A Global Warming voice of reason?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

rehetoric

Closer. Much closer.

... a little ...

"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 3,120]

>You have shot down more credible sources to defend your possition
>but you use Al Gore as some kind of credible global warming source?

No. I used it to show that your claim that "deniers" are more civil in debate is absurd. Thank you for proving that.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You have shot down more credible sources to defend your possition
>but you use Al Gore as some kind of credible global warming source?

No. I used it to show that your claim that "deniers" are more civil in debate is absurd. Thank you for proving that.

Once again, if you are using Al Gore in any fashion in this debate you have no argument.

Twist as you may but you KNOW what my point was.

Thank 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

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

>You have shot down more credible sources to defend your possition
>but you use Al Gore as some kind of credible global warming source?

No. I used it to show that your claim that "deniers" are more civil in debate is absurd. Thank you for proving that.

Once again, if you are using Al Gore in any fashion in this debate you have no argument.

Twist as you may but you KNOW what my point was.

Thank You

Well, at least you're being "civil" in your response....though the meat of it's kind of a let-down.

Why does it matter, in an issue of such importance, which side is more civil. I don't see it as you do, as I think the folks who attempt to educate the rest of us on the science behind this are both more civil AND more credible than y'all deniers. For instance, saying "if you are using Al Gore in any fashion in this debate you have no argument," when he, indeed is very civil (the point that was being made), then your credibility is lost on all but those who already hold your same POV.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>You have shot down more credible sources to defend your possition
>but you use Al Gore as some kind of credible global warming source?

No. I used it to show that your claim that "deniers" are more civil in debate is absurd. Thank you for proving that.

Once again, if you are using Al Gore in any fashion in this debate you have no argument.

Twist as you may but you KNOW what my point was.

Thank You

Well, at least you're being "civil" in your response....though the meat of it's kind of a let-down.

Why does it matter, in an issue of such importance, which side is more civil. I don't see it as you do, as I think the folks who attempt to educate the rest of us on the science behind this are both more civil AND more credible than y'all deniers. For instance, saying "if you are using Al Gore in any fashion in this debate you have no argument," when he, indeed is very civil (the point that was being made), then your credibility is lost on all but those who already hold your same POV.

linz

Should I be surprised you validate my point completely?

I think not.

You know your right. So, that gives you the moral authority (in your mind) to belittle and attack those with whom you do not agree (although not in this particular post)


Point is? The science is far far from settled. Because of that you can not hold up in the debate yet, you do not want the debate or to be questioned.

Well I for one am questioning those who seek change to force thier beliefs (through law and courts) for crap that appears to me to be based on bad science.

I am glad Al Gore represents your beliefs. Hell of a flag bearer

"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]

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7138/1164

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

[Lindsey 0]

FWIW...the point was not that Al Gore knows anything at all! Only that he's civil. You were the one who seemed to think that being civil was all that important when discussing this topic to begin with (I don't think it's nearly as important as the issues themselves). Nope...he doesn't represent my ideals at all, but he's a good example of civility. In that context, I'd think his name would be appropriate to use in the debate, even if you don't like his politics.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rushmc 23]

Quote

FWIW...the point was not that Al Gore knows anything at all! Only that he's civil. You were the one who seemed to think that being civil was all that important when discussing this topic to begin with (I don't think it's nearly as important as the issues themselves). Nope...he doesn't represent my ideals at all, but he's a good example of civility. In that context, I'd think his name would be appropriate to use in the debate, even if you don't like his politics.

I could care less about his politics, unles his "politics" are global warming caused by man.

But his GWing viewpoint and tactics are a lie. He trying to profit with his carbon credits and his bs movie.

And calling him civil? Have you heard some of his political speachs after he lost? No, civil he is not.

So, for me anyway, you struck out on all points regarding the great Al Gore.

"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]

And those dieagreeing are not new but, they are starting to be heard.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

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

[Lindsey 0]

Well, I guess if he's NOT civil, then those who oppose his viewpoints are downright rude!

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Well, I guess if he's NOT civil, then those who oppose his viewpoints are downright rude!

