Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Totally Gorey


Lady Z

Recommended Posts

Al Gore was interviewed by Jennifer Granholm, the ex-governor of Michigan, on Al's own TV network. I know you're going to think this is a skit, but no!

 

Dirty money makes dirty energy which makes dirty weather or maybe it's dirty energy makes money dirty makes dirty weather? Al explained it.

 

Ah! As someone said a little while ago - We've already got a money laundering scheme in place, it's called "Green Energy".

 

Video at the link :blink:

 

http://dailycaller.c...e-events-video/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gore is STILL pretending that there was a "consensus" ?

 

Maybe Shep is Al Gore - they both are mmgw cultists.

 

I remember Shep always saying that the mmgw debate was over.

 

Bigtime really wrong. And Shep would never admit it.

 

I think Gore left the national limelight.... about the same time Shep left the board...

 

say......I wonder .....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al Gore is a piece of crap.

 

He got to Washington as V.P. and basically turned his back on the people of Tennessee. The people who sent him there in the first place.

 

It gives me much pride to think it was these same people who kept his ass out of the White House when he wasn't able to carry his "home" state in the presidential election.

 

"F" Al Gore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there's political progressive Paul Krugman winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics (2008). Krugman, a Princeton professor of econ and columnist for the NY Times, says global warming is causing food price inflation.

 

Apparently weakness in the dollar has very little to do with inflation. :rolleyes:

 

 

Op-Ed Columnist

 

Droughts, Floods and Food

 

By Paul Krugman

 

Published: February 6, 2011

http://www.nytimes.c...ugman.html?_r=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLD has a habit of coming in with once sentence sarcasm. Nothing to back it up.

 

Most of Cal's thread topics are so Retarded it isn't worth a full response. And we all now Cal, Bunker and friends provide loads of info to back up their points.

 

I saw him shitting on global warming. I'm not surprised, Cal has made it clear he doesn't like or understand science. I do know that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees there is some form though.

 

So Cal the farmer, or the scientific community. Tough choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gore is STILL pretending that there was a "consensus" ?

 

Maybe Shep is Al Gore - they both are mmgw cultists.

 

I remember Shep always saying that the mmgw debate was over.

 

Bigtime really wrong. And Shep would never admit it.

 

I think Gore left the national limelight.... about the same time Shep left the board...

 

say......I wonder .....

 

 

 

Gore is still pretending anthropogenic global warming is destroying the planet. Gore got the interview only because he owns the network. He's so embarrassing.

 

I guess the jury is still out on his running mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of Cal's thread topics are so Retarded it isn't worth a full response. And we all now Cal, Bunker and friends provide loads of info to back up their points.

 

I saw him shitting on global warming. I'm not surprised, Cal has made it clear he doesn't like or understand science. I do know that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees there is some form though.

 

So Cal the farmer, or the scientific community. Tough choice.

 

The earth has gone through numerous heating and cooling periods before. Hello, mcfly, the ice age anyone? The Jurassic? What's ridiculous is all the liberal hippies bitching that were killing the earth with it. Stop driving then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woodpecker - you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your really stupid, college twit, anti-everything agenda.

 

Trying t bash me because you want to still believe that mankind created gw is typical.

 

Woodpecker translation: "I got nothin, and I am so much a pitiful, dimwitted weakling, that I can't

go research mmgw warming on the internet."

 

Here's three very quick links you should read. I can get you more. But the reason you won't look them up,

 

is probly' cause you aren't able to feed yourself because you are so out of shape and miserable.

 

Get honest for once and come up with your own "science".

 

When I was a kid, all of us on our block were friends, and the kids on the next block were a group of friends.

 

Then, there was Johnny, the younger kid next door to me. He would go out and ride in his parents car, and dare them

 

to come over and fight all of us, and call them all sorts of stupid names. Then, he'd go hide in his house,

 

and watch what happened. Trouble is, they'd come over, and we'd just laugh and point to his house, and tell

 

them Johhny was a little weasel squirt, and if they could catch him, we'd be happy to watch them throw him into a

 

giant mudhole in the bottom of a basement just dug out. So, we were all fine, and Little Phoney Johnnie.was friends

 

with nobody, and he was always Little Phoney Johnnie. He never could quit being a weasel. He finally moved away as soon as he could.

 

I never heard of him again. You are him. You are Little Phoney Jonnie Woodpecker. Here's some links to get you started.

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_farce_of_global_warming.html

 

http://www.climategate.com/if-global-warming-is-a-farce-why-is-the-ice-melting-in-the-arctic

 

http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=7670

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes. I am Johnie and God took over the body of a donkey to save you as a child. Got it.

 

Woodpecker - you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your really stupid, college twit, anti-everything agenda.

 

No, not really. I dismiss things that don't make sense and don't have real evidence to back them up. That just happens to be a lot of what you believe. Mostly because you believe only what you want to not what actually makes sense. It is a shame.

 

 

Trying t bash me because you want to still believe that mankind created gw is typical

 

I never said I believe global warming is entirely mankind based. We are not doing the environment any favors though. Its really funny seeing you dismiss any kind of scientific knowledge at any point it disagrees with you beliefs (most of the time) but when you think you can actually get something that does agree with you it becomes the only real way to decide something. That if anyone would disagree with it, after you just talked all this science you don't even understand, then they must be a crazy liberal communist that hates America

 

 

Woodpecker translation: "I got nothin, and I am so much a pitiful, dimwitted weakling, that I can't

go research mmgw warming on the internet."

 

Here's three very quick links you should read. I can get you more.

 

I love your definition of research and the 3 links you posted. I wouldn't consider going to conservative websites to get them to tell you conservative ideas are right research. Its really hilarious that we have been over this before but it doesn't get through your thick skull. But, heaven forbid anyone disagree with the wise farmer that totally knows more about math and science than the guy studying engineering at a top school, or in Vapor's case, the guy that is on his way to becoming a freaking doctor.

 

But the reason you won't look them up,

 

is probly' cause you aren't able to feed yourself because you are so out of shape and miserable.

 

Lol, ok. Now I am out of shape and that is why I disagree with you? Hahaha, what the fuck?

 

 

Get honest for once and come up with your own "science".

 

This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have seen on here, and that is saying a lot. I guess that is how it works in your head. If present state of scientific knowledge disagrees with what you want it to, go "make your own" science so it does, cuz that is totally how it works. I swear to god you understand how this stuff works less than Bunker, and I don't even think he can record shows on a DVR.

 

 

story about Johnie

 

that was great. I'm happy for you

 

 

 

 

 

Let's look at your links...

 

 

AmericanThink.com, ClimateGate.com, RedWhiteAndBlueNews.com wow, I wonder where this is going...

 

Let's look at RedWhiteAndBlueNews. I open it and there is a big ad for Alzheimer's cures first of all. I wonder who their audience is. Let's look at the articles on the side. One anti Dem anti Muslim article, 2 anti occupier articles, 1 articles claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake and article saying Obama paid for an massacre.

 

Sounds totally unbiased and completely scientifically credible...

 

That ClimateGate.com link is just a comment page with people saying whatever they would like. But hey, the average person on there is agreeing with you so it must be a credible link right?..... right?

 

and when the least biased source you posted was AmericanThinker.com, well then I think you should have realized something. This is honestly the least biased site, which is sad, but it had some decent points. I just wish they were backed up with links or citations to where that data was found. Anyone can say, this one professor said this, or this group of japanese scientist did this, but you have to actually show some evidence.

 

Did you miss the day of school where they taught you how to find articles to write a research paper? You know, where they told you what was a good source and what wasn't, because I feel like you did.

 

 

Try this

 

Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real

 

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and Vapor aren't scientists.

 

And you college career choice doesn't make you more intelligent than a farmer.

 

BTW, in case you missed it - I have a degree, and have been a corporate programmer/business analyst consultant for about three years

before I went obsolete.

 

You can't do that and be a dumb farmer.

 

You still haven't had any substance on this forum. You still got nothin.

********************************

http://consciouslifenews.com/scientist-global-warming-based-false-science/116372/

 

(Hotair.com) David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

 

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

 

Global warmingThe Heartland Institute questions the scientific opinions on climate change, arguing that global warming is not occurring and, further, that warming might be beneficial if it did occur.[13] The institute is a member organization of the Cooler Heads Coalition, which describes itself as "an informal and ad-hoc group focused on dispelling the myths of global warming."[14] In Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway wrote that the Heartland Institute was known "for its persistent questioning of climate science, for its promotion of 'experts' who have done little, if any, peer-reviewed climate research, and for its sponsorship of a conference in New York City in 2008 alleging that the scientific community's work on global warming is fake."[9]

 

In 2008 a bibliography written by Dennis Avery was posted on Heartland’s Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares”.[15][16] In late April 2008, Heartland reported that the web site DeSmogBlog had "targeted The Heartland Institute in late April 2008, and in particular two lists posted on Heartland’s Web site of scientists whose published work contradicts some of the main tenets of global warming alarmism."[16] The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the work of Jim Salinger, chief scientist at New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, was "misrepresented" as part of a "denial campaign".[17] In response to criticism, The Heartland Institute changed the title of the list to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.”[16] Heartland did not remove any of the scientists' names from the list.[16][17] Dennis Avery explained, "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics"..."but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”[16][nb 1]

 

[edit] International Conferences on Climate ChangeBetween 2008 and 2012 the Heartland Institute sponsored seven International Conferences on Climate Change, bringing together hundreds of global warming skeptics. Convention speakers have included Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT; Roy Spencer, a research scientist and climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville; S. Fred Singer, who is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute [18] and was founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami and founding director of the National Weather Satellite Service; Harrison Schmitt, a geologist and former NASA astronaut and Apollo 17 moonwalker; and Dr. John Theon, atmospheric scientist and former NASA supervisor. In the first conference, participants criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore.[8][19] The BBC reported that the heavily politicized nature of the Heartland conferences led some "moderate" climate skeptics to avoid them.[11]

 

At the conclusion of the 7th International Conference on Climate Change, held at the Chicago Hilton, Heartland president Joseph Bast announced that the organization was discontinuing the conferences.[20]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_questioning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections

 

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projectionsScientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

 

Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [8]

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[9][10][11]

Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former Chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]

Garth Paltridge, retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, Visiting Fellow ANU[13]

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute said in a 2009 essay: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."[15]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus view

1979–2009: Over the past 3 decades, temperature has not correlated with sunspot trends. The top plot is of sunspots, while below is the global atmospheric temperature trend. El Chichón and Pinatubo were volcanoes, while El Niño is part of ocean variability. The effect of greenhouse gas emissions is on top of those fluctuations.

1860–1980: In contrast, earlier there was apparent similarity between trends in terrestrial sea surface temperatures and sunspots (related to solar magnetic activity: TSI varies slightly while UV and indirectly cosmic rays vary somewhat more).

Both consensus and non-consensus scientific views involve multiple climate change influences including solar variability and internal forcings, plus human influences such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use change.[16] However, they differ on issues such as how sensitive they think the climate system is to increases in greenhouse gases.[16][17]Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

 

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences said in a 2007 news agency interview: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity."[18]

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said in a 2002 lecture for The Heritage Foundation: "Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities—over 80 percent—occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."[19]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."[19] "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[20][not in citation given]

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in a 2004 newspaper letter:"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[21]

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland said in a 2006 newspaper article: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[22]

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester was reported to have said in a 2007 paper in the International Journal of Climatology: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[23]

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University said in a 2006 presentation to the Geological Society of America: "Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5 °C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."[24]

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[25]

William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University said in a 2006 newspaper interview: "All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[26]

William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology wrote in a 2004 article and book: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."[27]

David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware wrote in a 2006 article for the National Center for Policy Analysis: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."[28]

Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa said in 2005: Global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[29]

Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada said in a 2007 newspaper article: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[30][31]

Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide said in a 2002 television debate: "Natural climate changes occur unrelated to carbon dioxide contents. We've had many, many times in the recent past where we've rapidly gone into a greenhouse and the carbon dioxide content has been far, far lower than the current carbon dioxide content... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".[32]

Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University said in a 2010 article originally written for the Italian magazine La Chimica e l’Industria (Chemistry and Industry): "At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model."[33][34]

Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo said in a 2007 presentation to the 9th International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic: "The IPCC's temperature curve (the so-called 'hockey stick' curve) must be in error, because the Medieval warm period (the "Climate Optimum") and the Little Ice Age both are absent from their curve, on which the IPCC bases its future projections and recommended mitigation. All measurements of solar luminosity and 14C isotopes show that there is at present an increasing solar radiation which gives a warmer climate (Willson, R.C & Hudson, H.S. 1991: The Sun's luminosity over a complete solar cycle. Nature 351, 42–44; and Coffey, H.E., Erwin, E.H. & Hanchett, C.D.: Solar databases for global change models. www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html). Warmer climate was previously perceived as an optimum climate and not catastrophic. ... On a wet basis the Earth's atmosphere consists by mass of ~73.5% nitrogen, ~22.5% oxygen, ~2.7% water, and ~1.25% argon. CO2 in air is in minimal amount, ~0.05% by mass, and with minimal capacity (~2%) to influence the "Greenhouse Effect" compared to water vapor"[35]

Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said in a 2006 online essay: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."[36]

Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia said in a 2005 award acceptance speech: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."[37] Also in a 2006 television program: “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”[38]

Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was reported to have said in a 2003 paper for Energy & Environment: "there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."[39]

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville said in 2008 testimony to a US Senate committee: "I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind’s role is relatively minor".[40]

Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center said in a 2007 paper for Astronomy & Geophysics: "The case for anthropogenic climate change during the 20th century rests primarily on the fact that concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases increased and so did global temperatures. Attempts to show that certain details in the climatic record confirm the greenhouse forcing (e.g. Mitchell et al. 2001) have been less than conclusive. By contrast, the hypothesis that changes in cloudiness obedient to cosmic rays help to force climate change predicts a distinctive signal that is in fact very easily observed, as an exception that proves the rule."[41]

Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa said in a paper published in Geoscience Canada in 2005: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. The two scenarios are likely not even mutually exclusive, but a prioritization may result in different relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."[42]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknownScientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

 

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks said in a 2007 blog post:"[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement ..., there is so far no definitive evidence that 'most' of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. ... [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term 'most' in their conclusion is baseless."[43]

Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris) said in a 2006 newspaper article:"The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."[44]

Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University said in a 2003 essay for the George C. Marshall Institute:"t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."[45]

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC said in a 2009 Energy and Environment paper with David Douglass: "...the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback. ... The global warming hypothesis states that there are positive feedback processes leading to gains g that are larger than 1, perhaps as large as 3 or 4. However, recent studies suggest that the values of g is much smaller."[46] Also in a 2009 opinion piece: "...I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."[47]

Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory said in a 2002 magazine article: "Carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[48]

David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma said in 2006 testimony to a US Senate committee:"The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause – human or natural – is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria."[49]

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists, was reported to have said at a 2007 Vatican Seminar on Climate Change: "it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes".[50]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequencesScientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

 

Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics and professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, said in a 2011 email explaining his failure to renew his membership of the American Physical Society: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."[51][52]

Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, said in a 2007 paper in response to Al Gore's Senate testimony: "The rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."[53]

Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University, said in a 2003 report (co-authored with Craig and Keith Idso) for the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change :"[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."[54]

Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, said in a 2003 article for The Washington Times:"Scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter."[55]

Dead scientistsThe lists above only include living scientists. The following are dead. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

 

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming, was reported to have said in 2006: "the global warming argument, particularly with all the disastrous consequences that are being promulgated ... this is all a non-sustainable argument. In other words the facts will, in time, prove them to be wrong".[56]

Reid Bryson (1920–2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a 2007 magazine interview that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes:"It’s absurd. Of course [temperature's] going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."[57]

Robert Jastrow (1925–2008) was an American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist. Together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg he established the George C. Marshall Institute[58] to counter the scientists who were arguing against Reagan's Starwars Initiative, arguing for equal time in the media. This institute later took the view that tobacco was having no effect, that acid rain was not caused by human emissions, that ozone was not depleted by CFCs, that pesticides were not environmentally harmful and it was also critical of the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming.[59] Jastrow acknowledged the Earth was experiencing a warming trend, but claimed that the cause was likely to be natural variation.[60]

Marcel Leroux (1938–2008) former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin, said in his 2005 book that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."[61]

Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences said in a 2001 article for The Heartland Institute that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities."[62] He was also a co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984 with William Nierenberg and Robert Jastrow.[63]

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most students like many college grads are not optimized for life.

