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

[flip]

Junk science are actually for those who think that increasing CO2 concentration amount is the main driver of global warming thinking in terms of strict casaulity.That is where your folly lies as a non-professional scientist yourself. A trapping of your own ill-prepared thinking and pre-conceived notions. The problem is that this is just not strictly a climatology field but rather a multitude of science fields such as geology, oceanography, geochemistry, astrophysics, atmospheric physics, limnology, sedimentology, dendrology, paleoclimatology, geophysics and so on and so forth.

Btw, there were hundreds of scientists who are global warming skeptics (i.e. man-caused) converged a a few months ago in a 2 1/2 day of climate change conference.
The Heartland Institute - Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

My suggestion? Watch this powerpoint presentation. Simple yet explainable in some parts, quite heady to read in others of which I enjoy reading anyways (warning: big file 20 mb)
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Fred_Goldberg.ppt

It's funny how you keep on pulling up link after link to hardcore junk science. This Heartland Institute is known for denying dangers of tobacco in the past, now it's climate. Heartland won't reveal who it's sponsors are, but have been sponsored by for example Exxon. It's goal is to promote a free market.

As for houndreds of scientists agreeing, check this link where many of them are horrified to be on this kind of list from Heartland.

Kevin Grandia | Outrage in the Climate Science Community Continues Over the "500 Scientist" List

This is called junk science.

 

[flip]

Er, Al Gore made this statement that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

The new religion is global warming.

We got different debates going on and consensuses, and he had a specific debate in his mind when he made this comment. It's weird I have to explain this basic stuff to a "scientist" like you.

 

[flip]

A overwhelmy large majority of the scientic community agree that human activities are to blame. QUOTE]


Overwhelmingly large majority? Link please! A kingdom for a horse! Oh, and now it's "scientific community" and not specifically climatologists?


Ahem! -> The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com

And let it be a lesson learned for you, Flip. Here's a link sure to get a chuckle or two. At least it did for me.
Scientist who boasted he could 'slaughter' skeptics in debate backs off...'I certainly will not schedule some political show debate in front of a non-scientific audience' | Climate Depot

I think you need glasses. I have already posted this link you ask for. Check reply to darkdog on this page.

Another link for slow learners:
STATS:

Here is some additional help to sort out who belive what for you.
Scientific community: 80% agree on AGW
Climate researchers: 97% agree on AGW

The WSJ.com article is an opinion. You really don't have anything better to show up with than articles from junk science sites and opinions?

 

[deafskeptic]

Many scientific communities don't have a final consensus. Science is about exploring. And, it's a myth it's so complicated you have to put a lot of faith in it. It's after all, a difference between religion and science.

Indeed, science is based on evidence whereas religion is based on faith.

I fail to see why people would call it a religion. Although I am a fine artist and a graphic designer by training, if I were to replicate scientific experiments, I would most likely be able to get the same results that the famous scientists came up despite my lack of knowledge in the subject.

I'm afraid I can't say the same for religion.

 

[flip]

I'm afraid you're mistaken on this one.

Yeah, he is starting to sound like a paranoid schizo. What he is referencing is to is the last few years, and it's normal. The long term graph is steady and rising. It's also nothing wrong with using the word climate change because we do not know what will happen if we hit a tipping point.

 

[deafskeptic]

I think you need glasses. I have already posted this link you ask for. Check reply to darkdog on this page.

Another link for slow learners:
STATS:

Here is some additional help to sort out who belive what for you.
Scientific community: 80% agree on AGW
Climate researchers: 97% agree on AGW

The WSJ.com article is an opinion. You really don't have anything better to show up with than articles from junk science sites and opinions?

Thanks for the link you provided. I find it telling that only 3 percent of the scientists trust the media for coverage on the subject according to your link. That suggests to me there is much distortion on the subject.

 

[deafskeptic]

Yeah, he is starting to sound like a paranoid schizo. What he is referencing is to is the last few years, and it's normal. The long term graph is steady and rising. It's also nothing wrong with using the word climate change because we do not know what will happen if we hit a tipping point.

yep.

I remember that a popular radio host with a degree in meteorology (or so he claims) claims to have debunked climate change doesn't mean that it's not likely to happen - especially when the said radio host fails to explain the difference between meteorology and Climatology. Meteorology is the study of the current weather conditions. According the page that I linked to, Climate means weather over a long period of time. Many climatologists like to use a mean of 30 year span or even longer depending on the branches of this profession. In other words, Climatology is the study of weather in a span of time.

