or even the most important. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas and accounts for at least 95% of any greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about 3%, with the remainder due to methane and several other gases.

Not only is carbon dioxide's total greenhouse effect puny, mankind's contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. *According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world*. Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. (If greenhouse warming is such a problem, why are we trying to save all the wetlands?) Geothermal activity in Yellowstone National Park emits ten times the carbon dioxide of a midsized coal-burning power plant, and volcanoes emit hundreds of times more. In fact, our atmosphere's composition is primarily the result of volcanic activity. There are about 100 active volcanoes today, mostly in remote locations, and we're living in a period of relatively low volcanic activity. There have been times when volcanic activity was ten times greater than in modern times. But by far the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions is the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It produces 72% of the earth's emissions of carbon dioxide, and the rest of the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, and the other oceans also contribute. The human contribution is overshadowed by these far larger sources of carbon dioxide. Combining the factors of water vapor and nature's production of carbon dioxide, we see that 99.8% of any greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. So how much effect could regulating the tiny remainder have upon world climate, even if carbon dioxide determined climate?

Since carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas, computer models predicting environmental catastrophe depend on the small amount of warming from carbon dioxide being amplified by increased evaporation of water. But in the many documented periods of higher carbon dioxide, even during much warmer climate periods, that never happened. During the time of the dinosaurs, the carbon dioxide levels were 300â500% greater than today. Five hundred million years ago, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 15â20 times what it is today. Yet the catastrophic water-vapor amplification of carbon dioxide warming never occurred.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Those critters ADD NOTHING to the CO2 balance. They merely move it around, by eating plants and releasing already stored CO2. That CO2 was pulled from the atmosphere by the plants, so there is NO NET GAIN of CO2.


Isn't that what humans are doing too? Just moving it around, releasing stored Co2? We have credits that are traded too!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Isn't that what humans are doing too? Just moving it around, releasing stored Co2? We have credits that are traded too!


 I'l say it again, termites and bugs DO NOT ADD TO THE NET CO2 CONTENT OF THE ATMOSPHERE. And the links you provided do NOT say they do. 

Digging up and burning hydrocarbons DOES add to the net CO2 of the atmosphere, to answer your second question. 

And you are WAY off on the oft-repeated claim that 'water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect'. It is actually closer to between 36% and 72%, according to the best available data. The amount of water vapor is relatively stable, we are not directly adding more like we are with CO2, but actually it INCREASES at temperature goes up. Adding CO2, a long lived, longwave (infrared) trapping greenhouse gas, is one way to make the atmosphere retain more heat. 


> Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, *such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide **allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.*


 NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

What else ya got?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> I'l say it again, termites and bugs DO NOT ADD TO THE NET CO2 CONTENT OF THE ATMOSPHERE. And the links you provided do NOT say they do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What does this mean?

According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.

or this?

Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined

or this

But by far the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions is the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It produces 72% of the earth's emissions of carbon dioxide

Is the journal wrong? Just googling around that's all so far, but it does seem to contradict what your saying. And also, nasa and noaa are not reliable sources for information because the have a lot to loose. Hansen has proved that they don't care for numbers and facts already.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Termites DO NOT ADD TO THE NET C02 of the ATMOSPHERE. If I could pull up the article you referenced, I would show you that. Are you a member of the 'Science' group where you have access to that article? If not, then you are being misled by the title. Yes, they release CO2 from plants as they eat them, but that DOES NOT ADD TO THE NET CO2 of the ATMOSPHERE. Think about it for just a minute.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Jeff, you are really looking at this wrong. Natural processes DO release CO2... rotting vegetation, termites, etc, are a HUGE contributor to the global atmospheric concentrations of CO2. But they do not ADD ANYTHING, they merely RELEASE what is already in the biosphere. Plants take up CO2 while growing, and release it when they die.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Wow,perhaps you should crack open a geology book sometime.


Why when google is so much handier?
Besides the gov behind the gw scam writes the books. 
I would rather read a varied take on it.
So far I still believe what is happening is normal. 
As stated here.

And what they say here


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

MJsLady said:


> Why when google is so much handier?
> Besides the gov behind the gw scam writes the books.
> I would rather read a varied take on it.
> So far I still believe what is happening is normal.
> ...


 No, the government didn't write the books I used when I studied this stuff in the late 90's. That basic geology, chemistry and physics has NOT changed. The science is sound. I don't know why you think this stuff is all a creation of Al Gore, he is just a politican trying to make a buck by hyping it up. No different than snake oil salesmen of old. But the science stands on its own. 

And if Google is so handy for you, then by all means you should use it to get a better understanding of the subject.


I do agree with parts of the first link, he basically admits warming, but says we will adapt. I agree 100% with that.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Jeff, you are really looking at this wrong. Natural processes DO release CO2... rotting vegetation, termites, etc, are a HUGE contributor to the global atmospheric concentrations of CO2. But they do not ADD ANYTHING, they merely RELEASE what is already in the biosphere. Plants take up CO2 while growing, and release it when they die.


Maybe i AM looking at it wrong! If the Co2 is being released, than it wasn't part of the atmosphere, only after it was released? So when we burn coal, the burning converts other matter into energy and one of the by-products is Co2 by conversion? Yeah, i can see that too!

So the termites release the Co2 from the plant matter when they eat, and the Co2 was what the plants used when they were alive, but now, that Co2 is being put back into the atmosphere because the plant matter has now decomposed. So it's a wash. I can see that. But that's just Co2 from the plant matter, termites do generate Co2 and methane on there own don't they? 

I found this, but it doesn't say where the Co2 came from.

Natural History Magazine | Feature

"Yet only Termitomyces spores germinate and grow in the nest: the growth of all other fungi is suppressed, most likely by carbon dioxide, which exists at higher concentrations within the nest than in the normal atmosphere"

On another site, they said that the weight of all the termites is more than the weight of all humans. Interesting.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> termites do generate Co2 and methane on there own don't they?


 No, they produce CO2 and methane as a byproduct of eating carbohydrates. They would produce NO methane or CO2 if they did not have CARBOHYDRATES to eat. They are NOT net contributors to the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. They eat and release what is already available in the biosphere.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> No, they produce CO2 and methane as a byproduct of eating carbohydrates. They would produce NO methane or CO2 if they did not have CARBOHYDRATES to eat. They are NOT net contributors to the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. They eat and release what is already available in the biosphere.


Ah, ok, i just read that in another article, about the carbohydrates that is! What about the heat they generate in their mounds? Hey i'm grasping here!

I asked roberte a few times - what is the solution? And will "global warming" result in any human deaths? I know that some will attribute ANY storm or other weather phenomina to it, but are they really caused by warming, or just part of the natural cycle of weather? Why would some of these "scientists" lie about their numbers?(on both sides)


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Do you understand the data behind the range of probability?
> 
> The ends of the error bars are less than 10% probability.



What are you trying to say? That the error bars are showing SD? It appears to me that they would be showing the uncertainty, or margin of error, in which case the having bars larger than your data means your data is worthless.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> Agnotology "... the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data."


Read that as "climate science". Biggest pile of bull pucky ever published.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

roberte said:


> And not a word about any research in the fields of climate science.
> 
> And that doesn't answer 'leadership'.
> 
> ...


A basic introductory level geology course offers up all the proof one needs to see that the climate of the earth has been radically different at different times. They are publishing papers on this stuff because it is basic science.

In the past it's been warmer...and it's been colder. There's been ice ages and there's been times when there were no polar ice caps because the climate was so warm.

What do you want??? A geology textbook?


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

naturelover said:


> I'd like to know what evidence there is that shows how many times in the past the oceans have died from CO2 saturation and how long it took them to die and then to recover each time. Now that all the oceans are dying and have dead zones all over the world it would be nice to have some kind of estimate on how long it will be for them to change and recover.
> 
> Does anyone know?
> 
> .


The oceans haven't died. They are not alive, so they can't die.

Dead zones are caused by anoxic conditions (a lack of oxygen), not an abundance of CO2. Dead zones come and go, many are a natural process brought on by the particular characteristics of a body of water. Some are thought to be increased or caused by human influences.

All the oceans are not dying, though humans are doing a pretty good job of killing off many of the species that live there through over fishing and pollution.

CO2 dissolves in oceans. It is broken down into carbonic acid, carbonate and bicarbonate. This can change the pH of the oceans and affect the lysocline and CCD. A change in those depths could impact marine life.

Some mass extinction events are thought to involve massive changes in the oceans, including anoxic events.


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

greg273 said:


> I'l say it again, termites and bugs DO NOT ADD TO THE NET CO2 CONTENT OF THE ATMOSPHERE. And the links you provided do NOT say they do.


It does say they turn carbon into methane, which is a much worse greenhouse gas. 

CO2 goes to plants to termites and comes back as methane.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Jena said:


> It does say they turn carbon into methane, which is a much worse greenhouse gas.
> 
> CO2 goes to plants to termites and comes back as methane.


 Yes, methane is a hydrocarbon. CH4. They must still eat hydrocarbons, in the form of plant matter, to 'turn carbon to methane'.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Jena said:


> A basic introductory level geology course offers up all the proof one needs to see that the climate of the earth has been radically different at different times. They are publishing papers on this stuff because it is basic science.
> 
> In the past it's been warmer...and it's been colder. There's been ice ages and there's been times when there were no polar ice caps because the climate was so warm.


 Yes, that is all well established. I think we covered this several pages ago. What is your point exactly?


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Look bottom line is there are scientists who support my view and scientist that support your view.
Since history also supports my view, I will stay where I am.

I do not change for every fly by night idea that comes along. 

Especially when the guys behind it all are raking in money on the hysteria they are generating.
I will not bring mercury based light bulbs into my home, I will not go into debt to buy a different car either.
I will read and if ever they come up with historical evidence to back the idea that mankind is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing on the planet, well I still won't believe it cuz the world does not revolve around mankind but I might pay more attention. 


Scientifically most folks think I am a kook anyway.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

What about all these so called global warming guru's that say cows add methane into the atmosphere from flatulence. They are just eating grasses.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

I am no fan of the CFLs, I do have a few but also have incandescent bulbs. But since you mentioned mercury, you do know that burning coal produces mercury as a byproduct? And over the lifetime of an average CFL, they will actually REDUCE the amount of mercury going into the environment compared to burning the extra energy needed for an incandescent bulb. 



> Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will *emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL *(the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.


Compact Fluorescent Bulbs and Mercury: Reality Check - Popular Mechanics


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

With scrubbers and such on coal plants there is less of a chance now that much of mercury gets into the air. So it is still a pipes dream that green energy can save jobs in America.
And there is so LITTLE mercury in CFL bulbs when compared to those LARGE 8 Foot ones, Which many just smash into dumpsters when they are bad. I have smashed many when I worked at a warehousing situations in three jobs I have had. Just break them up in the dumpster no big deal.
Even busted a 4 footer one time at the work place, no big deal maintenance guys were called and the glass was swept up, this was just a few years ago too. That was even in a "Clean Room" situation~ LOL


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

greg273 said:


> I am no fan of the CFLs, I do have a few but also have incandescent bulbs. But since you mentioned mercury, you do know that burning coal produces mercury as a byproduct? And over the lifetime of an average CFL, they will actually REDUCE the amount of mercury going into the environment compared to burning the extra energy needed for an incandescent bulb.
> 
> 
> 
> Compact Fluorescent Bulbs and Mercury: Reality Check - Popular Mechanics


if that is the same study I've previously seen, it depends on the artificial long life advertised for CFLs. In truth, CFLs when turned on and off repeatedly as is done in most household situations, their life falls down to something much closer to the average incandescent.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Jena said:


> .... CO2 dissolves in oceans. It is broken down into carbonic acid, carbonate and bicarbonate. This can change the pH of the oceans and affect the lysocline and CCD. A change in those depths could impact marine life.
> 
> Some mass extinction events are thought to involve massive changes in the oceans, including anoxic events.


Thanks. I did find some corresponding information about that and that CO2 saturation in the oceans is happening at unprecedented rates.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. About a quarter of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes into the oceans, where it forms carbonic acid. Ocean acidification, which like global climate change is driven by excessive levels of carbon dioxide, has been regarded by climate scientists as the "equally evil twin" of global climate change.
> 
> As the amount of carbon has risen in the atmosphere there has been a corresponding rise of carbon going into the ocean.
> 
> ...


If it's increased 6 percent in the upper 100 meters of the Pacific then the acidity will be much, much higher at the sea bottom.

.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MJsLady said:


> Look bottom line is there are scientists who support my view and scientist that support your view.
> Since history also supports my view, I will stay where I am.
> 
> I do not change for every fly by night idea that comes along.
> ...


History does not support your view. History does not take into account the change in the amount of people and the way they use the planet in the last 100 years.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

No just look how many dinosaurs were on the earth and how BIG they were. Eating putting all sorts of methane into the air.
Yuppers dinos were plenty and large and lasted for million and millions of years man has only been on this earth a tick on clock of time. LOL


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Many dino's were veggy loving grass eater's I thing it is safe to see that if a cow eats a fraction of the diet that dino ate then volume of gas produce would be something. 

Look those in favor of GW would get more credit if they would stop exhaling and make an impact.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

Regarding the film cited at the start of this thread, one of the primary subjects' bio is here on wikipedia: Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One section of it is:


> Monckton is a director of Resurrexi Pharmaceutical and is claimed to be "responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases."[64] In the BBC documentary, "Meet the Sceptics" (2011), Monckton, said he had cured himself of Graves' disease an auto-immune disease thought to have been triggered either by a one-time virus or bacterial infection, and said he was researching a "broad-spectrum cure" for infectious diseases.[51] UKIP's CV for Monckton claims that his methods have produced cures for multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes, as well as reducing the viral load of an HIV patient.[64]


To me, all that roughly qualifies the esteemed Lord Monckton, in carefully considered academic terminology, a umm, "bloviating jackwagon crackpot" or similar. I'll not be watching that "documentary," particularly since the web site cited for it is two years old and apparently dead.

OK, I *fully* accept and take deadly seriously those reports of mammoths flash-frozen so rapidly they still had recently-munched tropical plants in their stomachs. that does *not* give me any comfort regarding what could be coming rather soon should it be the case that human C02 emissions + a dollop of methane releases are triggering climate changes that, of course, would be quite similar to geologically historical processes that have been documented. A degree or two globally warmer puts a tremendous extra amount of heat, and then kinetic, energy into the atmosphere and secondarily, the oceans. Heat fuels faster movement of jet stream forces in winter as well as summer... there are very powerful cyclonic lows generated in arctic regions, it's not just hurricanes and typhoons. In fact, Alaska has just been through a particularly intense storm, here from Jeff Masters' WU blog: Wunder Blog Archive | Weather Underground


> Huge storm pummels Alaska
> A massive low pressure system with a central pressure of 970 mb swept through Alaska on Tuesday, generating hurricane-force wind gusts near Anchorage, Alaska that knocked out power to 55,000 homes. Mighty Alaskan storms like this are common in winter, but rare in summer and early fall. The National Weather Service in Anchorage said in their Wednesday forecast discussion that the forecast wind speeds from this storm were incredibly strong for this time of year--four to six standard anomalies above normal. A four-standard anomaly event occurs once every 43 years, and a five-standard anomaly event is a 1-in-4800 year event. However, a meteorologist I heard from who lives in the Anchorage area characterized the wind damage that actually occurred as a 1-in-10 year event.


One of the "out there" climate catastrophe scenarios I've seen is that there's a much larger risk than is generally accepted of one of these polar cyclones intensifying to the point that it engages extremely cold air in the far upper atmosphere (troposphere?) and thereby funnels flash-freezing intensity blasts to extensive areas of the northern hemisphere for some period of time. I see no contradiction between global *warming* and a hypothesis that its most extreme and damaging acute effect could be one of extreme freezing storms caused by winter air circulation and jet stream effects. It is *----ed* scary that there's outright evidence of such a process occurring just barely out of historic time in the form of those mammoth carcasses. Actually, this whole scenario was pretty much exactly laid out in the setup for that (not very good overall, admittedly) movie, "Day After Tomorrow." They even cite the mammoth data.

I think there's a pretty good chance that whatever the ultimate positive feedback- driven climate changes triggered by human fossil fuel burning are to be, have already been pretty much inexorably set in motion. That's particularly considering the huge fortunes now based on the process that will become more huge if it's allowed to continue without regulation. Too much money, too much buying of lobbyists and votes and even paid propagandists like internet posters. Just ask China about the "50c Army" setup they have. Reforms won't be forthcoming fast enough in any event, therefore, imo, so I see no point in railing against ill-informed dupes claiming tens of thousands of scientists have data disproving human-caused global warming.

