Interesting read re. Global warming

[groggy]

Where did I say I had concern about government funding scientific research?

You keep putting words into my mouth, I then question you on it, and not only do you not respond to my multiple questions, but you keep putting more words into my mouth

What multiple questions?

Now earlier on you inferred that scientists gained materially through studying climate change and that this put the results into doubt in your mind.
Is that what you meant?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

What multiple questions?

Oh gee, I dunno

Where did I mention the word 'conspiracy', groggy??

Cause I dont see it anywhere

Where did I say I had a beef with anything??

Where did I say I had concern about government funding scientific research?

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Now earlier on you inferred that scientists gained materially through studying climate change and that this put the results into doubt in your mind.
Is that what you meant?

I already answered that on previous page. Are you even reading this thread??!

Here's my take on the whole GW thing. Up until Climategate I never questioned GW, I figured if we're all pumping out so many CO2's worldwide thats bound to have an effect on our climate.

After Climategate happened I started wondering if perhaps the doomsday scenarios are highly exaggerated. And if so, how may years/decades/centuries do we have until the shit hits the fan. Nobody knows, and thats my whole point.

Of course there is some warming going on, so I do support greener technologies. But AFA doomsday scenarios Al Gore keeps scaring us with, I think they are unfounded

 

[Moviefan-2]

So all peer review is a farce, don't think so. A small group gets caught and you paint all researchers with the same brush.

All of the leading voices on global warming are part of that small group that doesn't believe in peer review.

 

[blackrock13]

All of the leading voices on global warming are part of that small group that doesn't believe in peer review.

I noticed you didn't say leading climatologist. Hard to believe that when 90%+ of climatologist, believe in climate change. I know they're all smucks. Richard Muller, highly regarded but, once a skeptic not the case now though, would disagree with you. His explanation for the change is that we know more now than just a few years ago. Leading voices could simply imply the loudest. We've already compared list i past threads and dissected some those leading skeptics and they were found wanting in their expertise in climatology. Kind of like boasting about you mechanic and his knowledge the geo-political ramification of pegging the euro to oil. He may be a great mechanic, but his knowledge on poli sci and global economics is likely not too strong.

Apparently not all.

Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at U of Penn and Benjamin D. Santer, a climate researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a lead author of the 1995 U.N. climate report,

http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...ptic-reverses-course-20120729,0,7372823.story

I'm sure I could find some more top shelf researchers/climatologist/earth scientist who also disagree with you. but it's late.

 

[groggy]

I already answered that on previous page. Are you even reading this thread??!

Oh I read your reply, it just didn't have anything to do with government funding of sciences.

As for the warnings, the IPCC papers are consciously conservative in their forecasts, since they very carefully made sure every forecast or model was very verifiable.
The reports since then have shown climate change to be progressing as fast or faster then their worst case scenarios at the same time that there is also talk that 2 degree celsius global temperature increase previously listed as an upper limit before things get really bad might be too high as well. That 1.5 C is about all we can add to climate change without totally screwing us over. We've already added 0.8 C and there is enough CO2 in the air to bump that up some more so there is talk now that if we don't drastically cut down CO2 use within a decade or so we're in big trouble.

Its quite probable that the doomsday scenarios were highly played down, not exaggerated.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Its quite probable that the doomsday scenarios were highly played down, not exaggerated

No, I think the exact opposite is true. They overplayed the severity of global warming.

Its okay though, because I support moving to a greener energy. But I'm definitely not losing sleep over Al Gore's gloom & doom predictions, which for the large part have not come true

 

[groggy]

No, I think the exact opposite is true. They overplayed the severity of global warming.

The evidence says you are wrong.

Take a look at arctic ice cover, for example.
The decline in annual cover is proceeding faster then even the worst case scenarios from the IPCC.
Some have reported it as declining 4x's faster then predicted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/28/arctic-sea-ice-just-hit-a-record-low-heres-why-it-matters/

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

The evidence says you are wrong.

Take a look at arctic ice cover, for example.
The decline in annual cover is proceeding faster then even the worst case scenarios from the IPCC.
Some have reported it as declining 4x's faster then predicted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/28/arctic-sea-ice-just-hit-a-record-low-heres-why-it-matters/

Groggy, do you believe everything you read in the papers?? They've been fear-mongering with the arctic ice is melting since 1922, and it never materializes. Whats funny is that article you posted is from the same media outlet :biggrin1:

See here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp

Global Warming -- The Washington Post

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

Dateline: November 2, 1922,

 

[blackrock13]

Groggy, do you believe everything you read in the papers?? They've been fear-mongering with the arctic ice is melting since 1922, and it never materializes. Whats funny is that article you posted is from the same media outlet :biggrin1:

See here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp

Unfortunately Phil,the arctic is melting big time.

I don't have to read a report, I've seen it with my own eyes over the last 20+ years and worked and talked to those who have lived there all their lives on more than just North america. It looks like those who said it would happen back in the 20's were right. When an 80 year old elder says it getting worse and say he's never seen iot this bad, i'll take his opinion over yours any day.

 

[Moviefan-2]

I noticed you didn't say leading climatologist. Hard to believe that when 90%+ of climatologist, believe in climate change.

I see. OK, let's name names.

I'm talking about Phil Jones, James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, and Michael Mann, to cite some of the leading alarmists. According to Phil Jones' testimony at a government committee, these guys don't believe in scientific principles such as peer review.

(Don't bother asking for the source for Jones' testimony -- it was already provided earlier in this thread).

Richard Muller, highly regarded but, once a skeptic not the case now though, would disagree with you.

Let's deal with Richard Muller.

A central model behind the global-warming theory is Michael Mann's hockey-stick graph. And what does Muller think of that graph? Actually, he says it's total crap.

http://prn.fm/2012/08/01/green-front-dr-richard-muller-080112/#ixzz22nkSzW84

Equally entertaining is Muller's take on the global warming cabal -- Jones, Trenberth, Mann -- and his view that "What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their licence.”

"If" they were licensed scientists????

It doesn't sound like Blackrock13's expert is sold on the scientific credentials of global warming's leading alarmists.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

There is also John Christy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

He is a distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award." In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society

Now here is what Christy preaches:

In a 2003 interview with National Public Radio about the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said he is "a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels". He added, though, that "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

In a 2009 interview with Fortune Magazine about signing the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get."

In a 2007 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote: "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."

That tells me he doesnt believe any of the gloom & doom predictions guys like Al Gore keep making

 

[blackrock13]

The name game is interesting, but since there are far more who do than who don't support climate change , it would just be cheap entertainment for you two and little more.

 

[blackrock13]

There is also John Christy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

He is a distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award." In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society

Now here is what Christy preaches:

That tells me he doesnt believe any of the gloom & doom predictions guys like Al Gore keep making

Few are predicting 'huge' increases in temperatures, especially when few humans will survive long a rise of ~5C. The other quotes are just ,massaging the message, not discrediting it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The name game is interesting, but since there are far more who do than who don't support climate change , it would just be cheap entertainment for you two and little more.

LOL.

Since you're not challenging my point, I guess we can conclude that the IPCC and NASA aren't credible on this issue.

After all, those organizations base most of their information on global warming from the primary sources I named, such as Jones, Hansen, Trenberth and Mann.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And just for fun, let's see what Michael Mann thinks of Blackrock's source, Richard Muller.

But for him to pretend that we couldn't trust this entire scientific field until Richard Muller put his personal stamp of approval on their conclusions is, in my view, a very dangerously misguided philosophical take on how science works. It seems, in the end--quite sadly--that this is all really about Richard Muller's self-aggrandizement.

http://www.facebook.com/MichaelMann...comment_id=3981836&offset=0&total_comments=21

Hmm. It seems the alarmists can't agree on what they believe. But whatever it is, more than 90 per cent of climatologists are sure it's right.

And you wonder why some of us think the consensus is mostly based on the allure of big-money research grants?

 

[blackrock13]

LOL.

Since you're not challenging my point, I guess we can conclude that the IPCC and NASA aren't credible on this issue.

After all, those organizations base most of their information on global warming from the primary sources I named, such as Jones, Hansen, Trenberth and Mann.

One has little to do with the other.

I can't say if Jones, Hansen & co. are the primary source and surprised you can. I wonder what other scientists who also testified in front of the committee had to say.

 

[paleofreak187]

One has little to do with the other.

I can't say if Jones, Hansen & co. are the primary source and surprised you can. I wonder what other scientists who also testified in front of the committee had to say.

Why don't you summarize it for us Hall Monitor?

 

[Moviefan-2]

One has little to do with the other.

I can't say if Jones, Hansen & co. are the primary source and surprised you can. I wonder what other scientists who also testified in front of the committee had to say.

Thanks. Your confession of ignorance on this subject is duly noted.

Perhaps you should do a Google search on those names before you dig any deeper.

 

[blackrock13]

And just for fun, let's see what Michael Mann thinks of Blackrock's source, Richard Muller.



http://www.facebook.com/MichaelMann...comment_id=3981836&offset=0&total_comments=21

Hmm. It seems the alarmists can't agree on what they believe. But whatever it is, more than 90 per cent of climatologists are sure it's right.

And you wonder why some of us think the consensus is mostly based on the allure of big-money research grants?

Find out what Muller thinks of Man and we'll have both sides of the discussion. Did you actually think Man would agree with Muller?

You get that observation from a lengthy facebook page from people unknown, really? Maybe why is up for discussion, but not what