Global Warming is over.

[gwb72tii]

also, apparently we'll be alive to see what happens with the prediction we are in fact entering a cooling phase

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/13/when-will-it-start-cooling/#more-68997

[herbivor]

herb and Q5

curious if all these signers have been "debunked"?

The Manhattan Declaration

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54

signers at the conference
http://www.climatescienceinternation...d=37&Itemid=54

Holy shit! You still believe those are real signatures? That was proven awhile ago to be faked. Wake up and smell the propaganda.

[herbivor]

also, apparently we'll be alive to see what happens with the prediction we are in fact entering a cooling phase

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/1...ng/#more-68997

We are supposed to be in a long term cooling trend which makes it even more unusual that we have had recent warming in the past couple centuries. Further evidence that it is anthropogenic.

[Vedubin01]

We are supposed to be in a long term cooling trend which makes it even more unusual that we have had recent warming in the past couple centuries. Further evidence that it is anthropogenic.

exactly what the mastodons said...

[gwb72tii]

We are supposed to be in a long term cooling trend which makes it even more unusual that we have had recent warming in the past couple centuries. Further evidence that it is anthropogenic.

got a link?

[herbivor]

got a link?

Yes but what's the point? You don't read them anyway. The only reason I stay in this debate is to hopefully keep some from getting sucked into believing your propaganda. You're a lost cause.

[frankenbeemer]

herb and Q5

curious if all these signers have been "debunked"?

The Manhattan Declaration

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54

signers at the conference
http://www.climatescienceinternation...d=37&Itemid=54

The Heartland Institute is not without it's detractors. The money trail is suspiscious, and it seems transparency is not evident.

Holy shit! You still believe those are real signatures? That was proven awhile ago to be faked. Wake up and smell the propaganda.

Link or other evidence?

Yes but what's the point? You don't read them anyway. The only reason I stay in this debate is to hopefully keep some from getting sucked into believing your propaganda. You're a lost cause.

I feel you are hurting your cause here.

[herbivor]

got a link?

Here you go. Here is a guy that has organized every scientist, petition, credentials, and climate view. He cites everyone, skeptics and activists. Most of the signers of the petitions you cited are not climatologists or experts in the study of climate change. It has no more value than me or you signing the petition. Have fun, it's heavy reading material, so I'm sure you'll skip right over it. .

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/

I've been studying climatology and the science behind global warming in my spare time for several years now. Through my studies, I've come to recognize the names of the top authors and research institutes. Through following this issue online and in the media, I've also grown all too familiar with the tiny minority of 'climate skeptics' or 'deniers' who try to minimize the problem, absolve humans of any major impact, or suggest there is no need to take any action.
I've gotten pretty fed up with the undue weight given to the skeptics in the media and online. Many media reports aimed for a false 'balance' by interviewing one mainstream scientist followed by one 'skeptic.' On the web, it's even crazier, with numerous sites promoting "climate denial" by collecting names of skeptics, "quote-mining" for skeptical or ambiguous statements, and producing dodgy climate-denial 'petitions' claiming numerous "scientists" as signatories. Most of these skeptics/deniers/petition signers have little to no academic credentials in this specific field, although a handful stand out as widely published in this or a somewhat related field.

[gwb72tii]

thanks for the link and i will read it
and i know without asking the Inhoff is not your fave, but again, don't shoot the messenger. This is again why the 97% consensus is BS, and that only a simple google search would challenge your core beliefs.
Do you in fact read any dissents to the "consensus" or just op ed pieces why they are false?

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

[herbivor]

thanks for the link and i will read it
and i know without asking the Inhoff is not your fave, but again, don't shoot the messenger. This is again why the 97% consensus is BS, and that only a simple google search would challenge your core beliefs.
Do you in fact read any dissents to the "consensus" or just op ed pieces why they are false?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport

I think I explained before that I read a very convincing book that put me in the denial camp for awhile until I continued to do research and realized that the "science" claims that the deniers were stating were bogus, inaccurate, or already proven wrong with later evidence. Then when you start researching the skeptics and authors of this information, many are paid by big oil and are not qualified experts in the field of climatology. So to answer your question, yes, I used to heavily read both sides of the argument but now I only read published science articles to get my information, rather than opinionated books, editorials, or blogs. (I do realize the previous link was a blog but you won't find the kind of info you requested from science articles about global warming. I try to avoid that kind of stuff and stick to the reputable, unbiased sources. Perhaps you should try that for a change.)

[gwb72tii]

well here we are again herb, reasonable people disagree

reasonable minds know the "big oil" argument is not only bogus ("big oil" has been outspent by something close to 1000 to 1 by the government pro-AGW grants), it's completely fair for any business group threatened by the government to fight back.

i show you a list of better than 1000 scientists that doubt AGW, from a variety of angles, that aren't funded by any "oil", and your side completely dismisses them.

yet somehow there is a "consensus"

there is no evidence your side is right. there are hypotheses, that is all.

yet we have consensus

LOL

[cale]

Because people with bachelor degrees in physics are experts in the field. There's a difference between being a scientist and being a climate scientist, but feel free to go to a vet for brain surgery all you'd like.

http://m.pnas.org/content/early/2010...87107.abstract hope the mobile link works for you guys.

There is consensus among those who's expertise is on the topic at hand....or is the National Academy of Sciences not reliable enough and too agenda driven for your tastes?

I'm sorry, but science works on what you can first comprehend/interpret and then advances from there, be it fortifying or dismissing a theory. If you're not able to truly comprehend the data presented, how are you able to dismiss it? Afaik you're an engineer aren't you? Would you really take a biologist seriously if he analyzed your final product without reviewing or even being capable of reviewing the work you did to get to that final result? Of course not, you'd tell him to go pound salt.

[Q5Quint]

"The Manhattan Declaration"

I heard Exxon sponsored that event... right?

"Conference for Skeptics

The conference was described by Washington Post reporter, Juliet Eilperin, as "a sort of global warming doppelganger conference, where everything was reversed." At the event, skeptics unveiled their response to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, edited by corporate-funded skeptic Fred Singer, argued that "recent climate change stems from natural causes." Eilperin notes that "while the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists."[1]

The New York Times reports that while the Heartland conference "was largely framed around science ... when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so." The conference invitation identified its goal as "to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science."[2]
The Heartland Institute offered "$1,000 to those willing to give a talk," and "a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend," according to the RealClimate blog.[3]"

I really dont want this to de-volve into a John Locke/Art Pope/Koch brothers debate (who funded the manhattan BS mentioned above) but as there are certain people that obviously stand to lose a shitton of money over climate change being 'real' it is reasonable to assume that they will defend their money making views in any way possible. If you want to believe in a bogus conference of 19 dudes getting paid by exxon over hundreds of peer reviewed scientists from 100 countries that is up to you.... the only people that stand to lose if climate change is 'real and man-caused' is exxon.... and GM....everyone else gains.

herb and Q5

curious if all these signers have been "debunked"?

The Manhattan Declaration

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54

signers at the conference
http://www.climatescienceinternation...d=37&Itemid=54

[Q5Quint]

i show you a list of better than 1000 scientists that doubt AGW, from a variety of angles, that aren't funded by any "oil", and your side completely dismisses them.

And herb showed you a list of 2000 that believes it to be true~ how many publications do you need to be considered a 'scientist'.... I cant find where you are getting that 1000 number from....

[QUOTE]Anyone working in the field of climate science should have a significant number of hits on this search. The median number for IPCC wg1 authors is 93 articles; for all of the roughly 1800 authors I've checked up to July 2009, including skeptics, the median is 56. For the 386 names I've checked so far who were signers of a climate skeptics' statement, the median is two (2).[/QUOTE]

LoL

70% of the skeptics have fewer than 10 published works that mentions of climate and 60% have fewer than five. At the top of the rankings, there are 25 skeptics who have more than the overall median of 56 works mentioning 'climate', and just 12 above the IPCC median of 93.

Careful or you will debunk yourself.

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/c...e_by_clim.html

I don't mean to be a dick but there is a group of us actually putting together an (attempted non-bias) paper to help people describe these issues of climate change to the 'fence sitters' ie the people who dont believe one way or another. The hardest part is finding credible anything on the side of 'skepticism' so it makes everything you do look bias as shit.... and that is the problem. You are not arguing over the results of a DATA set.... you end up arguing over somebody's credentials.

"the must have doctored the ice core samples so that it makes it look like climate change is real!"

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...logy_IceCores/

Can we talk about data instead of attempting to discredit every scientist in the world because they have sexy/drunk pictures on facebook and/or had sex with the koch brothers?

[herbivor]

well here we are again herb, reasonable people disagree

reasonable minds know the "big oil" argument is not only bogus ("big oil" has been outspent by something close to 1000 to 1 by the government pro-AGW grants), it's completely fair for any business group threatened by the government to fight back.

i show you a list of better than 1000 scientists that doubt AGW, from a variety of angles, that aren't funded by any "oil", and your side completely dismisses them.

yet somehow there is a "consensus"

there is no evidence your side is right. there are hypotheses, that is all.

yet we have consensus

LOL

You're not reading the links you requested are you? I knew I was wasting my time. Why don't you come back when you learn something new that doesn't fit your conspiracy theories.