If there's anything to be done at this point, perhaps the productive discussion could be whether individuals can in fact prep effectively for rather sudden, extreme climate shifts? Do you have ether with which to jumpstart your chainsaw so you can butcher flash-frozen Bossie where she lays with frozen cud in her mouth out on the back 40? Do you have assets with which you could buy, or fight, your way through Mexico to some non-frozen area nearer the Equator? Or if less extreme, what will it take to cope with much more extensive and frequent drought conditions in the central US? I do really think such factors are likely to wash over us, correlated with climate changes not seen in the recent historic past, *independent of* other possible collapse disasters now like pandemic, financial meltdown, nuke wars & oil supply cutoff, and so on. So who CARES about finger-pointing about whose car belched out more CO2 to start it all off even if that did happen. How fast can individuals respond, and to exactly what possible threats, are questions more to the point.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> No *just look how many dinosaurs were on the earth* and how BIG they were. Eating putting all sorts of methane into the air.
> Yuppers *dinos were plenty* and large and lasted for million and millions of years man has only been on this earth a tick on clock of time. LOL


How many were there?

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If it's increased 6 percent in the upper 100 meters of the Pacific then the acidity will be much, much higher at the sea bottom.


 I don't think so.
If it's coming IN from the atmosphere, the concentrations should be higher near the surface, and LOWER near the bottom where it's more likely to come into contact with LIME that will neutralize it


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

I saw a show on core samples last night from the arctic. It showed that during the Pleistocene there WERE no glaciers, and that it was 5-6 degrees warmer than it is now. 

Yes historical data does back me up. 

Humanity is not the IT we think we are. We are a small blip on a very large radar.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MJsLady said:


> I saw a show on core samples last night from the arctic. It showed that during the Pleistocene there WERE no glaciers, and that it was 5-6 degrees warmer than it is now.
> 
> Yes historical data does back me up.
> 
> Humanity is not the IT we think we are. We are a small blip on a very large radar.


I think you may need to thing about what you just wrote. I am going to assume you don't really mean there were NO glaciers during the "Pleistocene epoch". I will allow you to restate before I shoot holes in it.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Yes I miss stated it. 
However the temperatures I did not misstate. 
Antarctica used to be a tropical climate. Much warmer than it is today. With no humankind tinkering with it.
I will not return to this thread. I have done my research, and even a gov backed gw "proof" show on PBS admitted it was warmer then than now.
It will take at least 100 years they said to get back to where it used to be. Even doing nothing now. Who says now is normal? 
I have better things to do than argue fake science. 
Is the climate changing? Yes. Does man figure into it? Yes.
Is man the cause? No. Can man stop it? No. Can man destroy the earth, which was created by something bigger, badder and more important than himself? No. 

There have been many E. L. Es. over time. Mankind has survived several himself. Though in smaller numbers, to rebuild. 

Just one should have wiped us out. Check out the Toba volcano.
Toodles off to real life and hubby and breakfast.:benice:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

In a month or so some REAL scientists are going to drill under the ice and see how the Undersea volcanoes maybe causing the ice to get thinner. In other words the ice maybe shrinking NOT because of the Sun and warmer temps coming from above the ice.
BUT the underwater volcanoes Warming the ocean up enough to melt the ICE From Underneath.~!
So you can see, that NOBODY knows for sure what is causing some ice to melt. NOBODY , and no computer generated chart knows either.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> In a month or so some REAL scientists are going to drill under the ice and see how the Undersea volcanoes maybe causing the ice to get thinner. In other words the ice maybe shrinking NOT because of the Sun and warmer temps coming from above the ice.
> BUT the underwater volcanoes Warming the ocean up enough to melt the ICE From Underneath.~!
> So you can see, that NOBODY knows for sure what is causing some ice to melt. NOBODY , and no computer generated chart knows either.



Okay let's go with your premise. Would you go with the idea that we may not know what the exact causes of climate change are but if we as humans suspect some of the things we are doing are contributing we should work towards adjusting where we can? Or should we just say So What! and don't bother to be good stewards of this planet?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nobody has ever said they want dirty air, nobody has every said they want dirty water, nobody has ever said they want Temps to keep climbing upward.
We are saying the Hyped up GW gurus that man has caused this GW is not true. The have their own agenda in controlling people. And in doing so have ruined more companies in the USA then you can shake a stick at.
CO2 levers are the lowest in 20 years. The epa can roll back some of its over reaching rules and regulations back to 2000 and we will Still have clean air to breath, clean water to drink.
And without making such a burden on companies in the process. 
And with the newest technologies out there now coal plants CAN reduce the pollutants going into the air, and water, with the newest technologies even Nuclear plants can be built much saver then 35 years ago. With the new technologies in deep ocean drilling oil wells can be pumped safely. Course we all know nothing is 100% save Nothing. Things can happen, but they can be greatly reduced now will new technologies that are now being used.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Nobody has ever said they want dirty air, nobody has every said they want dirty water, nobody has ever said they want Temps to keep climbing upward.
> We are saying the Hyped up GW gurus that man has caused this GW is not true. The have their own agenda in controlling people. And in doing so have ruined more companies in the USA then you can shake a stick at.
> CO2 levers are the lowest in 20 years. The epa can roll back some of its over reaching rules and regulations back to 2000 and we will Still have clean air to breath, clean water to drink.
> And without making such a burden on companies in the process.
> And with the newest technologies out there now coal plants CAN reduce the pollutants going into the air, and water, with the newest technologies even Nuclear plants can be built much saver then 35 years ago. With the new technologies in deep ocean drilling oil wells can be pumped safely. Course we all know nothing is 100% save Nothing. Things can happen, but they can be greatly reduced now will new technologies that are now being used.


Those new technologies are there now ( and more in the future) because people were forced to find them. We all know that if left to their own devices, most corporations would never have invested in the technologies because it cuts into their bottom line.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I firmly believe that FREE men (that includes female) with dreams and a backbone want to improve themselves and their situations. Regs are just power trips in many cases today --it is my belief that regs are out of control to control. Where were the regs when man found way to start and use fire. Abilities are not limited to a few with titles but that each person has something to offer. Many people have been crushed by regs. A man with dreams and hope can do more than what they are boxed in doing. As great as man is we are nothing more than a species in nature but it is my belief that in the eye of God we are very valued. 

The survival if the fittest that is an ingrained in life many cause some to become over protected out of fear yet a free person will strive for more that just survival--there is living. Global warming comes and goes seems to me that it is foolish to try and control nature but wise to learn to adapt and adapting is the heritage of life today.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We all know that if left to their own devices, most *corporations would never have invested in the technologies because it cuts into their bottom line*.


LOL
SELLING those technologies IS the bottom line for those companies.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> I firmly believe that FREE men (that includes female) with dreams and a backbone want to improve themselves and their situations. Regs are just power trips in many cases today --it is my belief that regs are out of control to control. Where were the regs when man found way to start and use fire. Abilities are not limited to a few with titles but that each person has something to offer. Many people have been crushed by regs. A man with dreams and hope can do more than what they are boxed in doing. As great as man is we are nothing more than a species in nature but it is my belief that in the eye of God we are very valued.
> 
> The survival if the fittest that is an ingrained in life many cause some to become over protected out of fear yet a free person will strive for more that just survival--there is living. Global warming comes and goes seems to me that it is foolish to try and control nature but wise to learn to adapt and adapting is the heritage of life today.


It may be your belief. I however have seen and experienced that just as many of those free men and women are just plain greedy and given the opportunity, use and abuse the those less fortunate and ravage our national resources to increase their bank account.

Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with protecting things , it would wipe them out. Global warming may come and go but there is no reason that we need to be part of the cause when we know better. Why not just cut all the forests down or fish the seas to extinction just because we can. We are adapting by trying to lessen our impact on the earth.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Ego--eco


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

MJsLady said:


> Yes I miss stated it.
> However the temperatures I did not misstate.
> Antarctica used to be a tropical climate. Much warmer than it is today. With no humankind tinkering with it.


 Antarctica used to be part of the 'supercontinent' of Pangea, and was MUCH closer to the equator during some of those times. The continents move, they are basically the outer crust of the earth, the relatively lighter rocks, floating on magma. Continental drift is also why there are coal beds in Illinois. Illinois and much of the Appalachians were on the equator during the Carboniferous period. The vast coal swamps were formed in a tropical environment. Illinois is certainly nowhere near the equator today.

During more recent times, 50million years ago, the earth was much warmer, and the concentration of CO2 was closer to 1000PPM. Yes, Antarctica WAS more tropical like during those times also, even though it was closer to its present position than near the equator. That should tell you something about the role of greenhouse gasses in the environment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *That should tell you something* about the role of greenhouse gasses in the environment.


It tells you when it's warmer, there's more CO2.
They STILL aren't *sure* which change comes FIRST.

It should also tell you the Earth can (and will) correct itself on it's own


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It tells you when it's warmer, there's more CO2.
> They STILL aren't *sure* which change comes FIRST.
> 
> It should also tell you the Earth can (and will) correct itself on it's own


I think it's the CO2 that comes first and causes more heat, that's based on what I've seen in the closed climate controlled greenhouses that I've worked in. When the CO2 generators are turned on the greenhouses get much, much hotter than they do when the CO2 generators are not on. Then cold air needs to be vented into the greenhouses and more sulphur burners, fans and dehumidifiers need to be turned on. Those are for the plants, not for workers (workers can't be inside there when the CO2 generators and sulphur burners are on anyway, it's too hot and toxic even with protective gear on).

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I think it's the CO2 that comes first and causes more heat, that's based on what I've seen in the closed climate controlled greenhouses that I've worked in.


That's not a natural situation

Most of the CO2 generators themselves produce a lot of heat

Hydroinnovations - CO2 Calculator



> To calculate chiller requirements for your specific garden, install the unit on a temporary recirculation system first. Run the generator on the lowest setting for a few hours and note the generator run time to reach your desired PPM's for each hour.
> 
> *On the lowest setting the generator's output is roughly 12,000 BTU of heat,* so if it were to run for one full hour it would require 12,000 BTU (1 hp ) of cooling. If your generator runs for 15 min per hour then 3,000 BTU (1/4 HP) of cooling would be needed, if it ran for 5 minutes 1000 BTU (1/12 HP) of cooling would be needed, and so on. A good rule of thumb is to size the chiller that you purchase about 20% above what you absolutely need. This will give you better energy efficiency, and longer chiller life.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Black smokers and white smokers and their chimneys are also a type of fumarole but they have only recently been discovered, just a few years ago.
> 
> .


So you prove the point for the NON man made GW folks.. It seems the man made GW folks want to blame man for everything, yet as you pointed out above some things are recent discoveries and we don't have all the info on them yet... 

Yet you and others continue to tell us that the man made GW science has been proven, without all the facts..

Imagine that! Trying to force assumptions down the throats of Americans when all the facts aren't known, then expect us to swallow the carp..

Sorry, it won't happen! When the science can prove it and repeat the proof, then I'll believe it is man made, till then it is only hype being put out by those who worship at the Global warming church.. 

This is just like most churches.. They get rich off the charity of their members..


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It tells you when it's warmer, there's more CO2.
> They STILL aren't *sure* which change comes FIRST.
> 
> It should also tell you the Earth can (and will) correct itself on it's own


 CO2 and temp have a DIRECT correlation. When one goes up, the other goes up. Its irrelevant which comes first, for the purposes of this discussion. In this case, we KNOW we are adding to the CO2 levels.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Personally I think that for too long many have kept quiet and let GW stuff reach the point that those pushing it believed that in our PC silents that we fell for it. I for one just thought you guys pushing it would one day see that it is hype over and agenda by people who have set up a scam game. Follow the money --those that will gain are paying for many of the PHD's supporting this GW. They doctor some paper results and get grants. Gw started gaining a foot hold --grants slowed down and PHD's started back peddling --maybe to reinstate grants or maybe they had enough --or got enough to come clean. It is not the first time people have been used and it will not be the last. This PC world is really too controlling.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

kasilofhome said:


> ....
> I for one just thought you guys pushing it would one day see that it is hype over and agenda by people who have set up a scam game.


I'm really interested in seeing the thread of evidence you can bring......





kasilofhome said:


> Follow the money --those that will gain are paying for many of the PHD's supporting this GW.


OK, give us a place to start Show us some of the "PHDs" who are getting paid. Show us the 'paystubs'. 

Really want to see the connections you are attempting to make.




kasilofhome said:


> They doctor some paper results and get grants.


Examples?





kasilofhome said:


> Gw started gaining a foot hold --grants slowed down and PHD's started back peddling...


Examples?




kasilofhome said:


> ....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

because 'greenhouse effect' is a result that is SIMILAR. Not an exact equivalent.



naturelover said:


> I think it's the CO2 that comes first and causes more heat, that's based on what I've seen in the closed climate controlled greenhouses that I've worked in. When the CO2 generators are turned on the greenhouses get much, much hotter than they do when the CO2 generators are not on. Then cold air needs to be vented into the greenhouses and more sulphur burners, fans and dehumidifiers need to be turned on. Those are for the plants, not for workers (workers can't be inside there when the CO2 generators and sulphur burners are on anyway, it's too hot and toxic even with protective gear on).
> 
> .


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> ....
> CO2 levers are the lowest in 20 years.
> ....


Show us what informed your thinking on that.


I think the last time this was claimed, it was a confusion between the level of US emissions v. global CO2 level.

There is a reason whey CO2 is called a LLGHG


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Man's contribution to total CO2 in the atmosphere is about 2% compared to the 98% from natural sources. The IPCC is ignoring the gorilla in the room which is the 98%. Whether CO2 leads or lags temperature is relevant otherwise it is not the factor causing the temperature to rise. 

The Sun is the controlling factor in climate change. The now proven link between the Sun, cosmic rays and cloud formation is the key to understanding the complex relationship that up until recently could not be explained except for an indication of an unknown factor or gas.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Darren said:


> ...
> The Sun is the controlling factor in climate change. The now proven link between the Sun, cosmic rays and cloud formation is the key to understanding the complex relationship that up until recently could not be explained except for an indication of an unknown factor or gas.



Are you talking about the single paper reverently referenced near the beginning of this thread?

The one the newspaper article overstates the findings of......

Now, here's the infamous chart again.









Tell us how you make the numbers work for your claim.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Darren said:


> ....
> Whether CO2 leads or lags temperature is relevant otherwise it is not the factor causing the temperature to rise.
> ....



*What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?*


This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesnât cause global warming? The answer is no.


The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earthâs orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

Continues at RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

You're ignoring the fact that human activity only contributes about 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. To believe that 2% is going to make the difference in global climate isn't rational.

And yes, the experiment at CERN was a scientific breakthrough in understanding how the changes in the Sun's output control climate.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Darren said:


> You're ignoring the fact that human activity only contributes about 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. To believe that 2% is going to make the difference in global climate isn't rational.




Your "2%". Where did you get that?

Note the chart referenced above is showing the Anthropogenic load. Not total CO2.




Darren said:


> And yes, the experiment at CERN was a scientific breakthrough in understanding how the changes in the Sun's output control climate.



I'd suggest that you go back and read at least the article's abstract. It is linked to in the newspaper article.

And you will notice pretty quickly that the author of the newspaper article either had an agenda or wasn't qualified to rewrite the findings of the research.

And if you go to the actual research, you'll see there is even less of a connection between the findings and what is being claimed for it by those using that paper as 'proof'.


As a sidenote; it seems there is an awful lot of 'don't trust the science'. That is, until those who want to deny the science find a bit of science that they can skew to support their claims.......


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Here's some more science:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIUN5ziSfNc"]Climate Change: Lines of Evidence[/ame]

Also available at: The National Academies


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Darren said:


> Man's contribution to total CO2 in the atmosphere is about 2% compared to the 98% from natural sources.


No it is a LOT less then that.
The percentage of carbon dioxide was 0.03%in the atmosphere 30 yrs back and is still the same now~!!!
in fact lets draw those nuumbers out in long form.The data from Mauna Loa (the "Keeling curve" shows atmospheric CO2 increasing from about 0.0316% in 1958 to about 0.0386% in 2008, a 22% increase in CO2 concentration in 50 years. Such a large increase in such a short period of time is certain to have environmental effects. We may not know exactly what those effects will be, but they will occur. Furthermore, it doesn't even matter what the effects might be. Modern, technological civilization spread worldwide during the 20th century, much of which was a period of highly unusual climatic stability by historical standards. Our civilization is specifically adapted to this mid-20th-century climate in terms of sea levels, rainfall patterns, availability of fresh water, and many other factors. Any change from this stable climate, in any direction, is going to put stresses on our civilization, and these stresses will have costs. It is probably cheaper to address climate change proactively than reactively, but we will eventually have to pay one way or the other.

Arguments that this is really only a 0.005% increase in CO2 are using junk math. For comparison, consider a toxin that is dangerous at a concentration of 10 parts per million. Would you consider an increase from 5 ppm to 10 ppm a dangerous 100% increase or a trivial 0.0005% increase?
This argument brought on by the GW is so much fuzzy math that it has been hilarious from the start, that this tiny tiny tiny fraction of CO2 has been caused by man causing the GW crises. This was so hyped up by the green folks many years ago it is still funny that so many are still being taken in by it.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

*Arctic sea ice falls below 4 million square kilometers
*September 5, 2012
Following the new record low recorded on August 26, Arctic sea ice extent continued to drop and is now below 4.00 million square kilometers (1.54 million square miles). Compared to September conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, this represents a 45% reduction in the area of the Arctic covered by sea ice. At least one more week likely remains in the melt season.











Data: Arctic sea ice falls below 4 million square kilometers | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

Images: RealClimate: An update on the Arctic sea-ice & http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Oh NO the graph

Bait and Switch--

I said GRANTs you switch to PAYSTUBS.

Not falling for it. 

People are getting sick and tired of not challenging the GW. The game is over. GW pushed too hard and if you just did not demand to control every area of human life many of us would have let you do you scolding (ok, so we would have still laugh behind your backs) but you lack having true long term strong proof that comes anywhere the historical facts that nature left out in the open. 

1.Global temperatures have declined since 1998 (and here) while carbon emissions have risen, undermining the scientific argument for global warming. Now, the public release of hundreds of internal e-mails hacked from University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) reveal data was changed in order to fit the model of global warming and support a global carbon tax and trade. This, suspiciously after CRU claimed to have lost or destroyed the data that would allow independent verification of CRU's claims.

2An Inconvenient Day? Al Gore Preps 24-Hour Global Warming ...
www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/12/&#8203;...24-hour-global-warming-broadcast

Jan 27, 2012 Â· An Inconvenient Day? Al Gore Preps 24-Hour Global Warming Broadcast ... it&#8217;s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data ...
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | &#8230;
www.foxnews.com/.../2011/09/14/&#8203;...from-top-physics-group-over-global

Jan 07, 2012 Â· The global warming theory left him out in the cold. Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former ... it&#8217;s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research &#8230;

3.Global Warming: Man or Myth?

Scientists can also wear their citizen hats
Taking the Money for Grant(ed) &#8211; Part II

with 14 comments

In Part I, I addressed the following two claims:

1) Scientists are getting rich from research grants!

2) Scientists holding an anti-AGW viewpoint cannot get funding! 

I then asked scientists from around the world to relate their experiences and if they were getting rich from grant funding. Since Part I, I also did a little more digging and came up with some important information. That information as well as a few examples from those that commented appear below.

Scientists holding an anti-AGW viewpoint cannot get funding! 

In Part I, I listed the names of several prominent anti-AGW scientists that have no difficulty getting funding. Thanks to Bart Verheggen for directing me to this statement by Dr. Bas van Geel, UvA :

Professor Begemann&#8217;s claim that on universities it is not possible to present a different opinion about climate change in any case isn&#8217;t true for the University of Amsterdam. In my professional environment so far there nobody has ever tried to correct me (a skeptic with an opinion based on strong arguments) In the past 10 years, neither did I ever have a problem with finding funding for research on the role of the sun on climate changes in the past. It is (also) because of this research I started having an alternative opinion on what&#8217;s going on with the present-day climate: I still believe that natural variability is much more important than changes caused by mankind.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'm going by the table in the IPCC report in case Roberte comes back with his usual evidence request. If the whole issue wasn't such an obvious attempt by the UN to justify becoming a global taxing authority it would be laughable. As it is the EPA is fast becoming one of the biggest threats to the American families financial wellbeing.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

So, show us the grant applications; show us the grants being awarded.

Make the connection. Show us your evidence.




kasilofhome said:


> Oh NO the graph
> 
> Bait and Switch--
> 
> ...





roberte said:


> I'm really interested in seeing the thread of evidence you can bring......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Thirty years ago, we had 316 ppm (parts per million, or 0.0316%), today we measure 385 ppm 0.0385%, if correctly rounded up.
This is such a tiny tiny tiny amount that can't believe how gullible some are in this country.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

beowoulf90 said:


> So you prove the point for the NON man made GW folks.. ...
> 
> Yet* you* and others continue to tell us that the man made GW science has been proven, without all the facts..
> 
> ..


I'm afraid you have me confused with somebody else. I have never been a proponent of anthropogenic (man made) global warming.

I think that man's population explosion and industrialization contributes to it to speed it up but I believe that climate change in general is a natural thing that would occur with or without man's contributions.

I have always said so. 

.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

kasilofhome said:


> ....
> 
> 1.Global temperatures have declined since 1998 (and here) while carbon emissions have risen, undermining the scientific argument for global warming.
> ....












"
The annual and decadal land surface temperature from the BerkeleyEarth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and the natural logarithm of CO2. It is observed that the large negative excursions in the early temperature records are likely to be explained by exceptional volcanic activity at this time. Similarly, the upward trend is likely to be an indication of anthropogenic changes. The grey area is the 95% confidence interval.
"
Home|Berkeley Earth


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

First, go back to 1750 levels.

Then look at the amount of increase. We are talking about a LLGLG, not a total atmosphere.



arabian knight said:


> Thirty years ago, we had 316 ppm (parts per million, or 0.0316%), today we measure 385 ppm 0.0385%, if correctly rounded up.
> This is such a tiny tiny tiny amount that can't believe how gullible some are in this country.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

You seem to be citing an article that is citing a poll.

That isn't evidence.

So, evidence of "falsification"?

Evidence of grants effecting the research?






kasilofhome said:


> ....
> Jan 27, 2012 Â· An Inconvenient Day? Al Gore Preps 24-Hour Global Warming Broadcast ... itâs at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data ...
> Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming | â¦
> www.foxnews.com/.../2011/09/14/&#8203;...from-top-physics-group-over-global
> ......


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

naturelover said:


> I'm afraid you have me confused with somebody else. I have never been a proponent of anthropogenic (man made) global warming.
> 
> I think that man's population explosion and industrialization contributes to it to speed it up but I believe that climate change in general is a natural thing that would occur with or without man's contributions.
> 
> ...



Then I apologize, I must have you confused with someone else..

Sorry for the confusion!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

What I want to know is why is this fruitless arguement happening? 

I think we all recognize by now that the climate is changing, and very rapidly at that. Shouldn't the discussion be about how to adapt to the changes and their ramifications instead of arguing about what caused it and whether or not it can be stopped?

It can't be stopped. If it ever could have been stopped it is already too late for that. We are the ones who have to adjust now.

.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

- Meanwhile, on planet Earth, the oceans have been cooling since 2003. (Source: NASA)

- Sea ice is growing at the fastest rate ever recorded, and the Arctic sea ice is 19% increased from 2007. (Sources: Arctic Research Center and World Meteorological Organization)

- Bering sea ice is at record high.

- *Arctic ice went back to 1979 levels, meaning no net melting has occurred in 30 years. The graph below is resized smaller, but see the jagged lines? That&#8217;s the levels of ice &#8211; fluctuating a bit, but always around the same amount over 30 years. (Source and full size graph: Daily Tech)
*
UPDATE: Arctic ice in 2009 is above 2005 levels! What is that slacker global warming doing? (Source: IARC-JAXA Information System (IJIS))

UPDATE: Arctic is has increased by 26% since 2007! (Source: US National Snow and Ice Data Centre)

*UPDATE: A new study reveals that Arctic levels at the end of the 20th Century are higher than most of the past 9000 years! (Source: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences)
*
- _Perhaps the recent fears that the Arctic was melting is due to the fact that scientists undermeasured the amount of ice by 500,000 square kilometers (the size of California!) because of a satellite sensor glitch. So much for careful and accurate science! What else have they miscalculated thus far? (Hint: See the SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS section later on) (Source: Bloomberg)_

- Antarctic ice is at highest levels ever recorded and still expanding. The purple shaded area shows the record ice cap growth this year in Antarctica. (Source: The Australian, Heartland Institute)

- 2012: &#8220;This has been an extreme winter for sea ice in the Bering Sea and now we have broken the records for most number of days with ice at both Saint Paul Island and Saint George Island.&#8221; &#8211; National Weather Service Forecast

- The ice melting during summer in 2008-2009 was also the lowest ever recorded. (Source: Geophysical Research Letters)

- Here&#8217;s some visuals of just how much more ice and snow there is in Antarctica over 20 years. The structures below were on ground level in the mid-1960s; by the time the photos were taken in the late 1980s, they are already almost completely buried by the additional snow! And Antarctic ice is at record high levels today, 30 years onwards. (See the very purple picture on this page.) (Source: The Next Ice Age &#8211; Now!)

The electrical transmission towers above are 115 feet tall. Of that, 85 feet of height has been buried.

The above construction crane was used to build those tall towers!

- 2012, the Himalayas and nearby peaks lost no ice at all in the past 10 years!

- And despite increasing CO2 emissions, sea levels dropped by 1 inch in 2011!

- How about glacier melt? The UN&#8217;s IPCC has been forced to retract a baseless claim that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035. A conflict of interest has even been exposed &#8211; they may have lied in order to receive millions of Euros in funding! (Source: The Telegraph and Times Online)

- UPDATE: In fact, the glaciers have been increasing! (Source: Nature Geoscience via The Telegraph)

- The year 2008 saw colder temperatures across the United States. (Source: National Climatic Data Center)


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

naturelover said:


> What I want to know is why is this fruitless arguement happening?
> 
> I think we all recognize by now that the climate is changing, and very rapidly at that. Shouldn't the discussion be about how to adapt to the changes and their ramifications instead of arguing about what caused it and whether or not it can be stopped?
> 
> ...


 What a nice post, finally a thoughtful, and truthful statement that was.
Forget all these dreamed up graphs that are only as good as the computer operator is in putting in data which has over time been proved false at best.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

"âyou are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.â" Facts Are Facts - Timothy J. Penny - National Review Online

Try that with real links.

Ones with all the details; not just the bits you like.


For example:









State of the Climate | Global Analysis | June 2012




kasilofhome said:


> - Meanwhile, on planet Earth,
> 
> ....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> .....
> 
> data which has over time been proved false at best.


And your evidence is where, exactly?

And that is one reason we aren't talking about efforts to back down the CO2 levels, to attempt to mitigate the changes happening.....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

It is your choice to limit the info to a limited number of years. Just as during a 10 month period of my son's life he grew 7 inches --I personal would not use that limited period of time as a standard to compare his normal growth rate. See, the earth has been here for a LONG time. During which there was climate from day one. Yet, some people are determined to demand a certain climate from Nature. Get over it Nature rules--- complain all you want --the action of man is limited. Any life form will have to adapt to or change their environment via location or housing and energy used--- but man is not at the top of the climate chain.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> And your evidence is where, exactly?
> 
> And that is one reason we aren't talking about efforts to back down the CO2 levels, to attempt to mitigate the changes happening.....


What is your solution?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

But good decision-making comes from having the full spectrum of facts. 



kasilofhome said:


> It is your choice to limit the info to a limited number of years.
> .....


IF your purpose is to obfuscate, then that is an admirable tactic.

Except for the fact that it becomes quite obvious with a little scrutiny.

And that it is a well known tactic for those trying to mislead and misinform....


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> *But good decision-making comes from having the full spectrum of facts. *
> 
> IF your purpose is to obfuscate, then that is an admirable tactic.
> 
> ...


Which you refuse to listen to!

*What is your solution? *


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

kasilofhome said:


> ...
> 
> but man is not at the top of the climate chain.



Seems it is again time to point out your statement has no basis in fact.











And if anyone has data that shows that "Total Net Anthropogenic " to be in error, any time in the course of this thread would have been a good time to bring it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So, it is you position that man is above nature? EGO


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Maybe you should explain what exactly are you trying to claim? 



JeffreyD said:


> Which you refuse to listen to!
> .....


Quite willing to listen.

As soon as someone brings forward some substantive evidence.

And a few newspaper articles, blog postings, and a movie aren't in that definition.


However, we do have a clear statement for you to attempt to counter:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TARâs conclusion that âmost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrationsâ. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns." 
Understanding and Attributing Climate Change - SPM


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Facts.

Not "ego"



kasilofhome said:


> So, it is you position that man is above nature? EGO


"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TARâs conclusion that âmost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrationsâ. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns." 
Understanding and Attributing Climate Change - SPM


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Maybe you should explain what exactly are you trying to claim?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is your solution?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Facts.
> 
> Not "ego"
> 
> ...



What is your solution?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

:hijacked:


JeffreyD said:


> What is your solution?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> :hijacked:


Ok!! 

What is your solution?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

:hijacked:


JeffreyD said:


> Ok!!
> 
> What is your solution?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

This is from page two. What evidence have you brought for:




JeffreyD said:


> Hanson has a track record of being a liar,





JeffreyD said:


> just as the IPCC does.





JeffreyD said:


> There are thousands of reputable scientists that refute the findings of these liars,


If you were referring to the PP, then you'd need to establish the credibility of the "thousands of reputable". While a person who is DVM may be a fine, upstanding citizen in their community and may have advanced the science in their field, that doesn't mean they know the field of climate science.

And to "refute" is one thing; to actually bring forward evidence that supports that refutation is another.



JeffreyD said:


> ... religious environmental beliefs ...





JeffreyD said:


> And Co2 as a green house gas is too funny.


You might want to recast that sentence. Unless you really think you really have some really substantive data.

Then now would really be a really good time to bring forward your really good, in your opinion, evidence.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> :hijacked:


You have no solution. That's why you won't answer! All your "evidence" is from biased sources and you refuse to listen to factual evidence presented to you that refutes your data. Your data has been proven to be nothing more than a scam on the people, yet you still believe it. Brainwashed pseudo intellectual, typical!! No answers, just rhetoric! Carry on with your religion, just don't force it upon those who don't want to be a part of a cult.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

:hijacked:


JeffreyD said:


> You have no solution. That's why you won't answer!
> ....


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> .... "evidence" is from biased sources ...


Bring forward your best evidence that supports your claims above.

Bring forward your best evidence my sources are "biased".




JeffreyD said:


> and you refuse to listen to factual evidence presented to you that refutes your data.


Bring forward your best evidence that supports your claims above.




JeffreyD said:


> Your data has been proven to be nothing more than a scam on the people,


Bring forward your best evidence that supports your claims above.



JeffreyD said:


> yet you still believe it. Brainwashed pseudo intellectual, typical!! No answers, just rhetoric! Carry on with your religion, just don't force it upon those who don't want to be a part of a cult.



If it is impossible for you to have a dialog without being insulting, don't bother responding.

If, on the other hand, you wish to bring your evidence, we could talk about that.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> Bring forward your best evidence that supports your claims above.
> 
> Bring forward your best evidence my sources are "biased".
> 
> ...


Tried having a discussion with you, didn't work. You just can't except the fact that over 30,000 scientists and researchers don't agree with human caused global warming. The best you presented was factualy incorrect data present by the ipcc(which has an agenda, even if you refuse to believe it) and their affiliates. Data that they even admited was fake in their e-mails.

No, your not concerned about having ANY discussion.

I started a new thread for you.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Your "30,000" aren't scientists working in field related to climate science. The requirement needed to sign the petition was having earned a BS or higher degree. Hence, radar, electrical engineers, vets, middle school science teachers, those who may not be employed in their field of study, MDs, etc.

It was / is a petition. No more weight on the science than the occasional letter to the editor.

And that, by your admission, was the best bit of evidence that you could bring.

Your other claims were 'supported' by newspaper articles, some vague claims about .......


So, really, so tell us which post you claim supports:



JeffreyD said:


> .... "evidence" is from biased sources ...


Bring forward your best evidence that supports your claims above.

Bring forward your best evidence my sources are "biased".




JeffreyD said:


> and you refuse to listen to factual evidence presented to you that refutes your data.


Bring forward your best evidence that supports your claims above.




JeffreyD said:


> Your data has been proven to be nothing more than a scam on the people,


Bring forward your best evidence that supports your claims above.



JeffreyD said:


> yet you still believe it. Brainwashed pseudo intellectual, typical!! No answers, just rhetoric! Carry on with your religion, just don't force it upon those who don't want to be a part of a cult.



If it is impossible for you to have a dialog without being insulting, don't bother responding.

If, on the other hand, you wish to bring your evidence, we could talk about that. 



JeffreyD said:


> Tried having a discussion with you, didn't work. You just can't except the fact that over 30,000 scientists and researchers don't agree with human caused global warming. The best you presented was factualy incorrect data present by the ipcc(which has an agenda, even if you refuse to believe it) and their affiliates. Data that they even admited was fake in their e-mails.
> 
> No, your not concerned about having ANY discussion.
> 
> I started a new thread for you.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> - Meanwhile, on planet Earth,....
> 
> etc. etc.


That entire post was useless to me without the links to all the original articles, dates and photographs referenced. I would have liked to see the photographs. :shrug:

.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I saure enjoyed my bowl of popcorn while listening to such stuff coming out of the minds of the left. No solution given just keep taxing and petting on such harsh demands on companies that they get sick of the uSA and go to China. Thanks alot. We need to soften things up so companies stay here not move to where the government is out of their pocket books. Get government the heck out of things. And stop this ridiculous grants to such folks that keep this junk science alive.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

roberte said:


> Facts.
> 
> Not "ego"
> 
> ...


NOW that is one heck of a long term study Wow. Forget the Ice ages not when you have a 50 year study.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> You're ignoring the fact that human activity only contributes about 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere..


 Where did you get the '2%' figure? I have read it was at least 4%... And keep in mind that is ANNUALLY. That is OVER and ABOVE the 'naturally occurring' CO2 that was already present in the atmosphere. Some gets absorbed into plants and oceans, but about 60% remains in the atmosphere for a few decades, or longer. And we keep pouring more in. Where do you think that gasoline goes when you drive down the road?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It is way less then that. This is the TOTAL amount in the atmosphere by weight.~!!

*Math! How much CO2 by weight in the atmosphere?*

*0.0383% by volume (383 ppmv) or 0.0582% by weight. *Let&#8217;s look at the future. IPCC gave 2 scenarios of the CO2 concentration (ppmv) by the year of 2100, 93 years away.



> To achieve 571 ppmv, the additional CO2 needed to add into atmosphere is 1.235 Ã1012 tonnes, or 13 279.6 million tonnes per year.
> This is half of the rate of CO2 we are releasing today.
> To achieve 970 ppmv CO2 concentration, 4.558 x 1012 tonnes CO2, or 49 333.3 million tonnes per year is released. This is twice (2x) the number on CO2 emission rate what we are doing today!












Math! How much CO2 by weight in the atmosphere? Â« small-m


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Try to stay on track AK. We are talking about what percentage fossil fuel contributes to the total CO2 flux from natural sources. Your 'weight by percentage of atmosphere' is irrelevant to the discussion. CO2s percentage of the atmosphere is not especially relevant, what matters is the relative contribution to the greenhouse effect the CO2 levels have. And they account for 10-30% of the TOTAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Try to stay on track AK. We are talking about what percentage fossil fuel contributes to the total CO2 flux from natural sources. Your 'weight by percentage of atmosphere' is irrelevant to the discussion. CO2s percentage of the atmosphere is not especially relevant, what matters is the relative contribution to the greenhouse effect the CO2 levels have. *And they account for 10-30% of the TOTAL GREENHOUSE EFFECT*.


What accounts for the other 70-90%? I'm asking because i don't know!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> What accounts for the other 70-90%? I'm asking because i don't know!


Everything else that breathes when it's alive and rots when it dies.

.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Life and carbon go hand and hand. Can't have one with out the other. Animal exhale it plants inhale it. It is just a carbon cycle. Some periods it seems that a lot is free and some periods a lot is locked up. Life goes on. Think of it all those sub surface oil and gas pools represent older life forms that locked up free carbon and in using it we release to repeat in some way the cycle. Animal or plant will grab it and grow and store it till the time comes and it is freed. 

I do not expect to out understand God just trust him --he seems to have a plan.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> What accounts for the other 70-90%? I'm asking because i don't know!


 Sure you do. Its water vapor! And we'd better be thankful for the blanket afforded by those molecules... Nitrogen and Oxygen by themselves don't keep the planet very warm. 

So we have a certain percentage of the air that is greenhouse gasses, which yields the temperature we have, based on solar input and losses to space. Increase the 'greenhouse gasses', and the temp will rise. Its not a cult, not a religion, it is just the facts as discovered by the ever inquisitive human mind. It doesn't mean we are 'above nature', far from it. It means we are subject to the same laws as nature.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I don't see how anyone can refute that the Sun is the greatest determinate of our climate. No Sun equals no heat and the Earth ends up a frozen planet. The malarky about CO2 is just that. Mankind's contribution is overwhelmed by natural forces. I'd like to see a chart showing the forcing factor from the Sun. Here's the CO2 contributed by man as shown in the IPCC report.










When you have that kind of disparity in the source of something, it makes no sense to pursue some miniscule source unless you can prove to me that the CO2 released by man is some sort of super CO2. Which obviously isn't the case. When you look at how much water vapor is in the amosphere you have another glaring disparity. You're never going to convince me that water vapor doesn't play the predominate role in climate when affected by the Sun.

The presence or absence of water marks our climate's extremes whether it's a hurricane or a desert. Anyone who is frightened by the miniscule amount of CO2 we generate, is ignoring what ancient civilizations knew.

Ignoring nature and fixating on plant food just goes to show you why humankind will eventually be killed off by an act of God. We're too @#$% stupid to survive. As a species we're power drunk. We're so focused on advancing organizational agendas that benefit a select few that not only are we ignoring the forest, we can't even see the @#$% trees. 

It's just a matter of time before nature eliminates us just like the dinosaurs. I's not like nature's actions in the past haven't left clues in the geologic and DNA record. Obviously our much vaunted thinking ability isn't going to make a difference. When our time comes, it won't be plant food that kills us off.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Darren said:


> I don't see how anyone can refute that the Sun is the greatest determinate of our climate.
> ....


Pretty easy, actually.

Rather than use a small bit of the IPCC data to misconstrue what is happening in our atmosphere as your source does, look at the whole. 










It is that addition, annually since the mid 1700's with a strong upward trend in the past half century. 

You are claiming 'the sun, the sun..' and you are partly correct. The accumulation of sunlight through carbon.

Millions and millions and millions of tons of plant life accumulated over millions and millions of years in the fossil fuels we are burning with such profligacy.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I have several problems with your favorite chart. Check out the amount shown for solar irradience. If the man made warming effect was as great as you claim, how come it cools off at night when the Sun isn't shining.

Are you also claiming that the Earth was never hotter than it has been since the mid 1700's?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

You guys should just ignore roberte. You are wrestling with the proverbial pig and the pig enjoys it way too much. No matter how many logical errors and conundrums you pose to him, he will just keep posting his chart as if it answered all. 

Until actual climate and astrophysicist scientists (real scientists not NGO bureaucrats cherry picking data that promotes their money flow) and create real science that is testable and repeatable, not just charts to distort the data, and the real scientists agree AGW is: 1. real, 2. a problem worth fighting , and 3. a problem we can actually do something to solve, all this clap trap is nothing more than complaining about the weather.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Over 31,000 people with science degrees have signed a petition that AGW is junk science. BTW, they have to mail a signed statement incuding their credentials. You can't sign online.

If you believe the media, they'd have you believe every scientist supports AGW.

Global Warming Petition Project


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Are you also claiming that the Earth was never hotter than it has been since the mid 1700's?


 Of course it has been warmer before, and in most every episode of warming the CO2 was higher also. 

Solar irradiance is important, no doubt. But it is a relatively stable furnace... not varying by much more than a tenth of one percent over its 11 year min/max cycle. It is important, but greenhouse gasses are the blanket that holds that heat in.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Darren said:


> Over 31,000 people with science degrees have signed a petition that AGW is junk science. BTW, they have to mail a signed statement incuding their credentials. You can't sign online.
> 
> If you believe the media, they'd have you believe every scientist supports AGW.
> 
> Global Warming Petition Project


Never mind the media, you shouldn't believe everything _you_ find on internet either. That petition you referenced (which is also known as the _Oregon Petition_) is really, really old and out of date and many of the people who signed it have since recanted over the years. Not only is it out of date it has come under a lot serious scrutiny and been proven to be a sham with regard to many of the so-called signatories and their real identities.

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> A number of critics of the petition questioned the scientific credentials and the authenticity of the names of the signatories.
> In May 1998 the _Seattle Times_ wrote:
> âSeveral environmental groups questioned some of the names in the petition. For instance: "Perry S. Mason", who was a legitimate scientist who shared the name of a TV character. Similarly, "Michael J. Fox", "Robert C. Byrd", and "John C. Grisham" were signatories with names shared with famous people. Geraldine Halliwell was added as: "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell." This name may have been contributed by a proxy trying to discredit the petition since Ms. Halliwell has never admitted to signing the petition.Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake", he said.[23]
> â
> ...


.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

From the wiki link:

A copy of one
actual signed petition appears on this page. *The
majority of the current listed signatories signed or resigned
the petition after October 2007*. The purpose of the Petition Project is to
demonstrate that the claim of âsettled scienceâ and an
overwhelming âconsensusâ in favor of the hypothesis
of human-caused global warming and consequent
climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus
Climate Change Reconsidered or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of
American scientists reject this hypothesis. This petition is primarily circulated by U.S.
Postal Service mailings to scientists. Included in the
mailings are the petition card, a letter from Frederick
Seitz (reproduced on the following page), a scientific
review article (reproduced on the pages following the
directory of petition signers), and a return envelope. If
a scientist wishes to sign, he or she completes the
petition and mails it to the project by first-class mail.
Additionally, many petition signers obtain petition
cards from their colleagues, who request these cards
from the project. A scientist can also obtain a copy of
the petition from Global Warming Petition Project, sign, and
mail it. Fewer than 5 percent of the current signatories
obtained their petition in this way.
The letter on the following page, from Professor
Frederick Seitz, is circulated with the petition. Dr.
Seitz, a physicist, was president of the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University.
He received the National Medal of Science, the
Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous
other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32
universities around the world. In August 2007, Dr.
Seitz reviewed and approved the article by Dr. Arthur
B. Robinson, Dr. Noah E. Robinson, and Dr. Willie
Soon that is circulated with the petition and gave his
enthusiastic approval to the continuation of the
Petition Project. A vigorous supporter of the Petition
Project since its inception in 1998, Professor Seitz
died on March 2, 2008. 

The petition has been
circulated only in the United States.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Darren said:


> I have several problems with your favorite chart. Check out the amount shown for solar irradience. If the man made warming effect was as great as you claim, how come it cools off at night when the Sun isn't shining.
> 
> Are you also claiming that the Earth was never hotter than it has been since the mid 1700's?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

IPCC has it wrong as they have not adjusted the way they look at things as things have changed over time, they are stuck in the past. Can't do that. Much adjust to the change and they have not done that. IPCC data is wrong.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

IF you have anything that actually shows how "they look at things" wrong, let's see it.

Until then, yet another example of denier talking points with nothing to support them.

BTW, the 5th assessment report due out in about a year. Research takes time.





arabian knight said:


> IPCC has it wrong as they have not adjusted the way they look at things as things have changed over time, they are stuck in the past. Can't do that. Much adjust to the change and they have not done that. IPCC data is wrong.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

> The Arctic sea-ice big melt of 2012 âhas taken us by surprise and *we must adjust our understanding of the system and we must adjust our science and we must adjust our feelings for the nature around usâ,*





> "As a scientist, I know that this is unprecedented in at least as much as 1,500 years. It is truly amazing â it is a huge dramatic change in the systemâ, says the NPIâs Dr Edmond Hansen. It is ânot some short-lived phenomenon â this is an ongoing trend. You lose more and more ice and it is accelerating â you can just look at the graphs, the observations, and you can see what's happening."
> And the trend is clear. Cambridge Professor and Arctic expert Peter Wadhams predicts Arctic summer sea ice âall gone by 2015â, except perhaps for a small multi-year remnant. Other Arctic specialists are now saying we will see an ice-free Arctic in summer within a decade or so.
> *Clearly the IPPC 2007 report is no longer scientifically adequate on the Arctic*


Climate Code Red: Arctic warning: As the system changes, we must adjust our science


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

roberte said:


> IF you have anything that actually shows how "they look at things" wrong, let's see it.
> 
> Until then, yet another example of denier talking points with nothing to support them.
> 
> BTW, the 5th assessment report due out in about a year. Research takes time.


I think people usually are referencing the temp adjustments when they speak of "not looking at things right." For example, when a weather station is moved, either to a cooler or warmer location then it was before, adjustments have to be made. Now, I'm wondering why they don't just leave them alone in the first place, but I'm sure they have reasons. (They probably had to build a McDonalds.) Now, if they temp changes so much from one movement to the next, and the "adjustments" cause the temperature anomaly to spike upwards when the unadjusted form showed cooling, how reliable is the temp record? That was the Darwin Airport in the Australia weather station.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Arabian Knight, is there any reason you posted a pro-global warming link? I thought you were trying to tell us its all BS?? According to the article, they are 'changing the science' because real world melting is occurring faster than they previously thought possible. You should really read the articles before posting them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> According to the article, they are 'changing the science' because real world melting is occurring *faster than they previously thought* possible. *You should really read *the articles before posting them.


It merely proves their PREDICTIONS were wrong.

You should really UNDERSTAND what they say


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

It's always funny when somebody quotes a person who SAYS they were lying before, but now they're telling the truth. That would be like trusting Bill Clinton with your daughter. Why, sure, he lied before, but THIS time he's telling the truth. Who wouldn't trust somebody who already admits they lied before? :thumb:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It merely proves their PREDICTIONS were wrong.
> 
> You should really UNDERSTAND what they say


 It shows their predictions were TOO CONSERVATIVE, and warming is occurring FASTER than they predicted. If I was trying to prove global warming is fake, this is not the article I would have cited! LOL!!


> Holmen had described the current melt rate âa greater change than we could even imagine 20 years ago, even 10 years agoâ.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

greg273 said:


> It shows their predictions were TOO CONSERVATIVE, and warming is occurring FASTER than they predicted. If I was trying to prove global warming is fake, this is not the article I would have cited! LOL!!


More wind? Temps haven't been proven to have changed. It's too difficult to place a thermometer on the ice.


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Actually, if at all possible both stations run for period of time so they can directly compare results, then adjustments are made.

Also, remember that Watts attempted to prove there were siting problems; he employed his army to suss out the 'bad ones'. Then it was learned that pulling those stations out of the database made no difference to the temp records. 

The system is robust. Unlike the 'science' behind those trying to make a case for our not being responsible for what is happening.



Heritagefarm said:


> I think people usually are referencing the temp adjustments when they speak of "not looking at things right." For example, when a weather station is moved, either to a cooler or warmer location then it was before, adjustments have to be made. Now, I'm wondering why they don't just leave them alone in the first place, but I'm sure they have reasons. (They probably had to build a McDonalds.) Now, if they temp changes so much from one movement to the next, and the "adjustments" cause the temperature anomaly to spike upwards when the unadjusted form showed cooling, how reliable is the temp record? That was the Darwin Airport in the Australia weather station.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> IF you have anything that actually shows how "they look at things" wrong, let's see it.
> 
> Until then, yet another example of denier talking points with nothing to support them.
> 
> BTW, the 5th assessment report due out in about a year. Research takes time.




Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? &#8211; Telegraph Blogs

When you read some of those files &#8211; including 1079 emails and 72 documents &#8211; you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be "the greatest in modern science". These alleged emails &#8211; supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory &#8211; suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.


One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

"In an odd way this is cheering news."

some examples:

I&#8217;ve just completed Mike&#8217;s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 *for Keith&#8217;s to hide the decline.*

*The fact is that we can&#8217;t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can&#8217;t.* The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He&#8217;s not in at the moment &#8211; minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don&#8217;t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I&#8217;ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

E-mail from Phil Jones, 5th July 2005:

"The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

What type of community is this that supresses the truth? (Ok, it has)

The met office apparently disagrees with Phil Jones

&#8230;&#8230;Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back&#8211;I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to &#8220;contain&#8221; the putative &#8220;MWP&#8221;, even if we don&#8217;t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back&#8230;.

&#8220;This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the &#8220;peer-reviewed literature&#8221;. Obviously, they found a solution to that&#8211;take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering &#8220;Climate Research&#8221; as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board&#8230;What do others think?&#8221;

&#8220;I will be emailing the journal to tell them I&#8217;m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.&#8221;&#8220;It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I&#8217;ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !&#8221;

That's the ipcc for ya! 
Oh, and there's plenty more of these "conversations"! :doh:


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

So a blog post is the BEST evidence you can bring?



JeffreyD said:


> .....blogs.telegraph.co.....


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> So a blog post is the BEST evidence you can bring?


It's the quotes from your zeros! Admiting they falsified their reports. Look them up yourself if you don't believe the UK Telegraph!

Funny, because you keep parroting the scam from the ipcc as proof!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

So a blog post is supposed to negate all the science from the past century plus....

Science that 98% of those with expertise in the field agree with

Science that drives policy of virtually every government on Earth.

Got it....



JeffreyD said:


> It's the quotes ....


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

roberte said:


> So a blog post is supposed to negate all the science from the past century plus....
> 
> Science that 98% of those with expertise in the field agree with
> 
> ...


Nope, it's the quotes from those exact same scientists admiting to lieing about their facts, that's all! 

1376 scientists and researchers vs 30,000+ scientists and researchers!

Yea, your math is a little fuzzy here!

The policy is agenda driven, and the science has been proven wrong by themselves!


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> ....
> The policy is agenda driven, and the science has been proven wrong by themselves!


Show us the agenda. If you are claiming the agenda 21 canard you couldn't show us the language that supported that claim.


And are you claiming that a blog post is your proof that "...science has been proven wrong by themselves!"?


----------



## roberte (Nov 8, 2009)

Thought it was time to review the talking points of those attempting to deny the science....



JeffreyD said:


> ....
> 
> The policy is agenda driven, and the science has been proven wrong by themselves!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Thought it was *time to review* the talking points of those attempting to deny the science....


and around and around......................ad infinitum

Very boring


----------

