The stimulus is working!

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

In geologic time, 120 years is also too short to prove anymore than what occured in that 120 years, wherein, by the way, man-made use of fossil fuels were not a problem for half the graph.

31,000 American scientists signed a petition against global warming.

I don't have time to go point by point right now.

1. Are you a geologist?
2. I hate this quote. a. How many of the 31,000 were/are have a background in climate, climatology, geology or some other science where this is THEIR field... b. how many WOULDN'T sign it!

[scottw]

that's just American scientists...but go ahead and find a way to dismiss them all....they're probably all idiots...right Spence and JD?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's just American scientists...but go ahead and find a way to dismiss them all....they're probably all idiots...right Spence and JD?

Never said that. I said having a PhD doesn't make you a definitive source. Hell, there is a whole list of reputable scientists that either think Global Warming is not happening, is a natural occurrence, or could possibly benefit us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Keep in mind, there was also a laundry list of scientists that argued man would never walk on the moon or develop a cure for cancer (we're pretty darn close).

However, people that use this as evidence against climate change *are* idiots. "It was 46 degrees outside last night in the middle of July. There's no way Global Warming exists."

[scottw]

RECORD COLD IN THE ERA OF GLOBAL WARMING

NEW ZEALAND

May the coldest on record, Niwa figures show
Matt Stewart | 10th July 2009

Wairarapa certainly played its part in the record-breaking chill that gripped the country during May, with Martinborough plunged into gloom courtesy of a paltry 92 hours of sunshine.

Niwa senior climate scientist Georgina Griffiths said May "broke records from one end of the country to the other - it was the coldest May on record", and there was nothing much to toast in the South Wairarapa wine village, which registered 69 percent of normal sunshine hours for May - the lowest figure for the town since records began.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

RECORD COLD IN THE ERA OF GLOBAL WARMING NEW ZEALAND

THIS IS A MEDIA ARTICLE.

read the G-D Science, not the frigging new-press reworded garbage.
The scientists quoted would probably never say that it was 'Record cold in the middle of global warming' He would say that there is WEATHER and CLIMATE.

Pick up and read "The Long Thaw" by David Archer or "Our Threatened Oceans" by Stefan Rahmstorf... or "The Two Mile Time Machine" by Richard Alley... those are books written by scientists, NOT writers writing about science, but actual Scientists (novel idea, huh?). Go to realclimate.org and read actual scientists opinions and debates on relevant topics.

Archer is the Preeminent climate modeler in the world, and Rahmstorf is one of the leading experts on Sea level rise and physical oceanography. His work shows that the IPCC models from 10-20 years ago are actually pretty damn accurate based on satellite altimetery measurements of sea-level rise. Richard Alley is one of the big time-guys in everything ice core and big-picture climatology/glaciology. .


Read them as a skeptic, read them as a non-believer, whatever.
they will open your eyes. If these books at the very least don't open your eyes to the possibility that we have an impact to the future of our planet and natural resources, then your own predispositions are clouding your mind, Period.

Until 4 or 5 years ago, I was a skeptic when it came to human induced climate change... then I read the science... Do I believe that the world will end at 2deg C above present temperatures? Nope, but I do believe that it will have significant consequences to our way of life, agriculture, water resources and even fish/marine (read fish, lobsters etc..) life.

Let me ask this:
Increasing CO2 in the oceans as almost, absolutely been shown to have a deleterious effect on coral and other Carbonate marine organisms... the oceans are huge, how can we raise CO2 and cause this, we have no impact... oh right, the coral bleaching and weakened shells of certain mollusks and bivalves in recent decades is all a lie... or, the science is wrong, there are tons of fish, little old us can't have a big impact on overfishing...

I would believe most scientists are neither optimists or pessimists. the data shows what it shows, and while there is a certain amount of 'if I hadn't of believed it, I wouldn't have seen it' A GOOD scientist keeps his mind open to other explanations. They should not and usually do not have some ill-founded predisposition to a political ideology. Do some? of course, we are human.

And for the record, healthy debate is a good thing, going around in circles is not. All the issues you raised above, especially sunspots, were further study when that hypothesis had lots of backers, and found there is not a direct link to climate and sunspots, and while there is a 1500year cycle, it is strongest during the glacial stages, and hasn;t been overly prevalent in the last 6,000 years or so.

then again, what the %$%$%$%$ do I know, right.

Until people post the science, preferably from a peer reviewed journal, to go with their posts on climate change, I'm done. That is healthy debate. Posting random news clip is bull%$%$%$%$. I can probably find a newspaper or blog that blames it all on the world being flat and the center of the universe. Then again there are plenty that don't believe the earth is more than 7,000 years old...

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

then again, what the %$%$%$%$ do I know, right.

Yea, what do you know?

If I need an expert on shallow marine benthic geologic habitats I know I can call you.

But what does global warming have to do with the ocean floor? Nothing? I thought so

Perhaps a more important questions is, what does the microtidal coast look like in NEW ZEALAND? Or more importantly, what are New Zealanders wearing this time of year?

It should be warm so if they're wearing sweaters or polar fleece Global Warming must be a fraud. Then again, if they're wearing shirts it's possible there's a short term trend towards warmth so Global Warming must be a fraud.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

Yea, what do you know?
If I need an expert on shallow marine benthic geologic habitats I know I can call you.
-spence

What did you do, google me?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

THIS IS A MEDIA ARTICLE.

read the G-D Science, not the frigging new-press reworded garbage.
The scientists quoted would probably never say that it was 'Record cold in the middle of global warming' He would say that there is WEATHER and CLIMATE.

Pick up and read "The Long Thaw" by David Archer or "Our Threatened Oceans" by Stefan Rahmstorf... or "The Two Mile Time Machine" by Richard Alley... those are books written by scientists, NOT writers writing about science, but actual Scientists (novel idea, huh?). Go to realclimate.org and read actual scientists opinions and debates on relevant topics.

Archer is the Preeminent climate modeler in the world, and Rahmstorf is one of the leading experts on Sea level rise and physical oceanography. His work shows that the IPCC models from 10-20 years ago are actually pretty damn accurate based on satellite altimetery measurements of sea-level rise. Richard Alley is one of the big time-guys in everything ice core and big-picture climatology/glaciology. .


Read them as a skeptic, read them as a non-believer, whatever.
they will open your eyes. If these books at the very least don't open your eyes to the possibility that we have an impact to the future of our planet and natural resources, then your own predispositions are clouding your mind, Period.

Until 4 or 5 years ago, I was a skeptic when it came to human induced climate change... then I read the science... Do I believe that the world will end at 2deg C above present temperatures? Nope, but I do believe that it will have significant consequences to our way of life, agriculture, water resources and even fish/marine (read fish, lobsters etc..) life.

Let me ask this:
Increasing CO2 in the oceans as almost, absolutely been shown to have a deleterious effect on coral and other Carbonate marine organisms... the oceans are huge, how can we raise CO2 and cause this, we have no impact... oh right, the coral bleaching and weakened shells of certain mollusks and bivalves in recent decades is all a lie... or, the science is wrong, there are tons of fish, little old us can't have a big impact on overfishing...

I would believe most scientists are neither optimists or pessimists. the data shows what it shows, and while there is a certain amount of 'if I hadn't of believed it, I wouldn't have seen it' A GOOD scientist keeps his mind open to other explanations. They should not and usually do not have some ill-founded predisposition to a political ideology. Do some? of course, we are human.

And for the record, healthy debate is a good thing, going around in circles is not. All the issues you raised above, especially sunspots, were further study when that hypothesis had lots of backers, and found there is not a direct link to climate and sunspots, and while there is a 1500year cycle, it is strongest during the glacial stages, and hasn;t been overly prevalent in the last 6,000 years or so.

then again, what the %$%$%$%$ do I know, right.

Until people post the science, preferably from a peer reviewed journal, to go with their posts on climate change, I'm done. That is healthy debate. Posting random news clip is bull%$%$%$%$. I can probably find a newspaper or blog that blames it all on the world being flat and the center of the universe. Then again there are plenty that don't believe the earth is more than 7,000 years old...

everyone you listed is on George Soros' payroll..

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Keep in mind, there was also a laundry list of scientists that argued man would never walk on the moon or develop a cure for cancer (we're pretty darn close).

However, people that use this as evidence against climate change *are* idiots. "It was 46 degrees outside last night in the middle of July. There's no way Global Warming exists."

name one...I would think that most scientist are optimists and WOULD believe that cures for cancer exist and that man COULD walk on the moon, where the hell do you get that, again, NAME ONE...another straw dog...you and Spence constantly declare those that disagree with you are non-thinking idiots...really not very nice if you ask me

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

name one...I would think that most scientist are optimists and WOULD believe that cures for cancer exist and that man COULD walk on the moon, where the hell do you get that, again, NAME ONE...another straw dog...you and Spence constantly declare those that disagree with you are non-thinking idiots...really not very nice if you ask me

For one, please cite some examples of me calling someone an idiot merely because they disagree with me.

Second, I was saying that people that say things like, "there can't be global warming, look how cold it has been this summer" are idiots.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you and Spence constantly declare those that disagree with you are non-thinking idiots...really not very nice if you ask me

And again he resorts to placing words in people's mouths.

Never said such a thing, read my posts again.

-spence

[scottw]

so what you are saying is that you both referred to people that disagree with you as IDIOTS(which you both did) in this thread but neither of you ever called anyone an idiot for disagreeing with you....I think I'm starting to figure you two out.... and...Obama was clearly not checking out that little girls ass...but if he was, it's perfectly OK ....

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

so what you are saying is that you both referred to people that disagree with you as IDIOTS(which you both did) in this thread

One again, where exactly?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I don't have time to go point by point right now.

1. Are you a geologist?
2. I hate this quote. a. How many of the 31,000 were/are have a background in climate, climatology, geology or some other science where this is THEIR field... b. how many WOULDN'T sign it!

hey Rock, this guy is a GEOLOGIST...

Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists

By Jonathan Manthorpe, Vancouver SunJuly 28, 2009

Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.

Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.

Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" -- man-made climate change to you and me -- and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history. Many have made the argument, too, that it is rubbish to contend human behaviour is causing the current climate change. And it has often been well argued that it is totally ridiculous to suppose that changes in human behaviour -- cleaning up our act through expensive slight-of-hand taxation tricks -- can reverse the trend.

But most of these scientific and academic voices have fallen silent in the face of environmental Jacobinism. Purging humankind of its supposed sins of environmental degradation has become a religion with a fanatical and often intolerant priesthood, especially among the First World urban elites.

But Plimer shows no sign of giving way to this orthodoxy and has just published the latest of his six books and 60 academic papers on the subject of global warming. This book, Heaven and Earth -- Global Warming: The Missing Science, draws together much of his previous work. It springs especially from A Short History of Plant Earth, which was based on a decade of radio broadcasts in Australia.

That book, published in 2001, was a best-seller and won several prizes. But Plimer found it hard to find anyone willing to publish this latest book, so intimidating has the environmental lobby become.

But he did eventually find a small publishing house willing to take the gamble and the book has already sold about 30,000 copies in Australia. It seems also to be doing well in Britain and the United States in the first days of publication.

Plimer presents the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is little more than a con trick on the public perpetrated by fundamentalist environmentalists and callously adopted by politicians and government officials who love nothing more than an issue that causes public anxiety.

While environmentalists for the most part draw their conclusions based on climate information gathered in the last few hundred years, geologists, Plimer says, have a time frame stretching back many thousands of millions of years.

The dynamic and changing character of the Earth's climate has always been known by geologists. These changes are cyclical and random, he says. They are not caused or significantly affected by human behaviour.

Polar ice, for example, has been present on the Earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time, Plimer writes. Plus, animal extinctions are an entirely normal part of the Earth's evolution.

(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

Plimer gets especially upset about carbon dioxide, its role in Earth's daily life and the supposed effects on climate of human manufacture of the gas. He says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years, and that atmospheric carbon dioxide is only 0.001 per cent of the total amount of the chemical held in the oceans, surface rocks, soils and various life forms. Indeed, Plimer says carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a plant food. Plants eat carbon dioxide and excrete oxygen. Human activity, he says, contributes only the tiniest fraction to even the atmospheric presence of carbon dioxide.

There is no problem with global warming, Plimer says repeatedly. He points out that for humans periods of global warming have been times of abundance when civilization made leaps forward. Ice ages, in contrast, have been times when human development slowed or even declined.

So global warming, says Plimer, is something humans should welcome and embrace as a harbinger of good times to come.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

hey Rock, this guy is a GEOLOGIST...

One nitwit's opinion that you found on the web doesn't really prove anything.

He certainly has some screws loose with this gem:

(Plimer, by the way, is also a vehement anti-creationist and has been hauled into court for disrupting meetings by religious leaders and evangelists who claim the Bible is literal truth.)

It's one thing to publish opposing articles, it's another to disrupt meetings and whatnot. Right way and wrong way.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

One nitwit's opinion that you found on the web doesn't really prove anything.

Well, you certainly haven't really proved that he is a nitwit just by calling him one. What Scott's post did, among other things, is prove, by his credentials, that the author IS a geologist, of a high rank at that.