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.
You're going to need to post a link, because we're evidently not talking about the same thing.
But I'm pretty sure your argument is 'well, these people are educated in unrelated subjects, but they are smart so they must know everything about everything'.
Sorry, science doesn't work that way.
And I'm pretty sure that you consider anyone who is not a certified climate scientist unqualified to say anything about climate change. The rocket scientists of NASA are not qualified to question James Hanson's conclusions through their analysis of the numbers.
Yes real science DOES work that way. It is the AGW bots who clam otherwise.
And I'm pretty sure that you consider anyone who is not a certified climate scientist unqualified to say anything about climate change.
Do you even know what kind of scientists you're talking about?
First of all, if you're talking about the NASA 49, which I am going to have to conclude you are, then you should be aware that there were only 4 scientists/mathematicians among them. Administration (23 of the 49) requires NO scientific background. And furthermore, this is 49 out of a pool of 18,000 people who work for NASA.
The letter also mentioned only catastrophic climate change and an extreme position. So essentially, anyone who agrees that AGW is real yet doesn't take an extreme position could agree with the statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann
The rocket scientists of NASA are not qualified to question James Hanson's conclusions through their analysis of the numbers.
You've completely shifted the argument here towards the models, and not the observed effects of AGW or AGW as a theory. This doesn't help your argument or the discussion. Even if the models are wrong (which so far hasn't been the case), it proves nothing about the validity of AGW. You aren't even naming the 'rocket scientists' or providing any links, so why am I supposed to believe you? Of course, most people who visit this thread probably won't notice because they're so anxious to latch onto anything that denies AGW.
Anyways, here is an article written by a PhD in marine and atmospheric science, who also specializes in carbon emissions, describing the accuracy of models:
Yes real science DOES work that way. It is the AGW bots who clam otherwise.
Since you're apparently talking about some hypothetical scientists running some numbers somewhere (probably on wattsupwiththat or some such site), then yes, if that is what they are doing, it could be called science. It doesn't mean that it's good science, that they're right, or even that they deserve equal consideration alongside people who actually have expertise in the proper field or who better understand the subject... the fact that they only seem to gain a voice when they associate themselves with Heartland or blogs exclusively dedicated to 'skeptical' positions should be enough to make you suspicious.
Again, your answer to the whole AGW question should be 'I really don't know enough to be sure', and NOT 'LOL at all the stupid liberals who believe in this hoax'... but since the point of this forum is 'LOL at all the stupid liberals', I'm probably wasting my time pointing this out.
Yup, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas unless mixed with others.
Otherwise, we should have heated up a lot more than we have. But since it hasn't warmed in over 18 years and CO2 is at its highest makes one think twice about it.
You seem to have overlooked my own suggestion that maybe CO2 is not so dominant an effect as the AGW folk claim.
PS Oxygen does not help people breath unless it is mixed with other gasses.
CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. THIS GUY says so. If you read up about him you will find he is NOT an AGW bot.
Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800′s.
And
The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.
And one more
How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.
Dr Spencer has also written on the need for folks like you and me to keep to the science rather than continuing to offer arguments that are clearly wrong. Sorry I cant find that link off hand. but I'm sure you would find his site informative if you spent some tome there.
Other than your CO2 misunderstanding, you do good work.
Since it is so cold around the US, should we increase CO2 emissions to "combat the cold"?
Therein lies the problem with the global warming hoax. The global warming enthusiasts promoted a false premise of "man made global warming" in order to transition to alternative fuels and to stifle industrialization.
If we accept the notion of CO2 as being an agent that truely warms the planet, then of course increasing CO2 production should be able to be used to combat cooling.
That is the problem with lies and hoaxes- sometimes they can bite you in the as* and subvert your initial objective.
Anecdotal Using a personal experience or isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
You seem to have overlooked my own suggestion that maybe CO2 is not so dominant an effect as the AGW folk claim.
PS Oxygen does not help people breath unless it is mixed with other gasses.
CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. THIS GUY says so. If you read up about him you will find he is NOT an AGW bot.
Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800′s.
And
The ‘consensus’ of opinion is that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is quite high, and so warming of about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C (about 0.5 deg. F to 0.9 deg. F) every 10 years can be expected for as long as mankind continues to use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. NASA’s James Hansen claims that climate sensitivity is very high, and that we have already put too much extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Presumably this is why he and Al Gore are campaigning for a moratorium on the construction of any more coal-fired power plants in the U.S.
And one more
How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.
Dr Spencer has also written on the need for folks like you and me to keep to the science rather than continuing to offer arguments that are clearly wrong. Sorry I cant find that link off hand. but I'm sure you would find his site informative if you spent some tome there.
Other than your CO2 misunderstanding, you do good work.
Uh oh. Now the deniers are arguing with each other. I thought rush was supposed to keep them all in line.
Again, your answer to the whole AGW question should be 'I really don't know enough to be sure', and NOT 'LOL at all the stupid liberals who believe in this hoax'... but since the point of this forum is 'LOL at all the stupid liberals', I'm probably wasting my time pointing this out.
For the most part you are wasting your time. The vast majority of posters in the PoC subforum are geriatric retirees and/or uneducated Bible thumping hicks. In general it's like trying to have a discussion with a trained orangutan.
Do you even know what kind of scientists you're talking about?
First of all, if you're talking about the NASA 49, which I am going to have to conclude you are, then you should be aware that there were only 4 scientists/mathematicians among them. Administration (23 of the 49) requires NO scientific background. And furthermore, this is 49 out of a pool of 18,000 people who work for NASA.
So four scientist/mathematicians cant do the math? Note well, the first words out of your mouth are used to denigrate the opposition. As always, you AGW true believers cannot argue on merit. All you can do is call names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
You've completely shifted the argument here towards the models, and not the observed effects of AGW or AGW as a theory. This doesn't help your argument or the discussion. Even if the models are wrong (which so far hasn't been the case), it proves nothing about the validity of AGW. You aren't even naming the 'rocket scientists' or providing any links, so why am I supposed to believe you? Of course, most people who visit this thread probably won't notice because they're so anxious to latch onto anything that denies AGW.
Wish we had the icon for ROTFLMAO! Or Pinocchio and his ever growing nose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Anyways, here is an article written by a PhD in marine and atmospheric science, who also specializes in carbon emissions, describing the accuracy of models:
Believe it or not, I have read plenty or articles from both sides claiming things about the reliability or unreliability of computer models. Which tells me that the science is STILL not settled, something the AGW true believers do not accept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Since you're apparently talking about some hypothetical scientists running some numbers somewhere (probably on wattsupwiththat or some such site), then yes, if that is what they are doing, it could be called science. It doesn't mean that it's good science, that they're right, or even that they deserve equal consideration alongside people who actually have expertise in the proper field or who better understand the subject... the fact that they only seem to gain a voice when they associate themselves with Heartland or blogs exclusively dedicated to 'skeptical' positions should be enough to make you suspicious.
Actually I'm talking about real people, THESE GUYS
And yep, thanks for bringing the devil Heartland Institute to the party. Surprised you didnt bring up Exxon Mobile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Again, your answer to the whole AGW question should be 'I really don't know enough to be sure', and NOT 'LOL at all the stupid liberals who believe in this hoax'... but since the point of this forum is 'LOL at all the stupid liberals', I'm probably wasting my time pointing this out.
Thanks for telling me what I should think. All you AGW bots like to tell people like me what to think.
It never fails to amaze me how so like the fundamentalists over there on the Christianity forum, waving your hold AGW links at folks like me and screaming "read this and you will know The Truth!!!"
Science? You people do not believe in science. You believe only in your ideology.
For the most part you are wasting your time. The vast majority of posters in the PoC subforum are geriatric retirees and/or uneducated Bible thumping hicks. In general it's like trying to have a discussion with a trained orangutan.
And yet we toothless, geriatric white males somehow managed to accumulate 1% of the wealth. One would think that the brilliant progressives would have figured out that despite their Ivy League educations they aren't smarter than an orangutan and they are still reliant on their rich uncle sam to pay the bills.
Anecdotal Using a personal experience or isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
/thread
Exactly-
Thus the whole global warming hoax, which has examined questionable data over a very short time span (essentially an anecdote) while ignoring the only long term climate data we have- the fossil record.
So I must ask, as we have not had any "warming" over the last 20 years-
How many more years of "no warming" would you need to abandon your belief in the global warming hoax? 10? 20? 50? 100? 1,000? 10,000?
Last edited by hawkeye2009; 11-16-2014 at 05:35 PM..
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.
