What Do We Think About Climate Change

Oh boy. I never said C02 has no effect on climate. There is no empiral evidence that shows C02 causes warming. The project was done to debunk the myth that the scientific community was unanimous in its support of the AGW hypothesis. In that vein it has accomplished its purpose. I was making a joke about the trust vs. funding source to show how silly the correlation is if you do not prove that the science is wrong. Ad hominem attacks don't prove or disprove anything. Frankly, I don't a give damn (sorry Rhett) who you trust. You gotta work on your logic paths.

 

Is anyone naive enough to believe the Oil, gas and coal industries wouldn't cover their tracks well, thru a chain of front organisations, when funding the global warming deniers? Duuuhhhhh!!!

 

the whole diatribe about this phony petition is simply to ridiculous to take seriously Brent

one of many reasons Im ignoring it at this point and awaiting something of more substance to come along

no reasonable person after learning the myriad of fraudulent tactics employed by the survey could cling to the results as if they had one ounce of value

obviously its meant to be a joke and some folks just didn't get the memo

cheers
B

 

Welcome, nordvindcrew.

 

yes welcome Nordvind
and try and realize its not that changes are not completely normal
its the rate of change that is the concern

if you take a serious look at the rate in change in co2 for instance its unprecedented



you can also see the extremely close correlation with temp in that graph
but the main point is the rate of change in co2
its literally off the charts

 

Please, if anyone has any evidence that the oil companies funded the petition project, post the evidence. They are public corporations and their books are open for inspection. If anyone can find ten bogus names in the petition project since the re-verification in 2007 removed the names place there by the vandals from the eco-nazis, please post them. Seeing as how the AGW alarmist nazis are so sure of their evidence they should have no problem fulfilling the simple requests. Finally, if anyone can find faults in the research paper posted in the Petition Project that nullify its impact, please post it. The main objection I have seen so far is that the type style used in the report was similiar to the one used by the NAS and that C02 impact on plants was within historically accepted norms.

The AGW Koolaid Club likes to proclaim itself all about the science yet they survive on ad hominem attacks, innuendo, junk research, and political hacks to continue to suck on the tit of the public treasury.

By the way, Dr. Phil Jones of the East Anglia CRU agrees there has been no warming since 1995 and that the debate is not over. Just thought I would mention that.

 

dumb question?

how is global temperature measured and how sure are we of the accuracy ?

 

got board so I read another one of your posts
wow
wrong again on all counts


ok but 97% of climate research scientists disagree with him
its called a consensus
not a unanimous but a consensus
and its probably the largest consensus of any theory

as for this laughable petition the following came out in response to it clearly stating that at least on of its authors is in the employ of big oil and dirty coal


from http://www.desmogblog.com/new-oregon-petition-promoter-not-sufficiently-rational-to-advise-tobacco-industry

sounds to me as it not only is there ample evidence of the petition being a crock bought and paid for by the energy industry but that its reliance on desperation tactics is known far and wide

oh
the Oregon institute is actually a tin storage shack



not much of an institute eh

as for funding the "institute" refuses to list its sources however
as of 2002 it was known that there little project received two shots in the arm of $10,000 each one in 98 and the other in 2000 from Exxon Mobile

1998
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report

2000
$10,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
project support
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

 

thanks for asking

there are numerous methods of taking the earths temp and they are all checked against one another constantly to ensure the accuracy of each

first there is a large array of ground stations positioned all around the world
then there is a system of ocean buoy's
there is also a series of satellites and a balloon schedule
there is infrared photography and various other optical methods as well as digital methods all being used and constantly being checked against one another to verify accuracy

almost every area being measured has multiple measurement systems set up in order to obtain the most accurate readings possible

I believe the IPCC states that the confidence level concerning there collated data is around 95%

basically although the IPCC does not fund nor do any actually research itself it does collect data and collate it into various coherent forms in order to form a consensus of the information coming in
it then produces a report every few years on its findings

by virtue of the fact that they are considering data from countless independent sources and by comparing that data they are able to determine a probability of error within the data pool
from that they define there level of confidence
95% is pretty dam high and can only be achieved because they have so many sources of data and those sources all relatively agree with one another

hope that helps
B

 

Here is a study that found CO2 increase is actually harmful to forest ecosystems:

Source: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2009/091207.htm

So that contradicts the statement by OISM claiming increased CO2 is beneficial. Also there is another study i know of, I just need to find it.

 

hey spear
did you know we're Nazi's in a coolaid club

 

Thats news to me. I wonder what the deniers who believe Oil company Execs are saints and angels call themselves....
It is funny that fasteddy keeps up with personal attacks and then asks us to not to do the same in regards to his idols.

 

or better yet complains to the moderator to get certain posts removed but then make references to the same kind of thing a few posts later

brilliant eh

The important thing here is to realize that if deniers cant convince anyone there next best tactic is to waist time and effort of those who are actively spreading the truth about Rapid GLobal Climate Change.
So do not waist to much time here but instead get out and talk to folks who do mater and who are open to wherever the data leads.
I did a lecture series not to long ago and have been looking for another venue ever since I left.
Im hoping the natural science museum or the new museum of History going up now will have the resources to support a series
Im also proposing a class at one of the smaller local universities and working on a few unrelated papers

the denialist scam is designed to delay meaningful change more than it is to convince ( its got nothing very convincing anyway )
thus preserving the profit of pollution for as long as possible

One reason they refuse to acknowledge anything when confronted with the reality of the data. The argument is got nothing to do with honestly discussing anything but instead its designed to delay and to confuse and that to them at least means to never actually allow a conclusion to there argument but instead skip to another.
if you read back through you can see that represented concerning almost every subject we have touched on here

its a classic tactic and a sure giveaway to the professional deniers in the squad
speaking of which various front groups will pay sites to host denialist threads like this one and then man them with there lackeys
its a whole bloody industry ( agnotology ) that is larger than you may think once you begin to look at the scope of it

 

This past week, a group of 25 students, myself included, helped a group from MIT put together solar collectors for use in powering part of our Marine Science labs. It won't be generating power till early 2011, but we assembled the collectors in 4 days and now they are out there for all to see. These collectors are 20-40% efficient at collecting the solar energy heating them. On a large scale application, the output is in Megawatts, and is intended to replace Coal or hydro-electric plants. Our application here is a prototype design, the production units will be sent to Africa to provide clean power AND hot water to villages too far removed to get power sent through power lines.
And yet, deniers still claim we want to lower everyones standard of living till people start dying off.
Here is a picture of the first row we installed:

 

I don't think it wil be an act of reponsibility of humans as much as a major die off of humans . I hear with the wars in Ethiopia, , and the resultant reductions in human numbers, the populations of antelope there has rebounded in a big way.
I can think of a lot of drying anchorages which would be useable by single keelers, if they had a few feet more water. Existing charts will be extra safe to use, but beyind their shores, there will be far more options for single keel boats with more adventurous skippers.
For Florida Everglades type air boats, it will be wide open.