 

[deafskeptic]

Yeah, he is starting to sound like a paranoid schizo. What he is referencing is to is the last few years, and it's normal. The long term graph is steady and rising. It's also nothing wrong with using the word climate change because we do not know what will happen if we hit a tipping point.

yep.

I remember that a popular radio host with a degree in meteorology (or so he claims) claims to have debunked climate change doesn't mean that it's not likely to happen - especially when the said radio host fails to explain the difference difference between meteorology and Climatology. Meteorology is the study of the current weather conditions. According the page that I linked to, Climate means weather over a long period of time. Many climatologists like to use a mean of 30 year span or even longer depending on the branches of this profession. In other words, Climatology is the study of weather in a span of time.

I have since then found out the said host has no college degree. I tried to find the scource for this info but I'm unable to find it. It is possible I am wrong on the rest of my paragraph. I'm not able to find a quote.

 

[flip]

yep.

I remember that a popular radio host with a degree in meteorology (or so he claims) claims to have debunked climate change doesn't mean that it's not likely to happen - especially when the said radio host fails to explain the difference between meteorology and Climatology. Meteorology is the study of the current weather conditions. According the page that I linked to, Climate means weather over a long period of time. Many climatologists like to use a mean of 30 year span or even longer depending on the branches of this profession. In other words, Climatology is the study of weather in a span of time.

Interesting and worth to remember. In the link I provided that you commentet two posts up, 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union was asked about climate. 84 percent of them belived that human activities have contributed to warming. In 1991 it was only 61 percent of them who belived the temperature was rising.

 

[Hwy99]

You're not answering my question directly. Simply putting up a link is not answering my question. I want to hear it from you. If there's anything you read and learned you tell me that here. Again, what was life was like for the Vikings on Greenland some 1000 years ago? Could wheat and fruits be grown there at that time?

The only reason why I shared the link because it was proven to me. You already said it in this thread so why should I repeat it? Please don't try put your words in my mouth.

ANYWAYS...

Perhaps a better source next time?

History - Skov & Landskab

I do not care if there are better sources, the Wikipedia links that I shared already explained it in simple way. I already understood.

Not much? Well, it is Greenland. But trees and crops do grow there and people do harvest them and sell them.

Still not much enough, no wonder that huge island, Greenland, became dependency to this tiny country, Denmark. It is just too cold there.

 

[deafskeptic]

Interesting and worth to remember. In the link I provided that you commentet two posts up, 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union was asked about climate. 84 percent of them belived that human activities have contributed to warming. In 1991 it was only 61 percent of them who belived the temperature was rising.

I think I'll go read the whole article.

 

[Jiro]

Interesting and worth to remember. In the link I provided that you commentet two posts up, 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union was asked about climate. 84 percent of them belived that human activities have contributed to warming. In 1991 it was only 61 percent of them who belived the temperature was rising.

it is no brainer that human activities do contribute to warming. So do our livestock, cockroach, and just about every living thing. As kokonut points out few time - the crux of the issue is whether global warming is man-caused.

Yes men contributed to it but it's minuscule. So minuscule that it's not even a CAUSE of global warming.

 

[C.C.Sinned]

the climate has been changing since the plant formed. it will always continue to change. the sahara desert was once a swamp. maybe it will be one again someday.... when humans cease to exist the planet will continue to change...

 

[darkdog]

Here is a link:
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

Your example of cannibalism is not very useful for comparision. Another example of precautions that fits climate more;
A doctor tells his patient in ill shape that he has to eat this and that food to avoid serious health issues. The patient refuse to do so because "there is no hard evidence this and that food is bad and scientists seems to disagree".

Is the patient a smartass or not?

Nah, I think my example fits better for several reasons.

1. It involves a very scary scenario- just like global warming.
2. We didn't ask and we haven't noticed any problems. They just tell us the problems are coming- just like global warming.
3. The only solution seems to involve us trashing our economy and handing over our personal freedoms to an elite group- just like global warming.
4. Those who dare question the alarmists are demonized- just like global warming.

Your doctor example would fit better if, say, I were walking down the street eating dark chocolate and a doctor came up and said "You have to stop eating chocolate! It's loaded with saturated fat and it's gonna give you high cholesterol and heart attacks and blocked arteries! You have to go to the doctor everyday to get your heart checked up! If you don't, you're a Luddite flat-earther fascist!"

"Um, no"

(By the way, chocolate is loaded with saturated fat, but numerous studies indicate it's actually good for the heart- not bad, so my rejection would be warranted, even if I was unaware of the benefits of chocolate.)

As for that poll, 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity has had a significant factor in changing mean temperatures. Whereas most lay people would probably take that to mean major, scientists would probably take that to mean statistically significant- i.e. having some noticeable effect. It doesn't follow that they agree as to how significant it is, what the consequences will be, and our prospects for fixing it. The survey doesn't bother asking that.

If, indeed, it is a huge problem, I find it very difficult to believe that our half-assed attempts at cutting carbon emissions through cap and trade will do anything to fix it. I can only see such attempts actually hurting us. If we throw ourselves into economic depression, then we'll be very ill-prepared to deal with the catastrophes. Then we'll have the dire costs of the solution plus the costs of the problem with no benefit. It seems to me that the only way to fix it is to do everything possible to keep the economy chugging along, create incentives for new energy sources that can compete with fossil fuels without subsidies (and create those incentives in a way that doesn't burden the market), and develop ways to adapt to the problems.

 

[kokonut]

I'm afraid you're mistaken on this one.

Actually, no. The issue has always been about global warming per se, and not "cllimate change" which attempts to deflect the issue away from that the whole Earth is warming up. Not so.

 

[sequoias]

A hiccup might destroy a quarter of the world's population and reduce the population big time, like a major castrophophic earthquake or a major weather event. You never know what tricks Earth can play. There may be 1000 year Earthquakes, 1000 year weather events, etc

 

[C.C.Sinned]

A hiccup might destroy a quarter of the world's population and reduce the population big time, like a major castrophophic earthquake or a major weather event. You never know what tricks Earth can play. There may be 1000 year Earthquakes, 1000 year weather events, etc

let's see if there becomes a volcanic event like the krakatoa. that eruption catastrophic environmental changes...

 

[sequoias]

let's see if there becomes a volcanic event like the krakatoa. that eruption catastrophic environmental changes...

Interesting read. Yea or the catastrophic volcanic events, too.

 

[kokonut]

You questioning if mankind is responsible for 30% of CO2 i the air is hard evidence how little you really know of CO2 and the science behind it. People who knows what CO2 really is, can detect the babyscience talk you are doing on CO2 here.

Again, questioning is a part of any scientific debate. What you are trying to do is squelch the debate through belittling and ad homenim attacks which signify and underlying insecurity issue. I am open to debate these figures and claims. You are making the assertion that this number you gave is conclusive and cannot be debate. Despite the fact that current understanding on the dyanmics of Earth and sun continues to evolve. The example I gave points this out when there is new understanding of how Earth pumps CO2 into the atmosphere from the ocean in massive quantities in a 65 year cycle. Do you know what a gigaton is? Compared to man's output of CO2 is very small compared to what the Earth puts out (and absorb). And what about volcanoes? "If each of the 1511 active land-volcanoes on Earth emits 5.000 tons C-equivalents of CO2 each day => 7,5 million tons per day. If 4 times more from subaerial volcanoes => 37,5 Mtons total, approx. the double amount vs. burning of fossil fuels (<20 Mtons per day)." (see http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Tom_Segalstad.ppt ). And the somber fact is that these figures are for land based volcanos and not submarine volcanoes and that the ocean covers 70% of the earth. What do we really know about these underwater volcanos and the amount of CO2 it emits and how much of it gets degassed at the surface? Lots of unknowns, uncertainties and so forth.

Again, (yes, I read your links), here's the link that I suggested you read. Did you? It explains in one of the presentation slide that the proportion of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere from fossil fuel and biomass burning is only 4% (rather than 30%). It explains why.

http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Fred_Goldberg.ppt (warning: 20 mb)

Again, consensus is not science.

“Scientific integrity is not determined by a show of hands” - Dr Tim Ball, Canada.

“Many experiments may prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong”- Dr Albert Einstein.

Einstein puts it well. There is a large scientific body that says otherwise about global warming (as caused by man). They let the science do the talking, not the policy of politics. What you are doing is a rush to judgement when in fact the science is still young and that there is much to learn about this complex system that is very dynamic. And yet, I suppose professionalism means that any disagreement in a scientific debate allows a person to use hominem attacks, be called "deniers" (as an implied reference to Holocaust deniers), belittling and so on.

Exactly, Flip, what is your professional science background? Any science background at all like, say, a college degree?

 

[Jiro]

Again, questioning is a part of any scientific debate. What you are trying to do is squelch the debate through belittling and ad homenim attacks which signify and underlying insecurity issue. I am open to debate these figures and claims. You are making the assertion that this number you gave is conclusive and cannot be debate.

that sounds familiar........ oh yea - Al Gore. the one with Pulitzer Prize which is not to be confused with Nobel Prize or Ph.D or scientific background/degree. yep the same man who said - "The debate in the scientific community is over."