The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
|
Where the Real Money in Global Warming is
|
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas'>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas</a> I'm sorry, by their own statement, "ZERO emissions by 2100" we cannot take them seriously (unless we just say "that isn't what they mean!"). You toss your lot in with them if you want, some of us see the real deal and reject it utterly. But if you want to reduce your carbon footprint you're certainly welcome to. “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
This is an interesting article about geoengineering as a response to global warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/scienc...ries-below Quote:I'm sorry, by their own statement, "ZERO emissions by 2100" we cannot take them seriously (unless we just say "that isn't what they mean!"). You toss your lot in with them if you want, some of us see the real deal and reject it utterly. But if you want to reduce your carbon footprint you're certainly welcome to. So cute! <a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle'>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle</a> You can read that if you would like to actually learn something about this subject, but then you would actually learn something about this subject (and we know that's not what you are about). So cute.
Quote:This guy is a real wacko. I would suggest you stop citing him as a credible source. First off, I never claimed he was 'credible.' However, the arguments against him are all Ad Hominem attacks, which is the best the alarmists can do, since they can't present actual data that backs their argument. Also, 'SkepicalScience' is a site who's very name is a lie. Doesn't that raise a red flag? Morner claimed that the satellite readings have been adjusted upwards. That's the question, not whether or not Morner eats Cheerios for breakfast. Do you have an article that actually describes how the satellite data are processed and thus refutes him? From what I've seen, the sea level is rising at the same rate it has for hundreds of years, whatever that may actually be. Look at the individual tide gauges. Some show rise, and some even show fall, because of changes in land height. For example, NYC is slowly sinking, while parts of the UK have risen significantly over the centuries. But the slope of the measurements vs. time is very steady for any given gauge. "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Quote:The trouble is, if as you say, 70% of climate scientists say this is a big problem, vs the 30% who say this is a small or no problem, then whom am I to believe? A lot of people say the ratio of believers to skeptics is even higher than you say. Here's some more info on your question. Purdue published a poll. Looking at the three 'scientist' categories, and (mentally) averaging based on the number of responents, it looks like about 55% believe that the climate is changing and humans are mostly responsible. Another 30% believe that humans are about 50% responsible. Since the temperature has flatlined this century, it seems logical to conclude that 'natural' effects have to be at least as strong as anthropogenic effects to be able to counterbalance the effect of the CO2 increase. The poll does not ask whether or not they believe the climate change is a problem. If you believe climate change is happening but it's not a problem, does that make you a skeptic? https://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/2014/...etable.pdf "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?" We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
Quote:First off, I never claimed he was 'credible.' However, the arguments against him are all Ad Hominem attacks, which is the best the alarmists can do, since they can't present actual data that backs their argument. Also, 'SkepicalScience' is a site who's very name is a lie. Doesn't that raise a red flag? You never claimed he was credible? You called him "One of the world experts on sea level..." If you don't think he's credible, why cite him at all? Ad hominem attacks? Don't you think that if you put this guy on as an expert witness in court, the opposing attorney would eat him alive? The man believes in DOWSING. He thinks he can find things with a stick. That's like saying the earth is flat. If you brought this guy as an expert witness in court you'd be laughed out of court. So we're back to where we were before, with most of the world's scientists saying sea levels are rising, and you saying they are not, and citing this wacko as your expert source. Now you ask me to analyze how satellite data are processed. Come on. Do you really think you or I can actually do that? Here, read this. This is a response to his allegations. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axe...-rise.html Or how about this: http://www.inqua.org/files/iscc.pdf And this is who they are: http://www.inqua.org/ Is that not credible enough for you? Or do you consider the fact that they believe that man made climate change is real and serious disqualifies them somehow? Here is their opening statement: "There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and, indirectly, from increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes in many physical and biological systems. It is very likely that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is due to human-induced increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere (IPCC 2007)2." Or how about this? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...8106002049 Comment on “Estimating future sea level change from past records” by Nils-Axel Mörner [You can read the scientists who wrote this on the link provided] "We feel compelled to respond to the recent article by Mörner (2004) because he makes several major errors in his analysis, and as a result completely misinterprets the record of sea level change from the TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) satellite altimeter mission. One major criticism we have with the paper is that Mörner does not include a single reference to any altimeter study, all of which refute his claim that there is no apparent change in global mean sea level (GMSL) [see Cazenave and Nerem, (2004) for a summary]. The consensus of all other researchers looking at the T/P and Jason data is that GMSL has been rising at a rate of 3.0 mm/year (Fig. 1) over the last 13 years (3.3 mm/year when corrected for the effects of glacial isostatic adjustment (Tamisiea et al., 2005)). Mörner gives no details for the source of the data or processing strategy he used to produce Fig. 2, other than to say it is based on “raw data”. Because the details of the analysis are not presented in his paper, we are left to speculate on how this result could have been obtained, based on our years of experience as members of the T/P and Jason-1 Science Working Team. Mörner was apparently oblivious to the corrections that must be made to the “raw” altimeter data in order to make correct use of the data. As with any satellite data set, calibration and validation of the data must be performed after launch to determine if there are any instrumental errors, find the source of those errors, and evaluate their behavior over time. Satellite altimetry is somewhat unique in that many adjustments must be made to the raw range measurements to account for atmospheric delays (ionosphere, troposphere), ocean tides, variations in wave height (which can bias how the altimeter measures sea level), and a variety of other effects. In addition, the sea level measurements can be affected by the method used to process the altimeter waveforms, and by the techniques and data used to compute the orbit of the satellite. Early releases of the satellite Geophysical Data Records (GDRs) often contain errors in the raw measurements, the measurement corrections, and the orbit estimates that are later corrected through an on-going calibration/ validation process defined by the T/P and Jason Science Working Team." It goes on from there. But you get my drift.
Quote:Here's some more info on your question. Purdue published a poll. Looking at the three 'scientist' categories, and (mentally) averaging based on the number of responents, it looks like about 55% believe that the climate is changing and humans are mostly responsible. Another 30% believe that humans are about 50% responsible. Since the temperature has flatlined this century, it seems logical to conclude that 'natural' effects have to be at least as strong as anthropogenic effects to be able to counterbalance the effect of the CO2 increase. CSCAP. Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project. They're doing work on CORN! That poll is in no way a poll of climate scientists. The title is: "Different climate change beliefs among actors in the agricultural sector" That's right at the top of your link. Besides, you're citing a poll that says 85% of the participants believe global warming is at least 50% man-made. If I went with your poll, I'd believe there is an overwhelming consensus that there is global warming and that it is man-made. How about this for some polls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_...ate_change A lot of reading, but here is the last paragraph: "James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.<sup>[26]</sup> This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming." Seriously, I am really interesting in the views of the skeptics, but the sources you post really suck. Is there not something better to chew on? I'm floating along thinking there are two sides to this question, but what I have found out in the last week leads me to question whether the skeptical side of the question has anything going for it at all!
Quote:So we're back to where we were before, with most of the world's scientists saying sea levels are rising, and you saying they are not, and citing this wacko as your expert source. I never said they are not rising. Why do you lie about that. Sea levels have been rising since the last glaciation ended. Quote:<div><p style="font-size:14.3999996185303px;"> </div> He was one of the worlds leading experts on sea level rise. However, I said to be skeptical of his claims. Your last quoted paragraph (in red above) actually agrees that he was right that the measurements were changed ("later corrected"). He was not wrong about that. He was presumably wrong about the reason or justification for the change. "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Quote:CSCAP. Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project. They're doing work on CORN! That poll is in no way a poll of climate scientists. The title is: "Different climate change beliefs among actors in the agricultural sector" That's right at the top of your link. <p style="font-size:14.3999996185303px;">You asked for numbers, so I provided numbers, and then you abuse me for it? Remind me never to provide answers to you again. <p style="font-size:14.3999996185303px;"> <p style="font-size:14.3999996185303px;">I agree that agricultural opinions are meaningless. However, if you actually look at the column headings, there are those restricted to "scientists." What I cited was from those columns. 30% agree that it's about 50%, not "at least" 50%. Most skeptics are in that category. And once again, that say nothing about whether on not they believe warming to be a problem. Quote:<div><p style="font-size:14.3999996185303px;"> <p style="font-size:14.3999996185303px;">Seriously, you sound very close-minded. But if you really want to investigate this, go to (the deceptively named) SkepticalScience site and try disagreeing with them. The go to WattsUpWithThat and disagree with them. See which side is honest and which side posts half-truths. <p style="font-size:14.3999996185303px;"> </div> "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?" We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
Oh, Malabar. Still hanging on to crackpot bloggers.
Here's a blog from wunderground: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMas...rynum=2859 More of a news story really.
Quote:Oh, Malabar. Still hanging on to crackpot bloggers. Of course. You never post science, just press releases. And the agreement 1) makes no actual promises, and 2) international treaties are not binding in the US without supermajority Senate approval. Basically it's politicians claiming victory without actually doing anything. How can you tell when a politician is lying? "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?" Quote:Of course. You never post science, just press releases. When he claims it's the scientists that are lying.
Quote: When he's pimping any project that has completion timelines or catastrophic consequences that occur beyond his current term in office. “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
Quote:I hope you're right. I hope the majority of climate scientists are wrong.What's REALLY fishy to me is how the biggest and most influential proponents of global warming denial are almost exclusively people who profit from polluting and harmful industries. It's almost as if they have a massive financial interest in this whole debate.
Quote:What's REALLY fishy to me is how the biggest and most influential proponents of global warming denial are almost exclusively people who profit from polluting and harmful industries. It's almost as if they have a massive financial interest in this whole debate. GE is one of them to name off the top of my head. What they did to the Hudson River is unreal. I wonder who in the EPA was behind reducing GE's responsibility?
Whether someone has a liberal, or conservative viewpoint, a authoritative figure should not lock a thread for the sole purpose to get the last word in all the while prohibiting someone else from being able to respond.
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
Republican Senator John Thune comes closer to my position in climate change.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post...e/?hpid=z2 ============= "Asked about the overwhelming agreement among experts on the cause and trajectory of global warming, Thune began with a familiar GOP climate-change dodge: “Climate change is occurring, it’s always occurring.” But then he said this: “There are a number of factors that contribute to that, including human activity. The question is, what are we going to do about it and at what cost?” In three sentences, the number-three Republican in the Senate admitted that human activity is affecting the climate and that this concern demands a policy response." ============ I don't think he "agreed that it demands a policy response," but he did say it is happening and humans are causing it. Once you admit it's happening and humans are causing it, the question becomes, can we do anything about it. Of course, we COULD do something, but in my opinion, action will be prevented by politics, and cost. The consequences of inaction are just too far down the road to persuade people to make any sacrifice today.
Quote:GE is one of them to name off the top of my head. The proponents of the scare are also in it for money. G.E. is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the global warming scare. They make the generators for windmills, subsidized by tax dollars (money taken by force from productive workers). "Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
2014 is on track to be the hottest year in history.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstor...ar-BBghWVH =============================================================================== "Preliminary estimates from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) found global average land and sea surface temperatures for the first 10 months of 2014 had soared higher than ever recorded." "If November and December continue on the same course, then 2014 will edge out 2010, 2005 and 1998 as the hottest years ever known – but only by a few hundredths of a degree. Different data sets also show slightly different rankings, the WMO said. "In any event, the trend line is clear. The world is getting warmer, especially the oceans. Those higher temperatures were already exacting a toll, in terms of heavy rainfall and flooding in some countries, and extreme drought in others, the WMO said. "The agency dismissed outright the notion posed by some climate deniers of a pause in the warming trend. “There is no standstill in global warming,” Jarraud said." ===================================================================== I know, I know, it's all a hoax. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.