Fear and loathing in DC

[kallend 2,146]

jgoose71

***
Fact: Humans contribute to the warming.

Not opinion. Fact.

Not a fact, not even close. Please provide proof other than a "consensus of like minded scientists looking for more money"

No one has been able to make this connection. That is the reason I say the jury is still out.

On the whole I find the report of the National Academy of Sciences to be more credible than your opinion.

...

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

[jgoose71 0]

kallend

******
Fact: Humans contribute to the warming.

Not opinion. Fact.

Not a fact, not even close. Please provide proof other than a "consensus of like minded scientists looking for more money"

No one has been able to make this connection. That is the reason I say the jury is still out.

On the whole I find the report of the National Academy of Sciences to be more credible than your opinion.

True, I would give more credibility to the National Academy of Science's opinion than to mine.

But it doesn't change the fact that without accurate models to explain all the connections in the environment, man made global warming is opinion, not fact.

Now instead of cherry picking post #72, why don't you respond to post #74? Or does talking facts get in your way?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rushmc 23]

quade

Fact: The planet is warming.
Fact: Humans contribute to the warming.

.

Only ONE might be proven
the other?

A religious faith at best at this point

You fully demonstrate that.......

forget 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

[rushmc 23]

I wonder how long it will take the alarmists to try and destroy this man, who was once a great and revered climate scientist?

Quote

One of the world's most eminent climate scientists - for several decades a warmist - has defected to the climate sceptic camp.

Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith - up to and including the belief that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.

But this week, he signalled his move to the enemy camp by agreeing to join the advisory council of Britain's Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the think tank created by the arch-sceptical former Chancellor Lord Lawson.

Will it make anyone think? Or will they just blow him off as a person turned nut case

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/08/Leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus

Of course the source can be destroyed even though they just report his defection....

In any event
I think this one is going to leave a mark

"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]

Oh oh

Quote

"He's a big, big player. The biggest by far to change sides," says the GWPF's Benny Peiser. "What's particularly significant is that his speciality is climate modelling - and computer models, as you know, are at the heart of global warming theory. He is the most significant figure to admit, as many modellers are beginning to notice, that there is an increasing discrepancy between what the models predicted and what the real world data is actually telling us."

"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]

kallend

******
Fact: Humans contribute to the warming.

Not opinion. Fact.

Not a fact, not even close. Please provide proof other than a "consensus of like minded scientists looking for more money"

No one has been able to make this connection. That is the reason I say the jury is still out.

On the whole I find the report of the National Academy of Sciences to be more credible than your opinion.

So much for your consensus push

Quote

Bengtsson went on to reject another pillar of the warmist faith - the existence of a "consensus."

I have great respect for the scientific work that goes into the IPCC reports. But I see no need for the endeavour of the IPCC to achieve a consensus. I think it is essential that there are areas of society where a consensus cannot be enforced. Especially in an area like the climate system, which is incompletely understood, a consensus is meaningless

I think I will listen to this exprect, seeing how you are NOT one

"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]

Seems to be a bad day for the alarmists here

Just like the dieing polar bears myth, maybe another fabrication is being exposed

Quote

Attempts to stem sea level rises by reducing CO2 levels in order to "combat" global warming are a complete waste of time says a new report by two of the world's leading oceanographic scientists.

Over the last 150 years, average global sea levels have risen by around 1.8 mm per annum - a continuation of the melting of the ice sheets which began 17,000 years ago. Satellite measurements (which began in 1992) put the rate higher - at 3mm per year. But there is no evidence whatsoever to support the doomsday claims made by Al Gore in 2006 that sea levels will rise by 20 feet by the end of the century, nor even the more modest prediction by James Hansen that they will rise by 5 metres.

Such modest rises, argue oceanographer Willem P de Lange and marine geologist Bob Carter in their report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, are far better dealt with by adaptation than by costly, ineffectual schemes to decarbonise the global economy.

They say:


No justification exists for continuing to base sea-level policy and coastal management regulation upon the outcomes of deterministic or semi-empirical sea-level modelling. Such modelling remains speculative rather than predictive. The practice of using a global rate of sea-level change to manage specific coastal locations worldwide is irrational and should be abandoned.

I also find it very interesting these this reports says the ice sheets started melting 17,000 years ago

I guess we have been at this for a very long time it now seems


The report http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/05/Sea-level-report.pdf

The source

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/07/Sea-Level-Rises-Are-An-Insignificant-Problem-To-Which-We-Can-Easily-Adapt-Says-New-Report

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

[Amazon 7]

rushmc

I wonder how long it will take the alarmists to try and destroy this man, who was once a great and revered climate scientist?

