Scientists respond to Obama and the NCA Climate assessment (Clinton, Kerry, March)

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by steven_h

YOUR WORDS Ken... "There are plenty of peer reviews"

Peer reviews are published. Show me three showing that AGW has been proven, or the level of MMGW decided.

You don't even know what peer review means do you?

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by alphamale

You're kidding right?

You actually had the balls to show THIS graph? That the Atlantic Ocean is shown to be rising by 3.39mm a year since 1910? +/- .18mm?

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!!

LOL

Nevermind the linear rate of increase from the 1910s that exactly matches the current rate of increase.

Apparently a little bit of carbon went a long way in 1915.

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by katzpaw

A Quick Lesson on Identifying Psuedoscience in the Popular Media

"From what I can tell, it appears as if someone went through a bunch of articles, copy/pasted any pretty-looking charts and graphs that looked helpful, and posted factoids that they think fit their argument.

"And as far as publishing in a scientific journal, again I see no evidence that this is even a real scientific article in a real scientific journal. In fact, I don't see any reference of it on google outside Daily Caller and right-wing blogs. This seriously appears to me as something that was written out of thin-air."

According to the lunatic fringe:

scientists = dumb

college professors = dumb

-but-

Sarah Palin = smart

Ted Nugent = smart

Dubya = smart

[i_love_autumn]

Originally Posted by steven_h

You know what... you're all right.

I'll not question the science, and believe what the herd does. After all, if enough people say it's so, it is.

Here's some of the quotes made by the scientists who must be "right" because of their consensus:
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.
12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.
14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Just this week the French foreign minister claimed we only have 500 days left to avoid climate chaos.
French Foreign Minister: '500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos' | The Weekly Standard

rapes and murders because of climate change according to Mother Jones:
Climate Change Will Cause Rape and Murder and Assault and Robbery and Larceny and Make People Steal Your Car | National Review Online

more manufactured controversy
The Times has fallen for an unfounded climate change conspiracy theory | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com

Professor Bengtsson, an eminent climate scientist and member of the GWPF was dragged through the dirt for his dissention:
Eminent Swedish scientist latest victim of Climate McCarthyism | Financial Post


You all make it sound like old columnists and scientists with the wrong credentials are the only ones to question AGW.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientists who believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes | Global Warming Scare


Climate science is a murky science. When dealing with temperature variations and trends, we do not have an instrument that tells us how much change is due to humans and how much to Mother Nature. Measuring the temperature change over long time periods is difficult enough, but we do not have a thermometer that says why these changes occur. -- john Christy climate scientist UHA


There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.
No scientific evidence of man-made global warming | The Daily Caller

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.
Read more here: John R. Christy | Climate science isn’t necessarily ‘settled’ | Opinion | CentreDaily.com

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...ts_dissent.pdf

Oops! The dissention is coming, and the earth will burn so go hide in your caves.

[Ultor]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Real scientists respond to NCA assessment.

National Climate Assessment from the U.S. Global Change Research Program | Union of Concerned Scientists

Uhm... you need to pick a better source - Union of Concerned Scientists is actively anti-GMO (translation: their politics trump their science)

[Ultor]

Originally Posted by Ceist

And Don Easterbrook - who thinks the world is actually cooling.

And Dr Neil Frank also thinks God won't let the earth warm because of his Biblical beliefs.


See a partial list of signatories to the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

Cornwall Alliance :: Stewardship Notes :: Prominent Signers of An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

Cornwall Alliance :: About :: Cornwall Alliance Scholars

Cornwall Alliance :: About :: Cornwall Alliance Advisory Board

Other well known names on the list are Dr Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels and economist Ross McKittrick

Applying the various straw men you have concocted in this thread, how can you support the Third National Climate Assessment since it was co-authored by an evangelical Christian?

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Just looked out my hotel window.......Atlantic Ocean STILL where it was forty years ago today!

Prove it.

Ken

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by Ultor

Applying the various straw men you have concocted in this thread, how can you support the Third National Climate Assessment since it was co-authored by an evangelical Christian?

1. You don't appear to know what a straw man argument is.

2. There were several hundred authors of the 3rd NCA.

3. Which author are you referring to and did they sign the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming? (I'm guessing you are referring to Katharine Hayhoe? In which case, no, she didn't)

4. Do you think all Christians are the same?

[TrapperJohn]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

According to the lunatic fringe:

scientists = dumb

college professors = dumb

-but-

Sarah Palin = smart

Ted Nugent = smart

Dubya = smart

Scientists = intelligent / smart, but subject to bias

College professors = book smart but myopic

Palin = personable and street smart but uneducated and not exactly rocket scientist.

Nugent = batsh$t crazy

Bush = intelligent and caring but matured late.

[Seabass Inna Bun]

Originally Posted by voiceofreazon

It really does not matter in this context other than to use it as an ad hominem attack in order to invalidate the argument raised.
The paper was a critique of the Obama administration's National Climate Assessment. Either the arguments raised hold water or they do not. That isn't even being addressed. What is being addressed is the dirt that people seek to dig up on the authors.

If you are in a university science class, submitting your thesis, a studen't work is judged on it's scientific merits and it's adherence to the scientific method, not the student's personal religious views.

What is happening here, when people are presented with an article, an opinion or an argument, as soon as they realize that it runs counter to their beliefs they hit up Google and start looking for dirt or some excuse to diminish the author or the publisher of that article. They never read or consider the article, probably because they are afraid that it might make sense or resonate with them on some level and THEN they would have to examine their own beliefs on the subject that they have invested so much of themselves and their identity in.

Watching you pretend "global warming can't be real because Jesus" is a scientifically valid argument is very entertaining. I don't doubt that if this guy had said global warming can't be real because of the voices in his head, you'd call that science as well.

Perhaps you can explain to us simple folk why we should take an argument like "global warming can't be real because an invisible superfriend wouldn't allow it" seriously. Perhaps.

I've said before that to a denialist, science means automatically believing anything that parrots Republican talking points and automatically declaring anything that contradicts them to be fraud. Threads such as this one are why.