Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming?

[billvon 3,116]

> Can someone point out ONE scientist that is NOT supported by
> one interest group or the other . . .

Tony Del Genio, Mao-Sung Yao, and Jeff Jonas of NASA GISS. Salaries are paid by the US Government.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Can someone point out ONE scientist that is NOT supported by one interest group or the other - liberal or conservative.

.

Susan Solomon, NOAA

...

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

[azdiver 0]

the un is following in foot step with the IPCC and the science the IPCC uses to back its claims. The Hockey stick Study was a study based on the analysis of tree rings and from those results the IPCC states that what was in your link, But the Hockey Stick was dissproved by other scientist because the study failed to be able to identify known climate changes in the past, The IPCC stance was that if their study didnt identify those changes then they didnt happen. it seem everyone is forgetting the steps taken in scientific research, theories, experimentation, observation, and analysis. instead of following those step they are going from theory to analysis and then how to scam money from people.

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

[Loonix 0]

Source, please.

[billvon 3,116]

>The Hockey stick Study was a study based on the analysis of tree rings . . .

. . . and borehole temperatures and ice thicknesses.

>But the Hockey Stick was dissproved by other scientist because the
>study failed to be able to identify known climate changes in the past . . .

Incorrect. The hockey stick did indeed identify known climate changes in the past. See below. Note it identifies the "little ice age" and the medieval warm period.

>it seem everyone is forgetting the steps taken in scientific research,
>theories, experimentation, observation, and analysis.

Well, some people are. Deniers, for example, think that if they wish VERY VERY hard (and very loudly) climate change will go away, and scientists will abandon science to embrace their particular brand of pro-industry politics.

But then the stupid ice cap goes and melts.

>instead of following those step they are going from theory to analysis and
>then how to scam money from people.

I love the "scam money" from people line. It conjures an image of atmospheric scientists flying private jets while sipping champagne made from climate-destroying grapes, while penniless Exxon executives beg for change on streetcorners. Would be nice if that happened, but reality is a bit different.

[Loonix 0]

Quote

OK, for the 100th time.
I believe the planet is warming
I believe man has little if anything to do with it (it is a natural cycle)
I know there is had never been (to date) an experiment conducted that proves man does or does not have anything to do with it.

And nobody is making such a claim either. But there have been conducted experiments that shows that humans MOST LIKELY have something to do with it.

Quote

I believe the pro GWing crowd (like Al Gore) are in it for money and tube time
I know I have seen crappy analogies over and over again that mean not a damed thing

Focus on the links I posted earlier. No reference to Al Gore there. Nevermind "crappy analogies", just read the articles.

Quote

I know computer modles of the weather are extreem flawed (those that predict GWing)

source please..

Quote

I can change my mind should I ever see something besides the CO2 is increasing, man is causing CO2 to increase, the planetay temps are riseing so, man is causing it bs.

So you don't believe that pollution can cause global change? Do you disagree that the ozone layer has diminished as a result of pollution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer#Ozone_depletion

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

OK, for the 100th time.
I believe the planet is warming
I believe man has little if anything to do with it (it is a natural cycle)
I know there is had never been (to date) an experiment conducted that proves man does or does not have anything to do with it.

And nobody is making such a claim either. But there have been conducted experiments that shows that humans MOST LIKELY have something to do with it."most likely" does not come even close and there are those making that claim right here on this site

Quote

I believe the pro GWing crowd (like Al Gore) are in it for money and tube time
I know I have seen crappy analogies over and over again that mean not a damed thing

Focus on the links I posted earlier. No reference to Al Gore there. Nevermind "crappy analogies", just read the articles. If you links are from wikopedia you can keep them. For me "crappy analogies" are presented here regularly. As I stated, no experiment ever conducted has come close to PROVING man has anything to do with GWing. Times in the past have been warmer and has had more CO2 (research shows) So why is this cycle any different?

Quote

I know computer modles of the weather are extreem flawed (those that predict GWing)

source please..

Quote

I can change my mind should I ever see something besides the CO2 is increasing, man is causing CO2 to increase, the planetay temps are riseing so, man is causing it bs.

So you don't believe that pollution can cause global change? Do you disagree that the ozone layer has diminished as a result of pollution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer#Ozone_depletion

I do not want a poluted world any more than you do. I support new and renewable energy sources. I do not support laws that will hurt our economy and standing in the workd becuase of the impact caused by these flawed laws.

"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

Well, some people are. Deniers, for example, think that if they wish VERY VERY hard (and very loudly) climate change will go away, and scientists will abandon science to embrace their particular brand of pro-industry politics.

Billvon said "Denier"

Everybody drink!



BTW Bill, lovely piece of fiction about the wishing "very, very hard" blah, blah, blah. Thanks for the laughs.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Well, some people are. Deniers, for example, think that if they wish VERY VERY hard (and very loudly) climate change will go away, and scientists will abandon science to embrace their particular brand of pro-industry politics.

Billvon said "Denier"

Everybody drink!



BTW Bill, lovely piece of fiction about the wishing "very, very hard" blah, blah, blah. Thanks for the laughs.

I like how "climate change" is the term they are using to imply man is causeing said change. Sneaky

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

[billvon 3,116]

>I like how "climate change" is the term they are using to imply man is causeing said change.

"They?" Don't you mean "you?"

A few quotes from RushMC:

"The climate is changing"
"what we should be talking here is adapting to the climate change"
"Yes the climate is changes"
"I think this is more about not toeint the line to the rabid climate change alarmists."
"less likely to believe the man is effecting major climate change. "
"Are you really saying that the IPCC is not discussing climate change?"
"man is the SOB causing the world destroying climate change"
"They are the research body DEDICATED to climate change reporting!

So why are you using the term "climate change" over and over again? Is it because you are implying man is causing said change? Have you flip-flopped _again_?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I like how "climate change" is the term they are using to imply man is causeing said change.

"They?" Don't you mean "you?"

A few quotes from RushMC:

"The climate is changing"
"what we should be talking here is adapting to the climate change"
"Yes the climate is changes"
"I think this is more about not toeint the line to the rabid climate change alarmists."
"less likely to believe the man is effecting major climate change. "
"Are you really saying that the IPCC is not discussing climate change?"
"man is the SOB causing the world destroying climate change"
"They are the research body DEDICATED to climate change reporting!

So why are you using the term "climate change" over and over again? Is it because you are implying man is causing said change? Have you flip-flopped _again_?

Ah Bill, I would expect better from you

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

[billvon 3,116]

So when you use "climate change" it's the right usage - when I use it it's the wrong usage? Or did you mean something different?

>Ah Bill, I would expect better from you

You've used that particular barb about 30 times now; it's starting to lose its novelty.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

So when you use "climate change" it's the right usage - when I use it it's the wrong usage? Or did you mean something different?

>Ah Bill, I would expect better from you

You've used that particular barb about 30 times now; it's starting to lose its novelty.

Ya, and you taking statements, twisting them out of a context you know they were not made in, is dishonest.

I will take lack of novelty

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

[rushmc 23]

You use the term climate change and by implication you are stating it is man made.

I use the term as it is. The "climate changes". Man has nothing or little to do with it.

I await your next twist

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

[billvon 3,116]

> You use the term climate change and by implication you are stating
> it is man made.

I use the term climate change because the climate is changing. Sounds like it's the same reason you use it. Sometimes I use the term global warming instead since the average temperature of the planet is increasing. (Note that an increase is also a change.)

>I await your next twist

There it was. I await a difficult to understand barb about how I twisted your words some more.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> You use the term climate change and by implication you are stating
> it is man made.

I use the term climate change because the climate is changing. As do I. You have asked for clarification from me on this before. Have you forgotten? Sounds like it's the same reason you use it.No, your position is well known. You believe and have stated many times you believe man made CO2 increases are a cause for Global Warming Climate Change Sometimes I use the term global warming instead since the average temperature of the planet is increasing.And the implication from you is the same in both cases (Note that an increase is also a change.)

>I await your next twist

There it was. I await a difficult to understand barb about how I twisted your words some more.

Not here. But you did it in your last twist, ah post. You also claim flip flops (which I consider a PA but we all know you don't make PA's) so that is twisting my meaning and context.

Next?

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

[billvon 3,116]

>No, your position is well known. You believe and have stated many
>times you believe man made CO2 increases are a cause for Global
>Warming Climate Change.

Yes. Doesn't change the fact (that you acknowledge) that the climate is changing. Therefore climate change is an accurate referent.

>You also claim flip flops . . .

