Well it's true that a 150 year moving average does lag a bit...
Global warming hoax fools millions
- Thread starter wilburbear
- Start date
Well it's true that a 150 year moving average does lag a bit...
Maybe because he understands the most basic stat concept, that correlation does not prove causation.
We'd be entertained to hear what correlation you're referring to, since it's been proven that CO2 molecules absorb infrared radiation, and increasing CO2 levels have been directly measured for almost 60 years.
So some pro-warming group with a political axe to grind issued a press release saying "nyah nyah, U R rong?"
Of course they did, but that is not exactly evidence in their favour.And I'm not sure how many of the signers were climatologists, but how many people shooting their mouth off for the pro-warming brigade are climatologists? Show me one and I'll show you another one who dissents.
I respect the views of these 9,000 bona fide scientists more than those of bureaucrats and politicians who have vested interests. Why don't you?
Quote from magicdust:
So some pro-warming group with a political axe to grind issued a press release saying "nyah nyah, U R rong?"
Sigh. The National Academy of Sciences is hardly just some "pro-warming group with a political axe to grind."
That has got to be one of the most ignorant posts this month.
Okay, I'll show you NASA. Now you show me one.
Look, dentists and retired people aren't scientists as usually defined.
It doesn't matter if you are offended by politicians, read the IPCC report. Learn about the Keeling curve.
Then post.
Nice try. Mentioning the Keeling curve makes you sound so authoritative. But those 9,000 phDs weren't dentists. Neither are these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
You know better than them?
In the end there are scientists pro and con. And you and I are not scientists. So why do we believe what we believe? Some like to go with the crowd, others fade it. There's a start.
And some get suspicious when vested interests push a certain line and demand money, while others line up to join them and get their snouts in the trough. Where do you fit in?
the Keeling curve (in case anyone wants to know)
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/keeling_curve/01.html
There is no reason to dispute the curve or it's results, as it is an obvservation tool. It measures CO2 levels at a given time, at a given point and altitude, and was designed well ahead of the raging debate. It has been used to measure CO2 since 1958. It has no political bias.
More interesting stuff
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Here is the first paragraph:
"Greenhouse gas changes since the industrial revolution are believed to be closely related to the change in climate that has been observed [IPCC2007]. However, climate projections have model uncertainties which overwhelm the uncertainties in greenhouse gas measurements. In this work we sought an index that was directly proportional to the forcing of climate but with relatively small uncertainty."
As I indicated in my discussions with bigdave, the issue is not the debate for me. The solutions are.
A note on solutions:
I saw a Project Earth program last not on geo-engineering. Talk about messing with the climate. Reflective blankets on glaciers (already being tried), altering cloud reflectivity, and so on. There have been unintentional consequences to fossil fuel burning, but messing with mother nature on a planetary scale to undo those consequences???
Like I said, if the powers that be can find a policy to lower emmissions and better the economy simultaneously, there would be little public resistance. Wouldn't such a solution satisfy all sides (except maybe big oil)?
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/keeling_curve/01.html
There is no reason to dispute the curve or it's results, as it is an obvservation tool. It measures CO2 levels at a given time, at a given point and altitude, and was designed well ahead of the raging debate. It has been used to measure CO2 since 1958. It has no political bias.
More interesting stuff
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Here is the first paragraph:
"Greenhouse gas changes since the industrial revolution are believed to be closely related to the change in climate that has been observed [IPCC2007]. However, climate projections have model uncertainties which overwhelm the uncertainties in greenhouse gas measurements. In this work we sought an index that was directly proportional to the forcing of climate but with relatively small uncertainty."
As I indicated in my discussions with bigdave, the issue is not the debate for me. The solutions are.
A note on solutions:
I saw a Project Earth program last not on geo-engineering. Talk about messing with the climate. Reflective blankets on glaciers (already being tried), altering cloud reflectivity, and so on. There have been unintentional consequences to fossil fuel burning, but messing with mother nature on a planetary scale to undo those consequences???
Like I said, if the powers that be can find a policy to lower emmissions and better the economy simultaneously, there would be little public resistance. Wouldn't such a solution satisfy all sides (except maybe big oil)?
Well, yes. One of them is a professor of geography, one is a geologist, one is a coal chemist, one is a botanist (!!) -- once again, climatology is a specific discipline and perfume makers, dentists and botanists do not qualify-- one of your citations, Hendrik Tennekes, hasn't done anything peer reviewed at all for fifteen years.
Now, it took me all of five minutes to do the research on your list so I can only conclude that people who believe lists such as this are intellectually lazy.
Your position seems to be somewhere between intellectual laziness that you can't be bothered to do the research, and since (according to you) "we're not scientists" we are also unable to learn.
I disagree.
You're my kind of guy!
(not in the Biblical sense. Not that there's anything wrong with that
)Notice how their AGGI index has increased every year, with "relatively small uncertainty." Also, thanks for the CO2 graph, it clearly shows the pattern.
When CFC's were dramatically reduced which helped the Ozone hole, the Republicans didn't take it on as a cause celebre, nor did they try to block it. The problem was successfully resolved.
Nor did it cause economic damage.
(Although the Republicans did make a commitment to assist developing nations eliminate CFC's, then at the last minute said "Nah, we don't want to." Which gives an idea of 1) their lack of vision and 2) their idea of what "commitment" means.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...3A25756C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all