Global temperatures drop sharply, what will the global warming alarmist say?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by SimplyImpossible

Do you care that the majority of scientist that helped gather the data for the UN report refuse to back it because they are misquoted in the report. that the synopsis is not what they found?

yeah I don't believe that. You are going to have to back that up with a news article or soemthing, and not just some right wing hack spewing opinion in a blog.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

yeah I don't believe that. You are going to have to back that up with a news article or soemthing, and not just some right wing hack spewing opinion in a blog.

IPCC Peer Review Process an Illusion, analysis finds

The UN's IPCC reports have been the final 'argument' closing off debate for all GW alarmists. Those of us who know who and how it was put together, including the despicable reality of the 'beefing up' of various phrases by administrators after the scientists went home and the inclusion of names of those who did not agree with its findings on the final reports et al, know only too well they represent the epitome of politicization of science. And here's further proof in the form of a new peer review of the reports themselves:

Excerpt: In “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” McLean writes, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.” In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.

Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all. As with other chapters, simple corrections, requests for clarifications or refinements to the text which did not challenge the IPCC’s conclusions are generally treated favourably, but comments which dispute the IPCC’s claims or their certainty are treated with far less indulgence. In a related finding, McLean observes, “The dominance of research presupposing a human influence also means that the IPCC editing teams are likely to consist of people predisposed to view the situation in that light.” Adds McLean, “The problems continue into the authorship of these reports.

According to IPCC documents, scientists are nominated by governments or explicitly invited by scientists already associated with the IPCC. What a wonderful way to position scientists who support a government agenda on climate and then fill out the IPCC with like-minded individuals.” Concludes McLean, “The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.”

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html


Took me about a minute. Want more?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

IPCC Peer Review Process an Illusion, analysis finds

The UN's IPCC reports have been the final 'argument' closing off debate for all GW alarmists. Those of us who know who and how it was put together, including the despicable reality of the 'beefing up' of various phrases by administrators after the scientists went home and the inclusion of names of those who did not agree with its findings on the final reports et al, know only too well they represent the epitome of politicization of science. And here's further proof in the form of a new peer review of the reports themselves:

Excerpt: In “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” McLean writes, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.” In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.

Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all. As with other chapters, simple corrections, requests for clarifications or refinements to the text which did not challenge the IPCC’s conclusions are generally treated favourably, but comments which dispute the IPCC’s claims or their certainty are treated with far less indulgence. In a related finding, McLean observes, “The dominance of research presupposing a human influence also means that the IPCC editing teams are likely to consist of people predisposed to view the situation in that light.” Adds McLean, “The problems continue into the authorship of these reports.

According to IPCC documents, scientists are nominated by governments or explicitly invited by scientists already associated with the IPCC. What a wonderful way to position scientists who support a government agenda on climate and then fill out the IPCC with like-minded individuals.” Concludes McLean, “The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.”

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html

Took me about a minute. Want more?

From a website that is called "global warming hysteria"... sure that's totally legitimate. Good enough for me. How about I cite something from like "puppies and kitties are cute" or how about "Globalwarmingmakesjesuscry.com" That sounds like a good site to use.

GTFO with that shit. Find something worth looking at.

[WickedLou9]

Here are good sources

Woods Hole Institute:
Greenhouse Skeptics - The Woods Hole Research Center

Or how about:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/..._statement.pdf

American Meteorological Soeciety:
Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences Adopted by the AMS Council 9 February 2003


NOAA:
NCDC: Global Warming

American Geophysical Union:
Human Impacts on Climate

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences

http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society

http://www.amos.org.au/statementCC.htm


I could go on and on. These are real sources. Not conservative opinion pieces on bullshit internet blogs




EDIT:
MOTHER FUCKING PARSE LINKS!!!! AREGHREREKERKELERL DIE DIE DIE

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I could go on and on. These are real sources. Not conservative opinion pieces on bullshit internet blogs

What did these same sources say about the ozone layer?

Having "credible" sources advocate a theory doesn't mean they're necessarily right. You have to look at all the arguments supporting what they're saying. Credible sources on global warming are never deemed to be wrong by the media, yet they contradict each other all the time. No matter which way the climate goes everyone claims it's due to global warming.

Whether in the future the temperate goes up or down, more precipitation or drought, freezing of the ice caps or melting, etc.. it is guaranteed to be contributed it to global warming/climate change. What will happen is unknown, but what we do know is that no matter what happens credible scientists and the consensus will claim it's because of global warming/climate change. There's a huge problem with the "science" and "consensus" behind that.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by JaJae

What did these same sources say about the ozone layer?

Having "credible" sources advocate a theory doesn't mean they're necessarily right. You have to look at all the arguments supporting what they're saying. Credible sources on global warming are never deemed to be wrong by the media, yet they contradict each other all the time. No matter which way the climate goes everyone claims it's due to global warming. Whether the temperate goes up or down in the future is unknown, yet they've already contributed it to global warming/climate change. There's a huge problem with that.

Then why has every study concluded that man is having some effect on the changing climate? To my knowledge there have been no studies which conclude man has no effect on climate.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Then why has every study concluded that man is having some effect on the changing climate? To my knowledge there have been no studies which conclude man has no effect on climate.

Of course man is having some effect on climate change. Hell, so do cows and more seriously volcanoes, solar activity, etc. The question is how much do each of these have effect and can we blame such a large degree of climate change on man? To that degree nobody really knows, yet that's not what they're telling you. The truth is they have no idea what will happen in the future with our climate. We're supposed to be warming from all this CO2. Yet for the past decade the increase in temperature has fairly stabilized. If man is having such a dire effect, why after we continue to pump more and more CO2 are we not seeing the effects of it? We certainly haven't seen the effects of it in the past during the industrial revolution. We had a few decades of sharp increase in temperature, everyone was quick to blame man. But there really isn't enough science to support that. As I said above, no matter what happens to our climate, at this point, it will be attributed to humans and CO2. Nobody knows what will happen or why the trends aren't continuing as they were, but what they do know is that it's man's fault. I have a problem agreeing with that logic.

[kombayn]

We've only been studying the weather for 300 years. The planet has been around over 4 billion years. Global Warming is being used as political stance. The world is already working on this stuff, leave it up to the private companies to figure this stuff out then bring it to Government when they find cold hard evidence to make this an epidemic. Anyways, the winter in California was actually WINTER! I remember back in '03 when I graduated high school that in January it was 85 degrees outside! 85! This year it was 55 on average... So WTF?! If climate change is happening shouldn't temperatures be increasing?

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Then why has every study concluded that man is having some effect on the changing climate? To my knowledge there have been no studies which conclude man has no effect on climate.

and from another post

I don't care about 22,000 people who were polled. Thier opinions are meaningless. There is a long thread in our other forum called "The Lab" which discusses this very idea of a concensus. I invite you to read it and come back here. The fact is that far more scientists agree with the idea that human activity has influenced the climate. Out of all of the actual studies done, zero believe that man has nothing to do with climate. 1 said that there was insufficient data to make a determination and the rest, something like 700 or so said that man atleast had some influence on the recent climate change.

I note that the word 'INFLUENCE' and 'CLIMATE CHANGE' have crept in rather than the more specific Anthropogenic Global Warming or Human initiated emissions of CO2 have caused Global Warming.

This is an interesting change of ground for the argument. It is almost certain that human deforestation has caused droughts in some areas and dust-bowls. The deforestation around some mountains has caused a large drop in humidity and a lack of snow on their peaks. The Indonesian slash and burn farming that set fire to a huge peat bog has caused huge pollution in the area leading to cooling in some areas while raising the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Similarly, industrial outputs of microparticles led to global dimming that has had an effect on climate as does the soot on the various snow sheets.
I agree it will be almost impossible to find a scientist who could say hand on heart that humans have not had 'an influence on climate'. This is a long way from finding scientists who say human initiated output of CO2 is THE SOLE cause or even the MAIN cause of _Global Warming_.

It is this shifting of the argument that makes me feel that its proponents are not certain of their case.

Nevertheless, this is not a verbal debate where gifted speakers can persuade others to join in the majority and therefore win the argument. This is (or should be for the sake of humankind) a scientific quest for the truth. In science truth is rarely supported by the consensus - or everyone would still think the earth was flat or that the sun orbited the earth. Each advance is also usually a case of the majority trying to silence (ideally by disproof) the author of the hypothesis that now appears to be reaching the status of a theorem.

In this case the global warming models that base the entire climate warming on CO2, a minor greenhouse gas, and forecast a rise in global temperatures in line with atmospheric CO2 concentrations, have not been correct. CO2 has continued to rise - but temperatures have not. These models are WRONG.
It may be that human initiated emissions of water by the huge irrigation schemes which put thousands of cubic kilometers of 'fossil water' into the atmosphere are more likely drivers. Note that water vapor has almost 10 times the global warming effect of CO2 -and for those who hate the consumer society water is also a larger exhaust gas from SUVs and aviation than CO2. It may be that the suns radiance which has been high in this century is a major cause of warming. Certainly models using this as a driver can show far more statistically significant correlations with global temperatures than other models using green house gases.

For the sake of humanity, scientists should be dispationately and disinterestedly examining all these models to find out whether human activity is THE cause of global warming or whether we are on a roller coaster driven by nature where we can have some minor influence but otherwise we are just along for the ride.

The problem with politicians (and some grant seeking scientists) is that they want to win the argument at any cost - even the demise of humanity - they are not interested in finding the truth.

Considering the potential for huge negative impacts on the well being of humanity if this climate problem is not solved correctly, the pure scientific approach must be the one taken, even if the truth hurts the politicians.

[Oisin]

I feel dizzy, Perhanps we should go on emitting the polluting gas.
The Globe is warming up; there is no doubt about that. What people are arguing about is whether humans are the main cause, what will happen and if we should act now or waits a while and sees if it progresses.
I think we should act now, whether the main cause is humans or other natural ways, we may stop deforestation, slash and burn farming, or population increase. The good conditons for existing on the only one planet, the ecosystem need balance. Recently the average temperature is uping, if we just stay here to see the result and no action, when the hot time come, the only way to us maybe movement to moon or Mars.

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by Oisin

I feel dizzy, Perhanps we should go on emitting the polluting gas.
The Globe is warming up; there is no doubt about that. What people are arguing about is whether humans are the main cause, what will happen and if we should act now or waits a while and sees if it progresses.
I think we should act now, whether the main cause is humans or other natural ways, we may stop deforestation, slash and burn farming, or population increase. The good conditons for existing on the only one planet, the ecosystem need balance. Recently the average temperature is uping, if we just stay here to see the result and no action, when the hot time come, the only way to us maybe movement to moon or Mars.

Well that's funny, because this has been one of the coldest winters in Californian history.

[wanna be drummer]

Originally Posted by kombayn

Well that's funny, because this has been one of the coldest winters in Californian history.

Same with us here in Michigan. We got 8 inches of snow in one night...in March...

[SimplyImpossible]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Here are good sources





NOAA:
NCDC: Global Warming

I took this out of your links there. I found it very intresting that you are willing to give me ammo to refute your statements thank you.

"However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change"

I found it under the NOAA not that they have anything to do with climate mind you. The ocean and climate are two very different beasts.

Dave

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

From a website that is called "global warming hysteria"... sure that's totally legitimate. Good enough for me. How about I cite something from like "puppies and kitties are cute" or how about "Globalwarmingmakesjesuscry.com" That sounds like a good site to use.

GTFO with that shit. Find something worth looking at.

How about telling me what they claim that is in anyway false? I would never be so foolish as to suggest web pages such as this have no bias. That does not change the facts about the IPCC report and the way it was presented to the public. Conclusions and political motivated summaries months before the actual report. A great way to make sure the press has lost interest and does not dig to much.

Obviously you really don't want to listen to the very kind of evidence you demanded in your own post. If you want to be thick headed and make childish remarks then this conversation no longer serves any purpose. I should have understood this when you tried to portray me as some ignorant bible thumper.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by SimplyImpossible

I found it under the NOAA not that they have anything to do with climate mind you. The ocean and climate are two very different beasts.

Please tell me you're joking.

[Oisin]

The weather will change tempestuously, more colder Winters, more hoter Summers. the reason IS human activities include CO2 emission.
The earth is very small to the population and the human cupidity.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by SimplyImpossible

I took this out of your links there. I found it very intresting that you are willing to give me ammo to refute your statements thank you.

"However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change"

I found it under the NOAA not that they have anything to do with climate mind you. The ocean and climate are two very different beasts.

Dave

That doesn't refute anythng.. and my god.. the ocean is one of THE single biggest factors that helps to determine our climate.