Warming may bring mass extinctions: study
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 24 Next
sasquatch2 @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:28 pm
As this matter matures more and more we start to grasp the cyclical nature of climate.........and politics.
The minor warming ended in 1998, KYOTO has died.
In the 60-70's we had the DDT CRISIS----which in hindsight was BS.
In the 70's we went through GLOWBULL COOLING and then the OZONE CRISIS.
What is the next crisis?
With each Crisis the alarmists refine their propaganda technique.......that is the next crisis I predict a political crisis.....same cast......but then it always is.
Always remember the answer is........42.
Zipperfish @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:36 pm
neopundit neopundit:
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Another rat leaves the sinking AGW ship.
Erik's Greenland farm is still permafrost.
HOCKEY PUCK
$1:
Meanwhile, James Hanson of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies lowered his estimate of global warming. Hansen helped launch the whole global warming furor when he told Congress in 1988 that he was “99 percent sure . . the [human-caused] greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now.”
Hansen now says the rate of global warming forcings peaked in 1980, and has since declined—leading to his new estimate of a mild warming of only 0.15 to 0.05 degrees C. per decade over the next several decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has assumed more than twice as much climate forcing.
Hansen now says the rate of global warming forcings peaked in 1980, and has since declined—leading to his new estimate of a mild warming of only 0.15 to 0.05 degrees C. per decade over the next several decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has assumed more than twice as much climate forcing.
Erik's Greenland farm is still permafrost.
HOCKEY PUCK
Please provide your sources so I can read the article and understand the context for myself. Thanks.
The article is from a 2002 piece by Dennis Avery (here). It does not accurately reflect Dr. Hansen's thinking, as any review of his papers and interviews shows, such as his [I] interview here.
sasquatch2 @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:48 pm
N_Fiddledog @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:50 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Really, this doesn't become any less false with repeated posting, Bart. How do you expect to get any credibility in your argument when you post stuff over and over again that's already been demonstrated to be incorrect?
2005 warmest year in over a century
2005 warmest year in over a century
I need to check some stuff out, because I'm not sure. Isn't that article from 2006? Haven't new findings come out since then? Wasn't the poster of the data, James Hansen, disgraced for providing false data? Didn't (I think it was the Hadley institute, and the NAS) post data showing no warming since 1998?
Isn't what you posted kind of like presenting Mann's hockey stick graph, because it's discredited data?
No, no, no, no, no and no.
Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to do these "nos" 1 at a time, because I'm still not sure.
On the first one. "Isn't that article from 2006?"
Next to the title of the article it says "01.24.06 ". Isn't that the date?
I doubt the article was changed from 2006, as the errors to which you refer did not affect global data, though it did result in 1934 being the warmest year in the US. source.
OK, so on your first "no" then, we're agreed, the answer is in fact yes. That article is from January of 2006. Let's move on to the second no.
"Haven't new findings come out since then?"
Actually I'm pretty sure about that one, so let's move it to the end, because it will be the easiest to support. I like to get the tough stuff out of the way first.
Moving on to the third "no".
"Wasn't the poster of the data, James Hansen, disgraced for providing false data?"
I am of course talking about this.
$1:
Since NASA's James Hansen finally released computer codes related to how climate data are collected and adjusted, anthropogenic global warming skeptics around the world have been waiting to see what a scientific examination of this information would produce.
On Monday, Canada's Steve McIntyre, who himself debunked Michael Mann's ridiculous "Hockey Stick" theory as well as identified Hansen's Y2K bug, released information identifying that Hansen recently made additional changes to climate data akin to how companies like Enron used creative accounting to exaggerate earnings and defraud investors.
On Monday, Canada's Steve McIntyre, who himself debunked Michael Mann's ridiculous "Hockey Stick" theory as well as identified Hansen's Y2K bug, released information identifying that Hansen recently made additional changes to climate data akin to how companies like Enron used creative accounting to exaggerate earnings and defraud investors.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... imate-data
Here's some more on it if you doubt that source.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383
http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/08/09/this-is-huge-2/
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/ho ... millenium/
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11883
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s ... ges-public
So yes the work of Hansen has been discredited in that case at least. Does that constitute disgrace? I don't know. Depends who you ask I guess.
Here's a couple of other interesting little factoids about Hansen. Remember how they were saying in the 70s an ice age is coming? You know how alarmists always claim no scientists were involved in that. It turns out they are incorrect. An old 1971 Washington Post article has surfaced showing scientist S.I. Rasool was making that claim. Guess who's computer program he was using to support the claim? That's right, James Hansen's.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/ ... /109190067
Another interesting thing about Hansen is in spite of working for NASA he's received $720,000 from the Storos foundation for nobody seems to know exactly what.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ual-report
Personally I think the guy's been disgraced in the blogosphere, although the mainstream media doesn't seem to have discovered it yet. So I'll give you a maybe on that no.
fifeboy @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:00 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
I've set my dogs on them when they try to hunt or fish illegally on MY land. 
