Bush ok's Gulf of Mexico Drilling

[lamont]

BUT, Scientists, like Doctors, only make educated "guesses". 140 years of Data, based on the age of our earth, I dont think even Deming could get any SPC out of that.........

I've already posted data from ice cores for the past 650,000 years.

 

[lamont]

"Off Setting" meaning that there is some off setting when we put out fires to off set the CO2 that our Cars, TV's, Computers, Toasters and Breathing creates.

Is there no off set there?

Swamped by the way we're creating more burning than we're putting out:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-08-06.asp

 

[Mafiaman]

how many times do we have to debunk this myth?

Please do it just once more Andy, Because even some of the strongest supporters of of what was once the "Global Warming" crowed when faced with record snow falls and early record cold spells are now calling it a "climate shift"

And please explain it in a way that will support your argument, Not answers like "everyone knows" tell us who they are, You always reply with vague blanketing answers without foundation and back it up with comment meant to scare rebuttal away like "every educated person knows"

 

[TimAZ]

I've already posted data from ice cores for the past 650,000 years.

I've been curious about the ice core climate record. The record appears to show no period during which CO2 was at present levels. My question is "why would it?" If current CO2 levels are causing a massive melt off, I would not expect to find ice records of the current climate in the future. It just seems to be an unrealiable source in looking for a time that lacks ice. Just my $.02. Blast away

 

[Bill51]

how many times do we have to debunk this myth?

about 90% of all concerned scientists agree. the myth that there is no meanigful consensus on this is just that, a myth

the minority here is overwhelmingly outmatched ... it's not even funny

If science were a democracy than we’d still all believe the earth is flat. If this were such a truth, why would some of the younger members at the American Geophysical Union meeting in SF have a conference on how to present politically incorrect findings without sacrificing your career, and it mostly dealt with any findings that don’t support the global warming folks. If there is such a consciences, why do so many scientists exposing manmade CO2 global warming feel compelled to lie in order to make their point – case in point the Senate hearings needed to get the raw data we bought as taxpayers from a scientist who was disgraced by what was found – yet is still considered an expert.

For example, why do global warming alarmists always point to the University of Colorado study showing a loss of Antarctica ice mass from 2002-2005, but ignore and discount the University of Missouri study from 1992-2003 showing a ice mass gain and then claim the science is in consensus? Are Buffalos considered that much more scientific and intelligent than Tigers? Is 3 years data that much more accurate than 11 years of data? Why do they claim Antarctica is warming based on a study done by the British Antarctica Society using weather balloons, when the NASA satellite data for the same period indicates a cooling trend? Are a few weather balloons that much more accurate than hundreds of data point measured by satellites? Are members of the British Antarctica Society that much more intelligent and better scientists than NASA?

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf

Just for a little reference of facts though you’ll probably question the motive and integrity of the author rather than admit that there is still a debate about the science.

A true majority with good science should have no reason to lie or distort the facts.

 

[Mafiaman]

Swamped by the way we're creating more burning than we're putting out:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-08-06.asp

Please site an agency the does not hide their registry, if they are legit why use a proxy corp?

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

 

[Bill51]

Please site an agency the does not hide their registry, if they are legit why use a proxy corp?

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Since the alarmists are always quick to dismiss any scientist based on who they work for or where they might have received some funding, it’s even more telling that the article is written by the press secretary of a legal organization (formerly known as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund) that receives a portion of it’s funding through the court awards it collects from the US government and corporations it sues on behalf of the environment. In a nutshell, the legal group writes press releases claiming an environmental violation or hazard exists, they get the public to donate money to fix the problem, and the fix is they sue someone and use the money they receive to look for the next entity to sue. Not sure that is the best way to solve the problem because last I knew I’d never seen a lawyer out installing a scrubber on a power plant or replanting a burned out forest – they leave that to the companies they sued to do with the money they have left over after the suit.

They even have their own special interest lobby in DC that makes sure they can still sue everyone no matter how frivolous the previous suit was.

In fact, because lawsuits can be so effective, we have a team of policy experts in Washington, DC that work hand-in-hand with our attorneys to stop legislative backlash that often results from court decisions, and attacks to the very laws we use.

What I find interesting about the article is that it admits this natural fire contributed to over 40% of all the CO2 emissions for the year while almost doubling the yearly average yet there was no appreciable spike in the global CO2 levels in the atmosphere for the year. Sounds to me like this great planet we live on is more resilient than many would have us believe.

 

[H2Andy]

"i'm sorry you see this as arguing"

(Sorry, I just had to.)

oh, you're so lucky i'm on triple dosage of my anti-pyschotic medicine and my wife locked up my gun cabinet and threw away the key....




everybody else: hey, if you want to believe there's any meaningful scientific support against global warming ... go for it ...

do you guys also believe evolution is "controversial" and not "supported" by scientists?

here's some reading if you're interested:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

Despite recent allegations to the contrary, these statements from the leadership of scientific societies and the IPCC accurately reflect the state of the art in climate science research.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

the blogsphere can roil all it wants, but the people who understand this issue better than anyone else have spoken.

 

[H2Andy]

Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse.

"There's an overwhelming consensus among scientists," said UW climate researcher David Battisti, who also was dubious about early claims of greenhouse warming.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002549346_globewarm11.html

 

[H2Andy]

As a result of an enormous scientific effort over the past 10-15 years to better understand the climate system and its relationship to human activities, there now is a growing consensus among mainstream scientists about the reality of global warming. As Dr. Robert Watson, then Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in 2001,

" The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is already occurring and that future change is inevitable."

This captures the conclusions of the most recent comprehensive assessment of the state of climate change science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UN-sponsored, international body of scientists is charged with synthesizing every five years what the scientific community has learned about our changing climate and its impacts on people and the environment.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/science-of-global-warming.html