 

Some people have learned a proffesion, while others know how to make it happen.

 

Proverbs 10:21 The lips of the righteous nourish many,

but fools die for lack of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The survey you linked to was published January 2009. That was before climate gate exposed the shoddy science, cherry picking data, falsified data, conspiracy to "hide the decline".

 

Your second link is dated January 2009 and appears to be a longer article that the first link was taken from.

 

If you had studied climate gate 1 and 2 you would be better informed.

 

 

 

Here's an article debunking the temperature rise in Siberia.

 

GISS, NOAA, GHCN and the odd Russian temperature anomaly – "It's all pipes!"

Posted on November 15, 2008 by Anthony Watts

 

http://wattsupwithth...-its-all-pipes/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The survey you linked to was published January 2009. That was before climate gate exposed the shoddy science, cherry picking data, falsified data, conspiracy to "hide the decline".

 

Your second link is dated January 2009 and appears to be a longer article that the first link was taken from.

 

If you had studied climate gate 1 and 2 you would be better informed.

 

 

 

Here's an article debunking the temperature rise in Siberia.

 

GISS, NOAA, GHCN and the odd Russian temperature anomaly – "It's all pipes!"

Posted on November 15, 2008 by Anthony Watts

 

http://wattsupwithth...-its-all-pipes/

 

I kind of find it funny I can't post scientific articles from 2009 and then you post an article from 2008. That's fine though, I'll find an article showing scientific consensus that's more recent.

 

I didn't get to read all of that article, but I'll do so later. At least it looks more legitimate than Cal's "sources. "

 

I'll also have a better response later. Only so much I can do on a phone at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most students like many college grads are not optimized for life.

 

Some people have learned a proffesion, while others know how to make it happen.

 

Proverbs 10:21 The lips of the righteous nourish many,

but fools die for lack of sense.

 

So wait, I'm not learning a proffession and I don't know how to make it happen?

 

If students aren't optimized for life does that me Bunker is perfectly built for life?

 

And I guess I am the fool. Which is funny. If I was a college student that agreed with you i would be righteous and a beacon for real America's future or something like that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cal, I shouldn't have added Vapor in there, ignore that. He doesn't have to deal with you too.

 

I guess I was wrong in saying I'm smarter than you because you're a farmer. I'm just smarter than you because you are you. You make that clear almost every time you post.

 

The point about you being a farmer is just that, you're a farmer. Clearly scientists that study global warming know more about it than you do. I'd also argument that engineering and medical students may know more about science in general.

 

I'm not saying there aren't scientists out there that agree with you, and that you can't find an article they've written, but that they are the small minority.

 

If I missed something in that response I'll get back to you after work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<br />I kind of find it funny I can't post scientific articles from 2009 and then you post an article from 2008. That's fine though, I'll find an article showing scientific consensus that's more recent. <br /><br />I didn't get to read all of that article, but I'll do so later. At least it looks more legitimate than Cal's "sources. " <br /><br />I'll also have a better response later. Only so much I can do on a phone at work.<br />
<br /><br /><br />

 

 

Correct, the Siberia rising winter temperature article was published before the "science was settled survey" so it is an example of how the actual conditions on the ground in Siberian weather station were ignored, covered up? and temperatures were accepted on their face without any explanation other than catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

 

Please get back to us on that - and follow all the live links in the article for supporting documentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so Little Jonnie Woodpecker -

 

You emote again - and ignore any link or article that doesn't help you in your lib weanie world.

 

But, I give you credit:

 

"And I guess I am the fool. Which is funny. "

 

Yes, you finally get a fleeting moment of self-awareness ! CONGRATS !

 

But it isn't funny. You aren't funny. You are sad.

 

And surely, lonely, unless Heck is your roommate.

 

And you still got nothin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like the kettle calling the pot black

 

but in this case it's more like the kettle calling a spoon black or something.

 

You literally attack me for doing what you do on a daily basis and for something I don't do.

 

I gave you reasons throughout my post, learn to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cal, I shouldn't have added Vapor in there, ignore that. He doesn't have to deal with you too.

 

I guess I was wrong in saying I'm smarter than you because you're a farmer. I'm just smarter than you because you are you. You make that clear almost every time you post.

 

The point about you being a farmer is just that, you're a farmer. Clearly scientists that study global warming know more about it than you do. I'd also argument that engineering and medical students may know more about science in general.

 

I'm not saying there aren't scientists out there that agree with you, and that you can't find an article they've written, but that they are the small minority.

 

If I missed something in that response I'll get back to you after work.

 

You need a new fallback position. Being an engineering student is not as impressive as you seem to think it is, and it doesn't make you any more intelligent than, say, a farmer. You should stop bringing it up every other post and just stand on your principals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need a new fallback position. Being an engineering student is not as impressive as you seem to think it is, and it doesn't make you any more intelligent than, say, a farmer. You should stop bringing it up every other post and just stand on your principals.

 

I only brought that up because the heart of this argument is understanding scientific matters. In the post you quoted I said I wasn't smarter than Cal because I'm an engineering student and he's a farmer. I said I am cuz he's him and I'm me, occupation and studies aside.

 

I go on to say scientists that study climate change are going to know more about it than a farmer. More about it than myself and anyone else here (as far as I know) too. That was the base of my argument, that the scientific community all greatly believe in some level of man made climate change.

 

Everyone is going to have something they know more about others on here. That fact that I'm in school working closely with math and science lends to my knowledge of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Study sez belief in global warming depends on how you FEEL about the world.

 

Oh, and the more knowledge of science and math you have the less likely it is you'll believe in global warming.

 

 

 

The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not really what they said. I'll have to read it again but I don't think that is what they are getting at, not completely.

 

You do a much better job though at finding sources, haha. It is a welcome change.

 

If you can find the test they used to determine the science level of participants, the National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators, 2010, or whatever, you'll be my hero.

 

 

Edit: Actually this is a really interesting study. I'm going to read through all the supplemental info and get back to you.

 

 

I wish they didn't just ask "How much of a threat do you think global warming is" but also asked about how much of it they felt was man made, or if it was just natural, or if they didn't think there was any at all.

 

 

Edit 2: Nvm I found the questions

 

 

Edit 3: It says a person's views about how dangerous they feel global warming is more based on cultural indicators than their scientific knowledge.

 

An increase in "scientific knowledge" just increases your belief in there either being a threat or not being a threat. It doesn't make them believe that there is more of a threat no matter what.

 

I say "scientific knowledge" in quotes because holy fuck did you look at the questions they asked? This wasn't dividing up between the scientific community and the public like I was doing earlier. This is dividing up between the Bunkers/morons of the world and the average to slightly above average intelligence people (unless I am overestimating average).

 

 

The more "scientific knowledge" you have though the less of a perceived threat you feel nuclear power is (thank god, one saving grace). Now I wonder if this is because nuclear power is not as big of an issue politically. If it all of a sudden was Dems on one side and Reps on another would we see the same occurence as we do here as people will begin to choose their sides based on cultural matters and then seek out info that supports their beliefs.

 

 

Edit 4: Sorry, this turned into a jumbled mess.

 

You realize your FEEL line goes both ways though, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woody, glad you found the article interesting.

 

The FEEL line is based on one's point on a "hierarchy–Egalitarianism (Hierarchy) v Individualism–Communitarianism (Individualism)" graph. Boil it down to people who want to live in a nanny state v people who don't

 

The method of sample selection consists of people who have volunteered to be contacted for opinion polls. Diversity and randomness cannot be claimed. Anyway, the level of the science questions doesn't bother me. At least we know that all of the subjects could operate a computer well enough to answer an online questionnaire.

 

The study is biased in favor of a nanny state and belief in global warming - anthropogenic global warming I dare say. The more science and math literacy a person has (and the bar is set pretty low), and the more individualistic their world outlook the less likely a person is to believe in global warming. Don't consider the science, the authors would rather we depended on peer pressure and collectivism.

 

Maybe it's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think the authors made the wrong conclusion?

 

I agree about it not being the best sampling. Voluntary polls are not the best. I've lied before in an attempt to get into surveys and discussions that pay participants (only because I did one through the same site before and actually got paid)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Woody, I think so. The authors wanted to show that those with higher math and science literacy would make the "right" decision and believe in AGW, climate change, severe weather - take your pick, it's a moving target LOL.

 

What do you think about the study?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...