Quote

One of the world's most eminent climate scientists - for several decades a warmist - has defected to the climate sceptic camp.

Lennart Bengtsson - a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction - is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith - up to and including the belief that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.

But this week, he signaled his move to the enemy camp by agreeing to join the advisory council of Britain's Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the think tank created by the arch-skeptical former Chancellor Lord Lawson.

Will it make anyone think? Or will they just blow him off as a person turned nut case

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/08/Leading-climate-scientist-defects-no-longer-believes-in-the-consensus

Of course the source can be destroyed even though they just report his defection....

In any event
I think this one is going to leave a mark

And the bottom line... like always is the BOTTOM LINE. What does he have to gain... being from Sweden... that benefits with warming... and you... What do you have to gain from doing nothing while you and your fellow travelers benefit from the status quo.

[billvon 3,107]

>-Green house gasses do cause the earth to retain heat.

Cool, we agree there.

>-CO2 content of the atmosphere is .04% and since we have been taking
>measurements we have seen an increase of 2 parts per million a year. Is this
>enough to cause warming?

Yes. The additional energy retained by the additional CO2 is between 1.5 and 2 watts per square meter of the Earth.

>The global temps average have risen .19 degrees celsius in the past 30 years

Agreed, which matches the long term trend. In the past 100 years they have risen .8C.

>Right now man made global warming is an assumption. You know what an
>assumption is, right?

An unsupported claim. Since the above claims are all supported by facts (which you have agreed to) they are not assumptions.

[billvon 3,107]

>But it doesn't change the fact that without accurate models to explain all the
>connections in the environment, man made global warming is opinion, not fact.

I think you are confusing "models" with "facts." Models are used to predict future behavior. Facts are observed events that have happened in the past and are happening now.

AGW is a fact and has been observed since 1850 or so. Models are used to predict how AGW will affect the climate in the future.

Again, an analogy. We have no accurate models of a human lung. There is no way a doctor can run a computer simulation of your lung and tell you "if you smoke another 900 cigarettes you'll be fine, but number 901 will give you lung cancer." However, it is a fact that smoking increases the risk of you getting lung cancer. It would be foolish to say "since we don't have accurate models of the human lung, the link between smoking and cancer is just an opinion."

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>But it doesn't change the fact that without accurate models to explain all the
>connections in the environment, man made global warming is opinion, not fact.

I think you are confusing "models" with "facts." Models are used to predict future behavior. Facts are observed events that have happened in the past and are happening now.

AGW is a fact and has been observed since 1850 or so. Models are used to predict how AGW will affect the climate in the future.

Again, an analogy. We have no accurate models of a human lung. There is no way a doctor can run a computer simulation of your lung and tell you "if you smoke another 900 cigarettes you'll be fine, but number 901 will give you lung cancer." However, it is a fact that smoking increases the risk of you getting lung cancer. It would be foolish to say "since we don't have accurate models of the human lung, the link between smoking and cancer is just an opinion."

No
Temp increases are a fact
What is causing it , whether natural or not is not known
THIS is a fact

You have your opinion with which I disagree, as do many scientists (on both sides of this issue)

"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 3,107]

>No
>Temp increases are a fact

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that increases heat retention - fact
We are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - fact

"But. . . . but . . . we can't be warming the planet because then I'd have to agree with Al Gore and I HATE him!" - opinion

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>No
>Temp increases are a fact

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that increases heat retention - fact
We are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - fact

"But. . . . but . . . we can't be warming the planet because then I'd have to agree with Al Gore and I HATE him!" - opinion

All you have is your opinion of what you present really means
You have your opinion period
You can not prove this nor can anyone
The predictions have not come true

BTY, are you a climate scientist? I know you have well educated yourself on the topic but, who should I believe? You, or a renowned climate expert?

Kallend says all the time he would go with the experts

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

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

>No


CO2 is a greenhouse gas that increases heat retention - fact
We are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - fact
A temperature increases would cause more water vapor, cloud cover and rain that cool the earth - fact

You forgot one. Helped you out a bit. You seem to keep forgetting that the world is not a jar with only one force acting upon it.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

BTY, are you a climate scientist? I know you have well educated yourself on the topic but, who should I believe? You, or a renowned climate expert?

lol.....just as long as you get to cherry pick exactly which expert you get to believe right?

I love how you found an article on BreitBart and have now made 6 or 7 posts waiving it around as the big smoking gun.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

BTY, are you a climate scientist? I know you have well educated yourself on the topic but, who should I believe? You, or a renowned climate expert?

lol.....just as long as you get to cherry pick exactly which expert you get to believe right?

I love how you found an article on BreitBart and have now made 6 or 7 posts waiving it around as the big smoking gun.

You had better read the article and see who did the interview
I believe it was a German publication
The interview was just reported on by a reputable source
You know the main stream sights will not pay attention to this as it doen not fit their world view

And again
For years my point has always been the science is not settled
Just more indication I am right

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You know the main stream sights will not pay attention to this as it doen not fit their world view

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the fantasy that the world is consipiring to silence your opinions Marc.

You keep throwing out that the science isn't settled. I am not sure what that means. Can you explain to me what that means to you. When would you consider the science to be settled?

I can still find "experts" who will state that second hand smoke isn't bad for you. Yet, I consider that science pretty settled.

[billvon 3,107]

>A temperature increases would cause more water vapor, cloud cover and rain
>that cool the earth - fact

>You forgot one.

No, I didn't. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, and saying that more greenhouse gases would cool the planet is factually incorrect.

Since clouds warm the planet at night and cool it during the day, you also cannot claim that clouds "cool the earth" and call it a fact. You could say that daytime clouds reduce warming and call it a fact with reasonable confidence.

Now, if you want to claim that increased water vapor in the atmosphere due to AGW might mitigate the effects of the warming via daytime cloud formation, that's a valid _opinion._ Likewise, claiming that increased water vapor in the atmosphere might contribute to further warming due to its strong greenhouse effect, that's also a valid opinion. Which is the case? A lot of research is going into that question right now.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

You know the main stream sights will not pay attention to this as it doen not fit their world view

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the fantasy that the world is consipiring to silence your opinions Marc.

You keep throwing out that the science isn't settled. I am not sure what that means. Can you explain to me what that means to you. When would you consider the science to be settled?

I can still find "experts" who will state that second hand smoke isn't bad for you. Yet, I consider that science pretty settled.

Is man causeing the temp increases?

I am very confident that at best this is an unknown
Do you think the science has proven this otherwise?

"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]

billvon

A lot of research is going into that question right now.

Why?

I thought the science was settled
If it is settled, why waste the time and money?

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

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***

Quote

You know the main stream sights will not pay attention to this as it doen not fit their world view

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the fantasy that the world is consipiring to silence your opinions Marc.

You keep throwing out that the science isn't settled. I am not sure what that means. Can you explain to me what that means to you. When would you consider the science to be settled?

I can still find "experts" who will state that second hand smoke isn't bad for you. Yet, I consider that science pretty settled.

Is man causeing the temp increases?

I am very confident that at best this is an unknown
Do you think the science has proven this otherwise?

I have highlighted my question, maybe you couldn't find it before.

What would have to happen for you to consider the science settled?

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

You know the main stream sights will not pay attention to this as it doen not fit their world view

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the fantasy that the world is consipiring to silence your opinions Marc.

You keep throwing out that the science isn't settled. I am not sure what that means. Can you explain to me what that means to you. When would you consider the science to be settled?

I can still find "experts" who will state that second hand smoke isn't bad for you. Yet, I consider that science pretty settled.

Is man causeing the temp increases?

I am very confident that at best this is an unknown
Do you think the science has proven this otherwise?

I have highlighted my question, maybe you couldn't find it before.

What would have to happen for you to consider the science settled?
that the observations match, more closely, the predictions/hypothesis
That any anomalies can be somewhat explained going forward


How about 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

[rushmc 23]

Do you think this issue/science is settled?

You support the idea that man is going to destroy the ecosystem if we keep operating as we are today?

Please also remember, I baddly want to have real dirty air and water for my children and granchildern
I can not understand why anybody would want anything other

"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 3,107]

>Why?

To learn more about it.

>I thought the science was settled

On those three items I listed? Definitely. On whether water vapor will result in positive or negative feedback? Jury is still out. Either:

1) it will cause positive feedback and speed warming
2) it will cause negative feedback and slow warming
3) it will have a mixed effect and do neither (most likely so far)

[airdvr 210]

I've had an epiphany reading this thread. I've decided I don't care if it's real or not. AGW believers, do your worst. In 20 years this will be forgotten much the same as Sarajevo, Rwanda, Nancy Kerrigan, O.J., and the baseball players strike, and Newt Gigrich as the Speaker of the House. (Yes, I had to look them up)

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne