Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[kokonut]

This is a standard scientifical run survey, and 1/3 replying is quite normal. You claim I am "exercising gross intellectual dishonesty here to try and make it sound like the 97% consensus result came from those 10,200 experts.", while I never tried to impy that 10.000 replied. Is it something wrong with your cognitive skills? Koko - another ad hominem attack. A feedback from 1/3 is considered a success in scientifical surveys and quite normal. It's common knowledge.

Yes, how significant is the question that's interesting, not if man have influenced at all or not, glad you have discovered it. It did sure take some time for you to gasp, but you are welcome. So, now, how significant do you think the man made global warming is?

My response here - http://www.alldeaf.com/war-politica...aks-1877-cold-temp-record-11.html#post1382108

Next time, make absolutely clear of your numbers.

It's not a matter of "discovering" the meaning and significance of the word "significant" or that it took me time to grasp it. Again, like I told you, this is a word that has a qualitative meaning and it's meaning varies. There was nothing to discover on my part, it was a well known issues among use scientists who write these reports to be aware of using qualitative words because it could make a difference for a project to be litigated based on those words. Which is why a quantitative measure is necessary to go with it in support of it.

 

[Jiro]

Sure, but he still will die, because he has nothing to prepare with.

hence.... the nature's cruel...

 

[kokonut]

it's impossible to know when the rain will come. it's impossible to know the locust swarm will come. it's impossible to know when the thief will steal all your food. the list is endless but a man who prepares for failure is a very wise man.

Actually, regarding rain, that depends on the time scale when rain will come. If you're talking about predicting years, months or even in some cases days ahead, sure. At what time scale are you talking about for rain?

 

[flip]

Your attempt at disinformation and why.
1) You copied and pasted a section about 97% agreeing.
2) Next, you copied and pasted another section in that same article that includes the number 10,200 experts that were contacted.

With those two sections side by side as you have undoubtedly done you NEVER clarified that the actual number of people who responded was actually 3,146, and not 10,200. That is what we call "intellectual dishonesty" as way to get people to think that 10,200 experts responded that resulted in a "consensus" of 97%. Was it your intention to make the number appear bigger by not clarifying to the readers that poll results was actually from 3,146 respondants....not the 10,200 experts? Yet you ended with a clarifying but snooty remark by saying, "97 percent of the finest scientists you can find." I made a point again and again that by saying "97%" is meaningless and doesn't tell the story nor an accurate picture. And so you attempted at intellectual dishonesty by purposefully disinforming the readers just so they think it was 97% of the 10,200 experts who concurred. Not so.

I ain't dumb so stop playing that game for once. You got caught.

Calm down, Kokonut. I did not at try to make it look like everyone who got a request, replied. This is a survey for gods sake. It's illogical that everyone that is asked will reply in a survey. It's common knowledge. My point with 10,200 is to show how many and what kind of scientist they sent requests to, as we know how many who replied from earlier posts. One of three is very good. The partipants was also careful picked, to avoid favoring a specific group of same minded scientist.

Your rambling about 97% beeing meaningless and pointless don't make any sense. Following that thinking, all scientific surveys would render meaningless and pointless.

 

[Jiro]

Actually, regarding rain, that depends on the time scale when rain will come. If you're talking about predicting years, months or even in some cases days ahead, sure. At what time scale are you talking about for rain?

for example - you're raising crop or livestock in Texas or mid-western state. You're waiting.... and waiting.... and waiting for rain to come. One must be prepared for drought or a certain period of no rain. One also must prepared for excessive rain as well.

It is months, not years due to seasonal change.

 

[flip]

good. now you're aware of ulterior motivation behind their stance. You'll have to ask them what their ulterior motivation is. I cannot answer that on behalf of them.

I am not tough enough to ask a hidden brotherhood about their evil plans for the earth. Perhaps you are tough to the bone? Do it Jiro. You are the man!

 

[flip]

hence.... the nature's cruel...

Let me finish ....cruel because we did put gases in the atmosphere, and

1. the earth corrects itself

2. the earth goes bananas

3. a mix of those

Pick your choice, but somehow, we have made the nature more cruel than it need to be here.

 

[kokonut]

Looking around... All surveys points toward an increase in agreement that global warming is for real. What was your point really?

Temperature is rising. 97 percent of climate scientists see no signs that we are cooling down, but that we go a bit down, then soar up, a bit down and then soar up. Let me suggest some real stats from real scientists, not some .org or .com sites.

"Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

Graphs have the tendency to look impressive when you reduce the scale to very small sizes. Secondly, I was referring to changes in global temperature in the last 10 years which have been essentially static and not rising.

No one is disputing that global warming has been occurring. Not I. However, the dispute has to do with the notion that it was all human caused and we're the main culprit and driver on global warming with our additional introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere. Here, let me help and borrow a graph to illustrate this point about global temperature over the last 10 years (1998 - 2007, and this was before a cool 2008 year, too).
http://www.roanokeslant.org/GlobalWarmingThoughts/GlobalTemp1880-1998-2008.jpg

It's all about scale. Time. Magnitude.

Once more, it is misleading to present that 97% claim. I've explained why and how you got caught with that display of intellectual dishonesty. Make a clarifying comment about the 97% claim.

 

[netrox]

High CO2 concentrations see crop yield improve by 30%.
Yeah, some plants do hate higher CO2 concentration.

Not if the plant cannot survive the heat. It's pointless to argue about CO2 concentration if plants die due to heat and lack of water thanks to global warming. Duh!

 

[netrox]

No one is disputing that global warming has been occurring. Not I. However, the dispute has to do with the notion that it was all human caused and we're the main culprit and driver on global warming with our additional introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere. Here, let me help and borrow a graph to illustrate this point about global temperature over the last 10 years (1998 - 2007, and this was before a cool 2008 year, too).
http://www.roanokeslant.org/GlobalWarmingThoughts/GlobalTemp1880-1998-2008.jpg

You contradict yourself, as usual. You're saying we are having a global warming but cited a graph to prove that we're not warming up. Make up your mind!

 

[Jiro]

Let me finish ....cruel because we did put gases in the atmosphere, and

1. the earth corrects itself

2. the earth goes bananas

3. a mix of those

Pick your choice, but somehow, we have made the nature more cruel than it need to be here.

so did dinosaur make the nature more cruel than it needed to be? so cruel that it caused their extinction?

 

[Hwy99]

so did dinosaur make the nature more cruel than it needed to be? so cruel that it caused their extinction?

You can't tell if the Earth care about us or not. The Earth is just simple a ball without any feelings.

Plants, animals, and humans do have feelings. Not the soil, water, air, or fire. Soil, water, air, and fire create the life. That is how the Earth create the life.

I am pretty sure that dinosaurs got panic at their doomsday, but that still was not Earth's fault. It was nobody's fault, actually.

 

[kokonut]

Calm down, Kokonut. I did not at try to make it look like everyone who got a request, replied. This is a survey for gods sake. It's illogical that everyone that is asked will reply in a survey. It's common knowledge. My point with 10,200 is to show how many and what kind of scientist they sent requests to, as we know how many who replied from earlier posts. One of three is very good. The partipants was also careful picked, to avoid favoring a specific group of same minded scientist.

Your rambling about 97% beeing meaningless and pointless don't make any sense. Following that thinking, all scientific surveys would render meaningless and pointless.

No one can read your mind nor infer exactly what that 97% claim means. You were repeating this several times and then you included a copy and paste of the 97% claim and 10,200 experts without letting readers know the number actually came from 3,146 respondants, and nothing about the 10,200 experts who were contact. Saying it's "common knowledge" is an attempt to deflect this error of yours and absolve yourself any responsibility and accountability to inform the readers of the actual number.

This was an online poll. What's not shown is the kind of bias were dealing with with each person/scientist doing the poll. In this age of billions of dollars of govt grants and other sources of funding for global warming studies you can be assured that there'd be a policy agenda on the kind of study these grants are looking for specifically. And so, that leads to the question of bias and the question of how significant would a change be in order to be "significant"?

 

[kokonut]

Not if the plant cannot survive the heat. It's pointless to argue about CO2 concentration if plants die due to heat and lack of water thanks to global warming. Duh!

This is about, obviously, plants that get enough sun and water to see a huge crop yield differences.

Research results have shown that more plants are growing and adapting in higher latitudes. The irony is this. When CO2 concentration rises the photosythesis process becomes more efficient when it comes to cycling nutrients and water. This has been well documented. In one study it grew Sorghum bicolor grown in a 570 ppm CO2 environment had water-use efficiencies that were 9 and 19% greater than the control plants grown in ambient conditions in both well-watered and water-stressed conditions.
Conley, M.M., Kimball, B.A., Brooks, T.J., Pinter Jr., P.J., Hunsaker, D.J., Wall, G.W., Adams, N.R., LaMorte, R.L., Matthias, A.D., Thompson, T.L., Leavitt, S.W., Ottman, M.J., Cousins, A.B. and Triggs, J.M. 2001. CO2 enrichment increases water-use efficiency in sorghum. New Phytologist 151: 407-412.

So, increase in CO2 concentration of upward of 2000 ppm has an obvious benefit to plants.

 

[Hwy99]

This is about, obviously, plants that get enough sun and water to see a huge crop yield differences.

Research results have shown that more plants are growing and adapting in higher latitudes. The irony is this. When CO2 concentration rises the photosythesis process becomes more efficient when it comes to cycling nutrients and water. This has been well documented. In one study it grew Sorghum bicolor grown in a 570 ppm CO2 environment had water-use efficiencies that were 9 and 19% greater than the control plants grown in ambient conditions in both well-watered and water-stressed conditions.
Conley, M.M., Kimball, B.A., Brooks, T.J., Pinter Jr., P.J., Hunsaker, D.J., Wall, G.W., Adams, N.R., LaMorte, R.L., Matthias, A.D., Thompson, T.L., Leavitt, S.W., Ottman, M.J., Cousins, A.B. and Triggs, J.M. 2001. CO2 enrichment increases water-use efficiency in sorghum. New Phytologist 151: 407-412.

So, increase in CO2 concentration of upward of 2000 ppm has an obvious benefit to plants.

Ever heard of wildfire? :roll:

 

[Jiro]

Ever heard of wildfire? :roll:

what about it? what dies comes a new life!

 

[Hwy99]

what about it? what dies comes a new life!

As the wildfire increasing, there will not enough plants to survive. There are wildfires every summers in the west coast, especially California and it is getting worse every year.

 

[Jiro]

As the wildfire increasing, there will not enough plants to survive. There are wildfires every summers in the west coast, especially California and it is getting worse every year.

lol plenty of forest around. no worry. If we lose all the trees in California - it will hardly make a dent on global level. It's like removing a period from a book.

 

[Hwy99]

lol plenty of forest around. no worry. If we lose all the trees in California - it will hardly make a dent on global level. It's like removing a period from a book.

No trees, no oxgyen, but pollution. This is other evidence that the global warming can be dangerous.

Oregon and Washington are starting to have more wildfires too, I am worry.

 

[Jiro]

No trees, no oxgyen, but pollution. This is other evidence that the global warming can be dangerous.

Oregon and Washington are starting to have more wildfires too, I am worry.

like I said - plenty of tree all over the world. burning tree is not a pollution. oil spill from tanker boat is. beside - wildfire is nothing compared to volcano's eruption in terms of environmental disaster. Nature's cruel, si?

We've had forest fires in NY/NJ (such as Bear Mountain) too. Hardly a concern for me. I guess it's just me.