What Do We Think About Climate Change

Yes, you are so ***** as Jimbo says, indeed. What a pity!

 

that ice does not advance and retreat cyclically, we know that it does rather it is the speed at which it is retreating that is the issue.

OK, let me answer myself, as a way of getting an useful answer.

Compared with NOTHING.
The presented graph is for a single +/-30 years period whith no other similar period to compare against, so to pretend to base on that the argument of "speed at which is retreating" is simply stupid.

 

Pretending the post from Mauri Pietro is an argument to defend ice melting due to CO2 is simply stupid (on top of another prove of the poor reasoning and permanent contradiction from who a few posts back said: "so once again you would like to look at a local weather phenomenon and compare it to the global co2 record")

 

Something more useful and more serious on polar sea ice extensions:

From NDISC (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/)

 

A Fasteddy, God bless you, I have never dispised a woman politician more than Penny Wong.
Our current federal governemt is using methods refined by Mussolini, Hitler and Evita Peron.
Delenda est Labour.
"Rapid global change is ********.

 

And the more recent Arctic sea ice extension information:

The latest value : 14,299,219 km2 (March 28, 2010)

 

Sea Ice Extension anomalies compared with Sea Surface Temperature anomalies:

First North:


And then South:

 

I don't like the "consensus" ********, as science is not done by consensus. Only an stupid can say and seriously maintain it is.

Let me highlight here a couple of interesting findings on a recent interview among all broadcast TV members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association (NWA):

A National Survey Of Television Meteorologists About Climate Change: Preliminary Findings

"About one-third (31%) reported that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, while almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment."

"...almost two-thirds (61%) of TV weathercasters think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening."

Mmmm...most of those guys seem not being included in the idiotic and false "97% scenario" stubborngly mentioned by some.

 

oh quit it
so you are wrong about the climate change issue
we are all wrong from time to time

next time it will be my turn

cheers
B

 

Like it or not a consensus exists and its one of the largest consensus of any theory. Stunning in its overwhelming support as one article I recently read put it

( hang on honey someone is wrong on the internet )
sorry girl interrupted

check out this site if you want to try and understand this consensus a bit better

http://laymans-guide.com/scientific-consensus/

its best visual representation is



The simple truth you are avoiding is that consensus plays an important role within the scientific process and although from time to time a consensus viewpoint is found to be in error it is rare that this happens. Consensus merely represents a level of understanding that we have so far. Unlike what the deniers would have us believe it does not inhibit contrarian views from being presented within the scientific process nor is it some monster waiting in the closet to jump out and eat competing theories before they can be presented. Consensus merely is a tool of the process used to establish the level of acceptance within the community. There is no scientific elite pushing an agenda as the conspiracy types might want you to believe.

its a tool Guillermo nothing more nothing less

B

ps

I see you are going back to the meteorologists argument again for the what
tenth time
we both know that meteorologists study local not global weather and generally consist of news and media personal and are not active scientists
(course Im not either at the moment)
why are you coming again with the local weather issues
we are talking about global climate change G
not local variations or the opinions of some busty weather girl on late night TV

can we please step it up a notch

asking the same few questions over and over or bringing up the same issues again and again is really boring

besides if your not willing to hear the answers then why are you asking in the first place

anyway
hope all is well
and best of luck
B


oh hey I just read this and thought it was excellent

any way we have been over the consensus issue time and time again and its simply another failed argument G

might be time to get over it and move on

can you please maybe present a new question
or maybe develop a hypothesis of your own to show the group

cheers
B

 

The biggest problem with your consensus argument Boston is in the manner the consensus is promoted. A minority, 31% of some 10,000 scientists contacted responded to a survey conducted by a grad student working for an alarmist professor. Of those responding 82% felt that the AGW theory is plausible. You and RealClimate have manipulated the response results,(gee go figure) to raise the number to 97%. Of course the fact that 69% did not respond at all is ignored.

So essentially the survey is about as valid as asking a room full of male teenagers if ************ is normal and feels good right after they have watched a porno flick.

 

G
what in the world is turning the local temp anomalies upside down and superimposing them on the sea ice anomalies supposed to represent, what kind of lunatic science is that

ok I looked up the page it came from
please
not another psudo science confuse the public page, for Pete's sakes

its just not even worth digging through

although there article on the pine beetle infestation is hilarious
its all I needed to read to realize that source was simply not up to snuff

you could always just admit your wrong you know
might take a big load off your shoulders

cheers
B

oh
and I could not help but notice that you had complained about the short time frame of one of the data sets I presented earlier and then came back with your own of even shorter duration data set
well aint that just the pot calling the kettle black

three cheers for hypocrisy

I gotta lay off this page again for a while
this is just getting silly stupid

have a great time kids cause I sure did

ps
its always a good sign when you walk out the door laughing your *** off

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change
...............
Quote-to-make-one-shudder of the week so far; "It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

 

The kind of elementary science your obtuse brain will never understand, as you are evidencing with this your idiotic comentary.

 

Here is a recent study that asked whether scientists believed in AGW. The two lowest response rates were from Meteorologists(64%), who use models that are hardly accurate for 7 days, and Economical Geologists (47%), who try to reassure the uses of coal and oil.
Here is the study:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf