How many scientists really dispute global warming?

[dcraig]

Quote from drjekyllus:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=adEgGRWjmUdA

U.S. East Coast Faces Deep Freeze; Florida Oranges Threatened

That's called weather. What is important is whether the climate is warming. 2009 will certainly be amongst the 10 hottest years and possibly as high as the second hottest.

But if you want to talk about weather, you could have a look at Australia which has had the hottest winter/spring on record. This summer has already seen catastrophic fire alerts in four states. Last week around 40 houses were destroyed in WA. In the previous summer in Victoria, whole towns were incinerated in all time record temperatures and over 170 people burned to death in the worst bush fires ever seen.

Which also doesn't "prove" global warming, but is entirely consistent with the projections of climate models for the Australian continent.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from dcraig:

That's called weather. What is important is whether the climate is warming. 2009 will certainly be amongst the 10 hottest years and possibly as high as the second hottest.

Really doesn't weather make up climate. Its kind of odd for there to be record cold temps when the climate has never been hotter. Only an idiot would make such an argument.

Second of all, aren't hurricanes weather? You frauds certainly tried to pin Katrina on global warming.

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from dcraig:



But if you want to talk about weather, you could have a look at Australia which has had the hottest winter/spring on record. This summer has already seen catastrophic fire alerts in four states. Last week around 40 houses were destroyed in WA. In the previous summer in Victoria, whole towns were incinerated in all time record temperatures and over 170 people burned to death in the worst bush fires ever seen.

Which also doesn't "prove" global warming, but is entirely consistent with the projections of climate models for the Australian continent.

Do you have any reasoning skills at all? Fires are caused by DRY conditions. Dry does not equal hot. Nice try though.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from drjekyllus:

Do you have any reasoning skills at all? Fires are caused by DRY conditions. Dry does not equal hot. Nice try though.

Wrong. Severe bush fires occur in dry AND hot conditions and they are made very very dangerous by high winds. Catastrophic and extreme (official designations) fire conditions in Australia are ALWAYS accompanied by high temperatures. This is known to every single person living in rural Australia (and to most living in urban Australia as well).

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Lucrum:

Is the 12,000,000 number "correct", as in representing only climatologists?

If my math is correct that would mean 0.18% of the population or 1.8 persons out of every 1000 on the planet is a climatologist or some sort of long term weather expert.

crickets chirping

 

[omegapoint]

Quote from drjekyllus:

We have William M. Gray. He is considered to be the world's foremost expert of predicting hurricanes. That doesn't count though, he is too.......(fill in any bullshit reason here).

We have Richard Lindzen. He is only an atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I know. MIT? Wow, what a bunch of shitheads? MIT has zero credibility.

Don't forget your hero, Glenn Beck.

 

[AMT4SWA]

Quote from dcraig:

Why don't you exercise some of your "open mindedness" which as you keep telling us you possess in vastly greater quantities than mere mortals, go and read the latest IPCC report and come back with a reasoned argument showing the world it's scientific flaws?

You see, the climate doesn't care about conspiracies, democrats or republicans, the Federal Reserve, new world orders or the holiness of the American flag. It just "is".

How warming is to be slowed or mitigated certainly raises many political issues, but science is science and facts are facts. While Alex Jones can exhibit nothing remotely resembling a balanced attitude towards the science and just spews forth a brand of low grade political propaganda, he confines himself to the lunatic fringe.

Hey pal, when you can PREDICT a 9/11 then I will pay attention to you also. BTW, YOU don't have THOUSANDS leaking "inside" information to you on a constant basis....do you??? :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5ElXWJozEQ



Looks like a lunatic on the fringe is one who BUYS the global warning globalist loving scam! :eek:

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from Lucrum:

crickets chirping

They'll keep chirping. As usual, they take one element of the equation...the one that fits their agenda. There is no science to speak of, only leftists gorging on grant money at the government trough.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from dcraig:

Why don't you exercise some of your "open mindedness" which as you keep telling us you possess in vastly greater quantities than mere mortals, go and read the latest IPCC report and come back with a reasoned argument showing the world it's scientific flaws?

You see, the climate doesn't care about conspiracies, democrats or republicans, the Federal Reserve, new world orders or the holiness of the American flag. It just "is".

How warming is to be slowed or mitigated certainly raises many political issues, but science is science and facts are facts. While Alex Jones can exhibit nothing remotely resembling a balanced attitude towards the science and just spews forth a brand of low grade political propaganda, he confines himself to the lunatic fringe.

my $.02, the IPCC is unreliable at best, their don't do their own research just decide what info to publish. http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm
That just doesn't work for me. An example, this is how the Christian Bible was formed, by the top bishops deciding what could and couldn't go in. We have all heard of certain gospels not being included because they contradict the others.

You might be wondering why I am comparing religion with climatology, cause in my opinion they are the same thing. There simply is no definitive proof of anthropomorphic global warming or whatever its called. There are so many factors involved, and they are not yet all known. Their statistics DO NOT reach far enough back in time to be accurate. Also how do we know what exactly will happen even if there is global warming? How do we know it is a bad thing?

i know that "earth science' is considered a hard science (wonder for how long though), but please let's not equate climatologists with Einstein's and Ferme's. Not only could they prove their theories, they could create them (nuclear reactor). So until a "climatologist" can perform a similar feat, they are not as brilliant/reliable. Also look at the IPCC panel, wow it is so diverse they must be super smart LOL, it looks like a big fuckin circle-jerk to me.

Also, let's say we are responsible, then why aren't those claiming so taking it seriously? NUCLEAR POWER is many times more efficient than anything else in the works, so where are the reactors, where is the R&D to create smaller and smaller reactors. Nuclear IS the energy of the future (only practical source). Wind and solar will never fully replace fossil fuels and it is folly to devote resources to them.

Either way any politicized movement 20 or 30 years old is a scam to me, there are obviously people benefitting from all of this money being poured into global warming. This is plain old fear mongering IMO, if u have DEFINITIVE proof otherwise please let me see it.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from PiggyBank:

my $.02, the IPCC is unreliable at best, their don't do their own research just decide what info to publish. http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.htm

You are quite free to go and read the original research if you want to. There is no shortage of it.

The purpose of the IPCC is to provide a summary of the current state of science regarding climate change and provide recommendations to policy makers. It's summaries are accurate and recommendations logically follow from the science.

i know that "earth science' is considered a hard science (wonder for how long though), but please let's not equate climatologists with Einstein's and Ferme's. Not only could they prove their theories, they could create them (nuclear reactor). So until a "climatologist" can perform a similar feat, they are not as brilliant/reliable.

Please be realistic. Climate is a chaotic system. It is an entirely different type of problem than is for example special relativity. Nobody is going to come up with a couple of differential equations that you can solve and predict climate. Nature is overflowing with problems than cannot be addressed in that way.

It is an issue of the weight of evidence - and there is plenty of it for anybody that cares to look.

Also, let's say we are responsible, then why aren't those claiming so taking it seriously? NUCLEAR POWER is many times more efficient than anything else in the works, so where are the reactors, where is the R&D to create smaller and smaller reactors. Nuclear IS the energy of the future (only practical source). Wind and solar will never fully replace fossil fuels and it is folly to devote resources to them.

Some high profile climatologists favour nuclear. James Hansen who is perhaps the best known is one of them. And some don't. There are certainly problems with nuclear. My own opinion is that I'd rather see other alternatives but at the end of the day, some nuclear may be necessary. There are also other options including geothermal hot rock which has vast energy reserves dwarfing anything other than fusion. It is anybodies guess as to if or when fusion may be practical. It is surely a good way off at best.

In any case, the desirability or otherwise of nuclear power generation has no bearing on whether there is in fact a greenhouse effect and if the world is warming.

Either way any politicized movement 20 or 30 years old is a scam to me, there are obviously people benefitting from all of this money being poured into global warming. This is plain old fear mongering IMO, if u have DEFINITIVE proof otherwise please let me see it.

It is the deniers who have politicized the science using the same techniques of sowing doubt and confusion as were used by the tobacco lobby. Even some of the same individuals have been involved. See the Marshall Institute.

I quite agree that looking at history provides important insights that are otherwise hard to come by.

This presentation by a professor of the history of science gives a good historical perspective on the development of modern climate science and the methods and motivations of the "skeptics".

One fascinating historical fact is that LBJ admitted to the US congress in '60s that global warming was probably a problem. But it just wasn't seen as immediate at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio