| Author | Message | ||
     Danger_dave |
I actually believe the National Geographic Society and not a bunch of schmucks on a bike forum. Truth. | ||
| Fahren |
Mr. Watts' self-aggrandizing brand of slanted spin is clearly noted here, and by plenty of other commentators: http://wottsupwiththat.com/ And sent up hilariously HERE. Muller's research, funded from Left and Right (including the K_och bro's), is apparently being submitted to the American Meteorological Society for review. Sorry, no link yet, but the group's work only corroborates the data bases of three long-standing scientific organizations. Oh, wait - NASA, NOAA and the British organization must have been planning this "climate hoax" collaboratively for what, a century now?.... Riiiiiight. Again, from the first Economist link I gave, Watts gives his support to Muller's research methods and to the study:
And sorry, but I must disagree with the notion that the scientific community is divided over the issue. It is the general public who seem to be divided over climate change, not the scientists, this:
| ||
| Fahren |
Truth and Word, man. Truth and Word. | ||
| Strokizator |
Then, Dave, you should be doing everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint so that you can feel good about yourself. Perhaps you can be the Aussie version of Ed Begley Jr. And I resent the implication that because I ride a motorcycle I am therefore stupid. Well, I'm still riding after three damaging crashes so you might be onto something there. But still . . . | ||
| Reepicheep |
In other words Faren, it is not debunked. You just found people making fun of Watts, and you read that somebody said that that they will soon prove Watts was wrong... unless they don't, which they also said was possible. How do you get from there to:
You said it was disproved. Not disputed, not being challenged, you said it was disproved. (and maybe it will be disproved, I don't know. Nobody can. There aren't enough facts published about the alleged disproof to judge...) | ||
| Fahren |
^^^^ That's some funny stuff Mr. Strokizator! :-) | ||
| Fahren |
OK, so we should all listen to the retired weatherman. To heck with the scientists. The weatherman blogger will prevail. The US public knows better than the consensus of the scientific community. You guys want science, you say, "Seek the Truth," but you steadfastly turn away from the truth, that the scientific community (the real one, not the ones paid to research otherwise) has been convinced by the preponderance of factual evidence, and that they have accepted the reality of anthropogenic global warming. LOL | ||
| Blake |
It's tough to believe liars and hypocrites, especially when aligned with corrupt socialist politicians. . Why sea level falling? Does more CO2 tend to warm the planet? Yes! Is that a catastrophe for the planet or mankind? Probably not. Some would like us to imagine so, then take power and our money. Humans better off with the planet a bit warmer? Yes, absolutely, but probably not all. See renaissance. No climate change will benefit all. Don't live in the desert. Is there anything we can do conservation-wise to slow warming? No, not really. Cooling may soon become evident and a slight warming from increased CO2 could end up proving beneficial. Why sea level dropping? New crisis? Quick! Everyone flush your toilets! National Geographic Society? | ||
| Blake |
>>> OK, so we should all listen to the retired weatherman. When discussing climate, it seems reasonable. You'd rather we listen to a failed politician, a proven liar, and the world's biggest hypocrite, and a moron when it comes to science? >>> To heck with the scientists. Why sea level dropping? What do the scientists you seem to favor, the ones on the big gov't payroll, say about that? What sea level and what temperature in ten years? | ||
| Sifo |
Buellkowski, Did I make any claim that it was any sort of in depth analysis of climate science? No, I represented it for what it is, a good place to start to understand the issue. This part of his caveat should be taken as truth though.
The current models are very inadequate and it's looking more and more like they have very serious flaws in their assumptions about water vapor. That's what makes this analysis interesting. It points out the effects of water vapor and how it has far more impact than any conceivable amount of CO2. The fact that the current models appear to have gotten the sign wrong on water vapor feed back is very troubling if you wish to trust the output. GIGO doesn't stand for Garbage In Gospel Out. This is critical, because it means that rather than CO2 being able to create a tipping point where you get a run away greenhouse effect as so many of the Chicken Little scientists claim, it will actually stabilize climate withing a stable range. This really shouldn't be too surprising because we know the Earth has been quite a bit warmer in history than current temps, yet the system shows itself to be stable rather than a run away unstable system. CO2 just doesn't have the ability to overpower water vapor. As for Broecker, his prediction is falling quite short and diverging from reality as we speak. Odd to make a big deal of his work though because it relies on Camp Century cycles to make his prediction (apparently incorrectly so too). Any one familiar with Camp Century cycles? I'm not either. It seems global warming models forgot all about Broeckers work for the past 35 years. Interesting that RealClimate chose not to show the graph of his prediction along with actual temperature. They just show a temperature graph with 1975 having his name on it. What's that supposed to show? Someone on a weatherman's blog put it together for us to see though. Kind of interesting. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/26/allergies-an d-dr-broecker/ Fahren, do you know what a meteorologist is? Do you think that this field of science just might have some insight into climate? Of course you feel better about following someone writing an op-ed piece "disproving" a paper before it's even published. Sorry, but that's just a hack with a keyboard. | ||
| Hootowl |
The sea levels are dropping because of over fishing. Damn. That's a good one. I need to sell that to the Sierra Club for their next round of guilt-trip fund raiser mass mailings. Not to say we're not over fishing...I think we are. | ||
| Aesquire |
First, who gives a crap about the consensus of the scientific community? They may all love poodles. Doesn't mean the Poodle is the best dog. ( My sister thinks so...but she has a poodle. ) Votes don't change the physics. Most scientists believed that rocks falling from the sky were impossible. Now Sky Watch looks for the next civilization killer. You want a scientist to respect? Steven Hawking. He had a theory on miniature black holes that he later found to be wrong. He reported that his earlier theory was incorrect, and moved on. People who are heavily invested in man made climate change, ( which I believe is real ) never admit error. It's religion, not science. You will perhaps notice that the plan to stop the ice age back in 1977 and stop the Soylent Green heat death in 1997 were exactly the same? Tax you more. Limit your energy use by raising the price. Impose international control on food and energy, to be run by people who are unelected and not accountable. Like the UN Human Rights Committee. Fahren, I'm all for alternative fuels, reducing our idiotic dependence on brutal dictatorships and unstable regimes for our energy needs. There may even be a very good reason to reduce CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, the known liars in the Movement have become the boy who cried wolf. Ever read the story? A bored shepard falsely calls for help just to get attention, and when a real crisis comes, he is ignored as a known liar. The sheep and village suffer for his lies. The same MAY be true about Mann and the CRU folk. NONE of the data they put out is valid, since they "lost" the raw data in a move. So all they have to work with is data massaged to fit the theory. How can I possibly believe them after they've gone to so much trouble to screw me? ( by the way, I never bother to read climate stuff from Exxon. Drilling technology papers, sure. I'm pretty sure they are biased on Climategate. ) Mann is full of crap. Here's an article biased for him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controve rsy Where's the medieval warm period? It was WARMER a thousand years ago. My ancestors grew rye in Greenland for goodness sake! Vinland had good wine grapes! England had good vineyards. The original graph only went to 1400. That made it certain that it would show the trend he desired, since 1400 was a damn cold and unhappy year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fa irs Finally, and with no connection to any other skeptic, when these bozo's told us all that the Earth getting 2 deg warmer would mean doom, despair and uberstorms, I had to stop and look at the data available. Because history tells us that 2 degrees warmer leads to record crops, population explosions, good times and less bad weather. Ask the Vikings. | ||
| Strokizator |
The sea levels are dropping because of over fishing. Maybe but how high would it rise if all the sponges in the ocean were to suddenly die? | ||
| Fahren |
Yeah, I think there are better things to do than argue back and forth about scientists and such. All I really wanted to say about it was what I wrote initially, which you pretty well covered:
I guess my take on slowing down emissions is about pollution, leaving the world cleaner than I found it, for my son and the other little folk to inherit. And I think we would all have a healthier individual and communal life on this planet if we spent less time chasing the almighty dollar to pay our monthlies and consuming the planet away, and more time with our friends and families. But I digress. :-) | ||
| Aesquire |
I used to joke, when the global warming thing got started, that if you want to stop global warming you just set off a partial nuclear winter. ( that's funny because nuclear winter has been I don't tell that joke much anymore. It's too true. | ||
| Aesquire |
If I may, a breakdown/my opinion. I guess my take on slowing down emissions is about pollution, leaving the world cleaner than I found it, for my son and the other little folk to inherit. Right on. And I think we would all have a healthier individual and communal life on this planet if we spent less time chasing the almighty dollar to pay our monthlies and consuming the planet away, and more time with our friends and families. Good idea. I'm a little behind the finance curve right now, and not willing to give up the ( not yet paid for) 40+mpg super clean car, so I'll have to continue as a wage slave a few more years. Note to self, buy more lotto tickets. In some ways, beyond the real concern that dishonest politicians are using junk science to steal my money & oppress me, The "boy who cried wolf" aspect may, in the end, be the most damaging. When charlatans use "science" to screw you, they lessen the respect people have for the very idea of the scientific method to find answers, and the people who use it. WHEN the "next bad thing" REALLY happens, a lot of folk just won't believe it. If you've been lied to about Global Warming, ( and dude, you have ) why believe them about the Supervolcano? Or the Canary Islands superslide & megatsunami? ( love disaster week on Discovery ) | ||
| Sifo |
I guess my take on slowing down emissions is about pollution, leaving the world cleaner than I found it, for my son and the other little folk to inherit. I'm with you on that Fahren! The problem is that it being done very dishonestly and leading throwing trillions down a rabbit hole controlling a "pollutant" that very likely will prove beneficial overall. Worst case it's likely to prove to be very neutral overall. There are far worse things that we should worry about, like mercury for instance. The focus on CO2 has us bring mercury right into you home with your son. I find that disturbing. | ||
| Fahren |
Me too, with a whole lot of other things. So many things, in fact, that I find myself wondering if it isn't a planned assault on the people's ability to process data. What better way to create a nation of Shoulder-shrugging, "Whatever*..." sheeple, so overwhelmed as to stop being able to put up any resistance. (*with no offense intended toward Char :-) | ||
| Blake |
>>> I guess my take on slowing down emissions is about pollution, leaving the world cleaner than I found it, for my son and the other little folk to inherit. And I think we would all have a healthier individual and communal life on this planet if we spent less time chasing the almighty dollar to pay our monthlies and consuming the planet away, and more time with our friends and families. A'men to that! Just don't tell me that my exhaled breath and CO2 elsewhere is a pollutant. | ||
| Fahren |
Actually, it's all the methane from the sheep poop in New Zealand, boring holes in the ozone layer. And cows. Way too many cows. | ||
| Blake |
Veganism for all! | ||
| Fahren |
Maybe Monsanto can engineer us up some poop-less, non-feeding livestock! | ||
| Aesquire |
There was a rumor that Kalifornia had put emission limits on Cows. There's a job for you, installing Cowtalytic Converters. MOOOOOO! Have you seen pic of the Sheep carrier that transports them live from Australia to the Red Sea area? Famous ships. ( no one wants to be down wind ) | ||
| Blake |
"Monsanto" BOOOOOOO!!!!!! Don't much care for their business model. | ||
| Gregtonn |
Okay, I'm back. Q: What are modern "bio-fuels" made from? A: Plants. Q: What atmospheric gas is required for plants to live? A: Carbon dioxide (CO2). Q: What happens if you take CO2 out of the atmosphere (vegans pay close attention)? A: Plants die. Q: Then where is you bio-fuel/vegan food source? A: Dead. Can you hear me now?  G | ||
| Aesquire |
Always with the negative waves Moriarty. Arguing that zero CO2 is going to kill the plants is as bad as the now shown WRONG "Ocean rise/Global Warming" dire predictions. The tens of millions of people who were supposed to have drowned and/or fled the island nations didn't make the news? The Oceans are not dead, nor are we. I understand the problem the rabid environuts face. A factual statement of environmental risk just doesn't get the headlines. If it does, the idiot talking head who reads the news others write would have zero understanding of the statistics and science behind his report... nor would most of the script writers, so the Truth wouldn't get reported right anyway. As an example. The Orion spaceship program that General Atomic had going back in the 50's and 60's would use nuclear bombs to loft amazingly large payloads. One plan would have been a direct, single stage lift to Saturn. ( at a time when the Moon was out of reach ) Another was a battlestation design that not only would have been capable of destroying entire enemy fleets, but by simply hovering over the enemy capital.... win the War in one shot. There was, however a small problem. Never mind the problem of not blinding anyone in eyeshot. The plutonium released by launching from ground level would, in time, cause an increase in cancer risk that was statistically calculable, but factually hard to describe to people who don't groove on statistics. ( most of us ) A .000000008% increase in risk is meaningless. But if you phrase it that "each launch will kill one person with cancer" (in a century, statistically, sorta ) you got good front page copy. How are you going to justify a program ( even though it might win WW3 or save mankind ) that "kills someone" every time you use it? The program was doomed. Never mind that more people die in vehicle accidents in training and off duty in the Army than enemy fire, Few people worry about crashing, while many worry about being shot. It's normal ( if screwy ) psychology. So, Ted Danson tells us on tv that if we don't do X the oceans will die in 10 years and so will we. The Oceans didn't die, and we're still here. ( we still have a serious problem with pollution and over fishing. I like to eat fish. I like to breathe. We need to keep working on that. ) But if he'd factually laid out the issues, it wouldn't have been as exciting, and he wouldn't have felt as self righteous as he really wanted to. Real science, real stewardship of our world, care more for actual results and truth. Environuts care more for how they feel about themselves. Evil &&^*'s care more about how they can use the environuts to gain wealth and power. That's the nutshell on the Global Warming Cult. | ||
| Gregtonn |
"Arguing that zero CO2 is going to kill the plants is as bad as..." Who said anything about zero CO2??? Thats how this crap gets started. Then there are the long winded posts where people take a point, put their own spin on it, and hammer it like a kettle drum. G | ||
| Aesquire |
 | ||
| Hootowl |
Kelly's heroes? | ||
| Blake |
Greg, I think Patrick was referring to
|
