Thread: Cold and Snow VS Global Warming

Has any one noticed that the number of years that is getting talked about are 40 years , 70-80 years?

Could there be a pattern?

Has it not been shown by science that there are 50 year cycles?

How long have good photos from space been in place?

The planet is changing and man is more of a spectator in this unfolding of change.

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

The planet is changing and man is more of a spectator in this unfolding of change.

DING!
DING!
DING!

We have a winner!

Originally Posted by tsquare

DING!
DING!
DING!

We have a winner!

And what does he win ?

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

And what does he win ?

Well that depends.

Best case? A world that is a bit warmer, but no big deal.

Worst case? Extinction of the species.

Please read the whole post before you begin to reply. That is if you decide to reply.

I’ll begin with your websites: Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism
How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic : A Few Things Ill Considered
I have been to these before and I am well aware that they are specifically set up to aid the AGW fanatic in their attempt to mystify with scientific jargon those who have not done their homework. You complain about my use of “certain unacceptable” websites, but it is alright for you to continue to present links to obviously biased websites with the purpose to provide the true believer with ammunition to attack those that do not accept the dogma of AGW.

I asked you to address, you, of course edit the links out,

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? | ScienceBits
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2...g_from_LIA.pdf
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...gmanReport.pdf
Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit
nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter)
For those interested, a little something extra: http://www.nipcc.ch/datei/1256830332.pdf

As I said in the above post: All of the papers I have quoted are by respected scientists or experts in their discipline. You complain

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Provide some peer reviewed science and i will be happy to address it.

Then address: http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? | ScienceBits
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2...g_from_LIA.pdf

The research presented in the above has been in peer review journals and each of these individuals are respected scientists in their fields.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...gmanReport.pdf
While Wegman's report has not been in a peer reviewed journal, why would it be since the report was specifically done for a Congressional committee, it has been reviewed by acknowledged experts in the field of statistical analysis. Of course, since it is further evidence of how flawed Mann’s work is and how corrupted the paleoclimatologist community is and also confirms Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit you’ll probably ignore it, present some thing from the Skepticalscience website or Mann’s website, or just insult me again.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to debunk some guys pet theories.

Neither of these nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter) are “some guys pet theories.” The first is a respected scientist calling for a complete investigation into the IPCC and its corrupt practices and methods, while the second is the resignation letter of a respected scientist to the IPCC out of disgust for the IPCC methods.

If anyone wants to know why all those links are bullshit they can simply do their own Google search on the claims made

And I hope many people do run Google searches on the above rather than go to your propaganda websites.

Continuing from the end of your reply I wrote: “Anyone, even you, can do the necessary search on the Environmental issues forum for the threads I have begun and the posts I have presented to determine the validity of the evidence I have given.”

You have provided nothing but the common drivel in the disinformation campaign that has been repeatedly debunked. Keep trying though. Maybe you should just go back to reading science. You have been duped, big time.

You keep accusing me of being a conspiracy theories, yet you keep claiming that there is this disinformation campaign and that industry interests are behind all of the “deniers” efforts to debunk AGW. I could say that you have been duped, but it is obvious that you are a true believer that has embraced the AGW myth willingly and completely. So, is it really drivel when respected scientists at the top of their field resign in disgust from the IPCC for its actions and review process?

I wrote: “No, you have provided mythic beliefs dressed up in scientific drag. After reading nearly a hundred books, reading hundreds of web pages, looking at hundreds of mag articles I have come to the conclusion that AGW is at best an unproven theory and at worse a mythic belief. As I have said several times, this is a conclusion that I have come to that radically differs from my environmentalist beliefs 20 years ago when I did buy into so much of the eco-extremist dogma.”

In other words you stopped reading science and started reading the PR material from industry funded think tanks like the Heartland Institute.

Not one book that I have read on the environment was published by the Heartland Institute. None of the mag articles on an environmental issue that I have read was from the Heartland Institute. Out of all of the links I have provided I have used the Heartland Institute may be two or three times. Still this is just the typical rhetoric used to dismiss any criticism you would rather ignore.

You have not provided one shred of peer reviewed scientific literature that in any way whatsoever invalidates the theory of AGW. Im still waiting.

Please present a link to a peer reviewed journal that does not require me to pay for the access or be a member of a scientific organization. Oh, how often have you provided a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal rather than one of your AGW propagnada sites or a politicized government organization with an agenda?

I wrote: “No one engaged in attacking an innocent respected scientist when they critizied Mann and his flawed and debunked hockey stick.”

Yes they have. M&M have pretty much accused Mann and Briffa of being frauds without any evidence whatsoever.

You mean like giving them the runaround about data or the code he used to make his stick? You mean like the very flawed code he used that would make random noise generate a hockey stick? You mean like being an editor of the IPCC’s 2001 report so he could include his hockey stick? Right now evidence whatsoever.

I wrote: I disagree that you are just providing the facts.

Show me where i have done anything but provide the facts when the science is at issue?

Oh, I am sure you believe that it is science and you believe that you are providing facts, but really it would be easier to show you the few times that you are presenting something other than religious dogma.

I wrote: The hockey stick is junk science.

No its not. The NAS has affirmed its conclusions. That is just the simpel basic facts of the matter.

Sure it is. So explain why the IPCC no longer uses Mann’s hockey stick?

I worte: As you know I have provided more than enough evidence that challenges any assertion of a consensus.

No you have not. All polling of scientists and review of climate science publications shows quite clearly there is a consensus.

1) There is no consensus about AGW. Period.
2) The validity of a theory is not determined by consensus.
3) We have seen what happens when science becomes politicized and when a so-called crisis is used to further an ideology. We were told about an imminent threat to our existence and warnings were given of the need for immediate action to safeguard our way of life. Foundations were set up specifically to address this issue. The affluent gave millions to various groups to investigate the crisis and the famous spoke out in support. State governments instituted committees to formulate policy and to carry out legislature that was passed. Past and future presidents promoted the science. The elite of academia gathered to discuss the crisis and recommend policies to address the issue. Journals and magazines were found to report on the science and on the activity of activists and reformers. Prestigious universities and colleges set up departments to educate their students in the principles of the science, as well as to prepare field workers and researches to help gather data and address the crisis. The list of supporters promoting the science and demanding action is a whose who of the most respected in their professions, from science, law, literature, business to politics. It includes Noble prize winners, Supreme Court Justices, famous inventors, literary giants, and top scientists. Twenty-seven state legislatures passed laws based on the science to address the crisis. It was said that (paraphrasing), If Jesus lived today he would be out front promoting the science and demanding action to address the crisis.

Eventually it was shown that there was no scientific basis for any of the claims and there was no evidence that supported the alleged claims of a world crisis. Unfortunately by the time the truth came out, millions across the world had been effected in adverse and unforgivable ways.

Considering the ramifications of the policies being recommended by the eco-fanatics and the IPCC I want to be absolutely sure that we have the science right and we really know the affects of the policies being demanded. Given the track record of the effects of many environmental policies I have my doubts. You have decide that all who disagree with the AGW mythology are either duped by industry, ignorant and uneducated fools, or evil dishonest people. In your closed mind there is no room for someone to have an honest disagreement about the research being presented or the policies being advocated. Those who question your cherished beliefs are ignored or demonized. You refuse to address the questions being asked unless they are within a narrow acceptable range that agree with a premise you demand. Perhaps I should stop replying to you and simple address the baseless claims you make.

tashi deleks,

M

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I'm the conspiracy theorist? You're the one proposing that more ice is forming despite the fact that the water is getting warmer. You explain to me how more ice forms in warmer climate.

It's not more ice, it's more sea ice. This means there's more ice breaking off and floating away. This means the ice in the ice shelves is melting faster as ice doesn't break up if it's all solidly frozen together

Originally Posted by John Drake

It's not more ice, it's more sea ice. This means there's more ice breaking off and floating away. This means the ice in the ice shelves is melting faster as ice doesn't break up if it's all solidly frozen together

The sea ice is seasonal ice formed because it's cold enough to form ice. More ice = more ice, not less ice. The shelf is breaking up, but it's not all the sea ice.

Originally Posted by Mahasattva

Please the whole post before you begin to reply. That is if you decide to reply.

I’ll begin with your websites: Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism
How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic : A Few Things Ill Considered
I have been to these before and I am well aware that they are specifically set up to aid the AGW fanatic in their attempt to mystify with scientific jargon those who have not done their homework. You complain about my use of “certain unacceptable” websites, but it is alright for you to continue to present links to obviously biased websites with the purpose to provide the true believer with ammunition to attack those that do not accept the dogma of AGW.

I asked you to address, you, of course edit the links out,

As I said in the above post: All of the papers I have quoted are by respected scientists or experts in their discipline. You complain



Then address: http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? | ScienceBits
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2...g_from_LIA.pdf

The research presented in the above has been in peer review journals and each of these individuals are respected scientists in their fields.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...gmanReport.pdf
While Wegman's report has not been in a peer reviewed journal, why would it be since the report was specifically done for a Congressional committee, it has been reviewed by acknowledged experts in the field of statistical analysis. Of course, since it is further evidence of how flawed Mann’s work is and how corrupted the paleoclimatologist community is and also confirms Hockey Stick Studies Climate Audit you’ll probably ignore it, present some thing from the Skepticalscience website or Mann’s website, or just insult me again.



Neither of these nzclimatescience.net - SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea (Resignation Letter) are “some guys pet theories.” The first is a respected scientist calling for a complete investigation into the IPCC and its corrupt practices and methods, while the second is the resignation letter of a respected scientist to the IPCC out of disgust for the IPCC methods.



And I hope many people do run Google searches on the above rather than go to your propaganda websites.

Continuing from the end of your reply I wrote: “Anyone, even you, can do the necessary search on the Environmental issues forum for the threads I have begun and the posts I have presented to determine the validity of the evidence I have given.”



You keep accusing me of being a conspiracy theories, yet you keep claiming that there is this disinformation campaign and that industry interests are behind all of the “deniers” efforts to debunk AGW. I could say that you have been duped, but it is obvious that you are a true believer that has embraced the AGW myth willingly and completely. So, is it really drivel when respected scientists at the top of their field resign in disgust from the IPCC for its actions and review process?

I wrote: “No, you have provided mythic beliefs dressed up in scientific drag. After reading nearly a hundred books, reading hundreds of web pages, looking at hundreds of mag articles I have come to the conclusion that AGW is at best an unproven theory and at worse a mythic belief. As I have said several times, this is a conclusion that I have come to that radically differs from my environmentalist beliefs 20 years ago when I did buy into so much of the eco-extremist dogma.”



Not one book that I have read on the environment was published by the Heartland Institute. None of the mag articles on an environmental issue that I have read was from the Heartland Institute. Out of all of the links I have provided I have used the Heartland Institute may be two or three times. Still this is just the typical rhetoric used to dismiss any criticism you would rather ignore.



Please present a link to a peer reviewed journal that does not require me to pay for the access or be a member of a scientific organization. Oh, how often have you provided a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal rather than one of your AGW propagnada sites or a politicized government organization with an agenda?

I wrote: “No one engaged in attacking an innocent respected scientist when they critizied Mann and his flawed and debunked hockey stick.”



You mean like giving them the runaround about data or the code he used to make is stick? You mean like the very flawed code he used that would make random noise generate a hockey stick? You mean like being an editor of the IPCC’s 2001 report so he could include his hockey stick? Right now evidence whatsoever.

I wrote: I disagree that you are just providing the facts.



Oh, I am sure you believe that it is science and you believe that you are providing facts, but really it would be easier to show you the few times that you are presenting something other than religious dogma.

I wrote: The hockey stick is junk science.



Sure it is. So explain why the IPCC no longer uses Mann’s hockey stick?

I worte: As you know I have provided more than enough evidence that challenges any assertion of a consensus.



1) There is no consensus about AGW. Period.
2) The validity of a theory is not determined by consensus.
3) We have seen what happens when science becomes politicized and when a so-called crisis is used to further an ideology. We were told about an imminent threat to our existence and warnings were given of the need for immediate action to safeguard our way of life. Foundations were set up specifically to address this issue. The affluent gave millions to various groups to investigate the crisis and the famous spoke out in support. State governments instituted committees to formulate policy and to carry out legislature that was passed. Past and future presidents promoted the science. The elite of academia gathered to discuss the crisis and recommend policies to address the issue. Journals and magazines were found to report on the science and on the activity of activists and reformers. Prestigious universities and colleges set up departments to educate their students in the principles of the science, as well as to prepare field workers and researches to help gather data and address the crisis. The list of supporters promoting the science and demanding action is a whose who of the most respected in their professions, from science, law, literature, business to politics. It includes Noble prize winners, Supreme Court Justices, famous inventors, literary giants, and top scientists. Twenty-seven state legislatures passed laws based on the science to address the crisis. It was said that (paraphrasing), If Jesus lived today he would be out front promoting the science and demanding action to address the crisis.

Eventually it was shown that there was no scientific basis for any of the claims and there was no evidence that supported the alleged claims of a world crisis. Unfortunately by the time the truth came out, millions across the world had been effected in adverse and unforgivable ways.

Considering the ramifications of the policies being recommended by the eco-fanatics and the IPCC I want to be absolutely sure that we have the science right and we really know the affects of the policies being demanded. Given the track record of the effects of many environmental policies I have my doubts. You have decide that all who disagree with the AGW mythology are either duped by industry, ignorant and uneducated fools, or evil dishonest people. In your closed mind there is no room for someone to have an honest disagreement about the research being presented or the policies being advocated. Those who question your cherished beliefs are ignored or demonized. You refuse to address the questions being asked unless they are within a narrow acceptable range that agree with a premise you demand. Perhaps I should stop replying to you and simple address the baseless claims you make.

tashi deleks,

M

Just what ARE the policies being demanded? All I've heard so far is stuff like Cap and Trade and Kyoto protocols. Now, despite all the propaganda this site comes up with on that they don't really look like very much more than we are eventually going to have to do anyway. Either from the expense of the resource running out, as with oil, or from the other environmental costs, as with coal and other fossil fuels.

The scientists are "demanding" in other words. that we do slightly more rapidly what we are going to have to do in a few years anyway.

I almost see your point with the validity of the info. Climatology is a physical science, yes, but my understanding is it's not like celestial mechanics where nearly everything is known and accounted for, but more like medicine, where despite a very large and rapidly growing body of knowledge we still can't cure cancer or the common cold.

However, I am going to continue to use a doctor with an accredited license, not seek out someone who says he can cure cancer with diet and exercise just because chemotherapy is unpleasant.

All else being said, given the really dire possibilities; is paying an extra 10 cents a gallon a year sooner WORTH possibly flooding most major Coastal areas in the world?

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

The sea ice is seasonal ice formed because it's cold enough to form ice. More ice = more ice, not less ice. The shelf is breaking up, but it's not all the sea ice.

If the ice shelf is breaking up the ice shelf is melting, that's generally the main reason large ice shelves break up.

And when you have a fragment the size of Jamaica breaking off then I really have to question why you are so sure that all the extra ice comes from the sea. It BECOMES sea ice, once it breaks off, yes, but until then it's land ice extending out over the water.

Originally Posted by John Drake

If the ice shelf is breaking up the ice shelf is melting, that's generally the main reason large ice shelves break up.

And when you have a fragment the size of Jamaica breaking off then I really have to question why you are so sure that all the extra ice comes from the sea. It BECOMES sea ice, once it breaks off, yes, but until then it's land ice extending out over the water.

The sea ice is formed in the sea. The ice shelf is over the sea. It isn't all sliding off the land and into the water.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Well that depends.

Best case? A world that is a bit warmer, but no big deal.

Worst case? Extinction of the species.

I think that's a bit of hyperbole, don't you? If problems become serious enough the supposed man-made causes will go away. This will be either by our own self-correcting actions or via that culling of humans and society to a large enough degree that we wouldn't have the numbers or ability to damage the environment. Remember, we had an extinction even, already, and it didn't kill all life. Tons of life survived, everything you see today is a result of that survival. Humans are sentient and advanced creatures, we'd be able to survive much better than non-sentient life forms. Humans, in worst case scenario, are not threatened with extinction.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I think that's a bit of hyperbole, don't you? ... Humans, in worst case scenario, are not threatened with extinction.

Sure we could face extinction in a worst case scenario, but any evidence we are heading there is cooked up. (I just had to use that pun)

Originally Posted by fishjoel

I think that's a bit of hyperbole, don't you? If problems become serious enough the supposed man-made causes will go away. This will be either by our own self-correcting actions or via that culling of humans and society to a large enough degree that we wouldn't have the numbers or ability to damage the environment. Remember, we had an extinction even, already, and it didn't kill all life. Tons of life survived, everything you see today is a result of that survival. Humans are sentient and advanced creatures, we'd be able to survive much better than non-sentient life forms. Humans, in worst case scenario, are not threatened with extinction.

OK, I see, So only a couple blliion or so will die. No biggie