Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

yeah thats correct, in your delusional world , that 31000 right wing nut jobs scientists... because they are scientists asking for evidence of man made co2 causing warming.

31000 thousand scientists who undestand co2 trails warming and cooling
31000 who know that there is no science showing man made co2 is causing warming on this planet. (just failed models) ..

you have no idea how many of them are published. you just lie your ass off.
you base your idea that there is a 97% consensus on 75 out of 77 scientists in a survey that was sent out to 10000.
read the link above it is explained in the forbes article.

by the way I no longer match the right wing... I am best described as a classical liberal.

the right wing and the left have merged into the establishment wing. you are part of the establishment...you are just too drone to know it.



futurecurrents said:
And none of them are publishing climatologists. They are right wing nut jobs, like you.
More...
 
Last edited:
jem said:
yeah thats correct, in your delusional world , that 31000 right wing nut jobs scientists... because they are scientists asking for evidence of man made co2 causing warming.

31000 thousand scientists who undestand co2 trails warming and cooling
31000 who know that there is not science showing man made co2 is causing warming on this planet. (just failed models) ..

you have no idea how many of them are published. you just lie your ass off.
you base your idea that there is a 97% consensus on 75 out of 77 scientists in a survey that was sent out to 10000.
read the link above it is explained in the forbes article.

by the way I no longer match the right wing... I am best described as a classical liberal.

the right wing and the left have merged into the establishment wing. you are part of the establishment...you are just too drone to know it.
More...

You can tell Futurecurrents this over & over again, he either too dense to understand, or more likely paid to spew AGW propaganda while ignoring any reasonable presentation of the facts.
 
Piezoe babbles, in another impressive display of complete and total horseshit,.....

"What you steadfastly fail to recognize is that all of the data, to use your word, is "problematic"! (WHICH I HAVE NEVER SAID) There is no technology that has allowed the Earth's temperature to be directly measured with sufficient precision to determine, by direct means, whether overall it has risen or fallen over the past century.(ABSURD) It is an unsolved problem. (No it's not) The best data by far is the satellite data.(WRONG) It has only existed for 40 years or so, and only very recently become prolific enough to be of much use in the Global Warming debate. The typical temperature variation in just 24 hours at most points on Earth is 2 orders of magnitude greater than the miniscule changes being sought for the past century, and more than three orders greater than the temperature changes sought per year. (So What? Nice Red Herring)

It is ridiculous to talk of the number of hurricanes in the North Atlantic. Only the number of storms and their energy over the entire Earths surface is relevant. (Yes and the energy is increasing) The satellite data for that is the best we have and it can't provide the answers sought with sufficient precision. (But you seem to think they ok for temps?)

Proxy data is particularly worthless when it comes to looking for a few hundredths of a degree change per year, or a few tenths over a century. It's ridiculous! (Not really, the ice record is pretty accurate, especially the recent one and it synchs well with instrument readings,)

If the changes were of the exponential kind hypothesized by Hansen in the 1980s and predicted by models incorporating a positive feedback response to small changes in CO2, we would know it by now! (No we wouldn't since the feedback is overwhelmed by the increases in CO2) They aren't! We don't know what they are with much accuracy, but we do know they aren't nearly that large. ( The hockey stick graph is true and shows a rapid unusual increase in temps)
More..."



So you can't find a climatologist that denies man made global warming either huh? lol

In the face of that fact doesn't it make what you wrote above seem quite absurd? To know that not a single respected expert in the relevant field denies that man made global warming is true?

Aren't you afraid of looking like a fool? Have you no shame? You remind me of those "doctors" that said that tobacco was harmless. You know, the ones that worked for the tobacco industry. Are you one of those guys? A Merchant of Doubt?

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942





http://whyfiles.org/211warm_arctic/images/1000yr_change.jpg
 
futurecurrents said:
And none of them are publishing climatologists. They are right wing nut jobs, like you.
More...

If you look around, you can find a list of publishing climate deniers, LOL. But let's look at a guy who isn't listed on the wikipedia page:

James D. Annan is a scientist involved in climate prediction. He was a member of the Global Warming Research Program at Frontier Research Centre for Global Change which is associated with the Earth Simulator in Japan. In 2014 he left Japan, returning to the United Kingdom as a co-founder of Blue Skies Research.

He is most known for considering bets against climate change denialists. Many denialists, including Richard Lindzen, have indicated they believe the scientific consensus on climate change to be incorrect. The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[2] Annan contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet and they exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree on terms. The final proposal was a bet that if the temperature change were less than 0.2 °C (0.36 °F), Lindzen would win. If the temperature change were between 0.2 °C and 0.4 °C the bet would be off, and if the temperature change were 0.4 °C or greater, Annan would win. Lindzen would take 2 to 1 odds.[3]


In 2005, another bet for $10,000 dollars was arranged with a pair of Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev.[4] The bet will conclude in 2017.

A third bet in 2007 between Annan and David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation was arranged by the BBC Radio program, More or Less in 2007. Annan and Whitehouse bet £100 on whether the Met Office temperature would set a new annual record by the end of 2011. Annan was declared to have lost in the program on 2012-01-13.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Annan

So that's about as good as it gets. Not only is he a scientist involved in climate predictions, he was so sure of the science that he put his own money up against deniers. (And lost one of the bets, so far.)

Here's what he says in his blog:

A Sensitive Matter
So, sensitivity has been in the climate blogosphere a bit recently. Just a few days ago, that odd Norwegian press release got some people excited, but it's not clear what it really means. There is an Aldrin et al paper, published some time ago - which gave a decent constraint on climate sensitivity, though nothing particularly surprising or interesting IMO. We thought we had sorted out the sensitivity kerfuffle several years ago, but it seems that the rest of the world still hasn't yet caught up. As I said to Andy Revkin (and he published on his blog), the additional decade of temperature data from 2000 onwards (even the AR4 estimates typically ignored the post-2000 years) can only work to reduce estimates of sensitivity, and that's before we even consider the reduction in estimates of negative aerosol forcing, and additional forcing from black carbon (the latter being very new, is not included in any calculations AIUI). It's increasingly difficult to reconcile a high climate sensitivity (say over 4C) with the observational evidence for the planetary energy balance over the industrial era. But the Norwegian press release seems to refer to as yet unpublished research, and some of the claims seem a bit hard to credit. So we will have to wait for more details before drawing any more solid conclusions.

Before then, there was the minor blogstorm (at least in some quarters) surrounding Nic Lewis' criticism of the IPCC's stubborn adherence to their old estimate of climate sensitivity. This, of course, being despite the additional evidence which I've just mentioned above.

When I looked at the IPCC drafts, I didn't actually notice the substantial change in estimated aerosol uncertainty that Nic focussed on. With limited time and energy to wade through several hundred pages of draft material, I mostly looked for how and where they had (or had not, but perhaps should have) referred to my work, to make sure it was fairly and accurately represented. I was pretty unimpressed with some parts of first draft, actually, and made a number suggestions. Of course in line with the IPCC conditions, I'm not going to say what was or was not in any draft. According to IPCC policy, my comments will all be available in the fullness of time, but I have also criticised this delayed release so in the spirit of openness here is one comment I made about their discussion of sensitivity in Chapter 12 (p55 in the first order draft):


It seems very odd to portray our work as an outlier here. Sokolov et al 2009, Urban and Keller 2010, Olson et al (in press JGR) have also recently presented similar results (and there may be more as yet unpublished, eg Aldrin at the INI meeting back in 2010). Such "observationally constrained pdfs" were all the rage a few years ago and featured heavily in the last IPCC report, there is no clear explanation for your sudden dismissal of them in favour of what seems to be a small private opinion poll. A more balanced presentation could be: "Annan and Hargreaves (2011a) criticize the use of uniform priors and argue that sensitivities above 4.5°C are extremely unlikely (less than 5%). Similar results have been obtained by a number of other researchers [add citations from the above]."


Note for the avoidance of any doubt I am not quoting directly from the unquotable IPCC draft, but only repeating my own comment on it. However, those who have read the second draft of Chapter 12 will realise why I previously said I thought the report was improved :-) Of course there is no guarantee as to what will remain in the final report, which for all the talk of extensive reviews, is not even seen by the proletariat, let alone opened to their comments, prior to its final publication. The paper I refer to as a "small private opinion poll" is of course the Zickfeld et al PNAS paper. The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I've criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now. Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action. Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data. Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported "this is what we think, because we asked our pals". It's essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la I can't hear you".

...
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html
 
^"If you look around, you can find a list of publishing climate deniers, LOL".


No, you can't. No publishing climate scientist denies man made global warming. Not one. No use reading the rest of your post when it starts with such major error. Come on pie, can't you get past two sentences without saying a lie?
 
futurecurrents said:
Not one.
More...
Your failure to consider evidence contrary to your political beliefs is not proof that your political beliefs are correct.

Here's another one of your buddies rejecting the concept that CO2 is bad for the environment:

Jesse Huntley Ausubel is an American environmental scientist and program manager of a variety of global biodiversity and ecology research programs. Ausubel serves as Director and Senior Research Associate of the Program for the Human Environment of Rockefeller University.[1] He is also a science advisor to, and former Vice President of Programs at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation where his main area of responsibility is supporting basic research in science and technology.

Mr. Ausubel received his bachelor's degree from Harvard College and two master's degrees from Columbia University. He began his career in 1977 as a resident fellow in the office of the President of the National Academy of Sciences, later became a staff officer of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and from 1983-1988 Director of Programs for the National Academy of Engineering (NAE).[3] From 1989-1993 he served as director of studies for the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, which aimed to improve use of scientific expertise in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. government, as well as international organizations.

Mr. Ausubel played a major role in the formulation of the US and world climate research programs. He was instrumental in organising the first UN World Climate Conference which was held in Geneva in 1979. This led to the elevation of the global warming issue on scientific and political agendas. Later, he led the Climate Task of the Resources and Environment Program of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, near Vienna, Austria, an East-West think-tank created by the U.S. and Soviet academies of sciences.[3] Beginning with a 1989 book on "Technology and Environment" (National Academy Press, JH Ausubel and HE Sladovich, eds.), Mr. Ausubel was one of the founders of the field of industrial ecology. With Arnulf Gruebler, Cesare Marchetti, and Nebojsa Nakicenovic he developed the concept of decarbonization, and with Robert Herman and Paul Waggoner the concept of dematerialization.
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_H._Ausubel


Nature Rebounds
13 January 2015, Jesse H. Ausubel
...
Global Greening
So far I have described bottom-up forces related to farms and forests that spare land. Top-down forces are also at work, and together are causing global greening, the most important ecological trend on Earth today. The biosphere on lamd is getting bigger, year by year, by 2 billion tons or even more.

Researchers are reporting the evidence weekly in papers ranging from arid Australia and Africa to moist Germany and the northernmost woods (see text box, below). Probably the most obvious reason is the increase of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In fact, farmers pump CO2 into greenhouses to make plants grow better. Carbon dioxide is what many plants inhale to feel good. It also enables plants to grow more while using the same or less water.

Californians David Keeling and Ralph Keeling have kept superfine measurements of CO2 since 1958. The increasing size of the seasonal cycle from winter when the biosphere releases CO2 to the summer when it absorbs the gas proves there is greater growth on average each year. The increased CO2 is a global phenomenon, potentially enlarging the biosphere in many regions.

In some areas, especially the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, the growing season has lengthened, attributed to global warming. The longer growing season is also causing more plant growth, demonstrated most convincingly in Finland. Some regions, including sub-Saharan Africa, report more rain and more growth.
...
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Nature_Rebounds.pdf
 
TooOldForThis said:
Your failure to consider evidence contrary to your political beliefs is not proof that your political beliefs are correct.

Here's another one of your buddies rejecting the concept that CO2 is bad for the environment:

Jesse Huntley Ausubel is an American environmental scientist and program manager of a variety of global biodiversity and ecology research programs. Ausubel serves as Director and Senior Research Associate of the Program for the Human Environment of Rockefeller University.[1] He is also a science advisor to, and former Vice President of Programs at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation where his main area of responsibility is supporting basic research in science and technology.

Mr. Ausubel received his bachelor's degree from Harvard College and two master's degrees from Columbia University. He began his career in 1977 as a resident fellow in the office of the President of the National Academy of Sciences, later became a staff officer of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and from 1983-1988 Director of Programs for the National Academy of Engineering (NAE).[3] From 1989-1993 he served as director of studies for the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, which aimed to improve use of scientific expertise in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. government, as well as international organizations.

Mr. Ausubel played a major role in the formulation of the US and world climate research programs. He was instrumental in organising the first UN World Climate Conference which was held in Geneva in 1979. This led to the elevation of the global warming issue on scientific and political agendas. Later, he led the Climate Task of the Resources and Environment Program of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, near Vienna, Austria, an East-West think-tank created by the U.S. and Soviet academies of sciences.[3] Beginning with a 1989 book on "Technology and Environment" (National Academy Press, JH Ausubel and HE Sladovich, eds.), Mr. Ausubel was one of the founders of the field of industrial ecology. With Arnulf Gruebler, Cesare Marchetti, and Nebojsa Nakicenovic he developed the concept of decarbonization, and with Robert Herman and Paul Waggoner the concept of dematerialization.
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_H._Ausubel


Nature Rebounds
13 January 2015, Jesse H. Ausubel
...
Global Greening
So far I have described bottom-up forces related to farms and forests that spare land. Top-down forces are also at work, and together are causing global greening, the most important ecological trend on Earth today. The biosphere on lamd is getting bigger, year by year, by 2 billion tons or even more.

Researchers are reporting the evidence weekly in papers ranging from arid Australia and Africa to moist Germany and the northernmost woods (see text box, below). Probably the most obvious reason is the increase of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In fact, farmers pump CO2 into greenhouses to make plants grow better. Carbon dioxide is what many plants inhale to feel good. It also enables plants to grow more while using the same or less water.

Californians David Keeling and Ralph Keeling have kept superfine measurements of CO2 since 1958. The increasing size of the seasonal cycle from winter when the biosphere releases CO2 to the summer when it absorbs the gas proves there is greater growth on average each year. The increased CO2 is a global phenomenon, potentially enlarging the biosphere in many regions.

In some areas, especially the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, the growing season has lengthened, attributed to global warming. The longer growing season is also causing more plant growth, demonstrated most convincingly in Finland. Some regions, including sub-Saharan Africa, report more rain and more growth.
...
http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Nature_Rebounds.pdf
More...


Not a publishing climatologist nor does he deny that man made global warming is real. There are none that do.

Do you not understand the criteria? I guess I need to spell it out again as your reading comprehension is lacking.

Publishing

Climatologist (you know, the experts)

That expressly deny man made global warming.



Try again.
 
some of these people are published climatologists.
this is a denial you liar. and there are many many more...

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.




see link for many more...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
 
jem said:
some of these people are published climatologists.
this is a denial you liar. and there are many many more...

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.



see link for many more...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
More...


Nope, not publishing climatologists nor denying man made global warming. This is getting ridiculous now. Do you understand the English language?


Look. Jerm. It should easy to just find a quote from a publishing climatologist that says man made global warming is not true....... if you are right. It would stand out like a sore thumb. But of course you are not right so you can't find single one.
 
you are such a troll. some of them are published climatologists.

they state science can not predict.
in other words there is no science showing man made co2 is causing warming.

that is a plain english. if you don't understand it or accept it... that is your issue.

and there are dozens more on the same page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top