http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?S=7337235&nav=menu99_2_7
Wait, I thought everyone believed in Global Warming? ... or is that just what they want us to think??
Interesting. I guess he doesn't hold any sway over the editorial content on the WC anymore. I usually watch Marshall Sease, Nicole Mitchel, and Heather Tesch in the mornings. I've heard global warming mentioned on there as if it's certain.
I have to say my thinking lies along the lines of his. I do agree that conservation is good. I think finding and exploiting alt fuels is a good idea as well as long as those fuels are practical and don't create ancilary toxic hazards. However, the high cost of global warming hyteria will end up unintentionally pinching a lot of small businesses and consumers and has created yet another drain on government resources.
But don't you all listen to Al Gore? A global carbon tax will save us!!! It will unite the world in the fight against global warming! Forget sovereignty, think global tax. Think about a what Bush one said on 9/11/91, "a New World Order is coming into view". I can't wait to be a global slave to the fake global warming scam!
His own "baby" thinks he's a Kook.
The Weather Channel is unlikely to hire its founder today. Heidi Cullen, the channel's climate change expert, wrote last year that the American Meteorological Society should not give its "seal of approval" to any meteorologist who "can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change."
Although Coleman still refers to The Weather Channel as his "baby," he recognizes that he's no longer welcome there: "The bad guys took it away from me, but they can't steal the fact that it was my idea and I started it and ran it for the first year."
What would you expect their "climate change expert" to say? Agreeing with him would pretty much 86 her job at TWC wouldn't it?
I believe TWC has been pretty clear on their position in term of the affects of global warming. They are scientists. Coleman, who came up with the idea for TWC, has not been involved in the network for years and years. She has a job, he doesn't.
Not everyone gets fired for disagreeing with their boss unless he happens to be King George the Idiot.
Well, in the event someone starts to scream about Media Bias in weather reporting....
http://borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=4739&srch=fox%20weather
I love how every scientist who comes out against global warming hype gets called a "kook" by people like you, as if you'd even know a test-tube from a popsicle. The respected NASA scientist, the founder of The Weather Channel, countless dozens of other prominent scientists around the world.
Although this is a consistent type of reaction from people who are exhibiting what is known as "group think" behavior or mob mentality.
Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...
Oregon fired their head meteorologist a few months back for suggesting the State should take a more skeptical approach before passing extreme measures.
Though shalt not doubt Global Warming.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Oregon fired their head meteorologist a few months back for suggesting the State should take a more skeptical approach before passing extreme measures.
Though shalt not doubt Global Warming.
This is a great example of why I feel that this issue is 99% emotional and 1% pragmatic reasoning, all being driven by politics. Real scientists don't blackball other scientists for exhibiting the quintessential character trait of their profession...SKEPTICISM.
They do it all the time.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
They do it all the time.
No competent scientist does it. Remember what happened when the Church decided they had the corner on the "real science" in the middle ages and started persecuting the curious?
Nothing like stiffling skepticism and intellectual curiosity to further scientific pursuits.
Have fun with your witch hunt.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
Well, in the event someone starts to scream about Media Bias in weather reporting....
http://borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=4739&srch=fox%20weather
That was hilarious lol.
One thing that we do know is that we are putting greenhouse gases like Carbon Dioxide into the air. We know what CO2 does. We know that we are putting hundreds of millions of tons of it into the air each and every day. We know how much air there is. And we know how many parts per million of CO2 and other gases, have been and are in the air. etc.
If the earth is already warming naturally, or even if it is not. We are putting "warming" gases into the air. That means we are having a warming effect. How much and to what extent is where there is room for debate.
I personally do not believe the doomsday scenarios. Many other scientists do not either. They know it will get warmer and we are going to have problems, but even if you listen to what Al Gore says, he never says for instance that the greenland ice sheet WILL completely melt, he carefully steers it to saying. "IF it were to completely melt it would result in this,,," Watch and listen carefully sometime. YES it will melt a lot, but not completely. Thats the rub. The north pole will also melt and may melt completely, but that wont be as bad as if greenland ice sheet and antarctica were to completely melt. I think they sometimes throw out the "doom" scenario to get peoples attention.
Things are getting warmer, IF, IF, it were to ALL melt then this.... would happen. Will get people to do more than "Things are getting warmer and we may lose such and such amount of land, etc. I think they want to show the doomsday scenario to get people motivated into action. Because even the more "realistic" scenarios for what will happen are going to hurt a looot of people and cause a lot of problems.
One wrench in all of this is the amount of low level ozone pollutants and things like, "airplane trails" high up in the atmosphere.
Several scientists in different parts of the world using different methods were discovering something that seemed quite odd at first.
Less sunlight is reaching the earth, about 20% less over the last 50 years. Thats a lot. That should have a cooling effect. It didnt make sense if the earth is warming. If there is less light things should be cooling.
They discovered that it was the result of things like low level ozone, "haze" and even something that you would not expect like airplane contrails. So on the one hand places like China that are putting out all kinds of pollutants, they are actually putting out some that cool the earth. But those are bad for your health, so depending on how efficient and clean they get will depend on how those pollutants balance out the ones that heat the earth. Unfortunately the cooling pollutants leave the atmosphere quicker than the warming ones which can stay for decades after they are released.
The other thing was that they suspected airplane contrails were dimming the amount of light and cooling the earth. Amazing to think they can have that effect but if you look at sattelite images you can see the effect they have on cloud formation. Amazingly they had a rare opportunity to do a test of that hypothesis on a large scale during 9-11 when all air traffic over a large chunk of the earths surface was stopped. To their suprise they found that during those few days the over all ambient temprature rose a remarkable 2%.
So what this suggests is that the warming we have been seeing is being offset by certain pollutants, but as we decrease those pollutants the "greenhouse gasses" will have an even larger effect than we have seen so far. The scales can be tipped even more rapidly than we might suppose.
However, even during some of the warmest periods, places like the Greenland ice sheet did not "totally" melt. Will things warm up? Yes. Will there be a lot of problems, especially in the developing world? Yes. Could that spill over and cause manmade disasters, starvation, and wars? Yes, but thats our choice regardless because it depends on how we react to those situations whether or not they will be caused by our causing global warming or not. Doomsday flood scenario? Not likely.
Global warming ... bah. I was a so-called environmentalist long before Al Gore became Mr. Climate Change.
I'm doing what I'm doing (solar panels, CFLs, hybrids, reel lawnmowers) because I don't want to pollute as much.
Face it ... Tulsa is an area where air pollution gets pretty bad. If I can figure out a way to be part of a solution instead of part of the problem, why shouldn't I do it?
Y'all are getting caught up in the politics of it all, instead of looking at the big picture and asking yourselves: What can I do to be a better steward of the earth?
I grew up on a farm, and that was instilled in me: Leave the land in as good a condition or better for future generations.
Therefore, I'm a bit flummoxed when people take a position that is pro-pollution at worst or lazy at best.
I wonder how much of the slight incremental increase is Btu generation. Think about it, powerplants, cars, aircraft, industrial processes, building and home heat, etc.
We are generating more and more Btus every year.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Global warming ... bah. I was a so-called environmentalist long before Al Gore became Mr. Climate Change.
I'm doing what I'm doing (solar panels, CFLs, hybrids, reel lawnmowers) because I don't want to pollute as much.
Face it ... Tulsa is an area where air pollution gets pretty bad. If I can figure out a way to be part of a solution instead of part of the problem, why shouldn't I do it?
Y'all are getting caught up in the politics of it all, instead of looking at the big picture and asking yourselves: What can I do to be a better steward of the earth?
I grew up on a farm, and that was instilled in me: Leave the land in as good a condition or better for future generations.
Therefore, I'm a bit flummoxed when people take a position that is pro-pollution at worst or lazy at best.
But that reasoned and rational attitude is not what you get from global warming facists. What should get you equally as flummoxed are charlatans like AlGore who maintain their current level of pollution by trading "carbon credits" and making a select few rich in the process, namely corporations with "extra" carbon credits. People like AlGore do nothing to help keep the planet clean and live completely irresponsible and consumptive lives, all the while telling you and I to do what they refuse to do.
I'm sorry, iplaw, but Al Gore does have CFLs and solar panels at his house. I hardly think that qualifies as "doing nothing."
What have you done, compared to him?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I'm sorry, iplaw, but Al Gore does have CFLs and solar panels at his house. I hardly think that qualifies as "doing nothing."
What have you done, compared to him?
Please. CFLs and solar panels for a man that consumes and pollutes as much as a small country. Talk about a fart in the wind.
What I do it what most typical people do, recycle paper and plastics, observe ozone alert days, own a hybrid SUV (which isn't that great), etc. Though I'm not traveling the world in a private jet all while preaching the evils of fossil fuels. Even he admits that he's carbon neutral because of "carbon offsets."
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...
A PHD in meteorology? I've looked and I can't tell if he has any college degree at all.
I looked around and even in his formal bio at the TV station in San Diego where he works now there are some glaring items missing from his bio. It says he was once a "freshman in college", but doesn't mention where he went to school, what his degrees are, no metrological awards are listed and there is no mention that he has any sort of professional certification or that he is member of any professional meteorological society. Does this man have any kind of scientific degree related to climate at all? Does he have any degree?
http://www.kusi.com/about/bios/weather/1838191.html
The other two meteorologist for KUSI list their education and their certifications just like you would see on any station here.
From what I can tell this man is no scientist and knows squat about the weather except how to read from a teleprompter about it
He seems like he has just about as much education on climatology and meteorology as Altruism does on metallurgy and physics.
<iplaw wrote:
Please. CFLs and solar panels for a man that consumes and pollutes as much as a small country.
<end clip>
A small country. Source, please? [}:)]
Let's take the smallest country, Vatican City. According to the CIA, it is populated by 821 people, has thousands of employees, and has more than 5,100 phones in use, seven radio stations, and one television station. Do you really expect that Al Gore pollutes more than Vatican City? [}:)]
First you say Gore "does nothing." Then when it's apparent that he is active in reducing his electrical output, you change the goal posts.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<iplaw wrote:
Please. CFLs and solar panels for a man that consumes and pollutes as much as a small country.
<end clip>
A small country. Source, please? [}:)]
Let's take the smallest country, Vatican City. According to the CIA, it is populated by 821 people, has thousands of employees, and has more than 5,100 phones in use, seven radio stations, and one television station. Do you really expect that Al Gore pollutes more than Vatican City? [}:)]
First you say Gore "does nothing." Then when it's apparent that he is active in reducing his electrical output, you change the goal posts.
Did someone leave their literal button depressed when they got out of bed this morning?
The only reason Gore ever installed those solar panels was beacuse of reports like this one:
Gore isn't so green (//%22http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm%22)
This doesn't even begin to address the mines that he received royalties from or the toxic waste disposal site on his family's land.
He's carbon neutral because he buys carbon offsets, plain and simple.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...
A PHD in meteorology? I've looked and I can't tell if he has any college degree at all.
I looked around and even in his formal bio at the TV station in San Diego where he works now there are some glaring items missing from his bio. It says he was once a "freshman in college", but doesn't mention where he went to school, what his degrees are, no metrological awards are listed and there is no mention that he has any sort of professional certification or that he is member of any professional meteorological society. Does this man have any kind of scientific degree related to climate at all? Does he have any degree?
http://www.kusi.com/about/bios/weather/1838191.html
The other two meteorologist for KUSI list their education and their certifications just like you would see on any station here.
From what I can tell this man is no scientist and knows squat about the weather except how to read from a teleprompter about it
He seems like he has just about as much education on climatology and meteorology as Altruism does on metallurgy and physics.
If he doesn't have a PHD, which may be true, I don't know, I was relying on a news report. Go figure that the news media was wrong.
Be that as it may, there are more than a few PHDs who aren't buying in as well. They're easy to find if you just look.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...
A PHD in meteorology? I've looked and I can't tell if he has any college degree at all.
I looked around and even in his formal bio at the TV station in San Diego where he works now there are some glaring items missing from his bio. It says he was once a "freshman in college", but doesn't mention where he went to school, what his degrees are, no metrological awards are listed and there is no mention that he has any sort of professional certification or that he is member of any professional meteorological society. Does this man have any kind of scientific degree related to climate at all? Does he have any degree?
http://www.kusi.com/about/bios/weather/1838191.html
The other two meteorologist for KUSI list their education and their certifications just like you would see on any station here.
From what I can tell this man is no scientist and knows squat about the weather except how to read from a teleprompter about it
He seems like he has just about as much education on climatology and meteorology as Altruism does on metallurgy and physics.
If he doesn't have a PHD, which may be true, I don't know, I was relying on a news report. Go figure that the news media was wrong.
Be that as it may, there are more than a few PHDs who aren't buying in as well. They're easy to find if you just look.
As easy to find as holocaust deniers, and tobacco companies and PHD scientists telling congress "nicotine is not addictive". There is no "proof" given that cant be disputed or that "needs more study".
The few can be right despite a large concensus. But I find it hard to believe that so overwhelmingly many scientists are somehow being dishonest or plain stupid. Why would one group be less or more so than the other? If those saying there is no global warming have been heard, and their hypothesis argued in the public forum, its not as though anything they are saying is some unknown factor that will suddenly appear out of the blue and prove the global warming group wrong. Its when a factor is unknown or not properly taken into account that a previously believed "truth" is overturned. I dont see any of the deniers having such knowlege.
Just as in the 70s when they first started entertaining the idea that we humans might be having some global influence, they looked at pollutants such as ozone, did the numbers and thought that they were going to cool the earth and cause a global winter, (as Inhofe often points to them as saying), then someone pointed out that we were also putting out greenhouse gasses. As soon as someone put those into the equation, they saw that the earth would over all get warmer. The greenhouse gasses would be a larger factor than the cooling pollutants. CO2 was not something they had originally considered and so had not been put it into the equation.
It would take those deniers having some like fact that has not been considered, that has not been understood or put into the equations. As far as I know, what they say, has been looked at and considered. Not to say there may be something that someone comes up with that will indeed prove everyone wrong, but that can happen regardless.
With what we know (including what the deniers say),,, the consensus is... So until some new idea or information that has yet to be put forward shows otherwise...
<iplaw wrote:
Did someone leave their literal button depressed when they got out of bed this morning?
<end clip>
Don't say what you don't mean, counselor. That way you don't get made to look stupid when your arguments wilt under the harsh light of facts.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<iplaw wrote:
Did someone leave their literal button depressed when they got out of bed this morning?
<end clip>
Don't say what you don't mean, counselor. That way you don't get made to look stupid when your arguments wilt under the harsh light of facts.
I almost choked on that one from laughing so hard. The last time I lost an argument to you was...well, never. If I had a nickle for every time I made you look ignorant I wouldn't be getting up to go to work anymore.
Don't you find it interesting how Gore only made these green additions to his home after people pointed out that doesn't practice what he preaches. Or does the fact that he sits on your side of the asile blind you to his hypocrisy?
He now has solar panels big f'ing deal. He's still a massive consumer and lives an extravagant lifestyle behaving exactly as those with whom he "disagrees."
quote:
As easy to find as holocaust deniers, and tobacco companies and PHD scientists telling congress "nicotine is not addictive". There is no "proof" given that cant be disputed or that "needs more study".
The few can be right despite a large concensus. But I find it hard to believe that so overwhelmingly many scientists are somehow being dishonest or plain stupid. Why would one group be less or more so than the other? If those saying there is no global warming have been heard, and their hypothesis argued in the public forum, its not as though anything they are saying is some unknown factor that will suddenly appear out of the blue and prove the global warming group wrong. Its when a factor is unknown or not properly taken into account that a previously believed "truth" is overturned. I dont see any of the deniers having such knowlege.
Just as in the 70s when they first started entertaining the idea that we humans might be having some global influence, they looked at pollutants such as ozone, did the numbers and thought that they were going to cool the earth and cause a global winter, (as Inhofe often points to them as saying), then someone pointed out that we were also putting out greenhouse gasses. As soon as someone put those into the equation, they saw that the earth would over all get warmer. The greenhouse gasses would be a larger factor than the cooling pollutants. CO2 was not something they had originally considered and so had not been put it into the equation.