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And those dieagreeing are not new but, they are starting to be heard.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Well, I'll give you credit sir. That article is at least formatted to look as though it was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Unfortunately, it wasn't actually published there. It doesn't appear to have been published in any respected, peer reviewed scientific journals. Nor are any of the authors qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject of climatology.

According to SourceWatch:

Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer.
…
None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program.

Here an updated version of the paper by Robinson, et al. is addressed fairly thoroughly.

Here are some further comments on the article by scientists, including climate scientists.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,120]

>Twist as you may but you KNOW what my point was.

I sometimes find myself unsure whether you truly don't understand what's being discussed, or are playing a game. If you are playing a game, then bravo. If you're not, then you have once again successfully proven yourself wrong.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Twist as you may but you KNOW what my point was.

I sometimes find myself unsure whether you truly don't understand what's being discussed, or are playing a game. If you are playing a game, then bravo. If you're not, then you have once again successfully proven yourself wrong.

I'm playing a game?

Now that is fresh

"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]

Well then, every supporter quoted on this site MUST be a climate scientist then.

I had no idea

"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]

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

Quote

Global Warming 101: Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell

Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth's relatively constant average temperature is due to a balance between (1) the amount of absorbed sunlight, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared ("IR") radiation which is continuously being lost to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be about 235 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) extert strong controls over how warm the surface of the Earth gets. Mankind's burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth's greenhouse effect, causing a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface.

Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then increase in temperature {which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must warm until global energy balance is once again restored. THIS IS THE BASIC EXPLANATION OF GLOBAL WARMING THEORY.

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the warming from the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement...it is well understood by climate scientists. (We are currently about 40% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

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

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

And those dieagreeing are not new but, they are starting to be heard.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

That article is at least formatted to look as though it was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Unfortunately, it wasn't actually published there. It doesn't appear to have been published in any respected, peer reviewed scientific journals. Nor are any of the authors qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject of climatology.

Thanks for all those links.

I was not familiar with the Robinson incident before.

There's a fascinating turn/inversion there in context of those who argue against climate change policy & the underlying science making explicit or implicit assertions of fraud somewhere in the mix.

Robinson mimiced the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) format and mass mailed his article, along with a Wall Street Journal editorial and a petition.

Now whether this was fraud or the intellectual version of a little Photoshopin' is undetermined; it was not an indicator of high integrity.

Robinson's actions stirred such confusion that the National Academy of Sciences (an organization founded in 1863 by an act of President Abraham Lincoln) issued a statement:

"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

"The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

Most scientists tend to be a-political in their work.
Sorry, guys that is reality ... plus if I started talking about supramolecular porphyrin networks, heme- & cytochrome mimics, & ssDNA-conjugated carbon nanotubes, etc most of you would tune out faster than you already do.

There's an argument that incidents like this should be impetus for scientists to be more engaged in the public sphere and public debate.
I'm not sure.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[shropshire 0]

I was with you right up to "Sorry, guys ..."

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JackC 0]

What, you think that most scientists are political in their work?

Are most vets political in their work too?
What about truck drivers?
Car salesmen?
Zoo keepers?

[shropshire 0]

Yes and the occasional piss-taking b'stard

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[speedy 0]

Quote

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the warming from the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement...it is well understood by climate scientists.

But..... this small amount of warming due to CO2 is going increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, warmer air can hold more moisture.
Water vapor is a much more potent GHG than CO2 and this will cause yet more warming. This leads to, guess what, more water vapor and more warming and killer droughts.

I am not too worried about this as Kallend has assured me that the most common greenhouse gas is not water vapor but CO2.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

... the occasional piss-taking b'stard

Well, now that's a completely different metric altogether.

Ya might be able to build that case.

Altho' it would be most interesting to compare incidence of "piss-taking b'stard"-ness among practicing scientists versus skydivers ... & what about those who fall into both categories? Oh my!

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[shropshire 0]

There you go.... I knew that you were a Brit at heart


>

I'd be far more worried about the folks that DON't fall into both categories

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[JackC 0]

Quote

Yes and the occasional piss-taking b'stard

Is piss-taking bastard a real occupation? Most of the ones I've met were just gifted amateurs.

[shropshire 0]

Good point..


Politicians... they take the piss and get paid for it... by the people that they are taking the piss out off.. Skill!

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome