It's peer reviewed!
The debate is over.
YOU SHUT UP!
Exactly, Sequel. Not to mention, doesn't the redistibution of wealth through carbon taxes trump trivial things like facts and evidence (or lack of) in this case?
Don't go too crazy. Check out the statement at http://www.aps.org/:
APS Position Remains Unchanged
The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."
An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.
It sometimes pays to go to the horse's mouth.
Oh, yeah, and if the APS HAD changed its official position, that wouldn't mean all the membership agrees. Just a detail.
I think Tracy went too far in claiming that the APS has reversed its stance on manmade global warming. But there is a change in position, from one of conclusion in the affirmative, to opening a debate. This is long overdue and a sign that rationality may yet prevail over the politicized fear mongering that has dominated the funding mechanisms of government funded research.
One should expect nothing less than serious rationality from an organization of physicists. Perhaps they are now looking at a different self-interest. Moving from securing millions in grants for support of the AGW bandwagon, to preserving their integrity as scientists.
A.J. the debate has never stopped among scientists. That has been a convenient misrepresentation (to paraphrase Albert the Magnificent)by the alarmists. Statements by professional societies are made by committees, not general membership.
Your cynicism about the motivations of scientists is repulsive. Your assertions are also undebatable because we can give each other case after counter case and never prove the generalization. So it goes. All oil producers are corrupt money grubbers, all blacks are criminals, all Indians are lazy, on and on. Know any scientists?
Elmer, forgive us if we took Al Gore at his Holy Word when he declared "the debate is over". Having all those acolytes following after him calling us "global warming deniers" didn't help.
We have understood global warming from the beginning. That would be thousands of years ago, when it first happened. Without human influence.
The cynicism is aimed at the environmentalists.
I'll say a few things now and take a closer look later; I will say that this is certainly of interest and for once (the first time ever, in my recollection) isn't from a completely bogus source.
1) I certainly never claimed the scientific debate "stopped". I have always claimed that given the majority opinion, dealing with the problem rather than sitting back on our asses and rooting for the underdogs was what reasonable people would do.
2) This still represents a tiny drop in the bucket amoung scientists; it's the first of anything like it I've seen
3) I've always been straight up with the fact that while physicists are qualified in this field in the sense that they know the scientific process and some of the physical processes involved, they are far from the people who are the true experts on the matter.
4) The paper by Monckton is frankly disappointing at first scan and trots out lots of the same garbage that's been long sense dismissed.
5) I'll be curious to see how this continues, since Monckton is one of a handful of respected scientists that I'm aware of who has this view (which is why I hear so much about him; the reason none of the "alarmist" (read: majority) scientists are famous is because there are many thousands of them toiling away in labs.
6) This conclusion: "They are merely communists and socialists that are trying to get you to agree to sacrifice your freedoms. If you listen to any of them, YOU ARE A FOOL!" is hilarious and is not supported one iota by what precedes it. Not only have environmentalists prevented us from basically tearing the world apart over the last fifty years, but a little rabbling among scientists - which I never denied existed - does not make us liars or conspirators. We still have a strong majority on our side.
Jeff, look at the post below about the Australian climatologist.
This whole MMGW crap is the best example of why NOT to claim to 'know' anything outside of rudimentary math. Communists? Nah, just a bunch of old hippies trying to find that last ditch way to turn a quick buck before retirement. Being that time has called bullshit on all their high-minded ideal sets, poorly thought out (and failed) revolutions and the plethora of other fantasies. Doublespeak? Nah, Double Fantasy - 'Imagine' over experience...The Beatles really did fuck everything up and the Walrus is appalled at getting his 'green' Lexus airmailed to him...sheesh....
It's nothing but pure faith among the alarmists! Global temperatures have stalled since 1998. Our dear beloved earth has warmed and cooled before we were even industrialized.
The simple truth is that we need to be prepared for either warming or cooling.
Yes, that means we need all forms of reliable energy (including solar, wind, nuclear, clean coal, hydro, etc). Any other kind of thinking is nothing more than pure stupidity!
Message I sent to Pawlenty...
