General Climate Discussion

[Angus]

Hehe, half of the media has to be taken with a grain of salt, since writing style weights more than knowledge.
And "scaring crap out of people" also makes good selling.
However, we ARE dealing with Global Warming, and on the flip side there are powerful forces at work who don't want too much word about that and are willing to pay a lot of money for distortion of facts.
Then we have (as always in cases of a disaster to come, no matter how slowly, - just like New Orleans was definately bound to be flooded...etc)..people who will stick their heads in the sand and defend that position untill they get washed away. Then there still will be no remorse. This I know very very well from personal business, and it came to me as a shock when I realized how remote people could be from reality which was staring them in the face. And then, reality hit, and did so quite hard.

[NoBaddy]

JB73 mentioned the "arrogance" in this debate (btw, Hiya 73 ), the arrogance comes into play when someone that tries and fails to tell you what the weather will be like tomorrow, reaches out and states definitively how it will be years or decades in the future. Now THAT is arrogant.

[Angus]

"angus... I have an advantage over you... I live in an area where we can see that it is not a problem.. there has been no warming for 20 years by nasa data and.. no matter what... all the attacks asside.. there really hasn't been any global average warming for the last 7 years or so. "

No you don't. Because a single degree on a continental, air warming measure over your area has completely no weight towards what is happening on the cold-temerate to cold areas on the N-Hemisphere.
As for the last 7 years, you sound like Hitler talking about the "final victory", - since all data except one compilation points to a higher temperature, 2005 being the last compiled record year WITHOUT the aid of El Nino.

"hortlund and hoopy.. nooo... you miss the point.. there are no more scientists in any field that believe in MMGW than there are that don't."

Really? I think you are wrong. How about proving your point.
(Bear in mind while at it that while I belive in a human contribution, I'm yet not all for JUST the CO2 emission)


Anyway, I'm not a scientist, - more of a thinking observer. And what I see is quite stunning.

[Hajo]

global warming and cooling is natural.  The earth has been experiencing climate changes since its' development.  It's a fact.  

To bad no one was around to measure the effect of Dinosaur flatulance during the Jurassic period.

Sheeeesh The sky is falling!  Ya   the earth is warming.......has it done so in the past?   Er.....yes it has.   Has the Earth also experienced Ice Ages?  Yup.....done those too!

Let's all jump on the various political band wagons together and forget about the facts that Geological History has already proven.

[Louis XVII]

Originally posted by leitwolf
I find it quite ironic how lazs manages to get all those would-be experts with all their grades and qualifications into an ad-hominem rampage.

You'd think their case is solid enough to beat him with facts?

Well LOL - it's nothing to do with that. It has more to do with the fact that the facts have been presented to him over and over again, but he still keeps singing from the same old hymn sheet and chanting the same big lie, over and over and over and over.... It would drive the Dalai Lama to drink.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Hajo
Sheeeesh The sky is falling!  Ya   the earth is warming.......has it done so in the past?   Er.....yes it has.   Has the Earth also experienced Ice Ages?  Yup.....done those too!

I am hiring two guys for research and development of my soon to be released product, The Sky Umbrella.
I have bought two lab coats for these two so that I may have pictures of both on the retail site and the mail order catalog. I have labeled both of them as "sky scientists".
This should be a real seller judging by some here.
The Sky Umbrella will come in two styles, "Chicken Little" and "Tweetlydum".

[Arlo]

Originally posted by AKIron
That's about clouds formed based on pollutants. Even your quote mentions smaller droplets (than normally formed) being more reflective. Perhaps you weren't clear on my comment? We do not know what the cumulative effect will be from moister air due to air warming.

I'm clearer on it than you are, presently. Your comment was:

"Clouds are also reflective and it isn't known what the overall effect would be with more clouds."

Yes, it is known. Feel free to concede that point when you're up to it. Then we can go on to discuss cumulative effects.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. good to have you back... I had forgotten how worthless your posts always are.

(Followed by non sequitur flatulation.)

Likewise, Lucy.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Hajo
To bad no one was around to measure the effect of Dinosaur flatulance during the Jurassic period.

We could build a model based on Laz alone.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Jackal1
I am hiring two guys for research and development of my soon to be released product, The Sky Umbrella.
I have bought two lab coats for these two so that I may have pictures of both on the retail site and the mail order catalog. I have labeled both of them as "sky scientists".
This should be a real seller judging by some here.
The Sky Umbrella will come in two styles, "Chicken Little" and "Tweetlydum".

Do you also have a GWOT division?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2

There simply is no majority as you claim.  

[...]

no one has ever polled the scientific community but...  of the last 500 peer reviewed documents... only a fraction.. something like 6% say that man is causing significant global warming...  most say that we may or may not but it is not possible to say for sure...  another percent say our contribution is there but insignificant..  the rest say that even if we were.. there would be nothing we could do about it.

lazs

Im going to take the time here to answer this post one more time, just to show everyone just what a piece of dishonest scum you are.

There has been two studies made looking at all scientific papers written that somehow deal with climate change. The studies have looked at the abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals and how the autors position themselves in the global warming debate. The first study was for the 1993-2003 period, the second was for the 2004-2007 period.

Here are the results. Now, remember that this is the base for lasz's ludicrous claim that there is no consensus in the scientific community.

In the 1993-2003 period
928 papes published. Not a single one disagreed with the consensus, 25% were "neutral", while 75% shared the consensus view.

In the 2004 - 2007 period
528 papers published. 6% disagreed with the consensus, 45% share the consensus view, 48% are "neutral".

So, we have 32 papers who disagree with the consensus. 32 of 1456.
We have 934 who agree with the consensus. 934 of 1456.
And we have 485 who are "neutral".

And lets remember that by "neutral" it just means that the author does not state an opinion either way, it doesnt count as pro or con for either side. This is something to be expected if it is a paper about something very technical btw. Just as you dont state in every paper about astrophysics that you believe in general relativity.

32 of 1456 are against, 934 of 1456 agree.

So...we have a new study that shows that 6 % of the papers reject the consensus. 6%.

And now note how lazs has spun this. Suddenly the 6 % figure has switched sides, from being 6% that reject the consensus...suddenly in lazs sick mind this has changed to becoming 6% that say man is causing global warming. Its beyond pathetic. Its nothing but an outright lie. A lie that he repeats over and over again in the vain hope that repeating the lie will make it true.

[Viking]

You know Hortlund ... Your problem is not that you don't make sense, you do, but that you use too many big words like "astrophysics" or "scientific". Lazs won't understand half of what you just wrote.

[NoBaddy]

Originally posted by Hortlund
... consensus ... consensus ... consensus ... consensus ... consensus ... consensus ... consensus... consensus...

At one point in time, the "consensus" was that the world was flat and everything revolved around it. The fact that there is a consensus does not mean that the premise is correct.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by NoBaddy
At one point in time, the "consensus" was that the world was flat and everything revolved around it. The fact that there is a consensus does not mean that the premise is correct.

Nor should a consensus among the scientific community be taken as an indication that the premise is incorrect...which seems to be what you are implying.

And there was no scientific method back in the "earth is flat"-days. So I suppose you and lasz must long for those days. Burn the heretics eh?

Leaving all that aside, what lasz claimed was that there is no consensus, alternatively that the scientific community is divided on the issue. I proved him wrong. Again.

[lazs2]

Hmmm.. hortund is proving my point and the point of this thread...  he shows how that up till 2003 most of the scientists were going along and not speaking up but..  the period of 2003 till present... well.. different story

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=B35C36A3-802A-23AD-46EC-6880767E7966

Of those.. he is correct... 48% say they can't say one way or the other... that is not 48% saying it is happening...  48% say they simply can't see it.. not see it like hortlund or angus... just don't see it.  6% say it is bunk..

ONLY ONE...  yep, one paper says it is a problem.. that man is causing catastrophic warming.   If 54% of the latest papers say that it is either bunk or that there is not enough evidence... and... only one supports hortlund and angus and moray... then... of course it is easy for anyone to see that the tide has shifted from the earlier studies.

do a search on global warming today and it is much different than even 3 or four years ago... there is no consensus except that very few if any believe we are causing a significant amount of warming.

around the water cooler more and more people are starting to realize it is a scam.    on this board... more and more speak out.

You can't just scream "consensus" and then have no proof.. is 40% or so saying we have an effect and 7% saying it is the end of the world is not a consensus.   and.. their numbers shrink every year... just as co2 goes up but temp does not.

The significant thing is that not only is there no consensus but.. that the alarmists numbers are shrinking.. just as the thread stated in the beggining.

Do a search for the "528 peer reviewed papers on mmgw" and look at the people all speaking out.  

It is healthy... we are finally starting to laugh at the arrogant alarmists.

lazs