What Happened To Global Warming, it's NOT!!

[nnuut]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

There's no cure for STUPID!!

 

[grandma]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

Dixie Lee Ray, one time Govenor of Washington State, was a marine biologist, well respected scientist, author. I found lots of her quotes on the search engines, but not the documentation where she said these. One thing she didn't believe was global warming. And if I knew where to look here at home for those saved hometown newspapers, I could give you the details. However, :notrust: to say that "all the top scientists of the nation believe in this" (global warming) is to imply a person is Not a True nor great scientist simply because he/she doesn't follow the trend - and that is outright, blatant, deception. Thank God for the guys of yore that bucked the heirochy.
http://www.argee.net/Thrawn Rickle/Thrawn Rickle 50.htm

 

[malyla]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

Never mind.

I do believe in questioning, but using the tools of pundentry in blogs to refute peer review scientific research is not the way to change the facts. I also know that groups will use these facts to spin their point of view whether that be going totally green or staying business as usual. Our policy makers will be the ones that have the final say on the direction we take. We could ignore the science and just continue business as usually and react to the climate changes as they happen or we can make small steps towards limiting CO2 emission which will lead to new technology, more energy independance from the middle east, and just a little more control over our enviroment. There are powerful forces for business as usual as oil is BIG business and is the worlds main energy source. Any thing that threatens that supremacy is in for a very hard fight and sometimes that fight leads to extreme behavior and comments on both sides of the issue. 'What to do' is the battleground. The science is not perfect, but it is overwelmingly showing that global warming and the climate change consequences are real. This other opinion about global warming being a hoax is just a smoke screen to cover up for no better argument about 'what do to'. I'm of two opinions on what to do: Nothing and react to the changes, however, this causes extreme reactions that I do not like or in most cases do not want to live through; or do something to limit the releasing of million year old solar energy locked up in the carbon of plants and liquidfied or compressed into oil,gas,coal for release today through the buring of this fossil fuel. We are changing the energy balance of the planet by releasing this previously trapped energy and we can continue to control this energy balance by controlling the thermostat to keep the climate comfortable for the majority of humans. It would be the first 'conscience' step in terraforming a planet for human habitation. I recommend baby steps but steps never-the-less.

 

[WorkFE]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

Just told my boss I was shutting down the computer and turning out the light to save us money. He recommended getting rid of me would save more.

 

[OBGibby]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

...enjoy life and not feel guilty about farting once in a while..

In case anyone was wondering, I have no guilt. None. I expend it every chance I get.

As far as the global warming scam goes: Man was still squatting in outhouses one hundred years ago, yet the global warming crowd wants me to believe that they know accurate temperature readings going back centuries. Think about that - we were freezing our collective asses off literally just a millisecond ago in the history of the earth, yet we have people who tells us (with a straight face, no less!) that they KNOW it was warmer now than some year "way back when."

 

[malyla]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

In case anyone was wondering, I have no guilt. None. I expend it every chance I get.

As far as the global warming scam goes: Man was still squatting in outhouses one hundred years ago, yet the global warming crowd wants me to believe that they know accurate temperature readings going back centuries. Think about that - we were freezing our collective asses off literally just a millisecond ago in the history of the earth, yet we have people who tells us (with a straight face, no less!) that they KNOW it was warmer now than some year "way back when."

Here is a great source on the hockey-stick controversy about temperatures and the proxies for temperatures. It is also a good example of how peer review processes work in the scientific community. This process can take decades but usually is shorter (years) with modern scientific data sets and techniques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

At the request of the U.S. Congress, a special "Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years" was assembled by the National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. The Committee consisted of 12 scientists from different disciplines and was tasked with explaining the current scientific information on the temperature record for the past two millennia, and identifying the main areas of uncertainty, the principal methodologies used, any problems with these approaches, and how central the debate is to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change.
The panel published its report in 2006.[29] The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect. The report summarizes its main findings as follows:[30]

• The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.
• Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.
• It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
• Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
• Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

In response, a group-authored post on RealClimate, of which Mann is one of the contributors, stated, "the panel has found reason to support the key mainstream findings of past research, including points that we have highlighted previously."[31] Similarly, according to Roger A. Pielke, Jr., the National Research Council publication constituted a "near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.";[32] Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph."[33]

 

[grandma]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

Never mind.
I do believe in questioning, but using the tools of pundentry in blogs to refute peer review scientific research is not the way to change the facts. I also know that groups will use these facts to spin their point of view whether that be going totally green or staying business as usual. Our policy makers will be the ones that have the final say on the direction we take. We could ignore the science and just ....

First - I was not aware that the link about Gov Dixie (as she was called)was a blog -my familiarity with blogs is what I see/read on this MB. I hadn't been able to locate what I was looking for, saw that, & thought it would be an interesting introduction to her for the folks on this MB too young, or too far away from the Pacific Northwest to recognize her. So, yes, I agree that is no way to debate a point, and I apologize to you for using it. But the point that I am or she was, refuting peer review is questionable when there is, and has been, peer review on both sides of this fence. I will acknowledge that some of the scientific journals have been reluctant to print anything that is not of their editorial viewpoint. Even as she was a notable scientist in her own right. As for groups - I doubt if even Dixie's most adamant opponent would ever say she was part of any group. And during her time, she didn't need to `spin facts,' for any point-of-view.
My education is not scientifically technical, in fact, it isn't scientific at all,
but I am able to glean enough from the different (underscore DIFFERENT) news reports to determine for myself which seems the most reliable ...
... that any global warming going on is cyclical, is not caused by humans, and if enough carbon is eliminated to satisfy these scientists, humans will have to be on oxygen masks. :nuts:
That fact remains there are two camps here, two opposing ideas, both presenting information, however, one pushing scare & manipulated data.....
grandma

 

[Buster]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

Since Wikipedia is in reality a vast and changing document the answers can only be general. The information contained in Wikipedia, like all information, depends on the knowledge or the ability of the person giving the information. Where they don't have specific knowledge of a particular subject they rely on the accuracy of their sources of information, which may be limited or, in questions of opinion, may give a somewhat biased view, (as everyone tends to do) based on the conclusions they have reached from their own viewpoint and/or study.

Another problem with Wikipedia is that it is 'consensus driven' in that the policy regarding answers relating to opinion requires a consensus view to be put. This may be the correct view, or as we all know, 'the majority is not always right.' The majority once thought the earth was the center of the universe. Thus we end up with pooled ignorance.

On matters of opinion, such as religious or moral questions, there must be due recognition that any answer will inevitably reflect either the bias of the writer of the article or the current consensus view or what the author or authors think is the current consensus view. All of these could be wrong, either in whole or in part, but will naturally be well-presented as fact and with supporting argumentation, which may or may not be spurious, if one does not have the knowledge to critique it.

In other words, as with anything, learn to check your facts, no matter how well argued.

 

[malyla]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

I will acknowledge that some of the scientific journals have been reluctant to print anything that is not of their editorial viewpoint.

to determine for myself which seems the most reliable ...
... that any global warming going on is cyclical, is not caused by humans, and if enough carbon is eliminated to satisfy these scientists, humans will have to be on oxygen masks. :nuts:

What proof do you have on the first assertion that scientific journals are biased? The process for peer review and publication is a time consuming rigorous process not allowing for editorial viewpoint to decide the publishability of a paper. If the author can support their conclusion with valid data using the scientific method, then the paper is published. If the author can not prove their conclusion with data using a repeatable scientific method, then it will not be published. Even if it's published, it's always open for challenge causing more proof to be presented. It is VERY embarrassing to a scientist when an error that changes the results of their conclusion is found after publication as reputation is everything in the science community.
What do you have to back up your second assertion? The data is laid out, that this global warming in more than natural forcings, in the IPCC report. It's not that long and is the current state of climate change research. It even tells you where the controversies still exist and what scientists are still working on. We will not need gas masks and we can breathe a lot of CO2 and survive. So can the Earth. It's the warming that CO2 causes that changes, both short and long term, weather patterns which can affect humans and species on the ground. That's the concern.:worried:

 

[malyla]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

Since Wikipedia is in reality a vast and changing document the answers can only be general. The information contained in Wikipedia, like all information, depends on the knowledge or the ability of the person giving the information. Where they don't have specific knowledge of a particular subject they rely on the accuracy of their sources of information, which may be limited or, in questions of opinion, may give a somewhat biased view, (as everyone tends to do) based on the conclusions they have reached from their own viewpoint and/or study.

Another problem with Wikipedia is that it is 'consensus driven' in that the policy regarding answers relating to opinion requires a consensus view to be put. This may be the correct view, or as we all know, 'the majority is not always right.' The majority once thought the earth was the center of the universe. Thus we end up with pooled ignorance.

On matters of opinion, such as religious or moral questions, there must be due recognition that any answer will inevitably reflect either the bias of the writer of the article or the current consensus view or what the author or authors think is the current consensus view. All of these could be wrong, either in whole or in part, but will naturally be well-presented as fact and with supporting argumentation, which may or may not be spurious, if one does not have the knowledge to critique it.

In other words, as with anything, learn to check your facts, no matter how well argued.

So attack the book jacket and not the information inside. Clever:toung:

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

Never mind.

I do believe in questioning, but using the tools of pundentry in blogs to refute peer review scientific research is not the way to change the facts. I also know that groups will use these facts to spin their point of view whether that be going totally green or staying business as usual. Our policy makers will be the ones that have the final say on the direction we take. We could ignore the science and just continue business as usually and react to the climate changes as they happen or we can make small steps towards limiting CO2 emission which will lead to new technology, more energy independance from the middle east, and just a little more control over our enviroment. There are powerful forces for business as usual as oil is BIG business and is the worlds main energy source. Any thing that threatens that supremacy is in for a very hard fight and sometimes that fight leads to extreme behavior and comments on both sides of the issue. 'What to do' is the battleground. The science is not perfect, but it is overwelmingly showing that global warming and the climate change consequences are real. This other opinion about global warming being a hoax is just a smoke screen to cover up for no better argument about 'what do to'. I'm of two opinions on what to do: Nothing and react to the changes, however, this causes extreme reactions that I do not like or in most cases do not want to live through; or do something to limit the releasing of million year old solar energy locked up in the carbon of plants and liquidfied or compressed into oil,gas,coal for release today through the buring of this fossil fuel. We are changing the energy balance of the planet by releasing this previously trapped energy and we can continue to control this energy balance by controlling the thermostat to keep the climate comfortable for the majority of humans. It would be the first 'conscience' step in terraforming a planet for human habitation. I recommend baby steps but steps never-the-less.

I believe the CO2 problem will indeed get worse as a result of man's manipulation of the environment. You will see the best example in Southern California, where water shortages are forcing municipalities to impose water rationing and are encouraging land owners to install "draught" resistant plants or fake grass in order to save water. This will cause CO2 levels to rise, because people either aren't watering their grass, or have replaced real oxygen producing plants with fake ones, and there will not be enough plants to take CO2 out of the air and release Oxygen back into the air. It's a self fulfilling prophecy caused by environmentalists.

By the way, why is there a water shortage in Southern California? Environmentalists are trying to save a sardine like fish up near Sacramento and have made it near impossible for sufficient fresh water to be sent to Southern California. There's also not enough water to go to farms, so many of the states farmers aren't growing crops, which is driving up the cost of food in the state.

Why do environmentalists hate human beings so much?

 

[CountryBoy]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

I burned a tire this past weekend in honor of Algore. Seriously though some scientists have actually considered starting controlled forest fires, based on the hypothosis that the smoke would block out the suns rays and cool the earth. Climate is always changing and in 40 years scientist will be sying were entering a new ice age, like they claimed in the mid 70's.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513242,00.html (Now he can control the weather.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3800402.html

These don't carry the scientific authority that wiki foes, but on a moments notice.

CB

 

[malyla]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

Climate is always changing and in 40 years scientist will be sying were entering a new ice age, like they claimed in the mid 70's.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513242,00.html (Now he can control the weather.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3800402.html
These don't carry the scientific authority that wiki does, but on a moments notice.

CB

Thanks CB. Interesting that policy makers are looking at fixing the problem (cooling the Earth) by everything other than stopping the greenhouse gas emissions. These other solutions are quicker than slowing the supertanker by eliminating the CO2 emissions, but highly technical and have unknown consequences but at least they are talking about solutions. I think we need a decade-long series of active volcanism to naturally shield the Earth from the Sun in an aerosol mirror, but I don't know how to get a volcano to erupt (Where is Goldfinger when we need him?). I hope a nuclear winter solution is taken off the table quickly with the guy who suggests it getting thrown out of the room:worried:

Hey - this is my 500 post <party at my place>:nuts:

 

[nnuut]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

Congratulations on your 500th post malyla, and a bunch or GOOD ONES they were!!

 

[grandma]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

Congratulations on your 500th post malyla, and a bunch or GOOD ONES they were!!

ditto !!!

 

[Buster]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

You really want something to worry about?....Try "the coming Ice Age"

[FONT=times new roman,times]Global warming predictions by meteorologists are based on speculative, untested, and poorly constrained computer models. But our knowledge of ice ages is based on a wide variety of reliable data, including cores from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. In this case, it would be perspicacious to listen to the geologists, not the meteorologists. By reducing our production of carbon dioxide, we risk hastening the advent of the next ice age. Even more foolhardy and dangerous is the Obama administration's announcement that they may try to cool the planet through geoengineering. Such a move in the middle of a cooling trend could provoke the irreversible onset of an ice age. It is not hyperbole to state that such a climatic change would mean the end of human civilization as we know it.[/FONT]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_coming_ice_age.html

 

[malyla]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

You really want something to worry about?....Try "the coming Ice Age"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_coming_ice_age.html

This was discredited in the 1990s. If no extra greenhouse gas warming occurred, then yes, natural forcings would lead to cooling (maybe not for the same reason as the event that caused the little ice age even though they site it). BUT, the greenhouse effect has been augmented by human burning of stored solar energy and that has led to the 90% probability that the lack of sun spots will NOT lead to the cooling effects of a new ice age. It may lead to a slowdown of the climate change we have seen as of date, but, it will continue. Humans CAN affect the enviroment. The choice is to recognize this and therefore control it or just let events roll over us as we continue 'business as usual'. I love a debate, but this one is rather one sided when it come to real evidence (using conservative blogs to make a point where no clear evidence is presented has reach the tedious stage). So, enjoy your 'yelling fire in a crowded movie theater' time. One of these times you might be right and actually save some people (although how you offset that from the deaths of people trampled in the previous false alarms is debatable). G.L.

 

[wv-girl]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

Hi All,

Been real busy lately, but came across this link earlier this evening. I didn't take the time to see if someone here has already posted, so if it has please forgive the possible double post.
Another view:

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?p=572

 

[Buster]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

This was discredited in the 1990s.

Funny..it mentions the Obama admin..didn't he just get elected last November?....I could of sworn he did

[FONT=times new roman,times]Global warming predictions by meteorologists are based on speculative, untested, and poorly constrained computer models. But our knowledge of ice ages is based on a wide variety of reliable data, including cores from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. In this case, it would be perspicacious to listen to the geologists, not the meteorologists. By reducing our production of carbon dioxide, we risk hastening the advent of the next ice age. Even more foolhardy and dangerous is the Obama administration's announcement that they may try to cool the planet through geoengineering. Such a move in the middle of a cooling trend could provoke the irreversible onset of an ice age. It is not hyperbole to state that such a climatic change would mean the end of human civilization as we know it.[/FONT]

 

[malyla]

Re: What Happened To Global Warming

Funny..it mentions the Obama admin..didn't he just get elected last November?....I swear he did

YAWN! :notrust:

Good night and good bye. If you actually read the IPCC reports or any peer reviewed papers - send me a PM and we will discuss them. I'm out of here.