Global Warming is to blame???

Pages

418 posts / 0 new
Last post
bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)

1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
 

2. Earth (2,240)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
 

3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
 

Computers & Math (935)

1. Computer Science (242)

2. Math (693)

I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
 

Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

1. Physics (5,225)

I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
 

2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

Chemistry (4,822)

1. Chemistry (3,129)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

1. Biochemistry (744)

I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
 

2. Biology (1,438)

I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
 

3. Agriculture (783)

I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
 

Medicine (3,046)

1. Medical Science (719)

2. Medicine (2,327)

General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

1. General Engineering (9,833)

I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
 

2. General Science (269)


bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

5. Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

6. Does the petition project list contain duplicate names?

Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.

7. Are any of the listed signers dead?

In a group of more than 30,000 people, deaths are a frequent occurrence. The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories. When we do learn of a death, an "*" is placed beside the name of the signatory. For examples, Edward Teller, Arnold Beckman, Philip Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen are American scientists who signed the Petition and are now deceased.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fishmahn Said:
tuffrdog-I'd like to see those scientists names that were previously under grant and now feel it necessary to tell the truth you spoke of. I'ts probably no one I work with but it would be interesting if these names ring a bell.

Jinkies  Shaggy. I think we have a clue.

Fish if you are asking others to provide information, perhaps it would be somewhat appropriate to provide the information you have been asked to. 

You know that 10 year snapshot/blink scientific basis deal ,  providing an "educated science climatologist" that will claim they can identify 10 specific years within a time frame 650,000 years ago and tell you what the earths temps were in this  specific 10 year period to back up your claim the Earths temps have never been where they have been since 1998 before?????
 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
A LITTLE GIRL ON A PLANE

A congressman was seated next to a little girl on an airplane sohe turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights goquicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."
The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"
"Oh, I don't know," said the congressman. "How about global warming?" as he smiled smugly.
"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is ?

The legislator, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."
To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss global warming, when you don't know shit?"

And then she went back to reading her book.

fish, perhaps you would have better luck researching this!

TUFFdog's picture
TUFFdog
Offline
Joined: 9/19/06

How come I can't do what fishmahn is doing? Is it because I am on the other side of the fence? I can't say things wrong. I am supposed to back everything up. That's not fair.  I think someone should pay for my time spent on here. It's not my fault I read the wrong info. It was my school teachers and college professors fault. My parents taught me wrong. My dad spanked me when I was young so now I have a complex. I think the government should come up with a program to make sure everyone is well informed.

Once a King, Always a King

But once a Knight is never enough

PikePits's picture
PikePits
Offline
Joined: 10/16/09

Before I scribed the body of my most recent post; I felt a business opportunity, and may have nipped a fat hog in the ass.Out of work  and desparate; the thought of a non-emission casket seemed to solve all of the debate in my mind. After researching the gases emitted by the corpse; I settled on the fact that CO2 and O2 aren't  present at death. Apparently Daises don't grow where the sun shines w/o CO2 or Oxygen. That being said, Nitrogen appears to benefit the process.  Until I cracked another beer and realized that it was carbonized; I had no idea the effect it had on society. The CO2 in the cigarette after I endorsed my post to myself surely could have not helped either. The point is that you could sell a Green casket and profit or be a prophet. If so; I thought of it first. Unfortunately; it appeared to be a canidate of false advertising, Kinda like every thing else that is Versed these days.

One step at a time...Be careful.

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Do a thick charcoal liner for your caskets?  Problem is:  How do you obtain the charcoal without offending Earth and harming the Tree? 

I grew up around streams which ran bright orange due to mining run off.  Instead of catching crayfish, minnows, sculpin and brook trout; I used to collect mosquito larve in discarded jars.  It was nirvana to visit folks who lived along a clean creek. When you walked up on a hole, you'd see the brook trout scatter under rocks.  It wasn't until I was 10 or so until I learned what those flashes of light were.  I learned to catch crayfish(crawcrabs) and minnows by submerging an aforementioned jar behind the "prey" and gently persuading it to capture with my free hand.  My kids will never know this joy and it makes me sad.

People had to live then and they have to live now.  Many of these streams have been fixed by research and copious, efficient placement of limestone.  

These orange creeks etc, have sparked a religion for the agnostic and atheist.  

 Nuke the Whales

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

We used to call sculpin "mullet".  You can hold an earthworm, slowly pull it around the rocks and lift one out of the water if the worm can hold it's own.

 Nuke the Whales

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Go to fullsize image

 Nuke the Whales

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Go to fullsize image

 Nuke the Whales

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Go to fullsize image

 Nuke the Whales

Murdock's picture
Murdock
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/12/03

Murdock's picture
Murdock
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/12/03

Murdock's picture
Murdock
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/12/03

Murdock's picture
Murdock
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/12/03

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

and again:

 Nuke the Whales

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Fish since you view NASA as the know all that ends all! I thought this piece of info would be beneficial to you in understanding the fact that the computer models used to promote AGW are bull crap science!

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

scary man's picture
scary man
Offline
Joined: 4/23/11

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
I just found this on the drudge report, it probly is the same one as the one above it, but what the heck. I would love to see the look on al gourds face when he sees this!

free thinker = no thinker

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwaterman, ron...

Why do you continue to hover around things like the Heatland Institute?  Can you say skewed data?  As you, and probably didn't think, I know, the Heatland instiute is a Chicago based industry funded rt. wing conservative think tank that has received grants form the likes of Koch Industries.  They are simply a highly funded propaganda machine and are connected to the tea party.  You know,  the rational group,  that would rather let our country default if it meets their political agenda.    Have a great day guy!

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

ron and scary-n the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public health reforms.[5][6][7] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the scientific consensus on climate change, and has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics.[8]

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwater-I thought we already discussed this and the monied interests driving it.. Did you forget? They were on the payroll of Phillip Morris! I mentioned the scientist in question that was being used by the climate skeptics... Once a brilliant scientist and later selling out and finally becoming a laughing stock!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Ha! I knew that you could not avoid the fact that this has been known for a long time, and regardless who reports it, does not change the fact that the models are wrong and continue to use the models as a basis for the changes that you and other AGW religious zealots cling to is hilarious!

The normal act of attacking the messenger and ignoring the message is common place with you!

In regards to the current issue regarding the debt and deficit, I am in in full support of cutting first and cutting deep, before any new taxes are talked about. Because without the cuts, the tax increases will not go toward debt reduction.

You should have listened to the committee hearing regarding this broadcast on Cspan yesterday. You would have understood that only a program with real debt and spending controls is going to avoid our rating from being downgraded. Over and over the people who do the rating stated that spending has to come under control and be at a level that allows for both deficits disappearing and debt being serviced.

Only one plan so far does this and it is not coming from the left!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

the most hilarious part is he actually thinks there's something right wing in Chicago,ROTFLMAO. 

 

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwater-Guess you have to look at the messenger as it seems the "facts" differ. Take something like climategate and see the spin put on that. Have you ever really looked into it? I'm not going to run this back and forth and take up six pages. How about you check out climategate fact check.org and see what actually was said and what the facts are.
As far as this deficit taking it out of the hides of the poor and middle class only ( or what's left of it)is a classic example of what's gone on too long. The wealthy can contribute as well. A combination of cuts and increased revenue are needed and I see nothing like that coming from the right.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

eyxer-What's really hilarious is you just making that statement. It's quite easy to check out. I suggest you do it before you speak.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

First and foremost, the fact is that NASA ( your group that you tout as infallible) has released the data and it has been peer reviewed that shows exactly what the writer has said it does. That more heat is released than previously believed. Thus the models used by IPCC to predict warming levels for the future are inaccurate! THAT IS if we are to believe the data released by NASA!

I do not care if Fox released this or MSNBC or where it came from, the fact is that the claims are accurate, not spin as you say, but accurate based on the data from NASA.
Thus the heat trapping factor used in the models is wrong. This means the projections for the future are wrong.

It means that the models now need to be reworked with the current data and any claims made prior are no longer valid.

To make it a bit more clear, you and your wife have a child born, you assume the child is yours, that your wife was faithful. Now the child is sick, and DNA tells you that your child is not your child. All assumptions made regarding faithfulness are now proven wrong no matter how much you do not want it to be true.

This is the DNA test that proves paternity is not what you once thought!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwater-Your attempt at explanation was admirable but You are aware the OCO crashed into the antarctic ocean a couple of years ago.The new one is not set for launch until the beginning of 2013 and with the state of the economy that's not a sure thing to my knowledge. This is what I was hoping to get some hard indisputable numbers from . In my profession I deal with facts and numbers. In the article by the right wing propaganda machine I saw none of that. Just some generalized statements that could be big or small and open to interpretation by whoever listens to it. What's significant to a "reporter" may seem different to someone that knows better. I truly hope that there is some fact to the idea that the atmosphere is capable of releasing co2 at a faster rate then previously thought. The thing that seems to contradict that fact though is if what we're putting up is such a small amount why is it rising at the rate it is?

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

The numbers are there, but people like you refuse to accept it, because it undermines your zealous belief. What the so called deniers, or skeptics have looked at repeatedly is the fact that the data does not support the models and really never has. The point that so many of us kept saying and why we want unbiased research to continue, but not research where the data is massaged to fit the preconceived theory!

So again spin away as you always do, I know it must be hard getting your arms around the fact that your religion has been nullified and you have no more herd of lemmings crashing over the cliff following the religious teachings of AGW!!!!!!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Oh and by the way, the issue is heat loss not loss of CO2! They are not the same thing even though some in the field have tried to say they are!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

cynical's picture
cynical
Offline
Joined: 10/27/04

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
 -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Gutshot-Same article by the same right wing propaganda machine. Notice the Heartland institute.  YOu don't have to believe me look up the organization for yourself.   Like I said before, If  I had a choice I would welcome this data if it were true.  There are no numbers in the article just  generalizations saying that someone said this.  IT's put out by the same  "Taylor" that says this is the case.  Remember Oreilly said the USA GI's   gunned down unarmed Germans at Malmady very emphatically not once but twice and also stated Mars didn't have a moon.  Was that fact??  No, just silliness.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Fish before your arogance gets out of control, the article links to the report but enough about that! You want to see numbers, well we would also! How about showing us the numbers from the computer models as to compared to what has actually taken place regarding warming then we can compare them to the report published in Remote Sensing.

Have the gonads to stand up and show the models are not corrupted!

Stop dissing who questions them etc.... let computer models in the real world stand on their own.

Do you have the guts to do this? Or will doing so cause to much stress for you as it would mean looking at your zealous religious belief in AGW in a manner that you never have!

 

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

YEs enough of that! *l*  YEs the farther back one goes the more difficult it is to experience good reproducible results.  There are too many variables to to relate apples to apples.  "When you're talking millions of years before T Rex...."   YOu obviously don't remember old posts very well.  Berner's geo carb work?  This is all repetitive but the fact is the co2 concentration (which has nothing to do with any models does it?) has gone vertical since the industrial revolution,...but we can have no effect right?  Also wondering if you ever read the link I left you.

Swanson's picture
Swanson
Offline
Joined: 9/7/07

WILL YOU DAM CHILDREN STOP YOUR BICKERING! GO FISHING ER SOMTHING!


fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Swanson-Any good spots? Got hit with the storm at Van Hook last week and the fishing .......Good thing I packed lunch.

Swanson's picture
Swanson
Offline
Joined: 9/7/07

fishmahn Said:
Swanson-Any good spots? Got hit with the storm at Van Hook last week and the fishing .......Good thing I packed lunch.

Ashtabuhla, around sundstroms landing , the fish turn on about 11am Saturday


Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Bring out the models Fish, show the uneducated,unkept, the facts that these models produced and are accurate!

What have the models predicted for the last 10-20 years and what have been the actual results?

Come on, you are a numbers guy, bring your big guns to the table and defend yourself with them!

Plain and simple, show us that the models are accurate!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwater- BTW this is a copy and paste for all you unable to tell.  I suggest you read the rest of this article.

The study, published July 26 in the open-access online journal Remote Sensing, got public attention when a writer for The Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank that promotes climate change skepticism, wrote for Forbes magazine that the study disproved the global warming worries of climate change "alarmists." However, mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct. The paper's author, University of Alabama, Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, is a climate change skeptic and controversial figure within the climate research community.

"He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, said of Spencer's new study.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Again stop avoiding the issue bring out the models and show us uneducated people the facts regarding them and the accuracy! Stop trying to kill the messenger, and address the message! Can you do that?

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

If the messenger is faulty then I guess we must kill him right? AS I just pointed out the messenger proved to be quite faulty.
You stated you're uneducated & uniformed so what would be the point of supplying you with a plethora of facts? It would be a waste of time.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fish, how about just providing one single "scientist" that can factually accurately segment a single decades worth of data from the time frame we are discussing of global change occuring as you suggested way back when. Still waiting for answers to some pretty direct simple questions tha might give your claims SOME degree of credibility if you would ever consider answering them.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

fish, how about just providing one single "scientist" that can factually accurately segment a single decades worth of data from the time frame we are discussing of global change occuring as you suggested way back when. Still waiting for answers to some pretty direct simple questions tha might give your claims SOME degree of credibility if you would ever consider answering them.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Message is that the climate computer models are not accurate and show inaccurate projections! You demagogue the messenger to avoid answering the question of the message.

So trot out those models show us how accurate they are and where the messenger is wrong in relaying the message?

Get it!

It does not matter if the messenger is a right wing group,left wing or communist, for that matter. The same question remains in place, why do the computer models not reflect the events that they predicted would occur?

It is on those that produced the models and those that support them to be able to defend the inaccuracy! Not the other way around!!!!!!!!!!!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Swanson's picture
Swanson
Offline
Joined: 9/7/07

All I know is its warm out!!! bring on winter!


fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwater- This is short and to the point.Climate model results summarized by the IPCC in their third assessment show overall good agreement with the satellite temperature record. In particular both models and satellite record show a global average warming trend for the troposphere (models range for TLT/T2LT 0.6 - 0.39

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

fishmahn Said:
Hardwater- This is short and to the point.Climate model results summarized by the IPCC in their third assessment show overall good agreement with the satellite temperature record. In particular both models and satellite record show a global average warming trend for the troposphere (models range for TLT/T2LT 0.6 - 0.39

Really now? Funny because those models show much larger rises but the IPCC adjusted them to fit, not the actual model projects, but the summary adjustments they made to bolster their position. Produce the model data and show its comparison to actual collected data. That is what is needed!

This is one of many areas where the scientists who submitted work to the IPCC complained that their work was misrepresented,manipulated and did not reflect the actual report they submitted!

So try again Fish!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Adjusted them to fit? What a crock! It wouldn't matter what I put here backed by God himself you'd still go back to your hearftland Institute mularkey. The differences aren't significant. There are things that will change a model's data to a degree that you can't engage unless you're Karnack.. No one ever said you could be exact with this. The farther out you go the more variables you deal with. Take for example vlocano's. These will show a short term cooling effect. Every logical person knows you cannot predict the outcomes exactly unless you know every thing that may or may not happen in the course studied. You can however get trends and see what path you're taking and if you should make some changes,.... something you seem to be incapable of.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

The IPCC report is a summary of all the reports and data pulled together, not the actual studies or footnotes and comments made by those who actually did the work. I have asked you not for the summary report, but the actual study that the summary was pulled from.

The IPCC has no credibility to produce accurate nor unbiased data which has been proven in the most recent report and also in the previous report where info they knew was false was allowed to be published and even though it may have been to late to fix it in the report before printing. They did not acknowledge it until pressed to do so!

So either put up the actual data that shows the computer model tracking properly or admit that they are not accurate since not only has this peer reviewed study proven otherwise, there are more prior to this that have stated the same thing! 
That CO2 does not have the heat trapping properties levels that you and others insist they do. NASA which is biased put out the data, which is something you are trying to avoid dealing with.

Without the CO2 trapping levels that you claim, your house of cards falls around you!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02
Wouldn't more CO2 produce more plants which in turn would produce more O2 which would cool the burning Earth?  Would the "over abundance"  O2 then be considered a pollutant due to suffocating vegetation?  Is it possible to make fizzy soda pop with O2 and help the Earth?  Could CO2 be extracted from beers in the vat and be replaced with O2 to help the Earth?  It would be cool to have a refreshing beverage and help the Earth with every burp.  Just wondering...

Women's Bathroom Fart Prank featuring Tyne Daly:

http://youtu.be/3sZcyNktWAU
   

 Nuke the Whales

cynical's picture
cynical
Offline
Joined: 10/27/04

The "researchers" that push the global warming agenda have a vested interest in seeing their point of view taken hook, line and sinker.   I don't need to know much more.

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
 -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

Pages