Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The True Adonis on July 12, 2009, 06:01:45 AM
-
Perry Appoints New State Board of Education Chairman
AP
Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
Gov. Rick Perry has appointed a new State Board of Education chief, Gail Lowe.
Lowe, a conservative, was still a far less controversial choice than another potential appointee, Cynthia Dunbar (less Obama citizenship questioning, at least). She has been a member of the board since 2002, and is also publisher of a bi-weekly newspaper, the Lampasas Dispatch Record, and a former trustee of the Lampasas Independent School District.
However, she has fervidly advocated for Creationism in the classroom enough to draw plenty of criticism. The former SBOE chairman, Don McLeroy, lost his position partially due to his polarizing views on the subject.
Lowe will launch into her new role next week when the board holds a four-day meeting. Her term will end on Feb. 1, 2011, unless the Senate chooses to renew it. If that doesn't happen and Perry is still governor, odds are looking pretty good that he will just appoint another conservative.
Holly LaFon has written and worked for various local publications including D Magazine and Examiner.
Copyright NBC Local Media
-
Did you even bother to read the article? It looks like it wasn't even proofread. Her term will end feb 1st 2002???
-
Did you even bother to read the article? It looks like it wasn't even proofread. Her term will end feb 1st 2002???
LOL HHAHAHAHA WOW :o
-
Sometimes Characters don`t copy and paste as they are in the article.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/07/governor-names-gail-lowe-sboe.html
Lowe, whose term as chairwoman will expire in February 2011
-
So whats worse...a person who advocates for creationism that doesn't matter a bit and won't cost this country a thing or a made up global warming nutjob like the idiot from NASA, who will cause our economy to tank further. More liberal bullshit.
-
Texas is a joke. Ron Poop should address this travesty.
-
So whats worse...a person who advocates for creationism that doesn't matter a bit and won't cost this country a thing or a made up global warming nutjob like the idiot from NASA, who will cause our economy to tank further. More liberal bullshit.
Yes, because EVERY single non-partisan global Body of Scientists is trying to hoodwink you with a liberal Conspiracy. ::) You make me sick and you definitely are clueless in all matters scientific and evidential.
With your above drivel you are discounting the following:
National Academy of Sciences (US) Royal Society (United Kingdom) Chinese Academy of Sciences Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Académie des Sciences (france) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Australian Academy of Sciences Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts Caribbean Academy of Sciences Indonesian Academy of Sciences Royal Irish Academy Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id= ... (2001) http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20 ... (2005) For the comments of other scientific bodies http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Statements_on ...
The scientific consensus is with the IPCC. Just as the scientific evidence and consensus is for evolution.
The National Scientific Academies of the the following countries issued this statement
“The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”
No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS PLEASE CHECK THESE BEFORE POSTING: UK Government's Meteorological Office debunking of climate-change-denial myths http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ...
New Scientist magazine addressing the main skeptic claims http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
-
Can you form your own argument TA? I'd love to debate with you on certain issues, but it seems YOU personally never have anything to say.
-
Can you form your own argument TA? I'd love to debate with you on certain issues, but it seems YOU personally never have anything to say.
Pick a topic. I am sorry if I use Facts and evidence to back up my stance and that this does not appeal to you. I don`t understand why you would be afraid of irrefutable evidence. ???
Now if you want to discuss movies, literature, music, dance, art, poetry, pop culture,pat cultures, history, video games, anything....I am willing to do so and explain why certain forms of art appeal to me moreso than others.
-
Says u....u ahve zero to say. U cut and paste but never make an well reasoned argument that comes from either experience or thought. TA do u think we're idiots. Once ur exposed on a topic u disappeare for awhile to quickly wiki some bullshit and then u paste it up like u have any idea what the hell ur talking about. Australia is quickly backing away from GW bs as well as the rest of Europe. Global climate temps have been dropping, not going up.
-
Says u....u ahve zero to say. U cut and paste but never make an well reasoned argument that comes from either experience or thought. TA do u think we're idiots. Once ur exposed on a topic u disappeare for awhile to quickly wiki some bullshit and then u paste it up like u have any idea what the hell ur talking about. Australia is quickly backing away from GW bs as well as the rest of Europe. Global climate temps have been dropping, not going up.
Yes. Let me teleport to the Continental Ice Shelf and take my homemade dollar Ice Core Drill and drill for ice core samples because, for some reason, when thousands of scientists do it with million dollar equipment and produce accurate results it is somehow invalid.
Nobody is backing away and you have no facts to stand on. Moron. Sorry if facts and evidence are abhorrent to you.
-
Yes. Let me teleport to the Continental Ice Shelf and take my homemade dollar Ice Core Drill and drill for ice core samples because, for some reason, when thousands of scientists do it with million dollar equipment and produce accurate results it is somehow invalid.
Nobody is backing away and you have no facts to stand on. Moron. Sorry if facts and evidence are abhorrent to you.
That would make you an Ice core Drill handler. ::)
-
I would hardly call the data we have on global warming irrefutable. Data from different sources points in different directions, so its tough to really say who is correct.
On a side note, TA, why do you harbor so much hate for religion?
-
Ok war hero...where's ur 214.....
-
Yes. Let me teleport to the Continental Ice Shelf and take my homemade dollar Ice Core Drill and drill for ice core samples because, for some reason, when thousands of scientists do it with million dollar equipment and produce accurate results it is somehow invalid.
Nobody is backing away and you have no facts to stand on. Moron. Sorry if facts and evidence are abhorrent to you.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
-
The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling.
Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. --
13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.
Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief.
Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history."
Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion."
A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02.
Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications.
Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.
-
The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling.
Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. --
13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.
Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief.
Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history."
Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion."
A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02.
Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications.
Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.
Inhofe recycles long-debunked denier talking points — will the media be fooled (again)?
December 11, 2008
Who will the media believe this time: The Senate’s leading climate denier, James Inhofe (R-OK), or their own lying eyes?
Deniers like Inhofe have a serious media problem — an ever growing number of studies, real world observations, and credible scientific bodies all point to human-caused emissions as the increasingly dominant cause of planetary warming and dangerous climate change.
