Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

You are working very hard to miss the point, okie.

Exxon, or other such entities in this situation, will seek out and fund ONLY scientists who hold ideas agreeable to Exxon's interests (though we note that, as the piece says, some of the contributors aren't scientists).

Consider a lawyer who has to try and convince a jury that his client is a 'nice guy'. He will seek out and put on the stand ONLY those people who testify in a manner agreeable to his client's interests. They may be honest people, but because they are selected in the manner they are selected, and for that purpose, the judge or jury would be rather foolish to accept their accounts as 'truth'. Particularly if:
1) a much larger group of people taken at random testify to the opposite
1) the lawyer's small group is being paid by the lawyer

Nobody is claiming the conference in New York is the final answer, but it does present evidence that deserves consideration. You are making a mistake to dismiss many scientists here simply because you don't like their conclusion.

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:

Writing "fallacious" in big blue letters doesn't change anything ican. Your argument is still the same.

YES, MY ARGUMENT IS THE SAME VALID ARGUMENT.

I love your claim that it is "fallacious" for me to point you should use the global figures instead of the US figures if you are talking about global irradiance. It is quite funny for you to make such a claim.

FALLACIOUS! THE SUN'S IRRADIATION INTENSITY IS INDEPENDENT OF WHICH PART OF THE GLOBE IS EXAMINED FOR TEMPERATURE TRENDS. I'M SURPRISED THAT YOU DID NOT DETERMINE FOR YOURSELF THAT I DID NOT USE THE US TEMPERATURE TREND TO DETERMINE THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND.

If the sun's irradiation is independent of the part of the globe then explain why the readings from NASA do NOT correlate with your source? :wink:

NASA disagrees with my source!

Quote:

NATURALLY MY FIRST SOURCE FOR THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND WAS:

image deleted fro clarity.
Trend in global average Temperature 1880 to 2007-- error corrected

Interesting since there is no way to accurately read that graph and claim the increase in temperature over the time frame you listed was only .5C.

My previous post was about a different time period than was the post prior to that! I was illustrating that the time periods are consistent enough to show that humans have little to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and global heating.

Quote:

MY SECOND SOURCE WAS:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
1880 thru 2007 Yearly Mean Measurements Atmospheric CO2

That's interesting since your second source doesn't result in the .5C you claimed either.

My previous post was about a different time period than was the post prior to that! I was illustrating that the time periods are consistent enough to show that humans have little to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and global heating.

Quote:

1900 -0.0281

1902 -0.1735
1903 -0.2929
1904 -0.3284
1905 -0.2159
1906 -0.1798
1907 -0.3467
1908 -0.3768
1909 -0.3808 +287.06°K

2005 +0.6046 + 287.06°K
2006 0.5394
2007 0.5484

So you used 2 sources but your math can not possibly result from what either source actually says?

Sure it can! Sure it did!

Is your math really that bad or is it your reading skill?

It's long past time for you to start to question your math and your reading skill rather than mine!

F = fraction of atmospheric CO2 caused by humans = 0.05

H = human caused TnotS = F x TnotS
H = 0.05 x 0.4271 °K = 0.02136 °K
H = 0.02136 °K

% Temperature increase that is Human caused = TiHc = H / Ti = 100% x 0.02136 °K / 0.6365 °K = 3.36%
TiHc = 3.36%
A MINOR EFFECT!

Here's the video of the founder of the Weather Channel calling for a potential lawsuit against Al Gore.


(Compliments of Boortz.)

Here's the video of the founder of the Weather Channel calling for a potential lawsuit against Al Gore.


(Compliments of Boortz.)

McGentrix wrote:

Here's the video of the founder of the Weather Channel calling for a potential lawsuit against Al Gore.


(Compliments of Boortz.)

He forgot to mention just about every scientist is on Al Gore's side.

Plus the idiot thinks there is no increase in temperature in spite of all the science.

The idiot said there was no increase in temperature. That makes him an idiot.

Whether the temperature increase is human caused or not, to deny the increase in temperature is to be an idiot. The science is pretty real. Even those here that don't believe it is human caused are showing good evidence that some of the warming is caused by solar irradiance. Anyone with half a brain has admitted there IS warming.

I read it and the guy sounds like an even bigger idiot.

He uses a chart of Europe to combat Mann's chart of global temperatures. The guy is still an idiot.

Even you can't think Europe is the globe. But it seems that this idiot does. So.. Is Europe the globe Fox? Tell us you don't think it sounds "reasonable" to claim it is.

He makes sense. I don't know if he is right or not. But he is persuasive. He is much more persuasive that Al Gore whose theories have been shown to be so full of holes that even the courts say that they must be taught with a disclaimer in the schools.

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

I read it and the guy sounds like an even bigger idiot.

Foxfyre wrote:

He makes sense. I don't know if he is right or not. But he is persuasive. He is much more persuasive that Al Gore whose theories have been shown to be so full of holes that even the courts say that they must be taught with a disclaimer in the schools.

Wow.. Perhaps you should read the court ruling before making such sweeping claims.

The points the court references are pretty minor unsupported statements and have nothing to do with warming being caused by humans.

Quote:

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece


The items objected to were about predictions or claims that specific things could be attributed to global warming. The main theory was upheld by the court. So. .the courts disagree completely with John Coleman when he claims there is no warming. Coleman is an idiot.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate's documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore's film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration".

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change