It would take those deniers having some like fact that has not been considered, that has not been understood or put into the equations. As far as I know, what they say, has been looked at and considered. Not to say there may be something that someone comes up with that will indeed prove everyone wrong, but that can happen regardless.
With what we know (including what the deniers say),,, the consensus is... So until some new idea or information that has yet to be put forward shows otherwise...
I was waiting for the holocaust deniers analogy. I didn't think it would take so long...
The only valid consensus on global warming is that the earth "appears," from the limited data we have, to be warming...slightly, depending on what temperature data you're looking at (your time delta).
There is NO consensus on the effects of greenhouse gases, their overall effect on the planet, or their potentiality vis-a-vis future change on the planet. There is also NO consensus that man's production of greenhouse gases is the REASON behind the slight warming we see now. For some extra reading check out this repository website: http://www.climatepolice.com/ that lists
peer-reviewed articles challenging many of the "well accepted" notions of global warming.
Temperatures have risen/fallen at greater deltas in the ancient past when man was not a factor.
Pausible alternative reasons for global warming include: cyclic natural fluctuations in mean temperature; increased solar activity; disruption of the magnetic poles of the earth; and on and on...
If you really want to scare yourself, take a good look at the fact that the magnetic north/south poles of the earth are in for a reversal somtime in the next 100 years. If climate change gets you aroused, this will take you over the edge.
Should we take better care of the earth, of course. Should we care about polution because it gets into our food/water, yes. On these issues I agree with you.
<iplaw wrote:
If I had a nickle for every time I made you look ignorant I wouldn't be getting up to go to work anymore.
<end clip>
C'mon ... I'm not THAT ignorant, unless you've taken a vow of poverty. [}:)]
Incidentally, it's spelled "nickel."
Five cents, please. [;)]
That's what I get for posting after a six pack of shiner bock...but that's okay I recycled the bottles this morning.
Natural evolution?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1089105.ece
Experts warn North Pole will be 'ice free' by 2040
"The Nasa-funded US team of researchers said the ice retreat is likely to remain fairly constant until 2024 when there will be a sudden speeding up of the process."
I fear this estimate is way, way, way too conservative.
If things continue at present pace,
the ice will be gone by 2 - 10 years.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell
See polar ice melting isn't all bad:
quote:
Tourist could open up to allow visitors Arctic cruises with cocktail parties over the North Pole that previously defied the best efforts of many explorers.
Oil companies would move in to tap resources previously protected by the ice and freight firms could use the ocean as a shortcut.
Smoking weed makes liberals paranoid. Aox you ought to quit smoking it, it's making your carbon footprint larger and making you crazy.
quote:
I fear this estimate is way, way, way too conservative.
If things continue at present pace,
the ice will be gone by 2 - 10 years.
Lemme go out on a limb and say that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up...
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
See polar ice melting isn't all bad:
quote:
Tourist could open up to allow visitors Arctic cruises with cocktail parties over the North Pole that previously defied the best efforts of many explorers.
Oil companies would move in to tap resources previously protected by the ice and freight firms could use the ocean as a shortcut.
Smoking weed makes liberals paranoid. Aox you ought to quit smoking it, it's making your carbon footprint larger and making you crazy.
You are paranoid of Aox.
Must be confused.
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
I fear this estimate is way, way, way too conservative.
If things continue at present pace,
the ice will be gone by 2 - 10 years.
Lemme go out on a limb and say that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up...
Here's some evidence:
"We have already witnessed major losses in sea ice, but our research suggests that the decrease over the next few decades could be far more dramatic than anything that has happened so far," said Professor Marika Holland who led the study.
And to quote you IP:
Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...
So you tell me, who has the evidence and who has a TV weatherman famous for doing weather standing on his head?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
I fear this estimate is way, way, way too conservative.
If things continue at present pace,
the ice will be gone by 2 - 10 years.
Lemme go out on a limb and say that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up...
Here's some evidence:
"We have already witnessed major losses in sea ice, but our research suggests that the decrease over the next few decades could be far more dramatic than anything that has happened so far," said Professor Marika Holland who led the study.
And to quote you IP:
Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...
So you tell me, who has the evidence and who has a TV weatherman famous for doing weather standing on his head?
First, the dear proferssor says "over the next decades," not 2-10 years, but I wouldn't have expected you to see that glaring detail. And even the professor doesn't tell you WHAT is going to happen in detail, mainly because he doesn't know.
Second, there are numerous
peer reviewed studies (//%22http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-15/trends.htm%22) contradicting him.
Anything else?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
I fear this estimate is way, way, way too conservative.
If things continue at present pace,
the ice will be gone by 2 - 10 years.
Lemme go out on a limb and say that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up...
Here's some evidence:
"We have already witnessed major losses in sea ice, but our research suggests that the decrease over the next few decades could be far more dramatic than anything that has happened so far," said Professor Marika Holland who led the study.
And to quote you IP:
Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...
So you tell me, who has the evidence and who has a TV weatherman famous for doing weather standing on his head?
First, the dear proferssor says "over the next decades," not 2-10 years, but I wouldn't have expected you to see that glaring detail. And even the professor doesn't tell you WHAT is going to happen in detail, mainly because he doesn't know.
Second, there are numerous peer reviewed studies (//%22http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-15/trends.htm%22) contradicting him.
Anything else?
Yes, your "Frontiers of Freedom" group and their studies are paid for by Exxon-Mobile.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35
You are as bad al Altruism, you ignore mountains of scientific evidence and study because it disagrees with your political viewpoint and latch on to some fringe studies that in the case of global warming that are almost entirely paid for by energy companies that have a big stake in not being regulated for the pollution they cause.
Regardless of who they are, they are using PEER REVIEWED material. I don't care if the president of Haliburton himself wrote the piece as long as the source material is PEER REVIEWED.
As to your other point, comparing global warming to 9/11 or the Holocaust is patently false. Those "issues" are past facts about empirically verifiable events. Global warming predictions are THEORETICAL HYPOTHESES about possible FUTURE events.
Nice try. You lose again, anything else?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
I fear this estimate is way, way, way too conservative.
If things continue at present pace,
the ice will be gone by 2 - 10 years.
Lemme go out on a limb and say that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up...
Here's some evidence:
"We have already witnessed major losses in sea ice, but our research suggests that the decrease over the next few decades could be far more dramatic than anything that has happened so far," said Professor Marika Holland who led the study.
And to quote you IP:
Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...
So you tell me, who has the evidence and who has a TV weatherman famous for doing weather standing on his head?
First, the dear proferssor says "over the next decades," not 2-10 years, but I wouldn't have expected you to see that glaring detail. And even the professor doesn't tell you WHAT is going to happen in detail, mainly because he doesn't know.
Second, there are numerous peer reviewed studies (//%22http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-15/trends.htm%22) contradicting him.
Anything else?
Yes, your "Frontiers of Freedom" group and their studies are paid for by Exxon-Mobile.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35
You are as bad al Altruism, you ignore mountains of scientific evidence and study because it disagrees with your political viewpoint and latch on to some fringe studies that in the case of global warming that are almost entirely paid for by energy companies that have a big stake in not being regulated for the pollution they cause.
Please stop and pick up your brain out of the ditch before you post again.....Thanks....
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Regardless of who they are, they are using PEER REVIEWED material. I don't care if the president of Haliburton himself wrote the piece as long as the source material is PEER REVIEWED.
As to your other point, comparing global warming to 9/11 or the Holocaust is patently false. Those "issues" are past facts about empirically verifiable events. Global warming predictions are THEORETICAL HYPOTHESES about possible FUTURE events.
Nice try. You lose again, anything else?
I lose?
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud. I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.
I lose? The more you post, the more foolish you look.
Please spell "nickel" again, ok?
quote:
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.
Oh boy! You got me! I explained my post already, but I'll give further detail if you want.
quote:
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud.
Care to mischaraterize my post again? I gave you peer reviewed source material contradicting your post (which in itself contained a myriad of errors which you never addressed). Nowhere did any of the peer reviewed source material I provided you attempt to "prove global warming a fraud." The discussion was much more narrow than that, but else what can I expect from you?
quote:
I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.
I don't ever recall you proving that the peer reviewed sources cited in the report were energy funded. Care to lie some more?
Oh, and playing the spelling/grammar nazi card doesn't buy you anything either...unless your 12. At least it serves to prove you've got nothing substantive to offer.
Maybe you could just call me "pooplaw" or "peepeelaw" to get your point across...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.
Oh boy! You got me! I explained my post already, but I'll give further detail if you want.
quote:
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud.
Care to mischaraterize my post again? I gave you peer reviewed source material contradicting your post (which in itself contained a myriad of errors which you never addressed). Nowhere did any of the peer reviewed source material I provided you attempt to "prove global warming a fraud." The discussion was much more narrow than that, but else what can I expect from you?
quote:
I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.
I don't ever recall you proving that the peer reviewed sources cited in the report were energy funded. Care to lie some more?
Oh, and playing the spelling/grammar nazi card doesn't buy you anything either...unless your 12. At least it serves to prove you've got nothing substantive to offer.
Maybe you could just call me "pooplaw" or "peepeelaw" to get your point across...
Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/10/29/01920.html
Dr. Patrick Michaels, for example, is a Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia that is featured on The Denial Machine. He has been the State Climatologist for Virginia since 1980, and has been at the forefront of the global warming denial movement.
He is also associated with two think tanks: a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute.
Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."
In January 2005, British anthropologist Benny Peiser challenged a study published in the prestigious magazine Science showing that 100 percent of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers agreed that human-caused global warming is a reality. Peiser urged Science to withdraw the study.
Less than two years later, on Oct. 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he examined denied global warming -- and it was published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, hardly a neutral source. Peiser was writing for an organization that has received at least $390,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/139539
I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I don't care who's interpreting the peer reviewed material.
I can post random links as well.
What I asked you to address was the more than two dozen peer reviewed studies used for that ONE specific issue of melting arctic ice shelf.
Try again.
Also, this statement:
"In January 2005, British anthropologist Benny Peiser challenged a study published in the prestigious magazine Science showing that 100 percent of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers agreed that human-caused global warming is a reality."
Has been soundly debunked (//%22http://www.openmarket.org/2007/10/17/most-preposterous-claim-ever/%22) by more people than Peiser.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.
Oh boy! You got me! I explained my post already, but I'll give further detail if you want.
quote:
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud.
Care to mischaraterize my post again? I gave you peer reviewed source material contradicting your post (which in itself contained a myriad of errors which you never addressed). Nowhere did any of the peer reviewed source material I provided you attempt to "prove global warming a fraud." The discussion was much more narrow than that, but else what can I expect from you?
quote:
I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.
I don't ever recall you proving that the peer reviewed sources cited in the report were energy funded. Care to lie some more?
Oh, and playing the spelling/grammar nazi card doesn't buy you anything either...unless your 12. At least it serves to prove you've got nothing substantive to offer.
Maybe you could just call me "pooplaw" or "peepeelaw" to get your point across...
The paper you speficially cite is from "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change". This group and their website co2science.org IS an Exxon funded group having received $90,000 from Exxon-Mobile.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change#_note-3
So the paper you cite, specifically, IS from a energy industry funded study group.
You lose.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.
Oh boy! You got me! I explained my post already, but I'll give further detail if you want.
quote:
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud.
Care to mischaraterize my post again? I gave you peer reviewed source material contradicting your post (which in itself contained a myriad of errors which you never addressed). Nowhere did any of the peer reviewed source material I provided you attempt to "prove global warming a fraud." The discussion was much more narrow than that, but else what can I expect from you?
quote:
I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.
I don't ever recall you proving that the peer reviewed sources cited in the report were energy funded. Care to lie some more?
Oh, and playing the spelling/grammar nazi card doesn't buy you anything either...unless your 12. At least it serves to prove you've got nothing substantive to offer.
Maybe you could just call me "pooplaw" or "peepeelaw" to get your point across...
The paper you speficially cite is from "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change". This group and their website co2science.org IS an Exxon funded group having received $90,000 from Exxon-Mobile.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change#_note-3
So the paper you cite, specifically, IS from a energy industry funded study group.
You lose.
Try again, co2science.org did not write the source material. You should try more than just clicking links.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I don't care who's interpreting the peer reviewed material.
I can post random links as well.
What I asked you to address was the more than two dozen peer reviewed studies used for that ONE specific issue of melting arctic ice shelf.
Try again.
Also, this statement:
"In January 2005, British anthropologist Benny Peiser challenged a study published in the prestigious magazine Science showing that 100 percent of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers agreed that human-caused global warming is a reality."
Has been soundly debunked (//%22http://www.openmarket.org/2007/10/17/most-preposterous-claim-ever/%22) by more people than Peiser.
"Debunked" by yet ANOTHER Exxon funded group this time called "competitive enterprise institute"
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2003/exxon.htm
You still lose
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.
Oh boy! You got me! I explained my post already, but I'll give further detail if you want.
quote:
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud.
Care to mischaraterize my post again? I gave you peer reviewed source material contradicting your post (which in itself contained a myriad of errors which you never addressed). Nowhere did any of the peer reviewed source material I provided you attempt to "prove global warming a fraud." The discussion was much more narrow than that, but else what can I expect from you?
quote:
I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.
I don't ever recall you proving that the peer reviewed sources cited in the report were energy funded. Care to lie some more?
Oh, and playing the spelling/grammar nazi card doesn't buy you anything either...unless your 12. At least it serves to prove you've got nothing substantive to offer.
Maybe you could just call me "pooplaw" or "peepeelaw" to get your point across...
The paper you speficially cite is from "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change". This group and their website co2science.org IS an Exxon funded group having received $90,000 from Exxon-Mobile.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change#_note-3
So the paper you cite, specifically, IS from a energy industry funded study group.
You lose.
Try again, co2science.org did not write the source material. You should try more than just clicking links.
Actually, your paper WAS written by "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" which has a wesite called co2science.org. I'm not running down the rat hole of finding every citation, that may or may not even be relevant, on a crap paper funded by Exxon.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.
Oh boy! You got me! I explained my post already, but I'll give further detail if you want.
quote:
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud.
Care to mischaraterize my post again? I gave you peer reviewed source material contradicting your post (which in itself contained a myriad of errors which you never addressed). Nowhere did any of the peer reviewed source material I provided you attempt to "prove global warming a fraud." The discussion was much more narrow than that, but else what can I expect from you?
quote:
I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.
I don't ever recall you proving that the peer reviewed sources cited in the report were energy funded. Care to lie some more?
Oh, and playing the spelling/grammar nazi card doesn't buy you anything either...unless your 12. At least it serves to prove you've got nothing substantive to offer.
Maybe you could just call me "pooplaw" or "peepeelaw" to get your point across...
The paper you speficially cite is from "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change". This group and their website co2science.org IS an Exxon funded group having received $90,000 from Exxon-Mobile.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change#_note-3
So the paper you cite, specifically, IS from a energy industry funded study group.
You lose.
Try again, co2science.org did not write the source material. You should try more than just clicking links.
Actually, your paper WAS written by "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" which has a wesite called co2science.org
Nope. The studies, more than two dozen of them, are used by co2, but not written by them, but nice try.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I don't care who's interpreting the peer reviewed material.
I can post random links as well.
What I asked you to address was the more than two dozen peer reviewed studies used for that ONE specific issue of melting arctic ice shelf.
Try again.
Also, this statement:
"In January 2005, British anthropologist Benny Peiser challenged a study published in the prestigious magazine Science showing that 100 percent of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers agreed that human-caused global warming is a reality."
Has been soundly debunked (//%22http://www.openmarket.org/2007/10/17/most-preposterous-claim-ever/%22) by more people than Peiser.
