If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Global warming deniers saddened by news of a massive ice self is about to break off of Antarctica. Surfs up   (cnn.com) divider line 475
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

12435 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2009 at 2:25 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



475 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-04-05 08:17:05 AM
Shilar: BTW: Gravity is a Law, not a theory. Evolution is a theory, as is Man-made climate change. While both evolution and MMCC can be disproven tomorrow, you can't argue gravity.

Wrong. Theories never become law. Newton's Law is outdated term from before the modern scientific method was established. In fact, Einstein's theory refined Newton's laws. So in this case, the theory was better than a law.

In modern science, there is the fact of gravity, and the theory of gravity (Theory of General Relativity). We can observe gravity in action. We know it happens. Einstein's theory explains how it works. Likewise, there is the fact of evolution and the theory that explains how how it works. And in the case of Global warming there is the fact and the theory as well. The fact that our instruments show us the mean global temperature is rising, and the theories that attempt to explain why.
 
2009-04-05 08:26:01 AM
CO2 levels were higher in the 1800s than most of the "industrial revolution"....and yet didn't affect temps (for the most part)

There is more Ice on the polar caps (a lot more) than 20 years ago or even 100 years ago.

We are on the edge of an Ice age. The sun is cooling and climate IS changing, but it's not because I didn't recycle my pee and bought hemp clothing. This is the natural order of things.

The majority of climate scientists reject man-made global warming....real scientific evidence > populist chicken little propaganda

Mars and Earth both experience cooling and warming at roughly the same time...hmmm - guess all those people on Mars are making that happen....or it could be the natural cycle of the Sun, perhaps?

Global warming theory is dumb. Taking care of the environment is good. The latter does not require Global Warming for justification.
 
2009-04-05 08:47:52 AM
digitalmonk: CO2 levels were higher in the 1800s than most of the "industrial revolution"....and yet didn't affect temps (for the most part)

Perhaps because the effects you see from dumping CO2 into the atmosphere are not immediate?

digitalmonk: There is more Ice on the polar caps (a lot more) than 20 years ago or even 100 years ago.

Wrong. The extent of year-round sea ice is steadily shrinking at both poles. The ice cap on Antarctica is getting thicker, perhaps that is what you are thinking of. However this itself may be due to warming. It is usually so cold that the dry air produces no precipitation (Antarctica is technically a desert). But it's getting warmer, so more precipitation. It's still snows at 20F you know. But it's also still warmer than -20F.

digitalmonk: We are on the edge of an Ice age. The sun is cooling and climate IS changing, but it's not because I didn't recycle my pee and bought hemp clothing. This is the natural order of things.

We are coming out of an ice age, true. However this process takes on the order of thousands of years, not decades. This is not the natural order.

digitalmonk: The majority of climate scientists reject man-made global warming....real scientific evidence > populist chicken little propaganda

Demonstrably false. Start here: Link (new window)

digitalmonk: Mars and Earth both experience cooling and warming at roughly the same time...hmmm - guess all those people on Mars are making that happen....or it could be the natural cycle of the Sun, perhaps?

Scientists never thought about the sun! How about that!

No, of course they did. And it has been shown to have little effect on the current trend. So Mars is warming. If it's the sun, you would see warming on every body in the Solar System. Yet the two bodies closer to the sun (Mercury and Venus) have seen no changes in temperature.
 
2009-04-05 09:12:07 AM
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy. People will latch onto any idea that reinforces their preexisting preconceived notions because they want to continue believing them.

"Global Warming" or "Climate Change" being caused mostly by humans particularly appeals to those who hate modern society, hate the evil corporations, and hate capitalism.

People will take this and go with it totally independent of each other just as a bunch of dogs will independently go after steak.

There doesn't need to be a conspiracy among dogs to go after steak.
 
2009-04-05 11:40:27 AM
disestablishmenator:

The existence of people for or against a political position has nothing to do with the scientific evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change.
 
2009-04-05 11:51:10 AM
digitalmonk:

CO2 levels were higher in the 1800s than most of the "industrial revolution"

This is false:

cdiac.ornl.gov

There is more Ice on the polar caps (a lot more) than 20 years ago or even 100 years ago.

snarfyboy covered this.

