71
   

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

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 11:51 am
THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 11:54 am
Yesterday was the first truly nice day of 2008 in Michigan. It's been cold since last October.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 01:24 pm
ican wrote-

Quote:
Who are the "MHWTSSB


The "Make Hay While The Sun Shines Brigade".

See my PP.

I'm an AA. That's Adult Acronymer.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 02:07 pm
spendius wrote:
ican wrote-

Quote:
Who are the "MHWTSSB


The "Make Hay While The Sun Shines Brigade".

See my PP.

I'm an AA. That's Adult Acronymer.

OK,
I'm a FEATTATEATTA.

Cool
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 05:10 pm
I presume, assuming you are a normal chap, that that's a fellow elegantly after the totty apropos the exciting afternoon the totty arranged.

Have I got that wrong?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 05:14 pm
It's so heart warming to see two friends bonding so well. Smile
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2008 10:37 pm
"You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," he added.

(quote from ican's post, quoting Dr. Reid Bryson, one of the Fathers of Meteorology)

Where is Parados? I would like Parados to chew on that quote for a while. Laughing
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 07:02 am
Are meteorologists climate experts? NO

I don't think I would trust someone that doesn't knows how infrared is absorbed differently by CO2 and spit.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 08:12 am
I'm guessing that most meteorologists have considerably more expertise on the climate than any one of us posting on this thread. At least most can articulate a rationale for their opinion rather than flippantly dismissing a concept just because it doesn't fit the position they have adopted.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 08:19 am
I assume Foxy that you mean a position adopted for this thread, and possibly similar avenues, rather than any personal position affecting their daily lives in any meaningful sense.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 08:30 am
So would you say that might be why the American Meteorological Society officially says that anthropogenic global warming is real and is happening now, Foxfyre?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 08:50 am
Here is a link to the American Meteorological Society's statement on global warming.

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

I did post this a few months back when ican started his idiotic posting of the statements by "scientists" and claimed there were only 600 scientists in the entire world that had commented on global warming so the majority didn't believe in it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 08:55 am
username wrote:
So would you say that might be why the American Meteorological Society officially says that anthropogenic global warming is real and is happening now, Foxfyre?


I don't know why the American Meterological Society officially says that if they still do. I know many meteorologists do not share that view. Scientists who are seriously studying the subject seem to be coming to the conclusion that the whole AGW thing is a mistake at best, an intentional hoax at worst.

And, even those who are making the big bucks based on AGW are now having to admit their models aren't working out anything as their 'scientific papers' said that they would. So what are they doing? They are now saying oh well, okay, global warming may have leveled off or reversed at bit for now, but the disaster is still looming out there.

I still do not want to base major lifestyle changes or make national or international policy that will harm people based on bogus science.

Quote:
Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said.

Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Melting icebergs: The study predicts the IPCC's 0.3ºC temperature rise for the next decade may not happen
The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged.

This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model. LINK
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 09:18 am
spendius wrote:
I presume, assuming you are a normal chap, that that's a fellow elegantly after the totty apropos the exciting afternoon the totty arranged.

Have I got that wrong?

Laughing
Yup!
Want to try again?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 09:22 am
parados wrote:
Here is a link to the American Meteorological Society's statement on global warming.

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

...

Quote:
Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council on 1 February 2007) Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 8
...

Gee, that was only yesterday! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 09:34 am
THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 09:37 am
Foxy wrote-

Quote:
So what are they doing?


Cashing their salary checks in on the fat of the land of course.

You see, the American lower-middle-class, a large number and growing, brings its children up to be control freaks so occupations have to be found for them where this conditioned drive can be exercised, or partly so, when they become mature adults because if they had to do manual work they would possibly have a freak-out, or their parents would, having built up such high expectations of the little darlings, and having built up their own expectations of themselves.

We are only a few years behind.

And any kid who shows promise is basically in the **** because his parents can boast about the superiority of their genetic material vicariously and without the necessity of having to raise a gallop themselves.

Even if there is global warming caused by man---(there's competition about whether "anthropogenic" or "anthropomorphic" is poshest as "man" must not be mentioned due to what a horrible little snivelling non-entity he actually is)---as I say, even if it is true, there's nothing anybody can do to stop it. You could relocate further north I suppose while land values are so advantageous.

And if there isn't then we are in steady state and I expect things will go on much as they are at present (2-3% growth) and some will fall off and some will get on board in the meantime.

It's the choice I laid out earlier and the winner is plain. The Greenies are so good at global warming that they put the other 99.?? of humans who ever lived in the shade. And, apart from the guy who set the Great Fire of London, by some considerable margin.

As usual it's all about "circulating elites". It always is during plentiful peacetimes. Especially bountiful ones.


"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." George Bernard Shaw.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 09:56 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm guessing that most meteorologists have considerably more expertise on the climate than any one of us posting on this thread. At least most can articulate a rationale for their opinion rather than flippantly dismissing a concept just because it doesn't fit the position they have adopted.


Just guessing but probably a good guess, many meteorologists probably do not study in depth climate science and the whole scenario of the so-called greenhouse effect, however many probably have to some degree, probably a much higher percentage than the general public, and with more ability to understand it, pro or con.

And I would argue that anyone in the general public that has any common sense can assess the arguments and opinions surrounding the issue. A large component of the issue is political, and that lends itself to anyone being qualified to have a legitimate opinion. Anyone with common sense can look at the arguments and judge whether the correlations with actual evidence are good or not.

And those of us that have studied and practiced in other scientific fields can also be qualified by having experience with how science is done, and how much of science is just basic logic, and also how wrong science can be at times. Good science is sound, but faulty interpretations of data and therefore faulty conclusions can be commonplace. The liklihood of such is multiplied exponentially when politics is injected into the science, and that is what has happened.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 10:17 am
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
Here is a link to the American Meteorological Society's statement on global warming.

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

...

Quote:
Climate Change
An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Adopted by AMS Council on 1 February 2007) Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 8
...

Gee, that was only yesterday! Rolling Eyes

You must have missed this part ican..
Quote:
[This statement is considered in force until February 2012 unless superseded by a new statement issued by the AMS Council before this date.]


Although it is funny that you complain about a statement from Feb of 2007 as you post quotes that are that old or older.

Quote:
Bryson explained in 2005.
Quote:
Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006
Quote:
Brown wrote on December 13, 2006
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2008 10:35 am
THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

120.
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa converted from believer in CO2's driving the climate change to a skeptic. "I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change," Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his "conversion" happened following his research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific." "[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator)," Patterson explained. "Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances," he wrote. "As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate," Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion "probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me to go." Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion [about climate change]. I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority," Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warming of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime," Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what [media and governments] are saying, [is] we're about three quarters of the way [to disaster] with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/13/2024 at 12:18:52