U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:32 PM
 
7,352 posts, read 9,179,430 times
Reputation: 1881

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Your hysteria tonight is something to behold. You know, you should go back and re-read your posts from the very first one and see the escalation of insults, whining, ranting and complaining - and mocking.

The FACT is you are way out of your league and I'm doubtful that you teach the subject, which would be very unfortunate if you did.

You have no concept of impartiality or unbiased opinion and discussion. Your mind is sealed tight to the plethora of evidence that is out there that disagrees with MM-GW. If you were worth your salt as a teacher, you would provide that side to your captive audience.
So what about the link, sanrene, that exposes Roy Spencer--the man you posted as having a scientifically legitimate position against climate change?

Yeah, I thought so.

"Hysteria," "escalation of insults," "out of [my] league"--blah, blah, blah. As usual.

You can "doubt" whatever you want to "doubt." It's immaterial to the fact that you cannot produce even ONE climate change denier who hasn't been debunked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:34 PM
 
26,191 posts, read 18,890,991 times
Reputation: 14040
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovingForward View Post
Are you a climate scientist? Biologist? Ethologist?
molecular biologist. i have some friends working at NOAA and JPL.
i hate to add to your terror, but there are skeptics there as well

Quote:
I guess you know more, then, than people like E.O. Wilson. Better shoot him an email and tell him how very wrong and "melodramatic" he is.
no need. but let me know if he starts posting on the bb, i'll send him a DM.
does it bother you that mr. wilson has no degree in climatology?

Quote:
Your denial, and the denial of the other ignorant people in this country, makes it difficult to make the kind of environmental progress that we absolutely must make, if we are to have any realistic hope.
how is my posting on this forum 'impeding progress'? be specific, please.

Quote:
You're damned straight I'm in "terror."
terrified people rarely think clearly. get a grip.

Quote:
And if you had half a brain, you would be, too.
half-brained people are easily terrified. good point.
glad mine is entire and intact..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:34 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,496,708 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
So what about the link, sanrene, that exposes Roy Spencer--the man you posted as having a scientifically legitimate position against climate change?
You mean this man?

Quote:
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Yeah, I can see where his qualifications wouldn't appeal to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,496,708 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
does it bother you that mr. wilson has no degree in climatology?
Of course it doesn't bother her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,496,708 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
It's a pretty simple concept. Increased CO2 causes increased temperatures and increased temperatures causes increased CO2. Both should increase the other until the Earth is inhabitable and never revert back to its past, livable state.

I've asked the same question before on other threads and still haven't received an answer that isn't retarded. But I can hope.
I thought MF said she teaches this stuff. Seems like a simple question, doesn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Irvine, CA to Keller, TX
4,831 posts, read 6,178,629 times
Reputation: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkb0305 View Post
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - FAQ's

Here are some FAQ's about GW from NOAA. It is explained in very plain English. I'm pretty sure all the posters on here could understand it if they read it. It explains the difference between predicting the weather and predicting climate change for you, Sanrene. As I said, they are 2 different things!
What is global warming?
The term Global Warming refers to the observation that the atmosphere near the Earth's surface is warming. This warming is one of many kinds of climate change that the Earth has gone through in the past and will continue to go through in the future. It is reasonable to expect that the Earth should warm as the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases. It is known for certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are rising dramatically due to human activity. It is less well known exactly how the increases in these greenhouse gases factor in the observed changes of the Earth's climate and global temperatures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:39 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,496,708 times
Reputation: 7107
Whoops!

You mean it is NOT fact?

No Concensus?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:42 PM
 
Location: Irvine, CA to Keller, TX
4,831 posts, read 6,178,629 times
Reputation: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Whoops!

You mean it is NOT fact?

No Concensus?
Just thought I would shed a little light.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:44 PM
 
2,659 posts, read 2,569,074 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Your data is old. 2000 and 199x.
There is new data more current that questions the very predictions in your charts.
Got any?
I'll read em.

That first link is from the CBO, May 2009.
Quote:
The projection is based on data provided by Henry Jacoby, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a personal communication to CBO, December 22, 2008
and the second image applies, regardless.
I stated the purpose of including it (notice a relationship between co2 and temperature?).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2009, 10:47 PM
 
7,352 posts, read 9,179,430 times
Reputation: 1881
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
molecular biologist. i have some friends working at NOAA and JPL.
i hate to add to your terror, but there are skeptics there as well



no need. but let me know if he starts posting on the bb, i'll send him a DM.
does it bother you that mr. wilson has no degree in climatology?



how is my posting on this forum 'impeding progress'? be specific, please.



terrified people rarely think clearly. get a grip.



half-brained people are easily terrified. good point.
glad mine is entire and intact..
No, it doesn't bother me. Because Wilson actually sees and documents the effects of climate change (and all the things that lead to it, including deforestation) on the species he studies (noting that we are losing 100 species per day to extinction).

I guess all of these people have only "half a brain," too. I'm sure they would appreciate the knowledge you have that has, apparently, been kept from them:

Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS): http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
National Academy of Sciences (NAS): Nat'l Academies Press Collection: Global Warming/Climate Change Collection
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm (broken link)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Climate Change | U.S. EPA
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html (broken link)
American Meteorological Society (AMS): Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences Adopted by the AMS Council 9 February 2003
American Institute of Physics (AIP): Statement on Human Impacts on Climate Change - American Institute of Physics
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR): How Does Climate Change?
American Meteorological Society (AMS): Joint Academies' Statement
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): Climate Change Policy
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
You can also read this statement [PDF], which includes all the above signatories plus the following:

Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:

BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:
There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.
Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:
Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.
Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn't seem very likely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top