Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 76
view profile
History
New study into global temperaturesPage 4 of 15    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)

I'm a climate change (carbon related) denier *fart*.. tax that Gore !! Good bye all thanks for the chat!!!

Mighty candid of you to reveal the source of your output on this thread.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 77
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/30/2011 6:46:52 AM
Explain a very simple question then

As its openly admitted by pro AGW organisations like NASA that we know barely anything about how the clouds, sun, multidecadal tidal flows and negative climate vents all interact how exactly can an "acurate" model be created without what are undeniably the largest climate influences being understood?

The answer is simply that they "cant" what they "can" do those, is be deliberately tweaked with only the less impactive climate influences until you get the right answer, the one you wanted from the outset. But not one arrived at by having an effective and reliable representation of how the climate ACTUALLY works

Theyre two very different things

Its akin to publising the emissions data of a car without having any information about the type of engine it has and what sort of exhaust system in installed, and basing it on the drag of the tyres, the drag of the wing mirrors and the colour of the fluffy dice
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 78
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/30/2011 7:32:06 AM
Mike, you seem to have a very limited understanding of how science works. You are trying to build a case to IGNORE ALL FINDINGS, until such time as EVERYTHING ABOUT A SITUATION IS THOROUGHLY UNDERSTOOD.

If we followed THAT notion, we'd never have even learned to find shelter in caves, and would still be cowering in the bushes.

I side with those who think instead, that "smoke" is sufficient indication of a concern about the possibility of fire, to take steps to mitigate the danger from that possible fire. You would prefer that we wait until the house is nothing but embers on the ground.

You would wait until EVERY scientist signs a joint declaration of certainty, before listening to ANY of them.

I am glad that you have no more than one vote to choose the direction of anyone else's fate.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 79
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/30/2011 7:38:12 AM

We know that in every other measure of human impact on the planet, that we indeed are wiping out biodiversity, depleting soils, deforesting the planet, drying up aquifers, polluting the commons, including the ocean, acid rain, distribution of mercury globally, acidified oceans, etc..etc... To somehow draw the line on human impacts somehow being incapable of impacting our extraordinarily thin layer of life supporting atmosphere does not fly in the actual scientific community


This is a very different spect though, distrusting that the people living off the money train of carbon taxing and amassing quite huge fortunes as a result are going to be either unbiased, objective or even truthful about the effects of CO2 on the climate isnt by any stretch of the imagination saying that pollution, tipping, deforestation and anything else should just be allowed to continue unchecked

its not even saying that CO2 should be left unchecked infact

I can see any reason why anything that we (mankind) produce either directly or indirectly shouldnt be addressed or alternatives found and I doubt theres many people except for those equally making huge fortunes out of it like the driving forces behind trying to enforce more and more direct and indirect carbon taxes that would

The difference is actually one between making changes that will MASSIVELY impact on people right now that lack any actual proof of having any valid claims behind them of a looming imminent apocalypse as opposed to addressing ALL issues equally and gradually such as methane, reclaiming or replacing naturally or man deforested/devegetated areas. Better recylcling maybe even replacing deciduous trees with evergreens or culling termites or whatever

The global effects of the types of things being proposed arent proven to have any noticeable influence on the climate. However the financial impacts of them WILL have a global impact on the majority of the population of the earth, and a more devastating one the poorer the person and IMO thats the real crux here

Theres nothing at all to stop countries banning ALL cars over 1.5 litre as an example, but instead they still allow them to be made and sold, and simply tax them out of poor peoples hands, theres nothing to stop a "green government" from putting money into hydroelectric electricity in much greater amounts, nuclear too even for the short term but instead they opt for just putting more and more tax at various points in the system on the existing methods of generation

Whichever side of the arguement you look at when you follow the "real" and identifiable effects they will have the climate aspect is still "unknown" as we dont even begin to understand how the climate works

But the revenue generation however is very clear to see, and organisations like the IPCC have immense amounts of people who make imense amounts of money either from being employed by them, having their research funded by them or by making billions from their postulations (CCX and GIH being prime examples)

And thats what IMO seems to be whats actually being primarily objected to, the fact that the "science" being used to justify it is also rather flaky is at best a half of the objection

With a fraction of the money being pumped into "climate" we could easily get rid of world hunger, drought, provide glohal free healthcare at a bnsic level, provide the third world with green energy, plant immense forests etc etc

The CCX itself turns over 10 trillion dollars per year making countless million and billionaires in the process. But does nothing else of any real note in terms of improving the planet, other than fund the push for more carbon restrictions which in turn will increase its trading and therefore its profits

Imagine what could be done worlwide with that 10 trillion dollars?

And that just ONE of the worlds carbon exchanges, and without factoring in all the other associated revenue sinkholes associated with the pro AGW revenue generating machine
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 80
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/30/2011 10:39:12 AM
Show a link that disproves theres hundreds if not thousands of people making immense fortunes from AGW then if such "supporting info" is so relevant

The thing there is that its effectively pointless really apart from the financial side of things that is clearly viewable and actually has to be documented for legal reasons so its hardly a "conspiracty theory" the CCX and GIH have to publish annual financial reports and list directors and funding

But the whole "ooh I wanna link" stuff does become trite, I dont bother asking you for the same because for the most part I'm quite capable of finding the sort of things you would post anyway all by myself, same as youre just as capable of finding the types of things I'd post if I could be bothered

But as with a religous arguement all it would be is links showing people that are pro AGW saying why they think the pro AGW stance is right, and people who discount AGW saying why they think thats right

So its a pointless circular endeavor really, and doesnt actually provide truth nor fact, just two sides that each think theyre right but with niether side actually having the science to definitively prove their right

Because each thinks what they have "does" prove it doesnt actually mean it does, as it takes far less for someone with a belief of a particular thing or a vested financial social or political reason for it to be supported to "see" what they want to see

The same goes for both sides not just one

And as the thread already shows, no matter which link is provided theres an opposing one with an equally reknowned scientists discounting it endlessly and clinging to the claims rather than the base material in many cases

As I have said several times which youre selectively ignoring, even NASA (a very PRO AGW organisation) openly states that clouds are one of the biggest climate drivers, more impactive than all other atmospheric gases combined by a large margin infact its stated by many scientists

Yet NASA do state they know little to nothing about how clouds work, what their exact influence is and even whether warming temperatures would cause a cloud mixture that would cause a net cooling or warming effect as they just dont understand them "yet" and need to do a lot more research

So, what we do keep coming back to, and is the reason I do as you point out keep saying it is that there are several of the MAJOR climate driving systems with clouds being just one of them that although being researched right now are barely understood at all

And without not just a basic understanding of them, but an indepth and very extensive knowledge the idea that we can "model" a climate without them is and will remain a ludicrous concept irrespective of how many PhDs or links to stuff written by people with them somebody might have
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 81
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/30/2011 12:04:52 PM
Missing the point Mike. You make wild, exagerated, unsbstantiated claims without the willingness to at least try to document or quantify your barrage of bs.

