Hey thanks for the analogy!
I didn't know that one aspirin was only 3 ppm. I checked a conversion chart and 0.08 BAC is 208 PPM!
Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??
- Thread starter AK-47
- Start date
I didn't know that one aspirin was only 3 ppm. I checked a conversion chart and 0.08 BAC is 208 PPM!
Yes yo do need an advanced degree to understand all the science, why else would so many universities offer PhD degrees in climatology?!AK, you don't need a degree in climatology to understand the science or the reports, as I can attest to and show you personally. But you are very dishonest to claim I need a degree that you don't require from your oil funded lobbyists.
What you and moviefan show is a lack of even high school level science, as shown by your repeated failure to spot an easy and basic difference between an original IPCC graph and one that was changed by lobbyists to make a false claim. You both are unable to either understand the legit science or to judge the crap you bring to this argument.
You both aren't smart enough
Me and Movie-Fan are smart to enough to know you dont have that degree, and that you're full of shit
One of the dumbest guys on Terb claims to have qualifications to understand all the global warming??!I've already mentioned more than once as much of my qualifications as needed for this debate. If you don't pay attention, that's your problem. As shown before, you don't need a PHD to be a world renown authority or work in the field, which was your initial claim. The are more field and lab techs working with research scientists and as a group they do just fine together, each with his own skill set and expertise
Come on, dont make me laugh.
You can't even string 2 sentences together without making a half dozen spelling mistakes :biggrin1:
Actually, I've just grown bored with this thread.I see movie fan has run away since he's been shown as easy to fool.
At some point, it gets tiresome being asked to respond to political propaganda that is being peddled as "evidence" of what the science is supposed to show (obvious example: the junk propaganda making the blatantly false claims about a "consensus"). What's most troubling is the people peddling this crap actually thinks it tells us something about the science.
Never mind the lies, such as the false assertion that I changed the terms of a bet after the bet had concluded, and the patently ridiculous assertion that I believe Creationism is science.
And let's not even get started on the guy quoted above who spent more than a week having temper tantrums because he lost a bet on an escort review board.
My position remains unchanged: Science should be based on evidence and actual results, not propaganda from activists and others with political agendas.
The evidence to date is clear: The climate is far more complex than some of the climate researchers like to admit.
That is why we can't predict how the climate will respond to changes such as increases in man-made CO2, and it's why the predictions that were made were so spectacularly wrong.
You laugh at anything, refer back to #412+, so no big deal.Yes yo do need an advanced degree to understand all the science, why else would so many universities offer PhD degrees in climatology?!
Me and Movie-Fan are smart to enough to know you dont have that degree, and that you're full of shit
One of the dumbest guys on Terb claims to have qualifications to understand all the global warming??!
Come on, don't make me laugh.
You can't even string 2 sentences together without making a half dozen spelling mistakes :biggrin1:
As I said if you paid attention, you'd know what my qualifications are, but aside from a lack of basic high school knowledge, you have a retention problem.
Nice try, loser.Actually, I've just grown bored with this thread.
.
What we have found so far is:
A) you and ak can't understand the science
B) you and ak can't spot an easy difference in a high school level graph
C) you and ak want to believe in the deniers
Which adds up to:
D) you are both easy marks
Here we are, on the end of a winter of extreme weather, having experienced the 4th warmest year on record, after living through the warmest decade on record, having read the reports that say 600 billion litres of melted ice are being added to our oceans, having heard of massive droughts in Australia, Brazil, the Middle East and the US and you guys still think this is all normal?
You boys are really easy marks.
Whatever you do, don't go to Vegas.
And for today's support, why not check out AAAS's new work on the matter:
What we know
(The AAAS being the worlds largest non governmental association of scientists)
http://whatweknow.aaas.org
That's not government money, that's non-climatologist scientists supporting the findings of legit climatologists
As they say:
.1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field. Average global temperature has increased by about 1.4˚ F over the last 100 years. Sea level is rising, and some types of extreme events – such as heat waves and heavy precipitation events – are happening more frequently. Recent scientific findings indicate that climate change is likely responsible for the increase in the intensity of many of these events in recent years.
...
As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do or must believe about the rising threat of climate change. But we consider it to be our responsibility as professionals to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people understand what we know: human-caused climate change is happening, we face risks of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes, and responding now will lower the risk and cost of taking action.
Last edited:
American Physical Society Sees The Light: Will It Be The First Major Scientific Institution To Reject The Global Warming 'Consensus'??! For them to assign 3 famous GW skeptics is a major step forward, because it means they're at least beginning to look at both sides of the issue
In case you didnt know, American Physical Society (APS) is the world's second largest organization of physicists. It has also been very active studying global warming in the past:
Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society
Article: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...tution-To-Reject-The-Global-Warming-Consensus
In case you didnt know, American Physical Society (APS) is the world's second largest organization of physicists. It has also been very active studying global warming in the past:
Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society
Article: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...tution-To-Reject-The-Global-Warming-Consensus
The American Physical Society (APS) has signalled a dramatic turnabout in its position on "climate change" by appointing three notorious climate skeptics to its panel on public affairs (POPA).
They are:
Professor Richard Lindzen, formerly Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology at Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a highly regarded physicist who once described climate change alarmism on The Larry King Show as "mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who has written: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see."
Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a former Warmist (and still a self-described "luke warmer") who has infuriated many of her more extremist colleagues by defending skeptics and by testifying to the US House Subcommittee on the Environment that the uncertainties in forecasting climate science are much greater than the alarmists will admit.
As Anthony Watts has noted, this is news guaranteed to make a Warmist's head explode.
The reason it's so significant is that it comes only three years after one of the APS's most distinguished members - Professor Hal Lewis - resigned in disgust at its endorsement of what he called "the global warming scam."
<READ MORE AT LINK>
You do realize that it's not quite as you present. Brettbart's headline doesn't match reality. The three person mentioned are Heartland affiliates and they have simply been appointed to the public affairs panels. They were voted to the board by a group of 206 signees of a partition who are well know deniers, many of them Heartland cronies.American Physical Society Sees The Light: Will It Be The First Major Scientific Institution To Reject The Global Warming 'Consensus'??! For them to assign 3 famous GW skeptics is a major step forward, because it means they're at least beginning to look at both sides of the issue
In case you didnt know, American Physical Society (APS) is the world's second largest organization of physicists. It has also been very active studying global warming in the past:
Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society
Article: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...tution-To-Reject-The-Global-Warming-Consensus
This could be summarized by a quote in the article you clearly didn't read.
Churchill might have said: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
it is simply one of a series of nuisance moves, since 1990, initiated by the deniers, that have had a short life in the light of day.
The APS's report for 2014 hasn't been released yet, so no one knows it's stance.
^^^^ you miss the point again as usual, rockie. The fact scientific institutions are at least beginning to open up debate on the whole GW issue is a major step forward. Thats because up until now they've always said the global warming science was settled.
You dont hire 3 very vocal anti-GW scientists if you think the science is settled
You dont hire 3 very vocal anti-GW scientists if you think the science is settled
That's not the point at all. They didn't hire them, they got enough votes from their pals to get on the panel, little else.^^^^ you miss the point again as usual, rockie. The fact scientific institutions are at least beginning to open up debate on the whole GW issue is a major step forward. Thats because up until now they've always said the global warming science was settled.
You dont hire 3 very vocal anti-GW scientists if you think the science is settled
They were appointed.That's not the point at all. They didn't hire them, they got enough votes from their pals to get on the panel, little else
Either way, they're at least beginning to realize the science isnt settled
And from the article, here's Hal Lewis's theory as to why so many scientific institutions have fallen for the global warming scam:
There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst
So Lewis is espousing the global conspiracy 'theory' because of the money involved. In others words throw out all the research because to possibility of some researchers being bought and paid for.They were appointed.
Either way, they're at least beginning to realize the science isnt settled
And from the article, here's Hal Lewis's theory as to why so many scientific institutions have fallen for the global warming scam:
Here's the APS's response to Lewis' resignation later you offered a very limited quote for.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent letter to the American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis, emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced that he was resigning his APS membership.
In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:
There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.
Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm
Of course they're gonna deny it. Did you really think they would just admit to it, and say we're all in it for the money, even though global warming might not be as severe as we initially thought??!So Lewis is espousing the global conspiracy 'theory' because of the money involved. In others words throw out all the research because to possibility of some researchers being bought and paid for.
Here's the APS's response to Lewis' resignation later you offered a very limited quote for.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent letter to the American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis, emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced that he was resigning his APS membership.
In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:
There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding
The fact they are at least allowing 3 GW deniers to sit on their panel should tell you something, rockie. Well, it should tell someone with a bit of intelligence something at least, perhaps not you.
Oh, and learn how to write in paragraphs please. Thats basic grade 9 grammar
Do you enjoy being embarrassed and ridiculed daily?American Physical Society Sees The Light: Will It Be The First Major Scientific Institution To Reject The Global Warming 'Consensus'??! For them to assign 3 famous GW skeptics is a major step forward, because it means they're at least beginning to look at both sides of the issue
Is that why you keep coming up with this crap?
The APS has been a target of the four major oil funded pretend think tanks for almost a decade now. First, they tried to petition the APS to change their stance but the results were so ridiculously lopsided that most people thought they'd stay away. As in 0.045% voted for the deniers petition, less successful then the average Nigerian email scam. And of the initial signatories, there is a very smart and detailed, 128 page analysis linking them to the four major oil funded think tank/lobbysists.
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2009%20science%20bypass%20v3%200.pdf
This was back in 2009.
What makes you think that 45,000 physicists who refused to sign 5 years ago are changing their minds now, in light of the warmest decade on record and 95% certitude of climatologists?
And a quick check of facts makes all of their claims look a little funny.
First, none of those names are listed on the POPA:
http://www.aps.org/about/governance/committees/popa/index.cfm
None of them are on the review committee:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm
They were invited into a discussion to hear the contrarian point of view, the full 600 page discussion is on their site.
But to think that they will up the vote from 0.045% to 50% is one of your silliest claims yet.
In the meantime, neither of you can even tell a doctored graph from an original graph.
You lack the smarts to judge the crap you keep linking.
it certainly doesn't tell what you and BB want the world to think.Of course they're gonna deny it. Did you really think they would just admit to it, and say we're all in it for the money, even though global warming might not be as severe as we initially thought??!
The fact they are at least allowing 3 GW deniers to sit on their panel should tell you something, rockie. Well, it should tell someone with a bit of intelligence something at least, perhaps not you.
Oh, and learn how to write in paragraphs please. Thats basic grade 9 grammar
Maybe it's simply a case of now that the there are deniers on a panel, no one can accuse the APS of shutting them out; strategic appointment perhaps.
Like you've never done this?^^^ did groggy just link some guys blog, and pass it off as legitimate??
Also groggy, why would APS invite 3 known GW skeptics if they felt the science was settled already?? Answer me please (and in your own words, no copy/pasta)
Who is saying the science is settled, ie a certaintity, but it sure is looking like the science has a damn good angle on what's happening.
If you think blogs aren't good sources why don't we all agree only to quote climatologists with phd's?^^^ did groggy just link some guys blog, and pass it off as legitimate??
Also groggy, why would APS invite 3 known GW skeptics if they felt the science was settled already?? Answer me please (and in your own words, no copy/pasta)
Sound fair?
This is your first post ever in 10 years and that's it?Does not exist
Wrong again groggy. I looked it up, they were not just invited to some discussion. Those 3 global warming skeptics are on their permanent panel.And a quick check of facts makes all of their claims look a little funny.
First, none of those names are listed on the POPA:
http://www.aps.org/about/governance/committees/popa/index.cfm
None of them are on the review committee:
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/climate-review.cfm
They were invited into a discussion to hear the contrarian point of view, the full 600 page discussion is on their site
I'll post the info straight from aps.org tomorrow when I have more time. Its right on their website
