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

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

By the way, some scientists are now claiming this winter in the northern hemisphere is the coldest in many years.

Those scientists must have slept last year. .... and have looked in a glass bowl for the temperatures of the coming weeks/months = winter lasts here in Europe until March/April.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I did not supply any evidence ...

That seems to be all you do ican, not supply evidence.

Here is an interesting essay on the history of science leading up to the current thinking. You might want to note that your thinking is similar to the late 19th, early 20th century ican. Science has progressed since then.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Could you provide in one list the names and credentials of those 462 ican?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

By the way ican, an investigation of Inhofe's list found the following..

Quote:

* Slightly fewer than 10 percent could be identified as climate scientists.

* Approximately 15 percent published in the recognizable refereed literature on subjects related to climate science.

* Approximately 80 percent clearly had no refereed publication record on climate science at all.

* Approximately 4 percent appeared to favor the current IPCC-2007 consensus and should not have been on the list.

That means your list is about 46 climate scientists compared to the 2000 involved in research for the IPCC report.

Clearly there is a consensus when you compare 2000 to 46

2 Replies

@parados,

The contemporary consensus orthodoxy based on then prevailing Aristotelian concepts attempted to silence Gallileo, more or less as the AGW zealots are doing today.

We are in an interglacial period.
The earth's climate has never been stable.
The earth's known orbital mechanics and the varying intensity of solar radiation are known to have effects of the same order of magnitude as are claimed by the IPCC.
There really was a medieval warm period and a subsequent mini ice age (each the result of the above factors), though both appear to have been suppressed and disguised by the AGW data manipulators

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

There really was a medieval warm period and a subsequent mini ice age (each the result of the above factors), though both appear to have been suppressed and disguised by the AGW data manipulators

I'm waiting for alot more shoes to drop in the game of climate fraud, George.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The earth's known orbital mechanics and the varying intensity of solar radiation are known to have effects of the same order of magnitude as are claimed by the IPCC.

Yes, and they can't account for the current warming based on the current published science.

Simply pointing out they exist doesn't mean they are the reason george. You have to show how they account for all the warming or you risk looking like ican and okie.

Quote:

There really was a medieval warm period and a subsequent mini ice age (each the result of the above factors), though both appear to have been suppressed and disguised by the AGW data manipulators

That is quite a mouthful there george.
1. Your evidence that the period exists and then your evidence that it is being suppressed.
I am willing to bet your evidence that it exists is based on the same evidence you claim is manipulated to hide it.

0 Replies

@okie,

I think you have been kicked in the head too many times okie. Wink

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

There really was a medieval warm period and a subsequent mini ice age (each the result of the above factors), though both appear to have been suppressed and disguised by the AGW data manipulators

Are you telling me that the what you call "AGW data manipulators" changed, falsified, re-wrote etc thousands and thousands of old sources? Manipulated historians?

I don't know how many reports about weather in the Medieval time you saw - there aren't a lot since a lot of sources in (Cebtral) Europe were destroyed during the Reformation and later before, in and after the 30-years war - but I've been in quite a few archives (though my Latin isn't as good as e.g. George's) ...

0 Replies

@parados,

I've already posted the names, credentials, and comments of 347 of those 462.

To see the rest as well as all those I have posted go to:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

Here's the entire post for 348.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
348
Dr. Denis Dutton, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand and recipient of the New Zealand Royal Society Medal for Services to Science and Technology, teaches a course on the distinction between science and pseudoscience. Dr. Dutton is skeptical about the degree to which human activity has contributed to the general warming trend that began in the 1880s. "Working at the university where Karl Popper taught in the 1940s, I am more than a little aware of the way that adequate scientific hypotheses must always be open to falsification. The best way for science and public policy to proceed is to continuously assess evidence pro and con for anthropogenic global warming," Dutton wrote to EPW on December 4, 2007. "Climate alarmists in particular are too prone to cherry-pick evidence that suits their case, ignoring factors that might disprove it," he added. Dutton recently founded the website Climate Debate Daily, which he co-edits with Douglas Campbell (http://climatedebatedaily.com).

0 Replies

@parados,

Parados, who investigated Inhof's list and found what you allege was found?

Valid science does not rely on votes to determine what is true and what is false. All scientific hypothesizers and theorists have the burden of proving what they hypothesize and what they theorize is true. So far those who have hypothesized and/or theorized that human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 100 years have caused global warming, have not substantiated, much less proven, either that hypothesis or that theory.

The only substantiated but not proven claims are:
(1) the density of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over the last 100 years;
(2) the average global temperature has increased one degree Celsius over the last 100 years.

No one has substantiated, much less proved, whether those substantiated increases in CO2 density have caused that substantiated average global temperature increase.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

They have yet to prove their weather stations are delivering reliable data, ican. From some of the information out there, it seems obvious that a substantial number of them do not. How can they even analyze the data if they cannot provide evidence of reliable data?

I have grown from a skeptic to an outright disbeliever. I think this whole thing is a fraud. I do not see how any reputable scientist could make the leaps of assumptions that they have done, based upon very questionable and even fraudulant data. And it has now been found that some of the people will not release or do not have the raw data.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Valid science does not rely on votes to determine what is true and what is false. All scientific hypothesizers and theorists have the burden of proving what they hypothesize and what they theorize is true.

So, you are going to provide the evidence of the credentials of those on Inhofe's list when? Simply regurgitating Inhofe's list isn't science and doesn't prove anything other than you can cut and paste. If you bothered to follow the links I posted you would see who did the research and includes a spread sheet of all the names and their affiliations and publications if any.

1 Reply

@okie,

Thanks for proving ican a liar okie. You two make quite a pair. He argues no one on this thread says there isn't warming including you and you prove he lies through his teeth.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So, you are going to provide the evidence of the credentials of those on Inhofe's list when?
...
If you bothered to follow the links I posted you would see who did the research and includes a spread sheet of all the names and their affiliations and publications if any.

YOU ASK ME, "Could you provide in one list the names and credentials of those 462 [on Inhof's list] ican?" I gave you the link to that list that included their names, credentials, AND to their individualy written opinions.

PLEASE post your referenced "spread sheet of all the names and their affiliations and publications if any" AGAIN--or a link to it-- PLUS their individually written opinions, if any.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Thanks for proving ican a liar okie. You two make quite a pair. He argues no one on this thread says there isn't warming including you and you prove he lies through his teeth.

You really are dumb, or you simply twist what has been said, Parados, true to being lawyerly. I have never said there has definitely not been warming. What I have said is that the data that shows warming is questionable, thats all. I think a whole lot more credible data collection has to be done, and verified before that can even be asserted, before the scientific community can tackle the question of why it has warmed or cooled. Simply put, I believe we need more credible data to show whether it has warmed to any significantly statistical degree, and to what extent. It would be highly surprising to see climate stay absolutely static, I do not believe that would happen, but the question is what are we looking at in terms of warming, how much is it if it is even happening at all?

The science is really in its infancy, and given the infancy of the science, it is highly unfortunate but true that the science has been hijacked by the political world, which makes the science even more dubious. What we do know is this, that data have been manipulated and some of the original raw data is not available for review. We also know that many of the weather stations are not sited properly for a great deal of confidence in the validity of the data being collected. In short, ican and I do not disagree widely, we may have minor disagreements of opinion in regard to some of the sub-issues of this subject, but not in general.

If you really want to know what I think, I think there may be some minor warming overall, but it may not be nearly as much as stated, and it may be entirely due to the solar cycles. I simply think the data and computer manipulation that have been done to build the global warmers doomsday projections as linked with CO2 is not supported by sound science, not even close.

2 Replies

@okie,

As I see it, there are at least 3 steps or parts to the question or scientific issue. First of all, the most important is sound data. Secondly, all of the potential causes need to be well understood and quantified. Third, we need to be able to make reasonable projections for those causes and be able to plug them into some kind of formula in a credible way.

So as I see it, the scientific community has to have very sound data to start with, and they don't even have that, and some of the people that have custody of data have manipulated it, do not have the raw data for release and are not open to having other scientists review their data and work. So in short, we cannot go to step 2 without step 1 being resolved. The political global warmers have made a giant leap to step 4, which is supposed mitigation of a problem, without having done anything sound with step 1 or 2, let alone 3. They are attempting to solve a problem that has not been proven to be a problem to whatever extent as claimed, nor have they proven a cause, nor have they proven a sound cure for it. They flunk all three steps. And step 4 is an absolute disaster in several ways.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

You really are dumb, or you simply twist what has been said, Parados, true to being lawyerly. I have never said there has definitely not been warming. What I have said is that the data that shows warming is questionable, thats all.

ROFLMAO.. So. you aren't saying there is or isn't warming? You are saying you don't have a clue.

OK.. I'll accept you don't have a clue about anything. However I see no reason to accept your argument that no one else has a clue either since others have actually done the research.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

As I see it, there are at least 3 steps or parts to the question or scientific issue. First of all, the most important is sound data. Secondly, all of the potential causes need to be well understood and quantified. Third, we need to be able to make reasonable projections for those causes and be able to plug them into some kind of formula in a credible way.

All of which has been done by a scientific community that numbers in the thousands.

Quote:

So as I see it, the scientific community has to have very sound data to start with, and they don't even have that

And you base that on what? Your failure to understand even the most basic science and math?

Let's for a moment assume all the data on temperature is unknown.
That leaves us with the following facts.
1. Birds are flying south later in the year than they did previously
2. The ice on lakes is going out on average 2 weeks earlier or more than it did previously
3. species have moved north that used to be unable to survive there because of winter kill.

Please explain how the list occurs if there is no warming.
Certainly you can't accuse thousands of hunters of being in on a conspiracy, can you?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

They are attempting to solve a problem that has not been proven to be a problem to whatever extent as claimed, nor have they proven a cause, nor have they proven a sound cure for it.

Okie, I agree! But, just for the fun of it, let's ASSUME from the graphs that follow that the average annual global temperature has increased one degree Celsius (parados, that's 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) from 1910 to 2010.

The 1910 temperature has been graphed as the lowest temperature for the period 1850 to 2010. So it could be true that the 1910 to 2010 temperature increase is nothing more than a rescue from a low temperature to a normal temperature. But the last few years show a small temperature decrease. It has been reported that this winter throughout the northern hemisphere has been an unusually cold one.

Holley Molley! We have some evidence that the globe is now cooling. We now need to pour more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere to stop global cooling! We cannot wait for confirmation! We must act now before it is too late!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know