“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
There are natural cycles in climate and temeratures . The influence of global warming is a force that is imposed on top of the natural cycles.
the science is clear that there is a very disturbing and predicted long term trend due to the increase in greenhouse gases. The private corespondence points to scientists who are becoming frantic for having to deal with science whores and morrons like Limbaugh and Beck Who don’t bother with peer reveiw science and truth.
If the sceptics win we don’t have a chance , your kids will hate you for what you left them.
Global warming is not equivalent to climate change. Significant, societally important climate change, due to both natural- and human- climate forcings, can occur without any global warming or cooling.
Decouple the notion of global warming from climate change, look for both natural and anthropogenic forcings, and construct theory to fit the data. Wow!!!!!
Ken- Quick, what is the earth’s most prevalent green house gas by almost an order of magnitude? What are you advocating we do to reduce it? I doubt you know the answer without googling and ironically you consider others morons for not understanding science.
Wolf I would guess it is probably water vapor. The whole problem is one of equilibrium. We don’t have to reduce water vapor , It has abeautiful self regulating system that keeps it in avery narrow range . Its called ,rain, you idiot.
On the other hand co2 and ch4 also have regulating system but it takes thousands of years to absorb the excess co2 in the present concentrations that we are producing now.
This is proof of “man made climate change!” Of course the only influence man has on the climate is the manipulation of data to fit a preconceived notion.
Kind of makes you wonder who the real “deniers” are.
“It has abeautiful self regulating system that keeps it in avery narrow range . Its called ,rain, you idiot.”
Ken- I may not be as smart as you since I don’t sleep with a scientist like you do but defining atmospheric water concentration variations as a “narrow range” is silly. Any grade schooler can tell there is a huge difference between blue skies and a down pour. If you looked into water’s green house effect you would see that it’s 30 times that of CO2. As soon as the climatologist’s atmospheric models can accurately predict next weeks weather I’ll join you in unquestioningly dismissing the effects of the earth’s dominate green house gas.
The bark of the skeptic in the 80’s and 90’s was that there was absolutely no warming . Now that it is undeniable that there is warming , the skeptics say that it isn’t caused by us.Seems real easy to be a skeptic , you don’t bother doing the science you just make things up.
Wolf – in the last century we have gone from about 280 ppm of co2 in the atmosphere to over 380 ppm , that is an increase of almost 30%. Looking at the earth as a closed system I’m going to assume that there is a fairly constant amount of water vapor in the vapor part of the water cycles of the earth . I ‘m pretty sure the amount hasn’t changed 30% over the last 100 years. The system is in equalibreum not like the co2 system.
Ken- If by closed system you mean H2O neither leaves or enters the outer boundaries of the earths atmosphere, then I agree. What makes you think the same isn’t true for CO2? Is there some extraterrestrial source entering our atmosphere I am unaware of? Since the dominant man made sources of CO2 are combustion of plant based fuels which harvested their CO2 content from the air, we are simply returning CO2 back to it’s source.
This means we are returning CO2 levels to historical levels. The argument then becomes what year in the earths history do we consider the gold standard as the goal for returning the planet to perfection. You pick 100 years ago and I pick 1,000,000. Both are only a tick of the clock in earth’s overall history.
Wolf – I pick a hundred years ago because the level of co2 befor that apears to be stable at about 280ppm for at least the previous 800,00o years . We have changed it in a very short period of time , and the results don’t look good. Mankind has pretty much only known the 280 ppm in its existance . A level that has given us an enviroment that we adapted to .
Spot on Craig, lets put you and Steve together on this one.
Water vapor accounts for 75% of greenhouse heating while CO2 accounts for less than 9%. Of that, AGW for all it’s bluster gives no account for the human contribution percentage. I’ll be kind and give it a very generous 10%. This makes the human contribution less than 1% of the total. We are going to wreck a civilization to reduce greenhouse gases 1%?
Ken- Since the earth’s carbon ecosystem took itself from very high CO2 levels (+6000ppm) to the relatively low CO2 levels we have today, doesn’t it stand to reason that the system is stable and not the runaway freight train we are told?
Ken, give up. You’re wasting your time. It’s like you’re trying to give a science lesson to a Beagle. You can give them all the facts and science you want, but it’s not going to change their mind. Hell, Big Swede thinks that cutting back on CO2 emissions is going to wreck our civilization. You can’t reason with that, just give it your pity and move on.
Not mad Swede, sad. Watching as you consider it a personal victory that you get to continue wallowing in your own ignorance. You appear to think it’s a good thing that people who disagree with you think you’re unteachable. Extremely sad.
I’m thinking the ignorant believed in these guys to begin with. Times online today.
>>SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.<<
In terms of wallowing in ignorance, Mihalis, your meme, == One of the claims in this hacked CRU email saga goes something like “Well, the scientists acted like jerks, but that doesn’t affect the results, it’s still warming.”==, has is a cruel mirror for you.
From The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
>>Grow the f*** up, greenies. Grow the f*** up, face the facts, admit you have been had. Grow the f*** up and search for something better in your life. Search for something that is real, tangible, and will be there for you. Search for something that won’t lie to you, deceive you, mock you, and then ask for more of your time, money, faith and devotion.<<
I’m thinking the ignorant believed in these guys to begin with.
If by “the ignorant” you mean the majority of scientists (you know, guys with training and PhDs and stuff) worldwide, then I suppose you’d be right. I guess that makes people like you, without training and what appears to be about a third grade understanding of science the “not ignorant”. Yea, that makes perfect sense.
This is why I wouldn’t, and Ken shouldn’t, waste time on you.
This petition has been signed by 31,486 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Another example of why I wouldn’t bother to try to teach you anything Swede. A complete lack of understanding of basic concepts. When I say that I’m not going to waste my time on you, that means I’m not going to answer your lame questions. You’re unteachable, and quite frankly, you seem a little stupid. That’s about the closest to an answer you’re going to get.
The fraudulence of the Copenhagen approach – “goals” for emission reductions, “offsets” that render ironclad goals almost meaningless, the ineffectual “cap-and-trade” mechanism – must be exposed. We must rebel against such politics as usual.
Wow Gregg, I figured you were smart enough to stay out of this. It appears that I’m wrong about that.
One of the interesting things about science is that theories, like evolution and the Big Bang, are impossible to definitively prove. That’s where science differs from Mathematics. So, when you have a situation when it’s impossible to prove absolutely one answer or the other, the theories are put out there with the evidence pointing in one direction or another. The worlds scientists look at those theories, and they choose which seems more likely to be accurate. When the majority of people educated in a field come to the same conclusion based on the evidence that they see, it’s mostly likely the right answer. When a bunch of uneducated, ignorant people disagree with those knowledgeable, educated people, I don’t think it’s a tough decision on who to side with.
Wow. I can’t believe I am not “smart enough” to stay out of a discussion with…Mihalis.
I get it. AGW is a theory. It’s not scientific fact. You’ve made your point, wiseman.
Gosh, I don’t want to be with the ignorant, uneducated people. I want to be with the knowledgeable, educated people who hide data and lie about their evidence. Like you.
Thank you for sparing the time to point me in the right direction. Goodbye.
One might wonder what advanced science education Mihalis has that justifies such an inflated self-image about his ability to teach others science. High school general chemistry? There are reputable experts on both sides yet Mihalis thinks the one true answer will come from polling and trickery to keep out minority views.
Oh that’s rich! I actually laughed out loud when I read that! You’re honestly expecting the majority of scientists to change their mind based on this “scandal”? Do you really think that these individuals were the only source of data, anywhere? That they were the only ones that ever did this kind of research? That they were the only ones that reached this conclusion?
Thank you Swede. I have to admit, after reading this, I’m going to go to bed with a big smile on my face. That was better than Letterman and Leno combined.
In an Opinion Essay in today’s (Thursday, November 26), The Wall Street Journal Europe writes, “The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.”
“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider Discover magazine, Oct 1989
As evidenced by some of the commentators here, when the very foundation of their beliefs begin to crumble they become babbling idiots.
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27550390/the-science-is-very-clear.htm#q=ed+beagley
“Peer Reviewed” seems to be the new talking points defense. Problem is the reviewers are just as corrupt as their false data.
There are natural cycles in climate and temeratures . The influence of global warming is a force that is imposed on top of the natural cycles.
the science is clear that there is a very disturbing and predicted long term trend due to the increase in greenhouse gases. The private corespondence points to scientists who are becoming frantic for having to deal with science whores and morrons like Limbaugh and Beck Who don’t bother with peer reveiw science and truth.
If the sceptics win we don’t have a chance , your kids will hate you for what you left them.
Steve McIntyre has charted out the missing data from Hiding the Decline. http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/briffa_recon.gif
In terms of linkage of long-term trends to greenhouse gases, Pielke, Sr. said this back in 2005: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/main-conclusions-2/
Decouple the notion of global warming from climate change, look for both natural and anthropogenic forcings, and construct theory to fit the data. Wow!!!!!
Ken- Quick, what is the earth’s most prevalent green house gas by almost an order of magnitude? What are you advocating we do to reduce it? I doubt you know the answer without googling and ironically you consider others morons for not understanding science.
Really, Ken? Really?
Since there are people who don’t buy the theories, that justifies fudging the numbers?
Wolf I would guess it is probably water vapor. The whole problem is one of equilibrium. We don’t have to reduce water vapor , It has abeautiful self regulating system that keeps it in avery narrow range . Its called ,rain, you idiot.
On the other hand co2 and ch4 also have regulating system but it takes thousands of years to absorb the excess co2 in the present concentrations that we are producing now.
This is proof of “man made climate change!” Of course the only influence man has on the climate is the manipulation of data to fit a preconceived notion.
Kind of makes you wonder who the real “deniers” are.
Makes one wonder if the “Kens” of the world consider which is better, whether to be a questioning skeptic or a barking dogmatic zealot.
“It has abeautiful self regulating system that keeps it in avery narrow range . Its called ,rain, you idiot.”
Ken- I may not be as smart as you since I don’t sleep with a scientist like you do but defining atmospheric water concentration variations as a “narrow range” is silly. Any grade schooler can tell there is a huge difference between blue skies and a down pour. If you looked into water’s green house effect you would see that it’s 30 times that of CO2. As soon as the climatologist’s atmospheric models can accurately predict next weeks weather I’ll join you in unquestioningly dismissing the effects of the earth’s dominate green house gas.
The bark of the skeptic in the 80’s and 90’s was that there was absolutely no warming . Now that it is undeniable that there is warming , the skeptics say that it isn’t caused by us.Seems real easy to be a skeptic , you don’t bother doing the science you just make things up.
Wolf – in the last century we have gone from about 280 ppm of co2 in the atmosphere to over 380 ppm , that is an increase of almost 30%. Looking at the earth as a closed system I’m going to assume that there is a fairly constant amount of water vapor in the vapor part of the water cycles of the earth . I ‘m pretty sure the amount hasn’t changed 30% over the last 100 years. The system is in equalibreum not like the co2 system.
Ken- If by closed system you mean H2O neither leaves or enters the outer boundaries of the earths atmosphere, then I agree. What makes you think the same isn’t true for CO2? Is there some extraterrestrial source entering our atmosphere I am unaware of? Since the dominant man made sources of CO2 are combustion of plant based fuels which harvested their CO2 content from the air, we are simply returning CO2 back to it’s source.
This means we are returning CO2 levels to historical levels. The argument then becomes what year in the earths history do we consider the gold standard as the goal for returning the planet to perfection. You pick 100 years ago and I pick 1,000,000. Both are only a tick of the clock in earth’s overall history.
Wolf – I pick a hundred years ago because the level of co2 befor that apears to be stable at about 280ppm for at least the previous 800,00o years . We have changed it in a very short period of time , and the results don’t look good. Mankind has pretty much only known the 280 ppm in its existance . A level that has given us an enviroment that we adapted to .
Looks like cherry picking. Both C02 and temperature started up over 18000 years ago. See: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html
The correlation is rather suspect: http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif The claim that C02 leads temperature defies the historical record. Notice when they moved in opposite directions and how stubborn termperature was to any changes to C02. Also see here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_500_yrs.html
Spot on Craig, lets put you and Steve together on this one.
Water vapor accounts for 75% of greenhouse heating while CO2 accounts for less than 9%. Of that, AGW for all it’s bluster gives no account for the human contribution percentage. I’ll be kind and give it a very generous 10%. This makes the human contribution less than 1% of the total. We are going to wreck a civilization to reduce greenhouse gases 1%?
I’d say Ken and Millie would answer yes.
Ken- Since the earth’s carbon ecosystem took itself from very high CO2 levels (+6000ppm) to the relatively low CO2 levels we have today, doesn’t it stand to reason that the system is stable and not the runaway freight train we are told?
Wreck a civilization?!?
Ken, give up. You’re wasting your time. It’s like you’re trying to give a science lesson to a Beagle. You can give them all the facts and science you want, but it’s not going to change their mind. Hell, Big Swede thinks that cutting back on CO2 emissions is going to wreck our civilization. You can’t reason with that, just give it your pity and move on.