And to replace native forests with plantations? You don't appear to study things much either. Plantations only sequester half the carbon as native woodlands do, and rarely if ever recapture all the soil carbon lost during the pillage of a forest to plant a monoculture. Conversion of native forests to plantations is currently one of the biggest carbon bombs going off. Plantations wear out soils quickly from rapid, repeated cutting, and many may take centuries or more to sequester as much soil carbon than the native forests they replaced.

And your select focus/cherry picking on one or two greenwashers, neglects those who profit most from making the world hot and unstable, agribusiness and the fossil fuels industries. They get us both ways, paid handsomely to trash the place and then again to pretend they give a sh*t and have a plan.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/100845/corporations_have_big_plans_to_profit_from_global_warming/

The best paid scientists in the "debate" are those deniers employed by the pillage people. Again..follow the money.
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_denial_machine.html
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 82
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/30/2011 1:27:36 PM
I didnt say replace natural forests with plantations though did I?

I said planting new forests, but ever green ones rather than deciduous, but I'd also extend the comment to include trying to expand and stimulate grassed areas too as well as pumping more research money away from AGW issues that arent likely to get a definitive answer any time soon and into desalination research for reclaiming some of the expanding desert areas and providing clean water to areas where water is scarce which IMO is a far more important and urgent "problem", so urgent infact people in their thousands die from it daily rather than "maybe, possibly, perhaps" in a few hundred years or so

And as the CCX alone already generates over 10 trillion dollars, the money arguement really doesnt hold much water, the same corporations or more acurately their shareholders benefit from both sides of the coin.The rockerfellers for one pop up both in the big oil interests and the pressure applied to push the pro AGW side of the equation

If you think carbon credits and carbon taxes are "chump change" youre living under a rock, in the UK around 80% of what is paid for each litre of fuel is government duty which is imposed as a carbon tax. Which is then taxed again in the form of VAT

And that same model is going on in most countries which doesnt leave much for the oil companies themselves to make money out of as the government already takes 4.5ths under the guise of green taxes then another 20% of the total on top for VAT

So not denying the oil companies dont make a LOT of money, but the government takes well over 80% of the retail so who is making "the most" big oil or governments?
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 83
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/30/2011 6:02:37 PM

Mike you make a claim and you want me to disprove it ? Is it unreasonable to expect you to evidence your claims


The list of investors and shareholders of any company that trades in carbon credits would be "evidence", infact al gore was one of the founder members of GIH which is the UK carbon credit exchange, Obama provided the funding for the CCX carbon exchange in the US


Unless you are failing to note I put up a survey with the link and you discredited without reading it


What I discredited was that it was a concensus of 97% of climatologists or climate related scientists. And that if you pick any type of arguement of this nature from evolution through to the validity of the aids hypothesis then a group of scientists supporting either side WILL get you a high percentage of "concensus" in every instance

And then on the other side only asking ones who support that side will also get the same level of concensus too miraculously

Ask an equal amount from each side though and you will only get a 50/50 split

So I wasnt saying there wasnt a concnsus in that group, just that you will always get a concensus when you cherry pick a selective group with a shared belief system

The only "concensus" there seems to be is that there is probably some global warming, the cause of that warming however is the sticking point


Let me give you an example. Darwin proposed evolution/origin of the species. Whilst this theory was widely accepted [after time with many people being incredulous we were related to apes as it was obviously not true] no one knew how till Wtason and Crick discovered DNA


The analogy is reasonable, but factor in eugenics. That was considered "science" until the start of the 193os when the Nazi party expressed many almost identical views on genetic purity and cleansing at which point it started to vanish

But before that it was taught as "science" in most universities around the world, and as with the AGW arguement was claimed to be "self evident" and unquestionable with fortunes spent on "supporting research" and political leaders the world over heralding its unquestionable scientific basis and was pushed by world leaders, celebrities and anyone else the public might listen to whilst also being used as a vehicle to try and maintain the crap conditions in the third world

Very much like the AGW religion infact

This methodology is far from new, its just a different topic.


I wish you well in planting stuff to stop AGW – It is not enough and does not work fast enough – again it shows your ignorance of the basic processes at work here


I havent said AGW needs "stopping", thats the claim of the pro AGW scaremongers, as for fast enough. The predicted "tipping point" in 1998 based on climate models didnt happen, niether did the date they postponed it too which I think was 2006, then the next was 2011 which seems to have been cancelled too as the new predicted climactic tipping point is currently about 2017 I think, which no doubt will also fail to materialise (based on the acuracy to predict the climate so far)

So "fast"enough when the climate is clearly not understood and when the major driving factors arent even understood is kind of vaccuous as theres no valid time frame for the doom and gloom that can be stated with any acuracy

Infact if I recall correctly with the current warming that has been recorded it will be around 2o0 years before we reach the same global temperatures we had in the middle ages warm spell. So thats quite a bit of time to get a lot of planting done really

Assuming that the climate doesnt start to cool of course after the solar zenith is reached in the next 10 years or so of course


The second point given the fact that NASA agree with AGW [ i am assuming this is true I don’t know]then the discussion is now only about what affect AGW will have on clouds. You need to accept AGW and then accept we are only discussing what happens – are you prepared to do this?


Without pro AGW funding to keep nasa going they would in the current climate face massive downsizing and with current federal cuts could actually risk almost dissapearing other than being maintained for monitoring of existing data acquisition

So their "pro agw" status doesnt really prove anything they say is truthful and certainly not unbiased, because without taking the pro AGW stance they would be in dire straits and struggling for funding

As their actual statement regarding clouds which I have already posted on the thread says that cloud increases due to warming (natural or otherwise) could equally cause the climate to cool or rise as well as just acting as a corrective steadying mechanism that without further research no conclusions can be reached

Meaning they cant actually say either way UNTIL they have researched it

So no, the fact theyre pro AGW doesnt mean anything of the sort. And just because theyre pro AGW by itself doesnt mean clouds will increasing will even be due to mankind, nor can it be assumed that an increase or even decrease in clouds will cause either warming or cooling

Because the way they work, their interaction with the solar radiation and the suns fluctuations and their interaction with oceanic patterns isnt understood

But at least they deserve respect for actually being honest about that



Without oil the companies make nothing without “green taxes” government still make money. FFS mike like tax would stop or oil was not taxed before AGW what an utter red herring of an argument


Without green taxes the oil companies could still charge the same price but make 400% more actually. Green taxes dont benefit oil companies in the slightest as they reduce sales and leave them competing on price on less than 1/5th of the revenue generated from fuel sales

If theres was ONLY VAT and no green taxes a liter of fuel would cost about 30p per litre and the oil companies would be making the exact same profit

probably less infact if the green taxes the companies themselves have to pay also vanished, plus the 80% tax on the fuel used for transportation and fuel costs also paid by all support companies involved also werent in the mix so everyone from their IT support companies and utility suppliers also wouldnt be paying 80% green tax on their fuel either so lower overheads and lower costs

So you could actually be looking at something like 25 pence per litre including VAT as opposed to almost £1.40 and oil companies still making the exact same profits

But selling MUCH more of it

So short term they get no real noticeable gain at all, the only real benefit is long term as they get to maintain those profits for longer with less sales

But the 80% portion of fuel tax doesnt benefit oil companies in the slightest, but is a very clear reason why governments would be super eager to be "green" where tax is concerned, but not really arsed at all anywhere that tax revenue or job creation isnt a major component

Plus lets not forget all the fancy hotels and flights they get free gratis going to streams of "green" conferences too of course. What fool would turn that down despite the carbon footprint it causes?

None of them apparently, how green of them eh? Never heard of teleconferencing?
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 84
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/31/2011 1:50:48 AM
One side is dealing with innuendo

The other side with statistics and fact that is been recorded for quite some time and ever evolving..

Not hard to work out who to listen to.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 85
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/31/2011 4:01:43 AM
Considering the shear volume of postings, vapidity, lack of substantiation, forgetting what he says from one post to the next and then denying it, and all that innuendo, it is increasingly obvious someone is getting paid to troll for oil.
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 86
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/31/2011 4:10:20 AM
Oil sis finnished and those who have got by ruling the world with it despratly hold on while building up other ventures , Jesus will be next.

Bookmark it.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 87
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/31/2011 8:00:25 AM
Tah, if you HAD infact read back I did already give the statement from the head of NASAs cloud research team, so making further comments on it shouldnt require the quote to be posted each and every time a view based on it is expressed

But as its not top secret anyone with fingers is also quite capable and able of finding it themselves too surely?

"Stephens, a professor at Colorado State University in Ft. Collins, is principal investigator of NASA's CloudSat mission, launched in 2006 to improve our understanding of the role clouds play in our complicated climate system. Stephens says that as Earth's global temperature continues to rise, water vapor -- the most abundant greenhouse gas on Earth, which traps heat much as carbon dioxide does -- will continue to build, with uncertain results.

"We're seeing that now," Stephens said. "We just don't know what this will mean for how clouds might change, and for Earth's temperature and climate. Although a small change of clouds--for example, more low clouds--in the right direction would mitigate the effects of increased carbon dioxide, a small change of clouds in a different direction--for example, more high clouds--would amplify the warming caused by increasing carbon dioxide."
"

So basically they just "dont know" whether clouds will be a negative feedback, positive or just equalising.

And thats water vapour, something that is as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2 is thought to be, but which also has the quirk of limiting the amount of the suns radiation reaching the surface (and therefore climate) too. But which is present in quantaties thousands of times higher than CO2 in the atmosphere often covering more than 50% of the surface and yet despite being SUCH a huge player in our climate the only definitive research into it cant even say if changes in clouds will cause an increase or decrease in climate

So models that also "dont know" what effects clouds will have also have no validity in prediction as they also "dont know" what effects clouds will have

That "not knowing" isnt just limited to pro AGW either, the fact its "unknown" but a MAJOR climate driver also negates anti AGW people saying they "know" climate will cool or not heat up every bit as much as it negates the validity of pro AGW components claiming they "know" it will warm up

Niether actually "knows" anything, both just "believe" they do. So its more of a doctrine or dogma than it is "science"
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 88
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/31/2011 2:47:54 PM
The forced breeding wasnt what I was thinking about tbh, as lets face it we do that with livestock all the time. So I thought that had a kind of ironic aspect to it actually

More the side issues like enforces chemical steralisation of third world or "lesser" races to stem their breeding rates along with other more proactive projects to reduce specific races and populations around the world to try and improve the overall purity of the remaining people

Nasas pro AGW status pretty much just comes from the funding angle, if they were anti AGW they wouldnt be being funded to do any pro AGW research, or certainly not much of it outside areas they are the only people capable of doing it

The "report" you keep trying to link back to is however as relevant as any anti AGW debunk of the report, Because my main point has been that NIETHER side really "knows" how the climate works despite both sides equally claiming they do, and equally producing well qualified "experts" and reports they claim prove that theyre right

My stance isnt actually anti AGW, nor pro AGW (obviously). But simply that niether side even knows enough about the mechanisms at play to even begin to speculate. And that compared to things like CO2 and Methane their effects are negligible compared to things like water vapour and the oceanic tidal patterns niether of which are even rudimentarily understood YET

Infact if I remember correctly CO2 has increased if the figures are taken as factual by nearly 33% in what 70 years or so is it? But climate has increased very little even by the worst estimates and barely at all with unmodified datasets

So as we already know there have been warmer periods in history before mankind was polluting what was causing those trends?

Two things happening simultaneously doesnt necessarily imply connection, and the easiest way to rule out a connection is to ascertain if one has happened at any point before without the other

Which quite definitely is the case for both higher levels of CO2 and warming trends without manmade pollution

I havent however at any point said it wouldnt be "nice" to limit pollution though, simply that as the link is at best tenuous and is highly likely to be far less significant than being claimed then it would make far more sense to devote the bulk of the money to more factual, immediate and real problems like global healthcare, famine, water shortages and reforestation until things like the relationship between the clouds, oceans and solar influences ARE infact understood

And in the meantime applying less globalist methods to limit production like the outright banning of innefficient large bore engines, massive import taxes and other methods that affect the actual companies rather than the consumers

But as the money is IMO the real motivator behind this, I really couldnt see that ever happening

Hardly unreasonable really
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 89
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/31/2011 6:21:52 PM

You failed to answer the question on evolution.
Do you believe in it ?


I tend to lean a lot more towards the idea of evolution in some form that creationism assuming theyre the only possible explainations available in the entire cosmos to choose from


Is it incomplete


Incomplete, incorrect. One of the two, maybe a bit of both

If a theory cant provide a full explaination which evolution cant, then it means one of two things

Either its incomplete

Or its incorrect

Neither of which can be "scientifically" ascertained until a full explaination can be provided.

Infact as I recall the basic assumption where an area of scientific theory had two sides each arriving at different conclusions was to look for a third possible explaination that picked the the undisputed aspects from both sides and lowered the focus of the disputed areas to look for other causalities

So as evolution isnt "incomplete", infact as a theory it IS complete. Or claims to be

The problem with it is that the "complete" theory doesnt give a "complete" explaination of how mankind arrived on the planet

So what is actually needed is a "different" theory, one that can explain in a "complete" form how that came to be

The idea that when a theory cant explain things its just "incomplete" rather than wrong or misguided from the outset is based on the assumption that it was "correct" in the first place

But had it been "correct" then it would have given a full and unquestionable explaination, ergo its wrong

If I gave you a recipe for a meatloaf that didnt work that particular recipe wasnt "incomplete" it was just incorrect. If you came up with new recipe that did work, even if it still included several of the original recipes ingredients and stages its not a "more complete" version of the first recipe, its a new one as the first one was also "complete" but incorrect, the second being both "complete" AND correct though

In order to make evolution complete you would also need to swap out some "ingredients" to make it work, so it would still be a new theory


However the difference with evolution is that there isnt any political institutions trying to use evolution (since eugenics dissipated) as an excuse for policies that would see millions if not billions of people either living in poverty or facing starvation, drought and immense hardship and death in a very short space of time based on what is still an "incorrect" theory (incomplete if you prefer the word) using the claims of a genetic apocalypse in its name

Were that the case then you would infact see just as much vocalised disagreement towards it as a process, whilst not saying more research shouldnt happen until it WAS a complete theory (replaced by a correct one)

Infact overlapping darwin and a topic about CO2 in itself is quite interesting as I remember in my 20s a paper about the "gaps" in the standard theory of evolution strugging with some of the theorised leaps in the complexity of life and its non linear nature of progression in complexity as well as species that seem to hardly vary at all over vast timescales such as some species of reptiles and insects that have been found almost unchanged from various prehistoric times till the present

Which postulated the possibility that times where the carbon content of the atmosphere was at increased levels could explain why due to the unique properties of the element and its importance in life on earth could be a catalyst that caused increased and accelerated periods of evolution in species and a wider amount of variation compared to times where less carbon had been present in the atmosphere and used the comparison to how areas of varied vegetation and plentiful water also tend to give an increased density of special variety

Not implying increased CO2 is "good" there btw, or that its going to reverse the killing off of species, simply that theres a lot more than two perspectives on pretty much every topic that isnt yet a fully realised scientific fact rather than just a bunch of theories

As for pollution, never said it shouldnt be tackled, its the approach I dissagree with and the reasoning behind trying to enforce that approach not the ethical or enviromental aspect

But if somebody said that if we didnt change our polluting ways by next year the entire planet would collapse under the weight of the rubbish into a singularity based on a the findings of the IPGC (Intergovernmental panel on Garbage control) and that their "fix" was to tax everyone £20 per kilogram of rubbish they threw away whilst not bothering to do anything about companies packaging techniques then I would be equally sceptical about the validity of that too

Moreso if it turned out their main spokesmen had already invested in garbage charging companies and collection companies in advance of the "findings" ready to rake in the profits from it

Call me sceptical if you will





Also, I did read your link when first posted and have actually been responding to it albeit not directly

If you recall I said that if you question people mostly from within a specific POV you will infact get a huge concensus, ask the opposite question from an equal sized group who hold the opposite view and you get an equal concensus on the opposite, that wasnt "ad hoc" it was a direct response to having looked at the link

The link itself says "it" picked people based on their level of published papers, citation and research. For which there are countless papers published on the way all types of scientific research is biased by committees, the peer review process and the granting of funding to create an inbalance of "activity" of scientists who dont hold an official stance on a topic and that isnt limited just to climate science but across all disciplines

So just as a pure hypothetical suppose there was someone a scientist who had a theory about the climate variations we are observing, and lets assume he was actually right and that the cause wasnt man made

Firstly he would struggle to get funding to do any research, secondly he would have his papers negatively peer reviewed and thirdly he would struggle to get pervasive media exposure or scuientific publication as all stages of the process are heavily biased against "alternative" (rather than denialist) theories

So on all counts of what they used to define those scientists they favour pro AGW ones over non AGW ones which then tips the bias of the findings

I wouldnt also be surprised if on closer examinations ones not included on the list were infact quite active in climatology, but just not on "pro agw" research, or on pro AGW grants and were excluded on that basis alone

Considering the scope of the field even 10,000 scientists nowadays wouldnt sound like a lot, so 3,500 ish really doesnt sound like many. Infact I'd bet the IPCC itself has probably funded, used or cited far more than that already

If I recall some similar concensus of around 90% of scientists agreed that the black death had been spread by viruses

Also, heres another "concensus"

"There are a whole lot of things in the history of science which show just how poisonous it is to argue something on the basis of popularity among scientists. To cite just a single, very egregious example: The bacterial causation of peptic ulcer disease (PUD). In the mid-80s, 99.9% of the world's experts thought that PUD was primarily caused by excess stomach acid, which was, in turn, caused by things such as stress, smoking, alcohol, spicy foods, whatever. The evidence for this was overwhelming. The most lucrative operation for surgeons was the vagotomy and antrectomy (ulcer operation). The most lucrative drug was Tagamet (which reduced acid secretion). A lone pathologist in Australia, with no "credentials" came up with the idea that ulcers were caused by a bacterium (helicobacter pylori). No one believed him. He couldn't get the work published. He certainly wouldn't have qualified for any funding. It took nearly 20 years for the world to come around to his way of thinking. In 2005 he (Robin Warren) won the Nobel Prize. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html Today, the vagotomy and antrectomy, as well as Tagamet, exist primarily as historical reminders of the folly of scientific certitude. "


And as for AGW concensuses


"
With respect to Doran 2009, his work entailed a web-based survey of 10,257 earth scientists, of which 3,146 responded. Of these 5% (157) were reported to be climate scientists. What isn’t evident is the response from those climate scientists for the two questions. Even at that, only 82 percent answered yes to the question:
“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Now, the above question does NOT ask “Do you think human activity is DRIVING the change in mean global temperatures.” Which I believe would have resulted in a different level of response. For instance I personally believe that human activity IS a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, however not in the way being promoted by IPCC. In addition I do not feel that mean is a valid measurement to determine what man’s impact is on global temperatures.

With respect to your comment that “very few scientists who actually have expertise in climate science.” How can you use that argument when you use someone else's work (Doran 2009) who, based on your criteria, should not be considered given that the survey focused on responses from 3,146 geoscientists of which only 5% were climate scientists?

Climate science is not a topic by itself. Instead it incorporates knowledge from a number of scientific disciplines, including geoscientists, physicists, chemists, biologists, atmospheric and environmentalists to name some and which composed over 50% of those who signed the OISM petition. This is in sharp contrast to your reported 39 scientists. Furthermore you have consistently provided links in this blog to studies carried out by biologists, geoscientists etc so if they are good enough to support your position on climate change, similarly educated scientists should be accepted for their contrary view point.

As for Anderegg et al, 2010, when you delve into their respondents, close to 50% were associated with the IPCC which from a statistical perspective, should be removed from the data as having a conflict of interest. You are using the same authors to support the findings of a panel to which they contributed. In addition there is no method to verify that all of those scientists that were included in the list were in fact climate scientists (given that you seem to reject any contrarian viewpoint from a scientist that isn’t a climate scientist. You can’t have it both ways.
"

As I said, cherry picking and not really a "concensus" when only 1/3rd responded and over 50% were recieving some kind of funding or support from the IPCC itself


Ask a bunch of catholics their views on catholicism and you'll get a concensus
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 90
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/31/2011 8:29:16 PM
Mike, you certainly can produce a lot of text. I only wish you devoted the same amount of effort toward truly understanding science in general and climate science in particular.

The impression I get from what you write is that science is somehow black and white, with issues either "proven" or "not proven".

The concept of "proof" has no place in science. It's strictly a mathematical or logical concept. Science is never complete, never 'proven', but rather entails continuous observation of phenomena, collection of data, analysis of that data, and development of theories to make sense out of it all. Those theories are then rigorously tested, rejected, supported, or modified. That's what the scientific method is all about, which for over a century has included the peer review literature process as part of that method. That would be the same century, btw, that produced the greatest amount of technological progress in the history of our species.

No single paper, no single piece of research should be taken as absolute support for any theory. But over time there does reach a point where sufficient rigor has been applied and a problem has been looked at from enough different angles that support the same conclusion to constitute "adequate scientific explanation".

I would argue that the concept of AGW has long since passed the test for adequate scientific explanation sufficiently to justify serious policy decisions to minimize the negative impacts in the decades to come.

I would also argue that if any of the solutions WERE to create widespread poverty they should be rejected out of hand. What I don't understand is why so many people seem to think that accelerating our inevitable shift to cleaner energy sources, protecting valuable ecosystems, becoming more efficient in using the energy we produce, and generally adopting a more sustainable lifestyle could possibly create widespread misery and poverty.

I could go on at length responding to the many fallacies in your argument, but let me just hit on a couple.

You repeatedly reference the IPCC funding great quantities of research and employing vast numbers of scientists. That's not how the IPCC works. They have a staff of around 10 people. They don't directly fund ANY research. What they do is compile and assess degrees of certainty associated with a wide range of research that is done by scientists from the 184 member countries who participate in IPCC reviews. The only funding they provide, to the best of my knowledge, is travel assistance for scientists who don't already have funding to support their expenses to travel to and participate in IPCC functions.

As for skeptic scientists being able to fund their own research, at one time Exxon had a standing offer to fund ANY scientist who would produce a paper countering IPCC conclusions. Much of the funding for the research this thread is based on came from skeptic sources. Inconvenient for them that the results weren't what they were hoping for.

The consensus IS strong that human activity plays a significant role in a warming planet. Every major science association with any connection to the climate in each of those 184 member countries have issued statements supporting that conclusion. That doesn't mean every single scientist in all those countries agrees, but it certainly does represent far more than a cherry picked group of people already on board.

You've also referenced NASA as being funded by pro-AGW sources. NASA is funded by the U.S. Congress as part of the federal budget. I'd wager that we've got more skeptic members of our Congress than any other country has in their own legislatures, simply because for whatever whacky reason believing in science has become a partisan issue here in the U.S.

I have no idea why that is, but very few Republicans would DARE to support the conclusions of every national science organization in the country with any connection to the climate. And yet NASA continues to be funded, and continues to produce quality climate research.

Finally, your obsession with perceived uncertainty about the role of clouds is an example of a common skeptic tactic I think of as the 'pinprick' approach. It works like this. If a single aspect of climate science can be argued to be less than complete, then the argument is that all of climate research should be rejected out of hand until we're "sure". In other words, those adopting this approach think of climate science as akin to a big balloon, and if they can just poke a tiny hole in that balloon they can confidently declare the whole thing deflated.

That's not the way science works, but whether it be Paul arguing about historic CO2 increases lagging behind temperature increases, you making your cloud argument, or others hanging their hats on sun spots, Mars, the Medieval warming period or what have you the tactic has become quite common. If there were a skeptic handbook I'd expect to find it in the first chapter.

While not a valid scientific argument, it has worked quite well with an ambivalent public that rarely takes to time to check credentials of those on either side. They're just content that so long as there exists more than one point of view there's no need for them to embrace one of them.

So my argument is simply this:

To reject AGW after the amount of research and science that currently supports it is essentially rejecting the same scientific method that brought us so much over the last century. To assume that any one of us can toss out decades of research by dedicated scientists solely based on our own interpretation of something we read on a blog or heard on the radio or TV or googled our way to clearly biased points of view on is ridiculous.

The science is NOT complete, but it certainly is adequate to justify serious policy action.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 91
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 10/31/2011 9:27:19 PM

The problem with it is that the "complete" theory doesnt give a "complete" explaination of how mankind arrived on the planet

That's not a part of the theory, period. The theory of evolution by natural selection deals with one very basic concept, and one basic concept alone: natural selection is the mechanism directing evolution. That's it.

Any theory as to how any particular species came to be is a separate theory, and has no impact on whether or not natural selection guides evolution.


Climate science is not a topic by itself. Instead it incorporates knowledge from a number of scientific disciplines, including geoscientists, physicists, chemists, biologists, atmospheric and environmentalists to name some and which composed over 50% of those who signed the OISM petition. This is in sharp contrast to your reported 39 scientists. Furthermore you have consistently provided links in this blog to studies carried out by biologists, geoscientists etc so if they are good enough to support your position on climate change, similarly educated scientists should be accepted for their contrary view point.

You can't come to a logical and balanced conclusion if you just randomly pick your sources without checking their actual value.

OISM is one man and a few family members, not associated with ANY actual research facility. The survey you refer to was sent out with a copy of an anti-AGW research paper written by the same man and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Trouble is, said article was NOT published by PNAS, nor by anyone else. Nor was it based on any actual evidence or research. It was in essence a forgery. Those who signed the petition were suckered; and most, if not all, of them have recanted their support.

Now follow the chain - how many subsequent anti-AGW writers have refered to OISM? And how many have referenced those? It's a house of cards, and the ground floor has no foundation. It should really make you wonder about two things - the objectivity of your other sources, and your own objectivity. If you only look at third party reviews that support your preconceived views, you're only going to reach conclusions you intended to reach, regardless of their veracity.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 92
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/1/2011 4:01:47 AM
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-112193.html
scroll down for ad.

http://current.com/1it8ekc
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 93
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/1/2011 6:03:05 AM

The concept of "proof" has no place in science. It's strictly a mathematical or logical concept. Science is never complete, never 'proven', but rather entails continuous observation of phenomena, collection of data, analysis of that data, and development of theories to make sense out of it all.


And yet even based on incomplete knowledge, incomplete data and incomplete models we regularly hear that "AGW is a proven fact" dont we? Or do you mean its ok to use the word as long as someone is agreeing with your stance but not when they dont?

Otherwise that statement is a bit confusing really

As for US politics and funding which why are you assuming that politics is black and white? Although the US government is accused of being "anti AGW" and in the pockets of big oil who started the CCX? Obama allocated the initial funding to set it up, Al Gore opened a similar exchange in the UK niether of which actually oppose the idea of AGW, but simply use it to make a very sizeable amount of change

So as with finance the sides do infact become blurry and would seem to suggest that the biggest revenue streams come from indecision rather than definitive conclusion similar to one of the big criticisms of medical research in that much more funding goes into finding treatments than cures, because cures dont give as much return on the capital investment

The arguement that AGW is "proven" beyond question is yet again like claiming that catholicism is 'proven", and that "if you dont believe me ask anyone in the catholic church" because all of the pro agw "proof" does infact come from people profiting in one form or another from the pro AGW hypothesis, so why would they say anything else? Without AGW research the dole queues would be overflowing with scientists and researchers and thousands of beauracrats would be queueing with them

So you instantly have a bias there in favour of AGW as a concept as natural warming or a very low influence of AGW with no doom and gloom predictions of tipping points and apocalytic disasters wouldnt generate the need for the same amount of funding into research

The study thats been ckaimed to "prove" concencus actually shows a "concensus of around 33% of all emailed which still excluded solar phsysicists and many other areas of climate related science plus still picking most of its respondants from organisations like NOAA and others commonly involved in pro AGW and IPCC research and actually places the "97%" claim on a very finite and specific area of climate science which made up less than 5% of the total

Was that 07 ALL the climatologists in the world? Nope, not by a long chalk. Would the others not emailed but equally well known in the field have also agreed?

http://climatequotes.com/2011/02/10/study-claiming-97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-flawed/

Apparently not


To reject AGW after the amount of research and science that currently supports it is essentially rejecting the same scientific method that brought us so much over the last century


The same could be claimed by any relion, not just AGW alarmists though

Religion brought us the social concept of conscience, guilt to some extents and much of the social value systems we observe today, yet those things dont by virtue of being positives prove the vehicle either

To reject AGW isnt really anything like what you claim though. Thats a very polar black and white arguement seen time and time again since it was defended that the world was infact flat right upto claiming that questioning the Holocaust figures was also "denial" when infact the majority was revisionist critique. And which also became proven as correct when the figures were nearly halved in the late 1980s infact

Rather than denial I dont think very many people "deny" warming has occured over the last 1000 years, considering we have been coming out of an ice age since then and still arent anywhere near the temperatures observed in warm periods of the earths cycles that would be just ludicrous to observe.

Does man have an effect on warming? Course we do

Yet again I havent seen that being "denied" very much anywhere despite the alarmists claiming its the case

But the IPCCs almost religious desire to put the smoking gun in the hands of CO2 (which coincidentally is about the only thing that could be taxed at every level) excludes all the known MAJOR climate drivers to alarming degrees leaving what at best can only be called "marginal" influences like CO2

I use the term "marginal" because if you plot the rise in CO2 against temperature you DONT have a matched trend as you would if it was a major influence, Infact whilst CO2 has been steadily rising the climate has undergone very large peaks and troughs not reflected in the CO2 levels and even with modified data sets a very subtle rise in temperatures

But a good example of the modified data is here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

As for the "wealth of research" last time I checked provative research wasnt strictly speaking "scientific" research. Quite the opposite infact

Setting out to prove (Rather than disprove) a hypothesis, then having it peer reviewed by like minded scientists isnt "scientific" in the slightest and is as fundamentally flawed as an oil company funding reasearch to disprove a hypothesis they dont like

So what is "actually" being "denied"?

From what I can see its that CO2 is a MAJOR climate driver mainly, secondly it would be that mans entire influence on the planet is infact a MAJOR climate driver

Not whether we have "an" influence, or even whether its "significant", but just that it isnt by any stretch of the imagination a MAJOR one and as I have repeatedly stated, that the known major climate drivers are quite conveniently the areas where we barely know anything about how they interact with the climate and until we do nothing tangible can be claimed to be "proven" (by either side)


While not a valid scientific argument, it has worked quite well with an ambivalent public that rarely takes to time to check credentials of those on either side. They're just content that so long as there exists more than one point of view there's no need for them to embrace one of them.


The same can be said about AGW too, the claim that theres a "97% concencus" being the prime example, when even the people who compiled that survey state quite clearly the "aim" was to "prove" AGW was majoritively accepted by most scientists, as such a claim tends to influence many peoples views even if its not a factual claim


As for your view on "possible legislation" IF it has those negative effects the problem there is that it already IS having those effects

Even whilst he bickering is going on AGW is being used by pretty much every government to claw in higher and higher levels of tax revenue which is having extremely noticeable effects on the amount of poverty, homelessness and living standards of all moderately earning people in the westernised countries

Even the slightest hint of "green taxes" has all fuel prices going through the roof leaving increasing numbers of families and individuals having to cut down on basic amenities just to cover their commuting, lighting and heating bills with many secondary effects as a result across a broad spectrum of social areas

Then theres the AGW driven trade in carbon credits, much of which is attained by convincing third world countries and projects to curb humanitarian projects to provide infrastructure, clean water, healthcare, agriculture and food production capabilities to the third world so those carbon savings can be sold to not just businesses but many "green organisations" around the world so they can claim to be green whilst jetting around the globe with alarming (and contradictory) frequencies

So those "legislations" arent even needed as the effects you described as being unwanted because that increased poverty, increased food shortages, healthcare, clean water are already a reality as a direct result of the DEBATE, when actual legislation arrives it will only get worse not better


I would also argue that if any of the solutions WERE to create widespread poverty they should be rejected out of hand. What I don't understand is why so many people seem to think that accelerating our inevitable shift to cleaner energy sources, protecting valuable ecosystems, becoming more efficient in using the energy we produce, and generally adopting a more sustainable lifestyle could possibly create widespread misery and poverty.


You dont understand it because it doesnt fit in with your beliefs, that I completely "understand"

Understanding and belief tend to be quite mutually exclusive

But rather than a belief based on proof as AGW supporters claim, and reather than "pin pricks" which is used to dismiss any disagreement with the religion of AGW clouds are far from "pinpricks" theyre one of the MAJOR climate drivers, possibly even the most significant one infact. The same also applies to solar patterns and oceanic tides.

Infact even recent discoveries about the radiation venting from the upper atmosphere has been observed to work in a way opposite to what had been assumed and could potentially rewrite our entire understanding of the climate system as a result which is also barely understood to such a miniscule amount nobody is even prepared to comment on what impact the research might have

So no matter how much AGW supporters point to AGW driven research by pro AGW scientists to prove what they want to be true the fact still remains that pretty much every known major climate influence is still barely understood so all claims are based on a lack of understanding of the majoritive influence and a religious style need to define everything in terms of marginal ones whilst blaming them for every hiccup in the climate system

This would be like trying to blame stubbing your toe for heart attacks before any research has been done into how the heart works, what causes heart attacks and what things cause a heart to be healthy or unhealty but simply postulating over and over and over and over and (well I'm sure you get the picture) that 99.9999999% of scientists agree that after data has been modified nearly all people who have ever had a heart attack have at one point or another stubbed their toe

As that is pretty much where the pro and anti AGW stance is in terms of "actual" science at the moment
 neillinnorwich
Joined: 1/10/2009
Msg: 94
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/1/2011 6:59:08 AM
Earthpuppy I'd say you've hit upon something there. It makes no logical sense for someone to come up with such a fantastic volume of utter trite as that posted by mikewm unless they are being paid!
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 95
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/1/2011 4:42:38 PM

And yet even based on incomplete knowledge, incomplete data and incomplete models we regularly hear that "AGW is a proven fact" dont we?


Not from me you won't, nor from any climate scientist I've ever read or heard, although I won't swear someone sometime didn't ever say it. It may just seem like semantics, but what you WILL hear is statements along the lines of "the evidence is overwhelming" or "we have a high degree of certainty".

My point is that absolute proof just does not exist in science. On anything. Sufficient confidence to build fantastic gismo's or make recommendations for policy makers yes. Absolute certainty, no.

I don't base my sense of strong consensus on any particular study. I base it on having tracked the issue closely for over 15 years, starting long before Al Gore was making any noise about it. I've watched to science develop, seen questions raised and addressed, AND seen observed climate shifts consistently outpace predictions.


To reject AGW after the amount of research and science that currently supports it is essentially rejecting the same scientific method that brought us so much over the last century


The same could be claimed by any relion, not just AGW alarmists though


You completely miss my point.

My point was that the science supporting AGW is the product of rigorous application of the scientific method, which explicitly does NOT embark on research with a pre-determined result in mind.

Someone presents their interpretation of their research. Someone else challenges it by coming at it differently or simply tries to duplicate the experiment to see if they get the same result. They publish their findings. Someone else challenges THOSE findings, and the process continues.

Over time independent researchers refine or build the body of evidence for a particular interpretation.

That's what has led to the high degree of confidence that human activity plays a significant (or major, if you prefer that language) role in a warming planet. And no, that's not strictly based on CO2 emission increases. It also includes changes in land use patterns and other greenhouse gases that have increased, with methane being the second largest contributor.

Water vapor is indeed THE most influential greenhouse gas, and we certainly are still refining our understanding of the difference between vapor concentrations and their effects at various altitudes, but our understanding of the role vapor does and will play is far better understood than you make it out to be.


Even the slightest hint of "green taxes" has all fuel prices going through the roof leaving increasing numbers of families and individuals having to cut down on basic amenities just to cover their commuting, lighting and heating bills with many secondary effects as a result across a broad spectrum of social areas

Then theres the AGW driven trade in carbon credits, much of which is attained by convincing third world countries and projects to curb humanitarian projects to provide infrastructure, clean water, healthcare, agriculture and food production capabilities to the third world so those carbon savings can be sold to not just businesses but many "green organisations" around the world so they can claim to be green whilst jetting around the globe with alarming (and contradictory) frequencies

So those "legislations" arent even needed as the effects you described as being unwanted because that increased poverty, increased food shortages, healthcare, clean water are already a reality as a direct result of the DEBATE, when actual legislation arrives it will only get worse not better


Fuel prices will continue to rise throughout our lifetimes, regardless of any green influence. We haven't discovered as much oil as we've used in the same year in decades. Simple supply and demand influences will assure continued elevated gas prices.

