On February 05 2012 08:55 phame21 wrote: Ok. so lets say we tone down the CO2 production. Where will all the CO2 that we produced go?
The main producer of CO2 is not man-made machines, as the highest CO2 producer in the world are the plants, more specifically
Amazon forest. so if you really want to get rid of CO2 in the atmosphere you need to chop down all life in the forest and
probably blink them out into the space. (if you bury them the amount of CO2 will probably turn earth into mars).
These so called global warming threats evidences are flawed themselves and biased as well.
You know trees and plants also absorb a lot of CO2, right? They bloom in Spring and absorb CO2, then shed in the winter and release it. Essentially breathing in and out once a year.
On February 05 2012 14:54 Frunkis wrote: lol, this genius types "climate change" in google scholar and concludes there are 2.6 million peer reviewed articles supporting climate change based on the number of hits. Amazing. Oh look, I get a million hits for global cooling. So much for that consensus.
Found an article on the origin of the 97% claim....
You may get a million hits for global cooling, but you don't know whether any of them support or do not support it until you read it. I looked at abstracts of the first page of hits and barely any of them relate to the climate change debate. Go search climate change, most if not all of them talk about AGW and are in support of AGW.
I also never said that the 2.6 million articles either supported or didn't support AGW. I was merely mentioning the fact that you thought that 900+ was a lot, when in fact its a miniscule amount.
Now either you can do what the academic that was cited in the Wiki article did and set some criteria, or you can just pick some out of the blue which is where the 900 came from and which is while that page is so full of fail because he didn't even check that half of them aren't scientific.
(1) The guy whose article you're quoting also wrote such gems as: 'Godless societies are unfit for survival' (Dec 22, 2011) and 'Get dirty and avoid vaccines' (Jan 6, 2012), which perpetuates the wonderful 'my child got a disease AND got vaccinated for something unrelated. Thus, the latter must have caused the former!' style reasoning. and 'Why Jews like climate policy' (Dec 16, 2011): apparently not for environmental reasons, but as part of a conspiracy to decrease the relative power of their rivals in the Middle East. He's not a big science guy.
No doubt he's a kook. It's irrelevant. There's dozens of articles saying the same thing, pick a different one if you like. The numbers don't change.
(2) I don't know if you read the paper that he's writing about in that column (you can find it at the end of the piece you've linked), but he has strawmanned it enormously. Yes, the 97% is based on a sample size of 77, but their criteria for that particular part of their graph was for people who (a) were climate scientists and (b) published 50% or more of their work on climate change. They have a bar graph for each level of expertise/interest identified.
The study is invalidated by selection criteria, sample size, question phrasing and confined by organization affiliation. There are plenty of papers that attempt to poll the same thing but the one that gets the most attention despite its glaring flaws is the one that gives the magical 97% consensus bullshit.
Pffft what? Of course its relevant. My whole reason for posting is that people are posting invalid information from kooks and believing it.
Do I have to screen every single one and realise that the dozens of articles are all made by kooks? Go find one from a reputable source yourself please.
On February 05 2012 16:43 Carson wrote: I am loving this discussion. Thank you all for your contributions.
I have a question for both sides though.
Who would you accept as a valid source that counters your argument? If there is no one that you'd accept, then why even argue at all?
I dunno, but I see an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports AGW from scientific journals.
And then I see people try and refute that with blog posts, newspapers, the climategate scandal, or stuff they didn't bother to screen. The fact that it only takes mere seconds to invalidate any of the data that was posted anti-AGW frustrates me, because people aren't even bothering to make an effort.
AGW doesn't exist because... Climate Gate
AGW doesn't exist because... Random Graph that doesn't have a Y axis and puts question marks on temperatures because hes not actually sure
AGW doesn't exist because... Top 10 climatologist that is a fundamentalist christian that believes God affects the climate
AGW doesn't exist because... Some racist guys blog post said so
AGW doesn't exist because... Trees emit CO2, its the trees fault
AGW doesn't exist because... Water Vapour makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect. Here's a wiki article, oh wait I'm wrong.
How about we should do something about AGW because 98% of peer reviewed academic scientific journals provide overwhelming scientific evidence that this is a problem, and natural disasters are getting worse by the year, and I'd really like people to stop making up dumb excuses and actually do something about it.
Even if it wasn't true, the dependence on fossil fuels and the sheer amount of pollution we breath in every day is still a problem, and renewable energy is easy to maintain and cheaper in the long run.
