Page 108 of 161 FirstFirst ... 85898104105106107108109110111112118158 ... LastLast
Results 2,676 to 2,700 of 4001
  1. #2676
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Do you really equate skepticism of catastrophic AGW with this ?
    Does this sound like the words of a fair skeptic, given the complexity of the data and systems we are looking at, Darrin?

    Sorry, there's no proof, none, zilch, zero, that humankind is having any appreciable affect on global climate.
    Or is this the kind of thing a dogmatic who doesn't really care about the evidence would say?
    RandomGuy is offline

  2. #2677
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Judith Curry. And she's not a skeptic. She just doesn't dismiss skeptical scientists as "deniers".
    So those skepitcal scientists she is referring to don't exist? and anyway, why is it our burden to look for someone that supports your bias?
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  3. #2678
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    I was actually going to use that name, but wanted to do a little reading.

    Janet Curry.

    Who also had many of her criticisms answered by BEST's study, if memory serves.

    Uh, she is one of the BEST contributors.

    http://berkeleyearth.org/about-us/
    DarrinS is offline

  4. #2679
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    pigeonhole pigeonhole pigeonhole.

    Fine lets discount everything Al Gore and AGCC and in fairness discount all the from the Guardian, Heritage Foundation, WIWT, and all the other obvious financial interests and just leave the regular scientists.
    Which is where it should be.

    The problem is there is a segment of the population that doesn't trust scientists to be honest. "evilution" what a bunch of liberal hooey.
    RandomGuy is offline

  5. #2680
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Uh, she is one of the BEST contributors.

    http://berkeleyearth.org/about-us/
    Indeed. She helped design the tests. That is what makes her coming out and saying the tests were honest and satisfied a lot of criticisms more credible.

    Gotta run.
    RandomGuy is offline

  6. #2681
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    So those skepitcal scientists she is referring to don't exist? and anyway, why is it our burden to look for someone that supports your bias?

    I never asked that. I asked if RG could name a skeptical scientist who had a "healthy skepticism".
    DarrinS is offline

  7. #2682
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Nope.

    I'm discounting man-made sources of CO2 appreciably add to the total concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - to the extent is has an affect on global climate.
    Wait, so you think there is zero proof that human emissions are the reason for the CO2 rise? Well, pray tell, what is driving the increase?

    Does CO2 at 200 ppm have an appreciable effect on climate?
    Last edited by MannyIsGod; 04-16-2012 at 10:11 PM.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  8. #2683
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I never asked that. I asked if RG could name a skeptical scientist who had a "healthy skepticism".
    Well you have been claiming that the peer review process keeps these guys out. The burden of proof should rest on you for introducing these guys that tried to get published and were rejected for unfair or unethical reasons.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  9. #2684
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    I can name several scientists who have had problems with information found in IPCC reports that I believe are correct.

    I can name zero scientists whom I feel are correct that discount the effect that increasing CO2 concentrations to 400ppm has on the energy budget of the Earth.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  10. #2685
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    I never asked that. I asked if RG could name a skeptical scientist who had a "healthy skepticism".
    Define healthy skepticism.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  11. #2686
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo...and_hurricanes

    Chris Landsea is someone I believe has legit gripes with the IPCC. He's been openly critical of their results regarding hurricanes and I tend to agree with him. (I've argued the same things on this forum before regarding hurricanes)

    He does not however, discount AGW.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  12. #2687
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    See, this is the kind of crap that just blows holes in all the alarmist AGCC rhetoric.


    Even penguins are affected by the climate change that takes place out there. Due to global warming around the world, their natural environment is affected. Those species that live in the extremely cold regions depend on the ice because it is what they walk on. When it is melting at fast rates it completely changes their natural environment. At the same time it can make them vulnerable to predators that they were protected from in the past due to the thick sheets of ice.

    Scientists believe that half of the population of penguins in the Antarctic region has been depleted in the last 50 years due to the climate change. It is the species known as the Emperor Penguins that have seen the largest losses. This is due to the warming trends continuing for several years. There is plenty of change that takes place over that span of time, and most of it isn’t positive when it comes to the natural habitat of the penguins.
    Scientists believe?

    Well, not so fast...

    Somebody decided to ing count.


