BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
Page 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 ... 184

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan P.:

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
Forbes
By James Taylor | Forbes – 19 hrs ago

quote:
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.



quote:
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
...
When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.


The new findings could dramatically alter the global warming debate, if the purpose of the debate was actually science, and not wealth transfer.

The Alarmists should be called Climate Liars. Real science has proven the global warming religion is one huge scam. The Climate Liars can't rely on the facts because the facts prove them wrong so they resort to lying. Lying is their business; it puts money in their pockets and food on their table. Without the lies these people would be unemployed.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
2013 Sponsor
posted Hide Post
69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

Record Number Think Global Warming is Exaggerated

This is the Inevitable Result of abandoning the Scientific Method in favor of Political Activisim and "Consensus".
 
Location: Cowboy Country | Registered: December 06, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:


No they don't. Did you make this up johnny? or did you get it from the echo chamber

from the absrtact

quote:
We present a sea-ice record from northern Greenland covering the past 10,000 years. Multiyear sea ice reached a minimum between ~8500 and 6000 years ago, when the limit of year-round sea ice at the coast of Greenland was located ~1000 kilometers to the north of its present position. The subsequent increase in multiyear sea ice culminated during the past 2500 years and is linked to an increase in ice export from the western Arctic and higher variability of ice-drift routes. When the ice was at its minimum in northern Greenland, it greatly increased at Ellesmere Island to the west. The lack of uniformity in past sea-ice changes, which is probably related to large-scale atmospheric anomalies such as the Arctic Oscillation, is not well reproduced in models. This needs to be further explored, as it is likely to have an impact on predictions of future sea-ice distribution.


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:



Anyway, I found the article on the same page very interesting.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
Forbes
By James Taylor | Forbes – 19 hrs ago

quote:
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.


More BS from the echo chamber. this isn't from nasa it's a well known guy funded by the PR machine.

If I was in denial on this subject I think I'd be getting downright depressed on this whole "blow this agw scam out of the water" retoric. In the 10 years or so I've been following this subject closely this phrase has been used on almost a weekly basis and yet it hasn't ment squat in bringing down the theory of AGW. A perfectly normal denialist could go right around the bend hopeing against hope to stop this madness once and for all. That's got to take a toll on the belief system but hey, don't let a little thing like the facts ruin your faith boys

keep plugging away


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
More BS from the echo chamber. this isn't from nasa it's a well known guy funded by the PR machine.


How exactly is:
quote:
We acknowledge the modeling groups, the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and
Intercomparison (PCMDI) and the WCRP’s Working Group on Coupled Modeling (WGCM) for their
roles in making available the WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset from the CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) [11] radiative budget instruments on NASA’s Terra satellite . Support of this dataset is provided by the Office of Science, US Department of Energy. This research was sponsored by DOE contract DE-SC0005330 and NOAA contract NA09NES4400017.


quote:
11. Wielicki, B.A.; Barkstrom, B.R; Harrison, E.F.; Lee, R.B., III.; Smith, G.L.; Cooper, J.E. Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES): An earth observing system experiment. Bull.
Amer. Meteor. Soc. 1996, 77, 853-868.


So the US Department of Energy and the NOAA are the PR machine now?
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan P.:
quote:
More BS from the echo chamber. this isn't from nasa it's a well known guy funded by the PR machine.


How exactly is:
quote:
We acknowledge the modeling groups, the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and
Intercomparison (PCMDI) and the WCRP’s Working Group on Coupled Modeling (WGCM) for their
roles in making available the WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset from the CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) [11] radiative budget instruments on NASA’s Terra satellite . Support of this dataset is provided by the Office of Science, US Department of Energy. This research was sponsored by DOE contract DE-SC0005330 and NOAA contract NA09NES4400017.


quote:
11. Wielicki, B.A.; Barkstrom, B.R; Harrison, E.F.; Lee, R.B., III.; Smith, G.L.; Cooper, J.E. Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES): An earth observing system experiment. Bull.
Amer. Meteor. Soc. 1996, 77, 853-868.


So the US Department of Energy and the NOAA are the PR machine now?


no, they supplied the model but what happened to the model once Spencer got it? there wasn't much left once the hatchet job was done but getting it from those sources makes it look better in the headlines doesn't it?

almost official


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Yeah sure, whatever.
They're all conspiring against your One True Belief.
ROTFL



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
2013 Sponsor
posted Hide Post
Hey Dan,

I know you have problems accepting that AGW can't have the Scientific Method applied to it, but you know what... If the IPCC applied the Scientific method instead of using consensus, there wouldn't be a single denier.
 
Location: Cowboy Country | Registered: December 06, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
say Rick, If you actually knew what the scientific method was there would be a lot less posts.

As for johnny propaganda, well he wears his ignorance like a badge of honor.

And for how this was done it's nothing new, side show bob did the same a few years back and willie swoon years before that.

this is nothing new and no it doesn't blow agw out of the water.

sorry charly


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
2013 Sponsor
posted Hide Post
Dan,

The arguments against AGW do not need to "blow agw out of the water". They only have to sway public opinion. The ONLY purpose for quoting consensus is to sway public opinion. Consensus is a political justification.

Why in the world would the IPCC need to go to consensus if they didn't need to sway public opinion? Why is public opinion important? There is no such thing as an Ohms law denier! No one denies that frozen foods last longer than food left on the table. Both are testable using the scientific method and neither has a single denier. When the scientific method is applied, public opinion follows without debate.

quote:
If you actually knew what the scientific method was there would be a lot less posts.


Really?? Is that the best you can do? I personally think you are afraid to engage me in debate because you KNOW I'm right. The Scientific method can not be applied to AGW because it does not meet the repeatability requirement. Tests of the AGW hypothesis cannot be verified by independent testing. They can't say man is causing global warming because they can't test the climate both with and without man's contributions nor can the tests be independently verified with repetition.

The proper approach using the scientific method would be to alter the hypothesis to one that is testable.

The unchallengeable fact that AGW can not possibly have the scientific method applied to it, does not make AGW false. It opens AGW to political arguments designed to sway public opinion, in exactly the same way consensus is all about swaying public opinion in favor of AGW.

No, there are no arguments that "blow agw out of the water", but there are many many arguments that target public opinion of those less steadfast in their beliefs than you. Without public support, AGW apologists are impotent and irrelevent.
 
Location: Cowboy Country | Registered: December 06, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Rodents and sinking ships......

quote:
The Alarmists Lose A Voice
August 8, 2011 3:49 P.M.
By Greg Pollowitz

Andrew Revkin, blogger for the New York Times, posts:

For more than a decade, I’ve been probing changes in Arctic climate and sea ice and their implications for the species that make up northern ecosystems and for human communities there.

There are big changes afoot, with more to come should greenhouse gases continue to build unabated in the atmosphere. There will be impacts on human affairs in the Arctic, for worse and better, as we explored extensively in 2005 and I’ve followed here since.

But even as I push for an energy quest that limits climate risk, I’m not worried about the resilience of Arctic ecosystems and not worried about the system tipping into an irreversibly slushy state on time scales relevant to today’s policy debates. This is one reason I don’t go for descriptions of the system being in a “death spiral.”

The main source of my Arctic comfort level — besides what I learned while camped with scientists on the North Pole sea ice — is the growing body of work on past variability of conditions in the Arctic. The latest evidence of substantial past ice variability comes in a study in the current issue of Science. The paper, combining evidence of driftwood accumulation and beach formation in northern Greenland with evidence of past sea-ice extent in parts of Canada, concludes that Arctic sea ice appears to have retreated far more in some spans since the end of the last ice age than it has in recent years.


And here’s an excerpt from one of the reports Revkin is basing his analysis on:

Our studies show that there are great natural variations in the amount of Arctic sea ice. The bad news is that there is a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. And there is no doubt that continued global warming will lead to a reduction in the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures. Finally, our studies show that the changes to a large degree are caused by the effect that temperature has on the prevailing wind systems. This has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of the ice, as often portrayed in the media.

Imagine that. The science wasn’t as settled as we were told.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...oice-greg-pollowitz#


The alarmists have painted themselves into a corner. They embraced AGW with such emotional fervor, that now it's an integral part of their social identity and they can't go back without loosing face.

The alarmists have become the deniers as more and more scientific evidence disproves the AGW assumptions. So sad, but that's what happens when people jump on a bandwagon without seeing if it's on the right path. In all fairness, most of them didn't have the science aptitude to sort the truth from fiction so they were easily bamboozled by AlGore and his minions. They wanted so much to believe that the evil humans were causing it all. Next time look before you leap.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe
http://www.humanevents.com/art....php?id=45447&s=rcmp
by Audrey Hudson
08/11/2011

Polar bears drowning in an Alaskan sea because the ice packs are melting—it’s the iconic image of the global warming debate.

But the validity of the science behind the image—presented as an ignoble testament to our environment in peril by Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth—is now part of a federal investigation that has the environmental community on edge.

Special agents from the Interior Department’s inspector general's office are questioning the two government scientists about the paper they wrote on drowned polar bears, suggesting mistakes were made in the math and as to how the bears actually died, and the department is eyeing another study currently underway on bear populations.

Biologist Charles Monnett, the lead scientist on the paper, was placed on administrative leave July 18. Fellow biologist Jeffrey Gleason, who also contributed to the study, is being questioned, but has not been suspended.

The disputed paper was published by the journal Polar Biology in 2006, and suggests that the “drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues.”
...
Myron Ebell​, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that the government is expected to “spend trillions of dollars to save the world from global warming on the basis of what a few scientists say.”

“There needs to be due diligence, and we need to challenge and investigate every single claim. The public expects that,” Ebell said. “But we find over and over that shoddy science has been put forward, and in some cases, dishonest and manipulated science, and they say, ‘Trust us,’ ” Ebell said.

“It’s extremely irresponsible.”



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Dan,

The arguments against AGW do not need to "blow agw out of the water". They only have to sway public opinion.



Exactly. they are not scientific in most cases and these outrageous statements do nothing to advance scientific knowledge but instead to manipulate the public into believing there is dissent among scientists when there is none.

Why did a climate paper get submitted in a geology journal? one that's been around for just over 2 years? not exactly a prestigious journal is it?

Once past the editor it is now claimed to be Nasa's work (which is isn't) it is said that it (blows the agw theory out of the water (which it doesn't) but once put out with much hoopla this is all the public hears.

Climatologists have allready shown where the math is wrong and this will be properly rebutted and filed away as junk but the public won't get this tidbit of news a month or 2 from now and is left thinking this piss poor science is valid

this is the pr machine at work.

quote:
The Scientific method can not be applied to AGW because it does not meet the repeatability requirement.



Of course it can. That's your problem ,thinking your smarter than the scientists involved is just full of yourself. This report will go through more peer review where the math and whats left of this model will be subject to repeatability and scrutiny of the math and judged by it's merits, not public opinion.

You realy need to learn to be objective Rick and stop treating these sites you get your scientific opinion from as the truth. They're just shills for your belief system and get their funding from where? check that out if your faith can handle it

A deconstruct of the paper can be found

here by two REAL climatologists. gives you an idea what this paper is in for with peer review

quote:
The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).


One other thing; do you realy believe that James Taylor just found this article right after it was published in a obscure geology journal among the hundreds of journals out there?

he knew where to look. as well as the echo chamber. see what wuwt posted and see if it's responsible reporting.

assuming you can do that


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Climate denial: what you do when you're bored of pimping Creationism, Intelligent Design, the idea that two packs of cigarettes a day isn't a problem, and the notion that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and you have some free time to kill.

Have you EVER known Dr. Stephen Hawking to make public pronouncements about scientific issues he's given less than careful amounts of attention to?

When you can give me a compelling reason to think he's all wet, but Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck have it all figured out....I'll eat your hat.
 
Registered: October 27, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Have you EVER known Dr. Stephen Hawking to make public pronouncements about scientific issues he's given less than careful amounts of attention to? When you can give me a compelling reason to think he's all wet,.....I'll eat your hat.

Stephen Hawking enjoys taking whirlpool baths, it helps to ease the discomfort of his disability, so yes 'he's all wet' on occasion. You can eat your own hat.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
And I like spending a little time in the jacuzzi with the wife. No hat eating required.
 
Registered: October 27, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post



member
2013 Sponsor
posted Hide Post
For those who thoght AGW apoligists were running out of steam:





In other Climate news, Michael Mann of Hockey stick and Hide the Decline fame was cleared by the National Science Foundation when they found "no evidence of research misconduct". They did not, however, rule out incompetence. But then, does it really matter when were all going to be killed and eaten by alien space invaders?
 