How about Al Gore’s science lesson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqasecwLZXA&NR=1
Don’t go away mad guys.
Just go away.
Not mad Swede, sad. Watching as you consider it a personal victory that you get to continue wallowing in your own ignorance. You appear to think it’s a good thing that people who disagree with you think you’re unteachable. Extremely sad.
I’m thinking the ignorant believed in these guys to begin with. Times online today.
>>SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.<<
Dog ate the homework excuse.
In terms of wallowing in ignorance, Mihalis, your meme, == One of the claims in this hacked CRU email saga goes something like “Well, the scientists acted like jerks, but that doesn’t affect the results, it’s still warming.”==, has is a cruel mirror for you.
See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/#more-13373
correction: ” has” should be deleted.
By the way it is total BS to claim the science is sound and settled when the theories put forth cannot be tested with the source data.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Ode to Eddiebear.
>>Grow the f*** up, greenies. Grow the f*** up, face the facts, admit you have been had. Grow the f*** up and search for something better in your life. Search for something that is real, tangible, and will be there for you. Search for something that won’t lie to you, deceive you, mock you, and then ask for more of your time, money, faith and devotion.<<
Couldn’t have said it better.
Big Swede:
If by “the ignorant” you mean the majority of scientists (you know, guys with training and PhDs and stuff) worldwide, then I suppose you’d be right. I guess that makes people like you, without training and what appears to be about a third grade understanding of science the “not ignorant”. Yea, that makes perfect sense.
This is why I wouldn’t, and Ken shouldn’t, waste time on you.
This petition has been signed by 31,486 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
For more information about this Petition Project, go here: http://www.petitionproject.org/
Just answer these questions Millie.
Where did these Scientists you so highly speak of get there data forming their hypothesis?
Did they collect data from from thousands of sources all over the world like CRU?
Did they chop down a dozens of trees in Siberia to find the right three?
Do their very livelihoods depend on govt. grant moines?
Walter Greenspan:
I realize the quote isn’t complete, but I stopped quoting after I stopped caring. Do I need to define the word “majority” for you?
Big Swede:
Another example of why I wouldn’t bother to try to teach you anything Swede. A complete lack of understanding of basic concepts. When I say that I’m not going to waste my time on you, that means I’m not going to answer your lame questions. You’re unteachable, and quite frankly, you seem a little stupid. That’s about the closest to an answer you’re going to get.
I wonder how Obama and the UN are going to sell Cap and Trade now that one of his chief scientists has gone rouge. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/copenhagen-summit-climate-change
Oooooo….science is majority rule now?
Wow Gregg, I figured you were smart enough to stay out of this. It appears that I’m wrong about that.
One of the interesting things about science is that theories, like evolution and the Big Bang, are impossible to definitively prove. That’s where science differs from Mathematics. So, when you have a situation when it’s impossible to prove absolutely one answer or the other, the theories are put out there with the evidence pointing in one direction or another. The worlds scientists look at those theories, and they choose which seems more likely to be accurate. When the majority of people educated in a field come to the same conclusion based on the evidence that they see, it’s mostly likely the right answer. When a bunch of uneducated, ignorant people disagree with those knowledgeable, educated people, I don’t think it’s a tough decision on who to side with.
Wow. I can’t believe I am not “smart enough” to stay out of a discussion with…Mihalis.
I get it. AGW is a theory. It’s not scientific fact. You’ve made your point, wiseman.
Gosh, I don’t want to be with the ignorant, uneducated people. I want to be with the knowledgeable, educated people who hide data and lie about their evidence. Like you.
Thank you for sparing the time to point me in the right direction. Goodbye.
One might wonder what advanced science education Mihalis has that justifies such an inflated self-image about his ability to teach others science. High school general chemistry? There are reputable experts on both sides yet Mihalis thinks the one true answer will come from polling and trickery to keep out minority views.
The majority of scientists that Millie sites, need to be asked about warming again.
Now that the facts have changed.
Oh that’s rich! I actually laughed out loud when I read that! You’re honestly expecting the majority of scientists to change their mind based on this “scandal”? Do you really think that these individuals were the only source of data, anywhere? That they were the only ones that ever did this kind of research? That they were the only ones that reached this conclusion?
Thank you Swede. I have to admit, after reading this, I’m going to go to bed with a big smile on my face. That was better than Letterman and Leno combined.
The laughs on you Millie.
I’m thinking Leno and possibly Letterman will soon be doing jokes about these “scientists”.