Your posts are a perfect example of the alarmist and highly emotional side of this issue many of us "deniers" are illustrating.
I don't think anyone here thats a "denier" is against reducing pollution or investing in cleaner energy. The issue for many critics of the polemic is the science that gets touted by organizations like the IPCC and WTO, and also the dehumanization of the third world by the first, telling those who want to industrialize they can not.
Since this came back to the top, I have not read most of this other than the OP. But in response to his presumption that 'science' is undivided in the issue of AGW:
This was a 'consensus' back then. Those of us over 30 tend to remember the same people screaming that a coming ice age was just around the corner. So, by my nature, I'm a little leery of when 'scientists' claim something as fundamentally unsound as predicting the climate in 3 days, much less a few decades into the future.
In my experience of 40 years, last 20 or so actually somewhat politically aware, follow the money (as with most things in life) and see who stands to profit from this AGW mindset. You'll find it's the same political machine that supports 'progressive' programs around the world. This is a UN scam plain and simple. They have just announced a new 'global tax' to move capital from wealthy countries to those 'in need'.
Follow the money, it's generally the answer to everything in politics. In the case of the US, it is Al Gore and his buddies who stand to make Trillions of dollars off this boondoggle. So be careful who you accuse of 'buying' it's scientists, I'd be willing to bet that the idea of making upwards of $13 trillion would lead some to pursue that kind of return on investment.
On February 05 2012 18:08 weekendracer wrote: Since this came back to the top, I have not read most of this other than the OP. But in response to his presumption that 'science' is undivided in the issue of AGW:
This was a 'consensus' back then. Those of us over 30 tend to remember the same people screaming that a coming ice age was just around the corner. So, by my nature, I'm a little leery of when 'scientists' claim something as fundamentally unsound as predicting the climate in 3 days, much less a few decades into the future.
In my experience of 40 years, last 20 or so actually somewhat politically aware, follow the money (as with most things in life) and see who stands to profit from this AGW mindset. You'll find it's the same political machine that supports 'progressive' programs around the world. This is a UN scam plain and simple. They have just announced a new 'global tax' to move capital from wealthy countries to those 'in need'.
Follow the money, it's generally the answer to everything in politics. In the case of the US, it is Al Gore and his buddies who stand to make Trillions of dollars off this boondoggle. So be careful who you accuse of 'buying' it's scientists, I'd be willing to bet that the idea of making upwards of $13 trillion would lead some to pursue that kind of return on investment.
So instead of following what thousand of scientist say through research and peer-review processes, you "follow the money" based off arbitrary unproven speculations/hypotheses that have more holes in them than Swiss cheese (yet you readily ignore)
On February 05 2012 08:55 phame21 wrote: Ok. so lets say we tone down the CO2 production. Where will all the CO2 that we produced go?
The main producer of CO2 is not man-made machines, as the highest CO2 producer in the world are the plants, more specifically
Amazon forest. so if you really want to get rid of CO2 in the atmosphere you need to chop down all life in the forest and
probably blink them out into the space. (if you bury them the amount of CO2 will probably turn earth into mars).
These so called global warming threats evidences are flawed themselves and biased as well.
You know trees and plants also absorb a lot of CO2, right? They bloom in Spring and absorb CO2, then shed in the winter and release it. Essentially breathing in and out once a year.
Based off my understanding, what you're saying is quite misleading. They don't really Absorb the CO2 and release it afterward, they convert CO2 to Carbon (which combined with the hydrogen obtained from water, form sugars) and oxygen. As far as I know, little to no CO2 is produced when a plant goes dormant or dies for the winter (unless it is burned).
On February 05 2012 14:54 Frunkis wrote: lol, this genius types "climate change" in google scholar and concludes there are 2.6 million peer reviewed articles supporting climate change based on the number of hits. Amazing. Oh look, I get a million hits for global cooling. So much for that consensus.
Found an article on the origin of the 97% claim....
You may get a million hits for global cooling, but you don't know whether any of them support or do not support it until you read it. I looked at abstracts of the first page of hits and barely any of them relate to the climate change debate. Go search climate change, most if not all of them talk about AGW and are in support of AGW.
I also never said that the 2.6 million articles either supported or didn't support AGW. I was merely mentioning the fact that you thought that 900+ was a lot, when in fact its a miniscule amount.
Now either you can do what the academic that was cited in the Wiki article did and set some criteria, or you can just pick some out of the blue which is where the 900 came from and which is while that page is so full of fail because he didn't even check that half of them aren't scientific.
(1) The guy whose article you're quoting also wrote such gems as: 'Godless societies are unfit for survival' (Dec 22, 2011) and 'Get dirty and avoid vaccines' (Jan 6, 2012), which perpetuates the wonderful 'my child got a disease AND got vaccinated for something unrelated. Thus, the latter must have caused the former!' style reasoning. and 'Why Jews like climate policy' (Dec 16, 2011): apparently not for environmental reasons, but as part of a conspiracy to decrease the relative power of their rivals in the Middle East. He's not a big science guy.
No doubt he's a kook. It's irrelevant. There's dozens of articles saying the same thing, pick a different one if you like. The numbers don't change.
(2) I don't know if you read the paper that he's writing about in that column (you can find it at the end of the piece you've linked), but he has strawmanned it enormously. Yes, the 97% is based on a sample size of 77, but their criteria for that particular part of their graph was for people who (a) were climate scientists and (b) published 50% or more of their work on climate change. They have a bar graph for each level of expertise/interest identified.
The study is invalidated by selection criteria, sample size, question phrasing and confined by organization affiliation. There are plenty of papers that attempt to poll the same thing but the one that gets the most attention despite its glaring flaws is the one that gives the magical 97% consensus bullshit.
Pffft what? Of course its relevant. My whole reason for posting is that people are posting invalid information from kooks and believing it.
Do I have to screen every single one and realise that the dozens of articles are all made by kooks? Go find one from a reputable source yourself please.
On February 05 2012 16:43 Carson wrote: I am loving this discussion. Thank you all for your contributions.
I have a question for both sides though.
Who would you accept as a valid source that counters your argument? If there is no one that you'd accept, then why even argue at all?
I dunno, but I see an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports AGW from scientific journals.
And then I see people try and refute that with blog posts, newspapers, the climategate scandal, or stuff they didn't bother to screen. The fact that it only takes mere seconds to invalidate any of the data that was posted anti-AGW frustrates me, because people aren't even bothering to make an effort.
AGW doesn't exist because... Climate Gate
AGW doesn't exist because... Random Graph that doesn't have a Y axis and puts question marks on temperatures because hes not actually sure
AGW doesn't exist because... Top 10 climatologist that is a fundamentalist christian that believes God affects the climate
AGW doesn't exist because... Some racist guys blog post said so
AGW doesn't exist because... Trees emit CO2, its the trees fault
AGW doesn't exist because... Water Vapour makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect. Here's a wiki article, oh wait I'm wrong.
How about we should do something about AGW because 98% of peer reviewed academic scientific journals provide overwhelming scientific evidence that this is a problem, and natural disasters are getting worse by the year, and I'd really like people to stop making up dumb excuses and actually do something about it.
Even if it wasn't true, the dependence on fossil fuels and the sheer amount of pollution we breath in every day is still a problem, and renewable energy is easy to maintain and cheaper in the long run.
Your posts are a perfect example of the alarmist and highly emotional side of this issue many of us "deniers" are illustrating.
I don't think anyone here thats a "denier" is against reducing pollution or investing in cleaner energy. The issue for many critics of the polemic is the science that gets touted by organizations like the IPCC and WTO, and also the dehumanization of the third world by the first, telling those who want to industrialize they can not.
Well if a doctor told you had a high chance of getting diabetes unless you changed your diet, would you tell him to stop being alarmist?
Its not dehumanization of the third world by the first. The US and many other first world countries polluted the world first, it is up to them to fix it. Its so hypocritical to point at China and tell them that because they aren't investing in renewables neither should we. What a cop out.
We gained so much from polluting the world and now we have to pay the price, and we don't want to.
Whats wrong with the science that gets "touted" by the IPCC and the WTO. How about the misinformation that gets "touted" by the press. Just because the IPCC is like hey you should check this out, doesn't mean its a bad thing.
Such a small amount of science is read by the public, its important that the knowledge is put out there so people know.
On February 05 2012 14:54 Frunkis wrote: lol, this genius types "climate change" in google scholar and concludes there are 2.6 million peer reviewed articles supporting climate change based on the number of hits. Amazing. Oh look, I get a million hits for global cooling. So much for that consensus.
Found an article on the origin of the 97% claim....
You may get a million hits for global cooling, but you don't know whether any of them support or do not support it until you read it. I looked at abstracts of the first page of hits and barely any of them relate to the climate change debate. Go search climate change, most if not all of them talk about AGW and are in support of AGW.
I also never said that the 2.6 million articles either supported or didn't support AGW. I was merely mentioning the fact that you thought that 900+ was a lot, when in fact its a miniscule amount.
Now either you can do what the academic that was cited in the Wiki article did and set some criteria, or you can just pick some out of the blue which is where the 900 came from and which is while that page is so full of fail because he didn't even check that half of them aren't scientific.
(1) The guy whose article you're quoting also wrote such gems as: 'Godless societies are unfit for survival' (Dec 22, 2011) and 'Get dirty and avoid vaccines' (Jan 6, 2012), which perpetuates the wonderful 'my child got a disease AND got vaccinated for something unrelated. Thus, the latter must have caused the former!' style reasoning. and 'Why Jews like climate policy' (Dec 16, 2011): apparently not for environmental reasons, but as part of a conspiracy to decrease the relative power of their rivals in the Middle East. He's not a big science guy.
No doubt he's a kook. It's irrelevant. There's dozens of articles saying the same thing, pick a different one if you like. The numbers don't change.
(2) I don't know if you read the paper that he's writing about in that column (you can find it at the end of the piece you've linked), but he has strawmanned it enormously. Yes, the 97% is based on a sample size of 77, but their criteria for that particular part of their graph was for people who (a) were climate scientists and (b) published 50% or more of their work on climate change. They have a bar graph for each level of expertise/interest identified.
The study is invalidated by selection criteria, sample size, question phrasing and confined by organization affiliation. There are plenty of papers that attempt to poll the same thing but the one that gets the most attention despite its glaring flaws is the one that gives the magical 97% consensus bullshit.
Pffft what? Of course its relevant. My whole reason for posting is that people are posting invalid information from kooks and believing it.
Do I have to screen every single one and realise that the dozens of articles are all made by kooks? Go find one from a reputable source yourself please.
On February 05 2012 16:43 Carson wrote: I am loving this discussion. Thank you all for your contributions.
I have a question for both sides though.
Who would you accept as a valid source that counters your argument? If there is no one that you'd accept, then why even argue at all?
I dunno, but I see an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports AGW from scientific journals.
And then I see people try and refute that with blog posts, newspapers, the climategate scandal, or stuff they didn't bother to screen. The fact that it only takes mere seconds to invalidate any of the data that was posted anti-AGW frustrates me, because people aren't even bothering to make an effort.
AGW doesn't exist because... Climate Gate
AGW doesn't exist because... Random Graph that doesn't have a Y axis and puts question marks on temperatures because hes not actually sure
AGW doesn't exist because... Top 10 climatologist that is a fundamentalist christian that believes God affects the climate
AGW doesn't exist because... Some racist guys blog post said so
AGW doesn't exist because... Trees emit CO2, its the trees fault
AGW doesn't exist because... Water Vapour makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect. Here's a wiki article, oh wait I'm wrong.
How about we should do something about AGW because 98% of peer reviewed academic scientific journals provide overwhelming scientific evidence that this is a problem, and natural disasters are getting worse by the year, and I'd really like people to stop making up dumb excuses and actually do something about it.
Even if it wasn't true, the dependence on fossil fuels and the sheer amount of pollution we breath in every day is still a problem, and renewable energy is easy to maintain and cheaper in the long run.
Your posts are a perfect example of the alarmist and highly emotional side of this issue many of us "deniers" are illustrating.
I don't think anyone here thats a "denier" is against reducing pollution or investing in cleaner energy. The issue for many critics of the polemic is the science that gets touted by organizations like the IPCC and WTO, and also the dehumanization of the third world by the first, telling those who want to industrialize they can not.
Well if a doctor told you had a high chance of getting diabetes unless you changed your diet, would you tell him to stop being alarmist?
Its not dehumanization of the third world by the first. The US and many other first world countries polluted the world first, it is up to them to fix it. Its so hypocritical to point at China and tell them that because they aren't investing in renewables neither should we. What a cop out.
We gained so much from polluting the world and now we have to pay the price, and we don't want to.
Whats wrong with the science that gets "touted" by the IPCC and the WTO. How about the misinformation that gets "touted" by the press. Just because the IPCC is like hey you should check this out, doesn't mean its a bad thing.
Such a small amount of science is read by the public, its important that the knowledge is put out there so people know.
On February 05 2012 14:54 Frunkis wrote: lol, this genius types "climate change" in google scholar and concludes there are 2.6 million peer reviewed articles supporting climate change based on the number of hits. Amazing. Oh look, I get a million hits for global cooling. So much for that consensus.
Found an article on the origin of the 97% claim....
You may get a million hits for global cooling, but you don't know whether any of them support or do not support it until you read it. I looked at abstracts of the first page of hits and barely any of them relate to the climate change debate. Go search climate change, most if not all of them talk about AGW and are in support of AGW.
I also never said that the 2.6 million articles either supported or didn't support AGW. I was merely mentioning the fact that you thought that 900+ was a lot, when in fact its a miniscule amount.
Now either you can do what the academic that was cited in the Wiki article did and set some criteria, or you can just pick some out of the blue which is where the 900 came from and which is while that page is so full of fail because he didn't even check that half of them aren't scientific.
(1) The guy whose article you're quoting also wrote such gems as: 'Godless societies are unfit for survival' (Dec 22, 2011) and 'Get dirty and avoid vaccines' (Jan 6, 2012), which perpetuates the wonderful 'my child got a disease AND got vaccinated for something unrelated. Thus, the latter must have caused the former!' style reasoning. and 'Why Jews like climate policy' (Dec 16, 2011): apparently not for environmental reasons, but as part of a conspiracy to decrease the relative power of their rivals in the Middle East. He's not a big science guy.
No doubt he's a kook. It's irrelevant. There's dozens of articles saying the same thing, pick a different one if you like. The numbers don't change.
(2) I don't know if you read the paper that he's writing about in that column (you can find it at the end of the piece you've linked), but he has strawmanned it enormously. Yes, the 97% is based on a sample size of 77, but their criteria for that particular part of their graph was for people who (a) were climate scientists and (b) published 50% or more of their work on climate change. They have a bar graph for each level of expertise/interest identified.
The study is invalidated by selection criteria, sample size, question phrasing and confined by organization affiliation. There are plenty of papers that attempt to poll the same thing but the one that gets the most attention despite its glaring flaws is the one that gives the magical 97% consensus bullshit.
Pffft what? Of course its relevant. My whole reason for posting is that people are posting invalid information from kooks and believing it.
Do I have to screen every single one and realise that the dozens of articles are all made by kooks? Go find one from a reputable source yourself please.
On February 05 2012 16:43 Carson wrote: I am loving this discussion. Thank you all for your contributions.
I have a question for both sides though.
Who would you accept as a valid source that counters your argument? If there is no one that you'd accept, then why even argue at all?
I dunno, but I see an overwhelming amount of evidence that supports AGW from scientific journals.
And then I see people try and refute that with blog posts, newspapers, the climategate scandal, or stuff they didn't bother to screen. The fact that it only takes mere seconds to invalidate any of the data that was posted anti-AGW frustrates me, because people aren't even bothering to make an effort.
AGW doesn't exist because... Climate Gate
AGW doesn't exist because... Random Graph that doesn't have a Y axis and puts question marks on temperatures because hes not actually sure
AGW doesn't exist because... Top 10 climatologist that is a fundamentalist christian that believes God affects the climate
AGW doesn't exist because... Some racist guys blog post said so
AGW doesn't exist because... Trees emit CO2, its the trees fault
AGW doesn't exist because... Water Vapour makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect. Here's a wiki article, oh wait I'm wrong.
How about we should do something about AGW because 98% of peer reviewed academic scientific journals provide overwhelming scientific evidence that this is a problem, and natural disasters are getting worse by the year, and I'd really like people to stop making up dumb excuses and actually do something about it.
Even if it wasn't true, the dependence on fossil fuels and the sheer amount of pollution we breath in every day is still a problem, and renewable energy is easy to maintain and cheaper in the long run.
Your posts are a perfect example of the alarmist and highly emotional side of this issue many of us "deniers" are illustrating.
I don't think anyone here thats a "denier" is against reducing pollution or investing in cleaner energy. The issue for many critics of the polemic is the science that gets touted by organizations like the IPCC and WTO, and also the dehumanization of the third world by the first, telling those who want to industrialize they can not.
Well if a doctor told you had a high chance of getting diabetes unless you changed your diet, would you tell him to stop being alarmist?
Its not dehumanization of the third world by the first. The US and many other first world countries polluted the world first, it is up to them to fix it. Its so hypocritical to point at China and tell them that because they aren't investing in renewables neither should we. What a cop out.
