What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

I love how they dismissed Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen as "not a real scientist" Mikey Mann over at Realclimate.org isn't fit to carry test tubes for either of those guys Look up their credentials and see for yourself.

Boston, Whenever YOU "step off soapbox" it's merely onto a skyscraper of soapboxes that last one was on top of

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Here ya go, Boston,

I've saved you all that fingertip strain and looked up S. Fred SInger's credentials for you. I know he's not a '"'''"" Real Scientist""'''"' by the lofty standards set by the likes of your hero Mikey Mann, but he has had a few minor highlights in his career that may be of interest. Maybe the gods over at Realclimate.org would be kind enough to show him how 'real scientists' do the AGW boogie




"Siegfried Frederick Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is an American atmospheric physicist. Singer is Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues. Singer received a B.E.E from Ohio State University in 1943; an A.M. in physics from Princeton in 1944; and a Ph. D in physics from Princeton in 1948. Singer has received an honorary Doctorate of Science from Ohio State University in 1970.

Singer invented the backscatter photometer ozone-monitoring instrument for early versions of US weather satellites. Singer was Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, Chief Scientist, United States Department of Transportation from 1987 to 1989, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the United States Environmental Protection Agency from 1970 to 1971, and the first Director of the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center, where upon his leave he received a Gold Medal for Distinguished Federal Service. In 1964, he became the first dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami.

Singer has also been a consultant to the House Select Committee on Space, NASA, GAO, NSF, AEC, NRC, DOD (Strategic Defense Initiative), US DOE Nuclear Waste Panel, the US Treasury, and the state governments of Virginia, Alaska, and Pennsylvania, and to various industries including GE, Ford, GM, Exxon, Shell, Sun Oil, Lockheed Martin and IBM.

In the 1950s, Singer was Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Maryland, College Park.

Singer is skeptical of scientific findings on human-induced global warming, the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, and the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Singer has also worked with organizations with similar views, such as the Independent Institute, the American Council on Science and Health, Frontiers of Freedom, the Marshall Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which Singer founded."



Jimbo

[Guillermo]

"We regret that many advocates in the debate have chosen to give up debating the science and now focus almost exclusively on questioning the
motives of ‘skeptics,’ name-calling, and ad hominem attacks. We view this as a sign of desperation on their part, and a sign that the debate has shifted toward climate realism."

S. Fred Singer

[Boston]

thanks bntii
its pretty obvious
its simply not possible in a dynamic system to artificially add anything
and not effect the system as a hole
its kinda a no brainer

Having heard some compelling and well presented minority theories, I’ve always been curious to hear the dissenting opinion on global climate change and now that I have listened to it, am not surprised that this view gets little play in scientific circles. Frankly, the detracting view presented here has been wanting, in content, presentation, veracity and general civility

A debate implies there are two viable positions to be considered, in regards to global climate change there appears to be only one position with the necessary continuity in refereed work to form a theory. the dissenting opinion having no such chain of peer reviewed work available.

in leu of any substantial reviewed and published evidence being presented for consideration through citation and reference, the detractors of modern global climate change theory have shown themselves incapable, not only within this layman’s forum but throughout the scientific community’s forums, of mounting a viable scientific argument giving validity to there claim that anthropogenic emissions have no effect on atmospheric chemistry. Detractors, failing in citation, claim to be subject to exactly the tactics they so readily have displayed in there arguments here, thus showing a political component to there arguments while being hesitant to make citation or provide reference’s to those citations. There is obviously no chain of refereed work forming a consistent body of data demanding a reconsideration of the consensus view. Having personally researched what few references were provided I found them to be substantially wanting, being by and large associated with bias industry financing, outside what is considered the scientific community, either failing to present itself for scientific scrutiny or, being dissatisfied with that scrutiny ignored rejection, instead presenting itself in industry sponsored publications.

In conclusion there has been no compelling evidence offered and no substantiated claims made sufficient to challenge the consensus view,
"Anthropogenic changes in the chemistry of the environment are artificially initiating a cascade reaction within the environment resulting in rapid global climate change."

descending to a series of insults and paranoid accusations lacking credibility through referenced literature, and peer reviewed work, only shows an admission the detracting position is untenable.

best of luck with that new ditch
B

[bntii]

ditch is going fine- thanks

[masalai]

Thanks Boston, eloquently put - sadly, another thread "gone seriously honest now", but all for the better I hope?

[Boston]

a few Jellystone pictures from last years fall trip



this Griz found me standing in a river smelling like fish ( fly fishing )
thought he'd follow me for a while
he was less than ten meters away when I took this shot



He was actually pretty timid about it
and kept hiding behind stuff that was way to small



I was a little nervous but he seemed to be behaving himself
so I just cautiously made my way back to the car



nothing quite like the park
if Im lucky
Ill be heading back next week end for a few fall shots



course I do have a ditch to finish myself so till next time
B

[masalai]

Nice pics, but that bruin would scare the s out of me - lots tooooo big to meet one on one......

[Boston]

I wouldn't say you get used to them
but you do learn there posturing
long as you dont surprise them
your fine
little old lady shaking a few rocks in a can is enough to scare em off
usually
I did stumble onto a den while I was hiking round last month
now that! could have gone badly
I skedaddled outa that one pretty fast
Godzilla coulda come out of that hole

[the1much]

just hitting 2 rocks together will make em run,, or bark like a dog,,, ive used both,,hehe
Mornin Mas. evenin Bos.

[Boston]

the Bear was not getting aggressive so I thought Ild just do likewise and head for the car



its when you bump into a cub like this that I get nervous

mama bear is never far



and here she is
she actually had two cubs

[Jimbo1490]

its pretty obvious
its simply not possible in a dynamic system to artificially add anything
and not effect the system as a hole
its kinda a no brainer

Also a "no-brainer" that the biggest variable is the one causing the biggest change in the system's output. Since natural CO2 is quite variable and much larger than anthropogenic CO2 (the mere fluctuations in natural CO2 sources are larger than anthropogenic CO2-but you already know this), it follows that natural CO2 would be responsible for virtually all of that portion of the greenhouse effect that can be attributed to CO2.Our CO2 output is 'in the noise' of the measurements.



Nice bear pics, BTW. I don't know if you've been following the saga of the newly aggressive bears, but everywhere that there are bears that come into proximity with humans, the number of bear attacks has been on the rise recently. Habitat encroachment, hand-feeding and general sloppiness with food waste are said to be likely causes.
In a neighborhood near me (Wekiva Springs), bears roam frequently through the streets upturning garbage cans looking for a good meal to scavenge. A lot of the residents think it's kinda cute and trail along with a dig cam to take pics of the bear. My friend over there showed me the pics she took and I must say I was alarmed at how close she got to the bear. People sometimes forget that they are big, strong and wild.

Jimbo

[the1much]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Also a "no-brainer" that the biggest variable is the one causing the biggest change in the system's output. Since natural CO2 is quite variable and much larger than anthropogenic CO2 (the mere fluctuations in natural CO2 sources are larger than anthropogenic CO2-but you already know this), it follows that natural CO2 would be responsible for virtually all of that portion of the greenhouse effect that can be attributed to CO2.Our CO2 output is 'in the noise' of the measurements.



Nice bear pics, BTW. I don't know if you've been following the saga of the newly aggressive bears, but everywhere that there are bears that come into proximity with humans, the number of bear attacks has been on the rise recently. Habitat encroachment, hand-feeding and general sloppiness with food waste are said to be likely causes.
In a neighborhood near me (Wekiva Springs), bears roam frequently through the streets upturning garbage cans looking for a good meal to scavenge. A lot of the residents think it's kinda cute and trail along with a dig cam to take pics of the bear. My friend over there showed me the pics she took and I must say I was alarmed at how close she got to the bear. People sometimes forget that they are big, strong and wild.

Jimbo

then the F'n idiots will cry when it kills one of em,,,,then want the bear killed,, thinkin its the bears fault,,,,dumb@sses!

[Jimbo1490]

SO true, so true.

http://tinyurl.com/52mzga

[bntii]

Bit of a milestone in this debate:

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

..........it follows that natural CO2 would be responsible for virtually all of that portion of the greenhouse effect that can be attributed to CO2. Jimbo

Now that you are arguing for the existence of the 'greenhouse effect', caused by atmospheric C02 will you concede the following:

That any increase in atmospheric C02 which is caused by mans activities will contribute to the 'greenhouse effect'.