You once said that global warming stopped in 1998. Now you acknowledge that the climate continues to change.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

>No, your position is well known. You believe and have stated many
>times you believe man made CO2 increases are a cause for Global
>Warming Climate Change.

Yes. Doesn't change the fact (that you acknowledge) that the climate is changing. Therefore climate change is an accurate referent.

>You also claim flip flops . . .

You once said that global warming stopped in 1998. Now you acknowledge that the climate continues to change.

Here (before he denies it).
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2168022#2168022

Flip

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>No, your position is well known. You believe and have stated many
>times you believe man made CO2 increases are a cause for Global
>Warming Climate Change.

Yes. Doesn't change the fact (that you acknowledge) that the climate is changing. Therefore climate change is an accurate referent.

>You also claim flip flops . . .

You once said that global warming stopped in 1998. Now you acknowledge that the climate continues to change.

Here (before he denies it).
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2168022#2168022

Flip

You learn well from Bill don't you.

To finish the point look at my comment and realize the TITTLE of the post came from the link.

Crow taste good?

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>No, your position is well known. You believe and have stated many
>times you believe man made CO2 increases are a cause for Global
>Warming Climate Change.

Yes. Doesn't change the fact (that you acknowledge) that the climate is changing. Therefore climate change is an accurate referent.

>You also claim flip flops . . .

You once said that global warming stopped in 1998. Now you acknowledge that the climate continues to change.

If you READ the post you see that the tittle of the post is from the article. My comment was a reference to YOUR consense statments.

feathers and bone, chew chew chew

"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 2,148]

Quote

Flip

You learn well from Bill don't you.

To finish the point look at my comment and realize the TITTLE of the post came from the link.

Crow taste good?

Tittle, or tattle? Flip, flop.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Flip

You learn well from Bill don't you.

To finish the point look at my comment and realize the TITTLE of the post came from the link.

Crow taste good?

Tittle, or tattle? Flip, flop.

Chew chew chew

God I love it

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

[billvon 3,116]

>If you READ the post you see that the tittle of the post is from the article.

So you posted something you didn't mean. Fair enough. In the future, if you post stuff you don't mean, please identify it as such; will save you a lot of grief.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

You use the term climate change and by implication you are stating it is man made.

I use the term as it is. The "climate changes". Man has nothing or little to do with it.

I await your next twist

Personally I don't get how you could be so naive as to think that we are not having an impact on the environment and that things like global warming are linked to us.

How do you explain smog around big cities? Is that just natural? How do you explain the hike in lung cancer in big cities? Think it has anything to do with all those cars pumping 19 pounds of cancer causing gas per gallon of fuel in the air? And how could one think that all that may not have an affect on the environment when it's happening all over the world? Sorry, you piss in a bucket enough times and soon enough it's gonna fill up.

So you would rather have the oil companies make a few more billion than put some laws into place that would cut emissions and save a few hundred thousand people from cancer? That makes no sense, as with those laws come other jobs and new industries. It isn't going to hurt our economy. Businesses may change, but it would be no different than when the computer market started...........it's just a technology change. And it would be better for our environment. We could actually stand to make a lot of money off of it if we chose to be the industry leader in alternative energy and sold the technology around the world. The fuel economy on US vehicles has not changed in 20 years.........is that because people don't have the technology or because people want to make money? On top of that, less oil used means less dependancy on the middle east..........now see where OBL gets his money from, essentially you'd be fighting terrorism by not using as much fuel and oil. Al Queda being based out of Saudi Arabia.............guess how the country makes their money?

Wake up. You say you want a clean environment, then go for it. All things don't come in the convenience package, sometimes you have to work for them.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

I use the term climate change because the climate is changing. Sounds like it's the same reason you use it. Sometimes I use the term global warming instead since the average temperature of the planet is increasing. (Note that an increase is also a change.)

But here here you use it in place of Anthropogenic Global Warming:

Quote

Deniers, for example, think that if they wish VERY VERY hard (and very loudly) climate change will go away,

It's not the first time you've gone with the "Deniers don't believe climate change exists" tact.

I'm reminded of the time you wrote:
"The science is settled" - regarding AGW

When pressed, you offered up a bunch of facts, that aren't being questioned by AGW skeptics!!!

In other words - "The science is settled" about overall global warming.... but not about anthropogenic global warming!