Inadequate IPCC models produce the ultimate deception about man made global warming

The changes can't be looked at in a vacuum. They have affects to economies and businesses and lives. There is wide variation even among the hippie-few (although it seems like the majority to me) as to what those changes should be. It's all about line drawing. The stronger the changes the larger the effects. And often those effects are unknown. The DDT thing is a good example b/c presumptively well meaning people made a change that resulted in deaths. By some estimates that number was as high 98 million deaths. IMO that's a pretty terrible result.

I would not consider myself a hippie but I would guess that my carbon foot print is smaller than the vast majority of environmentalists. But I'd like to believe that I've learned enough from history to not blindly follow every latest scientific theory. Despite how it's presented in the media, most of these scientific conclusions are theoretical. Unfortunately most people (and even many scientists) keep treating these theories as facts. And then in their ignorance they push for govt. policy based on these theories that aren't necessarily in our best interest.

 

Sun spot cycles have been used since the 1920s in Australia to provide reasonably accurate long term forecasts of general weather patterns. Recent Swedish research has shown how sun spot cycles affect cloud formation, which provides the theoretical basis to support the observed phenemona.

Sun spot cycles have been shown both reductively and predictively to correlate to actual weather patterns.

No anthropomorphic greenhouse gas model has been shown to be reductively correct.

 

Category: Global Warming
Posted on: January 20, 2009 9:37 AM, by Tim Lambert

Eos has just published the results of a survey of 3146 Earth Scientists conducted by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. The graph below shows the results for this question:

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?



Deltoid

 

So, the closest group to being "torn" on the issue are the general public, most of which don't know the difference between cumulus and nimbus clouds. Typical.

 

They might be correct.

But scientific fact will never be determined by a vote.

 

True, it won't. It will be determined by evidence through observation and experimentation. Yet, that doesn't seem good enough for your side either. So, what's left? What would have to be discovered for you to agree that man is playing a major role in global warming? Specifically, what number, stat or evidence are you waiting for?

 

What is "my side"?

 

The "humans aren't causing/play a major part in global warming.global warming doesn't exist" side. Nw that we got that out of the way...care to answer the question?

 

You don't know a thing about me and yet you seek to put me in some box so that you can attack me rather than debate the actual issue.

Thne issue that I raised was one of consensus being absolutely meaningless to scientific truth.

Are you disputing that?

When Galileo challenged the geocentric consensus of his day was he wrong because the overwhelming majority disagreed with him?


BTW, if you continue to seek to pigeonhole me here is my biography as realtes to the environment:

As a child of the 1970's we were raised and weaned on the Clean Air, Clean Water movement and we cried along with the Indian in the iconic ad:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4ozVMxzNAA"]YouTube - The Crying Indian Commercial[/ame]

I was in DC at the time and participated in a great deal of community clean-ups and Arbor Day plantings.

As a teenager I spent all of my summers working on my uncles farm in Nebraska. While there besides helping to plant, fertilize, irrigate, weed, and harvest thousands of acres of crops that help to feed the world I also planted thousands of trees in shelter belts.

I've since participated in Boston Harbor clean-ups and Biscayne Bay clean-ups. We also religiously observe Arbor Day by taking the whole family to plant trees or other plants.

I can guarantee you that even if I live to 150 my carbon footprint is negative.

As an adult my viewpoint has changed as I have grown more educated about the issues.

The mainstream environmental movement has become dangerously short-sighted and I have many disagreements with them. They focus only upon wind, solar, and bio-fuels.

I have grown to become a vocal proponent of nuclear power which is a clean, cheap form of energy. france is currently getting over 70% of their power from nuclear. We should also.

I also believe that we need to invest a great deal of money in clean coal research. Whether we like it or not, China is now the world's number one polluter and they are opening one new coal plant per week. India is not far behind that pace.

If you really want to do some good figure out a cost effective way to retrofit
existing coal plants to make them much cleaner. This will give us the greatest return.

We should all fight for cleaner air and cleaner water to leave to our children whether or not we believe that man is contributing significantly to global warming.

BTW, it is undoubtable that the earth warmed slightly during the last century.

But, I am not sure that we are not now entering a cooling phase.

And a cooling phase can be far more devastating than a warming phase.

 

I didn't attack you, I asked you a question, and a legit one at that.

No. However, CNC didn't make that contention either. So not sure why you felt the need to make a point about something nobody was saying. The point he was trying to illustrate, IMO, was that scientists who's field of study is in the disciplines that deal with climate are overwhelmingly in the global warming caused by people camp. Which considering the arguments up until this point was completely on target and topic. What you said was not.

No, but that example is more in favor the GWCBP camp, then not.

All that is great, but it seems pretty clear you are in the GWNCBP camp, which is...what I said. Nowhere did I say you were in favor of pollution.

 

Great, if it is so important for to you pigeonhle people go right ahead. It says a great deal more about you than you have said about me.

 

Zach.. Finacious.. please fella's, dont get personal, and please do not be thinned skinned and take insult where none was intended. I would seriously prefer that we don't label each other at all..

 

I hear you.

Not to worry. I've given my viewpoint and have nothing further to say on the matter.

 

OK fine, I'm sorry I assumed you were in the camp that doesn't think humans are responsible for global warming.

So, I'll just ask. Are you or aren't you?

 

If you follow the links to the actual full report you will find that the survey was sent to 10,257 earth scientists but only 3,156 replied.

In other words the overwhelming majority of scientists polled chose not to respond.

 

I am. Was there a question you wanted to ask one of us "Flat Earthers"?

 

Yes.

What would have to be discovered for you to agree that man is playing a major role in global warming? Specifically, what number, stat or evidence are you waiting for?

 

I read them all and don't care that 7k didn't respond, if they had an opinion one way or the other they would have voted.

 

I hear you but then it is misleading to say that an overwhelming majority of scientists agree.

The only real claim is that a majority of the scientists that responded agree.

Personally, I think it has to be a little concerning that 2/3 of the scientists polled chose not to answer.

 

scientists are wierd.. look at Celtkin..

I have posted some stuff in the next thread about the ice sheet, there is some stuff there that may interest you.

 

Wow, I don't even know where to start.

For one, I guess I would have to be shown how C02 has completely changed its properties, and is now doing what it has never done before in our entire half a billion year geologic record........drive Earth's temperatures.

Or how about showing that the rise in temps over the last 100 years was even due to the greenhouse effect? Great evidence to the contrary.

There are tons more, but these should be a good start.