or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another setback for Teh Global Warming™
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another setback for Teh Global Warming™ - Page 5

post #161 of 333
The following letter was sent to Ban Ki-moon,
Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Dec. 13, 2007

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see IPCC Working Group Schedule) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy



Here's some more fun reading, if you dare.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
post #162 of 333
How do these scientists respond to the ice sheet news? Guess it's perfectly normal, as are dirty beaches that require monitoring for health concerns. I wonder why they weren't chosen to be on the UN panel? Actually, it seems rather obvious, also given their writing skills (or lack thereof).

We are impacting the planet rather badly. What is so wrong with trying to clean it up so that our great grandkids won't have to live in our filth?

Money seems to be king for these guys.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #163 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

The correct term would be anthropogenous.
very short time peroids? Your "chart" only goes back to 1880. The Central England data I posted goes back to 1659.
I clearly have no basic understanding of the scientific method, have not been educated as a scientist, and lack any experience in understanding empirical and observational measurements?
How did you come to that conclusion? Again you are wrong.


Here is another list of deceased contrarians:

Darwin
COPERNICUS
Galileo
Newton
Tesla
Volta
Freud
Kepler
Heisenberg
Schrodinger
Edison

Do you really think that we should discount their work because they are dead?

Comparing famous dead people to a nobody? Your list of dead scientists/engineers/inventors bares absolutely no relationship to this dead nobody.

As to your single point source record of long duration, the global mean temperature record is composed of thousands of single point source records, which is the only acceptable methodology for determining global temperature trends.

Google anthropogenic gives 2,490,000 hits.
Google anthropogenous gives 6,990 hits.

anthropogenic to anthropogenous ratio = 356 to 1

Google "anthropogenic global warming" gives 115,000 hits.
Google "anthropogenous global warming" gives 4 hits.

"anthropogenic global warming" to "anthropogenous global warming" ratio = 28,750 to 1

And then?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #164 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy



Here's some more fun reading, if you dare.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

... save me a lot of time when refuting your nonsense.

I dared to go to your link, an editorial no less , typical contrarian trash talking no less.

As to your lack of posting your own original content, it figures, you leave your thinking to others.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #165 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Comparing famous dead people to a nobody? Your list of dead scientists/engineers/inventors bares absolutely no relationship to this dead nobody.

This is only your opinion. Future historians will decide who is a "nobody". Are you claiming to be able to see into the future?

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

As to your single point source record of long duration, the global mean temperature record is composed of thousands of single point source records, which is the only acceptable methodology for determining global temperature trends.

not if it uses flawed Data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Google anthropogenic gives 2,490,000 hits.
Google anthropogenous gives 6,990 hits.

anthropogenic to anthropogenous ratio = 356 to 1

Google "anthropogenic global warming" gives 115,000 hits.
Google "anthropogenous global warming" gives 4 hits.

"anthropogenic global warming" to "anthropogenous global warming" ratio = 28,750 to 1

And then?

Google is your source for vocabulary? A dictionary might better serve you.
post #166 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... save me a lot of time when refuting your nonsense.

I dared to go to your link, an editorial no less , typical contrarian trash talking no less.

As to your lack of posting your own original content, it figures, you leave your thinking to others.

I think this person is more qualified than you.

Editor's Science Bio

James A. Peden - Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network,
Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere.
elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity,
President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics.
founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry,
member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database.
He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.

Or is He a "nobody as well? What are your qualifications to refute his assertions?
post #167 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Google is your source for vocabulary? A dictionary might better serve you.

You should probably check one yourself before tellings others to do so.
post #168 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

You should probably check one yourself before tellings others to do so.

TellingS others to do so...
Nice...
post #169 of 333
It is the deniers of a human factor in global warming who have politicized this issue. This is (presumably) because to counter (an alleged human contibution towards global warming) would mandate more standards, more laws, more regulation, and responsiblilty towards planetary stewardship, rather than the economic free-for-all desired by those whose god is the "free" market/unfettered capitalism. This would require a global/international effort.... (big problem). Cue U.N. black helicopters...

Meanwhile, we keep getting hotter.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #170 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

It is the deniers of a human factor in global warming who have politicized this issue. This is (presumably) because to counter (an alleged human contibution towards global warming) would mandate more standards, more laws, more regulation, and responsiblilty towards planetary stewardship, rather than the economic free-for-all desired by those whose god is the "free" market/unfettered capitalism. This would require a global/international effort.... (big problem). Cue U.N. black helicopters...

Meanwhile, we keep getting hotter.

Nope, just bad science...

And the correct usage is... "Global warming is anthropogenic" if you use a term before (Global warming) the correct term would be "anthropogenous Global warming".
post #171 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

This is only your opinion. Future historians will decide who is a "nobody". Are you claiming to be able to see into the future?



not if it uses flawed Data.



Google is your source for vocabulary? A dictionary might better serve you.

It's not at dictionary.com anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 1.
It's not at wikipedia.com anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 2.
It's not at merriam-webster.com anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 3.
It's not at wiktionary anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. you are 0 for 4.
It's not at Google define anthropogenous but define:anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 5.
It's not at answers.com anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 6.
It's not at TheFreeDictionary anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 7.
It's not at MSN Encarta anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 8.
It's not at yourdictionary anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 9.
It's not at dictionary.die.net anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 10.

And then?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #172 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Nope, just bad science...

And the correct usage is... "Global warming is anthropogenic" if you use a term before (Global warming) the correct term would be "anthropogenous Global warming".

You seem to be the only one who uses it, so that's 1 out of 6,600,000,000 people, or as a fraction 1.515151515152e-10, way to go dude, starting your own movement, as in bowel movement!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #173 of 333
Is anyone commenting on this issue actually a climatologist? A geographer? A marine/ocean scientist?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #174 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Nope, just bad science...

And the correct usage is... "Global warming is anthropogenic" if you use a term before (Global warming) the correct term would be "anthropogenous Global warming".

... or the attached link. Your kindergarden teacher is calling, recess is OVER!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #175 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Is anyone commenting on this issue actually a climatologist? A geographer? A marine/ocean scientist?

Well I'm a Research Hydraulic Engineer, specializing in coastal/marine engineering, so I'm at least very capable of reading and understanding the scientific peer reviewed literature, after reading a few thousand you kind of get the hang of it, as it were.

I've done a lot of numerical modeling, so I do understand the basic methods used in the GCM's.

But those that are, publish is well respected scientific peer reviewed literature, meanwhile the contrarians are nowhere to be seen, not in any respectable science journal anyway, but are they in the contrarian blog-o-smear, you bet they are.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #176 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

But those that are, publish is well respected scientific peer reviewed literature, meanwhile the contrarians are nowhere to be seen, not in any respectable science journal anyway, but are they in the contrarian blog-o-smear, you bet they are.

I think this entire debate is fascinating, mostly because it hinges on a single contention: the experts in the field know less than the laypersons. Indeed, there is simply no real debate about this among the climatologists and scientists working in the field.

Could they be wrong? Sure. But that doesn't mean that a sociologist commenting on an issue wildly outside his area of expertise is Galileo.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #177 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Nope, just bad science...

Where is the "bad science" in that link? The data quoted in that link appears neutral (as it should). It quotes measurements of daily temperature maxima in various parts of the world, not the causes of the measured increases.

Quote:
And the correct usage is... "Global warming is anthropogenic" if you use a term before (Global warming) the correct term would be "anthropogenous Global warming".

I didn't use either term. I think you have your replies mixed up....

And please clarify: You can't be claiming zero human factor in global warming: to attempt to prove such would involve a logical fallacy.

By the way, what method(s) are you using to attribute global warming to causes that are 100% unrelated to human activity?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #178 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I think this entire debate is fascinating, mostly because it hinges on a single contention: the experts in the field know less than the laypersons. Indeed, there is simply no real debate about this among the climatologists and scientists working in the field.

Could they be wrong? Sure. But that doesn't mean that a sociologist commenting on an issue wildly outside his area of expertise is Galileo.

It's funny that you can substitute "biologist" for "climatologist," and it's the same shit for the evolution deniers. It's like they're cut from the same mold...
post #179 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Where is the "bad science" in that link? The data quoted in that link appears neutral (as it should). It quotes measurements of daily temperature maxima in various parts of the world, not the causes of the measured increases.



I didn't use either term. I think you have your replies mixed up....

And please clarify: You can't be claiming zero human factor in global warming: to attempt to prove such would involve a logical fallacy.

By the way, what method(s) are you using to attribute global warming to causes that are 100% unrelated to human activity?

Bad science period. You have shown Zero science that shows man made global warming.
post #180 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Bad science period. You have shown Zero science that shows man made global warming.

And you have shown zero science that proves that there is NO human contribution to global warming. Meanwhile, you argue in this matter simply because it's economically convenient to do so.

There is one fact. Whether or not cleaning up emissions standards can prevent global warming or even reduce it, it does absolutely no harm to the environment.

There are millions of Christians who say "well I don't know if there's a heaven, but I'm hedging my bets just in case".

Well, I don't know if we can slow global warming, but I'm hedging my bets just in case.
post #181 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Bad science period. You have shown Zero science that shows man made global warming.

[CENTER]


And then?[/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #182 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Bad science period. You have shown Zero science that shows man made global warming.

Where's your proof that global warming is caused entirely by forces outside human control? Give us a link to this unbiased, peer-reviewed material by parties whose sole agenda is to present and analyze the data (ie real science). If it existed, the mainstream media would be blasting it from the hilltops. Your claim is as fictitious as those WMDs, or even something else I won't go into right now...
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #183 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

[CENTER]


And then?[/CENTER]

NIce "name calling" Do you do that in your everyday life? It makes you look juvenile.
post #184 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I think this entire debate is fascinating, mostly because it hinges on a single contention: the experts in the field know less than the laypersons. Indeed, there is simply no real debate about this among the climatologists and scientists working in the field.

Could they be wrong? Sure. But that doesn't mean that a sociologist commenting on an issue wildly outside his area of expertise is Galileo.

The same argument was made when they said the world was flat.
post #185 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Where's your proof that global warming is caused entirely by forces outside human control? Give us a link to this unbiased, peer-reviewed material by parties whose sole agenda is to present and analyze the data (ie real science). If it existed, the mainstream media would be blasting it from the hilltops. Your claim is as fictitious as those WMDs, or even something else I won't go into right now...

The proof is required by those making the claims (manmade Global warming). Nice try though. If ALL the worlds scientists think it is happening, why can't you post proof? I've posted links to MANY scientists that think it's not true. That proves that not All scientists agree. Scientific fact is not arrived at through a vote. The majority of scientists used to think the Earth was the center of the universe. Your contention that every thing about climate science is known, is just not true. In fact Climate science is a very new science.
post #186 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... or the attached link. Your kindergarden teacher is calling, recess is OVER!

Again with the "name calling" How does that help your argument? Is that some kind of bullying tactic? It really marginalizes you.
post #187 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And you have shown zero science that proves that there is NO human contribution to global warming.

It's not possible to prove a negative.

[QUOTE=tonton;1234375Meanwhile, you argue in this matter simply because it's economically convenient to do so.[/QUOTE]

How so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There is one fact. Whether or not cleaning up emissions standards can prevent global warming or even reduce it, it does absolutely no harm to the environment.

I agree. That's why I heat my water with solar, useCF lights and drive as little as possible. (I've done this for over 15 years.

[QUOTE=tonton;1234375There are millions of Christians who say "well I don't know if there's a heaven, but I'm hedging my bets just in case".[/QUOTE]

I think you are wrong about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Well, I don't know if we can slow global warming, but I'm hedging my bets just in case.

I see no problem with that as long as it doesn't include Government mandates.
post #188 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

NIce "name calling" Do you do that in your everyday life? It makes you look juvenile.

... return the favor, since you're the one making up words that don't exist, and presenting biased opinions from contrarian policy wonks.

Quote:
Anthropogenous (a made up word) versus anthropogenic (a real word)

It's not at dictionary.com anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 1.
It's not at wikipedia.com anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 2.
It's not at merriam-webster.com anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 3.
It's not at wiktionary anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. you are 0 for 4.
It's not at Google define anthropogenous but define:anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 5.
It's not at answers.com anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 6.
It's not at TheFreeDictionary anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 7.
It's not at MSN Encarta anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 8.
It's not at yourdictionary anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 9.
It's not at dictionary.die.net anthropogenous but anthropogenic is. You are 0 for 10.

You marginalized yourself with your first post in this thread, and have had a 100% track record since then!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #189 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

The proof is required by those making the claims (manmade Global warming). Nice try though. If ALL the worlds scientists think it is happening, why can't you post proof? I've posted links to MANY scientists that think it's not true. That proves that not All scientists agree. Scientific fact is not arrived at through a vote. The majority of scientists used to think the Earth was the center of the universe. Your contention that every thing about climate science is known, is just not true. In fact Climate science is a very new science.

Where it's been from the get go! Scientific opinion on climate change, so it is quite apparent where the vast majority of scientific opinion lies. But let's turn your very same question around, shall we? When has there ever been a 100% scientific consensus (meaning ALL scientists) in any field of expertise regarding complex long term processes?

Quote:
National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[1]

This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

And then?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #190 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

The same argument was made when they said the world was flat.

Who said the world was flat, and when did they say it? Be specific, names and dates of this modern "scientific consensus" will suffice.

Where's your proof?

Quote:
The Scientific Revolution established science as the preeminent source for the growth of knowledge. The early modern period is seen as a flowering of the Renaissance, in what is often known as the Scientific Revolution, viewed as a foundation of modern science. During the 19th century, the practice of science became professionalized and institutionalized in ways which continued through the 20th century. As the role of scientific knowledge grew in society, it became incorporated with many aspects of the functioning of nation-states.

The history of science is marked by a chain of advances in technology and knowledge that have always complemented each other. Technological innovations bring about new discoveries and are bred by other discoveries which inspire new possibilities and approaches to longstanding science issues. Investing in science and technology is critical to ensuring prosperity and a high quality of life. Scientists are at the forefront of the development of scientific and technological innovations. The primary objectives of these professionals are to create and develop novel research that can be used to solve problems for both the states' populations and individual entities like companies or other private organizations.

We are talking about the modern science or the modern scientific method aren't we?

And then?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #191 of 333
Yup! Nothing special is going on. It's all business as usual.

http://www.news.com/2300-11395_3-623...l?tag=nefd.pop

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone who thinks GW isn't real and that we have a hand in it is just in denial. We're talking head in the sand type ignorance.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #192 of 333
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World

and an animation from the Larsen B Ice Shelf collapse of 2002;

[CENTER][/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #193 of 333
[COLOR="red"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Where it's been from the get go! Scientific opinion on climate change, so it is quite apparent where the vast majority of scientific opinion lies. But let's turn your very same question around, shall we? When has there ever been a 100% scientific consensus (meaning ALL scientists) in any field of expertise regarding complex long term processes?



And then?

You finially admit that it's only an OPINION...No science just opinion.

EVERY (not just one), but EVERY scientific discovery was greeted with animus towards the scientists who first brought forth those ideas.

String theory
Evolution
atomic theory
germ theory
immunology
the big bang theory
Climate theorys

I think you need to read some history.

Pythagoras was forced to flee Magna Graecia because of his bizarre suggestion that numbers constitute the true nature of things.

He must have been a crackpot

Because mirrors were not readily available in the Dark Ages, Da Vinci survived persecution for his dangerously heretical ideas by writing his notes backwards.

Apparently ideas are dangerous

Galileo was persecuted for his audacious proposal that moons orbit the planet Jupiter.

He didn't go along with the crowd

Kepler was accused of blasphemy in suggesting that the moon controlled the motion of the tides.

He must be a kook too

The Royal Society in the United Kingdom was suppressing evidence that supported the existence of phenomena they interpreted as witchcraft. You know them as the psychological concepts of suggestion, hypnosis, and hysteria.

More name calling

By paying homage to prevailing theories, the French Academy (of Science) soundly denounced public reports of hot stones falling from the sky, because both common sense and science agreed that there were obviously no stones in the sky, thus there was nothing to fall. The reported phenomena were declared as delusions, and therefore the witnesses of such phenomena were officially pronounced mentally deranged. A few radical scientists suggested that possibly a few stones might be cast into the sky by distant volcanic eruptions, but the prestige of the French Academy was so great that museums all over Western Europe threw away their specimens of rocks that fell from the sky. As a result, there are very few preserved meteorite specimens in France that date prior to 1790.

Don't buck the system

Jean Bouillaud, a prominent member of the French Academy, proclaimed before viewing a demonstration of Thomas Edisons phonograph, It is quite impossible that the noble organs of human speech could be replaced by ignoble, senseless metal. After the demonstration, Bouillaud called Edisons invention a fake, and attributed the demonstration he had seen to ventriloquism.

name calling... sound familiar?

Thomas Edison developed the first successful electric light bulb. He was already famous for over 150 other successful inventions, including the telegraph and the phonograph. But when Edison announced his new invention, scientists worldwide were incredulous. Englands most distinguished electrical engineer, Sir William Siemens, who had been unsuccessfully working on electric light bulbs for a decade, said, Such startling announcements as these should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to its true progress.

I didn't do it so it must not be true

In Britain, after the lime was proposed as a cure for scurvy, a serious disease caused by malnutrition due to depletion of vitamin C, the British medical establishment declared the proposal laughable and refused to put limes aboard ships. It took another 50 years to convince an entirely new generation of physicians that the cure actually worked, and over that sad half-century, thousands of sailors needlessly lost their lives.

They all agreed that it wasn't true

Viennese physician named Semmelweiss reported that washing ones hands before obstetrical assistance could prevent what was then a widespread disease threatening newborns: childbed fever. He was viciously scorned and rejected by his contemporaries and died a broken man several years later in an insane asylum.

Yet we all wash our hands today

Maxwells theory was called scandalous; Darwins theory was condemned as absurd by both scientists and theologians; von Helmholtzs idea that physical experimentation could teach us how the human body worked was severely denounced; Lord Kelvin pronounced X-rays an elaborate hoax.

Again the establishment was wrong

two years after the Wright brothers had first flown their aircraft, and in spite of the fact that dozens of eyewitnesses had actually seen them fly, the popular Scientific American magazine continued to ridicule the alleged flights. An editorial in the magazine explained why:
If such sensational and tremendously important experiments are being conducted ... on a subject in which almost everybody feels the most profound interest, is it possible to believe that the enterprising American reporter ... - even if he has to scale a fifteen-story skyscraper to do so - would not have ascertained all about them and published them long ago?

It was published so it must be true

the inventor Lee DeForest, who was prosecuted for fraud in 1913 for claiming that it was possible to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic by radio.

put in JAIL because they didn't like his ideas

Linus Pauling, Nobel laureate in chemistry, who for decades was ridiculed for claiming that megadoses of vitamin C could treat everything from the common cold to certain cancers, was found to be correct after all. Other experiments demonstrating that extremely dilute homeopathic preparations could produce nontrivial biological effects encountered profound disbelief, mockery, and accusations of heresy.

The list goes on and on and on.....


Those scientists who debunk MAn made Global warming are in good company.
post #194 of 333
[Your picture is bigger than mine but that's OK Your Penis probably is too...

This is the original NASA image, showing the assorted hot spots due to underground thermal activity around the Antarctic continent and the associated temperature trends.
Note that he highest temperatures are around the Antarctic Peninsula and the Ross Ice shelf, where most of the Antarctic "melting" has occurred.
post #195 of 333
tsk tsk tsk...

you know... i was wondering what the hell you meant by underground thermal activity because, well, such activity would not be detectable at the resolution of that figure, nor would you ever ever report subterranean geothermal activity under the ocean... so i went looking for the source of that image... it's not posted from nasa's site... nope... its posted on a site devoted to mocking the majority of climate scientist's work... it's not of subterranean geothermal activity... it's, by the site's reckoning, a measure of the change in surface temperatures but something is fishy there because... well... because the following is nasa's graph of the same:




so... um... why do people fake evidence in their arguments?

because they don't have supportable arguments...

edit: i finally did find the source of that figure... an earlier version of the one i posted... it seems that even better than faking data, one editorial staff is cherry picking OLD and known WRONG data (and using that fact as an argument (laughable))...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #196 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

tsk tsk tsk...

you know... i was wondering what the hell you meant by underground thermal activity because, well, such activity would not be detectable at the resolution of that figure, nor would you ever ever report subterranean geothermal activity under the ocean... so i went looking for the source of that image... it's not posted from nasa's site... nope... its posted on a site devoted to mocking the majority of climate scientist's work... it's not of subterranean geothermal activity... it's, by the site's reckoning, a measure of the change in surface temperatures but something is fishy there because... well... because the following is nasa's graph of the same:




so... um... why do people fake evidence in their arguments?

because they don't have supportable arguments...

edit: i finally did find the source of that figure... an earlier version of the one i posted... it seems



that even better than faking data, one editorial staff is cherry picking OLD and known WRONG data (and using that fact as an argument (laughable))...




Your chart goes from -.01 to +.01
Mine goes from -.02 to +.02

Change the scale and you get two different charts...
post #197 of 333
you don't understand math...

you won't switch from red to blue...

regardless, your claim to it being geothermal activity is wrong...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #198 of 333
Notice the location of Volcanoes...

Active volcano near melting ice.....It must be the air.....

post #199 of 333
Active volcanoes near melting ice... the air can't possibly be a contributing factor.
post #200 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

Notice the location of Volcanoes...

Active volcano near melting ice.....It must be the air.....




um... you do realize that volcanic activity there has been around for quite a while (tm) and that changes in temperature realized over the last twenty years cannot be explained by a sudden increase in activity. that, in addition, the volcanoes are surrounded by the ocean and that there is no way that the heat from the volcano could contribute significantly to changing the surface temperature of the ocean, let alone distant parts of the ross ice shelf.

in other words, find another way to suggest that the shelf breaking off isn't due to a global warming trend...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Another setback for Teh Global Warming™