Reply With Quote
So you like pollution?
More Global Warming stuff. Like I said before, people are making big money on the subject.Al Gore is even invested in companies that sell Carbon Credits. Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:
The Science of Gore's Nobel
What if everyone believes in global warmism only because everyone believes in global warmism?
BY HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
The Nobel Committee might as well have called it Al Gore's Inner Peace Prize, given the way it seems designed to help him disown his lifelong ambition to become president in favor of a higher calling, as savior of a planet.
The media will be tempted to blur the fact that his medal, which Mr. Gore will collect on Monday in Oslo, isn't for "science." In fact, a Nobel has never been awarded for the science of global warming. Even Svante Arrhenius, who first described the "greenhouse" effect, won his for something else in 1903. Yet now one has been awarded for promoting belief in manmade global warming as a crisis.
How this honor has befallen the former Veep could perhaps be explained by another Nobel, awarded in 2002 to Daniel Kahneman for work he and the late Amos Tversky did on "availability bias," roughly the human propensity to judge the validity of a proposition by how easily it comes to mind.
Their insight has been fruitful and multiplied: "Availability cascade" has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; "informational cascade" for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd's beliefs; and "reputational cascade" for the rational incentive to do so.
Mr. Gore clearly understands the game he's playing, judging by his resort to such nondispositive arguments as: "The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona."
Here's exactly the problem that availability cascades pose: What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged "consensus" arrived at their positions by counting heads?
link
So you like pollution?
if gore were gay, then WC would have a hard on for him.
Well Gore does fly on a private jet... which disqualifies him from ever talking about the environment again....
and the huge suvs he rides in...
Gore, isn't he the guy who invented the inter-net? What a guy!
you can ride in an suv if you wear a green tie.
The guy asks a salient question.
Where IS all the science which supports man-made global warming? If there's millions of scientists, all in consensus, there MUST be millions of peer-reviewed publications with irrefutable evidence.
Does someone have a link?
Blasphemer.The guy asks a salient question.
Where IS all the science which supports man-made global warming? If there's millions of scientists, all in consensus, there MUST be millions of peer-reviewed publications with irrefutable evidence.
Does someone have a link?
There IS a consensus, we ARE killing the planet, and those alleged scientists with their so-called research saying otherwise should have all of their ill-gotten credentials from phoney-baloney schools revoked. Skepticism has no place in the Halls of Science.
We must act quickly, while our mother Gaia still clings to life.
So what are Scientists saying?
Scientists beg for climate action
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science WriterWed Dec 5, 6:47 PM ET
YahooFor the first time, more than 200 of the world's leading climate scientists, losing their patience, urged government leaders to take radical action to slow global warming because "there is no time to lose."
A pe ion from at least 215 climate scientists calls for the world to cut in half greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. It is directed at a conference of diplomats meeting in Bali, Indonesia, to negotiate the next global warming treaty. The pe ion, obtained by The Associated Press, is to be announced at a press conference there Wednesday night.
The appeal from scientists follows a pe ion last week from more than 150 global business leaders also demanding the 50 percent cut in greenhouse gases. That is the estimate that scientists calculate would hold future global warming to a little more than a 3-degree Fahrenheit increase and is in line with what the European Union has adopted.
In the past, many of these scientists have avoided calls for action, leaving that to environmental advocacy groups. That dispassionate stance was taken during the release this year of four separate reports by the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But no more.
"It's a grave crisis, and we need to do something real fast," said pe ion signer Jeff Severinghaus, a geosciences professor at the Scripps Ins ution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. "I think the stakes are way way too high to be playing around."
The unprecedented pe ion includes scientists from more than 25 countries and shows that "the climate science community is essentially fed up," said signer Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria in Canada. It includes many co-authors of the intergovernmental climate change panel reports, directors of major American and European climate science research ins utions, a Nobel winner for atmospheric chemistry and a winner of a MacArthur "genius" award.
"A lot of us scientists think the problem needs a lot more serious attention than it's getting and the remedies have to be a lot more radical," said Richard Seager, a scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
The organizers of the pe ion — two Australians, two Germans and an American — would not comment about their efforts before their 11 p.m. EST press conference. But several scientists who signed on talked of losing patience.
"Action needs to be taken and needs to be taken now," said Marika Holland, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who signed on. "The longer we wait, the worse it's going to become."
Negotiators in Bali are working on the initial groundwork for a treaty that would take effect after 2012, the expiration date of the Kyoto Protocol, a climate treat the United States didn't sign. However, no on expects concrete results at the closed-door sessions.
NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt, who signed the pe ion, said "the time for half-measures and the time for voluntary agreements and the time for arguing about 1 percent here and 1 percent there — those things are no longer relevant."
Schmidt noted while scientists have been dismissed by some as unrealistic, the call for a 50 percent emissions cut by business leaders "helps give credence to the idea that it's achievable."
Policy analysts, who weren't part of either pe ion, split on how meaningful the two pe ions are.
What's happening is people are agreeing "that the cost of inaction is on the high side and the cost of action is affordable," said Joseph Romm, a policy analyst at the liberal think-tank Center for American Progress, energy business consultant and trained physicist.
But Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Ins ute said "scientists are in no position to intelligently guide public policy on climate change." Scientists can lay out scenarios, but it is up to economists to weigh the costs and benefits and many of them say the costs of cutting emissions are higher than the benefits, he said.
Granger Morgan, a professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, said he sees "a growing realization among a wide variety of players that we've got to stop talking about this and start some action." But, he added, "I'm not going to hold my breath that we're going to get anything."
See. there is a price tag on your well-being...
Most of this is an accurate statement. The optimal amount of any externality is not ZERO, it is the level at which the marginal costs are equal to the marginal benefits. Reducing pollution to zero would mean we all go to living in mud-huts. A worthy sacrifice?But Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Ins ute said "scientists are in no position to intelligently guide public policy on climate change." Scientists can lay out scenarios, but it is up to economists to weigh the costs and benefits and many of them say the costs of cutting emissions are higher than the benefits, he said.
Right now, the costs of cutting emissions do outweigh the benefits, but that can and will change with continued technological progress and effective public policy (more efficient application of tradable emissions credits, for example, would be a great start).
it seemed more disturbing in the original red.
What really kills me about the "scientific consensus" is just that. They are scientists. How many of them are climatologists?
Would you have a civil engineer state a stance that requires an electronic engineer’s opinion?
Are climatologists not scientists?
Define "climatologist".
Specifically, I mean. What is the degree (or degrees) in. What was the degree plan? Describe the sub-specialties, if any. What areas of research, in what fields?
The term "climatologist" is meaningless to me.
cli·ma·tol·o·gy
–noun
the science that deals with the phenomena of climates or climatic conditions.
[Origin: 1835–45; climate + -o- + -logy]
—Related forms
cli·ma·to·log·ic /ˌklaɪmətlˈɒdʒɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[klahy-muh-tl-oj-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, cli·ma·to·log·i·cal, adjective
cli·ma·to·log·i·cal·ly, adverb
cli·ma·tol·o·gist, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
cli·ma·tol·o·gy (klī'mə-tŏl'ə-jē) Pronunciation Key
n. The meteorological study of climates and their phenomena.
cli'ma·to·log'ic (-mə-tl-ŏj'ĭk), cli'ma·to·log'i·cal (-ĭ-kəl) adj., cli'ma·to·log'i·cal·ly adv., cli'ma·tol'o·gist n.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
climatologist
noun
someone who is expert in climatology
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
You have two examples. Are you advancing the idea that anyone who calls themselves (or is called by someone else) a "climatologist" has in fact studied in one of these programs?
listen sucker, take your self-importance elsewhere. Considering I don't think you've ever seen the inside of a college, based on your prior posts, much less a science classroom, you can take your little judgements and shove them up your rather large and worn-out ass.
I am quite sure I have had sufficient math and science in my life to be able to evaluate studies, thank you very much.
Obviously, you do not have the intelligence or experience to know that the term "climatologist" is a generic, meaningless, catch-all term.
But thank you for playing.
Okay, want to really know what havoc global warming has
caused. Just click on the link below. Over 600+ links to
everything under the sun (another cause for global warming, more
than likely the only cause) that was caused by global warming.
The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling
Yes, but not all scientists are climatologists!
Like the square and the rectangle. All squares are rectangles, but only rectangles with four equal sides are square.
Nasa images show climate change from space
On June 11, 2007 the cameras on the AIM satellite returned some of the first data do enting noctilucent clouds over the Arctic regions of Europe and North America
Footage of cloud patterns from space can measure temperature changes
Times OnlineClouds on the outer edge of the Earth’s atmosphere are operating as an “exquisite” temperature gauge monitoring climate change.
Images from a Nasa mission into space have shown for the first time that noctilucent clouds, which are only created at certain temperatures, appear to be increasing in frequency and extent.
The "night-shining" clouds can be viewed from Earth, but the new satellite images show a global overview of the clouds enabling scientists to measure them.
Build-up of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the upper atmosphere may be responsible for the cloud changes, scientists said.
Increased carbon dioxide cools the upper atmosphere and makes it easier for ice crystals to form the "polar mesospheric" clouds.
"The clouds are an exquisite thermometer," said Scott Bailey, from Virginia Polytechnic Ins ute and State University.
"The magnitude of the temperature changes is only about five degrees Fahrenheit (3C). So, a very small change in temperature leads to a dramatic change in cloud behaviour. We conclude from that that these clouds are a very sensitive measure of temperature change."
Nasa's Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere (AIM) project was launched in April to study the clouds, made of ice crystals formed around dust particles more than 50 miles above Earth's surface. Sitting 600km above the Earth, the spacecraft is able to build a global picture of the clouds.
"It won't affect people, but we're causing the outer part of the atmosphere to change, which means we are changing the entire atmosphere, which is important to know," said James Russell III, from Hampton University in Virginia.
Dr Russell told the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting on Monday that AIM's three instruments had given a completely new perspective on the clouds.
"We'd never seen a picture of the whole polar region before, to see these clouds on a daily basis. That in itself is a revelation - it shows how variable they are from day to day, from orbit to orbit," he added.
The award is a joke. Look at all who have won it within the last 15 years. Jimmy Cater, Yasser Arafat, the list goes on lmfao.
Nothing more needs to be said.
I hope the world IS ending so it can wipe out all of these greenfreaks.
Last edited by BonnerDynasty; 12-11-2007 at 07:08 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