What’s a denier to do? The answer is simple: Repackage previously debunked disinformation, release it as a “new” so-called “Full Senate Report” full of hysterical headlines, push it through right-wing news outlets, and hope the traditional media bites. Why not? It worked before.
Here is the screaming headline this week from Inhofe staffer Marc Morano
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise?
Yes, it is tiresome debunking such nonsense for the umpteenth time, so let me try to keep this as short as possible.
SEA LEVELS ARE STILL RISING MORE THAN 50% FASTER NOW THAN PRE-1990
On what does Inhofe’s office base the “Sea Levels Fail to Rise” claim? Nothing more than a single blog post by a former TV meteorologist, Anthony Watts, who runs a denial website. That post claims “We’ve been waiting for the UC [Univesity of Colorado] web page to be updated with the most recent sea level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story.”
Does it look to you like the recent data shows that the rate of sea level rise has slowed, as Watts says, let alone stopped, as Inhofe suggests? If so, I suggest you get your eyes checked. In particular, look at the most recent data points at the upper right. They are precisely on the long-term trend.
For an even clearer picture without the fluctuations that are driven by short-term temperature changes (i.e. last winter was cold), go to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s key indicator page for sea level rise (click here). Role your mouse over the final data point in the upper right from August 2008. Again, it is almost precisely on the long-term trend.
Yet Inhofe’s office looks at the data and sees “Sea Levels Fail to Rise?” Who are you going to believe, traditional media — Inhofe, or your own lying eyes? In fact, JPL has two nice side-by-side graphs of sea level rise that show the rate of sea level rise since 1993 has consistently been about 70% higher than pre-1993 — a far bigger jump than the climate models had projected:
The sea level rise data is in fact a reason to be more worried today about the pace and scale of global warming, not less.
THE SUN PLAYS ONLY A SMALL ROLL IN RECENT WARMING
No matter how many studies debunk the myth that the sun is a dominant cause of recent warming, the deniers just can’t let go. Inhofe’s office shouts “Study: Half of warming due to Sun!” On what basis? Again, a blog post by a denier — this time one who selectively quotes from a new Geophysical Research Letters study (subs. req’d). The blog and Inhofe’s office write:
… they conclude that “Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun.”
First, let’s give the full quote from the GRL study:
However, during the industrial period (1850-2000) solar forcing became less important and only the CO2 concentrations show a significant correlation with the temperature record. Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta and West, 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun.
Oops. The study shows that in the industrial period, it is carbon dioxide, not solar forcing, that is significantly correlated with the temperature record. The authors were not saying that their study found half the warming in the last century can be explained by the sun. It was saying their study found that only CO2 had a significant correlation, that the sun was not significantly correlated to temperature, and that the sun was clearly under half the contribution.
Second, Scarfetta and West’s 2007 paper has been thoroughly debunked by RealClimate here, which notes, “S&W make a number of unjustified assumptions and sweeping statements which turns it into a mere speculation. In a way, the conclusions are already given when S&W assume that the sun is the predominant cause from the outset.”
Third, even the very few analyses that conclude the sun was a significant contributor in the past century find that the sun’s impact relative to carbon dioxide has been shrinking (since, of course, greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations have been soaring). So, a statement that up to about 50% of the warming in the last hundred years can be explained by the sun turns into at most 25% to 35% of the warming since 1980 can be explained by the sun in Scarfetta and West’s 2006 paper, which, in any case, was debunked by RealClimate here.
Fourth, there is a large literature on this subject which makes clear the sun’s contribution to the accelerated warming of the last few decades is minimal. Since the myth won’t die, I will repeat some of them here.
The Naval Research Laboratory and NASA reported in September that, “if anything,” the sun contributed “a very slight overall cooling in the past 25 years.” The study, “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006,” found:
According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years.
A major 2007 study concluded:
Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
More studies can be found on the excellent debunking website, Skeptical Science:
Ammann 2007: “Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.”
Foukal 2006 concludes “The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.”
Usoskin 2005 conclude “during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”
Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found “most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases.”
Solanki 2003 concludes “the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970.”
Lean 1999 concludes “it is unlikely that Sun-climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970″.
Waple 1999 finds “little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend.”
Frolich 1998 concludes “solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade.”
FORGET PADDED, LAUGHABLE LISTS: SCIENCE, NOT SCIENTISTS, TELLS US HUMANS ARE WARMING THE PLANET DANGEROUSLY
Inhofe’s Office claims “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”
Yet the vast majority of those names are simply repeated from a 2007 list that was widely debunked, see Inhofe recycles unscientific attacks on global warming” and here and here and here. Let me repeat what I wrote at the time.
“Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” Some would use the word “laughable.” For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?
I’m not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as “prominent scientists,” and many of those, like Freeman Dyson — a theoretical physicist — have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. I have previously debunked his spurious and uninformed claims, although I’m not sure why one has to debunk someone who seriously pushed the idea of creating a rocket ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs! Seriously.
Even Ray Kurzweil, not a scientist but a brilliant inventor, is on the list. Why? Because he apparently told CNN and the Washington Post:
These slides that Gore puts up are ludicrous, they don’t account for anything like the technological progress we’re going to experience…. None of the global warming discussions mention the word ‘nanotechnology. Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years…. I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far – 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that’s not going to happen.
And people say I’m a techno-optimist. So Kurzweil actually believes in climate science — rather than the reverse, as Inhofe claims — but thinks catastrophic global warming won’t happen because of a techno-fix that stops emissions. If wishes were horses … everyone would get trampled to death. In the real world, energy breakthroughs are very rare, as we’ve seen, and it’s even rarer when they make a difference in under several decades.
Then we have the likes of this from Inhofe’s list:
CBS Chicago affiliate Chief Meteorologist Steve Baskerville expressed skepticism that there is a “consensus” about mankind’s role in global warming.
Wow, a TV weatherman expressed skepticism. If only the IPCC had been told of this in time, they could have scrapped their entire report. Seriously, Wikipedia says “Baskerville is an alumnus of Temple University and holds a Certificate in Broadcast Meteorology from Mississippi State University.” I guess Inhofe has a pretty low bar for “prominent scientists” — but then again he once had science fiction writer Michael Crichton testify at a hearing on climate science.
I don’t mean to single out Baskerville. Inhofe has a lot of meteorologists on his list, including Weather Channel Founder John Coleman. I have previously explained why Coleman doesn’t know what he is talking about on climate, and why meteorologists in general have no inherent credibility on climatology. In any case, they obviously are NOT prominent scientists.
Then we have people like French geomagnetism (!) scientist Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist Louis Le Mouël, geophysicist Claude Allègre, geomagnetism (!!) scientist Frederic Fluteau, geomagnetism (!!!) scientist Yves Gallet, and scientist Agnes Genevey — whose “research” on global warming is brutally picked apart by RealClimate here and especially here (and again here by other scientists), who together “expose a pattern of suspicious errors and omissions that pervades” their work.
So, yes, the Inhofe list is utterly ignorable compared to either the IPCC report or the Bali declaration by actual prominent climate scientists. The notion it is relevant to the climate debate is laughable, as even a cursuory examination makes clear.
Since Inhofe’s office is beating a dead horse, let me also quote from climate scientist Andrew Dessler, who, at Grist, had a running “The ‘Inhofe 400′ Skeptic of the Day” and repeatedly identified some skeptics who were completely unqualified and others who are qualified but not actually skeptical. One posting deserves repeating here.
Meteorologist George Waldenberger is on the list. In response, George sent an email to Inhofe’s staffers that began:
Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I’ve never made any claims that debunk the “Consensus”.
You quoted a newspaper article that’s main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific … yet I’m guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.
You also didn’t ask for my permission to use these statements. That’s not a very respectable way of doing “research”.
Yet, as Dessler notes, “he’s still on the list.”
And he is still on the “new” 2008 list from Inhofe’s office!
Dessler’s other conclusions:
Second, the more I look through this list, the more it perfectly demonstrates the weakness of the skeptics. The AGU, for example, has 50,000 members, the majority of whom are Ph.D. Earth scientists. Inhofe would have been tickled pink to take any one of them. But he couldn’t. Despite the huge numbers of qualified scientists out there, Inhofe could barely muster a few dozen for his list.
As a result, Inhofe was forced to include on this list people with zero qualifications as well as people who are not actually skeptics. In the end, I estimate that his list is 80-90 percent bogus — which leaves a few dozen credible climate skeptics on the list. Hmm, just what I’ve been saying all along.
Third, several commenters here as well as other websites have taken it upon themselves to look at the qualifications of the authors of the IPCC. Despite their best efforts, none of them has been able to provide names of any authors of the working group 1 report that are similarly unqualified.
It seems that a careful analysis of the situation shows clearly that the scientific consensus is as robust as ever. Keep tryin’, Jim.
My only disagreement with Dessler: I’d end by saying “Stop tryin’, Jim — please!”
Given how padded and laughable the 2007 list was, I am not going to waste any time on the new names that Inhofe has added for the 2008 list. I leave that pointless task to others.
Let me make a final point for the media, from my Salon piece, “The cold truth about climate change“:
In fact, science doesn’t work by consensus of opinion. Science is in many respects the exact opposite of decision by consensus. General opinion at one point might have been that the sun goes around the Earth, or that time was an absolute quantity, but scientific theory supported by observations overturned that flawed worldview.
One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term “consensus” in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists.
So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly “prominent scientists” who supposedly “recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming.”
As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren’t climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus.
But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does “think global warming is real”). Or, for that matter, my opinion — even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea.
What matters is scientific findings — data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant.
As Inhofe’s office likes to brag (see here), his 2007 “report” garnered tremendous coverage from the traditional media.
The truth is there is no news in Inhofe’s new report — just a recycling of long-debunked denier talking points and padded, irrelevant lists of names. The only news is whether the media will get suckered by it — and, sadly, given how many times they have been suckered already by the deniers, even that doesn’t qualify as news.
-
Inhofe: less honest than the Discovery Institute
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: December 13, 2008 8:42 PM, by Tim Lambert
Inhofe's list of 650 scientists that supposedly dispute the consensus on AGW reminded me of another list: The Discovery Institute's list of scientists who dissent from Darwinism, so I thought I'd compare the two lists.
First, numbers. The Discovery Institute's list has 751 names, while Inhofe's has only 604. (Not "More Than 650" as he claims -- there are many names appearing more than once.)
Second, how do you get on the list? Well, you have to sign up to get on the Discovery Institute's list, but Inhofe will add you to his list if he thinks you're disputing the global warming consensus and he won't take you off, even if you tell him to do so. Yes, there is someone less honest than the Discovery Institute.
Third, what sort of scientists are on the lists? Well, the Discovery Institute list has a distinct shortage of biologists, while Inhofe's is lacking in climate scientists. It does have a lot of meteorologists, but these are people who present weather forecasts on TV, not scientists who study climate.
Fourth, who is on both lists? There are five names, and two are from the University of Oklahoma.
Here are the five people who couldn't stop at rejecting just one science:
Edward Blick, Professor Emeritus of the Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, University of Oklahoma. In an article published by the Twin Cities Creation Science Association, he wrote:
The predecessors of today's unbelievers replaced the Holy Bible's book of Genesis with Darwin's Origin of the Species. Now with the help of Al Gore and the United Nations they are trying to replace the Holy Bible's book of Revelation with the U.N.'s report Anthropogenic Global Warming. They tell us that man's use of fossil fuels results in too much atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which causes excessive warming and melting of polar ice caps. They say if we don't take drastic steps (trillions of dollars of taxes, year after year, after year), we will either roast to death, or drown in the rising seas. The plan is for the U.N. to take control of the world's economy and dictate what we can use for transportation (bikes?), what we can eat, where we can live, and what industries we must shut down. This whole scheme is a "Trojan Horse" for global socialism! ...
For thousands of years our earth has undergone cooling and warming under the control of God. Man cannot control the weather, but he can kill millions of people in his vain attempt to control it, by limiting or eliminating the fuel that we use. How does God control our warming and cooling? Scientists have discovered it is the Sun! Amazing, even grade school children know this. The Sun's warming or cooling the earth varies with sunspot and Solar flairs.
David Deming, Associate Professor of Geosciences, University of Oklahoma. In an op-ed in the Edmond Sun he wrote
Obama is a vapid demagogue, a hollow man that despises American culture. He is ill-suited to be president of the United States. As the weeks pass, more Americans will come to this realization and elect McCain/Palin in a landslide.
So you can guess that his writing about climate in this week's Washington Times is likely to be as accurate as his election prediction:
But the last two years of global cooling have nearly erased 30 years of temperature increases. To the extent that global warming ever existed, it is now officially over.
Despite a strong La Nina this year, 2008 was much warmer than any year in the 70s.
Guillermo Gonzalez, former Associate Professor of Astronomy Iowa State University.
Robert Smith, Professor of Chemistry University of Nebraska, Omaha
James Wanliss, Associate Professor of Physics, Embry-Riddle University
And I must also include this awesome quote from Edward Blick:
In an absolutely beautiful description, [Isiah] declares that these obedient ones "shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint" (Isa. 40:28-31).
In addition to the obvious spiritual truth conveyed in this context, science has determined that this passage was rather ahead of its time in terms of aerodynamic information.
Dr. Edward F. Blick, who served as a professor in the School of Aerospace at the University of Oklahoma, did extensive wind-tunnel studies at the university with eagles. In doing research in 1971, Dr. Blick and his colleagues discovered that the eagle's six-slotted feathers (at the end of each wing) curve upward in gliding flight. Wind tunnel measurements demonstrated that this design reduced the size of the vortex (whirling current) that emanates from each wing tip. This, in turn, reduces drag on the wings and allows the eagle to soar great distances on the air currents--without even having to beat its wings.
Professor Blick, impressed with the accuracy of the Bible in this regard, stated: "Thus 2,700 years after the scripture in Isaiah was written, science has stumbled onto the same truth."
-
ROFLMAO for HeadHunterSix revealing himself to be a supporter of the Discovery Institute.
HH6 is perhaps the dumbest in regards to Scientific and Evidential testable results.
It is beyond me how one person can be so dim to facts and evidence.
-
ROFLMAO for HeadHunterSix revealing himself to be a supporter of the Discovery Institute.
HH6 is perhaps the dumbest in regards to Scientific and Evidential testable results.
It is beyond me how one person can be so dim to facts and evidence.
::)
-
::)
yup.
-
Texas is a joke. Ron Poop should address this travesty.
Oh really?
10 of the top 16 cities right now are in the top economic performance of the nation right now. I posted a thread about this. Texas is outperforming CA, NY, MA, MI when it comes to economics.
-
ROFLMAO for HeadHunterSix revealing himself to be a supporter of the Discovery Institute.
HH6 is perhaps the dumbest in regards to Scientific and Evidential testable results.
It is beyond me how one person can be so dim to facts and evidence.
The True Anus strikes again
(http://neworleans.media.indypgh.org/uploads/2005/05/boogerboy_-_global_warming_is_real.jpg)
-
Global Warming has always been a complete farce when you consider even the most basic of questions. I want TA to answer me these questions:
1. Why did previous ice ages prior to mans burning fossil fuels end and how can anyone say that any warming now is not due to the same cause?
2. Why did Mars see a rise in temp as the same time we did?
3. What is the proper temp for the earth?
-
Global Warming has always been a complete farce when you consider even the most basic of questions. I want TA to answer me these questions:
1. Why did previous ice ages prior to mans burning fossil fuels end and how can anyone say that any warming now is not due to the same cause?
2. Why did Mars see a rise in temp as the same time we did?
3. What is the proper temp for the earth?
2. Answered
There is no link between variations in the sun's energy output and the temperature rises on Earth & Mars. They are both distinct and caused by completely different factors. How do scientists know this for certain? Because the solar output has not risen in any kind of way correlated to temperature increase on Earth or Mars. See
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
and a summary here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance
Solar radiance fluctuations are well known and correspond to sunspot activity which also has an 11-year cycle. It is undisputed that the sun's energy output has gone up and down twice during the period Mars' temperature was seen to be rising. Also, the amount of variation in the Sun's energy output from low to high is relatively small, it's not anywhere near strong enough to have caused the temperature increase seen on Mars, and if one insists they are related, then the Martian temperature should have gone and up and down twice during the period when they say it has steadily increased. So what's making Mars warmer? Here's the facts:
From
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].) All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years. These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth. Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. "Mars has no large moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html
The temperature changes on Earth, however, are directly proportional to, and correlated with greenhouse gas pollution in the atmosphere, of which the vast majority has been caused by humans.
-
Global Warming has always been a complete farce when you consider even the most basic of questions. I want TA to answer me these questions:
1. Why did previous ice ages prior to mans burning fossil fuels end and how can anyone say that any warming now is not due to the same cause?
2. Why did Mars see a rise in temp as the same time we did?
3. What is the proper temp for the earth?
3. Makes no sense.
Proper temperature for what?
-
Video addendum for number 2 answered.
-
NOOOOO TA maker ur own arguement supported by some basic facts...not BS global warming hysteria fueled by hacks who stand to make billions.....can u make any arguement at all, for yourself.
-
3. Makes no sense.
Proper temperature for what?
It makes perfect sense and is a question you cannot answer.
Global Warming alarmists like yourself scream about this nonsense all while never saying what is the proper temp for the earth.
-
NOOOOO TA maker ur own arguement supported by some basic facts...not BS global warming hysteria fueled by hacks who stand to make billions.....can u make any arguement at all, for yourself.
The three questions I posted are ones no global warming cultist can answer and is why now over 30,000 scientists are questioning the entire premise of alleged global warming, which I have said was a farce from day one.
The climate always changes. Also, notice how he avoided my first question. That one always seems to end the debate.
-
Global Warming has always been a complete farce when you consider even the most basic of questions. I want TA to answer me these questions:
1. Why did previous ice ages prior to mans burning fossil fuels end and how can anyone say that any warming now is not due to the same cause?
2. Why did Mars see a rise in temp as the same time we did?
3. What is the proper temp for the earth?
1. Answered.
Which Glacial Time Period do you want to examine as all are not the same and began and ended differently? How far back in our Planet`s 4.54 billion year old history do you want to go? What process do you specifically want to examine? Do you want to examine precipiatation? The formation of anticyclones and their impact? Tree Growth limit in various temperate zones? How the jet stream formed Pluvial lakes?Do you want to examine positioning of continents? Volcanism, Changes in Earth`s Atmosphere, Runaway Glaciation, Milankovitch cycles, The uplift of the Tibetan Plateau and surrounding Mountain Areas above the snowline?
If we take volcanism or a meteor impact for instance which causes CO2 levels to rise, the end result is global temperature rise. It is not difficult to understand that the more CO2 levels rise (what we are artificially doing with our pollution) , the more temperature will rise. Even if the global temperature rises just one or two degrees above average right now, we are looking at the displacement of BILLIONS of people, (especially India) as they will recede from coastlines due to rising sea levels. This human disaster and economic disaster will in turn affect all countries globally as the strain on countries that will have to receive these refugees grows and as they become resource dependent. That is just a mild form of what will happen.
-
The three questions I posted are ones no global warming cultist can answer and is why now over 30,000 scientists are questioning the entire premise of alleged global warming, which I have said was a farce from day one.
The climate always changes. Also, notice how he avoided my first question. That one always seems to end the debate.
I just answered your questions. ALL OF THEM.
30,000. Want to check that number:
-
It makes perfect sense and is a question you cannot answer.
Global Warming alarmists like yourself scream about this nonsense all while never saying what is the proper temp for the earth.
Again,
Proper temperature for what?
-
The three questions I posted are ones no global warming cultist can answer and is why now over 30,000 scientists are questioning the entire premise of alleged global warming, which I have said was a farce from day one.
The climate always changes. Also, notice how he avoided my first question. That one always seems to end the debate.
I answered the first question. There is no debate amongst scientists regarding Global Warming just as there is ZERO debate amongst scientists for Evolution.
It is only a debate for people who do not understand science at all or are just hopelessly ignorant. Case closed.
-
NOOOOO TA maker ur own arguement supported by some basic facts...not BS global warming hysteria fueled by hacks who stand to make billions.....can u make any arguement at all, for yourself.
Yes, because EVERY single non-partisan global Body of Scientists is trying to hoodwink you with a liberal Conspiracy and is trying to make a profit by experimentation. If they were trying to make a profit, it surely would have been done in a whole hell of a lot easier manner. What you don`t realize is that Science is not profit driven or motive based. It is an understanding of how the world works. You make me sick and you definitely are clueless in all matters scientific and evidential.
With your above drivel you are discounting the following:
National Academy of Sciences (US) Royal Society (United Kingdom) Chinese Academy of Sciences Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Académie des Sciences (france) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Australian Academy of Sciences Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts Caribbean Academy of Sciences Indonesian Academy of Sciences Royal Irish Academy Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
-
What you don`t realize is that Science is not profit driven or motive based. It is an understanding of how the world works.
Ah Bullshit, these guys whole lively hood depends on getting and keeping government grants and funding.
You want to know why the earth gets warmer or colder? Go look up in the sky.
It's almost funny that all you so called intellectuals are so fucking gullible.
-
Ah Bullshit, these guys whole lively hood depends on getting and keeping government grants and funding.
You want to know why the earth gets warmer or colder? Go look up in the sky.
It's almost funny that all you so called intellectuals are so fucking gullible.
Al gore stands to make billions off of this cap & trade scheme.
-
Al gore stands to make billions off of this cap & trade scheme.
Of course he does, he has been investing in these green companies for years, all the while pushing this bullshit GW agenda.
The really funny thing is whenever they have one of these GW conferences no disenting opinions or debate are allowed. Wonder why that is.
AL Gore wants to push this bullshit, but won't debate anyone about it, strange very strange.
-
Of course he does, he has been investing in these green companies for years, all the while pushing this bullshit GW agenda.
The really funny thing is whenever they have one of these GW conferences no disenting opinions or debate are allowed. Wonder why that is.
AL Gore wants to push this bullshit, but won't debate anyone about it, strange very strange.
The entire "green movement" would not exist without govt. grants, rebates, tax subsidies, govt spending, etc.
Its a financial black hole based on nothing.
-
Ah Bullshit, these guys whole lively hood depends on getting and keeping government grants and funding.
You want to know why the earth gets warmer or colder? Go look up in the sky.
It's almost funny that all you so called intellectuals are so fucking gullible.
Wrong.
-
Wrong.
Actually, in NYS, they are now giving huge tax rebates to people who install solar panels.
Its complete garbage.
-
Wrong.
Oh comon you can do better than that, where is the wiki cut and paste? I know you have the LIST at all times.
-
Oh comon you can do better than that, where is the wiki cut and paste? I know you have the LIST at all times.
I fear you cannot comprehend facts and evidence, even in a video format so what would be the use in posting it?
Besides, you have your mind up and are immune to evidence, published studies, irrefutable facts and suffer from a pre-conclusive bias. So what good would any of it do?
-
I fear you cannot comprehend facts and evidence, even in a video format so what would be the use in posting it?
Besides, you have your mind up and are immune to evidence, published studies, irrefutable facts and suffer from a pre-conclusive bias. So what good would any of it do?
You are so full of shit I bet your eye's are brown. Irrefutable my ass there is no proof, zero that global warming is man made. It is a theory, I though such an intellectual ::) like you would understand that.
-
You are so full of shit I bet your eye's are brown. Irrefutable my ass there is no proof, zero that global warming is man made. It is a theory, I though such an intellectual ::) like you would understand that.
I have blue eyes and no it is not a theory. There is no debate amongst any credible Scientific body regarding global warming.
If you want to align yourself with the Creationist Discovery Institute, then there is no chance of ever helping you understand.
-
I have blue eyes and no it is not a theory. There is no debate amongst any credible Scientific body regarding global warming.
If you want to align yourself with the Creationist Discovery Institute, then there is no chance of ever helping you understand.
Oh that must be why they have to come to a conscensus then right, since when did science depend on conscensus?
Same shit different day, I've watched as this has evolved over time, first it's global warming, then when that just isn't working out it becomes climate change. CO2 levels rise but temps don't. Predictions of above average and cat 5 hurricans, oh crap the hurricane activity is below average. Every prediction that Al Gore and is GreenNazi's have made has been wrong.
