Debate on ManMade Climate Change Has Just Begun

[White_Male_Canada]

The science as consensus view was originally placed forward by Dr Naomi Oreskes who analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Benny Peiser, senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University was dubious. After hiw own carefull analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly. Science Magazine rejected his review yet printed Oreskes`. Dr Peiser ,
"There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action...But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."

Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".

Prof. David Bellamy, the president of Plantlife International and of the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts, forced out early after stating, "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed,” .
Stephanie Hilborne, chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts," We are not happy with his line on climate change."

William M. Gray, Colorado State University professor of atmospheric science, thinks that the biggest contributor to global warming is the fact that "we're coming out of a little ice age." and that " Consensus science isn't science."

David Deming, University of Oklahoma after publishing a paper on bore hole data, " With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. So one of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period."

Prof. Bob Carter, James Cook University , " Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention... The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

Dr. Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg, " The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology,”

[guyone]

':mrgreen:'

[loki]

Nature is not static,it changes. The climate has been warmer and colder than it is now. To say we have altered it to a significant degree is debatable at best. When ever you hear about this subject you hear of "a concensus of scientist say". Well i hate to inform some people of this but science is not a concensus,it is fact(look up concensus).It has been proven that at least one volcanic eruption that has happened in the last one hundred and fifty years released more greenhouse gases than all of human history combined..Plus i go by the belief that we are a part of nature and the cosmos itself.Anything we do IS a part of nature(or do you consider us beyond it). Without change nature stagnates and dies.Plus have you ever though of the fact that more carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases have brought higher crop yields to a growing humanity(in the billions).One must way the pluses and benefits,not to mention fact or hype or our role in the universe.

[chefmike]

My, my, scraping the bottom of the barrel, eh "Prof.".

"Dr Benny Peiser, senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University"
John Moores is a bit of a joke as Universities go (and I'm being polite), it was a technical college until 15 years ago. The British Higher Education system was dumbed down significantly by the last Conservative Government.

"Prof." David Bellamy holds an Honorary Professor for "Adult and Continuing Education". He only gamed fame in the U.K. because of his broadcasting: many newspaper interviews, very little peer-reviewed publications; sounds familiar? He's been getting a bit long in the tooth for quite a bit now, a bit like yourself also. Its been a long time since he did any real science. He is also very right-wing, also like yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy#Views_on_global_warming

As for Dr. Tim Ball, well we all know about him, eh "Prof." (allegedly). Shouldn't it be "formerly" of the University of Winnipeg also?

I know nothing about the other 4 you cited but what's the bets they are dubious also? Every scientist has some sort of view on aspects of their science, it doesn't mean their correct. There will always be those who disagree with the mainstream view, both for good (i.e. scientific) and bad (i.e. don't know enough about the branch of their science their commenting on, or it enhances their career/bank-balance) reasons.

[chefmike]

Whoa, am I getting tired of posting the following:

FACT: Greenhouse gases trap heat.
FACT: Man is producing ever larger quantities of greenhouse gases.
LOGICALLY: Man must be contributing to global warming. The only debate left is how big an impact and what we should do about it.

From the following link:
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/1_global_warming.htm
"It is accepted by all, including climate change sceptics, that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to increased global warming."
"Because of the "above normal" level of CO2 already in the atmosphere we are already committed to a certain amount of global warming because the excess CO2 will remain effective for many years. In addition the continued burning of fossil fuels will continue to add to the atmospheric burden of CO2. This warming will inevitably cause some climate change."
Also see the following link for more on the mainstream scientific theories regarding global warming:
http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=15690

"Well i hate to inform some people of this but science is not a concensus,it is fact(look up concensus)." loki
No, I'm afraid your wrong, when something cannot be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, such as a 100% causal relationship between man-made CO2 and increases in global temperatures, there is only consensus/theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"It has been proven that at least one volcanic eruption that has happened in the last one hundred and fifty years released more greenhouse gases than all of human history combined." loki
Very true loki, nature can screw us six-ways to Sunday is she wants to. That does not mean we should not be responsible for mankinds actions. The relatively mild climate we see on Earth currently can turn very bad very quickly if something such as runaway global warming, or the failure of the North Atlantic Conveyer Belt, were to happen. Our actions may trigger such events. Billions of humans may die!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Further_global_warming_. 28positive_feedback.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Shutdown_of_thermohaline _circulation

"Plus i go by the belief that we are a part of nature and the cosmos itself.Anything we do IS a part of nature(or do you consider us beyond it)." loki
Ah, the old, "I am a child and not responsible for my actions so I can do anything I like" mind-set. Science has always been about the advancement of mankind.

"Plus have you ever though of the fact that more carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases have brought higher crop yields to a growing humanity(in the billions)." loki
Crop yields have improved because of increasing temperatures but this will reverse if temperatures continue to increase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Decline_of_agriculture

[loki]

If it cannot be proved it is not science but theory.Theory is is faith based and so is religion.

[loki]

If it cannot be proved it is not science but theory.Theory is is faith based and so is religionP.S. sorry about the double post.I had a comp malfunction.

[loki]

Touche.
http://crichton-official.com/fear/

We all have answers.Who is right? Only time and death will decide.

[loki]

We could both go on and on.I admire your tenacity and thouroughness.

[White_Male_Canada]

Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.
VK Raina, glaciologist, associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly.
Raina, "Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions.”
Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology maintained that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers studied so far by him.
MN Koul, geologist, engaged in studying glacier dynamics in J&K and Himachal holds similar views,stating that his research on Kol glacier ( Paddar, J&K) and Naradu (HP), revealed both the glaciers have not changed much in the past two decades.



FACT: Greenhouse gases trap heat.
FACT: Man is producing ever larger quantities of greenhouse gases.
LOGICALLY: Man must be contributing to global warming. The only debate left is how big an impact and what we should do about it.

Growing weary of repeating yourself, you should be because it is not logic. It is a logical fallacy, Post hoc propter hoc. CO2 is not exponential and never can be, it is logarithmic. CO2 antedates temperature fluctuations and does not precede them.


CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere. Of that only 3.4% is man-made.

Mankind IS NOT the primary cause of GW now or for instance during the Medieval period when it was actually warmer than today. Mankind was neither responsible for the little ice age either or the warming taking place on Mars or Pluto today.


when something cannot be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, such as a 100% causal relationship between man-made CO2 and increases in global temperatures, there is only consensus/theory.

The IPCC claimed climate change to be "very likely" 90% man-made. Back in `58 Britain’s top nuclear physicist said he was 90% certain that he had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. Couldn`t have been more wrong.
All scientific statistical tests are subject to a 95% confidence interval and must be proven with objective data and analysis Therefore, the IPCC`s “very likely” claim is opnion, not scientific fact.


Crop yields have improved because of increasing temperatures but this will reverse if temperatures continue to increase.

Farmers actually pump CO2 into the soil to increase crop yield. Once again, CO2 is not exponential and can never be, it is logarithmic. CO2 antedates temperature fluctuations and does not precede them.

[muhmuh]

Growing weary of repeating yourself, you should be because it is not logic. It is a logical fallacy, Post hoc propter hoc. CO2 is not exponential and never can be, it is logarithmic. CO2 antedates temperature fluctuations and does not precede them.

dont you ever get tired of posting things you dont know anything about?

[specialk]

Growing weary of repeating yourself, you should be because it is not logic. It is a logical fallacy, Post hoc propter hoc. CO2 is not exponential and never can be, it is logarithmic. CO2 antedates temperature fluctuations and does not precede them.

dont you ever get tired of posting things you dont know anything about?

MuhMuh...here is WMC's area of expertice>>>>

[White_Male_Canada]

The climate change model with climate change induced feedbacks

These computer models produce those shocking results by including +feedbacks so that small temperature increments expected from CO2 creates greater than what would be natural water vapor which makes it appear as exponential rather than logarithmic increases.
Please detail the empirical +feedbacks the computer modelers are using to artificially inflate results.


computer models have been constructed giving a rise in average atmospheric temperature of between 2 and 6 degrees centigrade by the end of the century i.e. by 2100

Actually these guesstimations are wilder, they range from 0.2 °C to 6.3 °C with +feedback fed in for the preferred results. It is self-evident these models are nothing more than estimations made from rigged computer models.

Your Hydrogen article is laden with maybes and whatifs, “could lead…may…If the Amazon rainforest burns…could be…”

That is not science, that is speculation based on supposition. Basically, fear-mongering.

[chefmike]

Growing weary of repeating yourself, you should be because it is not logic. It is a logical fallacy, Post hoc propter hoc. CO2 is not exponential and never can be, it is logarithmic. CO2 antedates temperature fluctuations and does not precede them.

dont you ever get tired of posting things you dont know anything about?

Not a fucking chance...

WMChickenhawk has often been called out on this board by members who know him from other boards...or members from this board who are familiar with his tired, trollish antics... not to mention his penchant for "editing"/lying about statistics!

*see Quinn and thombergeron's posts for starters*

*and more recently, trish*

[White_Male_Canada]

Growing weary of repeating yourself, you should be because it is not logic. It is a logical fallacy, Post hoc propter hoc. CO2 is not exponential and never can be, it is logarithmic. CO2 antedates temperature fluctuations and does not precede them.

dont you ever get tired of posting things you dont know anything about?

Not a fucking chance...

WMChickenhawk has often been called out on this board by members who know him from other boards...or members from this board who are familiar with his tired, trollish antics... not to mention his penchant for "editing"/lying about statistics!

*see Quinn and thombergeron's posts for starters*

*and more recently, trish*

You forgot to include yourself on that list. 8)

Whole lotta BS in one short post of yours sport. First, no one knows me although they`ve tried to stalk me , only to embarrass themselves with false info they pulled outta their asses. Who I am is irrelevant. And most importantly, I`ve yet to meet a leftist who can deny simple facts, like the Constitution and basic science. This isn`t about personalities, it`s about facts. And the fact is you ' Feel', we think. That is why you lose in the arena of ideas.

Keep trying sport. 8)

[muhmuh]

This isn`t about personalities, it`s about facts. And the fact is you

...havent got the slightest clue what an exponential rise is

[thombergeron]

*see Quinn and thombergeron's posts for starters*

*and more recently, trish*

Hey, thanks for noticing, swabbie.

I don't pretend to believe that I can actually influence the way Michael thinks (or doesn't, as is generally the case), since his head has been so firmly planted inside of his own asshole for such an extended period of time.

But it is important to counter falsehoods in any forum, lest some innocent soul happen across Michael's nonsense and not realize that it's bullcrap.

[Quinn]

*see Quinn and thombergeron's posts for starters*

*and more recently, trish*

Hey, thanks for noticing, swabbie.

I don't pretend to believe that I can actually influence the way Michael thinks (or doesn't, as is generally the case), since his head has been so firmly planted inside of his own asshole for such an extended period of time.

But it is important to counter falsehoods in any forum, lest some innocent soul happen across Michael's nonsense and not realize that it's bullcrap.

LMAO.... Thom, I couldn't have said it any better myself.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

Now your definitely talking BS, when you set yourself up as a guru/god on something and reveal who you are, then you can't blame anyone for checking you out.

Common sense sport. This ain`t rocket science. You leftists take these puny little web forums much too seriously and personally. It`s a debate forum, don`t like it, get the fuck out. 8)

"And most importantly, I`ve yet to meet a leftist who can deny simple facts, like the Constitution and basic science." WMC

WTF does that mean, I can only conclude that it's just more drivel from you?

Ask quinn aka the Village Idiot.

"And the fact is you ' Feel', we think." WMC

Your mixing up emotions with morals, which is not surprising coming from someone who is as morally bankrupt as you appear to be.
Leftists have morals ? You confuse morals with moral relativism.

"That is why you lose in the arena of ideas." WMC

If you think your winning anything, your seriously deluded. But then I guess that's what your exaggeration of your qualifications is all about (allegedly). I've not been here that long but from what I've seen you've convinced no-one of jack-shit, only thatyour a fraud

The left`s achilles heel is that they always take things personally because we attack your god,that being government since you have no other. 8)