Interesting read re. Global warming
- Thread starter Moraff
- Start date
Our brand of cool-aid is supported by 94% of scientists.you drink the same brand of kool-aid
Your brand is made only out of edible oil products.
I support the work of the IPCC, which Gore uses as the base of his arguments.
Do you have issues with the work of the IPCC?
I try to keep an open mind about global warming. I can see that it could be happening. I don't necessarily accept that it is caused entirely by mankind. Yes, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased...so has the amount of energy output by the sun. The climate of earth is always changing...during the time of the dinosaurs average temps were much higher....during the ice ages, the temps were much lower (you can't blame that on mankind).
There is always gonna be a company or persons trying to make money of every economic problems. There are always scientist and experts that get paid to say/claim that "this" is fact. But we should, all sit back and take a look at what the industrial revolution has done to the economy. I'm not say it's all bad but, the Global warming and climate changes to me is real... And because there has been a light that was cast on the issues, we are now finding better ways to do business. "People don't believe what they can't see, even when the evidence is right infront of them; they believe what they have been told"...
The only scientists who are hired to promote fixed results are those hired by the fossil fuel industry and their lobbyists.There is always gonna be a company or persons trying to make money of every economic problems. There are always scientist and experts that get paid to say/claim that "this" is fact. But we should, all sit back and take a look at what the industrial revolution has done to the economy. I'm not say it's all bad but, the Global warming and climate changes to me is real... And because there has been a light that was cast on the issues, we are now finding better ways to do business. "People don't believe what they can't see, even when the evidence is right infront of them; they believe what they have been told"...
All the reports and scientists who submit work to the IPCC just have to do good work that can pass the peer process.
where is al gore these days?
last time I seen him, he was at the bank laughingwhere is al gore these days?
I had actually graduated with my first degree when that prediction was made. I'm old enough to remember when it was thought by researchers and professors that plate tectonics was voodoo, but apparently not the case.Don't be. While I believe we all need to do our part for the environment and for conservation, we don't bad science to back false claims. You're probably old enough to remember the prediction of the next ice age, I assume, again, bad science. The funding put towards these groups is nothing more than welfare.
They could do more without the green schtick, by just doing insteading of funding dead end projects for left wing beatniks.
it's interesting to hear the opinions form people who really have little understanding of how the earth science actually work yet feel they are qualified to decide what is bad science.
I remember the member who claimed that the ice shelves were not melting because the rate of retreat in one region of the earth was so small and that some glaciers were actually advancing, not understand that it was the volume of ice that was drastically decreasing and the glacier were advancing because water was melting and getting under the ice and allowing it to move forward at an increased rate, but the glacier were getting thinner fast.
Most on here haven't got any good understanding of the dynamics of the rain forest or deserts in the scheme of things, nor even know what place in climate and the biosphere the Great Conveyor Belt plays in climate and biodiversity. Then you hear the members who don't realize that climatology and meteorology are two different sciences, saying since the weather guy gets it wrong so often, how can you have any faith in the the climatologist. They deal with winds precipitation, and temperature, but that about it.
Very few on TERB have ever spent much, if any, time in any of the areas of the world which for all intents and purpose are the canaries in the coal mines. We are seeing evidence of deterioration that has never occurred in human history or some since the earth formed a substantial biosphere and no we've never been here before because the world has never had 7 billion humans living on it extracting resources at a rate never seen and becoming harder and harder to recover from. .
yeah we get it..you consider yourself an unequivocal expert....(bull shit artist to most Terbites).. You should read: Dancing naked in the Mind Field by Kary Mullis..Nobel Prize winning physicist and his take on global warming research for starters;I had actually graduated with my first degree when that prediction was made. I'm old enough to remember when it was thought by researchers and professors that plate tectonics was voodoo, but apparently not the case.
it's interesting to hear the opinions form people who really have little understanding of how the earth science actually work yet feel they are qualified to decide what is bad science.
I remember the member who claimed that the ice shelves were not melting because the rate of retreat in one region of the earth was so small and that some glaciers were actually advancing, not understand that it was the volume of ice that was drastically decreasing and the glacier were advancing because water was melting and getting under the ice and allowing it to move forward at an increased rate, but the glacier were getting thinner fast.
Most on here haven't got any good understanding of the dynamics of the rain forest or deserts in the scheme of things, nor even know what place in climate and the biosphere the Great Conveyor Belt plays in climate and biodiversity. Then you hear the members who don't realize that climatology and meteorology are two different sciences, saying since the weather guy gets it wrong so often, how can you have any faith in the the climatologist. They deal with winds precipitation, and temperature, but that about it.
Very few on TERB have ever spent much, if any, time in any of the areas of the world which for all intents and purpose are the canaries in the coal mines. We are seeing evidence of deterioration that has never occurred in human history or some since the earth formed a substantial biosphere and no we've never been here before because the world has never had 7 billion humans living on it extracting resources at a rate never seen and becoming harder and harder to recover from. .
Mullis has said that the never-ending quest for more grants and staying with established dogmas has hurt science. He believes that "Science is being practiced by people who are dependent on being paid for what they are going to find out," not for what they actually produce.[13] Mullis has been described as an "impatient and impulsive researcher" who avoids lab work and instead thinks about research topics while driving and surfing.
cheers doofus
If that the message you get, your understanding of the english language is lower than first thought. We've already been around the maypole with critics like ' the physicist' Mullis. Remember some members crowing about a letter signed by numerous 'scientists' about the false science in global warming research and then it was pointed out that most of them were not climatologists. He also slams the effects of money on the quality of research, but doesn't do much research himself, certainly not since the early 90's. I wonder how good his research was, nobel Prize aside. It appears he's just bitching about something he doesn't do any more. He's a talker, not a doer. I wonder if his last few research papers, after '93, were panned by peer reviews or the financers and then he went off on all researcher as paid for slackers.yeah we get it..you consider yourself an unequivocal expert....(bull shit artist to most Terbites).. You should read: Dancing naked in the Mind Field by Kary Mullis..Nobel Prize winning physicist and his take on global warming research for starters;
Mullis has said that the never-ending quest for more grants and staying with established dogmas has hurt science. He believes that "Science is being practiced by people who are dependent on being paid for what they are going to find out," not for what they actually produce.[13] Mullis has been described as an "impatient and impulsive researcher" who avoids lab work and instead thinks about research topics while driving and surfing.
cheers doofus
As for my expertise, my CV and ~15,000 hours in the field and ~3,000 hours in the lab gives me a strong basis to understand and discuss the science behind climatology and a few other field of study. Unequivocal? Not even close, but then you're prone to exaggerate things. Aside from that, not one of the points I raised were wrong.
And what did "we" make of Phil Jones' admission under oath that leading alarmists such as the IPCC don't follow scientific principles such as "peer review":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry
stop bringing up the inconvenient truthAnd what did "we" make of Phil Jones' admission under oath that leading alarmists such as the IPCC don't follow scientific principles such as "peer review":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry
More junk from the stolen email scam:And what did "we" make of Phil Jones' admission under oath that leading alarmists such as the IPCC don't follow scientific principles such as "peer review":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html
Wrong. Jones' admission was made at the Commons science and technology committee in the U.K.
Here's our options when it comes to global warming. And I'm listing "worst to least worst" in order:
1. We're fucked! We're all gonna bake, fry and die within a few decades (20 to 50 years).
2. There's some warming going on, but we have at least 50 to 100 years to find clean energy.
3. Global warming is severely exaggerated. We wont feel its effects for at least 100 to 200 years.
4. Global warming simply doesnt exist. CO2's have very little effect on the climate.
Right now I'm somewhere between number 2 and number 3
1. We're fucked! We're all gonna bake, fry and die within a few decades (20 to 50 years).
2. There's some warming going on, but we have at least 50 to 100 years to find clean energy.
3. Global warming is severely exaggerated. We wont feel its effects for at least 100 to 200 years.
4. Global warming simply doesnt exist. CO2's have very little effect on the climate.
Right now I'm somewhere between number 2 and number 3
Um, what evidence, exactly?We are seeing evidence of deterioration that has never occurred in human history or some since the earth formed a substantial biosphere and no we've never been here before because the world has never had 7 billion humans living on it extracting resources at a rate never seen and becoming harder and harder to recover from. .
In an over simplified answer, there are soil and rock formations that have never seen the light of day or are getting exposed to the atmosphere in subterranean formations.Um, what evidence, exactly?
These formation show this by the their chemical structure. I am no chemist, and I know there are some on TERB, and I have to take the word of bio and geo chemists that I've worked along side that this is the case, based on certain compositions and structures. The ever expanding dead and anoxic zones throughout various bodies of water, large and small. Not to the scale of the great Late Ordovician marine mass extinction some 440 million years ago, the Permian-Triassic terrestrial and marine mass extinction ~250 million years ago, but you won't be anywhere near those as the human race will succumb before that. The real problem is that it's a slippery slope where the rate of deterioration will increase exponentially.
I'm blaming this years crappy apple crop (and most berries) on global warming. The extreme weather patterns of this year are consistent with predictions for the effects of climate change. Food prices are only going up in the near future as the weather gets more extreme.Here's our options when it comes to global warming. And I'm listing "worst to least worst" in order:
1. We're fucked! We're all gonna bake, fry and die within a few decades (20 to 50 years).
2. There's some warming going on, but we have at least 50 to 100 years to find clean energy.
3. Global warming is severely exaggerated. We wont feel its effects for at least 100 to 200 years.
4. Global warming simply doesnt exist. CO2's have very little effect on the climate.
Right now I'm somewhere between number 2 and number 3
The insurance industry is already factoring in the costs of extreme weather due to climate change and have figured their costs to be in the billions/year range.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mindylubber/2012/10/11/climate-proofing-the-insurance-industry/
. . . It's interesting also that, when climate scientists are interviewed, they all seem to say: I'm convinced that mankind is causing global warming. However, in my own particular area, the official line put out by the government is really not supported by my data. But I am totally committed to the consensus view.
You could, for example, read "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon (of Energy Probe). If an actual whole book is too much, at least read the wiki article of the same title.I hope you can offer a few scientists who offered up this opinion, or is this quote a figment of your imagination? The most common view might more likely be that mankind is 'contributing', to global warming. It's only to what degree that is in discussion.
In my original comment, of course the "all" is an exaggeration. But not enough to take away from the point I was making.
Let me guess - they're thinking of raising premiums, right?The insurance industry is already factoring in the costs of extreme weather due to climate change and have figured their costs to be in the billions/year range.
