Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: shootfighter1 on February 15, 2010, 08:19:34 AM
-
World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists
Sunday Times
The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge from scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.
The predicted temperature changes due to global warming, based on data from the Hadley Centre that some scientists now question.
The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.
In its last assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was "unequivocal." It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife.
New research casts doubt on such claims, however. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.
"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, California and Alabama.
"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."
The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report. The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.
"We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC's climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialization and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias," he said.
Such warnings are supported by a study of U.S. weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.
His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment. Some are next to air-conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous: a weather station next to a waste incinerator
-
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, California and Alabama.
"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ______
Seeing this slow death of this farce is such a wonderful sight to see.
I have said Globalist Warming was a sham from day 1 and I am just giddy to see its actual demise so soon.
-
I think this is a pretty important article...surprised not more reaction. Good to see scientists being able to publically question the research methods, as they are finding more mistakes.
-
Where is TA and the other posters who continue to believe this scam?
TA, at this point you need more faith to believe in "climate change" than is needed to believe in God.
-
Yes a good idea lets put a weather station next to a incinerator or an cooling unit ::) Why aren't these asshats being dragged throught streets being pelted with rotten vegetables?
-
Yes a good idea lets put a weather station next to a incinerator or an cooling unit ::) Why aren't these asshats being dragged throught streets being pelted with rotten vegetables?
x 1000000%
-
So lets see what actually causes the earth to get warmer or cooler, if it isn't CO2 then what is it? Water Vapor, yes, water vapor. But you see there is no way to regulate/tax that.
-
Hoping that a lib will respond bump.
-
World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists
Sunday Times
The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge from scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.
The predicted temperature changes due to global warming, based on data from the Hadley Centre that some scientists now question.
The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.
In its last assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was "unequivocal." It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife.
New research casts doubt on such claims, however. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.
"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, California and Alabama.
"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."
The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report. The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.
"We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC's climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialization and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias," he said.
Such warnings are supported by a study of U.S. weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.
His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment. Some are next to air-conditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous: a weather station next to a waste incinerator
His study is NOT peer reviewed and Christy, whom this article is about, also supports the AGU declaration and is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured.
I don`t see your point in posting this article as it does nothing to further your case of denial.
-
Just give it up TA - this is the main guy and even he is admitting this whole thing is based on garbage evidence.
How does it feel knowing your newly adopted religion has been proven as fraudulent as those you mock?
-
Here you go Shootfighter and other denialists:
Here is an Article on Christy from an interview he conducted. John Christy is the one mentioned in Shootfighter`s article that does nothing to further denialism.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/18/MNGNV3PH9D1.DTL&type=printable
Another significant signer was John Christy, director of the University of Alabama's Earth Systems Science Center, a more cautious supporter of the idea that humans are causing climate change.
In a phone interview, Christy said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming
-
That's one way to put it ::). An accurate way to put it would be he disagrees with most all the current model and thinks that global warming will cause positive changes in the environment.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903#src15 (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903#src15)
-
Yes a good idea lets put a weather station next to a incinerator or an cooling unit ::) Why aren't these asshats being dragged throught streets being pelted with rotten vegetables?
LOL!
-
The only one denying anything is you TA, that this entire bogus theory was based on fraud from day 1 and have been exposed as nothing more than junk science at best.
-
Just give it up TA - this is the main guy and even he is admitting this whole thing is based on garbage evidence.
How does it feel knowing your newly adopted religion has been proven as fraudulent as those you mock?
That doesn`t make any sense.
John Christy is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming.
Tell me how John Christy helps further Denialism. Shootfighter should not have posted that article as Christy is NOT a denier.
-
333, I'm not siding with either argument but do you think the ever-increasing amount of pollution put out on this planet is ok, something to be worried about or not a problem at all?
-
John Christy supports Global Warming and also recognizes that humans are the major cause.
You deniers are the total opposite.
-
333, I'm not siding with either argument but do you think the ever-increasing amount of pollution put out on this planet is ok, something to be worried about or not a problem at all?
I think a certain amount of pollution is fine considering the negative impact of shutting down all these industries the geen zealots target would have. They are like 10 y/o in their mentaility thinking that shutting off all pollution will result in some type of nirvana socially, economically, etc.
People can live with a little pollution, they cant live without income, food, and shelter.
Until the green nazis like TA own up to that fact, they will continue to be rightfully the hysterical uninformed joke that they are.
-
The only one denying anything is you TA, that this entire bogus theory was based on fraud from day 1 and have been exposed as nothing more than junk science at best.
So you must think John Christy, the subject in this article is wrong since he supports Global Warming and recognizes that humans are a major cause?
Shootfighter probably shouldn`t have confused you.
-
John Christy supports Global Warming and also recognizes that humans are the major cause.
You deniers are the total opposite.
And you are a joke for ignoring the obvious flaws in the data, the crumbling credibility of supporters like yourself, and the daily admissions of fraud by the main proponents of this fraudulent nonsense to begin with.
Its not science TA, its your religion. Think about it.
-
And you are a joke for ignoring the obvious flaws in the data, the crumbling credibility of supporters like yourself, and the daily admissions of fraud by the main proponents of this fraudulent nonsense to begin with.
Its not science TA, its your religion. Think about it.
So you think Jesus the dead zombie or the magical sky god or some other entity is in charge of regulating and determining Climate since you don`t think it is a valid Science. This is the only alternative to Science - Supernatural thinking.
So just what do you believe is at play here since you don`t believe that Climatology is a science and it therefore is a Supernatural force?
-
So you think Jesus the dead zombie or the magical sky god or some other entity is in charge of regulating and determining Climate since you don`t think it is a valid Science. This is the only alternative to Supernatural thinking.
So just what do you believe is at play here since you don`t believe that Climatology is a science and it therefore is a Supernatural force?
The usual True Anus tactic of trying to change the direction of the discussion, nice try but no cigar
-
So you think Jesus the dead zombie or the magical sky god or some other entity is in charge of regulating and determining Climate since you don`t think it is a valid Science. This is the only alternative to Supernatural thinking.
So just what do you believe is at play here since you don`t believe that Climatology is a science and it therefore is a Supernatural force?
Have I ever supported organized religion? Yes or no?
Second, did it ever dawn on you that the earth is BILLIONS of years old and goes through cycles that have nothing to do with us?
Third, did it ever dawn on you that even if your precious global warming were in fact true, that changing light bulbs, giving Goldman Sachs a carbon trading market, and driving Toyota prius's is likely to have ZERO impact whatsoever?
-
The usual True Anus tactic of trying to change the direction of the discussion, nice try but no cigar
How is this changing the discussion?
Shootfighter posted a bunk article that claimed no Global Warming which cited John Christy who clearly SUPPORTS Global Warming and cites Human Activity as a MAJOR cause.
Perhaps Shootfighter did not realize the article is poorly written. It makes no sense to claim that Global Warming is not happening and then using someone who fully Supports Global Warming.
Do you not see a little problem there?
Shootfighter messed up and did not do any research before he posted that. However, whoever wrote that article REALLY was misinformed.
You can`t deny this one.
-
How is this changing the discussion?
Shootfighter posted a bunk article that claimed no Global Warming which cited John Christy who clearly SUPPORTS Global Warming and cites Human Activity as a MAJOR cause.
Perhaps Shootfighter did not realize the article is poorly written. It makes no sense to claim that Global Warming is not happening and then using someone who fully Supports Global Warming.
Do you not see a little problem there?
Shootfighter messed up and did not do any research before he posted that. However, whoever wrote that article REALLY was misinformed.
You can`t deny this one.
Ill refer you to to my earlier post about Christy, he may support MMGW, but he thinks it is a good thing.
-
Ill refer you to to my earlier post about Christy, he may support MMGW, but he thinks it is a good thing.
LOL!
-
Have I ever supported organized religion? Yes or no?
Second, did it ever dawn on you that the earth is BILLIONS of years old and goes through cycles that have nothing to do with us?
Third, did it ever dawn on you that even if your precious global warming were in fact true, that changing light bulbs, giving Goldman Sachs a carbon trading market, and driving Toyota prius's is likely to have ZERO impact whatsoever?
1. What is the difference between organized or non-organized religion? Supernatural, illogical, irrational thinking is Supernatural and illogical and irrational whether it is organized or not.
2. The Biology on Earth certainly affects many conditions on earth. Too Numerous to even go into. Research the role of CFC`s and Ozone Depletion if you would like to see just what humans are capable of doing. This is just the tip of the Iceberg so to speak of the ability of humans to alter the earth, again, too many instances to list. Furthermore, what do you think would happen if we engaged in full scale Nuclear War? Clearly humans can have a tremendous impact on the Ecology and Atmosphere. To think otherwise is just ignorant.
3. Global Warming is a Scientific Fact. Mitigating the effects are possible and complicated. Given the trend that population growth is not slowing down, these changes will be necessary on a large scale. Overpopulation will eventually be the real glaring problem for many reasons.
-
LOL!
Something funny Bloomin' Onion? You'll notice that I posted a link so assclowns like you can actually read his quotes about his position on the subject. But I guess expecting a fuckhead like you to do so would be asking to much
-
Something funny Bloomin' Onion? You'll notice that I posted a link so assclowns like you can actually read his quotes about his position on the subject. But I guess expecting a fuckhead like you to do so would be asking to much
Actually you didn`t.
Try clicking on the links. Nothing happens. ;)
-
Actually you didn`t.
Try clicking on the links. Nothing happens. ;)
Worked fine for me. Anyway, here's what's on the site:
"Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville
Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.
While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.
Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.
PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978 B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics"
________________________ ____________
Let's put Christy aside for the moment. Would you agree that there is sufficient dissent and questions so as to warrant us saying, "hold-up", let's not panic, let's put more money into research, and then draw our conclusions?
-
Worked fine for me. Anyway, here's what's on the site:
"Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville
Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.
While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive.
Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.
PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978 B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics"
________________________ ____________
Let's put Christy aside for the moment. Would you agree that there is sufficient dissent and questions so as to warrant us saying, "hold-up", let's not panic, let's put more money into research, and then draw our conclusions?
No. There is not sufficient evidence against Global Warming and the significance of human activity as causation.
-
Not really a problem at all. McKitrick has long been an opponent of climate change science and isn't a scientist himself.
All studies should be looked at of course but one study does not automatically mean a theory proven over 100's of scientific papers is wrong.
-
Not really a problem at all. McKitrick has long been an opponent of climate change science and isn't a scientist himself.
All studies should be looked at of course but one study does not automatically mean a theory proven over 100's of scientific papers is wrong.
If it was proven it wouldn't be a theory.
And if you want to get into who is and isn't scientist why is the head of the UN climate change committee an economist?
-
No. There is not sufficient evidence against Global Warming and the significance of human activity as causation.
Really? So they can just throw out a theory, use manufactured/manipulated data, and I 'm just supposed to accept it? I think not. The burden of proof lies solely with the theorist, and they have been weighted and measured and found wanting.
-
If it was proven it wouldn't be a theory.
And if you want to get into who is and isn't scientist why is the head of the UN climate change committee an economist?
Uh, A theory in Scientific terms is merely the explanation/mechanism of an observable fact based on empirical data and has nothing to do with being "less true" or "not definite" as you think.
Atomic Theory, Germ Theory, Cell Theory, Particle Theory, Einstein`s Special Theory of Relativity and so on.
"Just a Theory" does not mean what you think it does and I advise you to at least learn a little bit about Science before you make such juvenile statements.
-
Really? So they can just throw out a theory, use manufactured/manipulated data, and I 'm just supposed to accept it? I think not. The burden of proof lies solely with the theorist, and they have been weighted and measured and found wanting.
Uh no. There is no manufactured or manipulated data.
-
Uh no. There is no manufactured or manipulated data.
TA you are sounding more and more like the religious fundies you mock every day in your defense of this scam.
-
Here you go Shootfighter and other denialists:
Here is an Article on Christy from an interview he conducted. John Christy is the one mentioned in Shootfighter`s article that does nothing to further denialism.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/18/MNGNV3PH9D1.DTL&type=printable
Another significant signer was John Christy, director of the University of Alabama's Earth Systems Science Center, a more cautious supporter of the idea that humans are causing climate change.
In a phone interview, Christy said that while he supports the AGU declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming
Learning how to communicate without formatting is a true skill and one few make much effort to hone. To be able to communicate with clarity simply by the words you choose and how you choose to use them without relying on bolding, font size, caps or colors is the true sign of a skilled communicator.
-
No. There is not sufficient evidence against Global Warming and the significance of human activity as causation.
Ah, no.
There is not sufficient evidence for Global Warming.
The same people who came up with the raw data, now admit that the data is unreliable.
What don't you understand? The basis for this "theory" never existed, nor proven. Since the data is unreliable and misleading, there was never a true observation of the event and it can't even be classified as a "theory".
Like I said. You need more faith to believe this garbage, than to believe in Jesus.
It's hilarious that you are acting like the religious lunatics that you criticize so much. You have no evidence, the scientists themselves are saying that their evidence is lacking, and yet you are holding on to your belief. Sounds like a christian to me.
-
Ah, no.
There is not sufficient evidence for Global Warming.
The same people who came up with the raw data, now admit that the data is unreliable.
What don't you understand? The basis for this "theory" never existed, nor proven. Since the data is unreliable and misleading, there was never a true observation of the event and it can't even be classified as a "theory".
Like I said. You need more faith to believe this garbage, than to believe in Jesus.
It's hilarious that you are acting like the religious lunatics that you criticize so much. You have no evidence, the scientists themselves are saying that their evidence is lacking, and yet you are holding on to your belief. Sounds like a christian to me.
Pure undiluted ignorance. Hard to know where to start to combat such misinformed irrationality. Sounds like you are a hopeless cause in regards to empirical data.
-
Pure undiluted ignorance. Hard to know where to start to combat such misinformed irrationality. Sounds like you are a hopeless cause in regards to empirical data.
TA - get this through your thick skull, your blind acceptance of the garbage coming from the "climate scientists" whose methods and data are now admitted to have been flawed puts you in the same exact category as those religious nutjobs you gleefully mock.
-
Oh gosh the trenches have been dug and the bombs are now being thrown. I admit there are inconsistencies in some climate reports, i admit there are some less than noble climate scientists out there, but these truths do not change the view and studies of thousands of climate scientists.
Lets be logical for a second -
do you honestly think burning coal, nuclear waste, creating plastics that take thousands of years to break down and dumping them etc are good practices for the long term health of the earth? Or the long term health of the people on this earth?
-
Oh gosh the trenches have been dug and the bombs are now being thrown. I admit there are inconsistencies in some climate reports, i admit there are some less than noble climate scientists out there, but these truths do not change the view and studies of thousands of climate scientists.
Lets be logical for a second -
do you honestly think burning coal, nuclear waste, creating plastics that take thousands of years to break down and dumping them etc are good practices for the long term health of the earth? Or the long term health of the people on this earth?
That's not the issue and you know it.
-
TA - get this through your thick skull, your blind acceptance of the garbage coming from the "climate scientists" whose methods and data are now admitted to have been flawed puts you in the same exact category as those religious nutjobs you gleefully mock.
Sorry, but Science operates on empirical data, evidence and testable hypothesis. Religion operates on nothing. No evidence, no data, nothing concrete whatsoever.
-
The only thing proven about the theory of man made global warming is that its a hoax perpatrated by people who want the United States to fund more poor nations.
-
Sorry, but Science operates on empirical data, evidence and testable hypothesis. Religion operates on nothing. No evidence, no data, nothing concrete whatsoever.
Keep it up TA - you are moving into Falwell/Robertson territory with your insistance on following these snake oil salesmen who now have admitted to fraud.
-
Pure undiluted ignorance. Hard to know where to start to combat such misinformed irrationality. Sounds like you are a hopeless cause in regards to empirical data.
Sorry, but you are the fool here. You claim science works on empirical data, yet the data has already been discredited. The person who came up with the "hockey stick" graph can't defend his findings and will not have any independent agency test his findings.
This is what passes for science in your tiny brain?
Again, you state religion operates on nothing. Yet, you believe in global warming/climate change which also operates on nothing, because it's not supported by any PROVEN SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Neither you, nor any one in the world can provide data that can be tested again and again to prove what you believe. You have more faith than any christian I know.
-
Sorry, but you are the fool here. You claim science works on empirical data, yet the data has already been discredited. The person who came up with the "hockey stick" graph can't defend his findings and will not have any independent agency test his findings.
This is what passes for science in your tiny brain?
Again, you state religion operates on nothing. Yet, you believe in global warming/climate change which also operates on nothing, because it's not supported by any PROVEN SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Neither you, nor any one in the world can provide data that can be tested again and again to prove what you believe. You have more faith than any christian I know.
Your post is a giant myth and lie. Hope this helps.
-
Your post is a giant myth and lie. Hope this helps.
Much like the theory of man made global warming.
-
Your post is a giant myth and lie. Hope this helps.
Much like the "Hope and Change" that many voted for.
-
Bump for Shootfighter`s response to the inaccuracy of his article. I`d like to know where he found such gross misinformation.