Hot Pink List
Toronto Escorts

Here's One Global Warming Study Nobody Wants You To See

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
Do you realize that Crichton was a fiction writer and trained as a doctor? Should we just add him to your list of retired astronauts and project managers that you claim are really experts in climate?

And I do love those attacks on the majority scientific stance when they complain that only experts in the field were surveyed. Even in the 70's (when you claim scientists thought an ice age was coming) the vast majority of papers supported the concept of increasing global temperatures due to CO2 concentrations.
More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Challenge UN IPCC :panel


More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.”

Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”

Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”

— UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”

— Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data”

— Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”

— Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”

— Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

“I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”

— Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”

— Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.”

— Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”

— Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.”

— Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,798
19,331
113
Please take note of the "if",,,,, (I am) stupid

You can even calculate a simple weighted average, ie average tax
So how does someone lacking grade 8 level math skills have the balls to question a scientists "shoddy work"on matters related to atmospheric chemistry?
You're just like moviefan and pornaddict.
You make claims and when they're shown to be wrong you just shift and move to another target.

So we can go back to Curry's shoddy work, but first you have to admit that the 99.9% is correct, which means you are the one following the 'kooks' in the field.
Which is hardly 'neutral'.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
You're just like moviefan and pornaddict.
You make claims and when they're shown to be wrong you just shift and move to another target.

So we can go back to Curry's shoddy work, but first you have to admit that the 99.9% is correct, which means you are the one following the 'kooks' in the field.
Which is hardly 'neutral'.
I do not have to admit anything to you

You can not calculate a simple weighted average, and you are claiming your position is absolute so the onus is on you to prove:
a) you have even a grade eight level understanding of science and
b) you cant prove a scientist's work is incorrect
c) prove a consensus opinion automatically becomes a scientific fact, which just is not true.


You can not do simple math yet claim to be an authority on atmospheric chemistry, which would be comical if your motivation to mislead were not so despicable.

BTW what grade did you drop out of high school?
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,551
2,725
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
I do not have to admit anything to you

You can not calculate a simple weighted average, and you are claiming your position is absolute so the onus is on you to prove:
a) you have even a grade eight level understanding of science and
b) you cant prove a scientist's work is incorrect
c) prove a consensus opinion automatically becomes a scientific fact, which just is not true.


You can not do simple math yet claim to be an authority on atmospheric chemistry, which would be comical if your motivation to mislead were not so despicable.

BTW what grade did you drop out of high school?
he claims to have a university education in previous threads and claim everybody needs one
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,381
6,468
113
you do not have that understanding...
The fact that you want to make this about logic and not science shows you want to discuss philosophy. In that context disagreeing is fine but in the world of science, it makes no sense.

Scientists constantly disagree with each other about specifics but the number of people in the field that think man made CO2 does not play a significant role is negligible. Yes, you can wonder about exactly what percent human sources are responsible for but to be dress up you views in 'scepticism' is no different than creationists dressing up their ideas as "intelligent' design.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
The fact that you want to make this about logic and not science shows you want to discuss philosophy. In that context disagreeing is fine but in the world of science, it makes no sense.
What are you talking about ?
How can you have science without logic?

Scientists constantly disagree with each other
Yes they do,

yet generally they respect that others may have differing conclusions and that a neutral conclusion is both possible and permit-able
What they do not do is ring fence the possible outcomes by stating one can not be neutral

in fact true science is about discovery and challenging consensus thinking rather than a popularity poll
you do your cause no favors by assuming you are absolute and brow beating those that do not agree with you


about specifics but the number of people in the field that think man made CO2 does not play a significant role is negligible.
No it is not negliable
You can say it is a small number , however negligible implies it can ignored
the funny thing about science is that you cant ignore a scientific hypothesis until you can prove it is not valid through experimentation

Yes, you can wonder about exactly what percent human sources are responsible for but to be dress up you views in 'skepticism' is no different than creationists dressing up their ideas as "intelligent' design.
That is horse shit

The planet has been evolving with significant climate change for 4.5 B years
The timeline of data is we have accumulated relative to the ever changing history of the planet is minuscule & close to negligible
There is lots of room for skepticism, based on logic, not on ideology

What you can say is "based upon XX experimentation there is statistically significant evidence supporting the theory that mans burning of fossil fuels is contributing to changes in climate
We invite all to review and critique our work "

What you can not say is "based upon XX experimentation we concluded mans burning of fossil fuels is contributing to changes in climate. This conclusion is absolute and any opposition or challenges to this conclusion will not be accepted"

True science is about discovering the the truth rather than discrediting the other guy or winning

You really do not get science do you?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
he claims to have a university education in previous threads and claim everybody needs one
Thats right
Obviously Frankfooter / Groggy would have benefited from additional education
Grade 8 level math skills would have helped
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,798
19,331
113
I do not have to admit anything to you

You can not calculate a simple weighted average, and you are claiming your position is absolute so the onus is on you to prove:
a) you have even a grade eight level understanding of science and
b) you cant prove a scientist's work is incorrect
c) prove a consensus opinion automatically becomes a scientific fact, which just is not true.


You can not do simple math yet claim to be an authority on atmospheric chemistry, which would be comical if your motivation to mislead were not so despicable.

BTW what grade did you drop out of high school?
No, you have to answer your questions first, you can't just try to pull a canadaman move and switch topics.
We need to know where you stand first, now you say you won't stand by Judith Curry's work and you won't stand by the 99.94% of climatologists work.

For someone who wants me to answer tests on basics, why do you refuse to answer to whether you back Curry's work or the work represented by the IPCC?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,798
19,331
113
Thats right
Obviously Frankfooter / Groggy would have benefited from additional education
Grade 8 level math skills would have helped
Please explain how someone who claims to have an education in science thinks that 99.94% of scientists are wrong.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
No, you have to answer your questions first, you can't just try to pull a canadaman move and switch topics.
We need to know where you stand first, now you say you won't stand by Judith Curry's work and you won't stand by the 99.94% of climatologists work.

For someone who wants me to answer tests on basics, why do you refuse to answer to whether you back Curry's work or the work represented by the IPCC?
I am not switching topics
The initial issue I had is that you discredited a scientist out of hand without any mention of her work & accused her of bias
That is still my focus
You still have not answered what part of her work you found "shoddy"
you can not possibly understand her work which reaffirms your status as a propaganda spewing bullshit artist who wants to mis-lead others.
Do you not understand the value of trust and mistrust when you try to convince others of the merit of your point of view?

I have told you where I stand many times. I am neutral on the issue
I am under no obligation to stand with anyone.... WTF??? The last time I looked there was not a law that said I had to take a decisive stand on any issue
You are one messed up fool

You have not answered the "basics"
I am convinced you can not as the "basics" are more advanced than a weighted average and would require you to think rather than just copy and paste from the internet
And you are not capable of anything beyond a simple copy and paste

Who do you think you are fooling?
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
Please explain how someone who claims to have an education in science thinks that 99.94% of scientists are wrong.
I have never said they are wrong
I have also never said they are right
and that is driving you mental

Now please explain how someone who can not calculate a simple weighted average thinks he knows more than a scientist?
While you are at it please explain how someone who can not calculate a simple weighted average thinks he knows more than anyone who graduated high school?
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,381
6,468
113
What are you talking about ?
How can you have science without logic?
...
Except you want to rely purely on "logic" and ignore the science.

And yes, the number of scientists in the field who think that human produced CO2 is insignificant is next to non-existent. If a view is contradicted by the vast majority of people who know what they are talking about it can be ignored unless contradictory evidence is discovered. Unless you have new evidence, the only real argument is about exactly what percentage role AGW plays.


Of course you fall back into the typical denier claims that climate has changed over billions of years. Maybe you can tell me when over those 4.5 billion years a global change has been a good thing for the dominant species? Yes, the world will survive a warming of 2-5 degrees. The only question is how well human society will survive it.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
Except you want to rely purely on "logic" and ignore the science.
That is not true
How can I have ignored the science when I provided a source of skepticism?

And yes, the number of scientists in the field who think that human produced CO2 is insignificant is next to non-existent.
Small but apparently not insignificant if you are walking back your numbers, which you have


If a view is contradicted by the vast majority of people who know what they are talking about it can be ignored unless contradictory evidence is discovered.
That is consensus opinion, not absolute fact.
There is a huge difference , ask a scientist

Unless you have new evidence, the only real argument is about exactly what percentage role AGW plays.
nope
you have a theory, & an opinion, however there are very qualified & intelligent people who's opinion differs,
So this is by no means factual


Of course you fall back into the typical denier claims that climate has changed over billions of years.
do you deny climate has changed over billions of years?
If so what should we call you ?

We had several ice ages over the last 100,000 years & I have yet to hear any scientist say this is not true, so we shall go with that story
I am pretty sure that is significant climate change

Maybe you can tell me when over those 4.5 billion years a global change has been a good thing for the dominant species?
I have never stated that global warning would be good or bad, so I am unsure what you are getting at
Intuition tells me that if it occurs is probably going to be an issue and will likely compound the famine & disease issues which will result from over-population

Yes, the world will survive a warming of 2-5 degrees. The only question is how well human society will survive it.
Not unless the population growth changes
will Justin tax that as well, in order to change behavior?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
84,798
19,331
113
I have never said they are wrong
I have also never said they are right
and that is driving you mental
You said this:
However, the planet and its climate have been evolving for 4.5 B years & the amount of recorded data relative to that historicity is insignificant, so the complete understanding of man's impact upon climate is not iron clad and not absolute
According to that statement you don't accept the findings of 99.94% of people who have studied the climate, as you claim its not 'iron clad and not absolute'.
(And for someone who claims to have a science background claiming an 'absolute' proof would show you as someone doesn't understand the scientific method)
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
You said this:


According to that statement you don't accept the findings of 99.94% of people who have studied the climate, as you claim its not 'iron clad and not absolute'.
(And for someone who claims to have a science background claiming an 'absolute' proof would show you as someone doesn't understand the scientific method)


Please show us where I said they were either right or wrong in that statement
However, the planet and its climate have been evolving for 4.5 B years & the amount of recorded data relative to that historicity is insignificant, so the complete understanding of man's impact upon climate is not iron clad and not absolute
there is no mention of the scientists conclusion
there is no mention of the scientists


that statement just says the understanding of man's impact upon climate change is not iron clad and not absolute
Which is what I have been saying all along

again your poor reading comprehension has lead you to the wrong conclusion

I do not know why bother to quote values like 99.94%
a) nobody believes you
b) propaganda values are usually rounded to the nearest whole percent

How is that gasoline calculation coming along?
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,381
6,468
113
That is simply untrue on basically every level. There is mountains of evidence that disproves co2 as the primary driver of climate change. Unfortunately left wing politics gets in the way of the truth. And guys like you and that nutjob Frankie are complicit.
You call someone else a nutjob while claiming that the scientific community is repressing "mountains of evidence"?
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
60,381
6,468
113
That is not true
How can I have ignored the science when I provided a source of skepticism?...
Sorry but your "skepticism" is based on logical fallacy and ignores the conclusions of the masses of scientists and your views run completely contrary to scientific method. As I said before, your only argument is that we don't know everything. Science works by making conclusions based on evidence, not wishful thinking that at some point there may be contrary evidence.

And your historical discussion are not particularly relevant to the examination of why our climate is currently changing or how society and the environment could be effected. You are simply assuming without any evidence that the same mechanisms are at work. That is not science, especially in the face that ice core evidence clearly shows how current changes are different from past changes.


But kudos on trying to change the conversation to blame Trudeau Jr.
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
16,725
2,377
113
and ignores the conclusions of the masses of scientists and your views run completely contrary to scientific method.
Scientific method ?? are you sure you do not mean scientific consensus ?

Here is a scientist who does not buy what you are selling

http://www.randombio.com/consensus.html

‘Consensus’ is neither part of the scientific method nor a goal in science. It is a tool used by non-scientists searching for trends in the thinking among scientists. When used as a tool for understanding, it can be harmless. But when it's used to manufacture a false climate of authority, it can be very harmful indeed.
This scientist appears to neither support or refute your climate change conclusion i.e. neutral
Climate activists, though, use it all the time. Their goal is to stampede people into accepting a massive transformation of society. It may or may not be necessary to do this. But no one should ignore the cost. If we do as the climate activists insist we must, we need to accept the fact that there is a high probability that it will leave our civilization in ruins.
Either the activists are unfamiliar with how science works, or they are making a basic error of logic, or they are being disingenuous.
This guy appears to well qualified
I have been a professional research scientist for over 30 years, first at a large, well-known place in Bethesda, Maryland, which has thousands of scientists, and later at a nonprofit research institute. I have read literally thousands of research papers and published nearly a hundred in peer-reviewed journals. I have listened to hundreds of seminars and had countless conversations with fellow scientists. Not once did any of them ever use the term ‘consensus’ to promote the accuracy of their results.


Orginaly posted by basketcase
As I said before, your only argument is that we don't know everything.
Actually my argument is that you do not know enough........ if you think consensus is science
 
Toronto Escorts