We are on the edge of an Ice age.

Highly debatable.

The sun is cooling

By a fraction of a watt per square meter, over the last solar cycle.

and climate IS changing, but it's not because I didn't recycle my pee and bought hemp clothing.

Unsupported assertions cloaked in irrelevant sarcasm make you look even dumber.

The majority of climate scientists reject man-made global warming

This is trivially false, as you could easily verify for yourself by reading the recent tables of contents of the major climate journals.

Mars and Earth both experience cooling and warming at roughly the same time...

There is no evidence which supports this claim.

or it could be the natural cycle of the Sun, perhaps?

The "natural cycle of the Sun" fails to explain climate change on both Earth and Mars.
 
2009-04-05 03:34:06 PM
FeBolas: Tr0mBoNe: So how much will this make sea levels rise?

None. It's already floating in the ocean, so it's already displacing its own volume. Land-based ice is what will make levels rise.


it will raise the ocean level by just. a. little.

this happens because all this fresh water melting will reduce the salinity of the ocean, and salt water have a higher density (that's why an egg floats in salt water but not on fresh water). with less salinity, the density of the ocean water decreases, wich makes the oceans rise.
 
2009-04-05 07:58:49 PM
I hate all of the irrelevant threadjackers who diverted from the real topic of this thread: ice selfs!
 
2009-04-05 09:53:49 PM
EVERYONE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU THINK THE EARTH HAS BEEN A NOMINAL 70 DEGREES FOR ITS 4BILLION YEARS OF EXISTENCE SO FAR
 
2009-04-05 10:23:45 PM
boybunny: BlippityBleep: rubbernecker: I don't deny that our globe is warming. I just deny there's anything we can do about it.

The ozone and acid rain dilemmas frown upon your willful ignorance.

The irony is that the CFCs form aerosol cans were always too heavy to reach the upper atmosphere to destroy the ozone that protects us... but it did a fine job of destroying the environmental ozone that cars created around cities. They went all greenie half cocked, banned CFCs, and now we have no environmental CFCs to destroy the environmental ozone.

One of dozens of things they conveniently do not talk about... I only hear the sweeping sounds and carpet movement.


lolwut?
 
2009-04-05 10:37:30 PM
biffstallion: EVERYONE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU THINK THE EARTH HAS BEEN A NOMINAL 70 DEGREES FOR ITS 4BILLION YEARS OF EXISTENCE SO FAR

Quit with this ridiculous strawman. Oh I'm sorry, you actually believe climatologists believe this, you farking idiot.
 
2009-04-05 11:25:17 PM
I'm sorry, but in 20 years I will still be doing something useful like protecting the environment while the "OMAG, the Earth is going to be destroyed if we don't do something about the climate this year" religion of global warming nuts is proved to be false. If all the people in the world got together and said - let's destroy the planet....they couldn't accomplish it....so how can they do it on accident? It's pure sensationalism. Some "warming" is due to the sudden drop in smog and of course things like temp sensors being placed in areas like the middle of the city with a lightbulb inside (the old hot ones) that gives false temp readings AND differ from all other temp readings in the area. The ice cap HAS grown as demonstration a month or so ago (and linked here) due to sensor drift - making our readings INNACURATE...once the old datapoints were put in the correct spot, things looked quite a bit different. Then you have all the so-called climatologists who can only get a grant if they are working on "global warming" - well...I think you see where I'm going with that.

The team of scientists that original thought up global warming went out to prove it in the sixties (or thereabouts) and ended up disproving it with 100% of those scientists who started the whole global warming issue not believing it exists. The media later picked it up and the rest is history.

/I'm going to destroy your fragile little planet with my deathstar
 
2009-04-05 11:30:03 PM
digitalmonk: The team of scientists that original thought up global warming went out to prove it in the sixties (or thereabouts) and ended up disproving it with 100% of those scientists who started the whole global warming issue not believing it exists.

Please identify:

A) The original team of scientists you mention.

B) The papers that disproved it.
 
2009-04-06 02:56:38 AM
Off the top of my head, it included James E. Hanson and the findings indicated that we were going to enter a new major Ice age (we just came out of a small one) and there was no global warming. (actually the opposite). The Earth was cooling. He's the same guy that jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon within the last decade. During the the first Earth Day, this was the big controversial topic...Ice age is coming - it's a bigger danger than nuclear weapons and we have to do something now! .... sound familiar? Same folks saying the same thing now, but about global warming this time. Apparently, the climate experts can't make up their mind or subscribe to populist grandstanding
 
2009-04-06 08:27:37 AM
digitalmonk: Off the top of my head, it included James E. Hanson and the findings indicated that we were going to enter a new major Ice age (we just came out of a small one) and there was no global warming. (actually the opposite). The Earth was cooling. He's the same guy that jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon within the last decade. During the the first Earth Day, this was the big controversial topic...Ice age is coming - it's a bigger danger than nuclear weapons and we have to do something now! .... sound familiar? Same folks saying the same thing now, but about global warming this time. Apparently, the climate experts can't make up their mind or subscribe to populist grandstanding

Good god, you're still using the old Newsweek 'Ice Age' argument? The old ice age bit is from the seventies and never had the backing of the scientific community. It was just the media running away with one guy's theory.
 
2009-04-06 11:06:42 AM
What? The Ice Age theory had the backing of the Nasa Goddard (sp?) research center, it's scientists, and other scientists. I have no idea where Newsweek comes into play here...
 
2009-04-06 11:42:43 AM
digitalmonk: What? The Ice Age theory had the backing of the Nasa Goddard (sp?) research center, it's scientists, and other scientists. I have no idea where Newsweek comes into play here...

More papers on warming then cooling in the 1970s (new window)

Or perhaps you are claiming that people are saying that a cold year in America means an ice age? (new window)

NASA seems to think things are hot, too. (new window)

Of course, those last two are from James Hansen, whom I believe you accused earlier of being a global cooling proponent that switched teams. Of course everything I have read about Hansen shows that he has been a steady in his opinions of global warming since the 1970s. So I challenge you to provide a link where he claims we are headed into an ice age.

Really, the idea that it's cold outside your house right now has nothing to do with the global trend towards a warmer planet.
 
2009-04-06 08:05:19 PM
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/144703752.html?dids =144703752:144703752&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&fmac=&date=Jul+9,+1971&author=By+Victor +CohnWashington+Post+Staff+Writer&desc=U.S.+Scientist+Sees+New+Ice+Age+Coming

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138

The Ice age conclusions were made based on a climate computer modeling program written by (and conclusions supported by) James E Hanson and NASA.

Google is your friend....look for sensor drift and similar items while you are there. Have fun posting here because I am done. It took me 30 secs to find the 2 above links. If you can't figure out how to research, I'm not here to babysit you. If you want to eat spoon-fed info by people who aim to make $$$ off of you through sensationalist crap...enjoy. I already have kids.
 
2009-04-06 09:31:05 PM
digitalmonk:

The Ice age conclusions were made based on a climate computer modeling program written by (and conclusions supported by) James E Hanson and NASA.

Wrong. You've obviously never read either the "ice age" paper nor Hansen's early work. I have.

The Rasool and Schneider paper arrived at its conclusions by a combination of a low climate sensitivity and high projections of future aerosol emissions. Hansen's contribution was a scattering code that he developed for the atmosphere of Venus. Hansen's code was correct, and had nothing to do with the flawed assumptions R&S made to predict cooling. Furthermore, Hansen's own climate papers, from his very first (here), were in line with modern climate sensitivity estimates (higher than R&S's), and predicted warming. It is completely dishonest to claim that Hansen (let alone all of NASA) ever supported the conclusions of R&S.

If you want to eat spoon-fed info by people who aim to make $$$ off of you through sensationalist crap...enjoy.

The irony, it hurts and stings.
 
2009-04-06 10:38:42 PM
digitalmonk: The Ice age conclusions were made based on a climate computer modeling program written by (and conclusions supported by) James E Hanson and NASA.

I'm sorry. Neither of those articles show that Hansen and/or NASA supports your claim. In fact, your evidence is one of the seven papers in the first link I gave, which I can only assume you didn't bother to read - or perhaps you didn't understand it. So you really haven't presented anything revealing.

Remember, your argument was that NASA and James Hansen, indeed the bulk of scientists, insisted that an ice age was coming - apparently as recently as the "last decade" (although your paper is dated 1971). All you have done is presented a single paper on the subject that I already admitted existed. Couldn't have taken the time to at least find the other 6 papers?

However, you have yet to explain how 7 papers (or in your case, one) predicting global cooling represent the majority of scientists when in the same time period 44 papers predicted global warming.

Indeed, I can only assume that the "30 seconds" it took to find those (yet 8 hours to post!) was well wasted. Your insults seem to indicate a bit of frustration. Perhaps it's best that you get back to your kids.
 
2009-04-06 10:56:30 PM
digitalmonk: If you want to eat spoon-fed info by people who aim to make $$$ off of you through sensationalist crap...enjoy.

Oh, and I might add, this is one of the stupidest arguments I hear regarding global warming. Climate scientists only stand to make money if research is necessary. Once they have convinced people of global warming, the money shifts to the engineers that have to figure out ways to reduce CO2 emissions. So it makes no sense to have so many climate scientists agreeing on it.

The people who stand to make the most money are the few deniers with the conflict the sow, and of course, energy industries that by and large pay them.

Ironically, these seem to be the people you believe, and you are the people that are keeping them busily doing research.
 
2009-04-07 12:50:39 AM
"6 April 2007


There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

Richard Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Sounds kind of like having a dissenting opinion on Fark...

All prophesies by the cult of Global Warming have not occurred...when heat was predicted, cold happened, when many major hurricanes were predicted, we had only a few - both hitting my home area during the few years and far less than usual.

8 hours between posts doesn't mean it took 8 hours to search for something. It merely means I am NOT on FARK. I know this concept is bizarre to a few of you, but this happens when people have lives and jobs.

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endo r se+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926634.800-cleaner-skies-explain-surpri s e-rate-of-warming.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_ i d=04373015-802A-23AD-4BF9-C3F02278F4CF

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_ i d=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_19_2_deming.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3561817/The-cat a strophe-behind-climate-change.html

Why is it that so many people in the Global Warming sham want to silence any alternative opinion going from hoodlum on the internet tactics to the extreme of thinking there should be a law that makes Denying the "Global Warming" the same as Denying the Holocaust (such as in Germany). Ridiculous. Carl Sagan preached Nuclear winter in the 80s and the whole thing was found to be a sham with very shoddy science behind it. Good for B flicks probably, but bad for science. Like I said before - see you in twenty years when the Earth is still turning and the sky hasn't fallen. Talk to one of your elders and ask how many of these doom and gloom sensationalistic impending disasters they slept through...
 
2009-04-07 01:35:33 AM
I like all these opinion articles showing how the anthropogenic climate change crowd is squashing dissent. Maybe if the dissent wasn't, "IT WAS COLD TODAY, TAKE THAT GLOBAL WARMING," or repeating talking points that have been shown to be wrong, even on this very site, it'd be taken more seriously.
 
2009-04-07 02:11:04 AM
digitalmonk: blah blah blah...
Signed,
Richard Lindzen


Lindzen is perhaps one of the best known oil company paid shills: Link (new window) And you accuse us of falling for the people in it for the money. Oh the irony.

digitalmonk: http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endo r se+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm

An opinion blog with no cites? Not very convincing.

digitalmonk: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926634.800-cleaner-skies-explain-surpri s e-rate-of-warming.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

This article does nothing more than explain why your 1971 was wrong. Yes, less pollution means less reflectivity. Are you now arguing that we should be polluting the atmosphere more to save the world?

digitalmonk: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_ i d=04373015-802A-23AD-4BF9-C3F02278F4CF

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_ i d=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb


Press blogs for the Senate? These aren't scientific papers. Are you even bothering to read what you are linking?

digitalmonk: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_19_2_deming.pdf

I got as far as Michael Crichton and stopped. A medical doctor turned fiction writer is not a climate scientist. And a fictional book is not a peer reviewed paper. For a nice summary of Crichton's laughable book, read this. (new window)

digitalmonk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3561817/The-cat a strophe-behind-climate-change.html

Christopher Booker is another blogger, not a scientist. He is also receiving money from corporations with a vested interest in denying global warming. Link (new window)

digitalmonk: Why is it that so many people in the Global Warming sham want to silence any alternative opinion going from hoodlum on the internet tactics to the extreme of thinking there should be a law that makes Denying the "Global Warming" the same as Denying the Holocaust (such as in Germany).

Who's trying to censor you? Just because you don't believe something doesn't mean we have to take it at face value. You need to back up your assertions. So far, you haven't posted anything that I haven't seen a gazzillion times before and nothing that has appeared in a peer reviewed journal - with the exception of Lindzen, and your 1971 report. Not a very convincing "consensus".

digitalmonk: Like I said before - see you in twenty years when the Earth is still turning and the sky hasn't fallen.

I never said the earth won't be here in 20 years. In fact very few climate scientists say that. Again you expose your ignorance of the situation. Personally, I doubt the doom and gloom scenarios myself, to an extent. However, that doesn't mean I don't believe that we are not pumping co2 into the atmosphere and that the globe isn't warming. These are facts.

digitalmonk: Talk to one of your elders and ask how many of these doom and gloom sensationalistic impending disasters they slept through...

I'm probably older than you think. My memory stretches back far enough to remember the global cooling scare of the 1970s. But age doesn't bring wisdom. Informing yourself does. So far you have not given me any kind of substantial information to make me believe you.

On a final and non-climate change related note, see that little tool bar above the comment section? Two little icon that look like infinity symbols (sideways 8). Those are for making your links work. I am tired of having to copy and paste your ridiculously long URLs. Other posters take the time to do this. It would be common courtesy for you to do the same.
 
2009-04-07 08:14:31 AM
digitalmonk:

It's really interesting how your path toward "knowledge" consists of copying-and-pasting other people's blog opinions who happen to support the conclusion you want to reach, rather than actually reading any science and forming your own. You claimed Hansen and NASA predicted global cooling, while a simple reading of Rasool and Schneider and Hansen's own work trivially shows that to be false. But hey, a website claimed it and you want it to be true, so let's run with it, right? Then instead of learning from your mistake and reading some scientific papers on climate change, you come back with nothing but a Google copy-paste job trolling for articles which agree with you.

As for Lindzen, he grumbles about "conspiracies" to delay publication of his rebuttals, but the fact remains, his paper was discredited and that has nothing to do with when his "rebuttal" was published. The data simply don't support his infrared iris, and he's recently been touting a flawed data set in order to drum up new support for it.

All prophesies by the cult of Global Warming have not occurred...when heat was predicted, cold happened,

Not true. The planet has continued to warm since warming was predicted all the way back in the 1970s and 1980s.

when many major hurricanes were predicted, we had only a few

This is the usual weather vs. climate confusion. The number of major hurricanes in a particular season does not have much to do with climate change, as the interannual variability is quite large.
The climate question is whether there have been more major hurricanes over the last few decades than earlier in the century.

That being said, "more major hurricanes" is not a robust prediction of global warming, and (once again) you're being dishonest to claim that it is. Some models predict more, some predict fewer but stronger. The IPCC is quite clear that the uncertainty in hurricane projections is much greater than, say, temperature projections.

It's pretty hilarious that you cite an article claiming "less than half of published scientists endorse global warming" when it's plainly obvious to anyone who has ever read a climate journal that there is no huge support in the scientific literature for global warming skepticism. (Seriously, go check out the table of contents of one of them.) In fact, Schutle's paper was rejected from Energy and Environment after submission, which is even more hilarious. E&E is a vanity journal devoted to publishing skeptical articles rejected from real scientific journals. Your paper must be pretty bad to get rejected from there.

The rest of your links are general attempts to politicize the science all the while hypocritically claiming that the science is politicized. (Well, except for the aerosol paper, which isn't surprising; aerosol forcing in the IPCC is globally estimated to be about half as strong as the CO2 forcing, and since aerosols have a short atmospheric lifetime, this leads to regional trends with significant aerosol influences.)

Then you bow out with a "you fools were mad to laugh at me, history will vindicate my beliefs". Yeah, real convincing. Come back when you have a scientific argument to make, one that's backed up by a real published paper that you've actually read.
 
Displayed 25 of 475 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report