I'd like to see evidence that carbon credits have been generated by convincing third world countries to cut humanitarian efforts.

The concept of cap and trade was developed by the Reagan administration to create economic incentives to curb acid rain. It worked wonderfully and wasn't considered any sort of liberal plot then.

Personally I favor a flat carbon tax, with proceeds targeted to areas where unemployment increases as a result of the shift away from fossil fuels. I've seen convincing math that shows that the national and global economic impact of such a tax would be a net break even, and that in the isolated areas, like coal fields, where jobs would be lost, the tax could pay unemployed miners full wages for four years AND finance retraining in the field of their choice.

But the word "tax" evokes a knee jerk reaction in so many that I know such a concept will never come to be.


You dont understand it because it doesnt fit in with your beliefs, that I completely "understand"


No, I don't understand because every one of the changes we need to make to minimize global warming this century will also provide other benefits to us as well. Cleaner air and water, more efficient use of energy generated by sources with far less negative health effects. Better use of land, protecting ecosystems that provide us with many benefits. Unless you've got stock in Exxon, where's the downside?



As that is pretty much where the pro and anti AGW stance is in terms of "actual" science at the momen


There's where we strongly disagree. Find me ONE national science organization that casts doubt on the human role in a warming planet. As I stated before, to reject the science supporting AGW is essentially to reject the same scientific practices that brought us so many wonderful advances the past hundred years, including our ability to debate this on this forum.

There is an incredible amount of actual science supporting AGW. Unfortunately there are also an incredible number of people who aren't actually scientists who think they know better.
 neillinnorwich
Joined: 1/10/2009
Msg: 96
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/1/2011 5:20:18 PM
It's guys like wvwaterfall that mean I don't feel the need to post too much on this thread. He puts it much better than I would.

Swingarm1966, the point is that there are (not is!) much larger numbers of scientists endorsing the AGW consensus than those dissenting from it (hence the term 'consensus'). The vast majority of the voice of dissent comes from those who either don't know what they are talking about (i.e. not climate scientists), or have some ulterior motive (money) for distorting the truth.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 97
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/1/2011 5:43:12 PM
The "concensus" was less than 1/3rd of all those asked

And 50% were show to rely directly on AGW policymakers and the IPCC for research projects and funding with many of the others being members of organisations with a vested interest in the pro AGW agenda

As I have said several times, ask a bunch of catholics about catholicism and you will get something you can claim to be a concensus

But 33% is far from a concensus

They also excluded many areas of climate science, ones that dont tend to buy into the AGW theory

So basically they circumvented any groups that were unlikey to not give the type of answers they wanted

Even the questions were severely flawed and pretty meaningless

If mans influence on the climate contributed 1% to any changes that WOULD be significant, but not a driving factor nor the majorative cause

But the question only asked if it was "significant".

Infact even with cherry picking who they asked and then shrinking the data set to get a "sensational" headline (albeit a very innacurate claim) they couldnt even get 100% of scientists to even agree that the planet has warmed significantly (by any means) which even most AGW sceptics arent even disputing, only the AGW influence on it

You really need to actually look at what a vapid bit of propoganda the report is rather than just reading the headline and assuming the AGW cult dont fib, because it proves quite clearly that they do, as does the analysis of their modified climate data for Australia as included in the data used for the latest IPCC report which is nothing short of fraudulent misrepresentation
 swingarm1966
Joined: 3/27/2011
Msg: 98
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/1/2011 5:47:01 PM
Its no use Mike the sliver of indoctrination is stuck deep in their minds.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 99
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/1/2011 6:05:53 PM
Mike..
97-98% of Credible scientist, actually in the field of climate science have agreed on AGW. Your owners/payers constitute a small minority, have far less cred in the actual sciences that deal with climate and have substantial amounts of money coming from vested interests in the fossil fuel industries.

You keep repeating total BS as if it will miraculously become true someday, while ignoring real science, real data, and the probability that you are a paid troll, given your weakness in arguing and volume of utter crap.

And, I know lots of Catholics that highly disagree on what Catholocism is and will be, including many ex-nuns, ex-priests, and victims. Once you have seen the light, being Catholic is akin to being a denier. Truth comes to those who are willing to open their minds.

Please set the record straight. Are you employed by the industry in any way, making money on your prolific verbage of insignificance, and what precisely moves you to feel so compelled on this particular subject. Apparently honesty is not a motivating factor at this point.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 100
view profile
History
New study into global temperatures
Posted: 11/1/2011 6:23:47 PM
Grow up EP

97-98% agree on nothing

"credible" simply m means picked because their stance was known

And PMSL @ Please set the record straight. Are you employed by the industry in any way

Australias climate dropped by 0.7 degrees till the IPCC ammended it to rise by 1.2 degrees, the sheer avalanche of BS is coming direct from the IPCC and the thousands of scientists making their living from AGW research

The ACTUAL causes of any real changes in climate are likely to be ignored or deliberately overlooked if theyre not something taxable

This crap isnt "real science" at all

None of the major climate influences are understood and until they are using the term "science" is purely laughable

And if you check back, I'm not "anti AGW" either, niether side "knows" anything significant about the climate because nobody understands the MAJOR climate drivers, none of which are CO2

When you can come back with a scientific concensus based on actual recorded and predictable data that includes solar cycling, water vapour, oceanic tides tropospheric venting and negative vents for a start which are the main climate influences and it STILL proves this nonsense then you can claim to have "science" behind you

Until then you dont, you just have a near cult based religion obsessed with proving CO2 is the climate satan as directed by the creaters of the IPCC to introduce new forms of taxation

This isnt and never has been about the "climate", if it had been then the major climate drivers would have been first to be studied and understood, not the marginal ones

If anyone has an agenda here and is being paid by anyone with a vested interest in earning money from the AGW debate I would put my bet on your getting cheques straight from Al Gore himself from the millions hes raking in from GIH as a major shareholder so
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > New study into global temperatures