Climate Change: Public Skeptical, Scientists Sure

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

You just know that anytime Al Gore can expose the Koch brothers and global warming/climate change deniers its gotta hurt.

Koch-Funded Study Confirms Climate Data


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gor...b_1032439.html

Al Gore is the second biggest moron and liar beside you.... LOL

Your nonsense is pathetic

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Al Gore is the second biggest moron and liar beside you.... LOL

Your nonsense is pathetic

If you can't prove what I said is wrong or untrue then that would make you the lying moron wouldn't it?

Because what I just said and posted is true and you're a denying fool.l

[Whitey44]

As the data that supports climate change continues to accumulate, CS Naureboy remains skeptical. He has his claws dug in deeply.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

As the data that supports climate change continues to accumulate, CS Naureboy remains skeptical. He has his claws dug in deeply.

Climate Change is natural, it's not man made like some of you believe...

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

You just know that anytime Al Gore can expose the Koch brothers and global warming/climate change deniers its gotta hurt.

Koch-Funded Study Confirms Climate Data


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gor...b_1032439.html

No one will deny that there are/will be temperature based fluctuations, we are denying ''your'' tree hugging reasons for the climate changes.

Climate changes have been occurring since the creation of this plant, and will continue until the end of the planet.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

As the data that supports climate change continues to accumulate, CS Naureboy remains skeptical. He has his claws dug in deeply.

Me too.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Climate Change is natural, it's not man made like some of you believe...

Climate change is natural, but, the current climate change is being driven by CO2 emissions. I trust the climate scientists to determine the truth. I am not convinced by politicians that tell me it is or isn't so, as is frequently practiced by the public that never reads scientific publications.

[BigTrobbing]

How about the tree huggers go to China and tell them to cut back on their smoke?? Or are you afraid of getting one behind the ear??

There are positions on both sides of this, if they got together and started over with both sides working together and working with the same information then maybe I would be more apt to believe it. Until then I will not, and as I said before this is only for America no other country does this crap, And I am tired of paying for crap that just separates our money from us.

[corbie]

The fact is there are credible scientists on both sides of the issue that vehemently disagree on this subject. And with very few exceptions, there really is no such thing as settled scientific consensus. There have been changing the climate of late, but how much of that is the result of men, and how much part of natural cycles is up for debate.

When Hannibal crossed Alps to sack Rome, he brought his elephants--a solid historical fact. But another fact is that those beautiful Alpine glaciers that so many of the global warming crowd are so worried about losing now, didn't exist back then. If they had, there is no way on the planet Hannibal could have gotten those elephants over the Alps. Even the Save the Glacier crowds will admit those glaciers weren't around then.

And then there is the Mideveal (sp) warming period, in Northern Europe during a period when we weren't belching CO2 into the skies. So what caused it? Part of the downfall of the Inca empire has been tied to serious climate change. Again, without modern mechanical devices to contribute to climate change.

Most geologists agree that in the middle of the 19th century, we emerged from what was known as "the little ice age." Which means we should see natural warming.

How about the times--again, verifiable historical facts--when England had such a warm, mild climate they were able to grow grapes there, and actually had a wine industry for a period of time. And then it also experienced periods when the the Thames River froze deep enough and solid enough to allow huge parties to be held on the frozen river.

I can trot out all kinds of examples of wild swings in climate world wide to show that more often than not, it hasn't been a man-made pheonomena.

I'm also skeptical because I can remember when I was a teen in junior high and high school, the same groups who are now claiming we're about to bake to death under global warming, were claiming that New York City was going to be under glaciers, or at least living next door to them, by this date now. So which is it? Are we going to bake or freeze?

As for Al Gore, when he stops flying by private jet--a highly inefficient means, and carbon producing option--then he can lecture me about global warming. When he stops living in a Nashville mansion that is 4 times the size of the average Nashville home, but consumes 12-20 times--depending on whose numbers you use--the energy of the average Nashville home, then he can lecture me about leaving a smaller "carbon footprint." And that just one of his mansions. He's got a couple more scattered throughout the state.

In general, the loudest noises for reducing energy usage, come from the highest consuming zip codes in the country. And the people in those areas aren't cutting back. They own things like limos, Porsches, Ferraris, etc.

I know for a fact that the retired CEO of Starbucks lives in a desert area, and yet uses approximately 1,000 gallons of water a day to keep his garden nice and green. (Trust me, I have very good intel on that.)

[corbie]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Climate change is natural, but, the current climate change is being driven by CO2 emissions. I trust the climate scientists to determine the truth. I am not convinced by politicians that tell me it is or isn't so, as is frequently practiced by the public that never reads scientific publications.

Even the so-called "climate scientists" disagree about this. The former head of the UN's IPPCA--I'm pretty sure I got the initials wrong--resigned from his position there because he found the UN was trying to dictate what the outcome of the study should be, rather than allow the results to come in on their own. The whole process was too political for you.

And there is lots of money in it for people saying global warming is happening. Just as much as there is for people saying their isn't. You can follow the money in both directions.

As for Kyoto, even the drafters of that silly piece admit that if their suggestions were implemented immediately, the result would be less than one-tenth of one degree in temperature over 50 years.

You do know there are sections of the Kyoto protocols that limit the number of trees allowed in nations following it. Because trees emit a greenhouse gas--oxygen. Horrors. Plants love CO2. They thrive on it.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by corbie

The fact is there are credible scientists on both sides of the issue that vehemently disagree on this subject. And with very few exceptions, there really is no such thing as settled scientific consensus. There have been changing the climate of late, but how much of that is the result of men, and how much part of natural cycles is up for debate.

When Hannibal crossed Alps to sack Rome, he brought his elephants--a solid historical fact. But another fact is that those beautiful Alpine glaciers that so many of the global warming crowd are so worried about losing now, didn't exist back then. If they had, there is no way on the planet Hannibal could have gotten those elephants over the Alps. Even the Save the Glacier crowds will admit those glaciers weren't around then.

And then there is the Mideveal (sp) warming period, in Northern Europe during a period when we weren't belching CO2 into the skies. So what caused it? Part of the downfall of the Inca empire has been tied to serious climate change. Again, without modern mechanical devices to contribute to climate change.

Most geologists agree that in the middle of the 19th century, we emerged from what was known as "the little ice age." Which means we should see natural warming.

How about the times--again, verifiable historical facts--when England had such a warm, mild climate they were able to grow grapes there, and actually had a wine industry for a period of time. And then it also experienced periods when the the Thames River froze deep enough and solid enough to allow huge parties to be held on the frozen river.

I can trot out all kinds of examples of wild swings in climate world wide to show that more often than not, it hasn't been a man-made pheonomena.

I'm also skeptical because I can remember when I was a teen in junior high and high school, the same groups who are now claiming we're about to bake to death under global warming, were claiming that New York City was going to be under glaciers, or at least living next door to them, by this date now. So which is it? Are we going to bake or freeze?

As for Al Gore, when he stops flying by private jet--a highly inefficient means, and carbon producing option--then he can lecture me about global warming. When he stops living in a Nashville mansion that is 4 times the size of the average Nashville home, but consumes 12-20 times--depending on whose numbers you use--the energy of the average Nashville home, then he can lecture me about leaving a smaller "carbon footprint." And that just one of his mansions. He's got a couple more scattered throughout the state.

In general, the loudest noises for reducing energy usage, come from the highest consuming zip codes in the country. And the people in those areas aren't cutting back. They own things like limos, Porsches, Ferraris, etc.

I know for a fact that the retired CEO of Starbucks lives in a desert area, and yet uses approximately 1,000 gallons of water a day to keep his garden nice and green. (Trust me, I have very good intel on that.)

Tell you what. Why don't you put up the names of the credible scientists that deny human caused global warming/climate change is not happening.

Or admit you're actually just spreading false right wing noise machine propaganda.

[stumbler]

I can see where this is worth posting again.

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.


The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.


Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.


He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1066029.html

[corbie]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Tell you what. Why don't you put up the names of the credible scientists that deny human caused global warming/climate change is not happening.

Or admit you're actually just spreading false right wing noise machine propaganda.

How about Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT; Member of the National Academy of Sciences; former Lead Author UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He resigned from the UN position because of how politicized the process was, and because the UN was trying to force a particular conclusion.

Dr. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service; professor emritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia


And please don't say that just because you don't like their conclusions they aren't credible.

The reason you hear more about the global warming camp is the old journalistic saw--If it bleeds, it leads. Such headlines get more attention. And, as John Stossel of ABC News observes, (paraphrased), many journalists want to do something to help the world, so when they hear about a possible crisis, they focus on that, often not really going too deeply into the issue. Read his book, "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." As he observes on page 1, "Many in the media are scientifically clueless, and will scare you to death."

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I can see where this is worth posting again.

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1066029.html

Nowhere does he say that it was man made warming.....

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by corbie

How about Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT; Member of the National Academy of Sciences; former Lead Author UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He resigned from the UN position because of how politicized the process was, and because the UN was trying to force a particular conclusion.

Dr. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service; professor emritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia


And please don't say that just because you don't like their conclusions they aren't credible.

The reason you hear more about the global warming camp is the old journalistic saw--If it bleeds, it leads. Such headlines get more attention. And, as John Stossel of ABC News observes, (paraphrased), many journalists want to do something to help the world, so when they hear about a possible crisis, they focus on that, often not really going too deeply into the issue. Read his book, "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." As he observes on page 1, "Many in the media are scientifically clueless, and will scare you to death."

You do realize, don't you, that Fred Singer made a name for himself, long before the global warming issue, by shilling for the tobacco lobby, trying to make the case that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology...be-forthcoming

[billblondel344]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Tell you what. Why don't you put up the names of the credible scientists that deny human caused global warming/climate change is not happening.

Or admit you're actually just spreading false right wing noise machine propaganda.

if there is global warming where the fuck did the snow storm in the northeast fucking come from,?????? global warming my ass,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by corbie

How about Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT; Member of the National Academy of Sciences; former Lead Author UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

He resigned from the UN position because of how politicized the process was, and because the UN was trying to force a particular conclusion.

And the links to there research and conclusions are where? Because your word is not worth that much.

Originally Posted by corbie

Dr. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service; professor emritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia


And please don't say that just because you don't like their conclusions they aren't credible.

I haven't seen a word they have to say let alone their conclusions. I would be interested in what they have to say instead of you just running your mouth.

Link their research and conclusions and lets have a look at them.

Originally Posted by corbie

The reason you hear more about the global warming camp is the old journalistic saw--If it bleeds, it leads. Such headlines get more attention. And, as John Stossel of ABC News observes, (paraphrased), many journalists want to do something to help the world, so when they hear about a possible crisis, they focus on that, often not really going too deeply into the issue. Read his book, "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." As he observes on page 1, "Many in the media are scientifically clueless, and will scare you to death."

No I think the reason we hear more about global warming/Climate change denial in this country is because the oil, gas, and coal companies have paid to junk sciecene which you are parroting here.

John Stossel is no more of a scientist than Al Gore is. His conclusions don't mean shit. Let's see the conclusions of these scientists you're running your mouth about.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

You do realize, don't you, that Fred Singer made a name for himself, long before the global warming issue, by shilling for the tobacco lobby, trying to make the case that cigarettes don't cause cancer.

http://www.desmogblog.com/no-apology...be-forthcoming

Yeah, Al Gore and his family was growing tobacco and Fred Singer was helping them sell their product.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Yeah, Al Gore and his family was growing tobacco and Fred Singer was helping them sell their product.

It has occurred to you by now hasn't it that you don't even count?

Just checking to see how developmentally handicapped you are?

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

It has occurred to you by now hasn't it that you don't even count?

Just checking to see how developmentally handicapped you are?

LOL, fuck off you cry baby retard. Do you act this way for attention?

Don't worry, we are all still laughing at you

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

LOL, fuck off you cry baby retard. Do you act this way for attention?

Don't worry, we are all still laughing at you

Really?? Who?? Where are they?

You're just lying again aren't you?

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

Really?? Who?? Where are they?

You're just lying again aren't you?

LOL, looks like you have your head in the sand like always.

The only time you come up is to suck Obama's dick and take a bitch slap'n on here....

[corbie]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I can see where this is worth posting again.

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1066029.html

I read this whole article. While he says that he now believes that global warming is happening, he never says, or gives his evidence for the cause. He say, it makes sense that carbon emissions would be increasing the rate of global warming, but never cites evidence for that fact.

There are some interesting things in this article that either the writer, or editors didn't know, or didn't check. The biggest one is his citing of studies done by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. The problem with referencing their work, and then citing it as proof that global warming is ocurring, they were both still in the middle of the "the little ice age." The little ice age, an established geologic event, didn't end until the mid-1800s. So therefore any studies about temperature before that period would have to be weighted to account for the fact that temperatures would naturally rise when an ice age has finished.

My biggest concern here is that whenever anyone says there are questions to the severity--scientists or laymen--they are immediately skewered by anyone who disagrees with them. Whenever any scientist says the case is closed on any subject, beware. Science is based on always being skeptical. Even today, some scientists are calling in question Einstein's work and theories on relativity. (Notice even today, we call it the Theory of Relativity, not the fact of relativity.)

As for my not posting links to Dr. Lindzen's work, Stumbler, you have a computer right in front of you, just as I have. Go google him for yourself.

[corbie]

Originally Posted by stumbler

And the links to there research and conclusions are where? Because your word is not worth that much.



I haven't seen a word they have to say let alone their conclusions. I would be interested in what they have to say instead of you just running your mouth.

Link their research and conclusions and lets have a look at them.



No I think the reason we hear more about global warming/Climate change denial in this country is because the oil, gas, and coal companies have paid to junk sciecene which you are parroting here.

John Stossel is no more of a scientist than Al Gore is. His conclusions don't mean shit. Let's see the conclusions of these scientists you're running your mouth about.

No, he may not be a scientist, and he has never claimed to be one, nor have I made the claim that he is one. But he has spent almost 40 years as a reporter, and most of the last 20 as an investigative reporter, and knows how reporters operate, and that is what is commenting on, and why it pays to be skeptical of what you hear from them.

[corbie]

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

How about the tree huggers go to China and tell them to cut back on their smoke?? Or are you afraid of getting one behind the ear??

There are positions on both sides of this, if they got together and started over with both sides working together and working with the same information then maybe I would be more apt to believe it. Until then I will not, and as I said before this is only for America no other country does this crap, And I am tired of paying for crap that just separates our money from us.

I agree with you. As for the Kyoto Protocol, several nations have signed on to the Kyoto protocols, and as they have implemented things in the protocols they have seen no results. But as you have noted, China, India, and Brazil, are all exempted from the Kyoto Protocols, and they are worse polluters than the US individually. Together they put out a lot of pollution.

Even the backers of the Protocols admit their suggestions would have the effect of only one-tenth of a degree in temperature change over the course of 50 years.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by BigTrobbing

How about the tree huggers go to China and tell them to cut back on their smoke?? Or are you afraid of getting one behind the ear??

There are positions on both sides of this, if they got together and started over with both sides working together and working with the same information then maybe I would be more apt to believe it. Until then I will not, and as I said before this is only for America no other country does this crap, And I am tired of paying for crap that just separates our money from us.

Europe and China are concerned about global warming. Europe is actively cutting emissions and China says it wants to cut emissions. There is nothing wrong with hugging trees becuase we need them.

[corbie]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Europe and China are concerned about global warming. Europe is actively cutting emissions and China says it wants to cut emissions. There is nothing wrong with hugging trees becuase we need them.

and trees need CO2 to live, and they give us oxygen in return. One of the hidden nasty facts of the Kyoto Protocols is that they limit the numbers of trees signatory nations can have because trees emit oxygen--a horrible greenhouse gas.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by corbie

No, he may not be a scientist, and he has never claimed to be one, nor have I made the claim that he is one. But he has spent almost 40 years as a reporter, and most of the last 20 as an investigative reporter, and knows how reporters operate, and that is what is commenting on, and why it pays to be skeptical of what you hear from them.

And one reporter knows more than thousands of scientists all over the world that have studied human caused global warming/climate change for more than 40 years?

I think that's bullshit at face value and that Stosseel is simply parroting the global warming denial junk science paid for by the oil companies just like you are.

Because you obviously don't even know what the scientists you mentioned studied nor where there conclusions can be found.

Originally Posted by Whitey44

Europe and China are concerned about global warming. Europe is actively cutting emissions and China says it wants to cut emissions. There is nothing wrong with hugging trees becuase we need them.

Thanks you saved me the trouble of pointing out China is doing more to reduce their green house emissions than the US is and they are also beating us to the new green technologies.

While we sit around here and protect the oil and coal companies.

Originally Posted by corbie

and trees need CO2 to live, and they give us oxygen in return. One of the hidden nasty facts of the Kyoto Protocols is that they limit the numbers of trees signatory nations can have because trees emit oxygen--a horrible greenhouse gas.

You are laughably misinformed. And I can't believe the bullshit you're coming up with and that's really saying something on this forum.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by corbie

I read this whole article. While he says that he now believes that global warming is happening, he never says, or gives his evidence for the cause. He say, it makes sense that carbon emissions would be increasing the rate of global warming, but never cites evidence for that fact.

There are some interesting things in this article that either the writer, or editors didn't know, or didn't check. The biggest one is his citing of studies done by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. The problem with referencing their work, and then citing it as proof that global warming is ocurring, they were both still in the middle of the "the little ice age." The little ice age, an established geologic event, didn't end until the mid-1800s. So therefore any studies about temperature before that period would have to be weighted to account for the fact that temperatures would naturally rise when an ice age has finished.

My biggest concern here is that whenever anyone says there are questions to the severity--scientists or laymen--they are immediately skewered by anyone who disagrees with them. Whenever any scientist says the case is closed on any subject, beware. Science is based on always being skeptical. Even today, some scientists are calling in question Einstein's work and theories on relativity. (Notice even today, we call it the Theory of Relativity, not the fact of relativity.)

As for my not posting links to Dr. Lindzen's work, Stumbler, you have a computer right in front of you, just as I have. Go google him for yourself.

Ok I did look up Dr. Lindzen and find he's one of the most consistently wrong professional scientists in our current timesz.

Lindzen debunked again: New scientific study finds his paper downplaying dangers of human-caused warming is “seriously in error”

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/0...louds-tropics/

[corbie]

You know stumbler, you have yet to state your scientific credentials. I have read both sides of this issue. Given that I remember as a teenager hearing the same groups of people say that we were on the verge of a new catastrophic ice age, and that by this time--2011--we'd be living in a climate significantly colder than it was 36 years ago, and now they're saying the planet is heating too quickly, I have my doubts about the level of the catastrophe.

I never said John Stossel was scientist, and I never quoted him as debunking the theory of global warming. After he has studied the facts he's been able to obtain--on both sides of the issue--he has said ultimately the jury is still out, and the issue needs to be studied more in depth. What I was trying to say, by using Stossel's quote, is we get our information on these things via reporters in the print and broadcast media. And Stossel is warning that most reporters don't any deep scientific knowledge or understanding, and so you need to beware of the facts they give you. Hell there is one reporter who says any other reporter who is trying to get both sides of the issue, should be blackballed in the industry.

As for Dr. Lindzen, just because other scientists disagree with him--and scientists disagree with each other constantly--means nothing. You don't get to the position of holding an endowed scientific chair at an institution such as MIT by being a scientific moron or screw up. Nor do you get the position of lead author on a UN study by being a moron either.

Given my experience, I trust Dr. Lindzen.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by corbie

You know stumbler, you have yet to state your scientific credentials.

I don't have any. That's why I use peer reviewed research, scientific journals and blogs, and documentable information to back up what I say.

You should try that someday instead of just running your mouth.

Originally Posted by corbie

I have read both sides of this issue. Given that I remember as a teenager hearing the same groups of people say that we were on the verge of a new catastrophic ice age, and that by this time--2011--we'd be living in a climate significantly colder than it was 36 years ago, and now they're saying the planet is heating too quickly, I have my doubts about the level of the catastrophe.

No you obviously are just lying about that. Because if you had read both sides and really understood you'd know that the FACT that instead of heading into the predicted ice age we continued to warm was what made scientists start wondering and researching why we weren't headed into a cooling period and that's where human caused global warming/climate change was first discovered and has been studied for 40 years since.

No one even remotely objective can sit here and claim that thousands of scientists, in multiple disciplines, in scores of countries have conducted a hoax or are mistaken after 30 or 40 years of research.

You're just another brainwashed parrot.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by corbie

I never said John Stossel was scientist, and I never quoted him as debunking the theory of global warming. After he has studied the facts he's been able to obtain--on both sides of the issue--he has said ultimately the jury is still out, and the issue needs to be studied more in depth.

But all of that is a lie. What jury? The global scientific community is in near total agreement and have been for more than 20 years. There's either a 94% or 96% consensus and that's spanning multiple scientific disciplines.

All Stossel is doing is repeating exactly what the Koch Brothers and Exxon/Mobil paid to have him say.

There is no realistic doubt among the scientific community. The only place that exists is where they followed the successful strategy of the tobacco industry and hired "scientists" to conduct junk science for the sole purpose of creating doubt that cigarette smoking caused cancer. It worked them for decades.

So all Stossel is doing is spreading that propaganda.

That's a fact.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by corbie

What I was trying to say, by using Stossel's quote, is we get our information on these things via reporters in the print and broadcast media. And Stossel is warning that most reporters don't any deep scientific knowledge or understanding, and so you need to beware of the facts they give you. Hell there is one reporter who says any other reporter who is trying to get both sides of the issue, should be blackballed in the industry.

I don't take any reporters word for anything. I was a reporter once myself you know.

I've looked at the actual science. Not conservative paid propagandists like Stossel.

By the way my favorite one was when Stossel got slapped on his ass by a professional wrestler when he said: But isn't professional fake. And the wrestler reached out and cuffed him with one of those slaps they do. And then looked down at Stossel on the floor and said does that feel fake.

And he was even right in that instance but on global warming/climate change he's just another paid for mouthpiece to try and spread doubt about scientific facts.

Originally Posted by corbie

As for Dr. Lindzen, just because other scientists disagree with him--and scientists disagree with each other constantly--means nothing. You don't get to the position of holding an endowed scientific chair at an institution such as MIT by being a scientific moron or screw up. Nor do you get the position of lead author on a UN study by being a moron either.

Given my experience, I trust Dr. Lindzen.

Of course you will because you're a brainwashed parrot blinded by an emotional rather than logical and rational attachment to conservative ideology.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by stumbler

I don't take any reporters word for anything. I was a reporter once myself you know.
.

Yeah, we don't believe anything you say either

[corbie]

Stumbler, I have one question to ask you. Is it possible for you to respond to anything without being verbally abusive, calling the person who disagrees with you names, and putting them down because they don't agree with you.

I have tried to calmly state why I disagree with you, without all the name calling, and all the outright rudeness. Yet you can't respond to a single person without calling them names, or putting them down.

Generally such reactions are indicative of a highly immature and insecure person. I've been a published free lance writer for the last 15 years. I've written on events, only to read another writer's account of the same event, and wondered if we were at the same place.

And Stumbler, there is big money in claiming the sky is falling. Otherwise so many of these organizations wouldn't keep changing their tune on things--one day we're going to freeze to death, the next we're baking. One day Alar is a carcinogen, the next day it isn't. (By the way, the scientist who initially say Alar was a carcinogen went back and reviewed his own studies and realized he had made a mistake, and was the first to say he was wrong.) One scientist who initially said he didn't believe global warming was a threat changed his tune and the next day was awarded with a check for $80,000 from the the Heinz foundation--it's run by Senator John Kerry's wife. Money runs both way in this issue.

But since you don't respond well to polite debate and discussion, this is the last I'm posting on this issue. I know what you'll say, "I didn't have the facts to back me up." But you're wrong. If we were able to reasonably discuss this, I'd stay but you can't be reasonable and even agree to disagree. I don't like playing with obnoxious, rude snot-nosed little boys.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Yeah, Al Gore and his family was growing tobacco and Fred Singer was helping them sell their product.

Whatever. The point is, Fred Singer has demonstrated many times over that he can be bought, and that he's willing to say anything his corporate paymasters tell him to say.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by corbie

Stumbler, I have one question to ask you. Is it possible for you to respond to anything without being verbally abusive, calling the person who disagrees with you names, and putting them down because they don't agree with you.

Nope, I got my doubts about that because you are in fact just repeating false propaganda that was bought and paid for by the coalition of oil, gas, and coal companies with the help and assistance of conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers in Congress.

And that is especially true when all I get is the same old tired rhetoric with no sources or documentation to even back up what they are saying.

Originally Posted by corbie

I have tried to calmly state why I disagree with you, without all the name calling, and all the outright rudeness. Yet you can't respond to a single person without calling them names, or putting them down.

And yet all you do is present the same false propaganda that is debunked over and over and over again and then when that is shown to you instead of looking at anything objectively you just say you're going to continue to believe a paid for denier that's been proven wrong a half dozen times.

And I'm supposed to show you respect for that kind academic and personal dishonesty? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by corbie

Generally such reactions are indicative of a highly immature and insecure person. I've been a published free lance writer for the last 15 years. I've written on events, only to read another writer's account of the same event, and wondered if we were at the same place.

Yeah and I spent more than ten years editing and publishing a general circulation newspaper where I won state wide awards for writing.

Does that make me an expert of global warming/climate change? No but it did teach me to research and double check what I write before I write it.

Originally Posted by corbie

And Stumbler, there is big money in claiming the sky is falling. Otherwise so many of these organizations wouldn't keep changing their tune on things--one day we're going to freeze to death, the next we're baking.

But all this is just more bullshit lies put out by the paid for deniers. The consensus for human caused global warming/climate change spans multiple scientific disciplines. It involves thousands of scientists all over the world that have studied it for 30 or 40 years. And in addition new studies using new methods and models confirm the same thing; human caused global warming/climate change is occurring right now as we live and speak.

And no I can't respect any fool that contends that many people, especially scientists would be involved in a hoax or conspiracy that no one ratted out.

That's just stupid from a human nature point of view and no, I cannot and will not respect that as any kind of thinking let alone objective thinking.

Originally Posted by corbie

One day Alar is a carcinogen, the next day it isn't. (By the way, the scientist who initially say Alar was a carcinogen went back and reviewed his own studies and realized he had made a mistake, and was the first to say he was wrong.) One scientist who initially said he didn't believe global warming was a threat changed his tune and the next day was awarded with a check for $80,000 from the the Heinz foundation--it's run by Senator John Kerry's wife. Money runs both way in this issue.

But we're not talking "one scientist" are we. Well you are I guess or at the most a handful of bought and paid for junk science deniers that have already been debunked.

I'm on the other hand talking about literally thousands of scientists that are geologists, climatologists, oceanographers, and now astronomers, if I'm not mistaken, that have studied a phenomenon for more than 30 years and have all come to the same conclusion after repeated experiments and models.

Originally Posted by corbie

But since you don't respond well to polite debate and discussion, this is the last I'm posting on this issue. I know what you'll say, "I didn't have the facts to back me up." But you're wrong. If we were able to reasonably discuss this, I'd stay but you can't be reasonable and even agree to disagree. I don't like playing with obnoxious, rude snot-nosed little boys.

I am what I am and if you don't like it that's fine with me but I'm done with being polite to brainwashed parrots spouting right wing false propaganda about something that is happening right now as we speak and is scientifically documented.

I'm not willing to believe the world is actually flat just because you say so and will not respect that one bit or pretend I do out of some phony politeness.

And if nothing else you now know what I honestly think of you and your arguments.

[Whitey44]

[CS natureboy]

Fairbanks Sets Another Daily Low Temperature Record

By Dan Bross, KUAC - Fairbanks | November 17, 2011 - 7:17 pm




Fairbanks has set another daily low temperature record earlier Thursday. National Weather Service technician Allura Wiemer says the thermometer at the airport hit 41 below zero.
Fairbanks also set a daily low temperature record Tuesday, and just missed a record Wednesday. There could be more record breaking days ahead, as the forecast through Monday calls for 25 to 40 below zero lows. National Weather Service meteorologist Ray Little says the cold is the result of a ridge of high pressure that’s pulling in arctic air, and there’s minimal relief in sight.
Little says higher elevations are warmer as an inversion sinks the coldest air into valleys. He says it’s hard to predict how big the temperature spread will be day to day, but the inversion is strong.
Extreme cold means more wood, coal and oil burning, upping fine particulate pollution at ground level. The Fairbanks North Star Borough has issued alerts due to declining air quality.
http://www.alaskapublic.org/2011/11/...rature-record/

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Fairbanks Sets Another Daily Low Temperature Record

By Dan Bross, KUAC - Fairbanks | November 17, 2011 - 7:17 pm




Fairbanks has set another daily low temperature record earlier Thursday. National Weather Service technician Allura Wiemer says the thermometer at the airport hit 41 below zero.
Fairbanks also set a daily low temperature record Tuesday, and just missed a record Wednesday. There could be more record breaking days ahead, as the forecast through Monday calls for 25 to 40 below zero lows. National Weather Service meteorologist Ray Little says the cold is the result of a ridge of high pressure that’s pulling in arctic air, and there’s minimal relief in sight.
Little says higher elevations are warmer as an inversion sinks the coldest air into valleys. He says it’s hard to predict how big the temperature spread will be day to day, but the inversion is strong.
Extreme cold means more wood, coal and oil burning, upping fine particulate pollution at ground level. The Fairbanks North Star Borough has issued alerts due to declining air quality.
http://www.alaskapublic.org/2011/11/...rature-record/

So what?

[CS natureboy]

July 2010: Over 1 million fish and thousands of alligators, turtles, dolphins and other river wildlife are floating dead in numerous Bolivian rivers in the three eastern/southern departments of Santa Cruz, Beni and Tarija. The extreme cold front that hit Bolivia in mid-July caused water temperatures to dip below the minimum temperatures river life can tolerate. As a consequence, rivers, lakes, lagoons and fisheries are brimming with decomposing fish and other creatures.

Unprecedented: Nothing like this has ever been seen in this magnitude in Bolivia. Inhabitants of riverside communities report the smell is nauseating and can be detected as far as a kilometer away from river banks. River communities, whose livelihoods depend on fishing, fear they'll run out of food and will have nothing to sell. Authorities are concerned there will be a shortage of fish in markets and are more concerned by possible threats to public health, especially in communities that also use river water for bathing and drinking, but also fear contaminated or decaying fish may end up in market stalls. They've begun a campaign to ensure market vendors and the public know how to tell the difference between fresh and unhealthy fish.

In university fish ponds and commercial fisheries the losses are also catastrophic.

For automatic updates on this and other news stories, please subscribe to the BoliviaBella.com Blog. We'll run more information on it when we have news.

[CS natureboy]

Record Cold Temps Around the World Blamed on…wait for it…Global Warming

Posted by Robbie Cooper at 10:16 pm Add comments

Jan 042010

My wife and I just spent about 30 minutes pulling plants from outside into the garage in anticipation of not only tonight’s expected 25-degree temps — but of the expected way-below-average temps we’re expecting on Thursday: highs near freezing and lows down into the teens.
While some of you living up in Wisconsin and Maine might not think that mid-30 degree highs and mid-20 degree lows are all that bad — it’s damned freeze-your-balls-off cold for here in Austin.

So now, as I sit here in my new man cave, wrapped in my wife’s UT snuggie that I got her for Christmas, I’m more thankful than ever for Al Gore’s “man-made global warming” crisis as I read these headlines from around the US and the world:

• Winter of 2009-2010 Could Be Worst in 25 Years
• Memphis: 3 Deaths Due To Cold Reported
• New England: All-time record snowfall in Burlington
• Des Moines: Feeling cold? We’re at 30 below normal
• Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years
• Ice Slows Operation At N.J. Nuclear Power Plant
• Siberian winds usher in record lows in Beijing
• Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade

Good thing climate-change scientists were hiding that decline, otherwise we might never have noticed that it’s getting colder, and not hotter like those scientists and Al Gore keep telling us.

http://urbangrounds.com/2010/01/record-cold/

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Record Cold Temps Around the World Blamed on…wait for it…Global Warming

Posted by Robbie Cooper at 10:16 pm Add comments

Jan 042010

My wife and I just spent about 30 minutes pulling plants from outside into the garage in anticipation of not only tonight’s expected 25-degree temps — but of the expected way-below-average temps we’re expecting on Thursday: highs near freezing and lows down into the teens.
While some of you living up in Wisconsin and Maine might not think that mid-30 degree highs and mid-20 degree lows are all that bad — it’s damned freeze-your-balls-off cold for here in Austin.

So now, as I sit here in my new man cave, wrapped in my wife’s UT snuggie that I got her for Christmas, I’m more thankful than ever for Al Gore’s “man-made global warming” crisis as I read these headlines from around the US and the world:

• Winter of 2009-2010 Could Be Worst in 25 Years
• Memphis: 3 Deaths Due To Cold Reported
• New England: All-time record snowfall in Burlington
• Des Moines: Feeling cold? We’re at 30 below normal
• Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years
• Ice Slows Operation At N.J. Nuclear Power Plant
• Siberian winds usher in record lows in Beijing
• Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade

Good thing climate-change scientists were hiding that decline, otherwise we might never have noticed that it’s getting colder, and not hotter like those scientists and Al Gore keep telling us.

http://urbangrounds.com/2010/01/record-cold/

If you want to argue that global warming isn't really happening, just say so. If you want to argue that it IS happening, but isn't caused by human activity, argue that.

But don't argue both things simultaneously. You're wrong in either case, but arguing both at once makes you look like an idiot.

[Whitey44]

« Global Temperature Trends | Main |
Geologists Know Global Warming as a Given

Recent Blog by Bob Brown

I heard an excellent lecture tonight by Professor Paul Hoffman at the UW and I’ll have to add geologists to oceanographers as the main publishers of Global Warming data these days (since the climatologists and atmospheric scientists were “discredited” by Big Oil propaganda, and an arrogant physicist or two, although Prof. Richard Muller has nobly recanted his skepticism of climatological warming data).
While Snowball Earth is this lecturer’s favorite topic, he went from geological observations of glacial moraines (Leslie, 1804 — this was still in the little ice age, but during a 50-year warming period) to the much more dramatic moraines of the present. Geologists accept the glacial retreats which produce the large, barren moraines as a no-brainer global warming effect.
They also note that in the geological record the CO2 maximums correspond to temperature maximums exactly (Tendall, 1850; please note that it is a primary positive feedback mechanism, so doesn’t need to start the warming, but often does).
In fact, this lecturer promotes calling this an era — the anthropocene — since there are, and will be more, significant changes geologically as a result of anthropogenic change, primarily from GW. These changes will be huge, as large as the Eocene warming, if we continue to burn all our fossil fuels.

About Bob Brown

Robert A. Brown received B.S. & M.S. degrees from U.C. Berkeley, the first Ph.D. from the University of Washington Geophysics program in 1969, did a postdoc in Atmos. Science and M.A. work in the UW English dept., then was a Fellow in the Natl. Center for Atmos. Science. He did postdoc work in the Arctic (AIDJEX) at U.W. 1971-1982. He has been a professor in the UW department of Atmospheric Sciences since 1983. He is the author of two books on Planetary Boundary Layer Modeling (1974, John Wylie press) and Fluid Mechanics of the Atmosphere (1991, Academic Press), edited a book on Satellite Remote Sensing (199, and published a novel The Tree or the Panzaic Plea, in 2004 and a 2nd Ed. The Tree & the Panzaic Plea in 2011. He has been on the science teams for the 1st oceanographic earth observing satellite, SeaSAT (197, and all earth winds measuring NASA and NOAA satellite sensors (1985-present). He has also been a Principal Investigator for the NASA WETNET project, Co-PI on a RADARSAT project and two EOS grants.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

If you want to argue that global warming isn't really happening, just say so. If you want to argue that it IS happening, but isn't caused by human activity, argue that.

But don't argue both things simultaneously. You're wrong in either case, but arguing both at once makes you look like an idiot.

No Kimiko, my point is very simple. The fact is, we really don't know what causes climate change. All we really know is that the Earth has been getting hotter and colder via a natural cycle from the beginning of time. The Worlds weather and climate records go back 200 hundred years at best. The Earth is estimated to be around 4 billion years old.

So stop swinging around this "Man Made Global Warming Theory" as fact, because it's not.

[Whitey44]

And so we have entered the anthropocene era...
the era where manmade global warming domnates geology.

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

No Kimiko, my point is very simple. The fact is, we really don't know what causes climate change. All we really know is that the Earth has been getting hotter and colder via a natural cycle from the beginning of time. The Worlds weather and climate records go back 200 hundred years at best. The Earth is estimated to be around 4 billion years old.

So stop swinging around this "Man Made Global Warming Theory" as fact, because it's not.

It's a scientists job to determine the answer to what, how, where, when, and why. They have collected enough evidence to have pieced together a climatalogical history of the earth that goes back the past 2 billion years. Scientists do think they know what causes changes in climate.
More importantly, they have much evdence that shows that recent climate change is due to man's CO2 emissions. Although there is a slight possibility that they are wrong, they are more likely correct.

Weather is not the same as climate. Even short term weather can be predicted accurately, assumng the correct initial conditons are inserted into mathematical weather models. The slightest perturbation throws off the prediction.

[CS natureboy]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

It's a scientists job to determine the answer to what, how, where, when, and why. They have collected enough evidence to have pieced together a climatalogical history of the earth that goes back the past 2 billion years. Scientists do think they know what causes changes in climate.
More importantly, they have much evdence that shows that recent climate change is due to man's CO2 emissions. Although there is a slight possibility that they are wrong, they are more likely correct.

Weather is not the same as climate. Even short term weather can be predicted accurately, assumng the correct initial conditons are inserted into mathematical weather models. The slightest perturbation throws off the prediction.

Your argument makes no sense. The Earth has been going through climate changes and mass extinctions for billions of years.

To say we have enough evidence to prove that man can effect climate in such a short time is untrue.




There have been five mass extinction events throughout Earth's history:

1. The first great mass extinction event took place at the end of the Ordovician, when according to the fossil record, 60% of all genera of both terrestrial and marine life worldwide were exterminated.
2. 360 million years ago in the Late Devonian period, the environment that had clearly nurtured reefs for at least 13 million years turned hostile and the world plunged into the second mass extinction event.
3. The fossil record of the end Permian mass extinction reveals a staggering loss of life: perhaps 80–95% of all marine species went extinct. Reefs didn't reappear for about 10 million years, the greatest hiatus in reef building in all of Earth history.
4. The end Triassic mass extinction is estimated to have claimed about half of all marine invertebrates. Around 80% of all land quadrupeds also went extinct.
5. The end Cretaceous mass extinction 65 million years ago is famously associated with the demise of the dinosaurs. Virtually no large land animals survived. Plants were also greatly affected while tropical marine life was decimated. Global temperature was 6 to 14°C warmer than present with sea levels over 300 metres higher than current levels. At this time, the oceans flooded up to 40% of the continents.
   
   And all of this without man's help....

[Whitey44]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Your argument makes no sense. The Earth has been going through climate changes and mass extinctions for billions of years.

To say we have enough evidence to prove that man can effect climate in such a short time is untrue.







There have been five mass extinction events throughout Earth's history:

1. The first great mass extinction event took place at the end of the Ordovician, when according to the fossil record, 60% of all genera of both terrestrial and marine life worldwide were exterminated.
2. 360 million years ago in the Late Devonian period, the environment that had clearly nurtured reefs for at least 13 million years turned hostile and the world plunged into the second mass extinction event.
3. The fossil record of the end Permian mass extinction reveals a staggering loss of life: perhaps 80–95% of all marine species went extinct. Reefs didn't reappear for about 10 million years, the greatest hiatus in reef building in all of Earth history.
4. The end Triassic mass extinction is estimated to have claimed about half of all marine invertebrates. Around 80% of all land quadrupeds also went extinct.
5. The end Cretaceous mass extinction 65 million years ago is famously associated with the demise of the dinosaurs. Virtually no large land animals survived. Plants were also greatly affected while tropical marine life was decimated. Global temperature was 6 to 14°C warmer than present with sea levels over 300 metres higher than current levels. At this time, the oceans flooded up to 40% of the continents.
   
   And all of this without man's help....

I have never said that we have enough information to absolutely prove anything. I have also never said that natural climate cycles didn't exist. Man was not emitting fossil fuels during all the periods you mentioned. The current climate cycle is unique and very likely altered due to mankind's burning of fossil fuel.

It doesn't surprise me that science's arguement makes no sense to you. You're reasoning process tells me that you don't have a scientific bone in your body.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Whitey44

I have never said that we have enough information to absolutely prove anything. I have also never said that natural climate cycles didn't exist. Man was not emitting fossil fuels during all the periods you mentioned. The current climate cycle is unique and very likely altered due to mankind's burning of fossil fuel.

It doesn't surprise me that science's arguement makes no sense to you. You're reasoning process tells me that you don't have a scientific bone in your body.

And a backbone is one of those scientific bones missing. He's great for posing volumes of propaganda but not the source of that propaganda because he's learned doing that makes too much of a fool of him.