"Debunked" by yet ANOTHER Exxon funded group this time called "competitive enterprise institute"
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2003/exxon.htm
You still lose
Right...just like those "scientists" from IIPC who work for free...good one!
Let me do the work for you [edit]:
Dahl-Jensen et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/282/5387/268
Rohling et al.
ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2007/2007175.pdf
Wagner and Melles
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomin/wagner_publ.html
Those are just the first three and ALL were written and reviewed by entities OTHER than co2.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Let me do the work for you [edit]:
Dahl-Jensen et al.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/282/5387/268
Rohling et al.
ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/reposit/2007/2007175.pdf
Wagner and Melles
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomin/wagner_publ.html
Those are just the first three and ALL were written and reviewed by entities OTHER than co2.
These are citations, they do not draw the conclusions that the paper does. They are studies on the earths climate history and take no position on the current heating of the earth.
The paper takes the cited material and uses it to take a position. That does not mean that the scientists that conducted the cited material agree with the overall position of the paper or that they would draw any of the same conclusions.
The cited material is peer reviewed and published in real journals. What journal published this paper?
Again, I have to post this:
In January 2005, British anthropologist Benny Peiser challenged a study published in the prestigious magazine Science showing that 100 percent of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers agreed that human-caused global warming is a reality. Peiser urged Science to withdraw the study.
Less than two years later, on Oct. 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he examined denied global warming -- and it was published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, hardly a neutral source. Peiser was writing for an organization that has received at least $390,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Out of 928 real published and peer reviewed studies and one single study disagreed and it was from "American Association of Petroleum Geologists"
quote:
These are citations, they do not draw the conclusions that the paper does. They are studies on the earths climate history and take no position on the current heating of the earth.
Really? Because I can bet you've read them all...or are you assuming that they're lying, or is it that you can smell your own?
The titles of most of these formal papers speak for themselves
quote:
The paper takes the cited material and uses it to take a position. That does not mean that the scientists that conducted the cited material agree with the overall position of the paper or that they would draw any of the same conclusions.
How would you even begin to know? You were the guy 10 minutes ago saying that these sources were written by CO2. Now they are peer reviewed, but being misquoted, all in a period of 10 minutes.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
These are citations, they do not draw the conclusions that the paper does. They are studies on the earths climate history and take no position on the current heating of the earth.
Really? Because I can bet you've read them all...or are you assuming that they're lying, or is it that you can smell your own?
The titles of most of these formal papers speak for themselves
quote:
The paper takes the cited material and uses it to take a position. That does not mean that the scientists that conducted the cited material agree with the overall position of the paper or that they would draw any of the same conclusions.
How would you even begin to know? You were the guy 10 minutes ago saying that these sources were written by CO2. Now they are peer reviewed, but being misquoted, all in a period of 10 minutes.
I never said the cited sources in the paper were written by CO2, I said I didn't want to chase down every cited source. I said the paper was written by Co2.
And it's obvious you didn't read squat. The papers are mostly incomplete without subscription to The Journal Science or Nature. Did you not notice that? One was in German. I did read what was available and it's obvious these papers are not about what the paper that is citing them is about. Again, the paper is drawing conclusions based on cited sources whose authors likely do not agree with what the paper states. Show me where these scientists agree with the conclusions of the paper you linked to.
Here is the available paragraph from one of the cited studies:
A Monte Carlo inverse method has been used on the temperature profiles measured down through the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) borehole, at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Dye 3 borehole 865 kilometers farther south. The result is a 50,000-year-long temperature history at GRIP and a 7000-year history at Dye 3. The Last Glacial Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age, and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction with the amplitudes -23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, -1 kelvin, and +0.5 kelvin, respectively. The Dye 3 temperature is similar to the GRIP history but has an amplitude 1.5 times larger, indicating higher climatic variability there. The calculated terrestrial heat flow density from the GRIP inversion is 51.3 milliwatts per square meter.
Where does it say that global warming is a myth in this?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Here is the available paragraph from one of the cited studies:
A Monte Carlo inverse method has been used on the temperature profiles measured down through the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) borehole, at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Dye 3 borehole 865 kilometers farther south. The result is a 50,000-year-long temperature history at GRIP and a 7000-year history at Dye 3. The Last Glacial Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age, and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction with the amplitudes -23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, -1 kelvin, and +0.5 kelvin, respectively. The Dye 3 temperature is similar to the GRIP history but has an amplitude 1.5 times larger, indicating higher climatic variability there. The calculated terrestrial heat flow density from the GRIP inversion is 51.3 milliwatts per square meter.
Where does it say that global warming is a myth in this?
Where does it say it isn't? That's not a conclusion, that's methodology.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Here is the available paragraph from one of the cited studies:
A Monte Carlo inverse method has been used on the temperature profiles measured down through the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) borehole, at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Dye 3 borehole 865 kilometers farther south. The result is a 50,000-year-long temperature history at GRIP and a 7000-year history at Dye 3. The Last Glacial Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age, and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction with the amplitudes -23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, -1 kelvin, and +0.5 kelvin, respectively. The Dye 3 temperature is similar to the GRIP history but has an amplitude 1.5 times larger, indicating higher climatic variability there. The calculated terrestrial heat flow density from the GRIP inversion is 51.3 milliwatts per square meter.
Where does it say that global warming is a myth in this?
Where does it say it isn't? That's not a conclusion, that's methodology.
Exactly,
The paper is drawing conclusions that the cited sources do not. And the paper is not published or reviewed. And it IS paid for by Exxon.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Here is the available paragraph from one of the cited studies:
A Monte Carlo inverse method has been used on the temperature profiles measured down through the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) borehole, at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Dye 3 borehole 865 kilometers farther south. The result is a 50,000-year-long temperature history at GRIP and a 7000-year history at Dye 3. The Last Glacial Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age, and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction with the amplitudes -23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, -1 kelvin, and +0.5 kelvin, respectively. The Dye 3 temperature is similar to the GRIP history but has an amplitude 1.5 times larger, indicating higher climatic variability there. The calculated terrestrial heat flow density from the GRIP inversion is 51.3 milliwatts per square meter.
Where does it say that global warming is a myth in this?
Where does it say it isn't? That's not a conclusion, that's methodology.
Exactly,
The paper is drawing conclusions that the cited sources do not. And the paper is not published or reviewed. And it IS paid for by Exxon.
Swake, turn the reverb down, there's an echo in the room...
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Swake, turn the reverb down, there's an echo in the room...
Haha,
I guess I was listening to my inner Conan too much:
"Crush enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women"
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Again, I have to post this:
In January 2005, British anthropologist Benny Peiser challenged a study published in the prestigious magazine Science showing that 100 percent of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers agreed that human-caused global warming is a reality. Peiser urged Science to withdraw the study.
Less than two years later, on Oct. 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he examined denied global warming -- and it was published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, hardly a neutral source. Peiser was writing for an organization that has received at least $390,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Out of 928 real published and peer reviewed studies and one single study disagreed and it was from "American Association of Petroleum Geologists"
And again, I point out that Naomi Oreskes admitted in subsequent erratum that her search of articles and journals DOES NOT correspond to the conclusion proffered. No Exxon official or scapegoat needed. She admitted it herself.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Here is the available paragraph from one of the cited studies:
A Monte Carlo inverse method has been used on the temperature profiles measured down through the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) borehole, at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Dye 3 borehole 865 kilometers farther south. The result is a 50,000-year-long temperature history at GRIP and a 7000-year history at Dye 3. The Last Glacial Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age, and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction with the amplitudes -23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, -1 kelvin, and +0.5 kelvin, respectively. The Dye 3 temperature is similar to the GRIP history but has an amplitude 1.5 times larger, indicating higher climatic variability there. The calculated terrestrial heat flow density from the GRIP inversion is 51.3 milliwatts per square meter.
Where does it say that global warming is a myth in this?
Are you purposefully being obtuse? You take ONE PARAGRAPH from a source and attempt to characterize the entire source from that clip. You must have a PHD in cluelessness.
In fact, swake, do you even know what a Kelvin is?
Lastly, I stated, this being the
THIRD time, that the peer reviewed material was NOT BEING OFFERED TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING A MYTH. It was offered to prove that ARCTIC ICE IS NOT MELTING AT RAPID RATES like you and AOX are asserting.
I know that multiple step analyses are complicated for you, but I hope this THIRD REITERATION clears the issue up for you, but I admit it's a bit optimistic on my part.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Here is the available paragraph from one of the cited studies:
A Monte Carlo inverse method has been used on the temperature profiles measured down through the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) borehole, at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Dye 3 borehole 865 kilometers farther south. The result is a 50,000-year-long temperature history at GRIP and a 7000-year history at Dye 3. The Last Glacial Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age, and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction with the amplitudes -23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, -1 kelvin, and +0.5 kelvin, respectively. The Dye 3 temperature is similar to the GRIP history but has an amplitude 1.5 times larger, indicating higher climatic variability there. The calculated terrestrial heat flow density from the GRIP inversion is 51.3 milliwatts per square meter.
Where does it say that global warming is a myth in this?
Where does it say it isn't? That's not a conclusion, that's methodology.
Exactly,
The paper is drawing conclusions that the cited sources do not. And the paper is not published or reviewed. And it IS paid for by Exxon.
Yet you still haven't bothered to prove that their thesis is incorrect, other than stating you believe it not to be. Please cite EXAMPLES of where they either: (1) misinterpret the given source material; or (2) draw unwarranted conclusions from that material. Until then, go fish.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Here is the available paragraph from one of the cited studies:
A Monte Carlo inverse method has been used on the temperature profiles measured down through the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) borehole, at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Dye 3 borehole 865 kilometers farther south. The result is a 50,000-year-long temperature history at GRIP and a 7000-year history at Dye 3. The Last Glacial Maximum, the Climatic Optimum, the Medieval Warmth, the Little Ice Age, and a warm period at 1930 A.D. are resolved from the GRIP reconstruction with the amplitudes -23 kelvin, +2.5 kelvin, +1 kelvin, -1 kelvin, and +0.5 kelvin, respectively. The Dye 3 temperature is similar to the GRIP history but has an amplitude 1.5 times larger, indicating higher climatic variability there. The calculated terrestrial heat flow density from the GRIP inversion is 51.3 milliwatts per square meter.
Where does it say that global warming is a myth in this?
Where does it say it isn't? That's not a conclusion, that's methodology.
Just when I think reading comprehension and critical thinking around here has reached an all time low....then BAM!...something like this comes around.
He can't even understand the simple distinction you drew.
Lord Kelvin takes a paragraph from a source and thinks it summarizes the entire source. He'd fit in well at the Tulsa World.
It's almost as if I'm dealing with someone who....GASP... has no scientific education whatsoever (either that or he's hiding it well), but hey, I bet he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.