Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
July 24, 2014, 04:38:48 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Beemaster's official FACEBOOK page
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Earth Day  (Read 4779 times)
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2009, 04:23:14 PM »

Actually, the science behind it is quite solid.  There's really no doubt that certain gasses do retain more heat than others.  There is also no doubt that current atmospheric levels of those gasses is higher today than they were in the past, or in fact, at any time in the atmospheric record that we've got.  There is also no doubt that global mean temperatures have been rising to the point where we can see each decade being hotter than the previous.  You don't seem to be disputing those facts however... you're just assuming that it won't matter because the sun will magically cool off to save us which is junk science since our entire solar record is in length, less than 1% of our atmospheric record, and because we're actually supposed to be entering the 11 year solar maximum cycle.  Using anecdotal (at best) evidence that people staring at the sun during the L.I.a. as proof that all the imperical evidence gathered with today's instruments won't matter sounds like the very definition of junk science to me; and saying that you go off of images of a caveman in your head doesn't do much to make your case either.

PS - Not to insult you or anything, but I do consider you a neocon, even if you don't consider yourself to be one.  GW didn't consider himself a neocon either, and I'm not so sure he was prior to 9/11, but he certainly was after that (I personally think he lost his mind due to that event). 

Anyway, if 100% of the climatologists, and 90some-odd % of all scientists aren't going to convince you, neither am I... and you're certainly not very convincing to me, so this can only go downhill.  Besides, I really don't even care all that much about global warming.  I have other reasons for being an environmentalist which I outlined in my response to Jerrymac.  Global warming is an issue that will affect my son and his children's generation much more than mine.  There are far too many much more pressing issues affecting us now to get so caught up with something that isn't all that bad right now.  So let's just agree to disagree.  You can go on thinking I am wrong, and I will go on thinking you're wrong and we'll both have avoided a pointless arguement and waste of time.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2009, 05:45:45 PM »

you can not offend me by being wrong.  you can not prove your point by putting forward things as fact, which are not.

Quote
Anyway, if 100% of the climatologists, and 90some-odd % of all scientists aren't going to convince


the above, for instance, is wrong.  if you refuse to do your homework, and suck down crap that is fed to you by the liberal press, you are correct, we can not have a conversation on this subject.  i suggest you do your homework and really know what a "fact" is before you try to present one.

i am curious to know what makes me a neocon in your mind?
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2009, 01:07:48 AM »

you can not offend me by being wrong.  you can not prove your point by putting forward things as fact, which are not.

Quote
Anyway, if 100% of the climatologists, and 90some-odd % of all scientists aren't going to convince


the above, for instance, is wrong.  if you refuse to do your homework, and suck down crap that is fed to you by the liberal press, you are correct, we can not have a conversation on this subject.  i suggest you do your homework and really know what a "fact" is before you try to present one.



I suggest you do the same with regard to research considering that the same study of the sun that you're counting on also concluded that at best it might provide partial temporary relief.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/24/spaceexploration.theobserver

Quote
The net result of this sunspot decrease could be to lead to an increase in cloud formation and also to a reduction in ultra-violet radiation reaching the atmosphere. Overall, it would bring about a 0.2C decline in global temperatures, according to Solanki and his colleagues.

That is only a tenth of the rise now predicted to grip the world over the next few decades, however. Not enough to save the Earth from a sweltering, overheated fate but possibly enough to provide a little breathing space in which humanity could take remedial action.

'Just who might benefit most from any reduction in solar energy is hard to say at present,' added Professor Haigh. 'The Little Ice Age was mainly felt in western Europe and the rest of the world was relatively unaffected - possibly because meteorological effects cause solar radiation reductions to have localised impacts. That could happen again, though it is difficult to predict where.'

However, not every expert on solar radiation agrees with the idea that sunspot numbers are set to decline. Other scientists - using the same data - have come to a different conclusion. They predict that numbers will increase over the next decade.

'We predict a 30 to 50 per cent increase,' said Mausumi Dikpati, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research's High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colorado. If such an increase occurs, there could then be a strengthening of global temperature rises.


i am curious to know what makes me a neocon in your mind?


