C
Calliso
Guest
I think my head just exploded…
- Status
A
a_burger
Guest
We were headed for another little ice age. The IPCC (the United Nations scientists) failed to calcuate the increase in the earth’s temperature due to the increase in sunspots. With the increase in sunspots removed from the formula it has been going down every year. Yes Europe has hada major increase in temperature. It now appears it was caused by 'cleaning up’the atmosphere. Last year 2008 as measured by the leading four agencies showed a drastic decrease in temperature. You can’t believe in Jesus and the UN. One is full of truth and the other is full of lies.
C
Calliso
Guest
Eh I am a bit confused but I am tired so that is understandable
But according to that scienceblogs link and well her own abstract there were actually 6 different catagories she divides the results into.
- explicit endorsement of the concensus position
- evaluation of impacts
- mitagation proposals
- methods
- paleoclimate analysis
- rejection of the concensus position
She also says this
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
Now of course we would have to fully read the papers to trully get the full idea of what they were all about. But an abstract is usually going to give a pretty good idea of what the paper is going to be about. And if a paper is going to be about how AGW is false and it is all natural I imagine that would be made pretty clear in most cases by the summary.
So she does admit that there is a possiblity that some of those papers were in fact written by people that believe the changes are fully natural. However non of them actually argued that point.
Also I read the entire NAS report and it didn;t seem to reject the concensus either. Now I would say that the entire report did express more doubt and uncertainities then the summary did. However even the “consensus” position allows for that. For instance in her abstract when talking about AGW it says “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”** [p. 21 in (4)]. **which is taken from the IPCC.
M
mpi
Guest
For the sake of discussion, lets pretend the following:
How can a scientist, especially one with 20+ years specializing in something related to atmospheric sciences or modeling or climatology, know that it is in mankind’s interest to reduce CO2?
These questions presume A) that mankind would be better off with a lower temperature and B) that government intervention to reduce CO2 provides benefits that outweigh the costs.
When the issue is looked at this way it is clear that there is some other agenda being pursued here by these scientists and even people on this thread. I believe this agenda is either monetary (grant money) or ideological (green is the new red - i.e. enviro-extremism is communism).
- global warming is happening
- global warming is caused by man’s CO2
- global warming can be reversed or slowed by reducing CO2
How can a scientist, especially one with 20+ years specializing in something related to atmospheric sciences or modeling or climatology, know that it is in mankind’s interest to reduce CO2?
These questions presume A) that mankind would be better off with a lower temperature and B) that government intervention to reduce CO2 provides benefits that outweigh the costs.
When the issue is looked at this way it is clear that there is some other agenda being pursued here by these scientists and even people on this thread. I believe this agenda is either monetary (grant money) or ideological (green is the new red - i.e. enviro-extremism is communism).
V
Valke2
Guest
Climate change even worse than predicted: expert
,“We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected,” said Chris Field, who was a coordinating lead author of the report.
…Without decisive action to slow global warming, higher temperatures could ignite tropical forests and thaw the Arctic tundra, potentially releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide that has been stored for thousands of years.
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090214/sc_afp/usclimatewarming_20090214150716
Those whacky scientists.
,“We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected,” said Chris Field, who was a coordinating lead author of the report.
…Without decisive action to slow global warming, higher temperatures could ignite tropical forests and thaw the Arctic tundra, potentially releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide that has been stored for thousands of years.
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090214/sc_afp/usclimatewarming_20090214150716
Those whacky scientists.
M
mpi
Guest
…yet global temperatures declined. Those whacky scientists.
V
Valke2
Guest
Still one of the warmest years on record and it is the non-nino (forget what they call it) year which should result in lower tempertures, so no surprise there.
Don’t worry about it. It would be nice to have you on board but we can fix it, or lessen the damage, without you.
Don’t worry about it. It would be nice to have you on board but we can fix it, or lessen the damage, without you.
A
a_burger
Guest
Anyone who bothers to check the facts are not going to believe global warning. Our Catholic hierarchy seems to believe the UN scientists that we have global warning. If you haven’t heard by now the IPCC UN scientists forgot to adjust their findings for the increase in solar sun spots. Last year 2008 was one of the coolest earth temperatures on record.
Fortunately for us Catholics a prominent Cardinal in Italy, who happens to also be a scientist, has just announced that global warning is a fraud. We should hear from the Vatican lately.
During medieval times there was a cooling period called ‘the little ice age.’ We are now heading for another little ice age. Read the facts.
Jesus told us let no deceive you in the last days. Certainly if you believe anything from the UN you will be deceived. Listen to Jesus words and then you wouldn’t go around telling everyone their is global warming and making yourself look stupid.
Fortunately for us Catholics a prominent Cardinal in Italy, who happens to also be a scientist, has just announced that global warning is a fraud. We should hear from the Vatican lately.
During medieval times there was a cooling period called ‘the little ice age.’ We are now heading for another little ice age. Read the facts.
Jesus told us let no deceive you in the last days. Certainly if you believe anything from the UN you will be deceived. Listen to Jesus words and then you wouldn’t go around telling everyone their is global warming and making yourself look stupid.
V
Valke2
Guest
“We are basically looking now at a future climate that’s beyond anything we’ve considered seriously in climate model simulations,” Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
What a kidder!
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/14/AR2009021401757.html
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7890988.stm
What a kidder!
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/14/AR2009021401757.html
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7890988.stm
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Couple of things about that comment-
First of all- don’t confuse the actions and positions of politicians with the actions and positions of individuals who they claim to serve. It is wrong to assert that a) politicians act in accordance with the wishes of their constituents or that b) politicians enjoy unanimous or even majority support of their country. In the US, for example, fewer than 50% of people actually vote, and only about 45% of those voters voted for the person who wins the election- so it would be ridiculous to claim, for example, that the actions and positions of the US government actually reflect the wishes of all or even a majority of the american people.
It thus follows that your claim that “most people” believe anything based on positions expressed by their government bureaucrats is wrong.
Secondly, many countries, particularly third world countries, have a lot to gain from global-warming legislation because so much global warming legislation is focused on wealth redistribution. It could just be that countries that stand to reap financial gain from the sale of carbon credits, for example, don’t believe in or care about global warming so much as they believe in and care about finding a way to -]steal money from/-] uh, -]cash in on/-], mmm…sell carbon credits to first world countries.
So you’d rather just go ahead and force people to act in accordance with your beliefs, even though they disagree with you?
What if I said that we should forcibly convert all non-christians because I believe that allowing people to remain unconverted puts “100s of millions in unnecessary danger?”
Sure, those non-christians might disagree with me, but like you, I am more interested in discussing solutions than trying to convince skeptics on this issue.
V
Valke2
Guest
In a democratic nation things get done that not everyone agrees with. The government of my nation and virtually every government in the world agrees that climate change is happening, that man is responsible for some part of it.
Did I really need to point this out?
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
When you say “virtually every government in the world” are you using the same logic you used when you defined the “whole world” as every country that is making the curbing of greenhouse gases a priority?"
…then all I have to say is that everyone in the world disagrees with global warming because I define “everyone in the world” as “everyone who disagrees with global warming.”
As for the rest- your comments demonstrate how people can hide behind the facade of the democratic process to commit all kinds of atrocities. “Democratic support” is nothing more than an angry mob using #2 pencils and voting booths instead of torches and pitchforks to force their will on other people.
That, of course, leads us to the gun in the room. Exactly how far are you willing to go to force your beliefs about global warming on the rest of us? More specifically, when do you think the global warming movement is going to get enough “democratic support” to take away my house or my car because I don’t believe your nonsense?
V
Valke2
Guest
In about 6 months.
I am quite certain that this thread will be around at that time.
Are you prepared to recant now, or do you wish the issue forced when the prescribed time has passed and your case is proven itself wrong?
I plan on being here. With my house, and my car.
I have even placed a reminder on my calendar for August 16th to be sure to check back on this thread.
This ongoing propensity to deceive is troubling me.
Let’s assume for an instant that you are correct, and we simply need to be convinced…what good will lies do the cause?
Of course, you are in fact wrong.
I want you to list all of the governments in the world as well as actions they have taken that prove they believe as you have said.
That or a retraction of your statements.
V
Valke2
Guest
relax denier. I gave a ridiculous response to a ridiculous question.
V
Valke2
Guest
what lies?? The US government recognizes it. The UN recognizes it. China, Britian, Germany, France, Poland, the Vatican, Indonesia, Canada, Brazil, Japan… These are the ones I remember. Feel free to google for the rest. Oh yeah, Australia
So go retract yourself.
V
Valke2
Guest
Beginning late in the 18th century, human activities associated with the Industrial Revolution have also changed the composition of the atmosphere and therefore very likely are influencing the Earth’s climate. epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html
Large majorities around the world believe that human activity causes global warming and that strong action must be taken, sooner rather than later, in developing as well
as developed countries, according to a BBC World Service poll of 22,000 people in 21 countries. globescan.com/news_archives/bbc_climate/bbcclimate.pdf
Just something to get you started.
Large majorities around the world believe that human activity causes global warming and that strong action must be taken, sooner rather than later, in developing as well
as developed countries, according to a BBC World Service poll of 22,000 people in 21 countries. globescan.com/news_archives/bbc_climate/bbcclimate.pdf
Just something to get you started.
V
Valke2
Guest
Ethiopia: Climate Change Taking Toll On Livestock in Southern Lowlands - Study allafrica.com/stories/200902160988.html
The UN climate change conference in Copenhagen this December “may well determine whether or not the world can respond to a threat which scientists are convinced will lead to catastrophic change unless we act fast,” writes Michael Berendt, a senior policy advisor at Fleischman Hillard, on Blogactiv.
Although Europe has been the political leader in delivering climate change policies, Berendt believes the real challenge will be industrial leadership.
euractiv.com/en/climate-change/reflecting-european-leadership-copenhagen/article-179466
The UN climate change conference in Copenhagen this December “may well determine whether or not the world can respond to a threat which scientists are convinced will lead to catastrophic change unless we act fast,” writes Michael Berendt, a senior policy advisor at Fleischman Hillard, on Blogactiv.
Although Europe has been the political leader in delivering climate change policies, Berendt believes the real challenge will be industrial leadership.
euractiv.com/en/climate-change/reflecting-european-leadership-copenhagen/article-179466
- Status