Time Magazine Compares Iwo Jima to Global Warming

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Those scientists are not a majority and their scientific credentials are in question.

You read that entire webpage, checked into all of their credentials, and made that determination in 1 minute

I never said they were a majority. I said that it is false to say that the vast majority agree with the mainstream theory...that GW is man-made.

Frank

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by JeffXD

The IPCC claims are in danger of being totally disproven. This particular article Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theoryis now about a year old, and I there is more and more evidence that global warming is not occuring. I am wondering if the link I provided that shows the data coming from the NASA satellite was even read. Doesnt seem so.

"Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

I aint making this stuff up. Just because NASA hasn't held a news conference that they were wrong doesnt mean they weren't.

How about this on the "scientific consensus"
"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
DailyTech - Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

It's the conservatives versus NASA. Hmmm...

Did you know the author of that survey is not even a scientist or climatologist but an endocrine surgeon?

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

You read that entire webpage, checked into all of their credentials, and made that determination in 1 minute

I never said they were a majority. I said that it is false to say that the vast majority agree with the mainstream theory...that GW is man-made.

Frank

Then, I disagree with you. There is a concerted effort on the part of the oil companies, particularly Exxon, free market fundamentalists and haters of Al Gore to create doubt in the minds of the public that there is scientific consensus on man's role in global warming. Many of these same people and organizations were behind the fight to protect the tobacco companies.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

Then, I disagree with you. There is a concerted effort on the part of the oil companies, particularly Exxon, free market fundamentalists and haters of Al Gore to create doubt in the minds of the public that there is scientific consensus on man's role in global warming. Many of these same people and organizations were behind the fight to protect the tobacco companies.

How does more opinions from you posted as facts with no sources prove that the vast majority of scientists agree with man-made GW?

Even if there is an effort on the part of big oil (and I don't doubt there is) to discredit man-made GW, how does that prove that the "vast majority" of scientists agree with man-made GW?

I think you are off on a tangent now.

Frank

[JeffXD]

Originally Posted by Etta Place

It's the conservatives versus NASA. Hmmm...

Did you know the author of that survey is not even a scientist or climatologist but an endocrine surgeon?

The NASA SAT data has introduced new info into the climate models that was not available before. I am talking about the data that flies through space from the SAT. That data when plugged into the climate models is showing that atmospheric processes are compensating for any warming that is occurring. I don't care about conservatives or liberals or anyone else here. The new data is indicating something different now. Thats why new data is constantly collected. Now, if there are some scientwits that are too proud to make use of newly collected data because it conflicts with thier earlier conclusions, then thats too damn bad. That is bad science.

As for the other report, who cares who it was written by. That doesn't impact the data either. If we want to discuss who wrote what and who didnt... The IPCC report was written by alot less than thousands of scientists, and the part that is most commonly referenced by the media, the "Summary for Policymakers" was written by politicians. In fact, the IPCC report is more UN garbage.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

How does more opinions from you posted as facts with no sources prove that the vast majority of scientists agree with man-made GW?

Even if there is an effort on the part of big oil (and I don't doubt there is) to discredit man-made GW, how does that prove that the "vast majority" of scientists agree with man-made GW?

I think you are off on a tangent now.

Frank

I'm saying that the goal of these "skeptics" is to create doubt about the consensus. The fact that they are doing this doesn't "prove" there is a consensus. But they wouldn't be doing it if there weren't a vast amount of scientific data supporting global climate change that is influenced by man's activities on the planet.

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.


Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.

'There is no consensus' | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

[JeffXD]

I forgot to mention that I am done with this. One can only provide so much information in a futile attempt to persuade an individual to consider an alternate viewpoint. Not only that, you know what they say about arguing on the internet and the special olympics.

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by JeffXD

The NASA SAT data has introduced new info into the climate models that was not available before. I am talking about the data that flies through space from the SAT. That data when plugged into the climate models is showing that atmospheric processes are compensating for any warming that is occurring. I don't care about conservatives or liberals or anyone else here. The new data is indicating something different now. Thats why new data is constantly collected. Now, if there are some scientwits that are too proud to make use of newly collected data because it conflicts with thier earlier conclusions, then thats too damn bad. That is bad science.

As for the other report, who cares who it was written by. That doesn't impact the data either. If we want to discuss who wrote what and who didnt... The IPCC report was written by alot less than thousands of scientists, and the part that is most commonly referenced by the media, the "Summary for Policymakers" was written by politicians. In fact, the IPCC report is more UN garbage.

What's your stake in this?

What new data?

[DanTheEldest]

Originally Posted by JeffXD

I forgot to mention that I am done with this. One can only provide so much information in a futile attempt to persuade an individual to consider an alternate viewpoint. Not only that, you know what they say about arguing on the internet and the special olympics.

You gotta stop bringing this contradictory stuff up, man....I've got a carbon-credit racket in the preliminary stages and you're gonna step all over my bottom line.

[Frenchy]

Ya know what's funny. If Gore was a Conservative Republican, y'all would be on board!