Probably the same thing that makes global warming invalid in your mind, and why are we still having this debate?  We're still where we started.  I assure you that you have made exactly 0 impact on trying to change my mind, and I'm well aware that I have had the same effect with you. 
Logged
pdmattox
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1118


Location: lake city, florida


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2009, 01:40:29 AM »

I believe global warming is not man made. The global warming scare tatics is a way to tax people and control/tax our way of life. There are cycles in weather that is not just manipulated by things on earth but there is polar shift and solar flares and solar winds etc.. Take a step back and just think about this for a minute.
Logged

SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #24 on: April 26, 2009, 01:51:35 AM »

I believe global warming is not man made. The global warming scare tatics is a way to tax people and control/tax our way of life. There are cycles in weather that is not just manipulated by things on earth but there is polar shift and solar flares and solar winds etc.. Take a step back and just think about this for a minute.

Yes, there is a good bit of it that is cyclical and or natural... what's not cyclical or natural however, is all the carbon dioxide that we've been producing.  It would be ignorant of us to assume that nothing we do has any effect.  Especially since carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere today (at slightly over 380ppm) are much higher than they ever have been in the full extent of the records we have which go back a pretty long way.

But there's no reason to get hung up over global warming; it's only one small issue pestering us.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 03:24:57 AM by SgtMaj » Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2009, 05:59:20 AM »

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best,” Austin told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009.   

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2009, 11:30:02 PM »

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best,” Austin told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009.   

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport


Wow, did you read that list?  It's like a who's who of people who have nothing to do with Climate science.  It's even funnier that they consider teleprompter readers (yes, tv weathermen) as scientists.  Well, you know what?  It might be funnier that everyone but those four tv weathermen were geologists and physicists.  Guess they're mad their research projects just aren't getting any funding because the funding was diverted to other more important projects.  Like I said earlier... 100% of climatologists, and 90 some-odd % of all other scientists.  Thanks for reinforcing what I said.
Logged
Brian D. Bray
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7369


Location: Anacortes, WA 98221

I really look like this, just ask Cindi.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2009, 12:03:02 AM »

The Scientist have now gone to far.  After discovering that all the forests in the work produce C02 half the day it has been determined that the forests should be declared major polutants and destroyed. 

I wonder what will happen, once all the forest have been destroyed and the Scientists find that those forests were producing more oxygen during the other half of the day than C02?   

Remember that old ditty:  Suffication is the new sensation....?
Logged

Life is a school.  What have you learned?   Brian      The greatest danger to our society is apathy, vote in every election!
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2009, 12:13:50 AM »

Wow, did you read that list?  It's like a who's who of people who have nothing to do with Climate science.  It's even funnier that they consider teleprompter readers (yes, tv weathermen) as scientists.  Well, you know what?  It might be funnier that everyone but those four tv weathermen were geologists and physicists.  Guess they're mad their research projects just aren't getting any funding because the funding was diverted to other more important projects.  Like I said earlier... 100% of climatologists, and 90 some-odd % of all other scientists.  Thanks for reinforcing what I said.

That is just what I was expecting, a debunking but no posting of anything to support your claims. Just like when you jumped into this conversation and then declared it wasn't worth pursuing there were more important thing to discuss.     huh  rolleyes  huh 
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2009, 01:01:26 AM »

That is just what I was expecting, a debunking but no posting of anything to support your claims.

hey, if anyone can post anything that shows I'm wrong, I'll freely admit it... but what you posted only supported my claim.  Why should I scour the web for more supporting evidence when everyone else is already posting supporting evidence?  Seems a little redundant to me.

Just like when you jumped into this conversation and then declared it wasn't worth pursuing there were more important thing to discuss.     huh  rolleyes  huh 

There are, but no one seems to want to discuss them... I guess because if they did, they might have to admit there's a problem, and that might mean we should do something about it.  I did in fact discuss those other problems, and everyone completely ignored that.  Why spend time on real issues when you can divert attention to a red herring, right?
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #30 on: April 27, 2009, 01:43:45 AM »

Well as you haven't posted anything to prove You are right, or that I am wrong, I guess I really don't need to......

OH HEY LOOK!

There was a climatologist on the list;

Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, also declared natural factors are dominating climate, not CO2. “The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms,” Douglas, who is releasing a major new paper she authored that will be presented at a UNESCO conference in Ghent, Belgium on March 20, 2009, told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 10, 2009.   

How about these two guys, do they count;

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics.  . . . What is relevant is reproducible results.  The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.’” - Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society and specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

“Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output.” - Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.   

Then there is this new research,

http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
pdmattox
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1118


Location: lake city, florida


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2009, 01:47:38 AM »

Sounds like some homework for someone..... tongue
Logged

Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #32 on: April 27, 2009, 01:58:44 AM »

Wait a minute. What's this... more Climatologist ?

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic.  Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology.  "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. 

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."   

Climatologist Dr. John Maunder, past president of the Commission for Climatology who has spent over 50 years in the "weather business" all around the globe, and who has written four books on weather and climate, says "the science of climate change will probably never be fully understood." "It is not always true that the climate we have now (wherever we live) is the best one ... some people (and animals and crops) may prefer it to be wetter, drier, colder, or warmer," Maunder wrote on his website updated on November 27, 2007. "Climatic variations and climatic changes from WHATEVER cause (i.e. human induced or natural) clearly create risks, but also provide real opportunities. (For example, the 2007 IPCC report - see below - shows that from 1900 to 2005, significantly increased precipitation has been observed in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe, and northern and central Asia)," he explained. (LINK) Maunder also was one of the signatories of a December 13, 2007 open letter critical of the UN IPCC process. “Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998,” the letter Maunder signed stated. “That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling,” the letter added.  (LINK)

Solar Physicist and Climatologist Douglas V. Hoyt, who coauthored the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change, and has worked at both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), has developed a scorecard to evaluate how accurate climate models have been. Hoyt wrote, "Starting in 1997, we created a scorecard to see how climate model predictions were matching observations. The picture is not pretty with most of the predictions being wrong in magnitude and often in sign."  (LINK)  A March 1, 2007 blog post in the National Review explained how the scoring system works. "[Hoyt] gives each prediction a ‘yes-no-undetermined score.' So if the major models' prediction is confirmed, the score at the beginning would be 1-0-0. So how do the models score when compared with the evidence? The final score is 1-27-4. That's one confirmed prediction, 27 disconfirmed, and 4 undetermined," the blog noted. Hoyt has extensively researched the sun-climate connection and has published nearly 100 scientific papers in such areas as the greenhouse effect, aerosols, cloud cover, radiative transfer, and sunspot structure. (LINK) To see Hoyt's climate model scorecard, go here: (LINK)


I think there are more but I am about to go to bed.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #33 on: April 27, 2009, 02:24:17 AM »

Well as you haven't posted anything to prove You are right, or that I am wrong, I guess I really don't need to......

OH HEY LOOK!

There was a climatologist on the list;

Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, also declared natural factors are dominating climate, not CO2. “The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms,” Douglas, who is releasing a major new paper she authored that will be presented at a UNESCO conference in Ghent, Belgium on March 20, 2009, told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 10, 2009.


Oh look, there is a climatologist... of course, she's not saying global warming isn't happening, she says it is happening, just that it's primarily being driven by "natural forcing mechanisms."  Hmm, that sounds oddly familiar, I wonder where I've heard that before...

Yes, there is a good bit of it that is cyclical and or natural...
   

Oh yeah, that's where I've heard it before, I said it before.  Thanks for backing me up again Jerry.


How about these two guys, do they count;

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics.  . . . What is relevant is reproducible results.  The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.’” - Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society and specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.

“Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output.” - Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.


I'll be more than happy to count them... here, I'll give you what you've been wanting... I was wrong.  Instead of 100% of climatologists stating that global warming is happening... it's not quite 100%, it's just all but the first one of these two (the second one still thinks it's happening but is natural).  The first one's reasoning is apparantly that someone should disagree for the sake of disagreeing... BRILLIANT!  All hail Timothy the wise and... what's that?  You say that's kinda a dumb reason?  Yeah me too, but hey, someone has to be below average.

Then there is this new research,

http://www.wisn.com/weather/18935841/detail.html


Yes, that's certainly an interresting theory.  Of course, some of their data is incorrect... like the bit about temperatures leveling out or cooling, when in fact every one of the last 14 years has been on the top 20 hottest years on record globally, and in fact, all 20 of the top 20 have occurred since 1980: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880.  Perhaps it's been cooler up in Wisconsin, but they call it GLOBAL warming for a reason... it's global thing, so while your winters might be cooler, if your summers are even hotter, it doesn't help that your winters were cooler.  Also, there's the southern hemisphere to take into account as well, not just the northern hemisphere.  

Here's another theory for you, martians are irradiating the earth with an invisible raygun and that's what's causing it.  OR... we could maybe admit that while much of it is natural, we too have had some effect, no matter how minor... and regardless of whether or not we're to blame for the majority of it, being blameless isn't an excuse to not do something about it.  You know, I certainly hope that if we ever detect an asteroid headed directly for earth, we don't sit around and discuss not doing anything because it's not our fault.  Sounds pretty stupid when you think about it like that, doesn't it?
Logged
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #34 on: April 27, 2009, 02:38:34 AM »

Wait a minute. What's this... more Climatologist ?

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic.  Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology.  "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. 

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."   

Climatologist Dr. John Maunder, past president of the Commission for Climatology who has spent over 50 years in the "weather business" all around the globe, and who has written four books on weather and climate, says "the science of climate change will probably never be fully understood." "It is not always true that the climate we have now (wherever we live) is the best one ... some people (and animals and crops) may prefer it to be wetter, drier, colder, or warmer," Maunder wrote on his website updated on November 27, 2007. "Climatic variations and climatic changes from WHATEVER cause (i.e. human induced or natural) clearly create risks, but also provide real opportunities. (For example, the 2007 IPCC report - see below - shows that from 1900 to 2005, significantly increased precipitation has been observed in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe, and northern and central Asia)," he explained. (LINK) Maunder also was one of the signatories of a December 13, 2007 open letter critical of the UN IPCC process. “Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998,” the letter Maunder signed stated. “That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling,” the letter added.  (LINK)

Solar Physicist and Climatologist Douglas V. Hoyt, who coauthored the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change, and has worked at both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), has developed a scorecard to evaluate how accurate climate models have been. Hoyt wrote, "Starting in 1997, we created a scorecard to see how climate model predictions were matching observations. The picture is not pretty with most of the predictions being wrong in magnitude and often in sign."  (LINK)  a March 1, 2007 blog post in the National Review explained how the scoring system works. "[Hoyt] gives each prediction a ‘yes-no-undetermined score.' So if the major models' prediction is confirmed, the score at the beginning would be 1-0-0. So how do the models score when compared with the evidence? The final score is 1-27-4. That's one confirmed prediction, 27 disconfirmed, and 4 undetermined," the blog noted. Hoyt has extensively researched the sun-climate connection and has published nearly 100 scientific papers in such areas as the greenhouse effect, aerosols, cloud cover, radiative transfer, and sunspot structure. (LINK) To see Hoyt's climate model scorecard, go here: (LINK)


I think there are more but I am about to go to bed.


Good enough for me, we should all go out and kill all the plants since we obviously don't need, them, then drink a big tall glass of mercury and dioxin to celebrate!  Yayy, 6 people think pollution doesn't have any effect, so it must not!  I especially like the last one... Hoyt says he's backed up by his own scoring of climate models.  Wow, doesn't get any more imperical than that. 

So here's the thing, you're still not convincing me.  You're not going to convince me unless the next several years aren't on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880

If that ever happens, then I'll say go ahead and dump all the CO2 into the atmosphere that you want to... well, apart from the fact that in large quantities it's also bad for our health... but I'm fairly certain that's an amount beyond what we're capable of producing in any given decade.
Logged
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5423


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 27, 2009, 07:23:45 AM »

Just my two cents,
if it weren't for global warming,my part of the planet would be under a glacier still.I thank the caveman that lit the first campfire!Melting glaciers is what brought about the Pennsylvania Grand Canyon.It would have been a shame if it was still only an ice cap.
Logged
Scadsobees
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3198


Location: Jenison, MI

Best use of smileys in a post award.


« Reply #36 on: April 27, 2009, 08:38:48 AM »

When its cold in the winter, usually add a whole bunch of fermenters to get the carbon dioxide level up in the house, that helps make it warmer.

Most people add humidifiers, but they don't know our little secret that it is CO2 that makes it warmer.

 grin
Logged

Rick
SgtMaj
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1464


Location: Corryton, TN


« Reply #37 on: April 27, 2009, 08:44:19 AM »

When its cold in the winter, usually add a whole bunch of fermenters to get the carbon dioxide level up in the house, that helps make it warmer.

A little bourbon always warms me up.  I like the way you think!   grin
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #38 on: April 27, 2009, 09:12:21 AM »

I thought you were talking about the CO2 being the cause and people being the major factor in the CO2 emissions. I am so sorry we were talking about the same thing, that being a natural climate change. Something we can do nothing about by the way. It is a natural occurrence.

Yes, that's certainly an interresting theory.  Of course, some of their data is incorrect...

Or perhaps some of the old data is incorrect and/or politically motivated.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #39 on: April 27, 2009, 10:09:55 AM »

I'll just go ahead and throw some more stuff in here just for fun;

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3792/218/

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/01/top-15-climate-myths.html
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.008 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page July 10, 2014, 12:23:54 AM