Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria' (weather, Illinois, season)
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.
The American Meteorological Society issued their support in Feb 2007, and yet, will the latest studies, etc. support GW .... maybe/maybe not…. in this latest report on their website the research does NOT support their expectations due to GW:
Quote:
The research findings, published in the December 15, 2008 American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate, contradict some climate model predictions by showing little sign of overall increased storminess since the mid-to-late nineteenth century. ............
The European windstorms record for the past 200 years is clearly highly complex, and despite much natural variation, there is no clear observational fingerprint of storm activity that can be attributed to global warming." http://www.ametsoc.org/amsnews/2008windstorm.pdf
I looked around the website of some of the associations listed - do you realize how many base their stance on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report?
More and more scientists are coming out against the IPCC report. I'm still not buying it hook, line, and sinker.
I looked around the website of some of the associations listed - do you realize how many base their stance on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report?
More and more scientists are coming out against the IPCC report. I'm still not buying it hook, line, and sinker.
I've yet to see a single scientific professional association take any such stance. When you look at the credentials of these "scientists" you claim object to the IPCC findings most aren't.
The American Meteorological Society's statement does not step back from anthropogenic climate change, it say maybe we've got the impact on severe storms wrong. I'm sure there are quite a few nuances that the models don't yet capture correctly. We need to continue the science while we implement the policy. We will certainly have course corrections needed along the way.
I suggest we just keep on burning as much fossil fuel as we need to maintain and expand worldwide our industrial and consumer lifestyle and watch the results. Why bother worrying about the climate effect. Most of us will be dead of old age before anything significant happens anyway.
I've yet to see a single scientific professional association take any such stance. When you look at the credentials of these "scientists" you claim object to the IPCC findings most aren't.
The American Meteorological Society's statement does not step back from anthropogenic climate change, it say maybe we've got the impact on severe storms wrong. I'm sure there are quite a few nuances that the models don't yet capture correctly. We need to continue the science while we implement the policy. We will certainly have course corrections needed along the way.
What are you talking about the "credentials of these "scientists" - they aren't scientists??? Excuse me, yes, the references I put on here are scientists not people of Gore's expertise.
The point is just as you stated - the models may be wrong!
What are you talking about the "credentials of these "scientists" - they aren't scientists??? Excuse me, yes, the references I put on here are scientists not people of Gore's expertise.
The point is just as you stated - the models may be wrong!
Many of the people on these various lists are no more scientists than the guy who collects your garbage.
Of course the models are "wrong" all models have error factors. The real scientists understand the confidence intervals and what appropriate inferences to draw.
Many of the people on these various lists are no more scientists than the guy who collects your garbage.
Of course the models are "wrong" all models have error factors. The real scientists understand the confidence intervals and what appropriate inferences to draw.
I looked around the website of some of the associations listed - do you realize how many base their stance on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report?
More and more scientists are coming out against the IPCC report. I'm still not buying it hook, line, and sinker.
Actually what I find are a couple of pseudo science organization collecting signatures from anyone who will sign their petition and then claiming all of these signatures represent the views of "scientists". I also find a whole series of organizations and PR firms funded buy the oil and coal industries with the sole goal of raising doubt as to the existence of scientific consensus on this issue. The unsophisticated fall for these PR efforts.
The place where real scientists speak are through peer reviewed journals and their professional organization.
I find that rlchurch is way to serious to be funny. He is also correct about these topics. As am I.
I think we differ a bit on nuclear. I'm not opposed to nuclear, but I think there are issues that have to be dealt with. The technology is not forgiving of major screw ups and it's damn expensive to build.
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.
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.
