It's funny, because there's obviously HUGE money in global warming not existing. Yet no one but no one has been able to discount it. Mmhmm. You GW-skeptics can have your "I'm so cool because I'm bucking the trend" circle-jerk, while the rest of us actually support useful causes.
Ummm, many of those 2500 "scientists" had little more than a high school diploma. Those that were worthy of being called scientists were added to that list without their consent. That "wacky" video explained this, but evidently you've already made up your mind about global warming, so don't bother watching it.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 19
- 81
The stuff about Mars warming is BS. Guess how many ice cores we have on Mars.
And I can tell you for sure that we have a LOT less data on Mars' climate than we do of Earth's. Our first records on Earth came from people living here writing down what was going on, well over 100 years ago. Our first good records from Mars started when we put an orbiter there in 1971.
Something else in the Nature.com article:
Two different sources, on probes built over 20 years apart.
Oh, and this:
You have a link that demonstrates this fact I presume? I'm not sitting thru some propaganda video, link me to the facts, please.
I just got done reading an MIT professor restating what has become clear to many more people.
"Why So Gloomy?"
By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International
"April 16, 2007 issue - "Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentatorsand many scientistsseem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes..
Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes downnot upthe more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature risea dubious propositionfuture increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
That followed an article from a few days ago:
"Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming"
"NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.
"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html
Science Daily also had a recent analysis of warming models
Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
"Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada."
Even the New York Times is running articles about the blatant un-scientific hysteria:
"From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/scien...1176264000&en=5d2044778a3c3be1&ei=5070
"But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gores central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
I dont want to pick on Al Gore, Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for getting the message out, Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were overselling our certainty about knowing the future."
Even Michael Crichton (a friend of Gore's) said the facts don't support anthropomorphic global warming and that Gore Misuses data - like the UN people do.
The cracks in the "convienient lie" are showing.
"Why So Gloomy?"
By Richard S. Lindzen
Newsweek International
"April 16, 2007 issue - "Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentatorsand many scientistsseem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes..
Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes downnot upthe more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature risea dubious propositionfuture increases wouldn't be as steep as the climb in emissions.."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
That followed an article from a few days ago:
"Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming"
"NEW ORLEANS (AP) - A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.
"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html
Science Daily also had a recent analysis of warming models
Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm
"Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada."
Even the New York Times is running articles about the blatant un-scientific hysteria:
"From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/scien...1176264000&en=5d2044778a3c3be1&ei=5070
"But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gores central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.
I dont want to pick on Al Gore, Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.
Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.
Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for getting the message out, Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were overselling our certainty about knowing the future."
Even Michael Crichton (a friend of Gore's) said the facts don't support anthropomorphic global warming and that Gore Misuses data - like the UN people do.
The cracks in the "convienient lie" are showing.
You should know Mars' ice-caps are frozen CO2 gas, not more then inches deep and evaporates in a temperature range measured in hundreths of a degree. It would only take a small change in orbital radius, solar energy, or the sand storm patterns to produce enough heat to melt the Martian poles.
Did you even read it? Durkin who wrote and directed the film even admits he pretty much flat out changed the data to support what he wanted it to.
"Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said."
"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.
"Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old, which gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years."
and so on... he made it up, even he says so.
What evidence is there?
I have never seen any expert on global warming that could back up his claims. Their conversation goes like this:
You are dumb and I am smart and gloabal warming blah blah.
I have never seen any expert on global warming that could back up his claims. Their conversation goes like this:
You are dumb and I am smart and gloabal warming blah blah.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Your clergy are infallible I see.
I love the transformation of the GW crowd from fring elemtent truely worried about our planet to mainstream religion where people must be converted, you can pay for your sins and be forgiven(carbon credits), and everybody else is wrong and must be silenced.
Of course it has its own version of revelations with floods, disease, and death. And its own insitutions and of course corrupt preachers.
That is one of the dumbest things I have heard in this so called debate yet. There is more money in GW existing and scaring the masses to act.
Govt funded research tops billions.
Carbon Credit Business to sell forgiveness for sins is worth billions
Then you have the alternative energy business that gets money through govt worth billions.
If we determined global warming made by man was bogus tomorrow and have the evidence to prove it. All those billions vanish.
Nice rant, but as usual you ignored my questions. Where is your coalition of scientists who argue that GW is caused by normal earth climate cycles? Have you been able to gather more than 2 in a room who aren't on the energy company's payrolls? Where are your peer-reviewed articles putting forth an alternate theory? Where's the evidence supporting this alternate theory?
Got anything? Whatsoever?
Let me get this straight. You have 2500 scientists who peer reviewed each other's work and called it good I should convert?
And we have already gone over the payroll situation. Politicians pull the purse strings of the majority of funding for climent studies. They need a crisis to push their agenda and grab more power.
btw I dont need 2500 scientists to show the earth has in the past gone through cycles of cold and warm. This has been proven by people on both sides of this debate. If you want further proof go visit northern MN on the north shore. What a beutiful area on lake superior. When you are up there you can read or take tours about the glaciers that used to cover that area upto 2 miles thick over 25,000 years ago. They were so heavy that when they retreated the land is still raising aout 6-12 inches a year.
I am going to go out on a limb and say the earth was much cooler back then, warmed up on its own without the help of fossil fuels, and melted those suckers away forming the nearly 12,000 lakes we have in this wonderful state.
I should think that climate change that happens over thousands of years if very different than climate change that occurs in decades, and that, I think, is the issue.
This whole debate is little different from the evolution vs. creationism debate. Science, fact, evidence, scientific theory vs. faith, hearsay.
I'll take Peer Reviewed for $800, Alex.
I'll take Peer Reviewed for $800, Alex.
QFT...I mean, what else can this type possibly say?
"I feel it in my bones, that I know more than thousands of experts...please love me."
Which would have been less annoying at least.
I get this vision of a child sticking his hands over his ears when he is presented with something he doesnt like.
Anybody who denies the earth goes through cycles of warm and cold is living in a different reality.
Of course I'm not denying the earth goes through cycles of warm/cold, but that wasn't my challenge to you, now was it?
[It's been shown that the recent temperature swings have been off the charts when compared to the climate record extracted from ice core samples.]
[It's been shown that the recent temperature swings have been off the charts when compared to the climate record extracted from ice core samples.]
Off the charts? The sea levels have been higher in the past than they are now, which seems to indicate warmer temperatures.
lets take this a step further. Lets assume everything you say is correct. How much does burning fossil fuels contribute overall? Is it 10%, 50%, 100%? If we stop consuming fossil fuels how much in terms of temperature and sea level rise can we stop?
What is the global temperature supposed to be? Warmer? Colder? The current temperature? I am assuming if it is warmer, you would want to help contribute to getting to that magical temp?
And if we dont do anything how long do we have until the worst case scenario?
DealMonkey,
Why don't you respond to those who do post information? Are you trying to ignore this post?
No one really even argues that man and CO2 have an influence. Everyone questions the degree of influence and the results. So you say that is going to be catastrophic. Well, what happens if we cut emissions in half, will it still be catastrophic? What about 1/10? 3/4? The problem is, it is very difficult to predict. If there was sound data strongly indicating that we needed to reduce fossil fuel emissions by 1/2 or else half of life on the world would die, I'd be all for it. The problem is there are no details, only vague threats, there's going to be a catastrophe and we're all going to die! Science isn't very useful until it can provide quantitative information. So long as the predictions remain as qualitative as they are, they produce very little useful input for policy change. Sure, we should cut fossil fuel consumption. I've never met anyone that doesn't think that would be a good thing. But government passing policy stating we are going to cut fossil fuel emissions isn't going to do a thing. Until we have quantitative data indicating how much, how fast, and the consequences of failing, the science doesn't do a lot of good. That is why we refer to people like Gore as alarmists. They proclaim hellfire and brimstone when there is absolutely no quantitative data to support the claims they are making. There are broad statements, increased temperatures lead to more extreme weather, ice caps melting, rising oceans, etc. But show me a study that states, If we decrease fossil fuel emissions by x percent, warming will decrease by y percent, and storm intensity will only increase by z percent. Then, I'll complain that government isn't acting on the science. Until that point, the science cannot contribute significantly to government making appropriate changes.
Why don't you respond to those who do post information? Are you trying to ignore this post?
No one really even argues that man and CO2 have an influence. Everyone questions the degree of influence and the results. So you say that is going to be catastrophic. Well, what happens if we cut emissions in half, will it still be catastrophic? What about 1/10? 3/4? The problem is, it is very difficult to predict. If there was sound data strongly indicating that we needed to reduce fossil fuel emissions by 1/2 or else half of life on the world would die, I'd be all for it. The problem is there are no details, only vague threats, there's going to be a catastrophe and we're all going to die! Science isn't very useful until it can provide quantitative information. So long as the predictions remain as qualitative as they are, they produce very little useful input for policy change. Sure, we should cut fossil fuel consumption. I've never met anyone that doesn't think that would be a good thing. But government passing policy stating we are going to cut fossil fuel emissions isn't going to do a thing. Until we have quantitative data indicating how much, how fast, and the consequences of failing, the science doesn't do a lot of good. That is why we refer to people like Gore as alarmists. They proclaim hellfire and brimstone when there is absolutely no quantitative data to support the claims they are making. There are broad statements, increased temperatures lead to more extreme weather, ice caps melting, rising oceans, etc. But show me a study that states, If we decrease fossil fuel emissions by x percent, warming will decrease by y percent, and storm intensity will only increase by z percent. Then, I'll complain that government isn't acting on the science. Until that point, the science cannot contribute significantly to government making appropriate changes.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter