Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

He did win the Nobel peace prize. And I'm sure you win a lot of bar arguments, but the fact is the majority of research scientists working in relevant fields disagree with you, so you'd lose the argument where it matters--in peer-reviewed sceince journals.

   

Not when the jury pool is tainted by so-called scientific organizations defending their "official positions." Those same peer-reviewed journals are playing dice with their credibility.

   

Nonsense. Show me these "majority of research scientists working in relevant fields" predicting a coming, catastrophic 20 foot sea level rise, or saying recent typhoons in the Pacific were caused by global warming. They don't exist. You even know they don't exist. What you're talking about are a consensus of policy makers in scientific organizations who subscribe to general global warming theory. It's not the same thing, as a majority of actual research scientist (not computer modelers) working in relevant fields. Come think of it what is it those guys are saying as far as the trend for sea level rise? About 2 inches per decade, isn't it? And that started as we came out of the little ice age naturally. I really want to see you produce a majority of hurricane experts saying global warming is increasing number, or intensity of hurricanes or typhoons. I don't think even those policy makers, at the organizations where it's politically expedient to accept global warming ideology are saying that any more, are they?

   

Sorry, I should have specified that the majority of reseacrh scientists working in relevant fields subscribe to the theory of anthropogenic climate change--as opposed to catastrophic AGW.







First of all, to correct an error, many computer modellers are Ph.D. research scientists. Second of all, subscribing to the theory of AGW does not mean you have to think that sea levels will rise twenty feet. Some of the sources you espouse as "sceptics" subscribe to AGW theory, actually.

Are we coming out of a little ice age? That seem to contradict a lot of sceptics who say that it is cooling and we are just going into an ice age.

   

I wouldn't doubt that individuals are biased--some intentionally, some unintentionally--and some boards may be biased one way or the other. But can you demonstrate, through evidence, a net effect showing that what is being said in these journals as a whole, is not what is being said by scientists as a whole. Note, this would not simply be a tallying of "anti-" and "pro-" climate change papers to see if they added up evenly.

McIntyre had his seminal paper criticizing Mann's work published, didn't he? In fact, there is a number of peer-reviewed papers skeptical of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. The "consensus" among scientists, for example, seems to be that the Antarctic is cooling (or, at least, clearly not warming). Shouldn't this have been suppressed if there were an active campaign by scientists to scupper skeptic's science?

As for the positions of science organizations--they are just that: positions. They are not peer-reviewed papers. Still, the position of so many relevant scientific organizations supporting anthropogenic AGW theory carries weight in my books. It should be added that it's not just the scientific organizations--most large oil companies have policy positions that support the AGW theory as well.

   

It's official - this year was cooler than last year and, ergo, we had more ice.

post1323904

   

If a slight cooling and less melting then a record year is enough to convince you ats getting colder then tell me were you all fervent believers when the record heat jump hit in 1998 ans the whole warming trend of the past 20 years?

   

Forgive me, but you're neglecting the fact that it's been cooler than 1998 for the past ten consecutive years.

   

Cooler then the record high of 98 perhaps but you are neglecting the fact that the last 20 years have been hotter then the last century.

Again, I'm sure you were a fervent believing in 1998 right?

   

False premise: DerbyX makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence”

   

Actually some of the hottest years in the 20th century were in the 20s and 30s

   

I won't dogpile you on the first point but I will agree that 1998 was a hot year, but I'll also agree that 1934 was the hottest year of the 20th century complete with global droughts and famines far in excess of anything we've seen in the past 74 years.

   

They must be the same people who wrote Windows 98.

   

NSIDC has declared the ice season officially over. This year extent was up 9% over last year.

NSIDC reluctantly admits there was more ice this year than last

Here's a good graph

   

You could allways go to enviro Canada's website where they have archives of stats for every single weather station in Canada going bact to the 40's.

Some readings are taken every 5 minutes and thats anywhere in Canada where there is an airport.

That's long before they had any sattelite data.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next