But you still cling to this like a crack adict to his pipe
-
Oh that must be why they have to come to a conscensus then right, since when did science depend on conscensus?
Same shit different day, I've watched as this has evolved over time, first it's global warming, then when that just isn't working out it becomes climate change. CO2 levels rise but temps don't. Predictions of above average and cat 5 hurricans, oh crap the hurricane activity is below average. Every prediction that Al Gore and is GreenNazi's have made has been wrong.
But you still cling to this like a crack adict to his pipe
Wrong.
-
Wrong.
Refute his post.
-
Refute his post.
Which aspect. I will take it point by point, one at a time. That is the only way this can be done.
-
Refute his post.
Also note that he has expressed his disdain for anything evidence based so I do not know if it will do any good whatsoever.
He, like GigantorX and some of the others do not believe in using Evidence and facts so whenever they see them, they dismiss them.
Religious people are the EXACT same way.
-
Also note that he has expressed his disdain for anything evidence based so I do not know if it will do any good whatsoever.
He, like GigantorX and some of the others do not believe in using Evidence and facts so whenever they see them, they dismiss them.
Religious people are the EXACT same way.
Things are not fact until they are proven. Another typical lib tactic try to discredit your opponent, in this case ignoring facts that aren't facts at all. Or marginalize by trying to hang the religios nut job sign around ones neck.
Face it, you cannot prove that global warming, climate change, or what ever the next buzz word is going to be is man made.
-
Also note that he has expressed his disdain for anything evidence based so I do not know if it will do any good whatsoever.
He, like GigantorX and some of the others do not believe in using Evidence and facts so whenever they see them, they dismiss them.
Religious people are the EXACT same way.
And so are the believers of global warming, who like religious fanatics, refuase to believe anything contradicting their point of view.
On Global Warming, a ton of evidence suggests any warming ended over a decade ago, yet yo refuse to look at those facts.
So, you are no different than the religious nut, its just that your religion is Global Warming.
-
And so are the believers of global warming, who like religious fanatics, refuase to believe anything contradicting their point of view.
On Global Warming, a ton of evidence suggests any warming ended over a decade ago, yet yo refuse to look at those facts.
So, you are no different than the religious nut, its just that your religion is Global Warming.
Wrong. That has been debunked thoroughly.
-
And so are the believers of global warming, who like religious fanatics, refuase to believe anything contradicting their point of view.
On Global Warming, a ton of evidence suggests any warming ended over a decade ago, yet yo refuse to look at those facts.
So, you are no different than the religious nut, its just that your religion is Global Warming.
D E B U N K E D.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html?full=true
Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998
11:00 15 August 2008 by Michael Le Page
In fact, the planet as a whole has warmed since 1998, sometimes even in the years when surface temperatures have fallen
Imagine two people standing at the South Pole, one dressed in full Antarctic gear and the other wearing not much at all. Now imagine that you're looking through one of those infrared thermal imagers that show how hot things are. Which person will look warmest - and which will be frozen solid after a few hours?
The answer, of course, is that the near-naked person will appear hotter: but because they are losing heat fast, they will freeze long before the person dressed more appropriately for the weather.
The point is that you have to look beyond the surface to understand how a body's temperature will change over time - and that's as true of planets as it is of warm-blooded bipeds.
Now take a look at the two main compilations (see figures, right) of global surface temperatures, based on monthly records from weather stations around the world.
According to the dataset of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (see figure), 1998 was the warmest year by far since records began, but since 2003 there has been slight cooling.
But according to the dataset of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (see figure), 2005 was the warmest since records began, with 1998 and 2007 tied in second place.
Tracking the heat
Why the difference? The main reason is that there are no permanent weather stations in the Arctic Ocean, the place on Earth that has been warming fastest. The Hadley record simply excludes this area, whereas the NASA version assumes its surface temperature is the same as that of the nearest land-based stations.
It is possible that the NASA approach underestimates the rate of warming in the Arctic Ocean, but for the sake of argument let's assume that the Hadley record is the most accurate reflection of changes in global surface temperatures. Doesn't it show that the world has cooled since the record warmth of 1998, as many claim?
Not necessarily. The Hadley record is based only on surface temperatures, so it reflects only what's happening to the very thin layer where air meets the land and sea.
In the long term, what matters is how much heat is gained or lost by the entire planet - what climate scientists call the "top of the atmosphere" radiation budget - and falling surface temperatures do not prove that the entire planet is losing heat.
Swaddling gases
Think again about that scantily clad person at the South Pole. If they put on some clothing, they'll appear cooler to a thermal imager, but what's really happening is that they are losing less heat.
Similarly, if you could look at Earth through a thermal imager, it would appear slightly cooler than it did a few decades ago. The reason is that the outer atmosphere, the stratosphere, is cooler because we've added more "clothing" to the lower atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
As a result, the planet is gaining as much heat from the sun as usual but losing less heat every year as greenhouse gas levels rise (apart from the exceptional periods after major volcanic eruptions, such as El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991).
How do we know? Because the oceans are getting warmer.
Tricky oceans
Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Celsius as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF)).
Globally, this means that if the oceans soak up a bit more heat energy than normal, surface air temperatures can fall even though the total heat content of the planet is rising. Conversely, if the oceans soak up less heat than usual, surface temperatures will rise rapidly.
In fact, most of the year-to-year variability in surface temperatures is due to heat sloshing back and forth between the oceans and atmosphere, rather than to the planet as a whole gaining or losing heat.
The record warmth of 1998 was not due to a sudden spurt in global warming but to a very strong El Niño (see figure, right). In normal years, trade winds keep hot water piled up on the western side of the tropical Pacific.
During an El Niño, the winds weaken and the hot water spreads out across the Pacific in a shallow layer, which increases heat transfer to the atmosphere. (During a La Niña, by contrast, as occurred during the early part of 2008, the process is reversed and upwelling cold water in the eastern Pacific soaks up heat from the atmosphere.)
A temporary fall in the heat content of the oceans at this time may have been due to the extra strong El Niño.
What next?
Since 1999, however, the heat content of the oceans has increased (despite claims to the contrary). Global warming has certainly not stopped, even if average surface temperatures really have fallen slightly as the Hadley figures suggest.
In the long term, some of the heat being soaked up by the oceans will inevitably spill back into the atmosphere, raising surface temperatures. Warmer oceans also mean rising sea levels, due to both thermal expansion and the melting of the floating ice shelves that slow down glaciers sliding off land into the sea. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the seabed rather than on land, is also highly vulnerable to rising sea temperatures.
Some climate scientists are predicting that surface temperatures will remain static or even fall slightly over the next few years, before warming resumes. Their predictions are based largely on the idea that changes in long-term fluctuation in ocean surface temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will bring cooler sea surface temperatures.
If these predictions are right - and not all climate scientists think they are - you can expect to hear more claims from climate-change deniers about how global warming has stopped. But unless we see a simultaneous fall in both surface temperatures and ocean-heat content, claims that the "entire planet" is cooling are nonsense.
And while some events such as a big volcanic eruption could indeed trigger genuine cooling for a few years, global warming will resume again once the dust has settled.
-
Warming is Warming
Cooling is Warming
Raining is Warming
Snowing is Warming
Ice is Warming
Falling Temp. is Warming
Colder winters are warming
Do you see a pattern?
-
Fine - you want to play cut and paste wars.
________________________ ________________________ _________
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
Published: 12:01AM BST 09 Apr 2006
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Stave off winter billsIn response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.
First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.
On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.
Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.
The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.
The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.
As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.
Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?
• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research
-
Again
D E B U N K E D
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.html
Bob Carter is famous for saying global warming "stopped in 1998". What Bob carter doesn't say is that 1998 is a year which an El Nino event occured. Not only was it a year of El Nino, but it was the strongest El Nino in recorded history. He also fails to mention that the climate is very dynamic. Unless you are an expert you need to look at averages and not cherry pick any single day, week, or even year. The two animations below will show just how much El Nino can influence global averages. The animation on the right (Fig 1.2) is an El Nino event. The large red flare is warm water. The dark red water is 10oC or 18oF hotter than the darkest blue on the chart. The animation on the left is a El Nina event. As you can see there is a huge difference in ocean temperatures. This is why there was a spike in global temperatures in 1998. If the animations don't work try opening them in a different browser (Internet Explorer seems to work well) or refreshing the page. The animations tend to be a little browser specific.
(http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/clim/sst_olr/old_sst/sst_8889_animated.gif)
(http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/clim/sst_olr/old_sst/sst_9798_animated.gif)
El Nina - 1989 El Nino -1997
Fig 1.1. Image courtesy NOAA Fig 1.2. Image courtesy NOAA
If you look at the chart below you will see the global mean surface temperature has in fact increased over time. Bob Carter will also say "Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)." Well using NASA's data he's wrong as 2005 is the hottest, but that is merely splitting hairs. The real issue is displayed in the chart below. Yes there was a spike in 1998 but as discussed before that was from El Nino. If you want to make a dishonest case for radical global warming, you'd start with 1999 and draw a trend to 2005. But starting with 1998 is being dishonest in the other direction. To minimize short term noise you can plot the temperatures based off of 5 year averages. The red line in the graph below shows this temperature trend and there is an obvious increase in overall termperature. Another important feature to keep in mind is that the ten years after the 1998 El Nino event are hotter than the ten years before the 1998 El Nino event. When the next El Nino occurs it should easily set a new temperature record.
Image courtesy NASA
Just to drive the point home, the following quote is from NASA's Goddard Institute's 2006 Surface Temperature Analysis page:
"The highest global surface temperature in more than a century of instrumental data was recorded in the 2005 calendar year in the GISS annual analysis. However, the error bar on the data implies that 2005 is practically in a dead heat with 1998, the warmest previous year....... Record warmth in 2005 is notable, because global temperature has not received any boost from a tropical El Niño this year. The prior record year, 1998, on the contrary, was lifted 0.2°C above the trend line by the strongest El Niño of the past century. ... The quasi-regularity of recent El Niños at intervals of about 4 years (there was a weak El Niño in 2002) suggests the likelihood of an El Niño in 2006 or at latest 2007. In such a case the 2005 global temperature record will almost surely be broken."
Here is a very similar graph using a different set of instrument readings::
souce: University of East Anglia, UK
This is the very same graph Bob Carter uses to "debunk" global warming. Now that you are armed with this information, we suggest you read Bob Carter's article titled "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998" and decide for yourself whether or not he's telling the truth when he claims climatologists are engaged in what he calls a "sophisticated scientific brainwashing".
Bob Carter vs. CO2 Records
Comming Soon!
"No difference between six million years and six years"
Comming Soon!
Does Bob Carter have any conflict of interests?
He's a member of Institute for Public Affairs. They get their funding from Woodside Petroleum, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil), and over a dozen other companies in the energy industry.
Will Bob Carter put money where his mouth is?
No, he has been offered bets by several people. The following is from Brian Schmidt's personal blog::
Following Tim Lambert's post on Bob Carter, I emailed Professor Carter to see if he would bet me over global warming, offering 2:1 odds that temperatures will increase in 10 years. He politely emailed me back, saying that because temperature change is a random walk, he won't bet me. I've replied to say that doesn't make sense. Either he doesn't believe temperature changes are random, or he should bet me.
For those of you that don't understand betting, if temperatures are random then a 1:1 bet would be breakeven for Bob Carter. However, since James Annon is offering 2:1 then Bob Carter is getting a great deal if temperatures really are random.
UPDATE:
2005 was named as the "hottest and stormiest year" on record by NASA. That record was subsequently broken in 2006.
-
By who?
The "facts" and "science" are not agreed to. Science is supposed to have a method. Like physics and chemistry.
Man made Global Warming is a theory, not a fact.
-
Objection:
Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global Warming is over.
Answer:
At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away the previous record by .2oC. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove the very chaotic year to year variability that exists (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at the CRU's graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.
(http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/cru-2005.gif)
Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed. (Even the apparent levelling at the end is not the real smoothing. The smoothed trend in 2005 depends on all of its surrounding years, including a few years still in the future.) By the way, choosing the CRU analysis is also a cherry pick because NASA has 2005 breaking the 1998 record, though by very little.
Now this is an excusable mistake for average folks who do not need the rigors of statistical analysis in their day jobs, but any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you can not extract any meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. This is why it is hard to hear a scientist make this argument and still believe that they are a voice of integrity in this debate, rather it appears more to be an abuse of the trust people would like to place in them as scientists. Bob Carter is such a voice and was the first to trot out this argument in an article in the Daily Telegraph. Since then it has echoed far and wide and has been used by Richard Lindzen as well as a host of sceptic websites.
Interestingly, Bob Carter seems to know what he is doing as he tries to pre-empt objections in his article by basically insinuating that any choice of starting point, (such as 1978), will just be a cherry pick with the opposite motive! But cherry picking is about choosing data for the sole purpose of supporting a pre-conceived conclusion, it is not the simple act of choosing at all, as one must choose some starting point. In the case of his example year, 1978, this is often chosen simply because it is the first year that satellite records of tropospheric temperatures were available.
So what choices are there, what are the reasons for those choices and what are the conclusions we can draw from them?
As just mentioned above, one could chose to examine the last 30 years because that is the period of time where both surface and tropospheric readings were available. We have been experiencing warming of approximately .2oC/decade during this time. It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming did in fact end in 1998.
You could choose 1970 in the NASA GISS analysis as this was the start of the late 20th century warming and as such it is a significant feature of the temperature record. The surface temperature over this period shows .6oC warming.
You could choose 1965 in the CRU analysis as this is when the recent warming started in their record. This record shows around .5oC warming of the smoothed trend line.
You could choose 1880 in the NASA record. This shows .8oC warming.
You could choose 1855 in the CRU record. This shows .8oC warming. Again, with this trend and the above we can not say it is over without many decades more data all indicating cooling.
You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis because that is its entire length. This puts today about 1oC above the temperatures in the first 3 centuries of that record. The record of today's trend in that kind of analysis will be hidden from view for many more decades.
You could choose to look at the last one thousand years, because that is as far back as the dendrochronology studies reliably go. Then the conclusion is:
Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
You could choose to look at the entire period of time since the end of the last ice age, around 10kyrs ago. Then the conclusion is that GHG warming has reversed a very long and stable period with a very slight downward trend and we are now at a global temperature not experienced in the history of human civilisation, the entire Holocene. Such a long view applied to today will take many centuries to clear up. The situation is a bit more urgent than that!
(http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/Holocene_Temperatures.png)
I think that about covers any periods of time relevant to today's society. Clearly, "it has stopped warming" is only supported by taking a single specific year out of context and using a 7 year window to look at multi-decadal trends in climate. That is a classic cherry pick.
-
Many parts of the country are not even having a summer this year.
This is the coolest NY summer of my lifetime.
Global Warming is just a complete farce. The earth has been cooling and warming since it was formed. To say man has anything to do with it is just idiotic on so many levels.
-
And then there is this:
According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Carter appears to have little standing in the Australian climate science community.
-
Many parts of the country are not even having a summer this year.
This is the coolest NY summer of my lifetime.
Global Warming is just a complete farce. The earth has been cooling and warming since it was formed. To say man has anything to do with it is just idiotic on so many levels.
Thats not how Global Warming works which in turn reveals that you do not even have a basic understanding of any of the Science behind any of it.. We are talking in long term trends. For the displacement of Billions of refugees all the Mean Ocean temperature has to do is raise about 2 degrees. Climate Change is the catalyst for this to happen.
Objection:
It was way colder than normal today in Wagga Wagga (insert location), this is proof that there is no Global Warming.
Answer:
Does this even deserve an answer? If we must...
The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less again global climate change.
-
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1). This is the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and is arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world..
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
in either one or both of these documents: [PDF] [PDF]
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not a scientific consensus, then what in the world would a consensus look like?
-
Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU) - http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS) - http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP) - http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) - http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS) - http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) - http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. On top of that list, see also this joint statement [PDF] that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, a statement issued by
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
You can also read this one that includes all of the above signatories plus the following:
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you would find the opinion of some of the bastions of industry more convincing?
Exxon-Mobile, the largest oil company in the world has this public statement:
The risks to society and ecosystems from increases in CO2 emissions could prove to be significant, so it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks, keeping in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world.
Chevron, a bit less non-commital, says:
At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) -- mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane -- in the earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.
18 CEO's of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
-
hahahaha this is a very thorough showing of TRUE SCIENCE, not one or two with agendas. 333 how did it feel to know the person you were quoting from Australia is a) funded by oil companies and b) not even well respected in his own country let alone the world?
-
Also note that he has expressed his disdain for anything evidence based so I do not know if it will do any good whatsoever.
He, like GigantorX and some of the others do not believe in using Evidence and facts so whenever they see them, they dismiss them.
Religious people are the EXACT same way.
I just role my eyes at you because you sound like someone who has no clue about what he is copying/pasting onto his post and has no real thoughts of his own. I laugh when you post stuff like this because probably have no idea about whatever "facts" you are putting in any given thread.
-
I just role my eyes at you because you sound like someone who has no clue about what he is copying/pasting onto his post and has no real thoughts of his own. I laugh when you post stuff like this because probably have no idea about whatever "facts" you are putting in any given thread.
Ask me what my favorite poem is.
-
Ask me what my favorite poem is.
::)
'Ode to Copy and Paste'?
-
::)
'Ode to Copy and Paste'?
No, but I may compose one of that title if you let me borrow it. I think I could make it rather humorous yet sardonically fitting. ;)
-
No, but I may compose one of that title if you let me borrow it. I think I could make it rather humorous yet sardonically fitting. ;)
::)
-
TA is a cut and paste warrior...give him his gold star for the day.
-
TA is a cut and paste warrior...give him his gold star for the day.
How would you prefer me deliver the above information? Is it somehow invalid because I cited decades of tested and retested research and evidence?
Would you prefer if I just made it all up? Or do you want me to buy some water balloons, a barometer and some paper clips and pretend I am doing climatological experimentation?
-
How would you prefer me deliver the above information? Is it somehow invalid because I cited decades of tested and retested research and evidence?
Would you prefer if I just made it all up? Or do you want me to buy some water balloons, a barometer and some paper clips and pretend I am doing climatological experimentation?
::)