Dear Mr. Pawlenty,
DRILL NOW!! There is absolutely NO excuse to not support that! We have vast oil reserves that need to be tapped!! We have the capacity to do it safely! All the while CHINA WILL BE DRILLING OFF OF FLORIDA!!!!!!!!??? I am sick of the NON-ACTION regarding this NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE!! Get that pair back and stand up to the challenge!! I am sick of this... I cannot go up north to see my family because (I cannot afford the gas) the idiots in Congress and this state seam not to care about us!! We left a country to be free people with "representation" in the govt! I am not seeing it in action anymore! It seams to me that all of you are trying to sneak in hidden taxes all over the place! This is pathetic! When I hear politicians saying "well that's just a drop in the bucket" I would like them to come to my face and tell me that!! It might be a drop to them but it is my money and my fellow citizens money that creates that "drop"!! I am so damn pissed off (I know I am not the only one) at what is going on right now! I have scene the stupidity on the hill and it's like they are from a different world! We have more coal than we know what to do with! Dammit... STAND UP FOR US!!
Sincerely,
ac2
Al Gore,
This probably doesn't effect you so therefore you are free to endorse your little utopian view! What you endorse does effect us (the little ones)! I want taxes reduced for everyone! These bastards are taking too much! I frankly don't give a flying shit what you think about that fact. You and what you support are hurting all of us "little people" and the rich to boot! Talk to my mom who owns a farm and tell her to the face that gas prices should be higher you prick! I am beyond political correctness at this point... you (and your cohorts) are hurting my family!!!!!!!!!!
One more thing... My Mom doesn't participate in the "farm bill"! She has never signed on to it!
"I've always been straight up with the fact that while physicists are qualified in this field in the sense [SIC] that they know the scientific process and some of the physical processes involved, they are far from the people who are the true experts on the matter."
What kinda bullshit statement are you trying to make? It's not like they're a local TV station weather guy. But, for arguments sake, would a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology be considered an expert?
What about an Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences?
Maybe a Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science could be considered an expert?
I wonder if you would consider a meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology an expert?
Dr. Richard Lindzen; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology "There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early ’70s, increased again until the ’90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998."
Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Reid Bryson
[speaking of MAN MADE global warming] "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential. I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."
Harvard trained atmospheric physicist
I've never even heard of an "atmospheric physicist" - there are certainly none here in Minnesota so they must be a rare animal indeed. As a physics grad student, I'll tell you who we are: we study atoms, we study electron spins, we study neutrinos, we study the CMB, we study biophysics... we do NOT study climate.
Anyways, Jeremy, I've pointed out before we can play quote-for-quote. For those three, if I really felt in the mood I could find 10,000 from the other side. But what waste of time. We're here to infer the consensus opinion, not dredge around for a handful of quotes that happen to agree with our politics. You found three scientists out of a million that agree with you? Doesn't impress me.
What I was doing was providing real experts, since you feel physicists, ..."are far from the people who are the true experts on the matter." [in regards to climate change]
You have only proven Tracys second paragraph true: "What? I wonder if these 50,000 Physicists are real scientists? I bet the MMGW cultists will dismiss them all as quacks."
"I've never even heard of an "atmospheric physicist" - there are certainly none here in Minnesota so they must be a rare animal indeed."
Mr. Head, meet Mr. Ass:
What about, Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor University of St. Cloud?
Or, http://www.physics.umn.edu/
under...gradschool.html
Learn how to become an atmospheric physicist at the University of Minnesota.
Your argument is as weak as your climate models.
Er, for the record, the University of St. Cloud - by which you mean St. Cloud State University - is not part of the University of Minnesota, although I suppose it does reside IN the state, which makes one and makes me wrong, apparently.
Regardless, my point should be been clear to anyone with a modicum of sentience: the hugely vast majority of physicists know jack shit about the atmosphere.
As always Jeff closes with. the are all bogus because Im a grad student and I say they are
"Your cynicism about the motivations of scientists is repulsive. Your assertions are also undebatable because we can give each other case after counter case and never prove the generalization." - elmer
Cmon Elmer, if you have real connections in academic scientific fields, you KNOW that the best way to get your research funded is to tie it to global warming. Yes, research not tied as such, can still exist, but is unlikely to get significant funding.
This is very much like the grant funding for academic and documentary films over the last couple of decades. I have a family member who tried hard to make a documentary of the emergence of an eastern European country overcoming Communism. Did he get even one "red cent"? Nope.
First he was making a documentary critical of Communism, an ideology that Western Liberals are been historically friendly towards, despite the millions of bodies and gulags it was responsible for.
Second, his story was about White eastern Europeans. Any chance of getting one thin dime for such a project from the US non-profit agencies? HAH!
Third, late in his effort, he realized that if he had instead focused his story on GLBT issues, in post-Communist eastern Europe, he would have been lavished with money, as he observed was received by another filmmaker.
He was never able to find a sponsor so the film died.
YOU SHUT UP, Jeff explained.
It's peer reviewed I tells ya!
So... jeff, you object to the APS calling for an open academic debate over anthropogenic Global Warming?
(Never mind that warming has entirely reversed in the last two years)
Why?
Elmer, you took offense about my assertions of the motivations of certain scientists? OK, lets take a look:
Case #1: NASA's James Hansen
Hansen became the Golden Boy of NASA when his climate alarmism led to huge windfalls of funding.
George Soros' role in funding Hansen:
http://www.dailytech.com/
NASA+Ja...article9061.htm
In addition to getting a big check from Soros, Hansen has received big bucks from Teresa Heinz-Kerry:
http://www.heinzawards.net/recip...l&
recipientID=9
Hansen has gotten wealthy from promoting unfounded climate alarmism as has Al Gore. when the truth becomes more broadly understood, one wonders whether these charlatans will change color or scurry like cockroaches out of sight under the baseboards. Of course, among the less rational, in the Democrat Party, they will remain heroes.
hugely vast majority
Hmm. Must be a physics term. Comes right after bajillion.
AJ, I object to the generalizations. You're correct, Hansen is obnoxious, although when I met him and spoke with him I found him really interested in the science. He does seem obsessed, but then again he has been the focus of a lot of scorn.
Jeff, don't forget about thermodynamics and spectroscopy. Those fields do have a lot to do with climate studies. See the articles in the APS July issue (online) of Physics and Society, pro and con. Go to Roger Pielke Sr.'s website and browse. It's Pielke's work and the breadth of his discussions that prompted me to say that the discussion of GW had not ended.
Re: financial pressures on Profs to do work in certain areas, of course you're right. Profs have lots of students to support. Funding does pull research projects, as it's supposed to (govmint incentives). But does it make scientists lie? Maybe some, but most? All?
Oddly, AJ is moving toward the old feminist postmodernist critique that science is socially constructed. That's a step backward by 15 years. I thought the scientific community had pretty well mocked that to death.
Interesting exchange...
As always Jeff closes with. the are all bogus because Im a grad student and I say they are
No, I made a very specific case: physicists rarely work on this topic. It's a statistical truth that the vast majority to not. I didn't "say they are", I gave a reason. How novel.
Cmon Elmer, if you have real connections in academic scientific fields, you KNOW that the best way to get your research funded is to tie it to global warming. Yes, research not tied as such, can still exist, but is unlikely to get significant funding.
Scientists study science because they're interested in the topic. If they wanted to get rich, they'd do something else. If they know their research is bogus, they wouldn't be interested - at least for the vast, vast majority. I know many of these people and none that I can think of would make shit up for research money, as it would defeat the purpose. Besides that science is inherently self-correcting and keeping such a secret would require a global conspiracy. The very suggestion of the cynical-scientist theory reveals the theorist as completely ignorant of the way science works.
So... jeff, you object to the APS calling for an open academic debate over anthropogenic Global Warming?
No, I'm objecting to you morons using it to justify having been (and still being) on the small minority side of science for the last twenty years while putting the world at great risk by taking such a position.
(Never mind that warming has entirely reversed in the last two years)
Yeah, but the northern hemisphere as warmed substantially in the last two months.
But seriously, here's my last word on this objection because I'm tired of it. It's called noise, people. When you look at the plots, the overall trend is up. Some individual years go down. This is of no to little significance until it constitutes a trend, which two years do not. While the temperature has risen notably over the last fifty years, there were at least ten times when some smartass could have said, "but der, it's coolin' now!"
AJ is moving toward the old feminist postmodernist critique
I would say that for once the feminists are right. Too much science is socially constructed now as that's where the money is.
Want to study AIDS, you get millions from the Government, want to study prostrate cancer, you best find a nice charity. Prostrate cancer kills way more people than AIDS but get les than 1/10th of the funding, ditto breast cancer for women (Thank God for the Susan G Komen Foundation)
I primarily blame the government for sterring scientists this direction with political strings attached to funding, but they also bear some of the blame for the hysterias they whip up to get funding (Anyone still think AIDS is going to be a huge problem for monogamous married people in the USA?)
Yeah, but the northern hemisphere as warmed substantially in the last two months.
Us old farts tend to call the last 2 months summer and they often are warmer than the previous months.
As for scientists getting rich, you may be right about them at 25, but at 45 many see their peers who didn't go into science getting rich. Often scientists get angry as they are smarter than many people that have way more money than they do. This sets up many scientists for some moral difficulties, not every scientist stays true to science, so just want some bucks for once.
As for a global conspiracy, its more like mass hsyteria led by snake oil salesman like Al Gore and Hansen and a moronic liberal media.
If the Physicista agree that they have not proven the connection between CO2 and warming, any actions you think are required ASAP could be completely useless or counter-productive. You can't decide to increase world hunger on a whim. To do so is immoral.
Us old farts tend to call the last 2 months summer and they often are warmer than the previous months.
Congratulations, we'd call that my point.
Duce, even if you theory about pissed-off 45-year-old scientists is correct, they still couldn't get rich this way. At that point they're already tenured professors - their pay won't change substantially if they get a grant. The grant is, after all, for research, not for them to spend on themselves. And you'd still need for them all to be in on it. I think you all need to step back for a moment and apperciate the absurdity of this theory. I call it a conspiracy theory because that's precisely what it is.
And the Al Gore thing is particulariyl hilarious since this science has been going on for twenty years and he's been talking about it for three. Scientists take their cues from their advisors, not ex-vice presidents.
any actions you think are required ASAP could be completely useless
That's true with anything. Wearing a seatbelt could be completely useless.
or counter-productive.
How? Even if the entire scientific establishment were totally wrong, being energy-independent helps us anyways.
You can't decide to increase world hunger on a whim. To do so is immoral.
Um... what?
Oh wait, I know where you think you're going with that. Some things will be more expensive temporarily.
If this is really a big concern for you, I think you'd be proposing that our nation take stronger actions on this issue. Since you're not, it's clear that you just find the relationship between starving Africans and your desire to guiltlessly drive your Tahoe convenient, and THAT is immoral. Since we could solve the hunger problem if we wanted too but we're just too rich/lazy/greedy to do so, I'd saying relating the issues is clearly bullshit.
And anyways, if you think the small increases in prices while renewable energy comes on line will make people starve, wait'll you see how fast they starve when we run out of oil and have no backup plan. And we'll be starving with 'em.
"Not only have environmentalists prevented us from basically tearing the world apart over the last fifty years,..."
Jeff, have you lost your f'in mind? How much of the coolaid have you been drinking? Is it a BDS thing?
You might have been trying to tear the world apart, but I am a conservationist... and you have no data or proof that environmentalists have saved mother earth over the last fifty year. You are sounding like Al Gore Jr. Don't be an idiot.
Jeff, worshipping models does not make science.
"No, I'm objecting to you morons using it to justify having been (and still being) on the small minority side of science for the last twenty years while putting the world at great risk by taking such a position."
Bullshit, Jeff, worshipping models does not make science.
sorry, Anonymous was me.
You might have been trying to tear the world apart, but I am a conservationist... and you have no data or proof that environmentalists have saved mother earth over the last fifty year.
What?! look at where we are now. Where do you think we'd be if there was nobody looking out for the environment? We have almost no natural environment left. Thirty years ago we had rivers catching on fire until people stepped up. Twenty years ago we had a hole in the ozone layer until people stepped up. There's a modicum of rain forest still in existence because of the efforts of environmentalists. Minnesota has .5% old-growth forest instead of 0% because environmentalists wanted to preserve something. We live in a safe environment because environmentalists, through regulation, protect us. What proof do you need? Everything we still have is the act of people caring about the environment. Unregulated capitalism would have devoured the world long ago if some people didn't establish protections and regulations. It has an infinite appetite.
"worshipping models"
Scientists don't worship, moronic religious types worship, so don't cast your shit on us. Scientist argue, think, evaluate, measure. We have to use models to understand complex systems. Models are used in every branch of science and have yielded huge amounts of information. They're a prediction, a tool, and of course nobody can predict the future so they're not perfect. But they help us understand inputs and outputs. It's not like they're magical - they're just code that reflects the physical relationships we've discovered experimentally. And they are only one piece of the puzzle when it comes to climate science. Accusing scientist of "worshiping models" is a straw-man and - like most comments around here - shows that you don't know shit about the way science works. But I guess I'm getting used to that.
Of cmon jeff, you surely know that in academia if you cannot get grants and publish papers in respected journals, your career dies. Many skeptical scientists have reported that their work is refused if it does not toe the line of man-made global warming.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/ind...F9-
C3F02278F4CF
"And the Al Gore thing is particularily hilarious since this science has been going on for twenty years and he's been talking about it for three. Scientists take their cues from their advisors, not ex-vice presidents." -jeff
Cmon jeff, Gore has been preaching climate alarmism for decades. If Gore had not invited Jim Hansen to speak to Congress on June 23, 1988, there would have been no "global warming" scare. Hansen and Gore kicked off a huge financial windfall in the form of billions in government grants for studying "global warming". Just follow the money. To date, about $50 billion has been dedicated to the study of "global warming". What would happen to this fountain of cash if AGW were disproved? It would disappear. There is enormous scientific peer pressure in the form of defending careers and projects that are threatened with extinction if the thesis is disproved.
Want to get a government research grant? Tie it to global warming like this dubious project:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth.../
eakoala107.xml
Then watch as your research paper is trumpeted across the globe by liberal journalists. You can even become famous! Woudn't it be better if you were actually right instead?
Man Jeff, you really do drink the Koolaid from a hose.
The ozone hole is bigger now than before.
You seem to confuse the natural concern advanced societies have for the environment with the raving assholes at Greenpaeace that piss off the guy that founded the organization.
As for "us" stoping world hunger, before the Ethanol jerk-offs got involved it was just a distribution issue, we had more than enough food if shithead dictators and moronic Marxsist would have just gotten out of the way.
Now, thanks to the ethanol lobby, that is killing huge sections of the rainforest, we also have a supply issue.
Ethanol is a direct of MMGW Environmentalist scare mongering. It is the most visible of hundreds of fucked up, counter-productive policies that we are saddled with thanks to Al Gore and Robert Hansen; both of whom are getting rich off us dupes like you pushing the MMGW agenda.
A fool and his money are soon parted, please stop taking mine in the process.
I'm guessing jeff will support a ban on dihydrogen monoxide next.
AJ, all research has to be funded. It doesn't follow from that that it's a conspiracy. You're casting free-market rules - where "following the money" really is the answer to most questions - onto science, which is an entirely different system. Gore brought Hansen before congress because Hansen was already doing research that showed there was a potential problem - and so were many others. He saw a potential concern and that it needed more study and more funding. This is common practice with science that relates directly to our well-being. How else could it have happened? You'll need to do more to show your conspiracy than just tell me that scientists are funded. I already know that.
Then watch as your research paper is trumpeted across the globe by liberal journalists.
This is particularly absurd since studies have shown that while well over 90% of peer-reviewed papers agreed with the consensus view on the issue, popular news coverage has created a controversy where there hardly was one and covered the issue 50-50. Which makes it the opposite of "liberal", I suppose.
All research has to be funded? Only research that fits the biases and mandates of the funding agency and their paymasters in Congress is likely to get funded! Lets say you wanted to research some aspect of walleyes (this is Minnesota after all). Which of the following projects would be more likely to get funding?
1.) Studying the vartiations in the diet and habitat of walleye populations across Minnesota.
2.) Studying the effect of global warming on the diet and habitat of walleye populations across Minnesota.
Then which of the above resulting papers is more likely to get widespread exposure in the media?
Just like my family member couldn't get any grant moeny for his documentary project because it was a story about straight, white European people, had he instead made it about the "coming out" of lesbians in Eastern Europe following the fall of communism, he said he would have had no problems getting as much money as he wanted.
"...studies have shown that while well over 90% of peer-reviewed papers agreed with the consensus view on the issue," -jeff
Has it occurred to you that it this might is so because it is very difficult to get a paper published with skeptical views? As Dr. Reid Bryson, founder of Department of Climatology at UW puts it: "It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth."
"We have almost no natural environment left.
Spoken like a naive liberal student that doesn't understand much about anything. I suggest you take a trip outside the 694/494 loop... and stop spewing falsehoods... start using facts, logic, and science for a change.
"Not only have environmentalists prevented us from basically tearing the world apart over the last fifty years,..."
Like the million or two human beings your movement slaughters every year because of DDT hysteria.
Now, you may argue that banning DDT is the right thing to do. Short term sacrifice for long term gain. Even if that is the case, then you must admit that in your war to save the planet you are willing to sacrifice 20, 30, 50 million human lives so far -- mostly children who suffer a horrible death.
Keep the body count coming. Pretty soon you'll be able to pass communism as the deadliest movement in human history.
"There's a modicum of rain forest still in existence because of the efforts of environmentalists." -Jeff
Actually Jeff, the largest driver in the destruction of the Amazon rainforest is environmentalism. The environmentalists' drive to embrace bio-fuels is responsible for this.
http://www.time.com/time/
magazin...1725975,00.html
All research has to be funded? Only research that fits the biases and mandates of the funding agency and their paymasters in Congress is likely to get funded!
How do you suggest we do it then? Sure, there's a human and political aspect to everything. That doesn't give you the right to dismiss all science with a wave of your hand.
Actually Jeff, the largest driver in the destruction of the Amazon rainforest is environmentalism. The environmentalists' drive to embrace bio-fuels is responsible for this.
They're wrong on this. I am not defending them unilaterally. I am saying that it is only a spirit of conservation by some people that has saved what little we have. They fuck up sometimes like anyone else.
Like the million or two human beings your movement slaughters every year because of DDT hysteria.
This is completely bullshit and repeating it won't make it true. From wikipedia:
"Today there is debate among professionals working on malaria control concerning the appropriate role of DDT. The range of disagreement is relatively narrow: Few believe either that large scale spraying should be resumed or that the use of DDT should be abandoned altogether. The debate focuses on the relative merits of DDT and alternative pesticides as well as complementary use of interior wall spraying, insecticide-treated bed-nets, and other mosquito control techniques."
They still use the stuff to control malaria, although the bugs are just becoming resistant to it anyways. What stopped was dumping a billion pounds of the shit everywhere, which was an environmental disaster and was only causing them to become resistant to it faster.
Has it occurred to you that it this might is so because it is very difficult to get a paper published with skeptical views?
Only if they're shitty papers. The editors of all the major journals say that no anti-consensus papers are even being submitted for review.
"I'm guessing jeff will support a ban on dihydrogen monoxide next."
If that is what the goracle says, err, the model "predicts", then by all means Jeff will support a ban!!!
Don't get me wrong, I have created FEA models and they can be very helpful, when verified with real world data.
BTW, Jeff, how is that hockey stick graph doing? Is the end near? Run for your lives?
Worshipping models does not make science.
Bold-facing arguments them doesn't make them true. I explained models already. If you want to discuss that explanation in an intelligent fashion, you can proceed. Repeating something over and over means you're ready to argue with three-year-olds.
You can't verify the future with real-world data so you've set an impossible bar - so clever!! The models, of course, are based on current real-world data and are compared with it.
As for dihydrogen monoxide, I don't care what Gore thinks and I never have. I care about what science thinks, and the current consensus on diohydrogen monoxide is that it's good frozen with bourbon.
Jeff, you can't verify the future with computer models, either. They are and will always be conjecture.
I'm sorry, did I say I could "verify the future"?
OK, let's just for fun agree on something. NOBODY KNOWS THE FUTURE.
However, we have a situation where it's desirable to make a best, most educated guess at what WILL happen given certain inputs. THAT IS ALL.
You denigrate all knowledge by trying to strip reason and experiment of their legitimacy and I won't have it.
If you throw a baseball in the air, I can make a good assumption about the future: due to gravity, it will return to the earth, and given its initially velocity I can tell you almost exactly when. This is from past experiment and overarching theories that connect them.
The climate is no different fundamentally, though much more complex. However, a climate model is not "conjecture". "Conjecture" is "my weather leg tells me it's going to rain." What it is is the very best possible prediction based on past observation (some of it indirect) and the theories that connect those observations, just like the baseball. Yes, it's harder, sure. But it's the best we have, and further, the professional opinion of most scientists is that it's enough to take action.
You claim that you explained the models, yet no one has proven the models, and the "consensus" keeps changing its opinion. Jeff, you want Kyoto to bankrupt America based on an unproven model.
BTW, how is that hockey stick graph doing?
But that's not what's happening, Jeff. We are being told this not conjecture. It's Scientific Consensus (whatever the Hell that means). A climate model is absolute "conjecture".
I can make a good assumption too. The draconian "solutions" to this supposed "problem" will result in economic catastrophe. There is no experiment or repeatable control that verifies it.
Comparing climate models to gravity is just silly. One is proven. The other most certainly is not.
If the Internet had been around when Galileo was dealing with the Catholic Church, this is probably what it would have looked like.
Jeff -- you cannot reason with people whose "religion" is maintaining the status quo at all costs and who have no interest in anything but self-interest.
The Russians are abandoning an Arctic base because the ice is melting at such a rapid rate. Who needs a study when you have people experiencing the impact live?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25674696/
What ice floe that is cut loose from land does not eventually melt? If they didn't then our sea lanes and harbor would be clogged with icebergs.
It does not take much to figure out that polar ice grows through deposition of precipitation. It also doesn't require much knowledge that ice melts in seawater, because it obviously gets warmed by the water.
Your example proves nothing except ice eventually melts in water.
"The editors of all the major journals say that no anti-consensus papers are even being submitted for review." - jeff
I guess the renowned Dr. Antonio Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists, author of over 800 published scientific papers, and 10 science books, and outspoken critic of the IPCC's climate models as "incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view", does not know what he is talking about.
http://www.justpax.it/pcgp/dati/...D%
20CLIMATE.pdf
Zichichi's bio: http://www.ccsem.infn.it/em/zich.../
short_bio.html
Thanks AJ for making the point. Neither scientific nor physical evidence are believable by you guys. You are so vested in the status quo that you are unwilling to see what is happening.
Fortunately, others do and I am convinced that like Galileo theories, MMGW will prove to be true.
Good Lord, Al. AJ didn't make your point. YOU didn't even make your point.
you cannot reason with people whose "religion" is maintaining the status quo at all costs and who have no interest in anything but self-interest.
No kidding. Clueless to a fault.
Jeff, one last item. The term "follow the money" is not a term associated with capitalism. It is a term associated with ferretting out political corruption.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/
ful...75BC0A961958260
Using this term in discussing the motivations of climate alarmists is very appropriate, for they very rarely reveal their personal financial stakes in advocating fear about climate change. When $50 billion has gone into funding research on global warming, it is certain to end up in the pockets of AGW advocates. WHere else would it go? Al Gore himself has become a multi-millionaire off of this.
Sure, there's individual stakes in everything. So what? Science has historically proven itself to be the most self-policing, independent entity we have. Scientists are not "advocates", and Al Gore has nothing to do with it. Scientists do studies and interpret the results. That's it. The results in this case are spelling danger. You're dragging all kinds of shit into it that just isn't there.
The draconian "solutions" to this supposed "problem" will result in economic catastrophe.
That's not true. It's completely made up. Here you critique this science, which is the result of tons of study, then you just make up some random shit and expect me to believe it. There's no evidence that regulation in the past has caused an "economic catastrophe". Fifteen years ago when we banned CFCs, the industries bitched, the conservatives predicted doom, and nothing happened except the ozone layer returned and some of the companies ended up saving money. I don't buy your doom and gloom predictions unless you have something to back it up. We've been forced to regulate many things over the years and the only consequence of that is we're still here and we're still relatively healthy.
BTW, how is that hockey stick graph doing?
Uh, still the accepted prediction.
"...MMGW will prove to be true." - 5Als
Well, it sure doesn't look good for realizing your apcopalytic dream. On the 20th anniversary of James Hansen's testimony to Congress in 1988, the average global temperaturte has actually DROPPED below the 1988 level, despite the accelerating concentrations of atmospheric CO2.
You claim "we" are not looking at evidence? THIS is actual evidence:
http://www.dailytech.com/
Tempera...rticle10866.htm
And finally you say you are convinced that "MMGW will prove to be true". Belief in something that is not supportable by empirical evidence, is more akin to religion than our insistence on seeing incontrovertible facts that man is causing catastrophic global warming, before accepting any of the "solutions" peddled by Al Gore and his like.
"You're dragging all kinds of shit into it that just isn't there." - jeff
Really? Because I believe Dr. Antonio Zichichi over Hansen and Gore, both of whom have received huge gifts of money for promoting global warming alarmism?
Just one of their windfalls for alarmism has been the Heinz Environment Award.
http://www.heinzawards.net/recip...l&
recipientID=9
Well, you can believe him over Hansen if you want (Gore not being a scientist) but then you also get to believe him over about a million others.
"still the accepted prediction." - jeff
Really? You seem behind the curve here. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick debunked Mann's hockey stick methodology years ago. The IPCC pulled it out of their latest report because it was disproven.
Still believe in it? So where is the Medieval Climate Optimum, which happily coincides with the Maunder Minimum? I won't provide links for this is such basic stuff.
Finally, a couple of questions":
1.) Jeff, how much do you have out in student loans?
2.) If you are a student in science who still believes in global warming after the house of cards comes crashing down, how will you repay your loans? If you invest your academic life in a discredited theory, do you think you will be able to find employment once out in the real world?
There is always delivering pizzas.
I will take the position of Dr. Zichichi, President of the World Federation of Scientists, over this crackpot Hansen any day. If you heven't noticed, Hansen is an outlier, his predictions wildly differ from the IPCC "consensus". If you are a believer in scientific consensus you should reject Hansen and by extension Gore.
Of course if you are a climate scientist who "believes" in Hansen, you will be rewarded by the gravy train of government finding he has brought to the issue. Well, like I said... follow the money.
That's not true. It's completely made up.
Let's see, a carbon tax, cap and trade, forbidding increase in supply, demand rising. That's a recipe for catastrophe.
Jeff, you don't have a clue how the real world works. You've proven it time and again in the things you say.
You just keep riding your bike in your little, insulated world of make-believe.
Jeff,
Al G could have "found a nut" in the above advice he gives you.
Try Du or some other lib-tard commie site, you will find your precious consensus there, and will be widely recognized for your sloganeering.
Good luck with that,
Papa Joe
For every position, there are scientists willing to support it. I am more convinced by the actual physical evidence as seen by declining glaciers, melting ice packs etc.
The proof is all around us and we're dicking around with scientific studies.
no Al, you are the one dicking around and running to the egoist conclusion that everything that happens from the wind blowing to the frequency of tornadoes are the result of human intervention.
One would not want to "dick around" with scientific studies, after all. The fate of the Arctic Penguin is at stake!
(Al, you are intellectually challenged. Not by me, it's a solo thing, buddy.)
The earth has been warming for some time because we are coming out of an ice age. In the past 100 years the sea level has risen a WHOPPING foot!! Oh my god folks... let's run for the hills (make sure to grab a bucket to pitch the flood of water)!!
Seriously though... everyone I know tries their best do what they can to help our dear "mother earth" by recycling, picking up trash when we see it, etc. Where I draw the line is when someone else intrudes on my lifestyle and dictates how I should run my life!! I do not ask others to do anything but I hope that they care as much as I do. I am extremely against govt intervention (seeing as though they have done such a bang up job on so many issues)!!!!!!!!
"mother earth" was tossed in for fun. 
One more thought... We live in America... life is pretty good for just about everybody. I want us to be energy independent. It will take time... I believe that if all of us (liberals vs. Conservatives) could come up with a truly sound policy we could make it happen. Nothing will happen if we take the Draconian steps of Al Gore (literally the real guy)! We will get through this just like we have other issues that the US has dealt with. It will take time but we do not need the govt to do it!! Furthermore we do not need to screw the one's that don't make six figure salary's. ALL of us need to have a tax reduction (aside from the one's that actually do not pay taxes)
Although It pains me to actually say what I said... it is a national security issue. We need to eventually be self reliant. Now it is going to be some time before it happens and there is no damn reason that we need to speed it up to ten years!! Let the market work.
I will say this very clearly in the hopes that "Al Gore" gets this. You want $5 gas and I am sure you might get it. What will you do when the rest of us farmer's stop delivering!?!? You had better start learning how to grow YOUR own crops because we will no longer do it!! I know how to live without the food store. Do YOU!!!!!!????? Wake up you self righteous piece of crap! THAT IS REALITY!!!!!!
1.) Jeff, how much do you have out in student loans?
Very little. I had a scholarship as an undergraduate, and physics graduate students get paid, not the other way around.
Really? You seem behind the curve here. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick debunked Mann's hockey stick methodology years ago. The IPCC pulled it out of their latest report because it was disproven.
Um... I'm pretty sure it's still there. I think one of the several predictions was modified slightly between versions.
MIT's Technology Review on the flaws of the "hockey stick".
http://www.technologyreview.com/...gy/13830/page1/
After obtained part of the program that Mann used to create his temperature graph, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick did a "Monto Carlo" analysis, widely used in statistical analysis to test the validity of procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape! Mann's procedures created a hockey stick graph no matter what data was put into it.
Fifteen years ago when we banned CFCs,
You were 10 years old 15 years ago and I was working in an industry that used CFC's for cleaning. There was some grumbling but we all switched and gone with it. There is no comparision to the shit being pulled by MMGW fanaitcs today and the CFC change over.
Don't talk about things you know nothing about. You were watching Barney while I was actually working on CFC replacements.
Jeff wants Kyoto to bankrupt America based on an unproven model.
BTW, how is that hockey stick graph doing?
"Uh, still the accepted prediction." - Jeff
You fail, again, Jeff. That bogus graph was proven wrong, random data comes out as a hockey stick.
Worshipping models does not make science.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
