Mauna Loa CO2 readings are suspect in the context of AGW.
I draw your attention to slide #6.
Solar Irradiance and Oceans are the True Drivers of Climate Change (October, 2008)
BTS
Climate Change The New Catalyst For Globalists/Communist Utopia
by Perry 372 Replies latest members politics
-
-
besty
B-rock - thank you for amending your writing style to something resembling human intelligence.
The deniosphere always has plenty of blogshit to throw around. Meanwhile the science and the physical evidence are unchanged.
The Chairman of the IPCC has addressed the concern of biased research:
"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he told The Guardian.
Mr Pachauri said: "Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified.
"So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."
As a matter of principle do you believe in waiting to hear all the facts of any given case or do you prefer to make up your mind based on stolen emails partially reproduced and out of original context on the blogosphere?
The CRU have said :“We will announce details of the Independent Review, including its terms of reference, timescale and the chair, within days"
-
B-Rock
“Poor Al Gore: Global Warming Completely Debunked By the Internet You Invented.”
“Why would you throw out raw data from the eighties? — I still have Penthouse magazines from the seventies!"
-
JWoods
The top "climatologists" involved are a very small group. They are in different institutions. They know each other. They have acted to prevent research contrary to their views from getting published.
That is exactly true. Just because you are a microbiologist, a nuclear physicist, a chemical engineer, or whatever means squat as far as climate issues are concerned. Yet the media and much of the deluded public thinks that everybody in a lab coat is an expert. Again and again we see it even on JWD as people ignorantly post that "thousands of scientists have a consensus that global warming is real." If thousands really do, it is because they heard it on the six PM news programs - very few are in a position to know by their own data. This is what makes ClimateGate such a big deal with this issue.
BTW, Besty, I absolutely knew you were going to come back with the word submariner, and had a little chuckle to myself when I posted that. However, "sailor" is an equal and appropriate term for Navy personell who serve on board ship. Reducing yourself to such word games is to avoid the point of the important issue - and also to reveal the true nature of your input here.
-
villabolo
JWoods: "I'm sorry - but I just don't buy into the idea that almost all far-left enviro nuts are ANTI cap and trade. This makes no sense."
It makes no sense to you because you never bother to have a real rapport with the people that you self righteously condemn. I suggest you do a search on www.alternet.org website under cap and trade and see how many negative articles they have on the subject. Otherwise you're judging people on the basis of your flawed imagination, or should I say other peoples flawed imagination.
villabolo
-
besty
JWoods - last time you and I crossed swords on climate change you bailed out on the discussion.
At that time I asked and went unanswered:
Thousands of scientists in agreement about the causes of climate change - with many of them having dedicated their entire lives work to investigating the cause of what they observe - to make Al Gore rich? What a shameful and disgustingly crass slap in the face you offer to these men and women. I hope you have a think about what you are saying. What have you offered to the advancement of knowledge on this planet? What is your legacy JWoods?
Perhaps you can answer a few questions for me - in addition to those posed above:
1 - What in your opinion is the safe upper limit for atmosperhic CO2?
2 - Is climate change primarily a matter for climate scientists or politicians?
EDIT - I also note you haven't retracted your inaccurate Obama quote on lightbulbs and energy consumption. Like most deniers you spread your halftruths on the internet and leave them to fester like toxic waste. It's not about winning the argument for people like you, just confusing everyone else with your worthless graffiti
And now hear you are back again on another thread spouting trash. Plus ca change....
-
besty
Just because you are a microbiologist, a nuclear physicist, a chemical engineer, or whatever means squat as far as climate issues are concerned. Yet the media and much of the deluded public thinks that everybody in a lab coat is an expert.
The irony is unbelievable.
One of the key points of argumentation for climate change deniers is the Oregon Project also known as the Petition Project - a rag-tag assemblage of 31,000 'scientists' who alledgedly disavow AGW.
It pops up now and again on JWN - most recently by Read Good Books:
JWoods - you were noticeable by your absence on that thread for - amongst other things - not pointing out to RGB that the premise of the Petition Project is fatally flawed. Why did you not make your 'everybody in a labcoat is not an expert' point on that thread?
-
SixofNine
Besty, I haven't seen any indication that any of the denier camp even understands the basic physics that would cause anyone with more than two brains cells to conclude that we ought to see global warming.
One could respect their denials much more if they started from the reasonable position, ie: "I would expect to see global warming, but this data point or that data point shows it's not happening" or "I would expect to see global warming, but I don't because of X consistant offsetting factor(s)...".
But if they aren't smart enough to even know why they should expect to see global warming from a massive rise in greenhouse gasses, they aren't smart enough to be discussing any of the rest of it either.
-
besty
Again and again we see it even on JWD as people ignorantly post that "thousands of scientists have a consensus that global warming is real."
Lets just address this claim that JWN posters are ignorant when they claim there is a scientific consensus that "global warming is real" - <note - I suspect JWoods means human-caused global warming>
<EDIT - see post below>
-
besty
Since the American Association Of Petroleum Geologists took their head out of the tar sands in 2007 no national scientific body of any standing holds a denialist position.
The following Associations support the science behind AGW:
Since the American Association Of Petroleum Geologists took their head out of the tar sands in 2007 no national scientific body of any standing holds a denialist position.
Academies of Science, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, InterAcademy Council, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, Network of African Science Academies, Royal Society of New Zealand, Polish Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (US), General science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, European Science Foundation, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, Earth sciences, American Geophysical Union, European Federation of Geologists, European Geosciences Union, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, Meteorology and oceanography, American Meteorological Society, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Royal Meteorological Society (UK), World Meteorological Organization, Paleoclimatology, American Quaternary Association, International Union for Quaternary Research, Biology and life sciences, American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, American Society for Microbiology, Australian Coral Reef Society, Institute of Biology (UK), Society of American Foresters, The Wildlife Society (international), Human Health, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, Australian Medical Association, World Federation of Public Health Associations, World Health Organization, Miscellaneous, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, American Statistical Association, Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia), International Association for Great Lakes Research,
Various surveys have been conducted to determine a scientific consensus on global warming.
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009, STATS, 2007, Oreskes, 2004, Bray and von Storch, 2003, Survey of U.S. state climatologists, 1997, Bray and von Storch, 1996
Read the detail for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeTo try and argue a cabal of a few climate scientists is engaged in a global conspiracy spanning many decades is risible and deeply insulting to tens of thousands of dedicated scientists, not least of which is our very own Kudra.