Location: Cowboy Country | Registered: December 06, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I just keeps getting better and better:

quote:
Global warming runs out of gas


Rex Murphy, National Post · Aug. 20, 2011

For those who have a wish to hear the grating sound of a man distempered and frustrated that the cause for which he has given at least a decade of his time, the "greatest moral challenge of our time," is lost, I recommend listening to Al Gore as he was captured during an address at an Aspen global warming conference two weeks ago. It is a revelation.

Mr. Gore is not a happy Jeremiah. You hear him on the tape near rage, repeatedly shouting "bulls--t" over the arguments of his critics. He raves about conspiracy - a rebirth of the tactics of the dreaded tobacco industry of a few decades back. He blames "media manipulation" for the refusal of people to take up his gloomy summons. He hisses at "volcanoes and sunspots" as having much or anything to do with climate. "Bulls--!" he cries over and over - perhaps it's the methane content that has him mesmerized with the word. Listen to this aria: "They pay pseudo-scientists to pretend to be scientists to put out the message: 'This climate thing, it's nonsense. Man-made CO2 doesn't trap heat. It may be volcanoes.' Bulls-t! 'It may be sun spots.' Bulls--t! 'It's not getting warmer.' Bulls--t!"

Can a person win the Nobel Peace prize twice? I surely hope so, for this is the E=mc² moment of our green time.

It is not a pretty display. The question the sorry little rant calls up is whether, in its way, this temper fit was a signal that the great global warming crusade, that has had such a sweet run for the last decade or more, is finally over. Has it run, so to speak, out of gas?

The signs are everywhere that it has. Here in Canada, for example, how far are we from those days when Stéphane Dion was the freshly-minted leader of the Liberal party, having ascended to that dubious altitude largely on the pledge that he was going to build a "green" Canada. It was telling that within the Liberal party at that time featly to a drastic and nebulous green agenda was enough to grab the leadership prize away from the perceived stronger candidates, Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff. As so often happens, however, much as they are embraced by celebrities and touted by inside "experts," when so-called green politics are placed before the people those politics and the people who espouse them are forcefully rejected.

Some five or so years later, not a little of Stephen Harper's success in gaining a majority government came from refusing to engage, in any serious and convincing manner, with the politics of the planet-savers. Political correctness dictates some tepid genuflection towards the obsession with a warming planet, but Harper - and people know this - can be counted on not to jump on the carbon-counting express. He can be counted on to not bend in the face of the manufactured fury presented by professional activists and environmentalists, either to slow or stop the oil sands or introduce some ludicrous and wasteful "tax" on carbon dioxide. And while it may be a footnote to the national trend, Rob Ford's election as mayor of Toronto can also be read, in part, as a rebuke to the previous mayor's incessant tinkering with "environmental" measures - from plastic bag surcharges to bike lanes - at the expense of more basic municipal functions.

These are merely the local Canadian signals. But one can skip the globe and find almost everywhere that governments, staring at the reality of recession and financial anxiety, have given up on their vague projections of green economics. Where is President Obama, who promised that on his accession "the rise of the oceans will start to slow and the planet begin to heal?" - surely the most fatuous declaration in the history of politics. Well, he appears to be giving speeches every second day, but none of them feature the retreating oceans or our healed planet.

In fact he's been tooling around in a $2-million bus oblivious of the carbon costs, and there simply hasn't been any signal that his White House is giving the great Gore crusade anything but the barest of rhetorical support. If there were any political value to ardent greensmanship, surely a President who is floundering on the economy and sinking in the polls would have grabbed that raft with a passion.

But there isn't anymore. Perhaps the recession has tamed the imaginations of most people and their governments. In tight economic times people are naturally unwilling to engage in the comicbook fantasies of the wilder environmentalists. Perhaps Climategate gave a too-souring glimpse into the mixture of science and advocacy that has, to some extent, corrupted both. Perhaps, finally, the unctuousness, sanctimony and sputtering righteousness of the highprofile environmentalists signal to most observers that they aren't really as certain of all this "science" as they pretend to be. Either way this long green game has lost its fundamental energies. The celebrities will find another wristband; the politicians will find a new vague distraction.

For that, Mr. Gore himself has a lot of blame to carry. His own "sputtering righteousness" and his adolescent barks of "bulls--t" to his critics may be a reverse of the Obama declaration. Gore's meltdown might just be the moment when the people of the planet saw the carney show for what it was.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 ... 184 
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014