Kilimanjaro ice cap disappearing
gtech1
____________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
K9way
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index.html
how many times do we have to tell you to ..STOP FUCKIN AROUND .. with
facts and pictures .. The righties want to believe what they want to
believe
This shit only makes em angry and uncomfortable
remember .. they believe that the Grand Canyon was dug by God, very
recently , as a test of faith .
You cannot use reason and logic with these kinds of people .
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
--------�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Ramashiva Jr
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index...
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader :www.recgroups.com
The article says that the glaciers will be gone in a couple of
decades. I dunno. My objection is the weatherman can't tell me what
the weather will be like a few days from, let alone a few decades from
now.
susan
"K9way" <ad1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:rg84s6x...@recgroups.com...
> On Nov 2 2009 6:33 PM, gtech1 wrote:
>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index.html
>
> how many times do we have to tell you to ..STOP FUCKIN AROUND .. with
> facts and pictures .. The righties want to believe what they want to
> believe
>
> This shit only makes em angry and uncomfortable
I never knew that Global Warming issue was a right/left issue. I thought it
was based on science and facts.
Tell me, so I don't get confused again, which issues are right and which are
left?
>
> remember .. they believe that the Grand Canyon was dug by God, very
> recently , as a test of faith .
Thats interesting - the big O must be much more rightie than I am because I
know if I believe in God or not - I'm not discounting the possibility
however.
Anyway, following through on your logic, Obama is a rightie who doesn't
believe in Global Warming. Got it - thanks.
FL Turbo
<duanepr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index.html
>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/oh-no-not-this-kilimanjaro-rubbish-again/#comments
Oh no, not this Kilimanjaro rubbish again!
2 11 2009
Gore started this.
Note to journalists everywhere: IT�S THE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION STUPID!
See this article to understand why linking snow on Kilimanjaro to
small changes in global temperature is just flat wrong.
The plains around Kilimanjaro have gone through years of
deforestation.
Less trees > less evapotranspiration > less snow.
Don�t believe me? Here�s news of a recent study from Portsmouth
University Of Mt. Kilimanjaro ice waving us good-bye due to
deforestation. Here�s another peer reviewed study from UAH saying the
same thing.
=========================
** There wasn�t organized farming near Kilimanjaro until the last
century.
Farming preparation clears trees, trees evapotranspirate mositure.
Less trees, less moisture.
Image: Wikimedia
No surprise then they don�t see it in the ice core record.
It is simply bad science to not consider land use issues looking you
in the face while you drill ice cores on the slopes.
� Anthony (Watts)
-------------------------------------------------------
BTW
While your looking at the site, take a good look at the World Climate
Widget on the sidebar.
Among other things, it shows the satellite data for temperatures in
the lower troposphere.
K9way
>
> Thats interesting - the big O must be much more rightie than I am because I
> know if I believe in God or not - I'm not discounting the possibility
> however.
>
> Anyway, following through on your logic, Obama is a rightie who doesn't
> believe in Global Warming. Got it - thanks.
Not quite sure where you are going or what you mean .. This is the second
thing I posted and your rebuttal was to examine Obama's position. I dont
agree with anything just because 'someone said so "
I am against the unfettered raping of American women , and I am against
the efforts of the right to opretend that we as a race have no affect on
our environment .
if Obama doesnt believe in the existence of a "problem " regarding our
environment .. then he is a fool .
Not as big a fool as those who must believe that the earh is only 8000
years old .. but never the less a FOOL .
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
_______________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
John the Savage
>
> See this article to understand why linking snow on Kilimanjaro to
> small changes in global temperature is just flat wrong.
Phew! For a second I thought we had another case of human activity
fucking with the climate again. Glad that's not what's going on here!
>
> The plains around Kilimanjaro have gone through years of
> deforestation.
> Less trees > less evapotranspiration > less snow.
>
Oh, wait.
John the Savage
>
> The article says that the glaciers will be gone in a couple of
> decades. I dunno. My objection is the weatherman can't tell me what
> the weather will be like a few days from, let alone a few decades from
> now.
Maybe you should figure out what the difference between "weather" and
"climate" is before you start talking about either. Objection overruled.
susan
"K9way" <ad1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> > recently , as a test of faith .
>>
>> Thats interesting - the big O must be much more rightie than I am because
>> I
>> know if I believe in God or not - I'm not discounting the possibility
>> however.
>>
>> Anyway, following through on your logic, Obama is a rightie who doesn't
>> believe in Global Warming. Got it - thanks.
>
> Not quite sure where you are going or what you mean .. This is the second
> thing I posted and your rebuttal was to examine Obama's position. I dont
> agree with anything just because 'someone said so "
>
> I am against the unfettered raping of American women , and I am against
> the efforts of the right to opretend that we as a race have no affect on
> our environment .
But according to you all righties are for raping women. And in order to be
unconvinced about Global Warming one does not have to be a rightie.
This is exactly what I mean doggy. To claim that these are a left right
issue is ignornant.
>
> if Obama doesnt believe in the existence of a "problem " regarding our
> environment .. then he is a fool .
I didn't say that - I was following your logic. A rightie according to you
doesn't believe in Global Warming and believes that the grand Canyon was
carved out by God. He believes in God, so much be a rightie.
You seem to have no mind of your own when you constantly state right/left
thoughts. Most of us think for ourselves.
Jager Meister
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:h%KHm.49$M45...@newsfe06.iad...
> But according to you all righties are for raping women.
Did he really say that?
Alim Nassor
But of course that is completely different than trying to blame it on
global warming isn't it?
BillB
"Jager Meister" <bo...@shaw24.com> wrote in message
news:89LHm.49$xt7...@newsfe18.iad...
> Did he really say that?
Sorry, that was me. I was just doing a test. But I did mean to ask the
question. Did he really say that?
If so, that's a ridiculous statement. Many righties are not in favor
of raping woman. I mean, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming
to give them anything approaching equal rights, but rape? No.
joeturn
show you whatz Right and all the dumbfounded will be whatz LEFT!
Wake up world!
FL Turbo
<savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>FL Turbo wrote:
>>
>> See this article to understand why linking snow on Kilimanjaro to
>> small changes in global temperature is just flat wrong.
>
>Phew! For a second I thought we had another case of human activity
>fucking with the climate again. Glad that's not what's going on here!
>
It's a local phenomena that has nothing to do with the global climate.
It has nothing to do with CO2 levels.
>>
>> The plains around Kilimanjaro have gone through years of
>> deforestation.
>> Less trees > less evapotranspiration > less snow.
>>
Can human activity affect local conditions?
No doubt.
There is an example.
Is it "proof" of Global Warming?
No.
>
>Oh, wait.
John the Savage
Qualitatively, no. It is just another symptom of the bigger problem -
man made climate change. I do not claim to agree with Turbo's article,
and I suspect there are a lot of factors at play here. But it hardly
supports the notion (which I know Turbo subscribes to) that human action
is having little effect on the climate.
Whatever you may say about this mountain in particular (and I don't
think the science necessarily agrees with the article linked by
Francis), it is a fact that glaciers all over the world are disappearing
from the face of the Earth at an alarming rate. It is also a fact that
forests are disappearing from the face of the Earth at an alarming rate.
I do not feel particularly comforted by the notion that one might be
causing the other. Nature is undergoing huge changes all around us,
that are caused by us, and will have severe impacts on us. But don't
fret on Her behalf. Nature doesn't particularly care. She has ways of
dealing with species that practice unsustainable strategies. Watch and
see.
John the Savage
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:29:29 -0500, John the Savage
> <savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> FL Turbo wrote:
>>> See this article to understand why linking snow on Kilimanjaro to
>>> small changes in global temperature is just flat wrong.
>> Phew! For a second I thought we had another case of human activity
>> fucking with the climate again. Glad that's not what's going on here!
>>
> It's a local phenomena that has nothing to do with the global climate.
> It has nothing to do with CO2 levels.
>
Glacier disappearance is not a local phenomenon. CO2 levels are not the
only way in which man is adversely affecting the biosphere on which he
depends. Your article does not refute the bigger point, in fact it
further supports it. It's the sort of thing I can't resist.
>>> The plains around Kilimanjaro have gone through years of
>>> deforestation.
>>> Less trees > less evapotranspiration > less snow.
>>>
>
> Can human activity affect local conditions?
> No doubt.
> There is an example.
>
And what happens when human activity affects the "local conditions",
everywhere? Can you add it up at all, Turbo?
> Is it "proof" of Global Warming?
> No.
Who cares what you think? Have you read the relevant literature? Do
you know what these people are studying up there? Have you seen the
data? Are there any other current scientific topics you feel qualified
to publicly opine about based on what you read on the right wing blogs
today?
BillB
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:21sue5dnsp70a7j6g...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:33:53 -0800, "gtech1"
> <duanepr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index.html
>>
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/oh-no-not-this-kilimanjaro-rubbish-again/#comments
>
> Oh no, not this Kilimanjaro rubbish again!
> 2 11 2009
>
> Gore started this.
> Note to journalists everywhere: IT'S THE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION STUPID!
>
> See this article to understand why linking snow on Kilimanjaro to
> small changes in global temperature is just flat wrong.
>
> The plains around Kilimanjaro have gone through years of
> deforestation.
> Less trees > less evapotranspiration > less snow.
>
> Don't believe me? Here's news of a recent study from Portsmouth
> University Of Mt. Kilimanjaro ice waving us good-bye due to
> deforestation. Here's another peer reviewed study from UAH saying
> the
> same thing.
Unfortunately, the studies don't appear to say what he says they do.
What a shocker! Sounds to me like he's just another oil company funded
blogger preying on the gullible (i.e. YOU). When you go to the "About"
page, he lists his credentials as a TV "meteorologist", yet he fails
to mention any academic credentials supporting his claim of being a
meteorologist (RED FLAG ALERT!!!!!). A quick internet seat search
suggests he has no science degree at all.
Jesus Christ, Turbo...do you ever learn? Do you realize that most of
this "reading" you do on the subject of climate change is pure
garbage?
Almost everything I have ever seen you post on this subject can be
debunked in seconds with a little critical thought and a quick
internet search.
FL Turbo
<savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Alim Nassor wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 8:29 am, John the Savage <savage0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> FL Turbo wrote:
>>>
>>>> See this article to understand why linking snow on Kilimanjaro to
>>>> small changes in global temperature is just flat wrong.
>>> Phew! For a second I thought we had another case of human activity
>>> fucking with the climate again. Glad that's not what's going on here!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The plains around Kilimanjaro have gone through years of
>>>> deforestation.
>>>> Less trees > less evapotranspiration > less snow.
>>> Oh, wait.
>>
>> But of course that is completely different than trying to blame it on
>> global warming isn't it?
>
>Qualitatively, no. It is just another symptom of the bigger problem -
>man made climate change. I do not claim to agree with Turbo's article,
>and I suspect there are a lot of factors at play here. But it hardly
>supports the notion (which I know Turbo subscribes to) that human action
>is having little effect on the climate.
>
But it certainly doesn't support the notion that Global Warming is
causing the Kilimanjaro glaciers to melt, either.
But that certainly is the "spin" that the article was meant to imply,
namely that "Global Warming" was solely responsible for that local
phenomena.
>Whatever you may say about this mountain in particular (and I don't
>think the science necessarily agrees with the article linked by
>Francis), it is a fact that glaciers all over the world are disappearing
>from the face of the Earth at an alarming rate. It is also a fact that
>forests are disappearing from the face of the Earth at an alarming rate.
> I do not feel particularly comforted by the notion that one might be
>causing the other. Nature is undergoing huge changes all around us,
>that are caused by us, and will have severe impacts on us. But don't
>fret on Her behalf. Nature doesn't particularly care. She has ways of
>dealing with species that practice unsustainable strategies. Watch and
>see.
Kind of "begging the question", isn't it?
You are assuming that the changes in Nature are being caused by us.
Not exactly the way to go about "proving" something, eh?
Your last sentence did hit the mark.
Yes, let us watch and see.
John the Savage
>
> But it certainly doesn't support the notion that Global Warming is
> causing the Kilimanjaro glaciers to melt, either.
>
> But that certainly is the "spin" that the article was meant to imply,
> namely that "Global Warming" was solely responsible for that local
> phenomena.
>
There was no "spin". There was a study published today. The authors of
the study made the case therein that rising global temperatures are the
main cause. You imply that you know more about the relevant literature
than they do. Apparently, you think they are simply fools who didn't do
their homework. They should have asked you first? Why do you believe
the (apparently two) studies that are a couple clicks away from your
link are valid while other scientific work is not? What are your
qualifications for sorting through this published debate like you are
the expert?
>> Whatever you may say about this mountain in particular (and I don't
>> think the science necessarily agrees with the article linked by
>> Francis), it is a fact that glaciers all over the world are disappearing
>>from the face of the Earth at an alarming rate. It is also a fact that
>> forests are disappearing from the face of the Earth at an alarming rate.
>> I do not feel particularly comforted by the notion that one might be
>> causing the other. Nature is undergoing huge changes all around us,
>> that are caused by us, and will have severe impacts on us. But don't
>> fret on Her behalf. Nature doesn't particularly care. She has ways of
>> dealing with species that practice unsustainable strategies. Watch and
>> see.
>
> Kind of "begging the question", isn't it?
> You are assuming that the changes in Nature are being caused by us.
> Not exactly the way to go about "proving" something, eh?
>
If if wasn't us, who was it? Was it God? Did God cut down all the
trees, Turbo? Did God start practicing "totalitarian agriculture" and
change the entire surface of the planet? Did God build the cities,
slums, and farms that have crowded so many species out of existence
right before our eyes? Did God pull all this carbon out of the Earth
and start burning it so that you could sit on your ass on a Monday night
and communicate with the rest of the world? Did God build the dams that
reduced formerly raging rivers to slow drips? Did God pump nitrogen
based fertilizer into the ground until it ran off into the Gulf causing
huge dead spots where nothing can live? Did God create the Great
Pacific Garbage Patch? Did God fill all the fish with mercury?
I think we can at least blame Him for your complete inability to grasp
the obvious. He did endow us with a remarkable capacity for denial, it
seems. Preach on.
> Your last sentence did hit the mark.
> Yes, let us watch and see.
Enjoy the show.
La Cosa Nostradamus
about 20 percent of all global warming gasses come from the beef industry.
That eclipses the amount produced by all transportation.
Music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riq9PtKIkks&feature=PlayList&p=7CBC79A5A43EA115&index=0&playnext=1
Dec 21, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BEACDF838531C36C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL
-------�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
bub
<a6f...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>about 20 percent of all global warming gasses come from the beef industry.
>That eclipses the amount produced by all transportation.
the largest greenhouse gas is water vapor.
figure out how to stop that huh?
bush's fault, no doubt
FL Turbo
<savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>FL Turbo wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:29:29 -0500, John the Savage
>> <savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> FL Turbo wrote:
>>>> See this article to understand why linking snow on Kilimanjaro to
>>>> small changes in global temperature is just flat wrong.
>>> Phew! For a second I thought we had another case of human activity
>>> fucking with the climate again. Glad that's not what's going on here!
>>>
>> It's a local phenomena that has nothing to do with the global climate.
>> It has nothing to do with CO2 levels.
>>
>
>Glacier disappearance is not a local phenomenon. CO2 levels are not the
>only way in which man is adversely affecting the biosphere on which he
>depends. Your article does not refute the bigger point, in fact it
>further supports it. It's the sort of thing I can't resist.
>
How so?
The specific article I referred to, dealt with one particular glacier.
The reasons for that particular glacier receding was fully explained
by the deforestation of the surrounding area.
It wasn't meant as a refutation of any bigger point, it was merely to
explain why a local phenomena had nothing to do with "global" climate.
How could that possibly support the Global Warming hypothesis?
>>>> The plains around Kilimanjaro have gone through years of
>>>> deforestation.
>>>> Less trees > less evapotranspiration > less snow.
>>>>
>>
>> Can human activity affect local conditions?
>> No doubt.
>> There is an example.
>>
>
>And what happens when human activity affects the "local conditions",
>everywhere? Can you add it up at all, Turbo?
>
Most farming occurs in areas far, far away from a glacier.
You can't simply extrapolate one single instance to prove the
contention that it will happen "everywhere".
That is what is commonly called jumping to conclusions.
>> Is it "proof" of Global Warming?
>> No.
>
>Who cares what you think? Have you read the relevant literature? Do
>you know what these people are studying up there? Have you seen the
>data? Are there any other current scientific topics you feel qualified
>to publicly opine about based on what you read on the right wing blogs
>today?
All I know is what I read.
Like most of us, I am at the mercy of people who know a lot of things
about particular subjects.
I read sites populated by real, live experts.
Here is a long report from one of them.
http://www.ecoworld.com/climate/global-warming-greentech.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a much larger group of scientists, the fact that they can make
ambiguous or even meaningless statements that can be spun by
alarmists, and that the alarming spin leads politicians to increase
funding provides little incentive to complain about the spin.
Second, most arguments about global warming boil down to science
versus authority. For much of the public, authority will generally win
since they do not wish to deal with science. For a basically political
movement, as the global warming issue most certainly is, an important
task is to coopt the sources of authority.
This, the global warming movement has done with great success.
Thus, for over twenty years, the National Academy had a temporary
nominating group designed to facilitate the election of environmental
activists.
The current president of the academy is one of these. The American
Association for the Advancement of Science has been headed by James
McCarthy and John Holdren in recent years, and these have been public
advocates for global warming alarm.
Holdren is now President Obama�s nominee for science advisor. There
are numerous further examples. How often have we heard a legitimate
scientific argument answered by the claim that the alarmist scenario
is endorsed by, for example, the American Physical Society (regardless
of their lack of expertise in the issue)?
How often have you heard innocuous claims by some society or another
taken as endorsements of alarm?
How often have you heard that any particular argument has been dealt
with by realclimate.org (a clear advocacy website designed to assure
warming alarmists that the basis for alarm still exists)?
Thirdly, the success with respect to the second item also gives the
climate alarm movement control over carrots and sticks � which, in
turn, is what makes it expedient for most scientists to go along.
Note that the carrots are as important as the sticks, though the
sticks matter a great deal when grants, publication and promotion are
at stake.
With respect to carrots, for example, John Holdren was long on the
board of the MacArthur Foundation which has awarded �genius� grants to
numerous environmental activists. Ironically, an award allegedly
honoring the late Bill Nierenberg (who served as director of Scripps
Oceanographic Institution), a very perceptive and active skeptic of
climate alarm, is now given annually to an alarmist.
One could go on at great length. At the stick end, one simply has to
note that Science and Nature have both publically taken positions
against publishing anything that opposes the notion of dangerous
anthropogenic warming, while publishing highly dubious science
endorsing the notion.
The process of coopting science on behalf of a political movement has
had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science � especially
since the issue has been a major motivation for funding.
Most funding for climate science would not be there without this
issue.
And, it should be added, most science funded under the rubric of
climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the
alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed climate change.
All impacts depend on regional forecasts, and quoting the leading
scientist at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting
(widely regarded as the foremost atmospheric modeling center), Tim
Palmer, such forecasts are little better than guesses.
Nonetheless, regional forecasts are at the heart of numerous state
initiatives to �fight� climate change. These initiatives are usually
prepared by the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS), a
Pennsylvania-based environmental advocacy group that purports to help
states determine for themselves how to develop climate change
policies.
In reality, according to Paul Chesser of the John Locke Foundation,
CCS tightly controls these commissions, who consider proposals mostly
from a menu of options presented by CCS themselves. Nearly all the
choices represent new taxes or higher prices on energy, increased
costs of government, new regulations for businesses, and reduced
energy-producing options for utilities, and therefore consumers. CCS
is funded largely by a multi-million dollar global warming alarmist
foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
What can the entrepreneur who wants to get to the bottom of this mess
do? The most obvious point is to better understand the science, and to
notice the obvious breaches of logic. Logic ultimately has to trump
alleged authority.
Moreover, there is generally a deep disconnect between consensus
statements that commonly only repeat the trivial points that there has
been some warming and that man�s emissions have caused some part of
this, and the claims of catastrophe made by advocates.
Pay attention to these differences.
Note especially that citing various changes that are observed is
simply to note that the earth is always changing; it is hardly
evidence of man�s role in such changes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the saying goes, if you are interested, Read the Whole Thing.
And don't forget to read the reader's comments that follow.
News stories in the Mass Media are notorious for either getting it
wrong, or presenting one side of a story without considering diverse
opinions.
I do indeed read right wing blogs, but their focus is on politics, not
science.
I always go to the original source to verify opinions expressed by
Rush.
------------------------------------------------------------
The most valuable Diversity is the Diversity of Opinion
gtech1
degree in?
On Nov 2 2009 7:17 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
---�
FL Turbo
I can see you haven't learned anything new on this topic.
It's the same old, SameOld tactic that has gotten threadbare from
overuse.
"Attack the Messenger, Ignore the Message."
(Anthony Watts being the messenger.)
I am somewhat disappointed in you, but I cannot say I'm surprised.
BillB
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:bf6ve5hvtluaj1a48...@4ax.com...
1) I told you that the studies to which he refers do not say what he
claims they do. Does that concern you at all?
2) You wouldn't be concerned going to someone for medical advice who
advertised himself as a doctor, only to find out that he had never in
fact been to medical school? Yes, that is a messenger I would
certainly attack, as would anyone else with a brain.
FL Turbo
<savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>FL Turbo wrote:
>>
>> But it certainly doesn't support the notion that Global Warming is
>> causing the Kilimanjaro glaciers to melt, either.
>>
>> But that certainly is the "spin" that the article was meant to imply,
>> namely that "Global Warming" was solely responsible for that local
>> phenomena.
>>
>
>There was no "spin". There was a study published today. The authors of
>the study made the case therein that rising global temperatures are the
>main cause. You imply that you know more about the relevant literature
>than they do. Apparently, you think they are simply fools who didn't do
>their homework. They should have asked you first? Why do you believe
>the (apparently two) studies that are a couple clicks away from your
>link are valid while other scientific work is not? What are your
>qualifications for sorting through this published debate like you are
>the expert?
>
You still don't seem to understand that the reason those particular
glaciers were melting was from the surrounding deforesting resulting
from farming activity in the 20th Century.
Unfortunately for you, you've bought into every hysterical claim
advanced by the Whacko Environmentalists.
I don't know if there's anything I can do to help you.
Just FYI, I am Agnostic.
I'm not so full of myself that I can claim for 100% certainty one way
or the other.
>I think we can at least blame Him for your complete inability to grasp
>the obvious. He did endow us with a remarkable capacity for denial, it
>seems. Preach on.
>
Just look at you.
You spent the time to write a long paragraph preaching to me.
Ya gotta luv the "denial" thing.
A Catch 22 thing if there ever was one.
(If you "deny" something, it is undeniable proof that you are what you
deny.)
Pffft
>> Your last sentence did hit the mark.
>> Yes, let us watch and see.
>
>Enjoy the show.
I will.
The only thing that I hate about the prospect of dying is that I won't
be around to see what happens next.
John the Savage
>>>
>> Glacier disappearance is not a local phenomenon. CO2 levels are not the
>> only way in which man is adversely affecting the biosphere on which he
>> depends. Your article does not refute the bigger point, in fact it
>> further supports it. It's the sort of thing I can't resist.
>>
> How so?
> The specific article I referred to, dealt with one particular glacier.
> The reasons for that particular glacier receding was fully explained
> by the deforestation of the surrounding area.
>
That is apparently not the opinion of the scientists whose work was
published today. We'll take your view under advisement.
> It wasn't meant as a refutation of any bigger point, it was merely to
> explain why a local phenomena had nothing to do with "global" climate.
>
> How could that possibly support the Global Warming hypothesis?
I don't believe anybody was talking about such a thing.
>
>>>>> The plains around Kilimanjaro have gone through years of
>>>>> deforestation.
>>>>> Less trees > less evapotranspiration > less snow.
>>>>>
>>> Can human activity affect local conditions?
>>> No doubt.
>>> There is an example.
>>>
>> And what happens when human activity affects the "local conditions",
>> everywhere? Can you add it up at all, Turbo?
>>
> Most farming occurs in areas far, far away from a glacier.
>
> You can't simply extrapolate one single instance to prove the
> contention that it will happen "everywhere".
>
Glaciers *are* disappearing everywhere. Local changes caused by man
*are* occurring everywhere. Look into it.
>
> All I know is what I read.
What you believe is a subset of what you read, and you choose that
subset using a highly dubious method involving a lot of confirmation bias.
> Like most of us,
Indeed.
FL Turbo
<duanepr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding!! Remind me, what area is your
>degree in?
I would tell you, except that it wouldn't do a single thing to clear
up things that you misunderstand.
Thank me.
K9way
any chance your are going to start soon ?
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!! John Hiatt in "Buffalo River Home"
---�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
John the Savage
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:10:34 -0500, John the Savage
> <savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> FL Turbo wrote:
>>> But it certainly doesn't support the notion that Global Warming is
>>> causing the Kilimanjaro glaciers to melt, either.
>>>
>>> But that certainly is the "spin" that the article was meant to imply,
>>> namely that "Global Warming" was solely responsible for that local
>>> phenomena.
>>>
>> There was no "spin". There was a study published today. The authors of
>> the study made the case therein that rising global temperatures are the
>> main cause. You imply that you know more about the relevant literature
>> than they do. Apparently, you think they are simply fools who didn't do
>> their homework. They should have asked you first? Why do you believe
>> the (apparently two) studies that are a couple clicks away from your
>> link are valid while other scientific work is not? What are your
>> qualifications for sorting through this published debate like you are
>> the expert?
>>
> You still don't seem to understand that the reason those particular
> glaciers were melting was from the surrounding deforesting resulting
> from farming activity in the 20th Century.
>
What the fuck? Did you read what I wrote, right there above yours? Let
me go all Travel on you and try again:
The authors of
the study made the case therein that rising global temperatures are the
main cause. You imply that you know more about the relevant literature
than they do.
What you state above as fact, simply, is not. While there may be some
papers "suggesting" that deforestation is a big part of the story, they
do not in fact claim what you think they do, and further many other
papers state a different opinion.
They are simply facts, Turbo. Please tell me what effect of modern
civilization, which I have referenced above, is specifically a
"hysterical claim".
> Just FYI, I am Agnostic.
> I'm not so full of myself that I can claim for 100% certainty one way
> or the other.
>
K.
>> I think we can at least blame Him for your complete inability to grasp
>> the obvious. He did endow us with a remarkable capacity for denial, it
>> seems. Preach on.
>>
> Just look at you.
> You spent the time to write a long paragraph preaching to me.
>
I'm pretty quick at this whole writing thing, ya know.
>
> I will.
> The only thing that I hate about the prospect of dying is that I won't
> be around to see what happens next.
Are you 100% sure?
Paul Popinjay
>
>
> any chance your are going to start soon ?
>
So what are you doing to help reduce the carbon dioxide, numbnuts? Are you
riding a horse to the cardroom? What is John the Savage doing about
deforestation? Does he live in a plastic house?
NFLed
> I never knew that Global Warming issue was a right/left issue. I thought it
> was based on science and facts.
How naive. Those on the right represent big companies and rich people
so of course they don't want their pollution activities curtailed and
they will use whatever means necessary (including perverting the
truth) to allow their money-making activities to continue. Those on
the left represent others and so they don't mind screwing it to the
big companies and rich people and instead care about the truth.
Also, there are a large group of those on the right who believe that
science is false in many ways so if scientists say it then it much be
fought with all angles.
This is all so obvious even I could see it.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>"K9way" <ad1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>news:rg84s6x...@recgroups.com...
>> On Nov 2 2009 6:33 PM, gtech1 wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index.html
>>
>> how many times do we have to tell you to ..STOP FUCKIN AROUND .. with
>> facts and pictures .. The righties want to believe what they want to
>> believe
>>
>> This shit only makes em angry and uncomfortable
>
>I never knew that Global Warming issue was a right/left issue. I thought it
>was based on science and facts.
For some reason, though, it's only the righties that don't want to
accept the science and facts. Go figure.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Brandii
> Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding!! Remind me, what area is your
> degree in?
> On Nov 2 2009 7:17 PM, FL Turbo wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:33:53 -0800, "gtech1"
>
> > >http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index...
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/oh-no-not-this-kilimanjaro-rubb...
>
> - Show quoted text -
M.S. AE, Ga Tech
Busted
garycarson
> "Jager Meister" <b...@shaw24.com> wrote in message
But it's not rape if she really wanted it.
garycarson
Yes.
Lab Rat
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index.html
For those who would like to read tha actual paper, and a a little about
the man responsible for it:
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/31/11437.full (bio)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5593/589 (requires free
registration)
It's worth a look at the original scientific articles; can be a little
difficult to work through all of the jargon, but often one can understand
the gist of the article without the jargon. This one is quite interesting,
both in what it does and does not say.
Enjoy.
_______________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
news:5acc638d-e621-441a...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No wonder Pinochet's generals threw people like you out of helicopters.
Probably got tired of your whining.
-Paul Popinjay
da pickle
But it's not rape if she really wanted it.
===========================
You are correct, if she "really" wanted whatever.
[The same is true if "he" really wanted whatever.]
da pickle
>> The only thing that I hate about the prospect of dying is that I won't
>> be around to see what happens next.
>
> Are you 100% sure?
John, you seem to be "more sure" than Turbo about most of what you are
saying.
What makes you better than he at making up his/your mind?
The only thing wrong with generalizations is their lack of specificity.
"There are no absolutes!" [Perhaps]
Bob T.
> "John the Savage"
>
> >> The only thing that I hate about the prospect of dying is that I won't
> >> be around to see what happens next.
>
> > Are you 100% sure?
>
> John, you seem to be "more sure" than Turbo about most of what you are
> saying.
>
> What makes you better than he at making up his/your mind?
Twenty-five extra IQ points.
- Bob T.
ramashiva
> On Nov 3, 5:05 am, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "John the Savage"
> > >> The only thing that I hate about the prospect of dying is that I won't
> > >> be around to see what happens next.
> > > Are you 100% sure?
> > John, you seem to be "more sure" than Turbo about most of what you are
> > saying.
That's because John deals with facts, Francis deals with fantasy.
John quotes real climatologists with real academic credentials.
Francis quotes proven oil company shills with modest or no academic
credentials.
> > What makes you better than he at making up his/your mind?
> Twenty-five extra IQ points.
Minimum of 100.
John is a 200+ IQ sort of guy.
He is the only poster currently posting I will concede might be
smarter than me. Well, Eleaticus also, of course.
If you don't see that both John and Eleaticus are super smart, that's
because you are not intelligent enough to understand just how smart
these guys are.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Paul Popinjay
news:ddb31b98-59c5-4d19...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> If you don't see that both John and Eleaticus are super smart, that's
> because you are not intelligent enough to understand just how smart
> these guys are.
Well duh.
Pepe Papon
Did Pinochet believe in Global Warming?
BillB
"ramashiva" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ddb31b98-59c5-4d19...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> John is a 200+ IQ sort of guy.
>
> He is the only poster currently posting I will concede might be
> smarter than me. Well, Eleaticus also, of course.
I think John would be the first to admit he has nowhere near a 200 IQ.
Since there are only likely to be about 6 people on planet Earth at
any given time with an adult 200+ IQ (99.9999999th percentile), the
odds of two or three of them showing up on RGP simultaneously would
seem to be astronomical, to say the very least.
FL Turbo
<savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
I noticed.
You managed to cram a whole lot of Environmentalist Whacko talking
points into a single paragraph.
You didn't really expect a serious answer to them, did you?
>>
>> I will.
>> The only thing that I hate about the prospect of dying is that I won't
>> be around to see what happens next.
>
>Are you 100% sure?
Well not 100.00% sure, but damn close.
FL Turbo
>
>"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
>news:bf6ve5hvtluaj1a48...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:30:39 -0800, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
>
>> I can see you haven't learned anything new on this topic.
>>
>> It's the same old, SameOld tactic that has gotten threadbare from
>> overuse.
>>
>> "Attack the Messenger, Ignore the Message."
>> (Anthony Watts being the messenger.)
>>
>> I am somewhat disappointed in you, but I cannot say I'm surprised.
>
>1) I told you that the studies to which he refers do not say what he
>claims they do. Does that concern you at all?
Frankly my boy, you telling me something doesn't automatically
translate into a belief on my part that you know what you're talking
about.
>2) You wouldn't be concerned going to someone for medical advice who
>advertised himself as a doctor, only to find out that he had never in
>fact been to medical school? Yes, that is a messenger I would
>certainly attack, as would anyone else with a brain.
Heh.
Cute little straw man you set up there.
Of course, Anthony Watts has never represented himself as a doctor, or
even a PhD in anything.
His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for 25
years.
That and of course his widely read site that contains new articles
about this, that, and the other thing having to do with world climate.
It has his new World Climate Widget that tracks the satellite
temperature data from 1979 onward, the atmospheric CO2 level, plus a
whole bunch of other geeky little statistics.
Here is a fluffy little interview with him back in April
Talking Climate Change with Anthony Watts
by Bill Steigerwald
The period that we are currently in now is what appears to be the
beginning of an extended solar cycle that may now be as long as 12 1/2
years, compared to the normal 11. The current state of the Sun appears
to be a similar kind of situation being set up to what it was right
before the Dalton Minimum. So the possibility exists that we may find
ourselves in a period of cooler weather in the next 20 to 30 years.
The missing link, however, between solar activity and Earth's climate
is "What is the amplification factor?"
The total solar irradiance, or TSI, has shown to be very small and
when you look at the amount of watts per meter that is delivered to
the Earth's surface, the amount of change in total solar irradiance
doesn't appear to be enough to cause such differences in the climate
of the Earth.
However, what people are looking for now is an amplification factor -
sort of a climatic transistor, if you will.
A transistor takes very small signals and amplifies them so they are
audible - which is why radios work.
The theory has been bandied about that the same kind of process occurs
in Earth's climate.
A very small change in signal related to solar activity - and we don't
know which signal yet; it could be total solar irradiance, it could be
ultraviolent; it could be magnetic; it could be cosmic rays; there are
number of things that are being looked at -- gets amplified in Earth's
natural processes and changes.
That's what needs to be identified before a complete causal
relationship is established between changes on the Sun's solar cycle
and changes in Earth's climate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just from that, you can see he isn't some "extremist" talking about
the solar cycle as if it were the sole cause of earth's temperature.
That's just a little teaser.
The article goes on.
You should probably read it.
You might learn something new.
Okay, then.
Enough of my commercial message.
You are now free to attack him as a tool of Big OIl, Exxon/Mobil, and
the Right Wing Propaganda machine at Townhall.
FL Turbo
<hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:02:11 -0600, "susan" <hotd...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"K9way" <ad1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:rg84s6x...@recgroups.com...
>>> On Nov 2 2009 6:33 PM, gtech1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index.html
>>>
>>> how many times do we have to tell you to ..STOP FUCKIN AROUND .. with
>>> facts and pictures .. The righties want to believe what they want to
>>> believe
>>>
And the lefties?
What do they want to believe?
>>> This shit only makes em angry and uncomfortable
>>
>>I never knew that Global Warming issue was a right/left issue. I thought it
>>was based on science and facts.
>
>For some reason, though, it's only the righties that don't want to
>accept the science and facts. Go figure.
They simply won't accept all the science and facts from the sole
source of knowledge, the lefties?
Shocking!
Shocking, I say!
Can't we all just think alike?
------------------------------------------------------------------
When everyone thinks alike, no one thinks very much.
BillB
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:4dl1f51lmjvrvcq7u...@4ax.com...
>>1) I told you that the studies to which he refers do not say what he
>>claims they do. Does that concern you at all?
>
> Frankly my boy, you telling me something doesn't automatically
> translate into a belief on my part that you know what you're talking
> about.
Yes, but if you rub two brain cells together you may come to
conclusion that it might be a clue that you need to look at the actual
studies rather than take a guy who pretends to be a meteorologist on
the internet's word for it.
>>2) You wouldn't be concerned going to someone for medical advice who
>>advertised himself as a doctor, only to find out that he had never
>>in
>>fact been to medical school? Yes, that is a messenger I would
>>certainly attack, as would anyone else with a brain.
> Of course, Anthony Watts has never represented himself as a doctor,
> or
> even a PhD in anything.
>
> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for 25
> years.
How is someone without a science degree a meteorologist? I think what
he meant to say is he's a TV weatherman, and apparently one who either
can't read or is a bald faced liar. But keep reading your oil company
funded, pretend-scientist written blogs. It will reinforce everything
you want to believe, and that's the whole point, right?
FL Turbo
wrote:
Sorry, not good enough.
You aren't a certified AGW Scientist.
Your opinions are hereby rejected.
You could just as well be on the payroll of Big Oil.
(If you had a sarcasm detector, it would be in full alarm mode.)
joeturn
by the magnetic affect Nibiru is forcing the earths magnetic poles to
change ever so slowly!
Meanwhile Lucifer is laughing at your ignorance! Read this it will
help explain what is taking place!!
FL Turbo
>
>
>"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
>news:4dl1f51lmjvrvcq7u...@4ax.com...
>
>
>>>1) I told you that the studies to which he refers do not say what he
>>>claims they do. Does that concern you at all?
>>
>> Frankly my boy, you telling me something doesn't automatically
>> translate into a belief on my part that you know what you're talking
>> about.
>
>Yes, but if you rub two brain cells together you may come to
>conclusion that it might be a clue that you need to look at the actual
>studies rather than take a guy who pretends to be a meteorologist on
>the internet's word for it.
>
Gee, if I only had two brain cells instead of the single one I have, I
could read the actual studies and come to the same conclusions as you?
And what's this "pretend" meterologist thing?
He has been a working meteorologist for 25 years.
Um, er, have you been taking lessons from Beldin on How to Win an
Argument through Creative Insults?
>>>2) You wouldn't be concerned going to someone for medical advice who
>>>advertised himself as a doctor, only to find out that he had never
>>>in
>>>fact been to medical school? Yes, that is a messenger I would
>>>certainly attack, as would anyone else with a brain.
>
>
>> Of course, Anthony Watts has never represented himself as a doctor,
>> or
>> even a PhD in anything.
>>
>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for 25
>> years.
>
>How is someone without a science degree a meteorologist? I think what
>he meant to say is he's a TV weatherman, and apparently one who either
>can't read or is a bald faced liar. But keep reading your oil company
>funded, pretend-scientist written blogs. It will reinforce everything
>you want to believe, and that's the whole point, right?
Hah.
You certainly are an Academia Snob, aren't you?
You think that being ensconced in an Ivory Tower is the sole
qualification for knowing something?
You know what I always say, don't you?
The biggest danger of higher education is that it can easily turn an
ordinary Fool into a highly educated Fool.
"... oil company funded, pretend-scientist..." ?
Aren't you just the least bit embarrassed regurgitating that shopworn
old chestnut?
I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite "overwhelming
consensus" ?
Puhleeze, don't do it.
I can't stand to laugh. The stitches don't come out until next week.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
�In general, we look for a new law by the following process.
First, we guess it.
Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what
would be implied if this law that we guessed is right.
Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with
experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation to see
if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. It�s that simple
statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference
how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart
you are, who made the guess, or what his name is � if it disagrees
with experiment it is wrong.�
-Dr. Richard Feynman, �The Character of Natural Law,� The MIT Press,
1965, p. 156.
BillB
"joeturn" <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4c8b59f-fb17-4554...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Is this a joke, Joe? Even Turbo wouldn't fall for that crap.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:05:25 -0800, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
>>news:4dl1f51lmjvrvcq7u...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>>>1) I told you that the studies to which he refers do not say what he
>>>>claims they do. Does that concern you at all?
>>>
>>> Frankly my boy, you telling me something doesn't automatically
>>> translate into a belief on my part that you know what you're talking
>>> about.
>>
>>Yes, but if you rub two brain cells together you may come to
>>conclusion that it might be a clue that you need to look at the actual
>>studies rather than take a guy who pretends to be a meteorologist on
>>the internet's word for it.
>>
> Gee, if I only had two brain cells instead of the single one I have, I
> could read the actual studies and come to the same conclusions as you?
>
> And what's this "pretend" meterologist thing?
> He has been a working meteorologist for 25 years.
>
> Um, er, have you been taking lessons from Beldin on How to Win an
> Argument through Creative Insults?
I don't just insult you.
I insult you, then prove you wrong.
>
>>>>2) You wouldn't be concerned going to someone for medical advice who
>>>>advertised himself as a doctor, only to find out that he had never
>>>>in
>>>>fact been to medical school? Yes, that is a messenger I would
>>>>certainly attack, as would anyone else with a brain.
>>
>>
>>> Of course, Anthony Watts has never represented himself as a doctor,
>>> or
>>> even a PhD in anything.
>>>
>>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for 25
>>> years.
>>
>>How is someone without a science degree a meteorologist? I think what
>>he meant to say is he's a TV weatherman, and apparently one who either
>>can't read or is a bald faced liar. But keep reading your oil company
>>funded, pretend-scientist written blogs. It will reinforce everything
>>you want to believe, and that's the whole point, right?
>
> Hah.
> You certainly are an Academia Snob, aren't you?
> You think that being ensconced in an Ivory Tower is the sole
> qualification for knowing something?
It's a requirement to prove it to someone.
>
> You know what I always say, don't you?
> The biggest danger of higher education is that it can easily turn an
> ordinary Fool into a highly educated Fool.
Education is always a good thing.
>
> "... oil company funded, pretend-scientist..." ?
>
> Aren't you just the least bit embarrassed regurgitating that shopworn
> old chestnut?
It isn't a chestnut.
>
> I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite "overwhelming
> consensus" ?
>
Neither is that.
Why is your brain too addled to understand that you don't have close to the
scientific understanding to discuss the data itself and must instead, like
the rest of us, fall back on the opinion of experts, who overwhelmingly are
on one side of this issue?
Bill O'Reilly gets this
Why don't you?
FL Turbo
Heehe
I often wonder if Joe even knows what planet he's on.
Travel A
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2009, 6:58pm
From: BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca>
Is this a joke, Joe? Even Turbo wouldn't fall for that crap.
..................................................................
(titter)
La Cosa Nostradamus
Nibiru has a lot more to do with it, along with the fact that we are
almost at the peak gravitational force applied upon us by all bodies in
our galaxy
ALL, get it ? The greatest gravitation force is applied by all galactic
bodies upon us within a 25 Thousand year cycle.
Venus is hotter
The sun is hotter
The earth is hotter
Music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Riq9PtKIkks&feature=PlayList&p=7CBC79A5A43EA115&index=0&playnext=1
Dec 21, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BEACDF838531C36C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL
_______________________________________________________________________�
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:21:38 -0800, Pepe Papon
><hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:02:11 -0600, "susan" <hotd...@charter.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"K9way" <ad1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:rg84s6x...@recgroups.com...
>>>> On Nov 2 2009 6:33 PM, gtech1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index.html
>>>>
>>>> how many times do we have to tell you to ..STOP FUCKIN AROUND .. with
>>>> facts and pictures .. The righties want to believe what they want to
>>>> believe
>>>>
>And the lefties?
>What do they want to believe?
>
>>>> This shit only makes em angry and uncomfortable
>>>
>>>I never knew that Global Warming issue was a right/left issue. I thought it
>>>was based on science and facts.
>>
>>For some reason, though, it's only the righties that don't want to
>>accept the science and facts. Go figure.
>
>They simply won't accept all the science and facts from the sole
>source of knowledge, the lefties?
>
>Shocking!
>Shocking, I say!
>
>Can't we all just think alike?
The problem is that the righties only want to accept "science" from
petroleum industry-funded studies.
BillB
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:t7p1f5lpdpbf19qrq...@4ax.com...
> Gee, if I only had two brain cells instead of the single one I have,
> I
> could read the actual studies and come to the same conclusions as
> you?
No, you could compare to what is claimed by the authors to what what
is claimed by Anthony 'the fakester" Watts and judge his credibility
for yourself.
> And what's this "pretend" meterologist thing?
> He has been a working meteorologist for 25 years.
My understanding is one needs credentials to call oneself a
meteorologist. If I am wrong about that, then fuck it, I'm a
meteorologist too. Do you really not understand the difference between
a TV weatherman and a meteorologist?
>>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for 25
>>> years.
Yes, that's the claim I am talking about. How did he become a
meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he find his meteorologist card in a
box of Cracker Jacks?
> Hah.
> You certainly are an Academia Snob, aren't you?
> You think that being ensconced in an Ivory Tower is the sole
> qualification for knowing something?
Call me a snob, but I want my doctor to have a medical degree, I want
my lawyer to have a law degree, and I want my scientists to have
science degrees.
> You know what I always say, don't you?
> The biggest danger of higher education is that it can easily turn an
> ordinary Fool into a highly educated Fool.
And it's as hackneyed this time as it was the first time you said it.
> "... oil company funded, pretend-scientist..." ?
>
> Aren't you just the least bit embarrassed regurgitating that
> shopworn
> old chestnut?
No, I am not embarrassed. I want my sources to be 1) qualified, and 2)
objective, as does anyone with a shred of common sense.
> I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite
> "overwhelming
> consensus" ?
>
> Puhleeze, don't do it.
> I can't stand to laugh. The stitches don't come out until next week
Let's let RGP decide. You have your Oil Company Blogs and some
pretend-scientists. I have almost every major prestigious scientific
organization in the world:
Synthesis reports
Synthesis reports are assessments of scientific literature that
compile the results of a range of stand-alone studies in order to
achieve a broad level of understanding, or to describe the state of
knowledge of a given subject.[2]
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming
Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth
Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause
of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global
warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in
average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[3]
The New York Times reported:
The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun,
is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for
centuries.... The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90
percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of
fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it
nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.[4]
The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone
strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made
global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies
with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that
strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.[5]
The Associated Press summarized the position on sea level rise:
On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of
the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if
recent polar ice sheet melt continues.[6]
U.S. Global Change Research Program
formerly the Climate Change Science Program
The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009[7]
that:
Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The
global
warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to
human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come
mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with
important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural
practices, and other activities.
The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having
in the United States, also says:
Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the
United States. These include increases in air and water
temperatures,reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of
heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover,
glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes
and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water
vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30
years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other
season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern
Great Plains increasing more than 7�F. Some of the changes have been
faster than previous assessments had suggested.
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental
International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report
of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment[8]:
Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global
temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels
(coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land,
have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other
heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is
international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed
over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[9]
Statements by concurring organizations
Academies of Science
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
In 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal
declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest:
Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of
the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been
caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in
Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation
amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including
droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of
tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic
consequences for mankind's future. [10]
InterAcademy Council
As the representative of the world's scientific and engineering
academies,[11][12] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in
2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.
Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving
detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of
essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change
caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[13]
Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency
and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[14]
[edit] International Council of Academies of Engineering and
Technological Sciences
In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and
Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and
Sustainable Growth[15]
As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this
warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions
continue or, worse, expand without control.
CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and
control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as
possible.
Joint science academies' statements
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue
joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging
the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The
signatories of these statements have been the national science
academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the
Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy,
India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New
Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania,
Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
2001-Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report,
sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly
acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific
consensus on climate change science. The sixteen science academies
that issued the statement were those of Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia,
Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United
Kingdom.[16]
2005-The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil,
China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in
the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to
climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific
understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify
nations taking prompt action[17], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC
consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of
Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia,
the United Kingdom, and the United States.
2007-In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science
academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the
position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and
acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent
research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration
states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is
very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human
interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the
environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are
taken."[18] The thirteen signatories were the national science
academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India,
Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the
United States.
2008-In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science
academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the
position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and
reaffirming "that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic
warming is influencing many physical and biological systems." Among
other actions, the declaration urges all nations to "(t)ake
appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a
low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual
and national behaviour."[19] The thirteen signatories were the same
national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.
2009-In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in
December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations
issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable
energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is
essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed
to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The
statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts
that "climate change is happening even faster than previously
estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even
the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much
faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more
rapid."[20] The thirteen signatories were the same national science
academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.
[edit] Network of African Science Academies
In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint
"statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change"
to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany:
"A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global
scientific community that human activities are the main source of
climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely
responsible for driving this change."
"The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to
public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate
and sustainability."[21]
The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon,
Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan,
Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of
Sciences.
[edit] Royal Society of New Zealand
Having signed onto the first joint science academies' statement in
2001, the Royal Society of New Zealand released a separate statement
in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and
its causes, and possible confusion among the public":
The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global
climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more
costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change
will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[22]
[edit] Polish Academy of Sciences
In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of
Sciences (PAN) issued a statement endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and
states:
"it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a
thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in
realisation of these ideas".
"Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various
negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire
societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times."
"PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and
the national government to actively support Polish participation in
this important endeavor."[23]
[edit] National Research Council (US)
In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the
National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An
Analysis of Some Key Questions.[24] This report explicitly endorses
the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing
the view of the scientific community:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly
due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant
part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.
Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to
continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most
of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been
due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately
reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this
issue.[24]
General science
American Association for the Advancement of Science
In 2006, the American Association for the Advancement of Science
adopted an official statement on climate change in which they stated,
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by
human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to
society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased
markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas
emissions is now."[25]
[edit] European Science Foundation
In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on
climate change:
There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution,
human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse
gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse
gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere,
thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global
atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns.
While on-going national and international actions to curtail and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of
greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are
likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts
to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are
therefore crucial.[26]
[edit] Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
In 2008, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological
Societies (FASTS) issued a policy statement on climate change:
Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the
20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has
increased by more than 0.7�C and the rate of warming has been largest
in the last 30 years.
Key vulnerabilities arising from climate change include water
resources, food supply, health, coastal settlements, biodiversity and
some key ecosystems such as coral reefs and alpine regions. As the
atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts
become more severe and widespread. To reduce the global net economic,
environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the
policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse
gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction
of emissions.
The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to
increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are
a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and
other human activity.[27]
Earth sciences
American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, [28] adopted by the
society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of
greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global
surface temperature to be warmer:
The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many
components of the climate system-including the temperatures of the
atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain
glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the
length of seasons-are now changing at rates and in patterns that are
not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric
abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human
activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures
increased on average by about 0.6�C over the period 1956-2006. As of
2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others
since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected
to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within
this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except
Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent
changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this
regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many
AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our
scientific understanding of the climate.
[edit] European Federation of Geologists
In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists (EFG) issued the
position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :
The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and
subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is
predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a
significant threat to human civilization.
It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly
reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and
sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as
the need for increasing energy efficiency.
CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as
a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free
economy.[29]
European Geosciences Union
In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the
European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in
support of the joint science academies' statement on global response
to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global
scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC "represents the
state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science
academies around the world and by the vast majority of science
researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed
scientific literature."[30]
Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean
acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring
today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2
increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its
ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in
conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need
for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to
limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal
of excess CO2 from the atmosphere."[31]
Geological Society of America
In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position
statement on global climate change:
The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific
conclusions that Earth's climate is changing; the climate changes are
due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the
climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical
boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate
change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur
require active, effective, long-term planning.[32]
Geological Society of Australia
In July 2009, the Geological Society of Australia issued the position
statement Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change:
Human activities have increasing impact on Earth's environments. Of
particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide
(CO2) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to
burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average
global temperature. Risks associated with these large-scale
perturbations of the Earth's fundamental life-support systems include
rising sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and
long-term changes in local and regional climate and extreme weather
events.
GSA therefore recommends.strong action be taken at all levels,
including government, industry, and individuals to substantially
reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the
likely social and environmental effects of increasing atmospheric
CO2.[33]
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG)
adopted a resolution titled "The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change".
In it, the IUGG concurs with the "comprehensive and widely accepted
and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and regional and national
bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific
evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent
climate change." They state further that the "continuing reliance on
combustion of fossil fuels as the world's primary source of energy
will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface
temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related
consequences to the environment and society." [34]
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
In July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT)
adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert
that "Earth's climate is changing [and] "that present warming trends
are largely the result of human activities":
NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the
science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global
warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce
the emission of greenhouse gases.[35]
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
In its position paper on global warming, the Stratigraphy Commission
of the Geological Society of London declares, "Global climate change
is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued
development - and even survival - of humanity." They refer to the IPCC
as providing the "most authoritative assessment of climate change",
and further state, "We find that the evidence for human-induced
climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action
compelling."[36]
Meteorology and oceanography
American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their
council in 2003 said:
There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the
Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing
in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same
period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward
a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved
projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have
become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are
the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of
greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we
are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither
planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented
challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant
impacts on our natural and societal systems.[37]
[edit] Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a
Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude, "Global climate
change and global warming are real and observable.It is highly likely
that those human activities that have increased the concentration of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for
the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases
in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the
enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the
industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past
650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil
fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity."[38]
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric
Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada
stating that "We concur with the climate science assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We
endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and
stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50
years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly
unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the
world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada's
natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in
climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more
evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy
for adaptation to projected changes."[39]
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
"CMOS endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment
carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and
supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states
that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on
global climate."[40]
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment
Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the
report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as "world's best climate
scientists", they stated that climate change is happening as "the
result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in
motion the next 50 years of global warming - what we do from now on
will determine how worse it will get." [41]
World Meteorological Organization
In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the
Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented
on November 15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
confirms the need to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system." The WMO concurs that "scientific assessments
have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing
the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning
of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation." The WMO
concurs that "the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never
exceeded over the past 420,000 years;" and that the IPCC "assessments
provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice." [42]
Paleoclimatology
[edit] American Quaternary Association
The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, "Few credible
Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise
of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution," citing "the
growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially
over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity." [43]
International Union for Quaternary Research
The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for
Quaternary Research (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC,
and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC
principles.
"Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric
ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial
levels..Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to
rise.The scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action..Minimizing
the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a
huge challenge but must be a global priority." [44]
Biology and life sciences
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
The American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians (AAWV) has issued a
position statement regarding "climate change, wildlife diseases, and
wildlife health":
There is widespread scientific agreement that the world's climate is
changing and that the weight of evidence demonstrates that
anthropogenic factors have and will continue to contribute
significantly to global warming and climate change. It is anticipated
that continuing changes to the climate will have serious negative
impacts on public, animal and ecosystem health due to extreme weather
events, changing disease transmission dynamics, emerging and
re-emerging diseases, and alterations to habitat and ecological
systems that are essential to wildlife conservation. Furthermore,
there is increasing recognition of the inter-relationships of human,
domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health as illustrated by the
fact the majority of recent emerging diseases have a wildlife
origin.[45]
[edit] American Society for Microbiology
In 2003, the American Society for Microbiology issued a public policy
report in which they recommend "reducing net anthropogenic CO2
emissions to the atmosphere" and "minimizing anthropogenic
disturbances of" atmospheric gases:[46]
Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past
10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago.as
a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change.[47]
Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of
global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and
chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global
change has been a natural process throughout Earth's history, humans
are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes.
These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on
which we depend.[48]
Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus
infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been
linked to climate change.[49]
Australian Coral Reef Society
In 2006, the Australian Coral Reef Society issued an official
communique regarding the Great Barrier Reef and the "world-wide
decline in coral reefs through processes such as overfishing, runoff
of nutrients from the land, coral bleaching, global climate change,
ocean acidification, pollution", etc.:
There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth's climate
is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The IPCC
(involving over 3,000 of the world's experts) has come out with clear
conclusions as to the reality of this phenomenon. One does not have to
look further than the collective academy of scientists worldwide to
see the string (of) statements on this worrying change to the earth's
atmosphere.
There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily
affected by the activities of man and there are significant global
influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global
warming....It is highly likely that coral bleaching has been
exacerbated by global warming.[50]
[edit] Institute of Biology (UK)
The UK's Institute of Biology states "there is scientific agreement
that the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is
mostly anthropogenic, ie due to human activity." As a consequence of
global warming, they warn that a "rise in sea levels due to melting of
ice caps is expected to occur. Rises in temperature will have complex
and frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase
in extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns
are probable, resulting in flooding and drought. The spread of
tropical diseases is also expected." Subsequently, the Institute of
Biology advocates policies to reduce "greenhouse gas emissions, as we
feel that the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe."[51]
Society of American Foresters
In 2008, the Society of American Foresters (SAF) issued two position
statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC
and the UNFCCC:
Forests are shaped by climate....Changes in temperature and
precipitation regimes therefore have the potential to dramatically
affect forests nationwide. There is growing evidence that our climate
is changing. The changes in temperature have been associated with
increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and
other GHGs in the atmosphere.[52]
Forests play a significant role in offsetting CO2 emissions, the
primary anthropogenic GHG.[53]
The Wildlife Society (international)
The Wildlife Society has issued a position statement titled Global
Climate Change and Wildlife:[54]
Scientists throughout the world have concluded that climate research
conducted in the past two decades definitively shows that rapid
worldwide climate change occurred in the 20th century, and will likely
continue to occur for decades to come. Although climates have varied
dramatically since the earth was formed, few scientists question the
role of humans in exacerbating recent climate change through the
emission of greenhouse gases. The critical issue is no longer "if"
climate change is occurring, but rather how to address its effects on
wildlife and wildlife habitats.
The statement goes on to assert that "evidence is accumulating that
wildlife and wildlife habitats have been and will continue to be
significantly affected by ongoing large-scale rapid climate change."
The statement concludes with a call for "reduction in anthropogenic
(human-caused) sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas
emissions contributing to global climate change and the conservation
of CO2- consuming photosynthesizers (i.e., plants)."
Human health
American Academy of Pediatrics
In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued the policy
statement Global Climate Change and Children's Health:
There is broad scientific consensus that Earth's climate is warming
rapidly and at an accelerating rate. Human activities, primarily the
burning of fossil fuels, are very likely (>90% probability) to be the
main cause of this warming. Climate-sensitive changes in ecosystems
are already being observed, and fundamental, potentially irreversible,
ecological changes may occur in the coming decades. Conservative
environmental estimates of the impact of climate changes that are
already in process indicate that they will result in numerous health
effects to children.
Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include
injury and death from extreme weather events and natural disasters,
increases in climate-sensitive infectious diseases, increases in air
pollution-related illness, and more heat-related, potentially fatal,
illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased
vulnerability compared with other groups.[55]
American College of Preventive Medicine
In 2006, the American College of Preventive Medicine issued a policy
statement on "Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications":
The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the position
that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there is
potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that
increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public
health consequences may be severe.[56]
American Medical Association
In 2008, the American Medical Association issued a policy statement on
global climate change declaring that they:
Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse
global climate change and that these changes will negatively effect
public health.
Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse
public health effects of global climate change, including topics such
as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne
diseases, and healthy water supplies.[57]
American Public Health Association
In 2007, the American Public Health Association issued a policy
statement titled ''Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate
Change to Public Health and the Environment'':
The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is
extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific
literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions
are primarily responsible for this threat..US policy makers should
immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs,
including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change.[58]
Australian Medical Association
In 2004, the Australian Medical Association issued the position
statement Climate Change and Human Health in which they recommend
policies "to mitigate the possible consequential health effects of
climate change through improved energy efficiency, clean energy
production and other emission reduction steps."[59]
This statement was revised again in 2008:
The world's climate - our life-support system - is being altered in
ways that are likely to pose significant direct and indirect
challenges to health. While 'climate change' can be due to natural
forces or human activity, there is now substantial evidence to
indicate that human activity - and specifically increased greenhouse
gas (GHGs) emissions - is a key factor in the pace and extent of
global temperature increases.
Health impacts of climate change include the direct impacts of extreme
events such as storms, floods, heatwaves and fires and the indirect
effects of longer-term changes, such as drought, changes to the food
and water supply, resource conflicts and population shifts.
Increases in average temperatures mean that alterations in the
geographic range and seasonality of certain infections and diseases
(including vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, Ross
River virus and food-borne infections such as Salmonellosis) may be
among the first detectable impacts of climate change on human health.
Human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the planet and
its ecosystem. The AMA believes that measures which mitigate climate
change will also benefit public health. Reducing GHGs should therefore
be seen as a public health priority.[60]
World Federation of Public Health Associations
In 2001, the World Federation of Public Health Associations issued a
policy resolution on global climate change:
Noting the conclusions of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climatologists that anthropogenic
greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change, have
substantially increased in atmospheric concentration beyond natural
processes and have increased by 28 percent since the industrial
revolution..Realizing that subsequent health effects from such
perturbations in the climate system would likely include an increase
in: heat-related mortality and morbidity; vector-borne infectious
diseases,. water-borne diseases.(and) malnutrition from threatened
agriculture..the World Federation of Public Health
Associations.recommends precautionary primary preventive measures to
avert climate change, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
and preservation of greenhouse gas sinks through appropriate energy
and land use policies, in view of the scale of potential health
impacts....[61]
World Health Organization
In 2008, the United Nations' World Health Organization issued their
report Protecting health from climate change:
There is now widespread agreement that the earth is warming, due to
emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also
clear that current trends in energy use, development, and population
growth will lead to continuing - and more severe - climate change.
The changing climate will inevitably affect the basic requirements for
maintaining health: clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate
shelter. Each year, about 800,000 people die from causes attributable
to urban air pollution, 1.8 million from diarrhoea resulting from lack
of access to clean water supply, sanitation, and poor hygiene, 3.5
million from malnutrition and approximately 60,000 in natural
disasters. A warmer and more variable climate threatens to lead to
higher levels of some air pollutants, increase transmission of
diseases through unclean water and through contaminated food, to
compromise agricultural production in some of the least developed
countries, and increase the hazards of extreme weather.[62]
Miscellaneous
American Astronomical Society
The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[63]
In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the
American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective
expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and
understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of
agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing
and human activities are contributing to that change.
American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated:
Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly
demonstrated that the Earth's climate system is changing rapidly in
response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and
absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room
for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities.
The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the
risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially
disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role
emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have
been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS,
2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American
Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society
(AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten
other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).[64]
[edit] American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the
AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[65]
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed
a position statement on climate change adopted by the American
Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.
American Physical Society
In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an
official statement on climate change: "Emissions of greenhouse gases
from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect
the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well
as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from
fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural
processes.
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no
mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's
physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human
health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases beginning now."[66]
American Statistical Association
On November 30, 2007, the American Statistical Association Board of
Directors adopted a statement on climate change:
The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.... Over the course of four
assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as
authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it
does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available.
ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC
process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the
assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the
statistical community.[67]
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and
proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change
as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that
addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing
our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new
economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian
Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[68]
International Association for Great Lakes Research
In February 2009, the International Association for Great Lakes
Research (IAGLR) issued a Fact Sheet on climate change:
While the Earth's climate has changed many times during the planet's
history because of natural factors, including volcanic eruptions and
changes in the Earth's orbit, never before have we observed the
present rapid rise in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2).
Human activities resulting from the industrial revolution have changed
the chemical composition of the atmosphere....Deforestation is now the
second largest contributor to global warming, after the burning of
fossil fuels. These human activities have significantly increased the
concentration of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.
As the Earth's climate warms, we are seeing many changes: stronger,
more destructive hurricanes; heavier rainfall; more disastrous
flooding; more areas of the world experiencing severe drought; and
more heat waves.[69]
John the Savage
>>>>>
>>>> If if wasn't us, who was it? Was it God? Did God cut down all the
>>>> trees, Turbo? Did God start practicing "totalitarian agriculture" and
>>>> change the entire surface of the planet? Did God build the cities,
>>>> slums, and farms that have crowded so many species out of existence
>>>> right before our eyes? Did God pull all this carbon out of the Earth
>>>> and start burning it so that you could sit on your ass on a Monday night
>>>> and communicate with the rest of the world? Did God build the dams that
>>>> reduced formerly raging rivers to slow drips? Did God pump nitrogen
>>>> based fertilizer into the ground until it ran off into the Gulf causing
>>>> huge dead spots where nothing can live? Did God create the Great
>>>> Pacific Garbage Patch? Did God fill all the fish with mercury?
>
> You managed to cram a whole lot of Environmentalist Whacko talking
> points into a single paragraph.
>
> You didn't really expect a serious answer to them, did you?
>
So you're just giving up, then? Let me remind you where you are. A few
messages up, you said this, in response to my quoted paragraph above:
> You are assuming that the changes in Nature are being caused by us.
I have listed numerous obvious, indisputable changes in the biosphere
brought on by the recent activities of man. They are not "talking
points". I did expect you to at least understand what I was getting at;
perhaps I expected to much. You manage only to wave your hand at all of
them, without being able to explain why a single one is contrary to
fact. You do not even make an attempt, yet you hold smugly to your
claim that the recent, massive changes in nature may not be caused by man.
Your defensive condescension is unconvincing, and perhaps you should
just give up your line. If you'd like to continue, you need to make a
rational argument for at least one of these two points:
(1) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed do not exist
(2) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed are not caused
by man
John the Savage
> "John the Savage"
>
>>> The only thing that I hate about the prospect of dying is that I won't
>>> be around to see what happens next.
>> Are you 100% sure?
>
> John, you seem to be "more sure" than Turbo about most of what you are
> saying.
>
> What makes you better than he at making up his/your mind?
I am only pointing out that there is at least a debate in the scientific
literature regarding the cause of the loss of ice on this mountain. It
is Turbo who has claimed that the view (he thinks is) represented in
some papers is correct, while the view represented in the more recent
paper is incorrect. At no point in this thread have I claimed to know
the answer to an ongoing scientific debate about which I am completely
uninformed. At no point have I claimed to know more about the
background of a scientific topic than the highly credentialed authors of
the most recent study on said topic.
>
> The only thing wrong with generalizations is their lack of specificity.
>
If you're saying there wasn't much right about your "most of what you
are saying" bit above, I'd agree.
Paul Popinjay
>
> Your defensive condescension is unconvincing, and perhaps you should just
> give up your line. If you'd like to continue, you need to make a rational
> argument for at least one of these two points:
>
> (1) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed do not exist
> (2) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed are not caused
> by man
Hey Turbo, tell him to suck your dick.
John the Savage
My views of "200+ IQ" have been fleshed out here more than once.
I do not think it means anything to talk about an IQ that high among
adults. I do not believe anyone on RGP has a 200 IQ. There is no IQ
test which is competently designed to resolve differences at the top end
of the top end of the distribution. There is no good theory on how to
test or score IQs that high. There is no reason to assume the tails of
the distribution perfectly resemble the predictions of a Gaussian
distribution, either.
In my opinion there is only one credible, documented case of an IQ over
200. This guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ung-Yong
He was reading four languages on his third birthday, and doing
University physics before he was four. At that age, the traditional
"quotient" interpretation of IQ can yield scores over 200 and if anybody
deserves one, it is him. Once he is a grown up, however, there is no
way to credibly reach this number again, and no way to tell if he is
still that much smarter than everyone else, or was mostly a
developmental anomaly.
Paul Popinjay
> Local changes caused by man *are* occurring everywhere. Look into it.
>
Yeah, you can say THAT again! Changes for the GOOD! I'm sure glad I wasn't
born 100 years ago. That would have really sucked.
BillB
"John the Savage" <savag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QLCdne15-elKgGzX...@giganews.com...
> BillB wrote:
> In my opinion there is only one credible, documented case of an IQ
> over 200. This guy:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ung-Yong
>
> He was reading four languages on his third birthday, and doing
> University physics before he was four.
Hmmm...that kind of sounds like me when I was a kid. Maybe there are
two of us on RGP after all.
John the Savage
>
> Yeah, you can say THAT again! Changes for the GOOD! I'm sure glad I wasn't
> born 100 years ago. That would have really sucked.
>
pity this busy monster, manunkind,
not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim (death and life safely beyond)
plays with the bigness of his littleness
--- electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange; lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen till unwish
returns on its unself.
A world of made
is not a world of born --- pity poor flesh
and trees, poor stars and stones, but never this
fine specimen of hypermagical
ultraomnipotence. We doctors know
a hopeless case if --- listen: there's a hell
of a good universe next door; let's go
Paul Popinjay
>
> pity this busy monster, manunkind,
>
Pity the poor slobs who trudged this Earth, before the invention of the
internal combustion engine. Of course, they're all dead!
Brandii
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:08:54 -0600, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com>
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>M.S. AE, Ga Tech
> >>Busted
>
> Sorry, not good enough.
> You aren't a certified AGW Scientist.
>
> Your opinions are hereby rejected.
> You could just as well be on the payroll of Big Oil.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is.
One of the major alarmist "scientist" who has written several highly
touted papers on the subject of AGW, a Mr Ammann, has a degree from
divinity school. No science or math at all. Gore and his ilk don't
seem to think he is unqualified.
Mann's hockey stick graph, the centerpiece of the UN report that
warns of impending doom, was thoroughly discredited due to math errors
by Canadian mathmaticians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in 2003.
At Ga Tech, you basically spend the first 2 years studying Math and
Physics and Chemistry regardles of the degree you are pursuing. They
are the basis of most all degrees given there. You don't take courses
in your field until about junior year.
Busted
da pickle
>> pity this busy monster, manunkind,
>>
>
> Pity the poor slobs who trudged this Earth, before the invention of the
> internal combustion engine. Of course, they're all dead!
Excellent ... but then, in the end ... aren't we all.
John the Savage is a bright spot (I prefer the old persona, but the new is
OK) but he suffers from pronouncement disease.
Like someone else I know and enjoy, he presumes, assumes and has ultimate
faith in whateveritisthatheissaying and then denounces anyone who might
questions the original conglomeration.
There are no clear and unambiguous opinions given nor sought ... just the
same old same old political rants.
At least he does not scream racism in every other post ... that is something
to be thankful for.
Now, if he would just separate legitimate environmental concerns so they
might be considered one by one with some sort of reasonable debate, progress
might be made ... but that seems unlikely.
[Sorry, Paul, I know I have exceeded my word limit in this post.]
Delete above ... substitute ... Mankind is the only species that does not
deserve to exist.
joeturn
I like this last sentence! Americas story teller put it another way
but all turns out the same as a deer friend of Nokio Tesla,
MarkTwain not only bad mouthed him at his uligy but said "God surely
made the Monkey because of his disappointment in Man"
People choose to acknowledge and express things they have been
brainwashed into believing!
Use to you could tell if someone was smart by the degree it had
attached to its nam and the horrible handwritting PHD ect,ect... Now a-
days you can buy a degree and start out at the top pay level via the
internet! Particularly the medical profession stands out like a sore
thumb! Doctors that cant even speak your language are telling you what
is best for you and you know they cant have even an inkling as to what
they are pushing!!
For instance ole Doc Hainey learned several cures through out his
years of practice! Now just rent a flick and you can pass a test that
gives you the expectations your knowledge of a certain field demands
your patients trust ,but bare in mind its still juat practice and you
are still the guiney pig!
EXAMPLE:
Doc Hainey told Chester to go over to the livery stable and souge his
swollen cock into a shovel of fresh horse manure this would reduce the
pain and swelling done by a sworm of yellow jackets Chester had
waliked upon!
Miss Kitty was just back from her morning ride after miles of
excitement her horse's trott had put her through.Miss Kitty saw
Chester standing there with a shovel full of horse manure his pants
down and his cock was pulsating it felt as if it were going to explode
before he could get the relief Doc had promised him.
Gazing down at Chesters huge abundance of discomfort She asked What
was he going to do with that? Chester says well Doc told me to soug it
into this Shovel to make the swelling go away!!
Miss Kitty says I have a better idea.She lifted her dress to expose
her wetness and said Chester just souge it in here! Chester says oh
no Miss Kitty not the whole shovel full!?
Paul Popinjay
news:p4WdnQT2E6D...@giganews.com...
>
> John the Savage is a bright spot (I prefer the old persona, but the new is
> OK) but he suffers from pronouncement disease.
>
John's a dope.
da pickle
>> John the Savage is a bright spot (I prefer the old persona, but the new
>> is OK) but he suffers from pronouncement disease.
>>
>
> John's a dope.
We are all entitled to a high opinion of our opinion, are we not?
Irish Mike
> On Nov 2, 3:33�pm, "gtech1" <duanepritch...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/02/kilimanjaro.glaciers/index...
> >
> The article says that the glaciers will be gone in a couple of
> decades. I dunno. My objection is the weatherman can't tell me what
> the weather will be like a few days from, let alone a few decades from
> now.
Last year the global warming loons were in full blown hysteria screaming
that the artic ice caps were melting. Then they admitted that they had
"over looked" an ice flow the size of the state of Texas.
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
Irish Mike
____________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
joeturn
race! Al Gore will expect to bask in the warm waters while everyone
else boils! Even the fallen angles believes Lucifers deciet!Hypnotism
wont save them from their torture!
Its a real game were living in and ignoring it wont make it go away!
The wrath of God is Nibiru it is with in sight of earth already! It
comes close enough every 3,500 years to change the face of the earth
and all life there on!
Global warming is evident because of NIBIRUs affect and ole Al was
chosen to steer the herd away from reality and say it was a human
error that must be paid for$$$$$$.
Now most of the world has identified the space race as a way of
keeping an eye out for the coming of Nibiru so the illuminati can wisk
its chosen few into their bunkers for the duration and solar radiation
to dwindle! This is Lucifers salution to beating the next wrath of god
but it wont work either!
joeturn
FL Turbo
I don't think this is any time to get romantic.
FL Turbo
<hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
You got it all figgered out, don't you?
You and Al Gore.
FL Turbo
<savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>FL Turbo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> If if wasn't us, who was it? Was it God? Did God cut down all the
>>>>> trees, Turbo? Did God start practicing "totalitarian agriculture" and
>>>>> change the entire surface of the planet? Did God build the cities,
>>>>> slums, and farms that have crowded so many species out of existence
>>>>> right before our eyes? Did God pull all this carbon out of the Earth
>>>>> and start burning it so that you could sit on your ass on a Monday night
>>>>> and communicate with the rest of the world? Did God build the dams that
>>>>> reduced formerly raging rivers to slow drips? Did God pump nitrogen
>>>>> based fertilizer into the ground until it ran off into the Gulf causing
>>>>> huge dead spots where nothing can live? Did God create the Great
>>>>> Pacific Garbage Patch? Did God fill all the fish with mercury?
>>
>> I noticed.
>> You managed to cram a whole lot of Environmentalist Whacko talking
>> points into a single paragraph.
>>
>> You didn't really expect a serious answer to them, did you?
>>
>
>So you're just giving up, then? Let me remind you where you are. A few
>messages up, you said this, in response to my quoted paragraph above:
>
>> You are assuming that the changes in Nature are being caused by us.
Is this my quote that you are talking about?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> You are assuming that the changes in Nature are being caused by us.
>>>> Not exactly the way to go about "proving" something, eh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If so, I probably didn't word it correctly.
I should have said something like:
"You are assuming that ALL of the changes in Nature are being caused
by us."
I will definitely agree that there are situations where there are
changes to the ecology that are Mankind contributes to.
The currently disappearing ice caps in Kilimanjaro being one of them.
It's quite a stretch to extrapolate from that, to claiming that the
planet is inevitably on a sure path to higher and higher temperatures,
all caused by our CO2 production.
>
>I have listed numerous obvious, indisputable changes in the biosphere
>brought on by the recent activities of man. They are not "talking
>points". I did expect you to at least understand what I was getting at;
>perhaps I expected to much. You manage only to wave your hand at all of
>them, without being able to explain why a single one is contrary to
>fact. You do not even make an attempt, yet you hold smugly to your
>claim that the recent, massive changes in nature may not be caused by man.
>
>Your defensive condescension is unconvincing, and perhaps you should
>just give up your line. If you'd like to continue, you need to make a
>rational argument for at least one of these two points:
>
>(1) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed do not exist
>(2) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed are not caused
>by man
I wouldn't argue against either of those points, except to point out
that they don't prove your basic, implied assumption that Mankind will
ultimately turn the entire planet into an uninhabitable wasteland.
You and I have had these types of conversations before, haven't we?
You, the young guy, being full of gloom and doom and despair over the
future of Mankind.
Me, the old guy, being full of hope for the future of Mankind, with
new technology being able to fix the problems that come up, and
improve our quality of life.
Just to cherry pick one of the questions in your little sermon.
Yes, I'm damn glad we have been able to pluck carbon out of the earth
so we can burn it, and I can sit on my ass and communicate with the
rest of the world.
Anybody operating an excavating machine should be damn glad he can sit
on his ass and dig dirt for the construction of a new building, rather
than doing the back breaking work with a hand shovel.
In fact, all of us in our daily lives have reason to be thankful that
we learned how to dig carbon out of the earth and burn it in useful
ways.
Heh.
Look who's sermonizing now, eh?
(That would be me.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At every turn, the West is now being hobbled by demands to remove dams
and hydro electricity, to stop drilling for oil, to stop using nuclear
power, to greatly reduce military spending, to corrupt NASA with
useful fools in positions of power, to replace extremely
cost-effective petroleum with silly wind power schemes, to tax driving
and commerce, to end space exploration, to make the UN the arbiter of
world government, to end the free flow of information through the
internet, to promote the belief that CO2 is causing catastrophic
climate change, to promote the argument that taxpayers in
industrialized countries must pay exorbitant penalties for �carbon�
use, while giving a free pass to all others, to demonizing oil, coal,
natural gas, and hydroelectric power, etc., etc.
FL Turbo
>
>
>"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
>news:t7p1f5lpdpbf19qrq...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> Gee, if I only had two brain cells instead of the single one I have,
>> I
>> could read the actual studies and come to the same conclusions as
>> you?
>
>No, you could compare to what is claimed by the authors to what what
>is claimed by Anthony 'the fakester" Watts and judge his credibility
>for yourself.
Oh, name-calling so early in the game?
NTTAW name-calling.
>
>
>> And what's this "pretend" meterologist thing?
>> He has been a working meteorologist for 25 years.
>
Oh, "pretend".
Nice little shot.
>My understanding is one needs credentials to call oneself a
>meteorologist. If I am wrong about that, then fuck it, I'm a
>meteorologist too. Do you really not understand the difference between
>a TV weatherman and a meteorologist?
>
>
>>>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for 25
>>>> years.
>
>Yes, that's the claim I am talking about. How did he become a
>meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he find his meteorologist card in a
>box of Cracker Jacks?
>
Your Academic Snobbery is showing up again.
>> Hah.
>> You certainly are an Academia Snob, aren't you?
>> You think that being ensconced in an Ivory Tower is the sole
>> qualification for knowing something?
>
>Call me a snob, but I want my doctor to have a medical degree, I want
>my lawyer to have a law degree, and I want my scientists to have
>science degrees.
>
I see.
Accept Authority.
The rest of us don't have the right to an opinion.
>
>> You know what I always say, don't you?
>> The biggest danger of higher education is that it can easily turn an
>> ordinary Fool into a highly educated Fool.
>
>And it's as hackneyed this time as it was the first time you said it.
>
>> "... oil company funded, pretend-scientist..." ?
>>
>> Aren't you just the least bit embarrassed regurgitating that
>> shopworn
>> old chestnut?
>
>No, I am not embarrassed. I want my sources to be 1) qualified, and 2)
>objective, as does anyone with a shred of common sense.
No, I guess I couldn't expect you to be embarrassed.
You're shameless.
>
>
>> I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite
>> "overwhelming
>> consensus" ?
>>
>> Puhleeze, don't do it.
>> I can't stand to laugh. The stitches don't come out until next week
>
>Let's let RGP decide. You have your Oil Company Blogs and some
>pretend-scientists. I have almost every major prestigious scientific
>organization in the world:
>
Anyone skeptical of the summary as written by the UN funded IPCC is a
shill for Big Oil?
Hmmmm
Where have I heard that before?
>Synthesis reports
>Synthesis reports are assessments of scientific literature that
>compile the results of a range of stand-alone studies in order to
>achieve a broad level of understanding, or to describe the state of
>knowledge of a given subject.[2]
>
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
>In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming
>Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth
>Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause
>of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global
>warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in
>average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[3]
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow!!
By the line count of my newsreader, there are about 800 lines that I
deleted here.
And here I was thinking that I was one prolix MoFo.
I have been put to shame by that post.
You must have put your entire reading list into that one post.
And not a single skeptic in the bunch, eh?
They all fall in line with the IPCC.
No wonder you're so sure about everything.
Well, I don't have anything to match that, but I do have one list to
contribute.
http://www.climatephysics.com/GlobalWarming/APS.htm
Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society
Dear Editors:
[Note: The blue text below is the new APS statement requested by the
signers and the red text below is the present APS statement the
signers wish to replace.]
Fifty-four current and former members of the American Physical Society
have signed the attached Open Letter to the APS Council calling for a
reconsideration of its November 2007 Statement on Climate Change. The
Open Letter includes a proposed Alternative Statement which the
signatories find a more accurate representation of the current state
of the science than the unsupported assertion of the APS: "The
evidence is incontrovertible.�
The signatories are a diverse group who share only their common
background in physics and a concern for the integrity of the science
process. They come from academia, industry, and government and have a
variety of fields of interest and experiences. Many are distinguished
prize winners (including a Nobel laureate), members of national
academies, authors of books, chairs of studies of historical
significance, and leaders of important activities in industry and
government.
It is not necessary that the Alternative be adopted verbatim. Rather
it is put forth as a significant counter view that many accomplished
physicists have been able to support. The critical point, as stated in
the third paragraph of the Alternative, is the establishment of an
ongoing objective scientific process devoid of political or financial
influence and agendas.
Such an �agnostic� approach is needed to reverse the subversion of the
science process and the intolerance of scientific disagreement that
have characterized the climate issue.
On May 1, 2009, the APS Council decided to review the current
Statement via a high level subcommittee of respected senior
scientists. We applaud this decision. It is the first such reappraisal
by a major scientific professional society that we are aware of, and
we hope that the APS review will lead to meaningful change so as to
reflect a more accurate view of the current state of the science.
Respectfully,
Robert H. Austin
Roger W. Cohen
Laurence I. Gould
William Happer
Harold W. Lewis
S. Fred Singer
Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS
Council: An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical
Society
As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current
and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned
urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as
follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the
science:
Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While
substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause
significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature
records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither
exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records
show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an
extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of
increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.
Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and
solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in
the Earth�s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries.
Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly
account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate
change, much less project future climate.
The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the
effects of all processes � natural and human -- on the Earth�s climate
and the biosphere�s response to climate change, and promotes
technological options for meeting challenges of future climate
changes, regardless of cause.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the "blue" text is what is being quoted here.
------------------------------------------------------------
� APS News; January 2008 (Volume 17, Number 1)
Harold M. Agnew
Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1970 - 1979)
President, General Atomics Corporation (1979 -1984)
White House Science Councilor (1982 -1989)
E.O. Lawrence Award 1966, Enrico Fermi Award 1978, Los Alamos Medal
(with H.A. Bethe) 2001
Member National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
Fellow APS, AAAS
Moorad Alexanian
Professor of Physics and Physical Oceanography
University of North Carolina Wilmington
Member Mexican Academy of Sciences, American Scientific Affiliation
Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton Universityy
Fellow APS, AAAS; APS Council: 1991-1994, 2007-2010
Member National Academy of Sciences, American Association of Arts and
Sciences
Franco Battaglia, PhD
Professor of Chemical Physics and Environmental Chemistry
University of Modena, Italy
APS Life-member
Stuart B. Berger
Research Fellow and Divisional Time-to-Market Manager
Xerox Corporation (retired)
Barry L. Berman
Columbian Professor and Chair
Physics Department
The George Washington University
Fellow APS
Edwin X Berry
Atmospheric Physicist, Climate Physics, LLC
Certified Consulting Meteorologist #180
Member American Meteorological Society
Arie Bodek
George E. Pake Professor of Physics
University of Rochester
Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky Prize in Experimental Particle Physics (APS)
2004
Fellow APS
Timothy D. Calvin
President, Bearfoot Corporation (retired)
Fabricated rubber products for the DOD, shoe and automobile industries
Member ACS
Gregory H. Canavan
Senior Fellow and Scientific Advisor,
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Fellow APS
Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs
ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Otto Schade Prize (Society for Information Display) 2006
Fellow APS
Jerry M. Cuttler
President, Cuttler and Associates, Inc.
Engineering, consulting, and licensing services for the nuclear power
industry
President, Canadian Nuclear Society 1995-1996
Fellow Canadian Nuclear Society, Member American Nuclear Society
David H. Douglass
Professor of Physics
University of Rochester
Fellow APS
Albert G. Engelhardt
President and CEO, Enfitek, Inc.
Environmental control and security systems
Senior Life Member IEEE
Jens G. Feder
Professor of Physics of Geological Processes
University of Oslo
Fellow APS
Peter D. Friedman
Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Member American Geophysical Union, ASME, American Nuclear Society
Ivar Giaever
Institute Professor, School of Engineering and School of Science
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Nobel Prize in Physics 1973
Fellow APS, Member National Academy of Science, National Academy of
Engineering
Albert Gold
Associate Dean of Engineering and Applied Sciences (Retired)
Harvard University
Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Member Executive Board of the New England Section of the APS
Chairman (2004), New England Section APS
Paul M. Grant
EPRI Science Fellow (retired)
IBM Research Staff Member Emeritus
Senior Life Fellow APS
Howard D. Greyber
University of Pennsylvania (retired)
Formerly Princeton University, LLNL Theory Group, Northeastern
University
Member American Astronomical Society, Fellow Royal Astronomical
Society
Mike Gruntman
Professor of AstronauticsUniversity of Southern California
Author, Blazing the Trail. The Early History of Spacecraft and
Rocketry (AIAA)
Luigi G. Napolitano Book Award (International Academy of Astronautics)
2006
Member American Geophysical Union, Associate Fellow AIAA
William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences
Howard C. Hayden
Emeritus Professor of Physics
University of Connecticut
Editor, The Energy Advocate
Jack M. Hollander
Professor Emeritus of Energy and Resources, University of California,
Berkeley
Vice-President Emeritus, The Ohio State University
First Head, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory
Fellow APS, AAAS
David B. Holtkamp
Scientific Staff Member, Physics Division
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Andrew Kaldor
Distinguished Scientific Advisor
Manager of Breakthrough Research
ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow AAAS, Member ACS
Alexander E. Kaplan
Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
The Johns Hopkins University
Max Born Award (Optical Society of America) 2005
Alexander von Humboldt Award (von Humboldt Foundation) 1996
Fellow OSA
Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics
Washington University
Robert S. Knox
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of Rochester
Member APS Council (1985-1988)
Fellow APS
Joseph A. Kunc
Professor, Physics and Astronomy
University of Southern California
Fellow APS
Robert E. Levine
Industrial and Defense Physics and Engineering (retired)
Member ACM, IEEE
Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Chairman, Defense Science Board Panel on Nuclear Winter
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study
John D. Lindl
James Clerk Maxwell Prize for Plasma Physics (APS) 2007
Fellow APS, AAAS
Phillip W. Mange
Associate Superintendent, Space Science Division
Scientific Consultant to the Director of Research,
Naval Research Laboratory (retired)
Jim Mitroy
Lecturer in Physics, School of Engineering and Information Technology
Charles Darwin University, Australia
Michael Monce
Professor of Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics
Connecticut College
Member AAPT, and American Geophysical Union
Rodney W. Nichols
President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences (1992-2001)
Vice President and Executive Vice President, The Rockefeller
University (1970-1990)
Secretary of Defense Medal for Distinguished Meritorious Civilian
Service (1970)
Fellow AAAS, New York Academy of Sciences
Frank R. Paolini
Adjunct Professor of Physics
University of Connecticut at Stamford (retired)
Senior Member APS, Member IEEE
Donald Rapp
Chief Technologist, Mechanical and Chemical Systems,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired)Professor of Physics and
Environmental Engineering, University of Texas (1973-1979)
Author, �Assessing Climate Change� and �Ice Ages and Interglacials�
(Springer-Verlag)
Fellow APS
John E. Rhoads
Professor of Physics
Midwestern State University (retired)
Member SPE
Harry I. Ringermacher
Sr. Research Physicist
General Electric Global Research Center
AIP "History of Physics in Industry" Participant at GE
Sir William Herschel Medal (American Academy of Thermology)
Copper Black Award (American Mensa) 2003 and 2007
Stanley Robertson
Emeritus Professor of Physics
Southwestern Oklahoma State University
Berol Robinson
Principal Scientific Officer
UNESCO (retired)Member AAPT, AAAS, Association des �cologistes Pour le
Nucl�aire
Nicola Scafetta
Research Scientist, Physics Department, Duke University
Member American Geophysical Union
Thomas P. Sheahen
President/ CEO, Western Technology, Inc. (energy sciences consulting)
Member AAAS; APS Congressional Science Fellowship (1977-78)Author,
Introduction to High Temperature Superconductivity (Springer)
Joseph Silverman
Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering,
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
University of Maryland
Fellow APS, ANS
S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus
University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, American Geophysical Union
Peter Stilbs
Professor of Physical Chemistry
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden
Life Member APS
Szymon Suckewer
Professor of School of Engineering & Applied Sciences
Director of Plasma Science & Technology Program
Princeton University
Fellow APS, OSA
Frank J. Tipler
Professor of Mathematical Physics
Tulane University
Co-author, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford U. Press)
Salvatore Torquato
Professor of Chemistry and the Princeton Center for Theoretical
Science,
Materials Institute and Applied & Computational Mathematics
Princeton University
Fellow APS; 2009 APS David Alder Lectureship Award in the Field of
Material Physics
Samuel A. Werner
Curators� Professor Emeritus
The University of Missouri
Guest Researcher, NIST
Fellow APS, AAAS
Bruce J. West
Adjunct Professor of Physics, Duke University
Fellow APS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All shills for Big Oil, ya think?
Looking back, I see that I have contributed about 400 lines with my
modest little list.
I have certainly been outclassed by your effort, but my list wasn't as
insignificant as I thought it might be.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Of all forms of Diversity, the Diversity of Opinion is the most
valuable."
FL Turbo
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
>news:t7p1f5lpdpbf19qrq...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:05:25 -0800, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4dl1f51lmjvrvcq7u...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>1) I told you that the studies to which he refers do not say what he
>>>>>claims they do. Does that concern you at all?
>>>>
>>>> Frankly my boy, you telling me something doesn't automatically
>>>> translate into a belief on my part that you know what you're talking
>>>> about.
>>>
>>>Yes, but if you rub two brain cells together you may come to
>>>conclusion that it might be a clue that you need to look at the actual
>>>studies rather than take a guy who pretends to be a meteorologist on
>>>the internet's word for it.
>>>
>> Gee, if I only had two brain cells instead of the single one I have, I
>> could read the actual studies and come to the same conclusions as you?
>>
>> And what's this "pretend" meterologist thing?
>> He has been a working meteorologist for 25 years.
>>
>> Um, er, have you been taking lessons from Beldin on How to Win an
>> Argument through Creative Insults?
>Please.
>I don't just insult you.
>I insult you, then prove you wrong.
>
Yes, I've noticed that.
You have a 100% success rate in proving that anyone who disagrees with
you is wrong.
****** //// Sarcasm Alert ON////*****
(I only put that alert in for my favorite Dogg, Travel)
----------------------------------------------
Mark Twain On Consensus
�Thirty-five years ago I was an expert precious-metal quartz-miner.
There was an outcrop in my neighborhood that assayed $600 a ton�gold.
But every fleck of gold in it was shut up tight and fast in an
intractable and impersuadable base-metal shell.
Acting as a Consensus, I delivered the finality verdict that no human
ingenuity would ever be able to set free two dollars� worth of gold
out of a ton of that rock.
The fact is, I did not foresee the cyanide process� These sorrows have
made me suspicious of Consensuses� I sheer warily off and get behind
something, saying to myself, �It looks innocent and all right, but no
matter, ten to one there�s a cyanide process under that thing
somewhere.��
BillB
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:mmf4f5ti5g8l8e5rh...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:09:21 -0800, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>>No, you could compare to what is claimed by the authors to what what
>>is claimed by Anthony 'the fakester" Watts and judge his credibility
>>for yourself.
>
> Oh, name-calling so early in the game?
> NTTAW name-calling.
Did you make the comparison I suggested? What did you find out?
>>>>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for
>>>>> 25
>>>>> years.
>>
>>Yes, that's the claim I am talking about. How did he become a
>>meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he find his meteorologist card in a
>>box of Cracker Jacks?
>>
> Your Academic Snobbery is showing up again.
How did he become a meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he just decide to
start calling himself that one day?
>>Call me a snob, but I want my doctor to have a medical degree, I
>>want
>>my lawyer to have a law degree, and I want my scientists to have
>>science degrees.
>>
> I see.
> Accept Authority.
> The rest of us don't have the right to an opinion.
So you *would* go to a surgeon without a medical degree? No, I really
don't think you would.
>>No, I am not embarrassed. I want my sources to be 1) qualified, and
>>2)
>>objective, as does anyone with a shred of common sense.
>
> No, I guess I couldn't expect you to be embarrassed.
> You're shameless.
Why would I be embarrassed to seek out qualified non-biased opinions?
>>> I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite
>>> "overwhelming
>>> consensus" ?
>>>
>>> Puhleeze, don't do it.
>>> I can't stand to laugh. The stitches don't come out until next
>>> week
>>
>>Let's let RGP decide. You have your Oil Company Blogs and some
>>pretend-scientists. I have almost every major prestigious scientific
>>organization in the world:
>>
> Wow!!
> By the line count of my newsreader, there are about 800 lines that I
> deleted here.
>
> And here I was thinking that I was one prolix MoFo.
> I have been put to shame by that post.
> You must have put your entire reading list into that one post.
> And not a single skeptic in the bunch, eh?
No, that was an article from wikipedia on the current state of
scientific consensus on climate change. Did you take note of all the
major scientific organizations therein. That means nothing to you?
> They all fall in line with the IPCC.
> No wonder you're so sure about everything.
So your logic is that if most all of the world's major scientific
organizations generally agree on a scientific principle, that is
evidence the principle is not true? lol
> Well, I don't have anything to match that, but I do have one list to
> contribute.
>
> http://www.climatephysics.com/GlobalWarming/APS.htm
>
> Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society
> Dear Editors:
>
> [Note: The blue text below is the new APS statement requested by the
> signers and the red text below is the present APS statement the
> signers wish to replace.]
>
> Fifty-four current and former members of the American Physical
> Society
> have signed the attached Open Letter to the APS Council calling for
> a
> reconsideration of its November 2007 Statement on Climate Change.
Uh, the American Physical Society has about 50,000 members. So the
fact that ~.1% of it's members have expressed disagreement with the
organization's policy statement is compelling to you?
Do you not see the difference between the positions of major
scientific organizations and those of a relative few individual
scientists? I am quite certain I could make an impressive looking list
of health scientists who refuse to believe that cigarettes cause
cancer (of course, most of them would likely be working directly or
indirectly for the tobacco industry), but the list would become far
less impressive when one realized that that *long list* represents .1%
of health scientists. You need to learn to start looking at the big
picture. You are textbook case of extreme attitude polarization.
Travel A
Re: Kilimanjaro ice cap disappearing
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2009, 8:37pm
From: Travel A <nin...@webtv.net>
Re: Kilimanjaro ice cap disappearing
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Tue, Nov 3, 2009, 6:58pm
From: BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca>
Is this a joke, Joe? Even Turbo wouldn't fall for that crap.
.............................................
(titter)
Pepe Papon
wrote:
Care to refute what I said with actual facts?
Lab Rat
Given the breadth of the fields associated with being a member of the APS,
54 members probably represents a reasonable percentage of those involced
in climate science. In any case, finding 54 high profile members who are
willing to put their scientific credibilty on the line is, in my opinion,
significant. For the vast majority of the membership, contact with the
Society probably begins and ennds with signing the membership check each
year.
The comparison with smoking is simply illogical. The mechanism by which
smoking increases cancer risk is well documented, both chemically and
medically, and there is direct correlation between the risk and the
severity of the habit. No such correlation exists for CO2 forced global
warming.
Did you read the original article on the Kilimanjaro glaciers? Either of
you?
_____________________________________________________________________�
Beldin the Sorcerer
It's not 100%
>
> ****** //// Sarcasm Alert ON////*****
>
> (I only put that alert in for my favorite Dogg, Travel)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Mark Twain On Consensus
>
> "Thirty-five years ago I was an expert precious-metal quartz-miner.
> There was an outcrop in my neighborhood that assayed $600 a ton-gold.
> But every fleck of gold in it was shut up tight and fast in an
> intractable and impersuadable base-metal shell.
> Acting as a Consensus, I delivered the finality verdict that no human
> ingenuity would ever be able to set free two dollars' worth of gold
> out of a ton of that rock.
> The fact is, I did not foresee the cyanide process. These sorrows have
> made me suspicious of Consensuses. I sheer warily off and get behind
> something, saying to myself, 'It looks innocent and all right, but no
> matter, ten to one there's a cyanide process under that thing
> somewhere.'"
Turbo, we're dealing with a great likelihood, of a time sensitive nature.
Only a complete moron waits to be sure under those circumstances.
da pickle
>> Uh, the American Physical Society has about 50,000 members. So the
>> fact that ~.1% of it's members have expressed disagreement with the
>> organization's policy statement is compelling to you?
>
> Given the breadth of the fields associated with being a member of the APS,
> 54 members probably represents a reasonable percentage of those involced
> in climate science. In any case, finding 54 high profile members who are
> willing to put their scientific credibilty on the line is, in my opinion,
> significant. For the vast majority of the membership, contact with the
> Society probably begins and ennds with signing the membership check each
> year.
Bill seems to imply that 50,000 members of the APS wrote the original
position and 54 members disagree with the other 49,946 members. This is
typical, of course, of someone who has an agenda rather than a argument.
You are correct that members of any organization from the trivial to the
astute seldom have much contact with the pronouncements of that
organization. (For a personal example, I ended my association with the ABA
when the goofiness of the politics outweighed any possible benefit.)
Doctors that belong to the AMA do not necessarily agree with the political
positions of the AMA ... they don't all agree on the opinion of the AMA on
medical issues.
The idea that members of organizations all agree with the pronouncements of
the national organization is just a bad "assumption." But this is a
newsgroup and people draw all sorts of conclusions and post a lot of opinion
as fact. Sometimes, the opinions are better supported in "common sense"
than others.
> The comparison with smoking is simply illogical. The mechanism by which
> smoking increases cancer risk is well documented, both chemically and
> medically, and there is direct correlation between the risk and the
> severity of the habit. No such correlation exists for CO2 forced global
> warming.
Those that have faith can avoid doubt by assumption and diversion.
> Did you read the original article on the Kilimanjaro glaciers? Either of
> you?
Consider this exchange in this subthread:
>>>Call me a snob, but I want my doctor to have a medical degree,
>>>I want my lawyer to have a law degree, and I want my scientists
>>>to have science degrees.
>>
>> I see.
>> Accept Authority.
>> The rest of us don't have the right to an opinion.
> So you *would* go to a surgeon without a medical degree?
> No, I really don't think you would.
Is Bill's assumed conclusion that Turbo would have a surgeon cut on him a
valid one in context? This was an attempted putdown based on "logic" that
is actually an illogical rhetorical slam. The constant calling of those
that disagree with assumptions and opinions names is not helpful in
advancing discussion or understanding.
There are so many important "issues" that get swept up into mixtures of half
truths being spun into outright silliness. Trying to get through the fog of
words is difficult. There is nothing wrong with "appeals to authority" for
sources of information, but everyone needs to acknowledge our own
limitations in interpreting complex opinions on complex data and the complex
conclusions being drawn by those who draw them.
The main problem I have with Bill is that he assumes too much in each
sentence and there are often several sentences in each paragraph and it is
difficult to start at the first word of the first sentence and try and
reconstruct where the assumptions and opinions wiggle to the denouement.
The final "gift" is already boxed, wrapped and tied with a bow. It is
almost impossible to get to the cake through the icing.
Using words like "any sane person" do not help keep the discussion civil.
General statements of truth do not always apply to specific conclusions. I
enjoy a good cat fight on RGP, but I wish sometimes that those few that are
really quite smart (like BillB) would step back and reconsider their
omnipotence in what they believe they understand. I can say that about
Beldin too ... he is a smart guy, but he suffers from too high an opinion of
his opinion and reduces any discussion to crude, juvenile rants and name
calling. [I confess to a high opinion of my opinion and I am also subject
to frustration and devolvement into sarcasm and ridicule as a result.]
You, labrat, do not post much here. You seem to be able to keep to the high
road. Your final comment above, however, seems to indicate that you might
be feeling just a moment of frustration.
Paul Popinjay
>
> You, labrat, do not post much here. You seem to be able to keep to the
> high road.
I'll start some cheese threads.
da pickle
>> You, labrat, do not post much here. You seem to be able to keep to the
>> high road.
>
>
> I'll start some cheese threads.
What do you know about cheese?
mo_charles
it
> > was based on science and facts.
>
> so of course they don't want their pollution activities curtailed and
> they will use whatever means necessary (including perverting the
> truth) to allow their money-making activities to continue. Those on
> the left represent others and so they don't mind screwing it to the
> big companies and rich people and instead care about the truth.
>
> Also, there are a large group of those on the right who believe that
> science is false in many ways so if scientists say it then it much be
> fought with all angles.
>
> This is all so obvious even I could see it.
the right eats baby seals for breakfast, so i don't see how polluting the
water helps.
mo_charles
----�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
mo_charles
> >>petroleum industry-funded studies.
> >
> >You got it all figgered out, don't you?
> >
> >You and Al Gore.
>
> Care to refute what I said with actual facts?
i lean right, and i accept science from sources outside the oil industry.
consider it refuted.
mo_charles
______________________________________________________________________�
BillB
"Lab Rat" <robbie....@spin.net.au> wrote in message
news:6iras6x...@recgroups.com...
> Given the breadth of the fields associated with being a member of
> the APS,
> 54 members probably represents a reasonable percentage of those
> involced
> in climate science.
Come on. Talk about jumping to conclusions! The fact is 54 of 50,000
expressed reservation. It is what it is. I bet I can guess the
political affiliation or employment status of most of those 54. I am
willing to bet the majority of them are paid consultants for emitters.
In any case, finding 54 high profile members who are
> willing to put their scientific credibilty on the line is, in my
> opinion,
> significant. For the vast majority of the membership, contact with
> the
> Society probably begins and ennds with signing the membership check
> each
> year.
Baloney. I have noticed that the opinions of scientists who are paid
by oil companies and the like diverge markedly from the scientific
community at large. It ain't a coincidence. Scientists can be bought
off like anyone else. A certain percentage also let their politics get
in the way of their scientific reasoning. For example, look at the
facebook page of the APS guy who authors the blog to which Turbo
refers. I was not surprised at all to find out he is an hard
right-winger.
If you find it significant that that 54 of 50,000 members express
reservation about the organization's statement, how significant is it
to you that almost every major prestigious scientific organization in
the world endorses the IPCC's fourth assessment?
> The comparison with smoking is simply illogical. The mechanism by
> which
> smoking increases cancer risk is well documented, both chemically
> and
> medically, and there is direct correlation between the risk and the
> severity of the habit. No such correlation exists for CO2 forced
> global
> warming.
You missed my point. In fact, you are kind of reinforcing my point. My
point was that you can find individual scientists to say almost
anything, no matter how ludicrous. The % of scientists who object to
the gist of the IPCC assessment is small (very small). That is
reflected by the fact that there is almost universal endorsement by
major scientific organizations. My point was that Turbo suffers from a
very bad case of attitude polarization. He finds it extremely
significant that, say, 5% of scientists agree with his position, but
places no significance at all on the converse that 95% don't.
How did the IPCC come to the conclusion that they are 95% confident
that most of the observed global warming is a result of increased
anthropogenic greenhouse gasses? What would you set that probability
at? Is it safe to say that most of the people who collaborated on that
assessment have more expertise in climate science than you?
> Did you read the original article on the Kilimanjaro glaciers?
> Either of
> you?
Yes, I did.
Paul Popinjay
I know jack.
Paul Popinjay
I know jack.
da pickle
>>No wonder Pinochet's generals threw people like you out of helicopters.
>>Probably got tired of your whining.
>>
>>-Paul Popinjay
>
> Did Pinochet believe in Global Warming?
He burned some balls.
Pepe Papon
<harry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>The problem is that the righties only want to accept "science" from
>> >>petroleum industry-funded studies.
>> >
>> >You got it all figgered out, don't you?
>> >
>> >You and Al Gore.
>>
>> Care to refute what I said with actual facts?
>
>i lean right, and i accept science from sources outside the oil industry.
>consider it refuted.
What's your belief regarding global warming, and what do you base it
on?
John the Savage
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:10:22 -0500, John the Savage
> <savag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> FL Turbo wrote:
>>>>>> If if wasn't us, who was it? Was it God? Did God cut down all the
>>>>>> trees, Turbo? Did God start practicing "totalitarian agriculture" and
>>>>>> change the entire surface of the planet? Did God build the cities,
>>>>>> slums, and farms that have crowded so many species out of existence
>>>>>> right before our eyes? Did God pull all this carbon out of the Earth
>>>>>> and start burning it so that you could sit on your ass on a Monday night
>>>>>> and communicate with the rest of the world? Did God build the dams that
>>>>>> reduced formerly raging rivers to slow drips? Did God pump nitrogen
>>>>>> based fertilizer into the ground until it ran off into the Gulf causing
>>>>>> huge dead spots where nothing can live? Did God create the Great
>>>>>> Pacific Garbage Patch? Did God fill all the fish with mercury?
>>> I noticed.
>>> You managed to cram a whole lot of Environmentalist Whacko talking
>>> points into a single paragraph.
>>>
>>> You didn't really expect a serious answer to them, did you?
>>
>> just give up your line. If you'd like to continue, you need to make a
>> rational argument for at least one of these two points:
>>
>> (1) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed do not exist
>> (2) These massive, recent changes in nature I have listed are not caused
>> by man
>
> I wouldn't argue against either of those points,
Oh, okay then. So you are now admitting that what you earlier
characterized as "Environmentalist Whacko talking points" are actually
valid points in answer to your claim that my assertion that nature was
undergoing massive change was an "assumption". Thanks.
> except to point out
> that they don't prove your basic, implied assumption that Mankind will
> ultimately turn the entire planet into an uninhabitable wasteland.
In the future, this would work better if you simply dealt with what I
actually said, instead of what you think I was trying to imply. It
doesn't bother me if you don't agree with my opinion of the likely
outcome of human civilization. But this doesn't give you any grounds to
call simple facts (which may support my opinion) "whacko talking
points". It turns out you even agree with these "whacko talking
points". But you reflexively refuse to consider them because you don't
like the implications.
>
> You and I have had these types of conversations before, haven't we?
>
> You, the young guy, being full of gloom and doom and despair over the
> future of Mankind.
>
I'm just the analyst. I'm not gloomy, and I don't feel despair. I'm
pretty happy, just finished a busy week of school and lab successfully,
am going to spend the weekend with the new girl, and am even enjoying
some goldfish as I write this. They're delicious.
> Me, the old guy, being full of hope for the future of Mankind, with
> new technology being able to fix the problems that come up, and
> improve our quality of life.
>
> Just to cherry pick one of the questions in your little sermon.
> Yes, I'm damn glad we have been able to pluck carbon out of the earth
> so we can burn it, and I can sit on my ass and communicate with the
> rest of the world.
>
> Anybody operating an excavating machine should be damn glad he can sit
> on his ass and dig dirt for the construction of a new building, rather
> than doing the back breaking work with a hand shovel.
>
> In fact, all of us in our daily lives have reason to be thankful that
> we learned how to dig carbon out of the earth and burn it in useful
> ways.
>
> Heh.
> Look who's sermonizing now, eh?
> (That would be me.)
So then, I guess we're all happier than we used to be? Or are we? What
do you think the data is?
John the Savage
> "Paul Popinjay"
>
>>> pity this busy monster, manunkind,
>>>
>> Pity the poor slobs who trudged this Earth, before the invention of the
>> internal combustion engine. Of course, they're all dead!
>
> Excellent ... but then, in the end ... aren't we all.
>
> John the Savage is a bright spot (I prefer the old persona, but the new is
> OK) but he suffers from pronouncement disease.
>
What's in a name? That's all that has changed. If you prefer a dead
Priest who liked to play chess, and whom you couldn't possibly know much
about on a personal level, to the delightful hero of BNW, I'm
disappointed.
> Like someone else I know and enjoy, he presumes, assumes and has ultimate
> faith in whateveritisthatheissaying and then denounces anyone who might
> questions the original conglomeration.
I don't like this characterization of my work here as "denouncement". I
don't think that's very accurate, and I think you could do better if you
wanted to.
>
> There are no clear and unambiguous opinions given nor sought ... just the
> same old same old political rants.
>
I don't think I've ever delivered a single "political rant" to RGP.
>
> Now, if he would just separate legitimate environmental concerns so they
> might be considered one by one with some sort of reasonable debate, progress
> might be made ... but that seems unlikely.
>
Well, progress .. is the whole problem. But I digress. The point is
that none of the "legitimate environmental concerns" exist in a vacuum,
separate from all the others. I prefer to look at the "big picture".
There could never be a way to convince someone like you, or FL Turbo,
that civilization was doomed from the start, even if it were true. I
don't want to try. I don't see why you think a "reasonable debate" on
the subject is impossible, however, and I don't think you have ever
actually tried. You prefer to be smug and ambiguous, which is fine.
You have your niche, and you are welcome to exploit it to the best of
your ability, like all the rest of the creatures of the Earth.
>
> Delete above ... substitute ... Mankind is the only species that does not
> deserve to exist.
>
It is not up to us to decide who gets to exist and who does not. As I
said, Mother Nature has Her way of taking care of these things. I'm
just going to enjoy these cheddar goldfish while I can.
FL Turbo
<hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
I do not think that actual facts could influence you at all.
Your mind is made up already.
Opinions and facts that go contrary to the UN funded IPCC spin will be
discarded by you as being propaganda from Big Oil.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dwight Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation
�that public policy could itself become the captive of a
scientific-technological elite.�
Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract
becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity�
�The prospect of domination of the nation�s scholars by Federal
employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever
present - and is gravely to be regarded.�
FL Turbo
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
99% ?
>>
>> ****** //// Sarcasm Alert ON////*****
>>
>> (I only put that alert in for my favorite Dogg, Travel)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Mark Twain On Consensus
>>
>> "Thirty-five years ago I was an expert precious-metal quartz-miner.
>> There was an outcrop in my neighborhood that assayed $600 a ton-gold.
>> But every fleck of gold in it was shut up tight and fast in an
>> intractable and impersuadable base-metal shell.
>> Acting as a Consensus, I delivered the finality verdict that no human
>> ingenuity would ever be able to set free two dollars' worth of gold
>> out of a ton of that rock.
>> The fact is, I did not foresee the cyanide process. These sorrows have
>> made me suspicious of Consensuses. I sheer warily off and get behind
>> something, saying to myself, 'It looks innocent and all right, but no
>> matter, ten to one there's a cyanide process under that thing
>> somewhere.'"
>
>Turbo, we're dealing with a great likelihood, of a time sensitive nature.
>Only a complete moron waits to be sure under those circumstances.
>
Is that the kind of thinking known as Pascal's Wager?
FL Turbo
>
>
>"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
>news:mmf4f5ti5g8l8e5rh...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:09:21 -0800, "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>>No, you could compare to what is claimed by the authors to what what
>>>is claimed by Anthony 'the fakester" Watts and judge his credibility
>>>for yourself.
>>
>> Oh, name-calling so early in the game?
>> NTTAW name-calling.
>
>Did you make the comparison I suggested? What did you find out?
>
I don't remember you suggesting that I make any comparison.
You know my memory isn't as good as it once was.
>
>
>>>>>> His only claim to expertise is having been a meteorologist for
>>>>>> 25
>>>>>> years.
>>>
>>>Yes, that's the claim I am talking about. How did he become a
>>>meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he find his meteorologist card in a
>>>box of Cracker Jacks?
>>>
It means he has had 25 years to observe and study the world's climate.
>> Your Academic Snobbery is showing up again.
>
>
>How did he become a meteorologist 25 years ago? Did he just decide to
>start calling himself that one day?
>
>
>
>>>Call me a snob, but I want my doctor to have a medical degree, I
>>>want
>>>my lawyer to have a law degree, and I want my scientists to have
>>>science degrees.
>>>
>> I see.
>> Accept Authority.
>> The rest of us don't have the right to an opinion.
>
>So you *would* go to a surgeon without a medical degree? No, I really
>don't think you would.
That only means you are good at setting up a strawman and knocking it
down.
It doesn't prove anything else.
>
>
>>>No, I am not embarrassed. I want my sources to be 1) qualified, and
>>>2)
>>>objective, as does anyone with a shred of common sense.
>>
>> No, I guess I couldn't expect you to be embarrassed.
>> You're shameless.
>
>Why would I be embarrassed to seek out qualified non-biased opinions?
>
And of course if they march in lockstep with the UN funded IPCC, that
means that they are automatically qualified and non-biased.
Believing that is what should make you embarrassed.
>
>>>> I spose that next you are going to use that old favorite
>>>> "overwhelming
>>>> consensus" ?
>>>>
>>>> Puhleeze, don't do it.
>>>> I can't stand to laugh. The stitches don't come out until next
>>>> week
>>>
>>>Let's let RGP decide. You have your Oil Company Blogs and some
>>>pretend-scientists. I have almost every major prestigious scientific
>>>organization in the world:
>>>
>
>> Wow!!
>> By the line count of my newsreader, there are about 800 lines that I
>> deleted here.
>>
>> And here I was thinking that I was one prolix MoFo.
>> I have been put to shame by that post.
>
>> You must have put your entire reading list into that one post.
>> And not a single skeptic in the bunch, eh?
>
>No, that was an article from wikipedia on the current state of
>scientific consensus on climate change. Did you take note of all the
>major scientific organizations therein. That means nothing to you?
>
>
>> They all fall in line with the IPCC.
>> No wonder you're so sure about everything.
>
>So your logic is that if most all of the world's major scientific
>organizations generally agree on a scientific principle, that is
>evidence the principle is not true? lol
If they all fall in line with the IPCC conclusions and simply
regurgitate the same line of thought, my suspicious little brain tells
me they haven't done much thinking at all.
I'm sure you have heard these famous observations;
"When everyone thinks alike, no one thinks much at all."
"Coming to a conclusion often only means that is the point where we
stop thinking about it."
>
>
>> Well, I don't have anything to match that, but I do have one list to
>> contribute.
>>
>> http://www.climatephysics.com/GlobalWarming/APS.htm
>>
>> Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society
>> Dear Editors:
>>
>> [Note: The blue text below is the new APS statement requested by the
>> signers and the red text below is the present APS statement the
>> signers wish to replace.]
>>
>> Fifty-four current and former members of the American Physical
>> Society
>> have signed the attached Open Letter to the APS Council calling for
>> a
>> reconsideration of its November 2007 Statement on Climate Change.
>
>
>Uh, the American Physical Society has about 50,000 members. So the
>fact that ~.1% of it's members have expressed disagreement with the
>organization's policy statement is compelling to you?
>
From reading ahead on this thread, I see that other people have told
you that an organization can easily issue policy statements that don't
reflect the opinions of their membership.
'Nuff said.
>Do you not see the difference between the positions of major
>scientific organizations and those of a relative few individual
>scientists? I am quite certain I could make an impressive looking list
>of health scientists who refuse to believe that cigarettes cause
>cancer (of course, most of them would likely be working directly or
>indirectly for the tobacco industry), but the list would become far
>less impressive when one realized that that *long list* represents .1%
>of health scientists. You need to learn to start looking at the big
>picture. You are textbook case of extreme attitude polarization.
>
I can't think of any "health scientists" who would deny that
cigarettes contribute to cancer.
It is more likely that it is only another one of your cute little
strawman arguments.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_polarization
Did it ever cross your mind that that phenomena could also apply to
you, as well as to me?
Pot Kettle Moment, anyone?