    Lead author and geographer Peter Fretwell at British Antarctic Survey (BAS), which is funded by the U.K.'s Natural Environment Research Council, explains, "We are delighted to be able to locate and identify such a large number of emperor penguins. We counted 595,000 birds, which is almost double the previous estimates of 270,000-350,000 birds. This is the first comprehensive census of a species taken from space."
    So much for scientific "belief."
    Yonivore is offline

  13. #2688
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    I don't think you understand that climate science and biology/ecology are not the same thing. The physics and chemistry behind the energy budget of the earth is what is debated here. You seem to want to pick out failed (allegedly) ecological theories (although I don't see you looking at a comprehensive analysis of biological impacts of AGW but rather cherry picking - SURPRISE) from a point in time when AGW hasn't even had that large of an impact.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  14. #2689
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    I can name several scientists who have had problems with information found in IPCC reports that I believe are correct.

    I can name zero scientists whom I feel are correct that discount the effect that increasing CO2 concentrations to 400ppm has on the energy budget of the Earth.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  15. #2690
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I don't think you understand that climate science and biology/ecology are not the same thing. The physics and chemistry behind the energy budget of the earth is what is debated here. You seem to want to pick out failed (allegedly) ecological theories (although I don't see you looking at a comprehensive analysis of biological impacts of AGW but rather cherry picking - SURPRISE) from a point in time when AGW hasn't even had that large of an impact.
    So, if scientists say global climate change is killing off the penguins and it's proven that's not the case, you say, well, it's not about the penguins.

    Polar bears, ditto.

    Kilimanjaro, yep.

    Glacial ice...same answer.

    Hurricanes? If we have a bunch it's because of global climate change -- if not, well, it's because of global climate change.

    I believe I even recall some idiot claiming AGCC caused earthquakes.

    So, what is the danger, Manny? If none of the predicted catastrophes being blamed on AGCC are 1) not being caused by AGCC and/or 2) aren't really happening at all -- why all the fuss over AGCC?

    What is the optimal temperature and climate for Earth and exactly when will we know when we've achieved that?

    That's what I want to know. If we determine AGCC exists -- which is rather dubious, at best (climate change, yes -- anthropogenic, not so much) -- what are the dangers?

    Wouldn't a warmer climate expand growing zones? Aren't there benefits to a different climate than what we have?
    Yonivore is offline

  16. #2691
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    I don't think you understand that climate science and biology/ecology are not the same thing.
    And, I'm calling bull on this...

    All we're ever told is of the biological/ecological consequences of anthropogenic global climate change and that if we don't bring our emissions of CO2 down, we're going to wreak all sorts of calamity on the biological/ecological health of the planet.

    All of the examples I listed are of biological/ecological catastrophes predicted by AGCC proponents in an effort to scare the world into buying their scam.

    If it's not the biological/ecological consequences, what's the point?

    Do you have an interest in maintaining our current climate? If so, why? What's the matter with a few degrees either way? After all, the oceans aren't rising as predicted so, I figure Miami is safe.
    Yonivore is offline

  17. #2692
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Glacial ice is in retreat. Kilamanjaro's glaciers are a special case that was - get this - discovered a long ass time ago by scientists through the peer review process. In other words, that was a great example of science at work.

    I don't know about polar bears or penguins so I'm not going to sit here and pretend what ever biologist out there has said about them but I seriously doubt that all the biological predictions regarding climate change are in danger of being found false. As an example, why have you not brought up any of the ocean species in danger through ocean acidification due to increase warming and increased atmospheric CO2? Because you're not interested in an actual comprehensive look at the how the biosphere is being (or will be) affected but rather cherry picking.

    No recent hurricane history has been attributed to climate change by any notable scientific organization. None. This is a complete strawman you've made up.

    As for expanded growing zones, in the long term you will MOVE the growing areas and most productive farm areas but that isn't a good thing. For one, infrastructure does not magically up and move itself overnight. There are huge uncertainties in this area but its certainly going to be costly because change always is.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  18. #2693
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Wait, so you think there is zero proof that human emissions are the reason for the CO2 rise? Well, pray tell, what is driving the increase?

    Does CO2 at 200 ppm have an appreciable effect on climate?
    MannyIsGod is offline

  19. #2694
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    And, I'm calling bull on this...

    All we're ever told is of the biological/ecological consequences of anthropogenic global climate change and that if we don't bring our emissions of CO2 down, we're going to wreak all sorts of calamity on the biological/ecological health of the planet.

    All of the examples I listed are of biological/ecological catastrophes predicted by AGCC proponents in an effort to scare the world into buying their scam.

    If it's not the biological/ecological consequences, what's the point?

    Do you have an interest in maintaining our current climate? If so, why? What's the matter with a few degrees either way? After all, the oceans aren't rising as predicted so, I figure Miami is safe.
    So you're saying that biology and ecology are the same thing as climate sciences? Ok, call bull on that all you want. Won't make it any closer to being true.

    You think that an atmospheric chemist is taking into account a single penguin or polar bear when he or she is doing their work? Its fairly impossible to discuss this with you because you have such a poor understanding of how specialized science is or even the basic fundamentals of how the collective knowledge of our species is advanced through science.

    You have a lot of atmospheric scientists of different specialties who work on little bits of research that are typically very focused. You may have a guy working on figuring out upper tropospheric humidity proxies and you may have a numerical modeler trying to develop a higher resolution climate model and you may have someone trying to figure out how clouds actually work in order to figure out feedbacks. Then you're going to have hydrologists working on the cryosphere (ie glaciers). This goes on for every discipline. But the guy working on the climate models doesn't specialize in polar bears, and the guy working on glaciers doesn't know very much about how the stratosphere impacts the entire picture. They rely on each other and then proceed based on information provided by others.

    In other words, the zoologist who is studying polar bears is going to look at climate projections and then make an analysis based upon his or her knowledge of polar bears on what will happen given a certain increase or a certain change in their habitat. If that zoologist is then incorrect, that is not some kind of verdict on the climate prediction but rather on the biological aspect of the work done. That is a fundamental you simple refuse to understand.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  20. #2695
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Glacial ice is in retreat.
    Not in the Himalayas or parts of Antartica... And, not as fast as claimed in the areas where they are receding. Besides, have the areas being uncovered by receding glaciers been under ice since the beginning of time? Were they ever exposed before industrialization? Yes. I don't see the big deal.

    Also, with the melting so far, there's been no appreciable rise in sea levels -- and certainly not the levels we've been warned about.

    Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

    Kilamanjaro's glaciers are a special case that was - get this - discovered a long ass time ago by scientists through the peer review process. In other words, that was a great example of science at work.
    Don't blame me that the AGCC alarmists didn't get the memos. Because it wasn't a very long ass time ago they were telling us AGCC was melting the snows atop Kilimanjaro.

    I don't know about polar bears or penguins so I'm not going to sit here and pretend what ever biologist out there has said about them but I seriously doubt that all the biological predictions regarding climate change are in danger of being found false. As an example, why have you not brought up any of the ocean species in danger through ocean acidification due to increase warming and increased atmospheric CO2? Because you're not interested in an actual comprehensive look at the how the biosphere is being (or will be) affected but rather cherry picking.
    Well, it could possibly be because all we hear about are polar bears and penguins and rising sea levels and receding glaciers. I haven't heard much alarmism about ocean species. Perhaps krill isn't sexy enough for Al Gore.

    I'll check it out. Thanks.

    No recent hurricane history has been attributed to climate change by any notable scientific organization. None. This is a complete strawman you've made up.
    Extreme weather: it's about to get worse, say scientists

    Global warming is leading to such severe storms, droughts and heatwaves that nations should prepare for an unprecedented onslaught of deadly and costly weather disasters, an international panel of climate scientists says in a new report.
    The greatest danger from extreme weather is in highly populated, poor regions of the world, the report warns, but no corner of the globe - from Mumbai to Miami - is immune. The do ent by a Nobel prize-winning panel of climate scientists forecasts stronger tropical cyclones and more frequent heat waves, deluges and droughts.
    I believe we call them hurricanes here.

    This is from one of your favorite "notable scientific organization[s]," the IPCC.

    As for expanded growing zones, in the long term you will MOVE the growing areas and most productive farm areas but that isn't a good thing. For one, infrastructure does not magically up and move itself overnight. There are huge uncertainties in this area but its certainly going to be costly because change always is.
    And, we adapt pretty well...always have.

    I'm not sure a bit of warming would be a bad thing, Manny.

    Again, what is our optimal climate and temperature here on earth?
    Yonivore is offline

  21. #2696
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    So you're saying that biology and ecology are the same thing as climate sciences? Ok, call bull on that all you want. Won't make it any closer to being true.
    No, I'm saying AGCC alarmists are telling me biological and ecological horrors are being visited on the planet because of climate change...in the form of species endangerment, glacial retreat, sea level rises, melting snow caps, disappearing penguins, more catastrophic weather events, etc...

    Since you missed the premise, I didn't read the rest of your post.
    Yonivore is offline

  22. #2697
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Go back and reread it. Its important and it addresses why your point was wrong. I got your point, and I explained to you why it was wrong.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  23. #2698
    Just Right of Atilla the Hun Yonivore's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Post Count
    25,372
    Go back and reread it. Its important and it addresses why your point was wrong. I got your point, and I explained to you why it was wrong.
    Okay, so where's the harm in AGCC if all the biological/ecological scientists predicting global climate change is killing their area of interest are wrong?

    Thanks for wasting my time, your explanation still misses the point -- as I thought it would.

    In other words, if climate scientists (who don't care about ecological and biological affects) are right and biological and ecological scientists (who don't know about anything except their specialty) are wrong, what's the ing problem?
    Yonivore is offline

  24. #2699
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    [QUOTE=Yonivore;5794945]Not in the Himalayas or parts of Antartica... And, not as fast as claimed in the areas where they are receding. Besides, have the areas being uncovered by receding glaciers been under ice since the beginning of time? Were they ever exposed before industrialization? Yes. I don't see the big deal.

    Also, with the melting so far, there's been no appreciable rise in sea levels -- and certainly not the levels we've been warned about.
    [quote]

    Do you just make things up? Sea level rise is HIGHER than what was forecast by most of the models.

    They are receding globally and they are doing so faster then expected. Everything you've stated here is just flat out wrong. There are places - IE the Himilayas - where there are SHORT TERM stalls, but 10 years doesn't mean much. I guess I would have the same beliefs as you if I thought the data says what you do. The sad fact is that you're pretty much completely wrong.

    However, prove me wrong. Provide me with the data that shows sea level rise is lower than expected or that glacial melting across the globe is less than expected.

    Sea levels are rising.

    http://academics.eckerd.edu/instruct...SLRSustain.pdf

    http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1...e.2010.29.html

    I could link more, if you'd like. Note, those aren't model figures. Those are taken from actual readings across the globe of tidal gauges and from satellite measurements.

    Don't blame me that the AGCC alarmists didn't get the memos. Because it wasn't a very long ass time ago they were telling us AGCC was melting the snows atop Kilimanjaro.
    I blame you for being ignorant of scientific research almost a decades old talking about this.

    http://www.uibk.ac.at/geographie/tro...jc24(2004).pdf


    Well, it could possibly be because all we hear about are polar bears and penguins and rising sea levels and receding glaciers. I haven't heard much alarmism about ocean species. Perhaps krill isn't sexy enough for Al Gore.

    I'll check it out. Thanks.
    You haven't heard about, IE, you're ignorant on the subject. You and I both know you don't do any reading into the subject as shown by your gross ignorance on many facets of AGW theory so the blame must lie with your blogs not providing you with the proper information. Its like when you came in with the GROUNDBREAKING thought in your head that climate models hadn't even been used to forecast current conditions in an effort to test them.

    Extreme weather: it's about to get worse, say scientists



    I believe we call them hurricanes here.

    This is from one of your favorite "notable scientific organization[s]," the IPCC.


    And, we adapt pretty well...always have.

    I'm not sure a bit of warming would be a bad thing, Manny.

    Again, what is our optimal climate and temperature here on earth?
    You realize what a forecast is, Yoni? That places things in the future tense. As in, much further down the line. When warming has reached higher levels. As I said, no scientific organization has attributed any recent hurricane activity - this is the threshold YOU set - to climate change.

    We haven't always adapted. You don't seem to understand how recent a development human agrarianism is and how stable the climate has been during this time. In any event, we will adapt. No one is saying the impact will be one where humans go extinct. It will simply be very expensive to do so.

    As for your analysis on whether a bit of warming is a good thing, you're not exactly an expert. On the other hands, those who are experts and must plan for the future have definitely said the changing climate is not a good thing. This goes from the military, insurance agencies, and health organizations. Part of the giant conspiracy, though. I know.

    The optimal temperature is the one that doesn't costs us trillions of dollars to adapt to. In other words, the climate we've developed our society around.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  25. #2700
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Okay, so where's the harm in AGCC if all the biological/ecological scientists predicting global climate change is killing their area of interest are wrong?

    Thanks for wasting my time, your explanation still misses the point -- as I thought it would.

    In other words, if climate scientists (who don't care about ecological and biological affects) are right and biological and ecological scientists (who don't know about anything except their specialty) are wrong, what's the ing problem?
    I'm sorry for making you read a bit more, Yoni. I realize how taxing this is on your tiny brain.

    Well, first of all, I never claimed all biologists are wrong. As I've pointed out, you've not exactly done a comprehensive review of the research but instead cherry picked two examples while ignoring any others who don't seem to fit your mold as "wrong". Thats your red herring, not mine. I was simply pointing out how your attempts to use polar bears and penguins to disprove AGW theory are misguided and pretty damn wrong.

    As far as the problems, you could check with the military, insurance companies, and health organizations on the HUMAN impact. I mean, you LOVE the military so I find it curious how you simply dismiss their findings and their plans to prepare for the changing climate and how much those findings and plans align with what the free market is pricing in via the insurance industry.
    MannyIsGod is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •