Global Warming is over.

[nando]

Back to your already refuted climategate claims?

it's almost like you're talking in circles or something.

[Q5Quint]

So by your definition Phil jones admitting in 2010 that he earth
isn't warming any longer and that climate scientists can't
explain it s posting more false bullshit?

Yes because 'phil jones', or anyone, is unable to make a claim for or against anything without the rest of the scientific community, and their research, to back them up. That is what science is~ a slow lumbering logical progression of knowledge. Guess how flat the earth is? Guess who causes acid rain? Guess who is destroying all the coral reefs and putting lead into our drinking water?

I still remember our geology professor explaining some new theories of plate tectonics and that we had to learn the old theories for our test until, literally, the old scientists died off and they could move on.

The climate argument among scientist is and has been over. You can cherry pick a fellow now and then but most are waiting on the gubbment to actually listen to them so they can move on.

Climate change or not we need to curb and stop emissions for pollution, health, and economic reasons~ whether that lingering pollution is going to cause the largest extinction since the cretaceous period is a separate question and will probably be blamed on those that prevented us from acting sooner.


The epa answeres most of your questions:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/facts.html

as well as the skeptics site:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

its like arguing with a wall. no fact, no opinion, even by those qualified in the science to have a qualified opinon, are good enough.

It is because you are arguing against 1000 other scientists and peer-reviewed research. You would come up against the same wall if you tried to say the earth was flat or was the center of the universe. In the face of overwhelming evidence you still want to hold on, for some reason, to your belief. Also Santa Clause and God are not real, but people tend to get more angry about one of them in particular if you try and 'prove it'.

"A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004)."

NOT A SINGLE PAPER. I look forward to reading "Phil Jones' upcoming paper.

"Schulte's paper makes much of the fact that 48% of the papers they surveyed are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject anthropogenic global warming. The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc)"

Science has 'moved on' to discussing impacts of climate change instead of bothering with a few crazy objectionists.... because surprise! it is actually happening according to prediction.

[cale]

So by your definition Phil jones admitting in 2010 that he earth
isn't warming any longer and that climate scientists can't
explain it s posting more false bullshit?

Your 6th post citing this individual, someone whom you quote as saying warming has stopped. Something which simply is not true as the last decade has included some of the warmest years on record. *hint*, for warmest years to be observed the temperature does indeed rise.

[BraveUlysses]

So by your definition Phil jones admitting in 2010 that he earth
isn't warming any longer and that climate scientists can't
explain it s posting more false bullshit?

keep fucking that chicken

[Fusion]

opinions of questionable conservative think tanks

James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, Ph.D (born 26 July 1919) is an independent scientist, environmentalist and futurologist who lives in Devon, England. He is best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment.

In early 1961, Lovelock was engaged by NASA to develop sensitive instruments for the analysis of extraterrestrial atmospheres and planetary surfaces.

Lovelock invented the electron capture detector, which ultimately assisted in discoveries about the persistence of CFCs and their role in stratospheric ozone depletion.

Lovelock was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1974. He served as the president of the Marine Biological Association (MBA) from 1986 to 1990, and has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford (formerly Green College, Oxford) since 1994. He has been awarded a number of prestigious prizes including the Tswett Medal (1975), an American Chemical Society chromatography award (1980), the World Meteorological Organization Norbert Gerbier Prize (1988), the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for the Environment (1990) and the Royal Geographical Society Discovery Lifetime award (2001). In 2006 he received the Wollaston Medal, the Geological Society's highest Award, whose previous recipients include Charles Darwin [4]. He became a Commander of the British Empire CBE in 1990, and a member of the Companions of Honour in 2003.

Writing in the British newspaper The Independent in January 2006, Lovelock argued that, as a result of global warming, "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable" by the end of the 21st century.[27] He has been quoted in The Guardian that 80% of humans will perish by 2100 AD, and this climate change will last 100,000 years. According to James Lovelock, by 2040, the world population of more than six billion will have been culled by floods, drought and famine. Indeed "[t]he people of Southern Europe, as well as South-East Asia, will be fighting their way into countries such as Canada, Australia and Britain".[28]

In an April 2012 interview, aired on MSNBC, Lovelock stated that he had been "alarmist", using the words “All right, I made a mistake,” about the timing of climate change and noted the documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the book The Weather Makers as examples of the same kind of alarmism. Lovelock still believes the climate to be warming although the rate of change is not as he once thought, he admitted that he had been “extrapolating too far." He believes that climate change is still happening, but it will be felt farther in the future.[32] Of the claims “the science is settled” on global warming he states:[33]

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it."[33]

He criticizes environmentalists for treating global warming like a religion.[33]
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed
“I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”[33]

"The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said

--------------------

The main scientific area of Claude Allègre is geochemistry.

Claude Allègre is officially of retirement age, but continues to perform academic work at the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (Institute of Geophysics, Paris).