We gained so much from polluting the world and now we have to pay the price, and we don't want to.
Whats wrong with the science that gets "touted" by the IPCC and the WTO. How about the misinformation that gets "touted" by the press. Just because the IPCC is like hey you should check this out, doesn't mean its a bad thing.
Such a small amount of science is read by the public, its important that the knowledge is put out there so people know.
I would if he wrote paragraphs about it.
Yes because the more substantiated it is, the less likely it is to be correct.
Also I should add to the last point, its not that I am against deniers, I am against people citing blogs and fake graphs as if they were as reputable as an academic paper.
Not a single "sceptic/denialist" yet has posted any information that didn't take me seconds to invalidate.
On February 05 2012 18:08 weekendracer wrote: Since this came back to the top, I have not read most of this other than the OP. But in response to his presumption that 'science' is undivided in the issue of AGW:
This was a 'consensus' back then. Those of us over 30 tend to remember the same people screaming that a coming ice age was just around the corner. So, by my nature, I'm a little leery of when 'scientists' claim something as fundamentally unsound as predicting the climate in 3 days, much less a few decades into the future.
In my experience of 40 years, last 20 or so actually somewhat politically aware, follow the money (as with most things in life) and see who stands to profit from this AGW mindset. You'll find it's the same political machine that supports 'progressive' programs around the world. This is a UN scam plain and simple. They have just announced a new 'global tax' to move capital from wealthy countries to those 'in need'.
Follow the money, it's generally the answer to everything in politics. In the case of the US, it is Al Gore and his buddies who stand to make Trillions of dollars off this boondoggle. So be careful who you accuse of 'buying' it's scientists, I'd be willing to bet that the idea of making upwards of $13 trillion would lead some to pursue that kind of return on investment.
This is hilarious. Yep, the whole world of scientists along with the UN is conspiring to take the money off rich people convincing people about AGW. Oh wait, the scientists are getting paid squat, just like every other academic. Oh wait your references have nothing to do with your point.
DeseretNews is also the most un-biased newspaper I've ever read.
Also have you heard that game companies are trying to make money by manipulating people into thinking that games are fun? holy shit.
TheToast United States. February 01 2012 05:23. Posts 1571
I'm interested in what you guys think, has the science world been co-opted? Have incentives for professors and researchers been allowed to sway their results? And if so, how do we tell good science from bad, and what does it mean for the issue of Global Climate Change?
Off course the sience world has co-opted (and not only in this field) They are humans and they need funding. 100% independent and objective scientists are verry difficult to find these days
How can you tell bad science from good science? Verry simple, just like it has been done forever By letting them make predictions based on their theory and then compare these predictions with the outcome of experiments. WIth global warming the predictions lie ahead verry far in the future and it is extremely difficult to simulate all contributing factors inside a lab experiment so the only thing we can realy do to tell who was right and who was wrong is waiting and see. As for now: the earth seems to be cooling for the past 5 years or so.
There is no way to tell if global warming will be a disater for us btw. For all we know the sun can go into hibernation for the next 100 years tomorrow and man caused global warming might actually be helpfull to the society as a whole, there are just way to manny uncertaintys to make predictions about this. Seeing the huge temperature shifts the earth has experienced in the past i dont see global warming as an isue at all , the earth has been way warmer before. Extraploating global warming and the positive feedback people say there is into the future is dangerous, we dont know what new technologies we will discover, nor do we realy know well how the atmosphere will adapt. There must be something missing with the positive feetback sceme btw, else the earth would have stayed frozen forever, or by now already be boiling over from the positive feedback loops wich where there at earlier times when temperature was verry high or low. There are factors wich at some point override the positive feedback.
Personally i think our best bet is to put everything on technological progress, and that implies continuing to develop the world with for now increasing co2 emissions.
This is hilarious. Yep, the whole world of scientists along with the UN is conspiring to take the money off rich people convincing people about AGW. Oh wait, the scientists are getting paid squat, just like every other academic. Oh wait your references have nothing to do with your point. t.
If you read my post, you'd understand two things:
1. 30 years ago, they were claiming we were heading for another ice age. They were wrong then, now they want the world to spend trillions of dollars on another 'climate scare'.
2. Yes, scientists are co-opted by money. I'm assuming you've heard of research grants. These grants are paid by people with interests. Those interests are generally to prove something so they can profit from it in some way. When you are talking trillions of dollars on the line, people are willing to invest in that kind of money as a return on investment.
Scientists aren't paid 'squat'. Most university professors worth their salt make six figures, more if they are able to bring in grant money. I've been to college, some of my classmates are now professors themselves. Money makes the world go round. So I stand by my principle, follow the money. I see it leads to a relatively few people who are already extremely wealthy.
On February 05 2012 20:04 Rassy wrote: For all we know the sun can go into hibernation for the next 100 years tomorrow and man caused global warming might actually be helpfull to the society as a whole
I can't even begin to respond to this. Are you serious?
this year temperatures reached -32C / -25F(normally its arround -15C , -20C at most) here and for the past 3-4 years the winter it's been getting colder and colder. anecdotal evidence i know, but so far ill be a skeptic about a global warming. i'll go as far as to say that the extremes are getting more extreme but thats about it.
This is hilarious. Yep, the whole world of scientists along with the UN is conspiring to take the money off rich people convincing people about AGW. Oh wait, the scientists are getting paid squat, just like every other academic. Oh wait your references have nothing to do with your point. t.
If you read my post, you'd understand two things:
1. 30 years ago, they were claiming we were heading for another ice age. They were wrong then, now they want the world to spend trillions of dollars on another 'climate scare'.
2. Yes, scientists are co-opted by money. I'm assuming you've heard of research grants. These grants are paid by people with interests. Those interests are generally to prove something so they can profit from it in some way. When you are talking trillions of dollars on the line, people are willing to invest in that kind of money as a return on investment.
Scientists aren't paid 'squat'. Most university professors worth their salt make six figures, more if they are able to bring in grant money. I've been to college, some of my classmates are now professors themselves. Money makes the world go round. So I stand by my principle, follow the money. I see it leads to a relatively few people who are already extremely wealthy.
1. Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No
And ROFL at there being trillions of dollars on the line if people start believing in AGW. Yeah holy shit man, those professors are gonna make millions! Except for the fact that IT is a multi-trillion dollar industry and Comp-Sci professors are still earning the same average income they did years earlier.
Of course I should back down, as I understand the extremely conservative and religious freerepublic.com is a more reputable source than a science journal.
Oh and the responses are fantastic btw.
I am not saying that the Environmental movement is not political. I am saying that it is more than just political. It is a form of mind control, brainwashing, replacing religious morally correct thought with politically correct thought, to advance a political agenda.
Yep the scientists are all out to replace religion, watch out!
On February 05 2012 20:42 xM(Z wrote: this year temperatures reached -32C / -25F(normally its arround -15C , -20C at most) here and for the past 3-4 years the winter it's been getting colder and colder. anecdotal evidence i know, but so far ill be a skeptic about a global warming. i'll go as far as to say that the extremes are getting more extreme but thats about it.
Human beings do influence global climate to an extent, would it kill us to be more environmentally friendly? Even if it isn't as bad as it originally was thought to be.
On February 05 2012 21:10 Jojo131 wrote: It is getting pretty chilly here in the Philippines when it should be a bit more toasty around this time. DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUN!!! + Show Spoiler +
then again the breeze is nice
I know that it's not good evidence by a long shot but the colder and colder winters over the last few years have made me sceptic.
OP: more of a personal question really, but do you ever get sad on behalf of humanity when working with these things all day long? I mean in a way there are simply no happy ending to this. Are you positive about the future or does it look daaark?
This is hilarious. Yep, the whole world of scientists along with the UN is conspiring to take the money off rich people convincing people about AGW. Oh wait, the scientists are getting paid squat, just like every other academic. Oh wait your references have nothing to do with your point. t.
If you read my post, you'd understand two things:
1. 30 years ago, they were claiming we were heading for another ice age. They were wrong then, now they want the world to spend trillions of dollars on another 'climate scare'.
2. Yes, scientists are co-opted by money. I'm assuming you've heard of research grants. These grants are paid by people with interests. Those interests are generally to prove something so they can profit from it in some way. When you are talking trillions of dollars on the line, people are willing to invest in that kind of money as a return on investment.
Scientists aren't paid 'squat'. Most university professors worth their salt make six figures, more if they are able to bring in grant money. I've been to college, some of my classmates are now professors themselves. Money makes the world go round. So I stand by my principle, follow the money. I see it leads to a relatively few people who are already extremely wealthy.
1) No Newsweek and Times predicted global cooling, the vast majority of published scientific articles during the period 1965-1979 predicted global warming to be the dominant factor _in spite_ of the fact that the climate was actually cooling at the time of publication. And by now they have been proven right. Review published in the Journal of the American Meterological Society with the relevant litterature search: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
2) There is a whole lote more fame to be gained from proving everyone else wrong than there is from being the billionth guy to reach a conclusion that has been considered self evident for more than a decade. Public research councils have no interest in funding "done" science, they are financed by tax money and have an obligation to premote new discoveries. They only people still interested in funding "is the earch truly warming?" studies are large industries for which the cost of financing yet another study is negligible but the potential payoff if it happens to show the right answer is huge. Example being the Berkeley earch project funded by among else Koch Industries. Though unsurprisingly and presumably much to the dismay of Koch industries they reached the conclusion that "yep still warming". http://berkeleyearth.org/ http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf
On February 05 2012 21:10 cydial wrote: Human beings do influence global climate to an extent, would it kill us to be more environmentally friendly? Even if it isn't as bad as it originally was thought to be.
A transparent approach Based on data analysis Our aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results will include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record.
The site explains exactly what methodology they use, and even publish their dataset which other people can use.
Right now he has preliminary results with a 2 page summary. The summary doesn't tell us much, only that it does seem the earth is warming overall (1/3 cooling, 2/3 warming, 0.911 degrees Centigrade of land warming (+/- 0.042 C) since the 1950s). I can't copy paste from the article as it seems it is copy protected (just go to the site and download the pdf). You will need to look at the whole paper to get everything obviously.
Also check out the video they did on their findings.
Berkeley Earth video representation of the land surface temperature anomaly, 1800 to the present. The map of the world shows the temperature anomaly by location over time. The chart at the bottom, shows the global land-surface temperature anomaly. The Berkeley Earth analysis shows 0.911 degrees Centigrade of land warming (+/- 0.042 C) since the 1950s.
On February 05 2012 21:10 Jojo131 wrote: It is getting pretty chilly here in the Philippines when it should be a bit more toasty around this time. DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUN!!! + Show Spoiler +
then again the breeze is nice
I know that it's not good evidence by a long shot but the colder and colder winters over the last few years have made me sceptic.
Some places will get hotter and some places will get colder. What will be more evident in the short term is larger extremes and "imbalanced" weather patterns. You may get bigger cyclones (katrina, yasi), bigger bushfires, bigger floods, etc.
This is hilarious. Yep, the whole world of scientists along with the UN is conspiring to take the money off rich people convincing people about AGW. Oh wait, the scientists are getting paid squat, just like every other academic. Oh wait your references have nothing to do with your point. t.
If you read my post, you'd understand two things:
1. 30 years ago, they were claiming we were heading for another ice age. They were wrong then, now they want the world to spend trillions of dollars on another 'climate scare'.
2. Yes, scientists are co-opted by money. I'm assuming you've heard of research grants. These grants are paid by people with interests. Those interests are generally to prove something so they can profit from it in some way. When you are talking trillions of dollars on the line, people are willing to invest in that kind of money as a return on investment.
Scientists aren't paid 'squat'. Most university professors worth their salt make six figures, more if they are able to bring in grant money. I've been to college, some of my classmates are now professors themselves. Money makes the world go round. So I stand by my principle, follow the money. I see it leads to a relatively few people who are already extremely wealthy.
1) No Newsweek and Times predicted global cooling, the vast majority of published scientific articles during the period 1965-1979 predicted global warming to be the dominant factor _in spite_ of the fact that the climate was actually cooling at the time of publication. And by now they have been proven right. Review published in the Journal of the American Meterological Society with the relevant litterature search: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
2) There is a whole lote more fame to be gained from proving everyone else wrong than there is from being the billionth guy to reach a conclusion that has been considered self evident for more than a decade. Public research councils have no interest in funding "done" science, they are financed by tax money and have an obligation to premote new discoveries. They only people still interested in funding "is the earch truly warming?" studies are large industries for which the cost of financing yet another study is negligible but the potential payoff if it happens to show the right answer is huge. Example being the Berkeley earch project funded by among else Koch Industries. Though unsurprisingly and presumably much to the dismay of Koch industries they reached the conclusion that "yep still warming". http://berkeleyearth.org/ http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/98/Diagram-HotWaterGeothermal.jpg/200px-Diagram-HotWaterGeothermal.jpg)