I don't know man, the indians I know, if they were hunting on your land and your dogs were "set" on them would leave you a gift of some very dead dogs.
fifeboy @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:05 pm
Brenda Brenda:
Don't we already have 25 topics about global warming, climate change and air polution, where the same people say the same over and over again?
This proves my point though, about man made global warming:
Nature takes its course...
Thank you!
This proves my point though, about man made global warming:
$1:
Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas
Nature takes its course...
Zipperfish @ Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:31 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Really, this doesn't become any less false with repeated posting, Bart. How do you expect to get any credibility in your argument when you post stuff over and over again that's already been demonstrated to be incorrect?
2005 warmest year in over a century
2005 warmest year in over a century
I need to check some stuff out, because I'm not sure. Isn't that article from 2006? Haven't new findings come out since then? Wasn't the poster of the data, James Hansen, disgraced for providing false data? Didn't (I think it was the Hadley institute, and the NAS) post data showing no warming since 1998?
Isn't what you posted kind of like presenting Mann's hockey stick graph, because it's discredited data?
No, no, no, no, no and no.
Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to do these "nos" 1 at a time, because I'm still not sure.
On the first one. "Isn't that article from 2006?"
Next to the title of the article it says "01.24.06 ". Isn't that the date?
I doubt the article was changed from 2006, as the errors to which you refer did not affect global data, though it did result in 1934 being the warmest year in the US. source.
OK, so on your first "no" then, we're agreed, the answer is in fact yes. That article is from January of 2006. Let's move on to the second no.
"Haven't new findings come out since then?"
Actually I'm pretty sure about that one, so let's move it to the end, because it will be the easiest to support. I like to get the tough stuff out of the way first.
Moving on to the third "no".
"Wasn't the poster of the data, James Hansen, disgraced for providing false data?"
I am of course talking about this.
$1:
Since NASA's James Hansen finally released computer codes related to how climate data are collected and adjusted, anthropogenic global warming skeptics around the world have been waiting to see what a scientific examination of this information would produce.
On Monday, Canada's Steve McIntyre, who himself debunked Michael Mann's ridiculous "Hockey Stick" theory as well as identified Hansen's Y2K bug, released information identifying that Hansen recently made additional changes to climate data akin to how companies like Enron used creative accounting to exaggerate earnings and defraud investors.
On Monday, Canada's Steve McIntyre, who himself debunked Michael Mann's ridiculous "Hockey Stick" theory as well as identified Hansen's Y2K bug, released information identifying that Hansen recently made additional changes to climate data akin to how companies like Enron used creative accounting to exaggerate earnings and defraud investors.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... imate-data
Here's some more on it if you doubt that source.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383
http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/08/09/this-is-huge-2/
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/ho ... millenium/
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11883
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s ... ges-public
So yes the work of Hansen has been discredited in that case at least. Does that constitute disgrace? I don't know. Depends who you ask I guess.
Here's a couple of other interesting little factoids about Hansen. Remember how they were saying in the 70s an ice age is coming? You know how alarmists always claim no scientists were involved in that. It turns out they are incorrect. An old 1971 Washington Post article has surfaced showing scientist S.I. Rasool was making that claim. Guess who's computer program he was using to support the claim? That's right, James Hansen's.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/ ... /109190067
Another interesting thing about Hansen is in spite of working for NASA he's received $720,000 from the Storos foundation for nobody seems to know exactly what.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... ual-report
Personally I think the guy's been disgraced in the blogosphere, although the mainstream media doesn't seem to have discovered it yet. So I'll give you a maybe on that no.
Yes, the article was from 2006, but it remains true now. The error, pointed out by Stepehn McIntyre resulted in NASA having to correct a lot of its temperature data, which resulted in 1934 becoming, according to NASA, the warmest year in the US since record keeping of surface temperatures started. It didn't materially affect the worldwide ranking of warmest years according to NASA, so 2005 remains the warmest year globally on record. Was Hansen disgraced? It was a big embarrassment, no doubt about it--who likes gettiing caught making essentially arithmetic errors, especially a Ph.D? So was it a disgrace? I agree with you--depends upon whom you ask. That's one of the reasons I take my hat off to Stephen McIntyre--through his tireless scrutiny he is improving the science.
I didn't find any evidence to support your claim that Hansen received $720,000 from the Soros foundation. Although, I noted in my search that he did recieve a $250,000 Heinz award from the wife of Democratic presidential canddiate John Kerry (source).
However, the theory of anthrpogenic climate change does not rest on the shoulders of Dr. James Hansen. Assassinating his character--as many of the links you supplied seem to be concerned with--may do him in, but it won't assassinate the case built thus far supporting AGW.
neopundit @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:04 am
Brenda Brenda:
Don't we already have 25 topics about global warming, climate change and air polution, where the same people say the same over and over again?
This proves my point though, about man made global warming:
Nature takes its course...
This proves my point though, about man made global warming:
$1:
Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas
Nature takes its course...
Again, please provide the link. Without context these things are meaningless. Especially here, because I'd love to see a source that states what you have put in bold. Judging by the hot debate, I don't think it's clear to anybody.
Also, you mean to say that pollution from a city can only affect the climate of that small area? That's pretty naive, but that's what that quote implies.
Brenda @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:19 am
That is from the link from Zip, from that Nasa study, where that post is directly under. Now you don't even read links provided but you have your opinion ready??? 
Lemme do your homework for ya:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/enviro ... rmest.html
Scroll down, and read, mefriend
ridenrain @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:42 am
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
As this matter matures more and more we start to grasp the cyclical nature of climate.........and politics.
The minor warming ended in 1998, KYOTO has died.
In the 60-70's we had the DDT CRISIS----which in hindsight was BS.
In the 70's we went through GLOWBULL COOLING and then the OZONE CRISIS.
What is the next crisis?
With each Crisis the alarmists refine their propaganda technique.......that is the next crisis I predict a political crisis.....same cast......but then it always is.
Always remember the answer is........42.
The minor warming ended in 1998, KYOTO has died.
In the 60-70's we had the DDT CRISIS----which in hindsight was BS.
In the 70's we went through GLOWBULL COOLING and then the OZONE CRISIS.
What is the next crisis?
With each Crisis the alarmists refine their propaganda technique.......that is the next crisis I predict a political crisis.....same cast......but then it always is.
Always remember the answer is........42.
Not in such words, but I agree. This is another sham, just like the others, only this time they rounded the circle to figure out hot to benefit from it. Sales of books was chump-change compared to a % of the proposed carbon trading stock market.
The connection to Moe Strong and hid earth dingbats is strong and direct too. It's a wonder no greenies go over and argue those facts.
sasquatch2 @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:11 pm
Zipperfish
$1:
Also, you mean to say that pollution from a city can only affect the climate of that small area? That's pretty naive, but that's what that quote implies.
Agreed.....but then the esteemed IPCC ignores China pollution as do the majority of Greenys. I am not referring to CO2 but just plain shit. Apparently the Beijing Olympics face a bigger environmental hurdle than Mexico City. How can Athletes compete when smog limits visibility to less than a block.
China has harnessed technology to ease the congestion at Beijing airport. When visibility near NIL aircraft can taxi on instruments now. Now it's not just fear of flying but fear of taxiing?
sasquatch2 @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:15 pm
Fifeboy
$1:
ShepherdsDog wrote:
I don't know man, the indians I know, if they were hunting on your land and your dogs were "set" on them would leave you a gift of some very dead dogs.
$1:
I've set my dogs on them when they try to hunt or fish illegally on MY land.
I don't know man, the indians I know, if they were hunting on your land and your dogs were "set" on them would leave you a gift of some very dead dogs.
Here that situation would result in some good indians.
sasquatch2 @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:19 pm
Zipperfish
$1:
However, the theory of anthrpogenic climate change does not rest on the shoulders of Dr. James Hansen. Assassinating his character--
Logically it is not really possible to assinate the character of a man who exhibits a lack thereof.
A character assassination involves baseless accusations. All of these accusations are well founded---the guy is a fraud.
sasquatch2 @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:32 pm
Brenda
$1:
That is from the link from Zip, from that Nasa study, where that post is directly under. Now you don't even read links provided but you have your opinion ready???
Lemme do your homework for ya:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/enviro ... rmest.html
Scroll down, and read, mefriend
Lemme do your homework for ya:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/enviro ... rmest.html
Scroll down, and read, mefriend
Yes he certainly sees what he wishes to see and ignores the rest.
What is not properly addressed is this concept of a "GLOBAL TEMPERATURE". Most responsible climatologist world wide denounce this as an impossible concept.
more inconvenient truth
$1:
That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book.
fifeboy @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:38 pm
sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
Fifeboy
Here that situation would result in some good indians.
We must be talking about two different groups of people.
$1:
ShepherdsDog wrote:
I don't know man, the indians I know, if they were hunting on your land and your dogs were "set" on them would leave you a gift of some very dead dogs.
$1:
I've set my dogs on them when they try to hunt or fish illegally on MY land.
I don't know man, the indians I know, if they were hunting on your land and your dogs were "set" on them would leave you a gift of some very dead dogs.
Here that situation would result in some good indians.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 24 Next