In 1976, Allègre and Haroun Tazieff had an intense, public quarrel about whether inhabitants should evacuate the surroundings of the erupting volcano la Soufrière.

Allègre is an ISI highly cited researcher.[1]

Allègre believes that the causes of climate change are unknown.

In an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l'Express, a French weekly periodic, Allègre cited evidence that Antarctica's gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, can come from natural causes. He claimed that "[t]he cause of this climate change is unknown".[2]

Allègre has accused those agreeing with the mainstream scientific view of global warming of being motivated by money, saying that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”[3]

20 years ago in "Clés pour la géologie", he wrote "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century".[citation needed]

In 2009, when it was suggested that Claude Allègre might be offered a position as minister in President Nicolas Sarkozy's government, TV presenter Nicolas Hulot stated:
"He doesn't think the same as the 2,500 scientists of the IPCC, who are warning the world about a disaster; that's his right. But if he were to be recruited in government, it would become policy, and it would be a bras d'honneur to those scientists. [...] [It] would be a tragic signal, six months before the Copenhagen Conference, and something incomprehensible coming from France, which has been a leading country for years in the fight against climate change!"[4]

In 2010, more than 500 French researchers asked Science Minister Valérie Pécresse to dismiss Allègre’s book L’imposture climatique, claiming the book is "full of factual mistakes, distortions of data, and plain lies". One researcher, Hakan Grudd, called the changes that Allegre made in hand-redrawing a graph of his misleading and unethical. Allegre described the petition as "useless and stupid".

Epecting "senile and corrupt scientist" comments next.

[gwb72tii]

Your 6th post citing this individual, someone whom you quote as saying warming has stopped. Something which simply is not true as the last decade has included some of the warmest years on record. *hint*, for warmest years to be observed the temperature does indeed rise.

do some research on who phil jones is cale. he's the head of the fish, to quote dukakis.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

but wait, it get's better. he states there is a warming trend, but it's not statistically significant. huh?

[gwb72tii]

keep fucking that chicken

you are completely worthless
you mom must be proud

[rwh11385]

James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, Ph.D (born 26 July 1919) is an independent scientist, environmentalist and futurologist who lives in Devon, England. He is best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment.

In early 1961, Lovelock was engaged by NASA to develop sensitive instruments for the analysis of extraterrestrial atmospheres and planetary surfaces.

Lovelock invented the electron capture detector, which ultimately assisted in discoveries about the persistence of CFCs and their role in stratospheric ozone depletion.

Lovelock was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1974. He served as the president of the Marine Biological Association (MBA) from 1986 to 1990, and has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford (formerly Green College, Oxford) since 1994. He has been awarded a number of prestigious prizes including the Tswett Medal (1975), an American Chemical Society chromatography award (1980), the World Meteorological Organization Norbert Gerbier Prize (1988), the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for the Environment (1990) and the Royal Geographical Society Discovery Lifetime award (2001). In 2006 he received the Wollaston Medal, the Geological Society's highest Award, whose previous recipients include Charles Darwin [4]. He became a Commander of the British Empire CBE in 1990, and a member of the Companions of Honour in 2003.

Writing in the British newspaper The Independent in January 2006, Lovelock argued that, as a result of global warming, "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable" by the end of the 21st century.[27] He has been quoted in The Guardian that 80% of humans will perish by 2100 AD, and this climate change will last 100,000 years. According to James Lovelock, by 2040, the world population of more than six billion will have been culled by floods, drought and famine. Indeed "[t]he people of Southern Europe, as well as South-East Asia, will be fighting their way into countries such as Canada, Australia and Britain".[28]

In an April 2012 interview, aired on MSNBC, Lovelock stated that he had been "alarmist", using the words “All right, I made a mistake,” about the timing of climate change and noted the documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the book The Weather Makers as examples of the same kind of alarmism. Lovelock still believes the climate to be warming although the rate of change is not as he once thought, he admitted that he had been “extrapolating too far." He believes that climate change is still happening, but it will be felt farther in the future.[32] Of the claims “the science is settled” on global warming he states:[33]

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it."[33]

He criticizes environmentalists for treating global warming like a religion.[33]
“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed
“I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”[33]

"The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said

--------------------

The main scientific area of Claude Allègre is geochemistry.

Claude Allègre is officially of retirement age, but continues to perform academic work at the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (Institute of Geophysics, Paris).

In 1976, Allègre and Haroun Tazieff had an intense, public quarrel about whether inhabitants should evacuate the surroundings of the erupting volcano la Soufrière.

Allègre is an ISI highly cited researcher.[1]

Allègre believes that the causes of climate change are unknown.

In an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l'Express, a French weekly periodic, Allègre cited evidence that Antarctica's gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, can come from natural causes. He claimed that "[t]he cause of this climate change is unknown".[2]

Allègre has accused those agreeing with the mainstream scientific view of global warming of being motivated by money, saying that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”[3]

20 years ago in "Clés pour la géologie", he wrote "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century".[citation needed]

In 2009, when it was suggested that Claude Allègre might be offered a position as minister in President Nicolas Sarkozy's government, TV presenter Nicolas Hulot stated:
"He doesn't think the same as the 2,500 scientists of the IPCC, who are warning the world about a disaster; that's his right. But if he were to be recruited in government, it would become policy, and it would be a bras d'honneur to those scientists. [...] [It] would be a tragic signal, six months before the Copenhagen Conference, and something incomprehensible coming from France, which has been a leading country for years in the fight against climate change!"[4]

In 2010, more than 500 French researchers asked Science Minister Valérie Pécresse to dismiss Allègre’s book L’imposture climatique, claiming the book is "full of factual mistakes, distortions of data, and plain lies". One researcher, Hakan Grudd, called the changes that Allegre made in hand-redrawing a graph of his misleading and unethical. Allegre described the petition as "useless and stupid".

What is it, QUOTE WIKIPEDIA DAY?

Again, your hatred of alarmists doesn't disprove the study of climate change, only that you are so arrogant and close-minded that you think attacking the extreme nullifies the science altogether.

You're just as capable as I am to find reliable sources of information, it's your choice that you do not and instead go with unsound ones. When you can provide legitimate reasons as to why you making the ludicrous claim that no proof of AGW exists is rational, then maybe a discussion would be possible...but it is not. Claiming that you disagree with what's been presented and then most importantly explaining why would be a start...but you don't. You want to claim an expert position and strike out all evidence and work that's been done because...you've been exposed to what ground breaking science exactly?

Do you even understand how outrageous it is for an individual such as yourself with no formal education on the subject, to sit here and claim that everything science tells us about GW being human driven is wrong? Are you this quick to dismiss majorly held understandings in other sciences too, or are you like most vocal deniers and have no taste for science other than what's controversial because it's a hot topic and target for your political affiliation?

Apparently the ground-breaking science he has been exposed to is Wikipedia. Which may be the only source more questionable than Heartland. I think Dailymail comes in third.

[cale]

I assume your post responding to all of q5 points is next?

[Fusion]

Since both of you found it appropriate to skip over that comment in my previous post, yes, I used wikipedia. And I see no reason not to, as those are quoted words from resources linked below.

These are also not the only scientists re-assessing their own claims, but since I'm not allowed to quote anything you don't regard as certified by yourselves, I'll leave further study up to you.

[rwh11385]

Since both of you found it appropriate to skip over that comment in my previous post, yes, I used wikipedia. And I see no reason not to, as those are quoted words from resources linked below.

These are also not the only scientists re-assessing their own claims, but since I'm not allowed to quote anything you don't regard as certified by yourselves, I'll leave further study up to you.

I didn't really need to respond to your openly directed posts as cale aptly did so. For some reason, you quoted what I wrote towards gwb to get my attention.

Regardless, either starting posting stuff about actual science from legitimate sources and use logic/reason, or don't get so butthurt over people ignoring your worthless banter.

[herbivor]

James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, Ph.D (born 26 July 1919) is an independent scientist, environmentalist and futurologist who lives in Devon, England.

In the first sentence alone I find 4 things that immediately disqualify him as an expert in climatology. If you don't see at least one of the four, than it shows why you are unable to think rationally and logically about this subject and your inability to discern real science from propaganda.
Even though I'm an engineer, I have some snake oil i can sell you that can cure any ailment you may have, because after all, I did take a class in chemistry and another in forensic engineering and therefore am qualified to make a medical diagnosis, because science.

[rwh11385]

But hey, let's get back to facts from a legitimate source: http://www.economist.com/news/215664...-sunny-uplands

Wind farms already provide 2% of the world’s electricity, and their capacity is doubling every three years. If that growth rate is maintained, wind power will overtake nuclear’s contribution to the world’s energy accounts in about a decade. Though it still has its opponents, wind is thus already a grown-up technology. But it is in the field of solar energy, currently only a quarter of a percent of the planet’s electricity supply, but which grew 86% last year, that the biggest shift of attitude will be seen, for sunlight has the potential to disrupt the electricity market completely.

The underlying cause of this disruption is a phenomenon that solar’s supporters call Swanson’s law, in imitation of Moore’s law of transistor cost. Moore’s law suggests that the size of transistors (and also their cost) halves every 18 months or so. Swanson’s law, named after Richard Swanson, the founder of SunPower, a big American solar-cell manufacturer, suggests that the cost of the photovoltaic cells needed to generate solar power falls by 20% with each doubling of global manufacturing capacity. The upshot (see chart) is that the modules used to make solar-power plants now cost less than a dollar per watt of capacity.

Economist seems to think that the renewable energy industry is soon to approach being competitive on its own right soon enough. Then, all the debate over subsidies and lobbying money won't make any difference...

[z31maniac]

Jesus fucking Christ are you still waffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffleswaffless still arguing about this?

Gwb and fusion................ what's the fun in beating up retards?

[z31maniac]

Gwb and fusion being the retards