Sam Champion hyperventilated about the threat of extreme weather on Monday's "Good Morning America" and, once again, ignored the leftist connections of two cited experts. Scientists Michael Oppenheimer and Daniel Schrag, both of whom have vigorously slammed Republicans in the past, appeared in the segment to warn that global warming would only continue to cause unusual weather patterns as long as greenhouse gases keep increasing.
GMA identified Oppenheimer simply by his connection as a scientist for Princeton University. However, he has previously slammed Republican disagreement about climate change as "uniformed rambling." In the piece, Schrag scarily warned, "It's hard to overstate how big a change [climate change] could be in the weather we experience every day." This is same man who, in a Boston Globe column from December 2006, smeared GOP Senator James Inhofe, then the Chair of a Senate environmental committee, for using skeptical witnesses that Schrag derided as "a gathering of liars and charlatans, sponsored by those industries who want to protect their profits." To further make the point, the article is entitled, "On a Swift Boat to a Warmer World."
In October, the ABC program featured Oppenheimer gushing over Al Gore and his Nobel Peace Prize victory. That segment was even more misleading, as GMA provided no identification at all. Later that month, Oppenheimer appeared on NBC's "Nightly News" and claimed climate change could cause disasters such as the California wildfires. (NBC also failed to disclose his liberal connections.) Is it really too much to ask that the networks stop attempting to pass off environmental activists as non-partisan observers?
ABC hyped the segment, which focused on extreme weather around the world, within the context of a new United Nations report on global warming. Co-host Robin Roberts observed that "some" are calling it "definitive." Of course, Champion made no mention of any possibility that these weather events could be cyclical or that some might not be as a result of climate change. Skepticism on this issue is readily available. For instance, Investors Business Daily reported on November 13 that in a new study, NASA researchers found that many changes in the Arctic Ocean are, in fact, cyclical:
From 2002 to 2006, scientists and researchers from NASA and the University of Washington's Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory observed a meaningful ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation. The cause is atmospheric circulation changes that vary in decade-long periods and the effect is, well, let the scientist who led the study explain it:
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said the University of Washington's James Morison.
This study, however, went unmentioned by Sam Champion.
A transcript of the November 19 segment, which aired at 7:42am, follows:
DIANE SAWYER: Coming up next, hurricanes in Brooklyn, hail in Bogota? What is going on on planet Earth? Sam reports live from the place, as we said, where people live year in and year out with the worst weather on the Earth.
7:42am
ROBIN ROBERTS: And now, more on extreme weather. Over the weekend, a U.N. panel released a new report on global climate change, the same panel that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Hundreds of scientists contributed to the report which some are calling definitive. Sam has more from Mount. Washington. Morning again, Sam.
SAM CHAMPION: Good morning, Robin. And here we are, the place to talk about extreme weather and we're just four days out of that super cyclone in Bangladesh. A once in a ten-year kind of a storm in that area but the death toll could be extreme here. The death toll could approach 10,000 is their fear. Also as you just mentioned, that panel on climate change sponsored by the U.N. came back with some very strong language. They called global warming unequivocal and they also pointed to the direct causes of global warming. Extreme weather impacted up to half a billion people across the globe in 2007, some the most bizarre events seen in years. A rare and powerful hailstorm hit Bogota, Colombia's tropical capital, creating rivers of cars, water and ice. The first documented cyclone in the Arabian Sea struck Oman and Iran. And for the first time ever, melting ice opened up the famed Northwest Passage. And remember this? [File footage of Sam in New York.] It was about this time yesterday morning when they woke up to the first tornado since 1889. [File footage of Sam ends.] A tornado brought down power lines and damaged homes, not in Kansas, but in Brooklyn, New York.
UNIDENTIFIED SCIENTIST: The weather we are experiencing is changing and will be changing even more rapidly in the future.
CHAMPION: More extreme weather from powerful storms to massive wildfires to droughts like in Atlanta where they're seeing their worst one ever. Many scientists blame the trend on a rise in the Earth's temperature.
MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, PHD (GEOSCIENCES, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY) The extremes we're getting are more problematic than the extremes we've had in the past.
CHAMPION: Over the weekend the U.N.'s panel on climate change, the largest group of climate scientists ever assembled, called global warming unequivocal and said that global warming emissions have increased due to human activities.
OPPENHEIMER: We expect more and more of these episodes of extremes to happen as long as the concentrations of the greenhouse gases continue to increase in the atmosphere.
CHAMPION: One reason, warmer air holds more water vapor so moisture stays in the atmosphere instead of raining out, which could explain why portions of Europe sweltered this year under record-breaking heat waves and Greece was ravaged by massive wildfires while at the same time, when it does rain, there's lots more of it. So we saw the U.K. get their wettest may and June since 1766. Rare snowstorms hitting Argentina, even South Africa, while southeast Asia some saw some of its worst monsoon flooding in decades. Unusual weather swings that if the Earth continued to warm could become the norm across the world and here at home.
PROFESSOR DANIEL SCHRAG, PHD (EARTH SCIENCES, HARVARD UNIVERSITY): Moving forward we're going to see more and more surprises. The truth is we've just scratched the surface when it comes to climate change. It's hard to overstate how big a change this could be in the weather we experience every day.
CHAMPION: Mount Washington is also seeing some changes in the weather. The snow pack here lasts five days less than it has 30 or than it did 30 years ago and they've also have seen a slight temperature change here as well. Coming up we'll we're going to introduce you to the men and women on the front lines of studying our climate right here at the Mount Washington Observatory. That's right, I said men and women. We're going to introduce you to Stacy who took me around and showed me how everything works here. It's a busy crew here up on top of the mountain. You'll meet them coming up. Also, if you want to know more about Mount Washington, do it at MountWashington.org and we'll link you at ABCNews.com. Diane, Robin?
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I wish Champion would have
November 19, 2007 - 12:49 ET by Sick-n-TiredI wish Champion would have the "stones" to interview John Christy a lead author on the 2001 IPCC report and was a contributing author on the 2007 report. Then maybe John could straighten Champion out on some of his biased opinions and point out his lack of scientific credentials. Christy could discuss some of his talking points outlined here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm
Oh Sam. Always good for a laugh.
November 19, 2007 - 12:59 ET by Dave in TexasWatch it Sam:
"It was about this time yesterday morning when they woke up to the first tornado since 1889."
"So we saw the U.K. get their wettest may and June since 1766."
You'll give people the impression that similar events have occurred in the past.
"That's right, I said men and women."
Yeah, okay Sam. It's 2007 and we're not living in Iran. It's not a big deal to find women scientists anymore.
"...wettest May and June
November 19, 2007 - 13:24 ET by MikeB"...wettest May and June since 1766." Really? And, what was the cause of that extreme weather in 1766? It couldn't have been Evil Big Oil. It couldn't have been Evil American White Males. It couldn't have been a result of an Evil Industrial Revolution. Oh, my God! You don't think it could have been the result of natural variations in global weather/climate?
"...first tornado since 1889." Geeze, you mean to say there have been tornadoes in this area before Algore?
Oh, Dave, didn't you get the memo? There were never any weather events before in the history of the world before Al Gore. No tornadoes in tornado alley (that was just a name that folks gave the southern plains states because it sounded cool), no blizzards in Europe or Kansas or Alaska or Siberia, no droughts in either the American southeast or southwest or anywhere else, no heat waves, no cold snaps, no cyclones or hurricanes, etc., etc. All of these events have only happened since Al Gore came along to point them out to us. So, obviously, all of this stuff is Gore's fault, and instead of being the savior of the world, he is the one single-handedly destroying the globe. In the words of the Queen of Hearts: Off with his head! (Note to all humor and sarcasm impaired: I did not just literally call for Manbearpig to be beheaded.)
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Thats always been my bone
November 19, 2007 - 13:49 ET by DaBirdThats always been my bone of contention, the moment they say "this hasn't happened since....." their argument falls apart right there. If it's happened before AlGore, I'm sure it will happen after AlGore.
Is there no end to this
November 19, 2007 - 13:00 ET by bassndudeIs there no end to this political debate? And if it is for the "first time ever", why is it called the "northwest passage"? Dosent that indicate that is was used as a passage before it was froze over all the time? Isint the UN a political gathering? Are they not political appointees? This is not science. It is petty politics.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
What are Sam's credentials?
November 19, 2007 - 13:19 ET by danrodrigTexhoma
According to Champion's bio, he has not earned a degree in Meteorology, or any other science related field. His degree is in Broadcast News. What makes him such an expert?
What makes him such an expert?
November 19, 2007 - 17:15 ET by Chris NormanHe cares...
Designer Doom
November 19, 2007 - 13:36 ET by SeptemberI'm convinced MSM journalists are on the whole not very bright.
****
Whatever the climatologists find incompatible with the so-called
consensus is even not included in the U.N. climate report. Every day, I
receive letters from all around the world in which scientists disagree
with the prevailing opinion but no one wants to listen to or print
their hypotheses. They are simply unfashionable--Czech Prez Vaclav Klaus
Right on, Designer Doom
November 19, 2007 - 14:07 ET by danrodrigTexhoma
Recalling my college days, most journalism majors were held in low regard. Journalism was widely viewed as the least strenuous path to a degree. After graduation, many who did get their Journalism degree ended up working in positions that required no more than a high school diploma. By and large the field does not attract the best and brightest. That so many people lend any credence at all to the views of these folks in the MSM is scary.
SamBearPig
November 19, 2007 - 13:55 ET by fitzfongSo is that 1/2 Sam and 1/2 BearPig? 1/2 SamBear and 1/2 Pig? 1/2 PigSam and 1/2 Bear?
manmade global warming
November 19, 2007 - 14:19 ET by professor truthis a fact . Every major science organization agrees . Deniers who trot out contrarians are in the vast minority. Go to realclimmate.org and try to pawn off any of the denier claims and watch it get slapped down immediately.
Professor Truth???
November 19, 2007 - 14:33 ET by LionKingI see you were a science teacher for 25 years.
Answer these questions:
As a scientist, I would expect you to have a better understanding of the scientific method and not just buy into this liberal propaganda.
[I assume that you probably believe that macro-Evolution is fact and not still just a lame-brain theory.]
Your first question is
November 19, 2007 - 14:43 ET by professor truthYour first question is irrelevent. The cause for the ending of other ice ages obviously wasn't due to man. The present warming RATE is unprecedented, it's not caused by changes in solar output, there is a direct cause-effect relationship established between CO2 and warming, and massive amounts of de-sequestered CO2 have been added to the atmosphere. There are many many more questions that have not been answered, yet reliable climate models have predicted temperature changes of from 3 to 8 degrees F in this century. We cannot know the exact temperature change because we cannot know the exact amount of CO2 and any resulting positive feedbacks( release of methane from thawing tundra) that occur. There is a scientific consensus(every major scientific organization) that agrees that manmade GW is a very serious threat.
Where are you getting this nonsense
November 19, 2007 - 15:07 ET by PVPT states "The present warming RATE is unprecedented, it's not caused by changes in solar output, there is a direct cause-effect relationship established between CO2 and warming, and massive amounts of de-sequestered CO2 have been added to the atmosphere."
Where do you come up with this being unprecedented? Not caused by solar output? Where is the empirical evidence demonstrating a direct CO2 warming relationship? (Not models - real scientific evidence that can be validated)
And massive amounts of de-sequestered CO2 have been added to the atmosphere? Where do you think it came from in the first place before it was sequestered? C'mon.
You might as well rely on Wikipedia as RealClimate. Cut me a break. Michael Mann has been shown to not be credible. His site censors all opinions not in lockstep with his own.
And please, consensus is politics, not science. If you had any real science supporting your wild claims, you would have no need to claim consensus.
All of you warmers should just keep dancing around the fire in your grass skirts. Maybe try shaking some dead chickens over your head while your at it. That will control the climate as much as reducing CO2.
Please educate youself with this link:
November 19, 2007 - 15:31 ET by professor truthhttp://news.bbc.co.u...
You're the one in need of education
November 19, 2007 - 21:39 ET by PVYour entire string of comments are nothing but appeals to authority which is nothing but a fallacy of logic.
You never make any evidentiary comments; instead, all you ever do is claim that RealClimate says this or that, the NAS says this or that, or some other supposed authority says something which you support.
Why can't you say in your own language that which you claim to be true. I try my best to understand what I read and endeavor to articulate this into clear statements. All you do is claim someone else has said something and imply that ends the argument.
You need much better sources than the BBC of all things. RealClimate is not a respected source, and is regarded as nothing but a bunch of AGW priests. Gavin Schmidt has been soundly defeated any time he has dared to venture into an honest surrounding examining the arena of ideas. (intelligence squared debate?)
Again, with you and all the warmers I foolishly try to reason with, please show me where there is anything close to empirical evidence supporting your claims that humans are causing "unprecedented" climate change through their CO2 emissions. Beyond this, please show me anywhere that CO2 emissions in general ( natural or human) have anything to do with dramatic climate change.
All you do is spout hyperbole and leftist talking points while demeaning those of us who are rationalists and realists by calling us deniers. You are the denier, Sir, by refusing to accept what the real world is telling you. The facts are that CO2 is a bit player and has already reached the point close to saturation where it will exert no warming influence at all.
Why are you so set on returning humanity to the dark ages?
so realclimate is NOT a respected source??
November 19, 2007 - 22:00 ET by professor truthAccording to WHOM??? And the National Academy of Sciences is another disrespected source?? And my argument using authority COULD be fallacious, if the authority had no supporting evidence in the form of experiments, data and other transparent facts which could be falsifiable. I take it you see the bible the same way(an authoritative document, with facts completely contradicted by experience). I refer you to realclimate because it has links to original papers, graphs, reports, which are subject to the test of falsifiability. I am NOT a climate scientist, so why would I want to misrepresent their positions? Think of me more as a juror who has weighed the AGW evidence against the evidence of the deniers. If AGW was such a weak argument, why has 20 years of debate strengthened it's poition??? With newer computer models, more research, the AGW position has reached a point where it's ludicrous to deny. What evidence do YOU have that shows thatCO2 increases do not cause a temperature increase, a fact well known in physics. What climate models can you present that show a predicted DROP in temperature in the future. Surely, a brilliant denialist such as you would be able to conjure up such a model, which would completely cause previous AGW models to be clearly worthless. You don't have any contradictory evidence, do you?? Come back when you have something of value to say.
realclimate enjoys no more
November 20, 2007 - 01:25 ET by NL207realclimate enjoys no more stature than co2science or climatewatch do. In fact, Climatewatch's principal author has directly discredited one of the most "important" results at realclimate, Michael Mann's tree ring based reconstructions of recent climate. These questionable results form the foundation of the IPCC's claim that it is today the warmest than at any time in the last 1000 years, an assertoin which is in conflict with results produced by other methods.
"The AGW position has reached a point where it's ludicrous to deny" You could have left off the last two words and you'd have been right.
If God choses to let you live long enough, you will come to see what balogna this whole AGW scare really is.
Since you are such an expert. Explain to me the simple mechanics of heat transfer. How does heat move around? Should be a piece of cake if you really are any kind of professor, which I seriously doubt. Anybody that gets as emotional as you do, absolutely filled with indignation over the heresy we are committing here is no scientist. Maybe a professor of theology, but no scientist.
NL207
November 20, 2007 - 18:46 ET by professor truthyou are not writing like a real scientist. The chink in your armor is the following, You wrote:
If God choses to let you live long enough, you will come to see what balogna this whole AGW scare really is.
Based on what science do you base this prediction? What specific laws allows you to make such a statement about the future? Climate models? None exist which project future cooling(unless I'm missing something). Even assuming that both of us are guessing, my chances of being correct are equal to your my chances of being wrong. Let's forget climate modelling for a moment. The total mass balance of planetary ice is shrinking. Are there ANY temperature measurements that show planetary COOLING? Was the warming rate the same in the 1st half of the century conmpared to the last half?? Are there signature characvteristics that might distinguish warming due to the sun compared to warming due to green house gases? From my readings, regarding the last question, solar warming should affect the tropics more than the poles due to the angle of attack of incoming rays on the equator vs the poles. Howevver, CO2 warming would be MORE amplified at the poles.
Guess what. Arctic temperature increases have been far more dramatic at the N pole. The S pole hasn'tbeen as affected as a result of the much larger bodie of water surrounding it.
A great any scientists I
November 21, 2007 - 17:37 ET by NL207A great any scientists I know believe there is a God. There are a great many articles about this on line. This is one of them. It says that about 38% of natural scientists believ in God. In my personal experience, it si more than that, but I believ my experince is colored by my age. I think sampling would show that the younger a scientist is, the less likely it is he or she belives in God.
I never said the planet was cooling. In fact, if I recall, I suggest the planet has warmed about 0.6 K over the last century. ["the Earth’s average air temperature increased by 0.06 degrees Celsius per decade in the 20th century"] Reliable data suggest that 1/2 of this is due to solar variance over that interval and the rest is a composite of other factors including human activity. This caps the human contribution at 0.3 K for the century
I, and most of the rest of the skeptics, view this variation as within the range of earth's natural climate. It is not domininat. It is not unprecedented. It is not significant. It is not harmful. It may even be bneneficial to life in general and certainly does not warrant any of the fascist political action your team is proposing.
NL don't worry about it
November 21, 2007 - 19:46 ET byI believe that if you wrote "When the sun comes up tommorrow it will be Thanksgiving" the prof would claim it's untrue and unscientific because real scientists know the sun does not 'come up' rather the earth rotates. Misinformed myopic marvel of misconstrued mythical misinformation that he is.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
alliteration...botg
November 21, 2007 - 19:54 ET by LionKingThat's quite An Anthropogenic Alliteration.
Happy Thanksgiving to all and may it be a blessed day!
no consensus on AGW??
November 20, 2007 - 00:47 ET by professor truthI think these internationally recognized scientific bodies would disagree:
Much of the debate seems to consist of a show of hands and parading of credentials. On the one hand, you have assorted scientists as presented in the National Post Denier series. On the other side, you have the IPCC stating anthropogenic emissions are the predominant cause of global warming. If the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the following scientific organisations also endorse the consensus:
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Environmental Protection Agency
• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• American Meteorological Society
• State of the Canadian Cryosphere
• The Royal Society of the UK
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Academies of Science from 19 countries
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
• 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)
I believe you've been checkmated!
Prof, You are starting to
November 20, 2007 - 09:49 ET by Sick-n-TiredProf,
You are starting to bore me now. I belong to a number of professional scientific geological organizations. There is debate in a few of the Societies about whether we as a collective whole want to endorse AGW or not. So, if 51% of 1000 scientists lean and vote that our statement to the public should be we support the AGW consensus and manmade greenhouse gases are to blame, well, what about the other 49% or 490 tenured, published and respected scientists and their conclusions? Just because your organizations say they support consensus in no way shape or form means that all of the scientist therein do.
Checkmate my friend. Gawd, I believe I am up like 12-0 or something; plus I struck you out.
only in your mind
November 20, 2007 - 10:11 ET by professor truthYou raise a false 51% of scientists accepting AGW where the true numbers are 90+%. You have failed to propose an alternate mechanism that has any credibility among the consensus of global climatologists. You cannot bring another climate model showing cooling or non warming to discredit all the INDEPENDENT climate models that ALL show future warming. You do have hubris, claiming a 12-0 victory, howerver. I will concede you have far more hubris than I. Oreskes did a search using the words global warming(wikipedia, type global warming consensus). He discovered 928 PEER REVIEWED papers, about 75% which attributed to manmade GW, 25% were NEUTRAL, and ZERO % attributed to denialist claims. I guess I've won, 696 to ZERO!
}}---> Uhh Professor
November 20, 2007 - 10:17 ET by Cool ArrowPlease don't come in here using the word "consensus" in a serious tone.
It's nothing more than an ejaculation in the church of Gore.
scientific consensus is a critical part of science
November 20, 2007 - 10:25 ET by professor truthAll science is built on consensus. This is a must have. Imagine if someone wanted to know the speed of light, what do they do? Measure it? Using what techniques?? So when 100 scientists measure the speed of light, how do they determine the correct value? CONSENSUS! To not understand this is to show basic ignorance of the scientific method!!!
}}---> I see your point Professor
November 20, 2007 - 10:35 ET by Cool ArrowSo this guy Armand Hippolyte Louis Fizeau called a bunch of his scientist buddies together and says to them: Show of hands, guys, how many say it's 186,000 miles per second?
OK, we got ourselves a consensus. Let's publish.
You're up next Gauss.
I thought the speed of
November 20, 2007 - 13:14 ET by MightyMouthI thought the speed of light was scientifically defined as:
"The amout of time it takes Hillary Clinton to change positions in a debate".
Being a science novice, that sounds reasonable to me. :-o
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Cool Arrow...new science to go with new math
November 20, 2007 - 13:44 ET by LionKingNew science relies on a consensus of so-called scientist voting. Facts are unnecessary. Scientific method only gets in the way and besides, accurate experimentation and data gathering is too expensive. (That is why our weather stations are so decrepit.)
Earth to professor of
November 20, 2007 - 10:42 ET by danboEarth to professor of BS.
The speed of light is not dependent on consensus. The speed of light has nothing to do with science. It has to do with the behavior of the photon particle.
If 100 scientist measure the speed of light incorrectly? Does the photon change to meet the expectations of the scientist in error?
Please. If you really do teach science. Do your students a favor. Transfer them to someone who knows about science.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Please. If you really do
November 20, 2007 - 10:50 ET by Sick-n-TiredPlease. If you really do teach science. Do your students a favor. Transfer them to someone who knows about science.
Amen. I guess I will have to consider home schooling when my kids reach that age.
Prof, btw, shouldn't you be teaching class right now?
danbo, what science background do you have?
November 20, 2007 - 11:38 ET by professor truthHave you ever plotted a graph from physical data?? Where is the correct value for the slope??? How is the correct slope value determined if your data points do not fall along the straight line?
Is this slope the 'true' value or is it the 'experimental' value arrived at by "consensus"?? I'll match my understanding of science with yours any day.
"I'll match my
November 20, 2007 - 11:51 ET by danbo"I'll match my understanding of science with yours any day. "
You're doing a great job of hiding it.
You're losing so far.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo, your science credntials are???
November 20, 2007 - 12:45 ET by professor truthWhat credentials do you have????(I'm waiting for the answer but not holding my breath)
Here' s a link that refutes another denialist "fact",, the "discredited" hockey stick graph! Refute this:
http://gristmill.gri...
There are two types of people, those who think critically and those who are denialists!
}}---> Still stupid professor
November 20, 2007 - 19:53 ET by Cool ArrowPlotting points is nothing more than a visual form of data presentation. How many bloggers does it take to get a consensus you're stuck on groupthink.
Like coorelations. No
November 20, 2007 - 20:05 ET by danboLike coorelations. No where did I learn that coorelations were proof of a cause effect relationship.
In fact I've had both statisticians and research professors caution us about coorelations.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
no consensus in science
November 20, 2007 - 20:21 ET by professor truthGo sign up for experimental medical treatment. After all, if a single doctor says the treatment is ok, there won't be any problems. No need for consensus, RIGHT? And I guess you believe anything that anyone says, after all, who needs consensus?? But, using your lack of need for consensus, climate models MUST BE CORRECT since the modeler said so. No need for consensus. I guess AGW must be a fact, because climate modelers say so. No need for consensus, right???
There are two kinds of thinkers, critical thinkers and global warming denialists
}}---> Professor P-trollium
November 21, 2007 - 01:09 ET by Cool ArrowYour scientific consensus thing must've worked real good in Africa against the AIDS epidemic. They just cured 40% of them overnight.
Seems the scientists down there had this consensus going that sex with a virgin baby was the only cure for it.
That consensus sh*t must be strong juju.
professor of BS???
November 20, 2007 - 12:09 ET by professor truthI'm actually a high school chem teacher with a BS from SDSU,1976 but I suspect you will challenge this even with ZERO FACTS available. Do you have any science background?? I've taught physics(high school) during my tenure so I understand a little bit about the principles of light, so stop your counterproductive condescension. My point was that different scientists MEASURE the speed of light using different methods. The argument is, which method is best?? This is where consensus must be reached in order to get the value for c. Global warming MUST work from consensus. ALL science works from consensus. It's called peer review. If I produce cold fusion, I cannot claim it until consensus is reached. Scientific illiterates CONFUSE political consensus(agreement through votes) with SCIENTIFC CONSENSUS(agreement through debate over the available facts). To say that science DOES'NT work from CONSENSUS is to be SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE!
"AGW consensus"
November 20, 2007 - 16:10 ET by RJThe recently released IPCC report "was adopted after five days of sometimes tense negotiations among 140 national delegations." -Associated Press
Hmmmm.....tense negotiations....that sounds like real "consensus", all right.
And, can someone please tell me why it's necessary to "negotiate" science?
danbo
November 20, 2007 - 19:10 ET by professor truthYou've failed to show that consensus is a critical part of the scientific method.
You've failed to show that today's climate models are not reliable.
You've failed to provide any contrarian evidence that would undermine the fact of AGW.
You've failed to show that AGW is not the consensus belief in the climate science community.
You've failed to propose an alternate mechanism for the warming with any scientific legs.
Face it, danbo, you've failed. Admit it. Nothing personal.
earth to Dunce Cap
November 20, 2007 - 19:41 ET by danboConsensus. True. I did not show that consensus is an important part of science. Because consensus has nothing to do with science. Except to idiots. And people who studied science in some alternative universe. I just shot the hell out of your claims of consensus. (Do you have that short a memory?)
Failed to show that todays models are not reliable. true. You've failed to show there is unusuial warming; therefore models are irrelevent. Except to idiots. And people who studied science in some alternative universe.
I failed to show contrarian evidence that undermine AGW.? Are you blind also ?Or just an idiot? Not to mention that you failed to prove that AGW is real. I just shot the hell out of your claims that it is. And consensus is irrelevant except to idiots and people who studied science in an alternative universe.
I failed prove alternative an mechanism. True. Being you haven't proven there is a problem. There is no need to prove an alternative. Except to idiots and people who studied science in an alternative universe.
Face it dunce cap. You're an -----!
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I'm starting to think the
November 20, 2007 - 19:59 ET by Free StinkerI'm starting to think the "Professor" is an old troll in a new name.
Trying to accuse someone of failing to prove a point he himself brought up, that's the clincher. We had two or three Trolls who did that.
And notice how he avoids "the list" ?
Free...
November 20, 2007 - 20:04 ET by LionKingI have tried to humor this troll and posted the link to your forum topic. I even cited one of the links in rebuttal. He is a liar...he does not read other sources.
I think we should start
November 20, 2007 - 20:10 ET by Free StinkerI think we should start taking bets on what his old name was here.
Free... Lets not forget
November 20, 2007 - 20:15 ET by bigtimerFree...
Lets not forget mobi....
Shady (Shades of Grey)
November 20, 2007 - 20:21 ET by danboShady (Shades of Grey) ?
Throatpecker?. (He told me he uses different names.)
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo... I bet that is a
November 20, 2007 - 20:25 ET by bigtimerdanbo...
I bet that is a Bingo!
I've noticed a pattern,
November 20, 2007 - 20:30 ET by danboI've noticed a pattern, that people I suspect of being that person using. not just in behavior
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
BT
November 20, 2007 - 20:21 ET by Free StinkerI can't believe I forgot MobiusDrip ! ;-)
Free
November 20, 2007 - 21:29 ET byUSnot (aka Eyecare)
and Bill Adkins
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
It's Amnesia! ;-)
November 20, 2007 - 21:34 ET by Free StinkerIt's Amnesia! ;-)
I don't think Johnbo.
November 20, 2007 - 21:56 ET by danboI don't think Johnbo. Johnbo could be a pain in the butt. But when you cornered him, he would reluctantly admit his error. After he kicked you a few times. (I wouldn't be too suprised if Johnbo one day becomes a sceptic. Once he gets past the hype.)
The more I think about it. Not Throatpecker. Throatpecker and I have tangled over Oreskes too many times. This guy hasn't a clue about Oreskes. Doesn't even know it's a woman. Throatpecker knows about Peisier, a little about von Storch. But, I'm not sure about the latest conflicting research. throatpecker would make stupid attacks saying Peisier lied and was in agreement with warming. Same old same old. But at least Pecker knew who Pesier was.
Actually, I wouldn't be supprised if pecker was a few people from Real Climate or Daily Kos using the same name. His behavior sometimes was so different.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Rhayes or father baracus.
November 20, 2007 - 20:22 ET by bassndudeRhayes or father baracus. Could be hater, but this guy seems a lot dummer than hater. Never thought I would say that!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Hi bass... Leon already
November 20, 2007 - 20:24 ET by bigtimerHi bass...
Leon already has haters place.
LOL!
Hi BT, and I agree. Save
November 20, 2007 - 20:26 ET by bassndudeHi BT, and I agree.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Leon already has haters place.
November 20, 2007 - 20:30 ET by Free StinkerLeon already has haters place.
LOL!
Funny (and accurate)
this guy seems a lot dummer than hater.
November 20, 2007 - 23:32 ET by professor truthdo you see the irony in your statement, bassndude??
there are two kinds of people:those who are critical thinkers and those who are denialists
Well Prof. Newbie
November 20, 2007 - 23:39 ET by BlondeSince you're all new and shiny here.
The irony is lost on you.
Wow.....your latest post was dumber than Gump.
But keep it up, it's amusing....or the regulars here wouldn't keep batting you around.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I have used this name on this site and no other
November 20, 2007 - 20:26 ET by professor truthBut you denialists seem to want to argue that science doesn't need consensus. Fine. I'll agree. That means the climate modelers who show future warming are correct, right?? After all, no consensus is needed. Hansen's model has accurately predicted temperature changes for 20 years, so it must be correct. Therefore, if there is no consensus, the modelers must be correct. This means I've lost the consensus battle but have won the AGW is a fact war!
So prof, you admit your a
November 20, 2007 - 20:28 ET by bassndudeSo prof, you admit your a new troll with a new name?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
That supports my theory
November 20, 2007 - 20:32 ET by Free StinkerThat supports my theory that these Trolls all sound the same since they use the same talking points.
I wouldn't be supprised if
November 20, 2007 - 20:38 ET by danboI wouldn't be supprised if half the trolls or more are the same few people using diffeernt nom de plumes and trying different approaches.
One of the idiots came on line talking like the liberal steriotype of dumb hick conservative.
I was waiting for him to claim he drove a pick up with a rebel flag and had a gun rack in the back.
He tried it a few times. But when he had no takers he vanished.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
So prof, you admit your a new troll with a new name?
November 20, 2007 - 23:34 ET by professor truthcorrect! You
u got an answer correct, bassndude. Congratulations!
PROFESSOR DOPE
November 20, 2007 - 20:33 ET by LionKingLike I said before...if we relied on consensus, we would still be taught that the earth is FLAT.
lion king
November 20, 2007 - 20:53 ET by professor truththe next timeyou need a doctor for some mysterious ailment, do you think it would be smarter to get more or fewer references for a doctor?
Would the diagnosis be better with one doctor or several doctors? Why do people get second, third and fourth opinions for an ailment? Medicine is science, isn't it? If so why do people go to several doctors and not just one ? They want to be more confident about the medical diagnosis. Consensus is important in order to check experimental evidence, ideas. It is part of the scientificmethod.
By the way, if you don't believe evolution is a fact, then you are guilty of nonscientific thought. There is no supernatural agent in science!
Medicine is science
November 20, 2007 - 21:12 ET by LionKingIf medicine is science, then why do they practice it?
So, you are comparing AGW to a medical diagnosis? Is that like a collective Wild-Ass-Guess?
I would imagine that the medical consensus your are referring to is more of a buddy-buddy system of covering each other's ass. It is more medical liability than group-think.
medicine is a complicated issue
November 20, 2007 - 21:21 ET by professor truthglobal warming is complicated. No one scientist can advance it's understanding without help from others. But, since you don't believe in consensus, you MUST conclude that the climate modelers are correct. After all, they don't need to be in agreement with other scientists. Right. So, Lion King, does this mean that since climate modelers accept AGW as fact , they must be correct. Right, no need for consensus. I hope you now see the problem of trying to do science without consensus.
Professor Illogical
November 20, 2007 - 21:31 ET by LionKingI guess since you cannot win a debate on merit, you have to use convoluted logic to claim victory.
Enjoy life on the FLAT EARTH.
LK, sorry to burst yoour bubble of self delusion but
November 20, 2007 - 21:49 ET by professor truthI showed the importance of scientific consensus as part of the scientific method
I gave the names of internationally accepted science organizations that support my position
I gave refutations of denialist nonsense
I showed that climate modelling is valid and can predict future temperature accurately(James Hansen's model
I showed articles that demonstrate that humans are the cause of the warming
You failed to provide alternate explanations for the unprecedented rate of warming as shown by Michael Mann's hockey stick
I've shown a refutation to criticism of Mann's hockey stick which discredits Mcyntre and Mckittrick, critics of Mann
Sorry LK. You've lost. Bigtime.
Lionking: 3 Prof Truth:
November 20, 2007 - 21:50 ET by Free StinkerLionking: 3
Prof Truth: 0
free stinker
November 20, 2007 - 23:40 ET by professor truthwhat the hell are you talking about?? What science expertise do you bring to the discussion?
"P" Truth....Scores
November 20, 2007 - 23:46 ET by BlondeIn the "real world"....we keep score.
Do you need a dictionary to help you with that?
Free just pointed out the "score" of the game.
BTW, buckwheat, you lost.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde. there is some
November 20, 2007 - 23:54 ET by danboBlonde. there is some "science". i'd rather not be able to debate. It's just too stupid. Like the speed of light isn't determined by the nature of light. Rather it's up to consensus. So light will have to change if the consensus is off.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
LK, let's be objective
November 20, 2007 - 23:51 ET by professor truthI guess since you cannot win a debate on merit, you have to use convoluted logic to claim victory.
I stated AGW was a fact. This is based on looking at the rate of warming of the planet over the past 40 years and its correlation with
increasing amounts of CO2. Denialists keep using the "earth is in a natural cycle" argument without mentioning specific causes of the present day warming. I reference Mann's hockey stick, which you claim is discredited. I refute that with my own reference to Gristmill skeptic(how to talk to a skeptic). You dismiss this without a single demonstration of where my reference is wrong. (I guess you think it must be wrong because it undermines your denialist faith). I tried to refute as many denialist arguments as I could but probaly missed one because of time constraints. Any denialist argument I personally could not refute was referred to the realclimate.org website. Apparently, you denialists are terrified of looking like thefools that you are so you never tried to present your "evidence" at realclimate. Now some scientific illiterate states you 'won', 3 to 0. And you guys call yourselves rational thinkers???
Oi
November 20, 2007 - 23:56 ET by BlondeThe 95th attempt at innanity.
And the seven hundred and forty fourth reference to realclimate.
This one is a German, all. I know. Kinfolk. Stubborn as rocks.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
still waiting for you
November 21, 2007 - 00:54 ET by professor truthto present something of value. I guess you are just another scientifically illiterate denialist. Also, the other denialists dishonestly present my position on light. The speed of light is found by measurement, but the method of measurement can produce different values. Some measured c values are better than others. My point is that through consensus, the most accurate value of c can be determined. C is a constant value. I'm discussing how the value of c is found, not that c changes. Maybe it's a communication problem. Anyway, this has nothing to do with AGW so what's the big deal??
Yawn. Coorelations aren't
November 20, 2007 - 23:59 ET by danboYawn. Coorelations aren't proof of a cause effect relationship. Then "real scientist" don't know that... And the warming trend didn't last 40 years. Yawn. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
none of this contradicts AGW.
November 21, 2007 - 00:56 ET by professor truthso what's your point? Where is your denialist "evidence??" Hmmmm? I'm waiting.
of course medicine is science
November 20, 2007 - 21:32 ET by professor truthunfortunately it's complicated because of the fact that different people react differently to different drugs, so the more a consensus is reached by the medical community, the more confidence there is in the drug.
It's all about consensus. No single treatment may work for a given individual so the best drugs are defined how effective they are for the largest group of people or how few side effects they produce.
LK, your post makes NO sense!
November 20, 2007 - 23:38 ET by professor truthplease explain your logic. As I've said before, consensus is a provisional truth, subject to revision when new facts become available. As I said, I'll match your science understanding against mine any time.
Care to change subjects, Prof?
November 20, 2007 - 23:44 ET by BlondeEconomics?
You lie like a rug about science.
You must be a pathetic teacher of "science".
I pity your students.
Care to engage in a debate of ideas about the "real world"?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
the subject is science, AGW!
November 21, 2007 - 00:59 ET by professor truthSomething you know absolutely nothing about. unless you have some denialist evidence, go back and watch hee haw reruns. Don't bother me, insignificant one.
Prof Truth
November 21, 2007 - 01:15 ET by Cool ArrowAny real world experience, guy?
Never did get out of that Academia tree did you?
Honestly, we understand why you have to go with the flow on this issue. Every week we see new examples of what happens to principled individuals who refuse to genuflect.
Ignorance of the scientific
November 20, 2007 - 10:56 ET by NL207Ignorance of the scientific method?
This is the stock and trade of yourself and the rest of the AGW activist crowd. In brief, the scientific method is a three step process: (1) observe a phenomena, (2) construct a hypothesis which explains the phenomena and (3) construct experiments which confirm/refute the hypothesis and iterate the hypothesis until it is confirmed. This reference gives a nice clean description, breaking 2 & 3 into two parts each.
The fact that NONE of your team's climate models can regress all known data sets is proof that the process is incomplete and the AGW hypothesis itself is still unconfirmed.
Where do you see the word 'consesnsus' in this description of the scientifc method? Consesnsus is a political process, akin to voting. It has nothing to do with the scientific method, which is about provable truths.
And how was the speed of light arrived at??
November 20, 2007 - 11:24 ET by professor trutha GROUP of scientists in the field came to an agreement (consensus) in determining the best method to measure light using earlier principles that were also established by consensus!!! Consensus in science means arriving at the best interpretation of the available facts.
It's how ALL measured values in science are arrived at. Political consensus is arrived at by voting. In science, consensus is determined by peer review.
"It's how ALL measured
November 20, 2007 - 11:45 ET by danbo"It's how ALL measured values in science are arrived at. Political consensus is arrived at by voting. In science, consensus is determined by peer review."
I must have missed that in science, and statistics, and research. So being there was a consensus on Piltdown man. He really existed?
Warmer logic never ceases to amaze me.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
and what process found the fraud of piltdown man?
November 20, 2007 - 12:13 ET by professor truthSCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!! What science background do you have, danbo???phd??? masters??? BS??? high school??? junior high?? elementary???? kindergarten???
I've already said. BA
November 20, 2007 - 12:47 ET by danboI've already said.
BA Anthropology. Concentrating in archaeology and ethnology with a fair bit of geology. And yes. We studied climate. It's an important factor in human existence. So we look at it and followed it's changes. You can see them in the archaeological and geological data.
As I said before Graduate training was irrelevant except there i learned research. My graduate research was testing the potential for using demographic variables to predict the successful or unsuccessful completion of probation and parole. And had to use the regressions NL talked about. Multi variant. (Back in the days of punch cards.) The quality of my research was sufficient to be inducted into the graduate schools research society.
The last 6 or 8 years before I retired I was one of the 8 regional representatives on the states epidemiology work group. Where I had to determine what data needed to be looked at. Extrapolate it, and report it. Those reports were published by the federal government.
Do you want me to go on?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Danbo
November 20, 2007 - 12:55 ET by professor truthbut you lack experience in climate modelling. Gavin Schmidt has over 50 PEER REVIEWED papers. Who has more credibilty on the topic of climate modelling, you or Gavin?? Gavin sees modelling as an important part of climate change prediction, who has more credibility, you or Gavin? I wouldn't predtend to know anthropology to the extent that you know it so why do you think you can challenge Gavin's models??? Denialists seem to think that expertise in their field qualiies them to lecture scientists in other fields. I teach chemistry and have only a BS from San Diego Stae, 1976. Yet you question my chemistry credentials. Care to go toe to toe with me on this subject? I suspect that you used some chemistry in anthropology(for dating purposes perhaps) so you may have more chemistry knowledge in a small specific area. You want to discredit my chemistry background so let's rumble in chem . OK??
In case you missed it. 1.
November 20, 2007 - 13:08 ET by danboIn case you missed it. 1. i've been trained in science. I've had to do research in a multi variant area, and due to my background in archaeology, and geology know something about the environment.
And because of my experience with CDC and in graduate school I know one can lie through research. And due to my experience with areas where there's plenty of government, i know what happens.
Untill you can prove, with out funny math that there is an unsual climate you have nothing. Just an man who believes something and keeps rewriting what he believes.
Again you lose.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
and that's why peer review is so important
November 20, 2007 - 13:20 ET by professor truthIn undergrad chem, I was forced to make thousands of measurements of spectral lines for a professor who was trying to determine the carbon chlorine bond lenght in mono chloro acetylene(my sole research in college). It's very possible that I made some incorrect measurements, but the paper was published. Peer review only adds another level of confidence, it is not the final proof that something is true. You need to ask the following questions: if AGW is a hoax, why haven't skeptics produced definitive evidence?? Why haven't skeptics demonstrated that climate models can be deliberately set up to give any answer the experimenter wants? Here is another link to realclimate, explaining why the CO2 is anthropogenic. There are comments as well. These articles usually have some heaviy hitting scientists weighing in(some of the comments are far beyond my expertise and understanding). Nonetheless, as a trained scientist, you also have a responsibility to weigh the evidence for AGW. Here is the link:
http://www.realclima...
"if AGW is a hoax, why
November 20, 2007 - 13:38 ET by danbo"if AGW is a hoax, why haven't skeptics produced definitive evidence?? Why haven't skeptics demonstrated that climate models can be deliberately set up to give any answer the experimenter wants?"
Are you blind, too? Let me rephrase that. As my old anthropology professor used to say about evolution. We don't know if it's true. We just have overwhelming evidence. We don't have definitive proof that AGW is wrong, just overwelming evidence.
And I would add that warmers have to give difinitive proof of AGW. Somehow insulting anyone who disagrees and claiming consesus doesn't count as real science.
"as a trained scientist, you also have a responsibility to weigh the evidence for AGW"
I've looked at it on a number of occasions. Still do occasionally. I find it wanting.
When's the last time you looked at climateaudit.org ? Here you have a couple of good numbers crunchers looking at the data that realclimate tries to hide from them. Real scientist don't hide data.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
and which climate modeler has demonstrated that climate models
November 20, 2007 - 15:04 ET by professor truthare hoaxes? I referenced a link for refuting Mann's hockey stick "hoax" here:
http://gristmill.gri...
I've referenced an article explaining how carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere offers evidence for the human footprint on warming:
http://www.realclima...
I agree with your anthropology professor. One last point. Scientific frauds have ultimately been overturned as a result of contrarian evidence. Why hasn't any scientist picked up his nobel prize for discrediting AGW??? Why does EVERY MAJOR SCIENCE BODY ACCEPT AGW ?(sure, there's always contrarians, but they are in the minority? Why haven't you been able to discredit realclimate.org with your "overwhelming" AGW hoax evidence?? You need to answer some serious questions. Are you also going to refute the overwhelming consensus among physicists who state that increasing CO2 creates increased energy absorption??? I'll grant you that Mann's hockey stick numbers needed correction but did the ESSENCE of his claim get undermined? As a teacher, sometimmes I make wrong calculations. So then, all my instruction becomes discredited??? All scientists make mistakes, the question is do they do this enough to undermine their reputations? Is Gavin Schmidt who has 50 peer reviewed papers credible as a climate modeler? How about his critics?? Uncertainty in AGW does not discredit AGW!
Uncertainty in AGW does not
November 20, 2007 - 15:17 ET by Sick-n-TiredUncertainty in AGW does not discredit AGW!
Nor does it prove it! That is like saying lack of evidence is evidence---no such thing. By your rational I could say that x = y based on 1,2,3,4 although 2 & 4 really don't support and go contraty to the said equation----NONETHELESS x = y is true because I believe it to be so. Your scientific thought process needs some work.
Are you an author of the realclimate website? You sure are pushing and pimping for them....
We agree on that. Frauds
November 20, 2007 - 16:57 ET by danboWe agree on that. Frauds are ultimately uncovered. As they are right now over AGW. As Hansons Y2K error. Yet he keeps adjusting. (He wants those nuimbers.)
You might want to read: here, and here.
Serious question? CO2 is only "1" factor on climate. you seem to wish to ignore all the others. And untill you can prove there is something unusual going on in climate, you have only a theory. As Richard Lindzen often points out .6 degrees is nothing. That's within the normal variance.
In case you missed it. Tempertured dropped about 1 degree C in one year after the eruption of Krakatoa. About 3 degrees after the eruption of Timbora and who knows how much in the years 535-36. Arguably the worse climate disaster of recorded history.
Cold is the real killer. Warming times are usually good times. As what opened up Greenland to the Vikings.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
ok Danbo
November 20, 2007 - 19:03 ET by professor truthSoon and Baliunas ideas have been thoroughly discredited here:
http://www.agu.org/s...
I think peer reviewed articles found in internationally recognized journals trumps information presented in corporate front group organizations like the Marshall institute. How about you?
In your dreams.Your link
November 20, 2007 - 19:12 ET by danboIn your dreams.Your link doesn't work.
I could be in error. this was the article they originally published in Science. (Or was that the other Baliunas paper). But I didn't think you subscribed to science so I linked to a free copy.
Lose again
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Gavin Schmidt also used
November 20, 2007 - 13:11 ET by bassndudeGavin Schmidt also used fabricated data. Gavin Schmidt was revealed as a GW shrill looking to make a buck, just like soon to be wealthiest former VP in history, Al Gore. Global Warming has made AlGore rich. Same with others. Gavin Schmidts model has be discredited.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
nl207, you are factually wrong!
November 20, 2007 - 15:33 ET by professor truthscientific consensus is critical to the scientific method and is embedded in this process in the form of peer review. When someone carries out an experiment, it is only validated through others repeating the tests. When other scientists are satisfied that the experiment is valid as a result of checking, only then is that knowledge added to the body of science. Einstein didn't accept the theory of quantum mechanics, does that invalidate the theory? Consensus is creating agreement or compromise within the available body of knowledge and is critical in science. For not understanding this, I unequivocably state you are ignorant within this specific area.
In so claiming, you have
November 20, 2007 - 17:16 ET by NL207In so claiming, you have implied my reference, a univeristy professor who teaches scientific method to his students, is also wrong. Yet you provide no reference, just your own interpretation. Point is mine.
I can go back to the web and produce 6 or 8 more references that say the same as the first one: The scientific method does not involve consensus of any kind! No consensus here. None here, either. Even the God awful Wikipedia page on the subject does not use the word 'consensus'. The only thing the scientific method requires to prove truth are experimantal results which CONFIRM the hypothesis and are REPEATABLE. Try reading this: "An Introduction to Scientific Research" by E. Bright Wilson. It will do you good.
Now for a word about repeatability: The Oreskes article your team is so fond of quioting, that is NOT REPEATABLE using the protocol described by Oreskes in her paper. Therefore it is not science, it is opinion.
NL We have to accept there
November 20, 2007 - 17:54 ET by danboNL We have to accept there are two sciences. There's apparently the science you and I learned. Where data is supreme. Where you collect data and attempt to figure out what's going on.
Then there's Truths science. Where theory and consensus are supreme. Were the speed of light is not determined by the properties of light. Rather the speed of light is determined by consensus.
And I'm sure any delinquent light will quickly alter it's speed to the determined speed of consensus.
PT will issue speeding tickets to any light that violates the consensus.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I know all about the scientific method
November 20, 2007 - 19:33 ET by professor truthDo you think there is a single practicing scientist who publishes without having others read his work? How does junk data get filtered out of the system without peer review? Ask the professor if he will allow my generally low level students to do research without their work being checked. How would any scientific body advance if each individual publishes work without first checking it. When I say consensus, it means a group of scientists who want to advance an idea coming to a(provisional) agreement based on the available evidence. Perhaps we are just misunderstanding each other, but consensus simply means agreement with other scientists based on all available evidence. An individual scientist may show a clever idea on his own initiative but he still must collaborate with others in order to get published. Otherwise, any crackpot who has a crazy hypothesis can advance his idea with a weight equal to someone else who is in agreement with other scientists.
A data plot that produces a graph with non linear data points reaches a compromise plot. The more complex the problem, the more consensus is needed. Ask your professor if he would inject himself with a medicine that I have tested and determined to be safe and effective. Medicine is all about consensus.
Hey
November 20, 2007 - 22:21 ET by contrarywhere's your village?
I'm sure the modelers at realclimate would be interested in this
November 21, 2007 - 01:04 ET by professor truthThe fact that NONE of your team's climate models can regress all known
data sets is proof that the process is incomplete and the AGW
hypothesis itself is still unconfirmed.
Your reference for this??? I'm sure that you know far more about this than Gavin Schmidt, who has spent his professional career doing climate models, and has 50 PEER REVIEWED papers! ()something you denialist clowns couldn't achieve in a 1000 years.)
Light speed has been
November 20, 2007 - 10:58 ET by bassndudeLight speed has been measured. I am agast at the level of your ignorance. And you teach???? Not!!!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassndude
November 20, 2007 - 11:29 ET by professor truthyou misread my posts. Stop your ad hominem attacks. I said the speed of light was determined by scientific consensus. Maybe you find the speed by having two people stand two miles apart, one simultaneously turns on a flashlight and a timer and stops the timer when he sees the returning light from his partner. This is a crude experiment for finding the speed of light which would fail the test of peer review, another way to say "consensus."
The speed of light was not
November 20, 2007 - 13:06 ET by bassndudeThe speed of light was not measured by consensus. That is absurd. It was measured in 1926 by a scientist named Leon Foucault at a speed of 299,796 Km/s. This was not consensus. This was not the frist time it was measured, but was the closest speed for quite a while. 299,792.458 is the speed measured most recently. No consensus was used. Light speed was measured remeasured and methods were reviewed. Where is the consensus?
BTW, I did not attack you, simply stated an observation reached by the facts you have established. I also came to a consensus with my fellow NewsBuster community. What you call an attack, was really a consensus.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
the consensus is debated the reliability of the method
November 20, 2007 - 13:32 ET by professor truthDo you seriously think Fizeau's value(since adjusted) came only from him informing his peers and his peers responding, ok??? Think about it. His peeras had to be satisfied that Fizeau had properly set up and calibrated his instruments. The purpose of PEER REVIEW is to achieve CONSENSUS through debate of the available facts. Was the instrument clibrated properly. Let's check. It's all about consensus. I've been unfairly attacked for my lack of understanding science, but it turns out that those who attacked me are the real scientific ILLITERATES. I'll match my understanding of science with most of you denialists, although those denialists who are professional scientists and engineers certainly have more expertise in their specific fields. I've taught high school biology, physics, chemistry, and earth science over 25 years. It's laughable that there are denialists who argue that science doesn't work through consensus! This shows a incredibly high level of ignorance in how the scientific method works. Even some practicing scientists are misinformed about the idea of consensus, which in science simply means peer review.
Light was measured. Where
November 20, 2007 - 13:37 ET by bassndudeLight was measured. Where the consensus came in was in the method. Fizeau spent 50 years refining his method. I cant recall if there was anyone that disputed his measurement.There is no consensus of the speed, only the method he used.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
so if I measure light speed
November 20, 2007 - 19:44 ET by professor truthby putting 2 people a mile apart with flashlights and measure the time from when the light is sent until it is returned to the sender, this is also a legitimate way to measure light. I could even repeat the experiment with others and could average the results. I could then claim I measured the speed of light. Or I could measure the speed through different substances and get different values. Here's a specific example where consensus was needed. Identical scientists used identical methods to synthesize an organic compound, but the scientists got different results. After playing around, it was suspected that scientists working near windows got different results to the others. it was finally determined that light was a critical factor in determining the nature of the synthesized conmpound. I think these reactions are known as markovnikov reactions. If a single scientist had been working, he would not have been aware of this unless he, by chance had worked at both at the window and away from it. Because there were several scientists working, they came to an agreement regarding the understanding of this reaction.
Peer review
November 20, 2007 - 19:50 ET by LionKingIn that case, his peers would tell him what an idiot he was. That does not confirm results. Confirmation of results comes being able to repeat the experiment reliably.
thank you for adding credibilty to my point
November 20, 2007 - 20:44 ET by professor truthIn that case, his peers would tell him what an idiot he was. That does
not confirm results. Confirmation of results comes being able to repeat
the experiment reliably.
It does serve as a check on the scientific method and thus serves as a part of the method. The scientific method: hypothesis; test hypothesis with a controlled experiment: adjust hypothesis to fit experimental results: test revised hypothesis; repeat until revised hypothesis no longer needs to be revised; have your work peer reviewed to increase it's credibility; the well tested hypothesis now becomes a theory: a well tested theory becomes a law; all laws can be falsified.
Every science theory has been peer reviewed and involves scientific consensus. you have stated the necessity of peer review approval.
Or you could say the test needs a scientific consensus before it can be considered credible.
Prof, that is just plain
November 20, 2007 - 20:08 ET by bassndudeProf, that is just plain stupid. We are not discussing hypotheticals here. Light speed is not even constant. The speed of light was verified and some what adjusted by NASA some years back. YOU being a science teacher and all should know that. BTW, how did they do that? Your a NASA Hansen fan. You should also know your flashlight analogy is idiotic, to say the least. At least keep the discussion within bounds of reality. I know, I know. That will be a tuff row for you to hoe, but give it a try.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Your words. "Fizeau's
November 20, 2007 - 13:44 ET by danboYour words. "Fizeau's value(since adjusted)" Adjusted? You mean they were "WRONG"?
How can that be? This is science.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Fizeaus method was state of the art at the time
November 20, 2007 - 19:47 ET by professor truthit was replaced by better methods. A single scientisty still needs to have his results verified by others if he is going to publish for obvious reasons. The individual may have overlooked a critical factor. peer review only gives the idea a higher level of confidence.
Excuse me Professor?
November 20, 2007 - 20:19 ET by bassndudeExcuse me Professor? Fizeaus method along with Foucault used the same method. Foucaults conclusions lasted into the 70's. It was at that time that NASA took their final measurements, (Evanson et al) in 1973 and the value was adjusted at just over 4.458 Km/s. 299,792.458 Km/s is the value used today. But this is relative. Gravity interacts with light and the speed varies accordingly.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
and a consensus was needed
November 20, 2007 - 20:46 ET by professor truthbefore this value could be given with reliabilty.
No, "professor",
November 21, 2007 - 21:13 ET by MikeBNo, "professor", reproducibility of results was needed before this value could be given with reliability. Consensus had nothing to do with the acceptability or reliability of the value. It is accepted because the experiment produced the same result time after time, and it can be used to make reliable predictions of outcomes of other experiments. I weep for your students.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Consensus
November 21, 2007 - 05:48 ET by UnsaneIf anyone shows ignorance of the scientific method, it is you, Professor Guilt, Ph. D. in Dogma.
Consensus is the creature of parliaments and politics.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
It's sad how many
November 20, 2007 - 10:31 ET by JasonCIt's sad how many conservatives cannot see the AGW issue beyond their vision of Gore as a twisted environmental guru. Look, we all know that Gore is a spokesman and a bit of a tool, not a scientist. Every time the issue of hybrid cars comes up, you can't hide behind "Well Gore drives an SUV...."
It makes as much sense as the dumb liberals who only see the war on terror in terms of what they dislike about Bush, and think Iraq was an illegitimate engagement because the Bush twins didn't enlist. It's a worthless, unproductive attitude.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
You're kidding, right, Jason?
November 20, 2007 - 10:41 ET by RJThis site (and many others) draws from a wide range of AGW skeptics....but all you can see are the jokes and complaints about Gore?
(....must resist calling him the 800 pound bearmanpig in the room...dang, it just came out....)
But talk about having limited vision, Jason.....
}}---> JasonC
November 20, 2007 - 10:41 ET by Cool ArrowOK, so now the fourth time the boy cries wolf we should all jump up and ask: "Are we warming or cooling this time?"
Jason, I'm 55 years old and this is the first Summer I can remember when the grass didn't turn brown in July/August, and we didn't see a 100+ degree day.
You'll excuse me if I appreciate the shift in weather pattern here in Texas while Georgia experiences what they call a "100 year drought".
Ever wonder why they call it a "100 year drought"?
Just a stupid conservative question, I guess.
RJ and Cool, relax already.
November 20, 2007 - 10:50 ET by JasonCRJ and Cool, relax already. Many of you do bring in more legitimate arguments. But there is a tendency as well to make it all about Gore. I literally was confronted with a "Well, Gore drives an SUV" argument last night, on a thread that wasn't even about AGW. I thought maybe if I framed it in terms of liberals' obsession with Bush (BDS to use NB parlance), thus equally criticizing the shortsightedness of the left, you'd see that I'm not just blasting conservatives, but the general tendency to buy into looking at issues in terms of a single avatar/scapegoat.
Cool, it's very nice that the south was cooler this year. New England had 90 degree days in mid-October. So what? These little anecdotes of meteorological extremity don't really mean much in the big picture.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
A lot more people are
November 20, 2007 - 10:58 ET by NL207A lot more people are familiar with Al Gore thatn they are with any scientist either pro-warmer or skeptic.
Yes, of course, but for
November 20, 2007 - 11:04 ET by JasonCYes, of course, but for those who know more about the issue, isn't it dismissive to suggest that AGW is overblown because Al Gore is a hypocrite? Something about missing the forest for the trees.
I thought my liberals/Bush/GWOT analogy was spot on.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Jason, maybe it's you who needs to "relax"
November 20, 2007 - 10:59 ET by RJIt seems you're the one getting all tense about the references to the 800 pound bearmanpig. ;^)
After all, you did accuse others of limited vision...while exhibiting your own.
RJ, the comment that I
November 20, 2007 - 11:08 ET by JasonCRJ, the comment that I first responded to is a prime example. What sense does it make to dismiss long-held (and eminently necessary) traditions of consensus and peer review with a jab at Gore.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm no environmentalist, and my opinions on AGW are vague and somewhat disinterested. Hell, I usually forget to separate the recycling until my wife reminds me. But I do see the use of Gore as a catch-all excuse to discredit the issue as problematic and reminiscent of leftists' similar use of Bush. I guess you could call it GDS.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
So, Jason, we're no longer allowed to mention the hallowed name
November 20, 2007 - 11:26 ET by RJof the bearmanpig? As it happens, Cool Arrow's reference to Gore was appropriate, because he has been the prime driving force shouting "consensus"....and that was CA's valid point.
Beyond that, it's amusing that you chose to complain of the usage of Gore's name on this particular thread. A quick scroll of the hundreds of posts shows that the Reverend Gore's name has been mentioned (until your post) only five times.....of those, two were by Perfesser "truth", a defender of AGW. That leaves three for your supposed GBS-afflicted posters...and I've already shown that one of them was appropriate.
So tell me again who has a Gore problem, Jason? ;^)
I knew this was an RJ post
November 20, 2007 - 11:35 ET by JasonCI knew this was an RJ post just from the 9-word Recent Comment lead-in. Something about the shrill way that you twist my thoughts into this fantasy that I'm trying to censor and suppress conservative thought just screams RJ.
Say his name all you want. Talk about what a hypocrite he is all you want. He deserves it.
But his hypocrisy as a celebrity activist is irrelevant to AGW's threat or lack thereof. That's all I'm saying. And I'm glad you have the wherewithal to count the number of times his name is mentioned on this board. Dismissing the issue because of distaste for the spokesman goes on all the time here, we both know it, and I brought it up in response to a post that specifically did exactly that. And I notice you still haven't acknowledged the parallels with BDS and the GWOT
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
"shrill?" tsk, tsk JasonC
November 20, 2007 - 11:49 ET by RJCome on, Jason, relax. I've kept it light, but obviously you're all tensed up over your Gore problem.
Who ever said you're trying to censor anyone? Hint: it was a joke, big boy. ;^)
Sorry, but as much as you'd like to make it true, Gore is at the center of the phony AGW scam. As such, he will be mentioned frequently....but just not on this thread....well, except by certain un-named distraught individuals, that is....
P.S. Do you approve of my shorter lead-in? Did it just for you... ;^)
the AGW scam??
November 20, 2007 - 11:54 ET by professor truthand every major science organization is in agreement with AGW??? All those scientists have been scammed but YOU know the truth?? You do have hubris, lots of hubris. Why can't the denialists produce a contrarian climate model that shows the opposite results to future warming?? James Hansen's model has been reliable for temperature predictions for 20 years, another scam?? Just produce a contrarian climate model and oil companies will shower you with millions!! Show me the money!
and oil companies will shower you with millions!!"
November 20, 2007 - 12:00 ET by danboThey've really come a long way with anti psychotic medications.
Which Hanson model. He keeps changing it. Like GISS data.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
My, my "perfesser"....
November 20, 2007 - 12:03 ET by RJTell me the "truth", you're really bearmanpig, right?
I'll let you continue your technical whipping by the other posters here, but yeah, AGW is a political scam.
The underlying purpose, as Kyoto clearly showed, is to diminish the power and financial strength of the U.S., with the ultimate goal of exercising more world control by leftist forces.
RJ,
November 20, 2007 - 12:19 ET by professor truthwhat science background do you have?? Here's a simple high school chemistry problem to see your level of brilliance: If one mole of aluminum metal reacts completely with oxygen, how many grams of the metal oxide are produced??? Should be a snap for a genius like you? My high school kids who mostly have levels of education between 6th and 10th grade can answer this? Are you as smart as them? i can answer this simple problem in my head in about 45 sec
onds but I'll give a genius like you 4 minutes. Good luck!
Shame on you, "perfesser"
November 20, 2007 - 12:28 ET by RJTrying to be a Scientific Showoff? What were you, a Mr Wizard washout? Well, the way the others here have been kicking your butt, I suppose it's natural for you to look around, hoping to find someone else to impress.
Well, big shock....I'm not a scientist, and haven't tried to keep up with my more knowledgable fellow posters, but I can read and comprehend. I'm not a football player, either, but I'm a helluva fine Monday morning quarterback, and can tell who was the better team.
In any event, my focus was on the political aspects of the AGW issue. Wanna discuss that? Betcha I can kick your ass there, "perfesser"... ;^)
You want to make AGW a POLITICAL issue
November 20, 2007 - 12:59 ET by professor truthit's a scientific issue that has been debated and answered by scientific consensus. By the way, the answer was 51 grams. You tried to discredit my science background but it misfired. It was your understanding of simple science that got discredited.
I didn't try to discredit your scientific background "perfesser"
November 20, 2007 - 15:16 ET by RJI was laughing at your silly, immature Mr Wizard behavior. (I bet it impresses the high school students, though.)
In any event, AGW is as much a political issue as a scientific one. Your denial of that is just more proof that you aren't to be taken seriously.
there's a big difference between Bush and Gore
November 20, 2007 - 11:43 ET by professor truthGore is trying to save the planet and Bush is trying to destroy it with perpetual, endless wars of aggression.
Professor Troll
November 20, 2007 - 13:56 ET by fitzfongThere it is. Just as I suspected. Professor Troll is just another garden variety big government, anti-Bush socialist using "science" as the cover for his/her/its actual agenda. I'll have to bite the bullet next month when I go to the county and pay my exorbitant property taxes...knowing that my money is helping to subsidize this clown.
}}---> Exactly, Jason
November 20, 2007 - 11:07 ET by Cool ArrowMy evidence contradicting GW was entirely, unashamedly, ANECDOTAL. This too shall pass.
I can say from historical record the opening of the Northwest Passage is no more proof of AGW than my mild summer. It's all happened before at one time in the recent past, but the frenzy is fueled with live pictures of Polar Bears doomed to perdition as they cling helplessly to a drifting icecube.
Pay attention---PLEASE!I
November 20, 2007 - 10:46 ET by Sick-n-TiredPay attention---PLEASE!
I was using the 51% as an example.
Oreskes is old news and has long since been proven wrong to the point she (not a he--do your homework son) admitted errors in her work. Furthermore, of the 905 (not 928---another falsehood and lie on her part) papers, only 2% (13 abstracts) explicitly support AGW consensus. (http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323)
Chalk another one up for me, SnT.
sick n tired
November 20, 2007 - 11:58 ET by professor truthI'll concede your point about Oreskes(for now). I guess that means that only 2% explicitly support AGW, and...how many support denialism???? hmmmmm? I'll concede that I only won 18 to ZERO( 2% of 900 = 18!, I won't attack you for this oversight)
ha! (shaking
November 20, 2007 - 12:01 ET by Sick-n-Tiredha! (shaking head)
amazing.
see you on the next thread.
November 20, 2007 - 12:04 ET by Sick-n-Tiredsee you on the next thread.
I read Oreskes, and she
November 20, 2007 - 10:58 ET by danboI read Oreskes, and she flunked my own peer review. She played word games with "by implication".
Being you're such an expert on science. you know that the reason for testing and retesting is the possibility of making a type 2 error. Therefore you retest to see if you can duplicate the result or similar results.
There have been a least 3 studies that refute Oreskes work. 3 studies, plus my personal peer review =
Lose again.
BTW did Oreskes have a sex change?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
danbo, Would you be so
November 20, 2007 - 11:05 ET by Sick-n-Tireddanbo,
Would you be so kind as to slide those ref.'s to me for the 3 studies so I can add those to my arsenal. thanx--Cheers!
I've only got 2 of them.
November 20, 2007 - 11:36 ET by danboI've only got 2 of them. The third was work done by Von Storch. Unfortunately I don't have it and most of what I know about that work is 2nd hand. As here. Otherwise we have.
Benny Peiser here and here.
And Klaus Martin Schulte here.
Hope it helps.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Peiser was the one in the
November 20, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Sick-n-TiredPeiser was the one in the reference I gave to the "prof". I will save the links you sent. I will see what else I can find on Von Storch.
MUCH THANKS DANBO!!!
but until the studies are 'peer reviewed'
November 20, 2007 - 12:24 ET by professor truththey have a credibility problem. But you sound so sure that you surely should go to realclimate.org and argue your talking points. i'm sure all those scientists like Gavin Schmidt who has OVER 50 PEER REVIEWED papers will shrink after you expose their fraud!! Put your money where youur hubris is and go test your ideas at realclimate.org.
"Proffesor"
November 20, 2007 - 11:08 ET by RESTLESS 1Here is a peer reviewed report for you. Shows a correct graph (not mann's "hockey stick" bs). Click on the link to read the report.
Gee, it looks like you can't believe Naomi Oreskes either.
What? No peer reiviewed science exists refuting the consequences of climate change? I guess you somehow missed this too. And it is from a favorite site of the left.
Oh my, more bad news for your side. Seems the IPCC overestimated the earth's sensitivity to CO2. See for yourself.
"The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature
statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no
ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long
temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15
parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.
Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if
corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large
volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over
which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current
temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few
decades." See, I know how to copy and paste too. The difference is I provided quatation marks and bolding to show this and the link to the source.
I'm going to stop now because I am done with you "professor". I don't feel too bad for your students. I was smarter than my teachers too, and I survived just fine.
>90%!!!! Don''t tell any
November 20, 2007 - 11:10 ET by NL207>90%!!!!
Don''t tell any of my colleagues that! If we did a nose count, I'd bet the numbers divide like this:
15% hard core the sky is falling warmers
70% skeptics
15% contrarians
If we polled them to see how many accept the AGW activist hypothesis: "Human contributions to global climate change are significant, dominant, and harmful" I think no more than 20% of the scientists I know including myself would support that notion.
This is essentially what the Oregon Petition did and surprise, those were the numbers it got. In the ten years since, and especially the last two years, recent results have greatly weakened the AGW hypothesis. I don't think the results of such a poll would be any different today than in 1997.
}}---> NL207
November 20, 2007 - 11:21 ET by Cool ArrowNow if we present the question in the following fashion:
"Esteemed members of the Scientific community. We have $15 billion in grant money available to study AGW, and $35.97 to prove it is not man-induced"
Where do you reckon you might find more butter for your bread?
I just love when NL207
November 20, 2007 - 11:23 ET by bassndudeI just love when NL207 gets into the climate debate. The warmers just up a leave. They have no answers for him. Wish my mind was as sharp as his.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
He has been kicking the
November 20, 2007 - 11:30 ET by RESTLESS 1He has been kicking the "professor's" ass. I haven't seen much of the "professor" since NL207 joined the debate. Before that, Danbo was holding down the fort. Free Stinker got in a few jabs as well. The "professor" got his nose bloodied in this one.
}}---> Just a thought, RESTLESS 1
November 20, 2007 - 11:37 ET by Cool ArrowY'know? If I was to change my nick to "Consensus" I could be the god of trolldom.
Cool, I think you already
November 20, 2007 - 18:04 ET by RESTLESS 1Cool, I think you already are. They just don't want to admit it. ;>)
Hell, I have been working
November 20, 2007 - 11:46 ET by Sick-n-TiredHell, I have been working over this chump as well since the thread was born! I will give him this much, he doesn't quit (or maybe now he has finally fallen for the 10 count); nevertheless, I will say this, it is damn scary he is shaping the minds of our future in his physics classes.....
Restless1,
BTW, I like you links; I have added the ones I don't have to my "stack of GW stuff". thanx
Your the one I was trying to
November 20, 2007 - 17:55 ET by RESTLESS 1Your the one I was trying to remember. You were going at it with him too. Sorry, the wife was rushing me to get out the door, so I posted in a hurry.
No worries! I only threw
November 20, 2007 - 18:11 ET by Sick-n-TiredNo worries! I only threw that in because this guy has been getting pumeled from all directions for the better part of 36 hours. You would think he would actually learn something from us. He can come back anytime. Hell, if he comes here as much as going to realclimate, he may see the light and follow the truth!
Thanks again for the links--good mat'l.
I hate to say this. Some
November 20, 2007 - 18:21 ET by danboI hate to say this. Some people aren't bright enough to realize it. It more than borders on delusional.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Poor sap. How can someone
November 20, 2007 - 18:58 ET by Sick-n-TiredPoor sap. How can someone who claims to be a "scientist" spend his life living and thinking inside box. It is no wonder he can't think freely and move outside of his realclimate talking points.
SnT
November 20, 2007 - 18:51 ET by RESTLESS 1Thanks for the kudos. I don't usually post links on this topic as yourself, NL207, Free Stinker, Danbo and others are more credentialed than I and have already done much of the heavy lifting. This "professor" just kind of got under my skin. Not much more I can say about him.
Keep up the good fight.
who's left?
November 20, 2007 - 22:40 ET by professor truthWrong again!! Why would I leave the park when I keep hitting your pathetic fastballs over the fence??? I enjoy seeing the convoluted and contradictory arguments you throw at me. I enjoy swatting your nonsense denialist evidence out of the park.
This sounds like an oil company offer!
November 20, 2007 - 15:12 ET by professor truthCertainly there are major industries that will pay big bucks to those genius denialists to show overwhelming evidence of a AGW "hoax."
Why haven't they succeeded in discrediting this "obvious hoax?"
Why do denialists create totally bogus front groups instead of going through the normal scientific process of peer review?? Oh, I know. All these scientists are participating in a global warming CONSPIRACY!!! CONSPIRACY I say!! They know that nobody will spill the beans. Denialists, your credible sources are rightwing radio hosts like Dennis rager, who doesn't know the difference between weather and climate , or Rush Limbaugh who got punked after reading a global warming hoax report on air as credible. Denialists, keep getting your 'facts' from Limbaugh and Prager. I'll go with the scientific conspiracists.
Peer review
November 20, 2007 - 15:15 ET by LionKingI suppose by peer review you mean glanced over by your like-minded colleagues?
Now there was that peer
November 20, 2007 - 17:06 ET by danboNow there was that peer reviewed science that found a connection between schizophrenia, and bi-polar disease and your sign of the zodiac. I think it went through 4 peer reviews.
I forgot the scientist. I believe he was over at Stanford.
After 40 years. Im rarely supprised. But sometimes I'm still amazed.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
and just imagine the number of crazy ideas
November 20, 2007 - 22:44 ET by professor truththat were caught by peer review. So, danbo, you think non peer reviewed articles produces better science? So the less oversight and checking done on a scientist's work, the more reliable the results??
professor...speaking of illiteracy
November 20, 2007 - 22:52 ET by LionKingNo one said peer review was unnecessary. All anyone said was that consensus does not replace facts. Do you comprehend this Professor Flat Earth?
LK, peer review is a type of consensus
November 20, 2007 - 23:07 ET by professor truthbefore a paper passes as credible, it is peer reviewed. The (peers) become the consensus. Imagine 10 people trying to determine the validity of an experiment. Everyone critiques the data and the setup.
If one person finds a flaw, the flaw must be corrected before the paper
can be published. The consensus consists of those who review the paper.Obviously, The entire science community won't be directly involved in the consensus. Over time, as more scientists use the ideas from the paper and judge it's contents as valid, the paper gains redibility. There is lots of junk I presume that passesinitial peer review and such papers have a very small consensus of professors. I don't understand this obsession of denialists to show that consensus isn't part of science. It's a big part of science, especially when the science issue is more complicated. I guess none of us will convince the other so this issue is dead, as far as I'm concerned. Nobody has convinced anyone on this.
study...experiment
November 20, 2007 - 23:11 ET by LionKingWhat if the whole process is flawed? You mean, if there is one dissenter, then it has to be corrected.
Are you telling me that there is not one credentialed climatologist that does not buy into AGW? Who chooses the peers to perfrom the review? So is it a majority or is it unanimous?
Fact is real peer review
November 20, 2007 - 23:33 ET by danboFact is real peer review means a lot more than checking for typos. Peer review has come under serious fire as it's become a sham of friends checking each others typos. If there were real peer review Science wouldn't have publish that fradulent study from Korea. It was only found when science bloggers in korea realized it didn't make sense and found enough facts to where Science couldn't run away from the facts. The science version of Dan Rathers forged documents. Ditto the friendly reviews on Piltdown.
Hwang Woo Suk ring a bell?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Peer review is important
November 20, 2007 - 23:12 ET by danboPeer review is important to people who are incapable or unable or unwilling to do their own review. And used car salemen.
Any person with scientific training who relies purely on someone elses review should reconsider his advocation. He has abdicated his own responsability.
However as the idiot misrepresents peer review and claims only AGWing approved is peer reviewed. Again it shows he has no idea of science.
The scary part. Though I doubt his credentials in chemistry and as a science teacher. He may actually be a teacher. That's a scary thought.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
November 20, 2007 - 23:01 ET by danbozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Consensus vs facts
November 20, 2007 - 15:16 ET by LionKingIf we relied soley on consensus, we would still be taught that the world is flat. Scientist should rely STRICTLY on facts.
difference between weather and climate
November 20, 2007 - 15:17 ET by MightyMouthOk, I give...what's the difference between weather and climate?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Professor truth.
November 20, 2007 - 15:20 ET by bassndudeWhat is the largest contributor to atmospheric CO2?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
The oceans! Do I get a
November 20, 2007 - 17:10 ET by danboThe oceans! Do I get a cookie?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
"Proffesor"
November 20, 2007 - 18:37 ET by RESTLESS 1I have presented nothing from Limbaugh or Prager. However, here is a senate comittee giving names of scientists who have changed their minds and now are skeptical of AGW. Links are provided throughout, so feel free to peruse at your leisure.
That is when I called strike
November 20, 2007 - 19:01 ET by Sick-n-TiredThat is when I called strike 3 on him last nite! He likes to try and put words in you mouth and make inferences that were clearly never stated or intended. When you can't argue your arguement/point then you have to grasp and lie---not suprising, that is how all of the AGW disciples handle their debates.
"Proffesor"
November 20, 2007 - 18:54 ET by RESTLESS 1The hoax has been discredited. You and all the other sycophants in the AGW crowd just won't admit it.
the Oregon petition?? more bogus evidence?
November 20, 2007 - 13:39 ET by professor truthYou mean that petition of 'scientists' like "Dr Geri Halliwell"(one of the spice girls. The fact that you actually present such nonsense destroys your argument. How about the NATIONA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES??? or EVERY REPUTABLE INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE GROUP: HERE ARE A FEW :
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
• the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
• the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
• the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
• if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
• a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and 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)
Tell me, which of these groups are bogus, mr scientific illiterate denialist??
Again science is about the
November 20, 2007 - 13:51 ET by danboAgain science is about the right answer, not consensus. And again you throw up your bogus list. As Dr Lindzen and Seltze are members of your national academy, and both are sceptics. Does being members of the academy make them warmers? Or do individual members have their individual opinion?
One of IPCC's experts, Dr Vincent Gray thinks IPCC is so corrupt it's only hope is to be abolished.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Bogus list?
November 20, 2007 - 14:04 ET by professor truthThe National Academy of Sciences is bogus? Of course there are skeptics that have legitimate scientific credentials. My dad was an aerospace engineer who frequently argued technical stuff with other aerospace engineers. They disagreed. Of sourse there are highly qualified skeptic scientists. Richard Lindzen comes to mind. Now why would skeptics hang on to a discredited idea?? These highly reputable scientists have their reputations diminshed when they lose technical arguments. Or they are convinced of THEIR truths based on the available evidence. The point is that a consensus can be reached even with dissenting views in science. Chris Landsea is a highly respected Hurricane expert who quit the IPCC over disagreements which I don't quite know. He's a skeptic about the relationship of hurricanes to global warming. Kerry Emmanuel is another MIT scientist who also studies hurricanes and comes to different conclusions. Look at how experts debate football. I f a 1000 football experts are asked to predict the outcome of the patriots vs cowboys game, the overwhelming majority will pick the pats. But a few contrarians who have honestly looked at both temas might pick the cowboys. Experts disagree, but science moves forward by consensus.
Your arguement is
November 20, 2007 - 14:35 ET by danboYour arguement is bogus.
As you imply everyone at the National Academy is in agreement. Which they are not.
they're like the rest of us. Some agree some don't.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
You can't even describe how
November 20, 2007 - 14:36 ET by NL207You can't even describe how heat is transported in terms a layman can understand and you have the nerve to call me an illiterate? What are you? Some high school science teacher who couldn't actually cut the mustard in a real science degree program which is how he wound up teaching school?
Your debate skills here consist mostly of Naomi Oreskes methods. These are neither scientific nor are they accurate. You claim AGW is so because the political arms of all these scientific bodies endorse the hypothesis that man is having some impact on the climate. Let me put the analogy to you this way: You make the earth shake whenever you bounce a basketball on pavement. This is a statement of demonstrable scientific fact, a direct consequence of Newton's laws of motion. Is this vibration an earthquake? In strictest scientific terms, yes. Is this shaking significant? Will it topple nearby buildings? NO! We can scale up this argument. When the WTC towers fell, each with a mass many orders of magnitude larger than the basketball you were bouncing, did THEY cause an earthquake. In strictest scientific terms, yes. Was it significant? NO! These collapses would not even have felled the neighboring buildings but for the tons of debris they rained down upon those structures.
Let's compare the numbers of global warming. The earth has a mean surface temperature of approximately 288 degrees K. In the last 100 years, these august scientific bodies you reference have concluded that aggregate human activity has increased this value by approximately 0.35 degrees K, being generous to your cause. Some of them think its less. 288 + 0.35 is still about 288 degrees K. If we study the recent paleoclimatic geologic recod, we see that natural climate variations on the order of 20.0 degree K have been observed. We see that human induced variation is negligible compared to what nature herself can produce. By implication, you and those who believe as you are alarmists.
Professor truth.
November 20, 2007 - 14:43 ET by bassndudeNow youve dont it prof. You better dust off that so called degree you say you have, might ought to read a science book to while ur at it. You have raised the ire of NL207, which I might add, you have failed to respond to any of his posts. Well, maybe one, but you will not respond to him. I wonder why? Hmmmmmm.....high school science?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
The rebirth of guiltwobbler
November 19, 2007 - 15:06 ET by UnsaneThere is a scientific consensus(every major scientific organization) that agrees that manmade GW is a very serious threat. You are no science teacher if you use the phrase "scientific consensus". Consensus is the creature of politics and parliaments, NOT science.
Was the Copernican model voted on?
Was the Principia Mathematica not valid until put before a vote?
I am right now eating some crack, what others would call dark chocolate M&Ms. I am now left with 2 red ones and 2 green ones. Both are M&Ms. Both are made of dark chocolate. The only thing that differentiates them is their color. If I put them together, how many M&Ms do I have left?
Can I say 4...or do I have to get a "consensus" that it is 4, first? Because, to some, it could be 5.
No one should care all that much about what scientific organizations say, if only because those organizations consist of individuals (a quaint idea lost on collectivist Socialists).
You should be worried about a much greater threat: that of your own dehydration, from crying endless tears of guilt 24/7 over living in the world's largest and most advanced economy.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Please educate youself with this link:
November 19, 2007 - 15:32 ET by professor truthhttp://news.bbc.co.u...
AGW proved
November 19, 2007 - 16:22 ET by LionKingThe special report by the BBC. Now there is some hard science. I did not see mentioned in this special report any actual scientific findings. It appears to be just more rhetoric to support the THEORY of AGW.
so what if its man made
November 19, 2007 - 14:45 ET by TruthMongerso what if its man made anyway? we didn't invent body heat:)
even if GW is not man made we can still bust our asses to be greener
it's good capitalism
If you deny global warming
November 19, 2007 - 14:47 ET by professor truthyou better have a possible MECHANISM to explain your idea. Go to realclimate.org and every skeptical argument is slapped down. That's why the idea of manmade global warming is SETTLED. No other cause can explain the rapid rate of temperature rise.
Professor of Guilt
November 19, 2007 - 14:58 ET by UnsaneFunny...realclimate.org offers opinions. But someone as consumed with guilt as you are cannot understand that.
It is also amusing how you guilt-ridden Leftists always come in here and cite that website as a source. Could it be that Christians have the Bible, the Muslims have the Koran, the GW religionists have realclimate.org?
That's why the idea of manmade global warming is SETTLED. Tell me when the scientific method was laid to rest again?
No other cause can explain the rapid rate of temperature rise. How about that -26.74 magnitude object in the sky? How about the fact that climate and weather are NEVER constant for countless reasons? But you CAN'T admit that, because it will run counter to your desire to render the United States a Fourth World nation, in order to assuage YOUR guilt.
Care to tell us what YOU are doing to assuage YOUR guilt?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
What alternate mechanism for the unprecedented warming
November 19, 2007 - 15:03 ET by professor truthdo you propose??? Have you any PEER REVIEWED papers to support your claim or did you just pull it out of a deep dark hole??
You have NO evidence that overturns the scientific CONSENSUS. Keep using ad hominem attacks as it exposes your losing arguments.
Prof. Guilt - Ph. D., First World Guilt
November 19, 2007 - 15:14 ET by UnsaneProfessor Guilt - Crying about ad hominem attacks will get you absolutely nowhere.
I propose you study history, and ask yourself why grapes were once grown in England, why the remains of farms have been found on Greenland, why it is said the Vikings began their raids across Europe.
I love hearing you whine about "PEER REVIEW!!!" "Peer review" is your code for "check your critical thinking at the door." It's just your excuse to turn over the critical thinking you are incapable of to others to do it FOR you.
You already are using all the same tactics as guiltwobbler once did. Resorting to such phrases "ad hominem", "peer review", and "go to realclimate.org!!!"make me wonder if you are in fact the resurrection of guiltwobbler.
So, I will ask you again: if my argument is the losing one (never mind you have yet to hear my argument in full) and GW IS caused by man and is REALLY happening: what are YOU doing to sacrifice for the great cause? Or, are you just demanding that I and everyone else around you go Fourth World to assuage YOUR guilt?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Your grapes in England argument is slapped down.
November 19, 2007 - 16:50 ET by professor truthWinegrowing in England is far more successful now and at higher latitudes than ever(go to realclimate for details).
Greenland was not a very habitable place and there are thousands of years of ice that supports my position. Mr Latin phrase, they discovered prehistoric humans that had been previously frozen in ice over two thousand years old. Doesn't that tell you that ice thousands of years old has started to melt? The total mass balance of ice is decreasing. WHY?? Does a cooling or stable planet produce LESS ice? I teach high school chemistry and physics so I am at a somewhat basic level. Nonetheless, is the National Academy of Sciences WRONG??? You have the hubris to think you know more than thousands of climate scientists who are dedicated to finding how climate works?? I can't possibly read all the peer reviewed papers available supporting my position, but I could probably read all the peer reviewed papers supporting YOUR positon over this last year pretty easily(I doubt if there are any serious papers), So, you resort to your last available weapon of debate: the ad hominem attack. No facts, just ad hominem attacks.
Your grapes in England argument is slapped down.
November 19, 2007 - 16:51 ET by professor truthWinegrowing in England is far more successful now and at higher latitudes than ever(go to realclimate for details).
Greenland was not a very habitable place and there are thousands of years of ice that supports my position. Mr Latin phrase, they discovered prehistoric humans that had been previously frozen in ice over two thousand years old. Doesn't that tell you that ice thousands of years old has started to melt? The total mass balance of ice is decreasing. WHY?? Does a cooling or stable planet produce LESS ice? I teach high school chemistry and physics so I am at a somewhat basic level. Nonetheless, is the National Academy of Sciences WRONG??? You have the hubris to think you know more than thousands of climate scientists who are dedicated to finding how climate works?? I can't possibly read all the peer reviewed papers available supporting my position, but I could probably read all the peer reviewed papers supporting YOUR positon over this last year pretty easily(I doubt if there are any serious papers), So, you resort to your last available weapon of debate: the ad hominem attack. No facts, just ad hominem attacks.
No offense, but I would
November 19, 2007 - 17:19 ET by Sick-n-TiredNo offense, but I would want my child learning the scientific method and the method of the multiple working hypothesis from you. And I don't mean that as a personal attack; I am just basing that on your scientific debate here, that is all.
Now, for your reading pleasure here are just a FEW of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles that explain climate controls and or flat out argue against AGW.
VARIOUS ARTICLES SEE:
-Campbell ID, Campbell C, Apps MJ, Rutter NW, Bush ABG (1998) Late Holocene 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications. Geology: Vol. 26, No. 5 pp. 471-473
-Kouwenberg L, Wagner R, Kürschner W, Visscher H (2005) Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. Geology: Vol. 33, No. 1 pp. 33-36
-David G. Vaughan1, Gareth J. Marshall1, William M. Connolley1, Claire Parkinson2, Robert Mulvaney1, Dominic A. Hodgson1, John C. King1, Carol J. Pudsey1 and John Turner, Recent Rapid Regional Climate Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, Climatic Change, Volume 60, Number 3 / October, 2003
-Carol J. Pudsey1 and Jeffrey Evans, First survey of Antarctic sub–ice shelf sediments reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat, Geology; September 2001; v. 29; no. 9; p. 787-790;
-Ian D. Campbell, Celina Campbell, Michael J. Apps, Nathaniel W. Rutter, and Andrew B. G. Bush, Late Holocene approximately 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications, Geology; May 1998; v. 26; no. 5; p. 471-473;
-Mark A. Hemer1, Peter T. Harris2, Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat, Geology; February 2003; v. 31; no. 2; p. 127-130;
-Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Bell CJ (2003) MAMMALIAN RESPONSE TO GLOBAL WARMING ON VARIED TEMPORAL SCALES. Journal of Mammalogy: Vol. 84, No. 2 pp. 354-368
PAST CLIMATE HISTORY SEE:
-Lamb, H. H., 1995, Climate, history, and the modern world, 2d ed.: New York, Routledge, 433 p.
-Moore, P. D., B. Chaloner, and P. Stott, 1996, Global environmental change: Oxford, England, Blackwell Science, 244 p.
-Alley, R. B., and P. U. Clark, 1999, The deglaciation of the Northern Hemisphere: A global perspective: Annual Reviews, Earth and Planetary Science, v. 27, p. 149182.
-Conway, H., B. L. Hall, G. H. Denton, A. M. Gades, and E. D. Waddington, 1999, Past and future grounding-line retreat of the West Antarctic ice sheet: Science, v. 286, p. 280283.
-Bluemle, J. P., J. Sable, and W. Karlen, 2001, Rate and magnitude of past global climate changes, in L. C. Gerhard, W. E. Harrison, and B. M. Hanson, eds., 2001 geological perspectives of global climate change: AAPG Studies in Geology 47, p. 193212.
-Broecker, W. S., 2001, Was the medieval warm period global?: Science, v. 291, p. 14971499.
-Davis, J. C., and G. Bohling, 2001, The search for patterns in ice-core temperature curves, in L. C. Gerhard, W. E. Harrison, and B. M. Hanson, eds., 2001 geological perspectives of global climate change: AAPG Studies in Geology 47, p. 213230.
-Gerhard, L. C., W. E. Harrison, and B. M. Hanson, eds., 2001 geological perspectives of global climate change: AAPG Studies in Geology 47, 373 p.
-Kotov, S., 2001, Near-term climate prediction using ice core data from Greenland, in L. C. Gerhard, W. E. Harrison, and B. M. Hanson, eds., 2001 geological perspectives of global climate change: AAPG Studies in Geology 47, chapter 3, p. 305316.
-Bell, J., 2002, Tip of the Martian iceberg?: Science, v. 297, p. 6061.
-Moberg, A., D. M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N. M. Datsenko, and W. Karlen, 2005, Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data: Nature v. 433, no. 7026, p. 613617.
ON THE EFFECTS OF SOLAR AND ORBITAL VARIABILITY SEE:
-Labitzke, K., and H. van Loon, 1988, Associations between the 11-year solar cycle, the QBO, and the atmosphere: I. The troposphere and stratosphere in the northern hemisphere in winter: Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, v. 50, p. 197206.
-Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, 1991, Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate: Science, v. 254, p. 698700.
-Reid, G. C., 1991, Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 96, p. 28352844.
-Hoyt, D. V., and K. H. Schatten, 1997, The role of the sun in climate change: New York, Oxford University Press, 279 p.
-Bond, G., B. Kromer, J. Beer, R. Muscheler, M. N. Evans, W. Showers, S. Hoffmann, R. Lotti-Bond, I. Hajdas, and G. Bonani, 2001, Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene: Science, v. 294, no. 5549, p. 21302136.
-Khodri, M., Y. Leclalnche, G. Ramstein, P. Braconnot, O. Marti, and E. Cortijo, 2001, Simulating the amplification of orbital forcing by ocean feedbacks in the last glaciation: Nature, v. 410, p. 570574.
-Naish, T. R., et al., 2001, Orbitally induced oscillations in the East Antarctica ice sheet at the Oligocene/Miocene boundary: Nature, v. 413, p. 719723.
-Pekarek, A., 2001, Solar forcing of Earth's climate, in L. C. Gerhard, W. E. Harrison, and B. M. Hanson, eds., 2001 geological perspectives of global climate change: AAPG Studies in Geology 47, p. 1934.
-Carslaw, K. S., R. G. Harrison, and J. Kirkby, 2002, Cosmic rays, clouds, and climate: Science, v. 298, p. 17321737.
-Sharma, M., 2002, Variations in solar magnetic activity during the last 200,000 years: Is there a sun-climate connection?: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 199, p. 459472.
-Zahn, R., 2002, Milankovitch and climate, the orbital code of climate change: Journal Orthodoxe d'Informations Ecclsiales, v. 28, no. 1, p. 1722.
-Hu, F. S., D. Kaufman, S. Yoneji, D. Nelson, A. Shemesh, Y. Huang, J. Tian, G. Bond, B. Clegg, and T. Brown, 2003, Cyclic variation and solar forcing of Holocene climate in the Alaskan Subarctic: Science, v. 301, p. 18901893.
-Tsiropoula, G., 2003, Signatures of solar activity variability in meteorological parameters: Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, v. 65, p. 469482.
-Shaviv, N. J., and J. Veizer, 2003, Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?: GSA Today, v. 13, no. 7, p. 410.
ON CO2 AND TEMPERATURE SEE:
-Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastoianni, and B. Deck, 1999, Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations: Science, v. 283, p. 17121714.
-Petit, J. R., et al., 1999, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica: Nature, v. 399, p. 429436.
CONCERNING THE 'HOCKEY STICK' GRAPH SEE:
-Esper, J., E. R. Cook, and F. H. Schweingruber, 2002, Low-frequency signals in long tree-ring chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability: Science, v. 295, p. 22502253 (see also Mann and Hughes' critique and Cook and Esper's response, Science, v. 296, p. 848849).
-McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2003, Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and Northern Hemispheric average temperature series: Energy and Environment, v. 14, no. 6, p. 751771.
These are just a few that I have compiled over the years in my search to understand climate changes and to (as I have learned) debunk what is an obvious hoax--AGW.
Your peer reviewed papers are dated
November 19, 2007 - 17:44 ET by professor truthmostly before 2003. The only one I recognize(I'm not arguing the integrity of the other papers) Is the 1991 Fris-Christenson paper which has been discredited.(again, realclimate.org explains why).
Nonetheless, the weight of peer reviewed papers has concluded that manmade global warming has overwhelming supporting evidence. Let's look at this like the OJ trial. What was the MOST DIRECT evidence seen by the jury?? DNA?? Noooo! It was the direct test where OJ tried on the bloody glove(claimed to belonging to the murderer) and based on this test, the jury acquitted OJ. Now, I don't do original research so the closest I can get to pure evidence is to examine all the research done. It's sounds great to employ the scientific method for global warming. When I get acouple of million dollars and some satellite access, that's a wonderful idea. I rely on the evidence from NASA scientists like GAVIN SCHMIDT of realclimate.org. He is a practicing scientist and there are other scientists who blog at his site. Why don't you go over there and raise objections to AGW. I'm only a supporter of their evidence, but if you can show me new evidence that contradicts AGW, I'd be more than happy to see it. Why would I want AGW? Do you think I want to limit MY FREEDOMS?? It's easy to see why denialists think like they do. They believe in unlimited freedom and want to be guiltless when their kids ask them why they didn't try to protect the Earth for their kids.
Professor...try this
November 19, 2007 - 17:51 ET by LionKingTry this link. (h/t Free Stinker)
Professor...have you explored all information
November 19, 2007 - 18:40 ET by LionKingProfessor...I provided you with some opposing sites. You cannot solely rely on one site as the only source. Try being open-minded and think outside the box...break away from the model for once and try and be objective.
Relying on one source is not very scientific...in fact, it is downright irresponsbile.
Lion king
November 19, 2007 - 18:49 ET by professor truthI certainly agree with you and I do look at other sites, but these sites are linked to outside posts at realclimate. These guys encourage readers to go look at other sites and give links to them. Of course, it's in the context of the diswcussion at hand, but there is only so much available time. I've listened to many skeptics but every argument they present is refuted. Whether it's CO2 lagging temperature to paleoclimate data, this is an excellent website which I recommend to all. It often links to original research and the discussions are very academic and often difficult to follow.
Lion King: 1 professor:
November 19, 2007 - 18:52 ET by Free StinkerLion King: 1
professor: 0
Now, I don't do original
November 19, 2007 - 17:57 ET by Sick-n-TiredNow, I don't do original research so the closest I can get to pure evidence is to examine all the research done.
Then please, take the time to read e.g. co2science.org; climateaudit and icecap (as starters) and take it in as heavily as you do realclimate. Then, if you conclude we as a species are 100% responsible for AGW then so be it. But if you are indeed a scientist worth his weight in salt then you will probably back off of your conclusion based on the data. Have you ever had your students write a paper, with cited references, concerning the AGW arguement versus natural climate shifts? Split the class up; have them debate it. Then you all could learn.
Gavin Schmidt? You mean the
November 19, 2007 - 17:57 ET by bassndudeGavin Schmidt? You mean the "climate scientist" that did not use any station data in his climate model? That Gavin Schmidt? That goes back to my earlier post about proving the Sun orbits the Earth. The real data dosent fit, so you revise your experiment with more agreeable data to make it work. What a joke.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
You should talk to Gavin about this "oversight"
November 19, 2007 - 18:59 ET by professor truthIf deniers think that climate models can be fixed to produce any results desired using given climate parameters, they should construct a climate model that denies future warming. This would definitely produce instant fame, and oil and chemical industry money would flow to such a climate modeler in the millions. So, why haven't denier scientists produced such a model which refutes the warmning trends??Of course, the model should accurately predict past climate cycles as well as future temperatures.
REAL scientists are waiting(but not holding their breath).
Ok Prof, but tell me, why
November 20, 2007 - 10:38 ET by bassndudeOk Prof, but tell me, why did Gavin ignore and not use any station data in his model and replace it with fabricated data? Is that science or politics?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassndude
November 20, 2007 - 13:44 ET by professor truthyou'll have to ask him. I'm sure that having 50 PEER REVIEWED papers, he can answer. How many peer reviewed papers do you have?
Personally, I helped a chem professor do research by measuring spectral lines, so my name only appears in 1 peer reviewed journal and only as an acknowledgment(not an author or co-author)
"Your peer-reviewed papers
November 21, 2007 - 21:55 ET by MikeB"Your peer-reviewed papers are dated..." Principia Mathematica was published in 1687. It's dated, so the information contained therein is invalid. Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905. It's dated and therefore invalid. The General Theory of Relativity was developed between 1907 and 1915. It's dated and therefore invalid. Congratulations "professor". You have invalidated all of science from before Archimedes through Newton, through Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, Bohr, Schroedenger, et al, because their peer-reviewd papers were published before 2003. Just when do peer-reviewed papers become valid for you? 2004? 2007? You really should read and think about what you type before you post.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
sick and tired, you're about to get sicker
November 20, 2007 - 00:52 ET by professor truthbelow is a list of internationally recognized scientifc bodies which support AGW: Number who support denialist positions=ZERO!
Much of the debate seems to consist of a show of hands and parading of credentials. On the one hand, you have assorted scientists as presented in the National Post Denier series. On the other side, you have the IPCC stating anthropogenic emissions are the predominant cause of global warming. If the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the following scientific organisations also endorse the consensus:
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Environmental Protection Agency
• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• American Meteorological Society
• State of the Canadian Cryosphere
• The Royal Society of the UK
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Academies of Science from 19 countries
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
• 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)
I think you are checkmated!
"I can't possibly read
November 19, 2007 - 19:25 ET by danbo"I can't possibly read all the peer reviewed papers available supporting my position, but I could probably read all the peer reviewed papers supporting YOUR positon over this last year pretty easily"
You just gave yourself away.
Is it a science teacher today?
As I said before. If the so called professionals read everything they wouldn't be saying there is no disagreement. If they read everything they would have seen the disagreement.
Facts. After Greenland was settled. People continued to go there. There are references to this effect in the Greenland and Iceland sagas. The name of Greenland wasn't changed to Eric's folly soon after people went there.
Archaeologist find roots in todays perma frost. Permafrost is a barrier to root growth. High above timberline in the rockies, Sierras, Urals and Andies you can find the stumps of trees. Though trees can't grow there today they did grow there at one point. Interesting. C-14 dating points to the medeival wwarm period. In the Andies as the glaciers retreat, they find the remains of peat bogs. Again C_14 dated to the MWP.
The good people at real climate claim there was no medeival warm period. Claiming it was local.
Which is interesting as in N. America tempertures were the same as or warmer in the 30's than they are today. There's insufficient data to prove that today is warmer than the 30's (the last warm period) in South America, the antarctic, Africa or China. (Read Climate Audit) That leaves portions of Siberia and Russia. (A smaller area than what the Real Climate folks used to reject the MWP
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I never said I was a climate scientist
November 19, 2007 - 19:45 ET by professor truthI'll assume your information is all true. What does this have to do with the manmade global warming hypothesis? Nothing. If you have established that there was a medevil warming period, that does not refute AGW. Once again, until an ALTERNATE mechanism is proposed AGW must be considered the most reasonable explanation of present warming. I've taught chemistry, biology and physics and earth science in high school since 1982. Your unrelated comments
have no bearing on the debate. The CO2 levels have risen to levels which have not been seen for thousands of years. There is a direct relationship between CO2 and heat absorbed by the atmosphere.
Let me get this
November 19, 2007 - 20:34 ET by danboLet me get this straight... There's all kind of observations that indicate a warmer climate than we have at the present. But this is irrelevant? Or as you state... "until an ALTERNATE mechanism is proposed AGW must be considered the most reasonable explanation of present warming".
Science to teacher. Untill you can prove there is unusual warming... All you have is a theory. And a theory for something that likely does not exist.
Honest observations rule. Not theory.
BTW there are alternatives. Plenty.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
You seem to equate the medevil warming to present day warming.
November 19, 2007 - 21:03 ET by professor truthEach has an explanation. If you look at the latest IPCC report, human forcing accounts for the majority of the warming. The rate of warming is unusual, and the level of CO2 is unprecedented for thousands of years. So where is YOUR denial evidence? Oh, it was warm in the past, therefore the CAUSE must be the same. Each warming must have an attributable cause, and all present explanations have been ruled out except human activity. It is a FACT that increased CO2 causes increased heat absorption, so where is the great controversy? Why don't you bring your "new" amazing evidence in front of the National Academy of Sciences? You, a single voice with zero climate research experience will certainly wow and humble all those professional scientists.
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
November 19, 2007 - 21:07 ET by Free StinkerHere's some nice evening reading for you "professor"
Global Warming, Rest in Peace: Daily Telegraph - There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
anothr dishonest/misleading post
November 20, 2007 - 10:37 ET by professor truthclaiming GW 'stopped' in 1998?? or there was an anomoly in 1998 that deceptive denialists use to claim the warming stopped. Since the 70's, average global temperatures have been climbing. Using a single year to try toshow otherwise is misleading, dishonest and NOT SCIENTIFIC!
Not quite an accurate
November 20, 2007 - 11:19 ET by danboNot quite an accurate assessment. It's been warming since the little ice age. In the early part of the 20th century it warmed up nicely. The 30's still have the warmest years for the US. And I believe the warmest reading anywhere was in the 20's in Lybia.
Then after WWII, when we really started tossing out lots of CO2, did we have warming? No. We had cooling.
It did shift back in the 70's about the same time as a shift in the Pacific.
But unless you use Hanson's 2005 as the warmest year. Which few others use. There has been either no warming or cooling since 98. All that CO2 and how much warming?
Dishonest? Is that like using a graph of tempertures divined from proxy data to 1970 then spicing it up with surface station data since the 70's or using 10 year averages then shifting to yearly data in the same chart?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
1998 AGW anomaly???
November 20, 2007 - 19:07 ET by LionKingThe AGW model did not predict an anomlay in 1998?
Let me see if I understand. This so-called model is based on 100 years of suspect data and using this model, AGW alarmists are extrapolating into the future? Is that sample size comprehensive enough to predict climate which may actually be in a cycle longer than a 100 years.
Talk about BAD science.
The sky is falling...the
November 19, 2007 - 21:08 ET by Clear thinkerThe sky is falling...the sky is falling...the sky is falling!
I don't know what the fuss is all about. It's more likely that Manhattan will be under water due to a nuke strike than by AGW.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
It's more likely that Manhattan will be under water due to nukes
November 19, 2007 - 21:20 ET by Free StinkerShhhh. We're supposed to just wait to die. :-(
Don't complain. Shhhh.
Free... Don't get me
November 19, 2007 - 21:22 ET by Clear thinkerFree...
Don't get me started friend.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
;-)
November 19, 2007 - 21:25 ET by Free Stinker;-)
Free and Clear, ( pun
November 20, 2007 - 01:13 ET by RESTLESS 1Free and Clear, ( pun intended), I think I've seen this line of reasoning before.
Those darn old observable
November 19, 2007 - 21:29 ET by danboThose darn old observable facts keep getting in the way.
Another beautiful theory, shot to hell by ugly data.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
What observable facts??
November 20, 2007 - 10:42 ET by professor truthI guess all these scientific organizations have been hoodwinked while you have the truth?? Go to realclimate and see how well your 'observable facts' last before they get smacked down by observing and THINKING and practicing scientists.
Go to wikipedia and type in your denialist 'facts'. It will be interesting to see how credible they are.
http://en.wikipedia....
Wine growing in England
November 20, 2007 - 01:46 ET by NL207Wine growing in England today is conducted with grapes of an entirely different variety than were ever available to the Norman or Saxon Vinters of 1075 AD. They are now using some very tricky hybrids and grafts that mate the properties of the vinifera winegrape with labrusca root systems.
Flatly, these hybrids and grafts are the product of much modern science and simply did not exist 1000 years ago. The Normans were using traditonal vinifera winegrapes because they were the only varieties that grew in Europe at that time. [reference the Columbian discovery of America, 1492] Viniferas are notoriusly sensitive to cold weather.
Your heroes completely ignore evidence that American labrusca grapes have been imported into England and are at the root of all modern English winemaking, so to speak. My first reference above mentions grape diseases imported from America into England as early as 1864, a clear indication labruscas are being used to circumvent the poor climate.
here's another smackdown to the wine growing argument
November 20, 2007 - 14:16 ET by professor truthhere is your answer to this denialist argument. I feel like Barry Bonds being served up fastballs from little league pitchers.
http://www.realclima...
winegrowing proves what?
November 20, 2007 - 14:23 ET by LionKingThis proves what?
Does it supposedly prove that there is climate change? How does that prove AGW? How does it prove global warming?
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the English winegrowers seem to be happier?
>FLUSH!< Now I suppose
November 20, 2007 - 18:03 ET by NL207>FLUSH!<
Now I suppose that you are going to tout realclimate.org as viticultural experts, yes? My links were to organizations which ARE viticulturists, [people in the wine business. realclimate has no credentials in this field..
Realclimate is discredited as a source on this point because in their link you will see:
Point mine once again.
nl207
November 20, 2007 - 15:22 ET by professor truthyou stated I could not explain how heat is transferred. My answer was it's transferred by convection(fluid movement), conduction(direct contact) and radiation(wave transport). You are full of it. Explain alternate heat transfer methods and pick up youur nobel prize. Everyone of yourclaims is smacked down, but let me test YOUR credentials. If 1 mole of lead(II) nitrate reacts completely with excess sodium phosphate, how many grams of solid product are produced? Since you are telling me how little I know about science, let's find out what a genius you are? I' ll give you ten minutes to answer. GOOD LUCK!!!
Well now Prof. Sure took
November 20, 2007 - 15:30 ET by bassndudeWell now Prof. Sure took you long enough to look up those answers. I see you read a little more than you had to. Just so you could throw that little alternate heat transfer in there, then one of your pat chemistry questions that you found on some trivia site somewhere. And this makes you an expert? In what? Everyone know little tid bits about their areas of expertise that others cannot answer. This is because we work in diffrent diciplines. Mine is structural metals, alloys, piping and welding technologys. I guess I could throw you a few to about weld sizes and stress and strains, ya think?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassndude
November 20, 2007 - 18:27 ET by professor truthYou are wrong on all counts. Of course in your discipline you know far more than me. Just like in my field, I know far more than you. Just like Gavin Schmidt, author of 50 peer reviewed papers , knows far more than anyone here regarding climate modelling. How could you possibly have the hubris or stupidity or both to actually think you know more about climate modelling than either Gavin Schmidt or James Hansen. Next, you'll claim you know how to play golf better than Tiger Woods. Stop living in a world of delusion. By the way, I NEVER said I was a climate expert. But, perhaps, relative to your knowledge, I guess I could be considered a climate expert!
So only qualified
November 20, 2007 - 18:48 ET by danboSo only qualified climatologist can speak? You will tell Al Gore to shut up. Won't you? And laurie David? Cheryl Crowe? Then you'll shut up?
I didn't think so.
I think Lindzen may have a few more peer reviewed papers than 50. Now another debate between Lindzen and Schmidt.... I'd pay to see that. I'd love to watch quiet Richard snip off Schmidt's ----- again. And I'll pay extra for hansen. But then I don't think Gavin or hansen have the courage to get in the intellectual ring with Lindzen or McIntyre again. And I don't think McIntyre's a true sceptic.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
unsane, if you don't believe in AGW consensus
November 20, 2007 - 00:56 ET by professor truthyou better explain why to the following internationally recognized scientific bodies:number that support the denialist claims=ZERO!
Much of the debate seems to consist of a show of hands and parading of credentials. On the one hand, you have assorted scientists as presented in the National Post Denier series. On the other side, you have the IPCC stating anthropogenic emissions are the predominant cause of global warming. If the IPCC is not your cup of tea, the following scientific organisations also endorse the consensus:
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Environmental Protection Agency
• NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• American Meteorological Society
• State of the Canadian Cryosphere
• The Royal Society of the UK
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Academies of Science from 19 countries
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
• 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've been checkmated, mate!
I am so in awe!!!! I'm
November 20, 2007 - 01:19 ET by danboI am so in awe!!!! I'm definately checkmated this time. the IPCC? Wow. The experts. The child of the UN the same people who gave us food for oil... To name but one sham.
You won on that one didn't you?
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
The Borg
November 21, 2007 - 06:03 ET by UnsaneI don't believe in "AGW consensus" because consensus does not exist in science. Hate to sound like a broken record, but that is because you are a very stubborn Socialist. Consensus is the creature of parliaments and politics, NOT science.
Finally, many of those organizations that you cite have individual (gasp!) members who disagree with you. They are organizations comprised of human beings, not the Borg Collective.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
What is this "consensus"
November 19, 2007 - 20:18 ET by MikeBWhat is this "consensus" you keep speaking of? Do you think that there are no "real" scientists who do not buy into global warming?
On 6 April, 2006, 60 scientists wrote an open letter to Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada calling for "balanced, comprehensive public-consutaion sessions be held so as to examine the scintific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plan." Among those scientists who signed the letter were:
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and pleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, dept. of Earth Scinces (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consutant
And 53 other signers.
You can read the entire letter here.
If you wish to read PEER REVIEWED papers, then I am sure you can find such papers by these scientists. What are you going to do if these PEER REVIEWED papers disagree with the anthropogenic source for climate change? Contrary to you earlier assertion, the science is not settled, there is no "consensus", and the debate, even among climate scientists is not over.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Your consensus is a group of skeptics
November 20, 2007 - 00:23 ET by professor truththe consensus supporting AGW includes the following scientific organizations:
I suspect that my consensus body has a few more highly reputed science than yours.
Did you read what you just
November 21, 2007 - 16:30 ET by MikeBDid you read what you just wrote? "Your consensus is a group of skeptics." Thank you for proving what I and many others have been telling you right along: that consensus does not exist in science and is not part of the scientific method. That group was a group of mostly Canadian scientists, including climate scientists with PEER REVIEWED papers they've published that do not buy into anthropegenic global warming. Therefore, consensus does not exist within the scientific community. Perhaps I should say that your consensus is a group of true believers. That statement would be just as accurate and just as meaningless. That group of 60 is not the only group that does not support the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Just because group A supports a theory and group B does not, does not prove or disprove a hypothesis. Consensus does not enter into the picture. Experimentation with reproducible results is what determines science, and the hypothesis of AGW fails that part of the scientific method.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
the sun is the cause of the warming
November 19, 2007 - 15:07 ET by professor truthhas been refuted again by REAL SCIENTISTS! You can either be rational or have faith but one contradicts the other. Go to realclimate.org and state your 'new' evidence for denying manmade global warming. Also, why don't you deny evolution as well?
The Dogmatist, Prof. Guilt
November 19, 2007 - 15:20 ET by UnsaneAnd you are a REAL DOGMATIST. I didn't make any such claims, I merely posed the question. But, Professor Guilt, as you are a dogmatist, and not a scientist, you THROW A FIT at being questioned, as scientists routinely do (or are supposed to).
Besides, just shrieking "go to realclimate.org!!!" gets you nowhere. The site has posted opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. Try "source evaluation" sometime.
Now, if you wish to know my take on global warming in a rational manner, I will be happy to discuss it. However, if you insist on clinging to your dogma as Linus van Pelt clings to his security blanket, I cannot help you.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
A denier accusing someone of being dogmatic
November 19, 2007 - 15:25 ET by professor truthis truly ironic. The posts at realclimate have references to original papers so Don't use a dishonest argument like they are only opinions. Again, get educated and go to realclimate.org, locate your skeptic argument, and read how every skeptic argument is slapped down. I'm just trying to bring truth to you.
Lie
November 21, 2007 - 06:06 ET by UnsaneI'm just trying to bring truth to you. When anyone tells me that, I buckle my seat belt and prepare to get lied to. Repeatedly.
I deny nothing; I question everything. You know, like a scientist is supposed to?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
For a Professor, your not
November 19, 2007 - 15:29 ET by bassndudeFor a Professor, your not real big on facts and accredited climate sites are you? That or perhaps its that you just dont know real science from fictional facts, which is what you find at realclimate. Realclimate picks and choses what it puts out, and they spin any real data that they have. They still espouse the hocky stick graph, even after the admission of its creator that he juggled the graph. Left out the mideval warming period I do think. Even NASA said it was crap. And the guy worked for NASA. Whats that tell ya?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
the SUN and warming
November 19, 2007 - 16:17 ET by LionKingHow ridiculous to assume that the big ball of fire in the sky might have anything to do with our climate?...what moonbattery is that?
professor...source of global warmth
November 19, 2007 - 21:19 ET by LionKingProfessor...what is the source of all of the warmth we experience on Earth?
Does CO2 cause warming or is it present because of warming?
Professor...still waiting
November 19, 2007 - 22:24 ET by LionKing<crickets chirping...>
the answer is that one causes the other
November 19, 2007 - 22:24 ET by professor truthIn the past, temperature seems to LEAD CO2, but the CO@ acts as a positive feedback, causing the temperature to increase more. The cause of the original temperature increase may have nothing to do with CO2, but once the CO2 increases , the temperature increases also.
so then we get run-away
November 19, 2007 - 22:29 ET byso then we get run-away warming since the warming and CO2 feed each other?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
botg & professor
November 19, 2007 - 22:32 ET by LionKingSounds like a cyclical thing and not man. The CO2 makes it hotter and the heat creates more CO2. If that is true, we should be melting any minute now, right?
Professor, is this the conclusion of your logic?
November 19, 2007 - 23:42 ET byso then we get run-away warming since the warming and CO2 feed each other?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Botg, do not question the
November 21, 2007 - 16:29 ET by MikeBBotg, do not question the conclusions of the "professor". Look around you. The manifestations of runaway global warming are obvious and manifest. We evil capitalists have caused the surface of the earth to become just like that of venus. Haven't you noticed all the pools of molten lead all over the place? Haven't you noticed the mean temperature on this planet of 464 C? Geeze, botg, what kind of denier are you? </sarc>
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
as one possibility
November 20, 2007 - 10:55 ET by professor truthif there were no other influences, runaway warming could be predicted. It's possible that equilibrium is reached by other factors(perhaps massive vulcanism triggers worldwide cooling). I teach high school chemistry and cannot answer this. Changes in Earth's orbit might also trigger a cooling trend. How does this relate to AGW??
If it is a self feeding
November 21, 2007 - 20:01 ET byIf it is a self feeding mechanism and we know the 1500 year cycle then in only the last 15 million years there have been 10,000 warming periods. With this input there are three conclusions A)at least once it should have run away and left us similar to Venus hot and nasty. B)God has produced miracle upon miracle to always balance it out just right. or C)the premise is null.
But i do enjoy your "volcano of the gaps" theory }:-
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
professor
November 19, 2007 - 22:29 ET by LionKingYou skipped the first question.
Which came first...the chicken or the egg?
here are some references to studies
November 19, 2007 - 22:48 ET by professor truththat support the AGW theory: now show me some denial studies that AGW is NOT occurring or concede the debate:
http://www.heatisonl...
Debate not over
November 19, 2007 - 23:00 ET by LionKingHansen lies.
Read it all and weep at your blown theory.
Be diligent and read all of this and become educated and enlightened.
professor...got answers?
November 20, 2007 - 14:10 ET by LionKingStill waiting for you to address this post.
lion king
November 20, 2007 - 14:23 ET by professor truthok, you have some contrarian evidence. Now the important thing is, how does your evidence affect the general overwhelming scientific consensus of AGW? Maybe you should take this evidence over to realclimate.org for a more intensive scrutiny. If it stands up there, you will have even more credibilty and can disprove AGW once and for all. Be careful, many a scientist has been hurt reputationwise by claiming contrarian positions that ultimately proved to be bogus after more careful scrutiny. As a high school chem teacher with zero formal climate science training, you've passed my peer review. Don't think that just because your 'fastball' struck out little leagers that it will get by a Barry Bonds bat. Think of realclimate as the Barry Bonds of climate science.
And ANOTHER AGW alarmist
November 20, 2007 - 14:29 ET by MightyMouthAnd ANOTHER AGW alarmist bites the dust! Good going NB!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
professor...good analogy
November 21, 2007 - 20:04 ET by LionKingI am glad you refer to RealClimate as Barry Bonds.
He is a cheat and a liar and has been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice.
Thanks for once again dismissing without actually checking the source. Your source was Science as was mine.
Have you bothered to check out any of the other links that Free Stinker has provided? [I gave you the link to ALL of them. A real scientist would be interested in knowing the truth which includes studying the opposition.]
So, either climate models
November 23, 2007 - 00:36 ET by RESTLESS 1So, either climate models are deeply flawed, or all the cleaning of our atmosphere over the past 2-3 decades caused GW? If it is the latter, funny that the humans responsible for GW are the AGW leading cheerleaders.
I'm pretty sure the fact is the models are flawed, but just in case, keep firing up the SUV's and BBQ's, keep those lights on and make sure you fill up around noon on hot summer days. I'd hate like hell for this clean atmosphere to kill us all.
That humans are in some way
November 20, 2007 - 00:42 ET by NL207That humans are in some way and to some degree contributing to the atmosphere of earth is not a premise put forward by the AGW skeptics.
By definition, the system envelope drawn around the earth by all climate models, theorists and modelers includes humans and all other terrestrial life forms in its system definition. Therefore, according to system theory, humans are making a contribution to the net aggregate behavior of the system. The issue is what magnitude is this contribution. This is the whole point of "AGW". A=Anthropogenic, as in created by humans.
AGW alarmists on a daily basis promote the following hypothesis: "Humans are causing variations in the climate of the earth which are dominanting natural variations, are significant, and are harmful. This is where your team is falling flat on its face.
(1) It is clear from existing scientific results that variations in solar output are directly responsible for at least one half of all global warming seen in the last century. popular press, Max Planck Instituite, 10-30% last 20 years, 50% last century. Therefore, whatever the human contributions are, they must fit into the remaining one half of warming along with all other contributing factors excluding the sun, making them by definition, not dominant. Point one of the Alarmist thesis rejected.
(2) It is clear from the paleoclimate record that climate variations occurring today are not outside the envelope of prior climate variations in either amplitude or rate. i.e., today's values are not in any way "unprecedented" in the context of the recent geologic history of this planet. Even a donkey can read this chart. It blatantly says the present thermal optimum we live in has not even approached the previous one in either duration or warmth. It also suggests the present one is similar to one that lasted about 30,000 years 400,000 years ago. Therefore, whatever the human contributions are, they are not significant enough to drive the system outside of its normal range. Point two of the alarmist thesis rejected.
(3) It is also clear from the paleontology and biology of the earth that warming is neither harmful to the aggregate diversity nor quantity of living organisms on this planet. "Tropical Rainforests ... most complex of all terrestrial ecosystems" "There is a well-documented global pattern that correlates decreasing plant and animal diversity with increasing latitude" Therefore, climatic variation which remains within the natural envelope of variablity on this planet is not harmful to the aggregate biosphere. Point three is rejected.
Three strikes and your team is out. Go peddle your alarmist nonsense somewhere else.
the sun is not causing the present warming
November 20, 2007 - 14:42 ET by professor truthMike Lockwood's peer reviewed paper shows that solar output has not changed significantly over tht past 40 to 50 years. The rapid heating observed over the past 40 years is from greenhouse gases. Carbon isotope ratios are different in plants compared to the atmosphere due to differential uptakes of lighter isotopes for plants. So increased CO2 from fossil fuels and burning plants changes the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere(from realclimate)
2nd point: YOUR graphs are references to Antarctica(donkeys can read, can you?) which is a regional and not global climate history.
3rd point, The rate of warming is unprecedented. It remains to be seen how well species adapt.
4th point. Stop with your hubris. if you are such a genius, go to realclimate and test your ideas against the major leagers. I'm pop warner when it comes to climate science.
the sun is not causing the
November 20, 2007 - 14:50 ET by MightyMouththe sun is not causing the present warming
That has to be the dumbest statement I have seen on this thread!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Not just dumb, MM, but down
November 20, 2007 - 15:06 ET by bassndudeNot just dumb, MM, but down right stupid. How in the universe warmers can discount the sun is beyond me.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Bass. Look up at the sky.
November 20, 2007 - 17:00 ET by danboBass. Look up at the sky. How big is the sun. Maybe a fraction of an inch. Now look at the tailpipe of your car. Look at how big that tailpipe is...
Hey. Makes as much sense.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Lockwood's study???
November 20, 2007 - 14:51 ET by LionKingIsn't his study just another analysis of Gavin's data?
Gavins false data. And yes,
November 20, 2007 - 14:55 ET by bassndudeGavins false data. And yes, it is.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
fake science
November 20, 2007 - 14:58 ET by LionKingWhy do LIBERAL scientist falsify results?
They did it with evolution and now they are trying it with AGW.
Geez Professor Truth?
November 19, 2007 - 16:24 ET by LionKingI ask a well-versed scientist like yourself a few direct questions and the best you can do is refer me to your website. If you want to be taken serious at all and not be considered a troll, then answer the questions yourself.
realcliamte.org? Isn't
November 20, 2007 - 00:43 ET by NL207realclimate.org? Isn't that just a front organization to promote and defend the theories and careers of Michael Mann, Gavin Schmnidt and others of that ilk?
Is not Gavin Schmidt one of the founders and principle contributors there?
And did not Gavin Schmidt get taken to the woodshed by Richard Lindzen in this debate?
Slapped down you say? Maybe you had better reassess the invincibility of realclimate.org They do not debate on hostile grounds. They cannot win on neutral grounds. Let them come here if they want to convince this community.... and if they dare.
Source evaluation
November 21, 2007 - 06:09 ET by UnsaneGood job on source evaluation!
Seems that source evaluation is a very lost art on too many people here...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
it's correct that more people thought
November 21, 2007 - 09:58 ET by professor truththat the anti AGW side won the debate??? Of course debating in public has much to do with style and personality as it does with substance. There have been creationism-evolution debtes won by creationists. So what?? The only REAL debate is within the scientific communityt, where both creationism andanti-AGw get trounced,
Snarky now, I find you are a
November 19, 2007 - 15:11 ET by Dan The Man 2Snarky now, I find you are a science teacher. I bring out the old axiom relevant to your ideas.
He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.
--G.B. Shaw, "Maxims for Revolutionists" in
_Man and Superman_ (1903)
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
another ad hominem attack???
November 19, 2007 - 15:26 ET by professor truthAnything of VALUE to say???
Irony
November 22, 2007 - 02:56 ET by UnsaneThat question from one who constantly vomits propaganda on the screen, and when called on it, whines about ad homs.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
yeah
November 19, 2007 - 14:21 ET by SeptemberThat so many people lend any credence at all to the views of these folks in the MSM is scary.
I think it's that whole "attractive is superior" aura. Better looking means smart, successful and above all they (the pretty people) know "the secret" to living life well and being popular and happy. Personally, I watch these folks, faces packed with face make-up--clean and gussied-up, women's lips shining like varnished floors, eyes globbed with paints, skirts hitched as high as possible without looking like ladies of the night, and I think how many truly bright, more talenated people are being passed over for what catches the eye on camera.
the pro corporate media
November 19, 2007 - 14:27 ET by professor truthtries to downplay the looming disasters that manmade global warming will bring to billions of people. Deniers need to get their heads out of the sand and start reading. All the wishful thinking of deniers will not stop the coming catastrophes like massive and increasing fires and droughts. This is just the beginning of a bleak future.
So answer me this
November 19, 2007 - 14:32 ET by well99Are you making as much money off the GW scare as AL.I think Albersons has a sale on tin foil so have fun.
Thank you Chicken Little, would you like a cookie?
November 19, 2007 - 14:40 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
On "deniers"
November 19, 2007 - 15:21 ET by Unsane"Deniers" - Yep, we have a Stalinist on our hands, folks.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
a Stalinist??
November 19, 2007 - 18:38 ET by professor truthYou're joking, right??
Unsane, I think you are
November 19, 2007 - 19:46 ET by MikeBUnsane, I think you are wrong about the "professor" being a Stalinist. It is quite obvious from his posts that he is much more like Lysenko than he is like Stalin.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
No surprise with ABC
November 19, 2007 - 14:28 ET by well99They have to push their GW agenda.Al Gore sure is making green from pushing green and the msm are giving him free publicity. http://www.newsweek....
The national academy of sciences
November 19, 2007 - 14:35 ET by professor truthagrees that manmade global warming is a serious problem. This is a scientific issue that deniers are trying to make into a political issue.
To continue the denial of global warming is to deny EVERY major scientific organization. Deniers keep bringing Al Gore as a strawman but they NEVER attack the National Academy of Sciences which agrees with Gore generally.
Deniers
November 19, 2007 - 14:43 ET by well99When you use that it shows how open minded you are to debate.Why would I tried to have rational discussion with you?Go backed to trying to make a profit off of GW fear.Maybe you can try indoctrinating some more kids.That is your kinds style.
There is no debate
November 19, 2007 - 14:51 ET by professor truthexcept in mind of someone who disagrees with EVERY MAJOR scientific organiztion. You argue from an irrational state, no alternative mechanism that can explain why the rate of warming has increased so rapidly. Other periods in gelologic history do not show this unprecedented RATE of heating of the Earth. Go to realclimate.org where you can argue with REAL, CLIMATE scientists who do research.
Wrong answer
November 19, 2007 - 15:01 ET by well99This is the US you need to save your "No debates" for some Totalitarian system.Oh by the way your opinion and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee.I not sure how much tin foil you can get with it.I sure that you do.
debate this:
November 19, 2007 - 15:28 ET by professor truthhttp://www.realclima...
Professor, you really need
November 19, 2007 - 15:41 ET by bassndudeProfessor, you really need to do better than linking to an article about an article on the BBC. Real scientific credentials there aint they? LOL.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
so if you get a peer reviewed paper, you will believe
November 19, 2007 - 15:49 ET by professor truthmanmade global warming is a fact??? Go to realclimate.org, where they have many references to peer reviewed papers. But, no matter HOW MUCH info you get, you will remain a denier, because you started from a basic assumption of denial, and NOThING will change your position.
professor truth, a word of
November 19, 2007 - 16:21 ET by Karmaprofessor truth, a word of caution here. The word "denier" carries other conotations for many. I would cordially advise you to replace that word with another. Experience tells me you won't last here otherwise.
He's not going to last here
November 20, 2007 - 01:55 ET by NL207He's not going to last here anyway. He hasn't even tied up with the heavy artillery yet. Seen ACA here yet? Or HDM? Or Stinker? Danbo's only an MS level Anthropologist. We have some serious systems modelers and scientists that post here. Wait until these guys bite on this.
So there's no
November 20, 2007 - 07:25 ET by danboSo there's no missrepresentation. My master's isn't in anthrop. My undergraduates is. Concentrated in archaeology and ethnology. Took a fair bit of geology for the archaeology.
My masters is in an applied field. Unrelated to AGW. Actually irrelevant, except in grad school, there I learned research. And what science is all about. It's not about consensus.
Haven't seen Aca in a long time. Is he still about? But there are a lot of people where who understand science and the data.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
totalitarian system, Do you mean the Bush administration
November 19, 2007 - 19:48 ET by professor truthwho censored climate scientists for stating their beliefs?
professor????
November 19, 2007 - 19:51 ET by LionKingDo you have proof of this or is this an assertion?
"Do you mean the Bush
November 19, 2007 - 19:53 ET by MikeB"Do you mean the Bush administration who censored climate scientists for stating their beliefs?" You are kidding, right? Something tells me not only are you not a professor, you don't play one on TV, nor did you spend the night at a Holiday Inn Express.
How censored was Hansen? Name one climate scientist who has been censored. You can't do it, because it hasn't happened.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Here's the actual censorship or threats for those breaking it
November 19, 2007 - 19:59 ET by Free Stinker