More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

One more point. The reason that I have changed my mind in regard to AGW is that I am always concerned when one side of the argument thinks it needs to use scare tactics and highly questionable conclusions.

One is the above issue of sea level rises based on thgat all the ice will melt (which is bollocks) and the other is that every bad thing that happens is linked to global warming.

Here is an example: Lately it has been claimed that global warming will spark epidemics. Here is a scientific article that debunks this:

Quote

Predictions that global warming will spark epidemics have little basis, say infectious-disease specialists. They say climate change has had little to do with recent outbreaks of cholera, dengue, and malaria, and argue that public health measures will inevitably outweigh the effects of future climate change. While many of the researchers behind the dire predictions concede that the scenarios are speculative, they say their projections play a role in consciousness raising.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/278/5340/1004

Why does the church of catastropic man made global warming constantly need to use scare tactics?

I believe that this tactic will backfire.

I wish people would stop confusing editorializing science magazines with peer reviewed science journals.

Confusion is your best tool!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jenfly00 0]

Confusion is your best tool! ***

...and pseudointellectualism is yours. Dude, you reject the science cause it's championed by a well-known liberal. OK, fine, but then you went on (and on, and on, and on) trying to find some (any!) rationalization that had a faint ring of science to support your basic thought ...you hate liberals.
If you just stuck with that, I could at least admire the honesty of it.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

One more point. The reason that I have changed my mind in regard to AGW is that I am always concerned when one side of the argument thinks it needs to use scare tactics and highly questionable conclusions.

One is the above issue of sea level rises based on thgat all the ice will melt (which is bollocks) and the other is that every bad thing that happens is linked to global warming.

Here is an example: Lately it has been claimed that global warming will spark epidemics. Here is a scientific article that debunks this:

Quote

Predictions that global warming will spark epidemics have little basis, say infectious-disease specialists. They say climate change has had little to do with recent outbreaks of cholera, dengue, and malaria, and argue that public health measures will inevitably outweigh the effects of future climate change. While many of the researchers behind the dire predictions concede that the scenarios are speculative, they say their projections play a role in consciousness raising.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/278/5340/1004

Why does the church of catastropic man made global warming constantly need to use scare tactics?

I believe that this tactic will backfire.

I wish people would stop confusing editorializing science magazines with peer reviewed science journals.

Be easy on them John, they honestly don't know the difference.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Confusion is your best tool!

Quote

...and pseudointellectualism is yours. Dude, you reject the science cause it's championed by a well-known liberal.

Which Science is that? The Science of overall Global Warming used to supposedly (and somewhat dishonestly) prove the primary cause is anthropogenic? What a bunch of Bullshit!

This little game of cat and mouse is so trite.

"Oh, so you don't believe AGW claims? The science is in. The planet is warming. Why can't you see this?"

"I never said anything about the planet not warming. I just don't think manmade CO2 is the primary cau.."

"You deniers are so close-minded. Look at the science. Open you eyes...BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Confusion is your best tool! ***

...and pseudointellectualism is yours. Dude, you reject the science cause it's championed by a well-known liberal. OK, fine, but then you went on (and on, and on, and on) trying to find some (any!) rationalization that had a faint ring of science to support your basic thought ...you hate liberals.
If you just stuck with that, I could at least admire the honesty of it.

Ah, as soon as you show me the science I will consider it. Today however, all of the "science" I have seen is contrary to the the GWing alarmist position.

And once again, a (I assume) liberal claims to be so smart as to know what I feel

You best read and act on your own posts

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Confusion is your best tool! ***

...and pseudointellectualism is yours. Dude, you reject the science cause it's championed by a well-known liberal. OK, fine, but then you went on (and on, and on, and on) trying to find some (any!) rationalization that had a faint ring of science to support your basic thought ...you hate liberals.
If you just stuck with that, I could at least admire the honesty of it.

Ah, as soon as you show me the science I will consider it. Today however, all of the "science" I have seen is contrary to the the GWing alarmist position.

And once again, a (I assume) liberal claims to be so smart as to know what I feel

You best read and act on your own posts

Are you a scientist? Do you subscribe to any real science journals?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>The skeptics denied the IPCC predicted that the temperature would in
>fact increase due to increasing CO2 levels?

No, they denied that the temperature was going to increase.

I'm not sure how you can deny something that has not yet been proven true or false. My understanding of the word (in the context I think you mean it) applies to existing facts or conditions. More muddying of the waters? Who knows?

Quote

"They were predicting an ice age in 1970. We're supposed to believe that it's going to get warmer and warmer now" - sound familiar?

Yeah. I started hearing these kinds of statements about 2 or 3 years ago, but definitely not back in the mid 90s. Perhaps you could produce some examples.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Confusion is your best tool! ***

...and pseudointellectualism is yours. Dude, you reject the science cause it's championed by a well-known liberal. OK, fine, but then you went on (and on, and on, and on) trying to find some (any!) rationalization that had a faint ring of science to support your basic thought ...you hate liberals.
If you just stuck with that, I could at least admire the honesty of it.

Ah, as soon as you show me the science I will consider it. Today however, all of the "science" I have seen is contrary to the the GWing alarmist position.

And once again, a (I assume) liberal claims to be so smart as to know what I feel

You best read and act on your own posts

Are you a scientist? Do you subscribe to any real science journals?

See, there you go again, off topic and misleading

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Confusion is your best tool! ***

...and pseudointellectualism is yours. Dude, you reject the science cause it's championed by a well-known liberal. OK, fine, but then you went on (and on, and on, and on) trying to find some (any!) rationalization that had a faint ring of science to support your basic thought ...you hate liberals.
If you just stuck with that, I could at least admire the honesty of it.

Ah, as soon as you show me the science I will consider it. Today however, all of the "science" I have seen is contrary to the the GWing alarmist position.

And once again, a (I assume) liberal claims to be so smart as to know what I feel

You best read and act on your own posts

Are you a scientist? Do you subscribe to any real science journals?

That whole "you're not old/smart/educated enough to understand" works on children and below average adults. To the rest of us, it just looks like a lame attempt at intimidation.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Confusion is your best tool! ***

...and pseudointellectualism is yours. Dude, you reject the science cause it's championed by a well-known liberal. OK, fine, but then you went on (and on, and on, and on) trying to find some (any!) rationalization that had a faint ring of science to support your basic thought ...you hate liberals.
If you just stuck with that, I could at least admire the honesty of it.

Ah, as soon as you show me the science I will consider it. Today however, all of the "science" I have seen is contrary to the the GWing alarmist position.

And once again, a (I assume) liberal claims to be so smart as to know what I feel

You best read and act on your own posts

Are you a scientist? Do you subscribe to any real science journals?

See, there you go again, off topic and misleading

How is it off topic to establish whether you have any science credentials when discussing science?

Are you a scientist?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Confusion is your best tool! ***

...and pseudointellectualism is yours. Dude, you reject the science cause it's championed by a well-known liberal. OK, fine, but then you went on (and on, and on, and on) trying to find some (any!) rationalization that had a faint ring of science to support your basic thought ...you hate liberals.
If you just stuck with that, I could at least admire the honesty of it.

Ah, as soon as you show me the science I will consider it. Today however, all of the "science" I have seen is contrary to the the GWing alarmist position.

And once again, a (I assume) liberal claims to be so smart as to know what I feel

You best read and act on your own posts

Are you a scientist? Do you subscribe to any real science journals?

See, there you go again, off topic and misleading

How is it off topic to establish whether you have any science credentials when discussing science?

Are you a scientist?

No, but only to an elitist would that have any bearing on wether on not anyone can have an opinion based on what they have studied and learned.

Are you a politition? You like to speak of politics!

and I will restate my quesition. Can you show me ONE experiment that supports man is the cause of global warming? Not the , the temp is increasing, CO2 is increasing and man is the cause of the CO2 increase, therfore, man is the cause of increased temps BS. An experiment!

Even the more crazed supports can not show that. To the contrart, the expriments that have been attempted show the water vaport and other factors have effects not yet understood.

Now, what is you next misleading off topic post?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Confusion is your best tool! ***

...and pseudointellectualism is yours. Dude, you reject the science cause it's championed by a well-known liberal. OK, fine, but then you went on (and on, and on, and on) trying to find some (any!) rationalization that had a faint ring of science to support your basic thought ...you hate liberals.
If you just stuck with that, I could at least admire the honesty of it.

Ah, as soon as you show me the science I will consider it. Today however, all of the "science" I have seen is contrary to the the GWing alarmist position.

And once again, a (I assume) liberal claims to be so smart as to know what I feel

You best read and act on your own posts

Are you a scientist? Do you subscribe to any real science journals?

That whole "you're not old/smart/educated enough to understand" works on children and below average adults. To the rest of us, it just looks like a lame attempt at intimidation.

Feeling insecure? I have no idea what rushmc does. For all I know he is a climatologist. AT LEAST MARC HAS THE DECENCY TO POST HIS NAME AND NOT SNIPE ANONYMOUSLY.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,114]

>Perhaps you could produce some examples.

Let's see - Lomborg noted such predictions in his book, the Skeptical Environmentalist, first published in 1998 (partly in response to the first IPCC.) That's an easy one to find.

[billvon 3,114]

>CO2 is causuing GWing warming. Here you trip. And unless you need
>reminding, there is much data (and studies) that suggests temp changes
>lead CO2 level changes. Many many studies of which you have seen many
>I believe.

Yes, I have. They indicate that CO2 increases after something else warms the planet (like massive volcanic activity, or a Milankovitch cycle variation.) This is bad news for us. It indicates that CO2 is released, via natural processes, after the planet begins warming, and this increase in greenhouse gas tends to accelerate warming. (BTW this is one of those positive feedback mechanisms that deniers, well, deny.)

In this case, we're the ones releasing CO2; it's not a natural phenomenon. We're causing the start of the heating cycle, a cycle once begun much more slowly by things like orbital resonances (the Milankovitch variation.) If those natural releases of greenhouse gases begin (like the CO2 released when permafrost melt) we're screwed.

>Look, I know you believe this but the links you give are week at best. And
>when you suggest the science is in I go nuts!!!! sorry.

No problem. I think if you read more of the science and less of the Newsmax view of things, you might go a little less nuts. There's far less screaming going on in laboratories than you think.

>Hence the tittle of this thread. I believe time is running out.

That's a political position. You hope a political position fails soon. Hope all you like, and vote for the politician who espouses your politics in this area. That's not going to affect the science.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Perhaps you could produce some examples.

Let's see - Lomborg noted such predictions in his book, the Skeptical Environmentalist, first published in 1998 (partly in response to the first IPCC.) That's an easy one to find.

Who was pratically unknown outside of Denmark before Fall 2001.

If a tree falls in the forest, but no one hears it...

[billvon 3,114]

>I am also disappointed that you continually use the term “deniers” . . .

Why? I could use a longer term, but their central characteristic is they deny the conclusions of the IPCC. Their position is defined by their denial. Generally they offer no other research, just refutations.

>One thing that I have found in my search for opinions on the subject is
>that “global temperature” is a problematic issue. Where do we measure it?

All over the globe; they are then averaged. Again, I think I'd abandon the Type I denial; it's not working at all.

>“Several”? You post the hockey stick which has been discredited and is
>no longer used by the IPCC and one more graph without any source.

Sorry, here are the sources:

1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. DOI:10.1191/095968398667194956

2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762. DOI:10.1029/1999GL900070 (pre-print)

3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277. DOI:10.1126/science.289.5477.270 (data available from NCDC : [2])

4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941. DOI:10.1029/2000JD900617

5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253. DOI:10.1126/science.1066208

6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.

7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143

8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781

9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265

10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046

>And BTW I have yet to see a convincing argument from your side . . .

I don't have a "side." I agree with the conclusions of the IPCC. I disagree with people who think the world is going to end soon, and with the people who think that humans cannot possibly in any way be responsible for the changes we are seeing.

>The rise of seas levels is one of the most popular scares by the church
>of AGW and eaten raw by the media. There is clear scientific evidence
>that sea levels do not rise and fall consistently around the planet . . .

You may want to rethink that statement.

>The IPCC itself predicts a maximum of 56 cm in sea rise by the end of
>the century.

Right, based primarily on thermal expansion of the oceans. Meltwater will add to that, but since we don't know how fast that will happen, we can't make accurate predictions.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

>Perhaps you could produce some examples.

Let's see - Lomborg noted such predictions in his book, the Skeptical Environmentalist, first published in 1998 (partly in response to the first IPCC.) That's an easy one to find.

Who was pratically unknown outside of Denmark before Fall 2001.

If a tree falls in the forest, but no one hears it...

Very xenophobic comment. Science does take place outside the USA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[azdiver 0]

here is a little more info for you to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
gives some opinions from the other side

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

here is a little more info for you to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
gives some opinions from the other side

Did you read the part about him being a member of the George Marshall Institute (GMI)?

"In 1998 Jeffrey Salmon, then executive director of GMI, helped develop the American Petroleum Institute's strategy of stressing the uncertainty of climate science."

"In 1999, GMI received grants from the Exxon Education Foundation . The institute's CEO William O'Keefe, formerly an executive at the American Petroleum Institute and chairman of the Global Climate Coalition, is a registered lobbyist for ExxonMobil. The GMI was described in a 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists as an ExxonMobil-funded "clearinghouse for global warming contrarians" ExxonMobil still currently provides funds to the Institute."

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Perhaps you could produce some examples.

Let's see - Lomborg noted such predictions in his book, the Skeptical Environmentalist, first published in 1998 (partly in response to the first IPCC.) That's an easy one to find.

Who was pratically unknown outside of Denmark before Fall 2001.

If a tree falls in the forest, but no one hears it...

Very xenophobic comment. Science does take place outside the USA.

Very xenophobic comment? Do you even know what that means? Or is that irrelevant and your primary intent is just to try and discount my post without actually addressing it? Is this another supposed use of set theory?

[speedy 0]

I see it this way.

1. if the alarmists are right, we are all doomed.
2. If the deniers are right, the scientist are a laughing stock.
3. if the scientists are right, we will have to learn to adapt pretty quick.

I am hope for scenario 2 or 3.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,114]

>3. if the scientists are right, we will have to learn to adapt pretty quick.

That's the most likely scenario. And I would point out that we don't have to learn to adapt; we can keep doing exactly what we have always done. However, the climate will not wait for us to adapt before changing, so it might be wise to try to estimate what we will have to do to adapt _before_ it becomes a necessity.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I see it this way.

1. if the alarmists are right, we are all doomed.
2. If the deniers are right, the scientist are a laughing stock.
3. if the scientists are right, we will have to learn to adapt pretty quick.

I am hope for scenario 2 or 3.

I dig change..... who wants to live in a boring world.

[billvon 3,114]

>I dig change..... who wants to live in a boring world.

You just want warmer winters way up north! Personally I wouldn't mind a bit more rain down here, but sadly all indications are that things are going the other direction.

[speedy 0]

Quote

You just want warmer winters way up north!

Me too! Warm and wet is way better than cold and wet.
Now if you want more rain Bill, you can have some of ours. I'll be happy to trade 20 of our rainy days for 20 of your sunny days. I am only willing to trade the rainy saturdays or sundays though.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl