Chicken Fried Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Scientists in Japan funded by the Japanese government?http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/eng/press/040916/ (Or are they in on it too?) Those are just a list of projections. The projections of the last 30 years have been epically wrong (oh noooo, we're going to have an ice age!). Does it not bother anyone that global warming is a multi-billion dollar industry? I would say that the majority of sources are not reliable at all because of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Does it not bother anyone that global warming is a multi-billion dollar industry? I would say that the majority of sources are not reliable at all because of this.The inconvenient truth is that it is more like a trillion dollar industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Those are just a list of projections. The projections of the last 30 years have been epically wrong (oh noooo, we're going to have an ice age!). Please don't bull**** us about the "ice age" projection. Those "projections" came from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1974_Time_Magazine_article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article You should not be getting your sicence projections from the Time Magazine or Newsweek. Projections of IPCC have actually been on the conservative side: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#Conservative_nature_of_IPCC_reports Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to underestimate dangers, understate risks, and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings.[80] On 1 February 2007, the eve of the publication of IPCC's major report on climate, a study was published suggesting that temperatures and sea levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last IPCC report in 2001.[81] The study compared IPCC 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change with observations. Over the six years studied, the actual temperature rise was near the top end of the range given by IPCC's 2001 projection, and the actual sea level rise was above the top of the range of the IPCC projection. ---------- Post added August-30th-2011 at 02:03 PM ---------- The inconvenient truth is that it is more like a trillion dollar industry. Fossil fuel industries have SIGNIFICANTLY more resources than the "global warming industry". YES or NO? If you are a sensitive type and you don't like people laughing at you, I suggest you anwser YES or avoid the question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 The inconvenient truth is that it is more like a trillion dollar industry. You know, I hear that the scientists who said that smoking is bad for you had funding, too. Therefore you shouldn't believe them. Because after all, every scientist whose research is funded, can't be believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Have you done any research to match your feelings with the actual state of AGW science? Your feelings may have been accurate in 1970s. The science really moved forward during last couple of decades. It's kind of funny how people can look at the some post and walk away with different thoughts.. I see a comment like that and up wondering how much the poster actually knows about the accuracy of weather prediction in the 1940s.My guess is, it is about the same amount as I do. For reasons only slightly important to this discussion, I know a little more about this than you might suspect. My boss relays interesting stories about any number of topics (he's the real most interesting man in the world), one of which was from his friend, the meteorologist for DDay. I wasn't clear in my post what I thought of weather predictions from the 1940's. In a nutshell, they were pretty good, but still developing. What I've heard anecdotally, the difficulty with predicting the weather on D-Day was due to the lack of data from the oceans. Over land, there were more observations. Part of the reason there was such dispute about the weather for D-Day was one meteorologist in particular was more comfortable using cutting edge data from the Oceans. Here's a link to the story on wikipedia, for what it's worth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord Weather forecastThe window of opportunity for launching an invasion was limited to only a few days in each month as a full moon was required, for light for the aircraft pilots and for the spring tide. Eisenhower had tentatively selected 5 June as the date for the assault. However, on 4 June, conditions were clearly unsuitable for a landing; high winds and heavy seas made it impossible to launch landing craft, and low clouds would prevent aircraft finding their targets. The Germans meanwhile took comfort from the existing poor conditions and believed an invasion would not be possible for several days. Some troops stood down, and many senior officers were absent. Rommel, for example, took leave to attend his wife's birthday.Since April, the Captain class frigate HMS Grindall had been transmitting weather reports from the mid-Atlantic every three hours. From these reports, Group Captain James Stagg RAF, Eisenhower's chief meteorologist, predicted a slight improvement in the weather for 6 June. Grindall's reports indicated a ridge of high pressure behind a deep depression. Stagg forecast that the ridge would move eastward to reach the south-west approaches to the Channel late on 5 June, bringing a short-term improvement in the weather. At a vital meeting late on 5 June, Eisenhower and his senior commanders discussed the situation. General Montgomery and Major General Walter Bedell Smith, Eisenhower's chief of staff, were eager to launch the invasion. Admiral Bertram Ramsay also was prepared to commit his ships, while Air Chief Marshal Trafford Leigh-Mallory was concerned that the conditions would be unfavourable for Allied aircraft to operate. After much discussion, Eisenhower decided to launch the invasion that night.[53] Had Eisenhower postponed the invasion, the only option was to go two weeks later but this would have encountered the 'worst channel storm in 40 years' as Churchill later described it, which lasted four days between 19 and 22 June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 Anecdotal, and I'll freely admit that I'm not certain that it's even true, but I've heard that the decision to use the second atomic bomb over Nagasaki was made based on a weather forecast, too. The way I've heard it, the mission profile for using an atomic bomb called for a single bomber to drop the bomb, during daylight. The reason for doing so was because we knew that there would be survivors, and we wanted the survivors to be able to state that all this damage was done by a single airplane. Supposedly, when we decided to use the second bomb, we knew that the Japanese were still doing damage assessment on the first bomb. We knew that they'd only had a brief time for reports to have filtered back to the people in charge. But, supposedly, the weather forecast called for Nagasaki to be overcast for the next several days, and by then we might be into a rainy season, so the decision was made to go ahead and use it, lest we lose the best possible viewing weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skadden Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 you libs...as I sit in my media room in my new home with state of the art appliances, my AWD with ipod control and individual passenger/driver comfort settings parked in my newly-paved driveway, taking a day off from my job in the shipyards working on the coolest new Navy nuclear frigates and watching NFL games on my satellite dish hooked up to the 55" plasma through my Denon/B&W surround system with the new JL Audio Fathom subwoofers and digital room correction, and still riding the internet, I need to assure you I have every good reason to laugh at you libs and your "science theories" when it suits me..... wait...there's some kind of light flickering type thingy going on...whoa...now it's dark in the room except for the TV & PC and stereo lights. ****. Soemthing's wrong! Call 9111 we're under attack!! Here's an interesting article from a lib, Alexander ****burn, who does a great job in shooting down AGW. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/24/anthropogenic_global_warming_is_a_farce.html ****burn is a contributor to "The Nation" and though I don't agree with a whole lot he says, this is one where he's spot on. In addition to what he says, AGW folks love to rely on a "consensus" of scientists that agree on this theory. When has science ever relied on a democratic process? Either something is the truth or it isn't, and putting it to a vote doesn't change that at all. (Did science conclude that 212 degree Fahrenheit is water's boiling point because a bunch of scientists voted that way?) Indeed, this whole consensus bit sounds like a Trident commercial: four out of five dentists agree that Trident is best gum at fighting cavities. It's this very same "Trident gum" logic that underlies AGW 'theory' and is a stark testament as to why it's incredibly flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Here's an interesting article from a lib, Alexander ****burn, who does a great job in shooting down AGW. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/24/anthropogenic_global_warming_is_a_farce.html ****burn is a contributor to "The Nation" and though I don't agree with a whole lot he says, this is one where he's spot on. From the piece you linked: "Other landmines include e-mails from Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. On Oct. 14, he wrote to the CRU's Tom Wigley: "How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!"" I just want to point out that Trenberth had essentially made the same point BEFORE the e-mails were released. Here's an NPR story (yes, that awful liberal source) that includes quotes by Trenberth about the difficulty of tracking heat in the climate system from 2008, and the fact that in his opinion some is "missing". http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025 "Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet. That can't be directly measured at the moment, however. "Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says. It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate. "I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Alexander ****burn - another climate expert? Any sort of scientist at all? :whoknows: Nope, dude is just another bomb throwing writer. He believes in the Hershberg theory, which has been blown to bits by every other scientist alive (Hershberg doesn't believe that CO2 has ANY effect on the Earth's temparature at all, which is just nutty.) Would it be any more persuasive if I posted bits from conservative writers who are also not scientists, but believe in AGW? Because there are a ton of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 When has science ever relied on [consensus]? uh, since always, actually. that's how it works, kind of. Did science conclude that 212 degree Fahrenheit is water's boiling point because a bunch of scientists voted that way? basically yes. the theory was repeatedly tested in multiple ways and caveats were added for the purity of the water and ambient pressure, but sure, that's basically how it works. it becomes fact when most of the people who are experts in that field can agree on a model that accurately describes how something behaves. in the case of global warming, no matter how much conservatives want to stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la", the truth is that the scientific consensus on AGW has evolved more or less in the same manner as any other scientific truth .... the only difference is conservative people in positions of power CHOOSE to make this particular issue "controversial", not because they have issues with the science, but because they don't like the implications. same as evolution, and heck same as heliocentrism for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Those are just a list of projections. The projections of the last 30 years have been epically wrong (oh noooo, we're going to have an ice age!). Alexey has handled the ice age myth. So I will point out that you didn't answer the question so let me try again. The Japanese government is funding scientists to study climate change. Those scientists used a super computer to build a climate model, and then determine what the effects of increased atmospheric CO2, and they observe continued global warming and warming and increased precipitation in Japan. If climate change is a myth perpertarted by the US government to expand its power, why are Japanese scientists funded by Japan going along with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skadden Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 uh, since always, actually. that's how it works, kind of.basically yes. the theory was repeatedly tested in multiple ways and caveats were added for the purity of the water and ambient pressure, but sure, that's basically how it works. it becomes fact when most of the people who are experts in that field can agree on a model that accurately describes how something behaves. in the case of global warming, no matter how much conservatives want to stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la", the truth is that the scientific consensus on AGW has evolved in the same manner as any other. the only difference is conservative people in positions of power CHOOSE to make this particular issue "controversial", not because they have issues with the science, but because they don't like the implications. same as evolution, and heck same as heliocentrism for that matter. You're wrong. Theories can be peer reviewed, but facts such as performing hydroboration to yield neutral alcohols are products or pure science. And boiling points can be measured by objective and rigorous analysis. They didn't arrive at that by trial and error. If you're correct, how did anyone figure out what absolute zero is? No one's ever reached it. So how did science ever finally accept that as fact? AGW, at best, is a THEORY, and it's, to say the least, hellatiously flawed. Your responses above show that you don't know how science works (I've got a degree in Biochemistry from Berkeley). ---------- Post added August-30th-2011 at 02:46 PM ---------- Alexander ****burn - another climate expert? Any sort of scientist at all? :whoknows: Nope, dude is just another bomb throwing writer. He believes in the Hershberg theory, which has been blown to bits by every other scientist alive (Hershberg doesn't believe that CO2 has ANY effect on the Earth's temparature at all, which is just nutty.) Would it be any more persuasive if I posted bits from conservative writers who are also not scientists, but believe in AGW? Because there are a ton of them. And there are a ton of liberals who don't believe in it too. My point in using Alex is to show that it's not just a conservative thing. And so what if he's not a scientist. Your biggest hero - Al Gore - isn't one either, but everyone seems to bow to him as some High Priest of climate knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 So I will point out that you didn't answer the question so let me try again. The Japanese government is funding scientists to study climate change. Those scientists used a super computer to build a climate model, and then determine what the effects of increased atmospheric CO2, and they observe continued global warming and warming and increased precipitation in Japan. If climate change is a myth perpertarted by the US government to expand its power, why are Japanese scientists funded by Japan going along with it? We've been through this so many times, I pretty much know all the answers. Pick one: 1) Japanese scientists saw the gravy train of research funds and decided to get on. 2) Japanese liberals have similar goals of taking over the world and increasing taxes. 3) Science has been wrong before and therefore I think it is wrong here. 4) Climate models have shown the be imperfect. I think imperfect means incorrect. 5) It's all a part of the natural cycle. 6) Japanese scientists forgot to consider the input from the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 If you're correct, how did anyone figure out what absolute zero is? No one's ever reached it. So how did science ever finally accept that as fact? this is pretty funny -- you're proving my point. nobody's ever reached absolute zero, yet you call it a scientific fact. gee, it's almost as if it has been accepted by consensus through "rigorous and objective" testing and analysis .... same as AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skadden Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I'll also say that many (top-ranking) conservatives (and libs) who believe in AGW have a big monetary interest at stake in all of this. Goldman Sachs for instance has a huge investment in carbon credits it would like to trade on. And Al Gore is comically wrong a bunch of things, including that ozone layer point he raised in 1992. There's a really good film debunking this called "Not Evil, Just Wrong." http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/ ---------- Post added August-30th-2011 at 02:55 PM ---------- this is pretty funny -- you're proving my point. nobody's ever reached absolute zero, yet you call it a scientific fact. gee, it's almost as if it has been accepted by consensus through "rigorous and objective" testing and analysis .... same as AGW. HUH?! The reason why science has determined what absolute zero is by rigorous examination! Your point was that 'consensus' was the way that science reaches its 'facts' all the time. Wrong. Let me ask you this: do you have any scientific background? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Your biggest hero - Al Gore - isn't one either, but everyone seems to bow to him as some High Priest of climate knowledge. That's just a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skadden Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 That's just a theory. Ha! Now, that's funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Fossil fuel industries have SIGNIFICANTLY more resources than the "global warming industry". YES or NO?If you are a sensitive type and you don't like people laughing at you, I suggest you anwser YES or avoid the question... Grow up. Fossil fuel companies make money by selling fuel. Whereas hundreds of companies have sprung up strictly to cash in on environmental concerns and they are growing by the second thanks to intensive lobbying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Goldman Sachs for instance has a huge investment in carbon credits it would like to trade on. Yeah GS is in business of taking advantage of reality, not denying it.... (okay, maybe denying it to others while preparing to take advantage of it for themselves) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 HUH?! The reason why science has determined what absolute zero is by rigorous examination! Your point was that 'consensus' was the way that science reaches its 'facts' all the time. Wrong. Let me ask you this: do you have any scientific background? I do. And the two are linked. Rigorous examination leads to consensus. You don't normally get a consensus amongst scientists w/o rigorous examination. The consensus is a meaningful statement because of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skadden Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Yeah GS is in business of taking advantage of reality, not denying it.... (okay, maybe denying it to others while preparing to take advantage of it for themselves) Yes, the reality of panic over the current day boogeyman -- AGW. So are you a believer too that science is decided by consensus? That's basically the 'science' behind AGW, i.e., Trident gum logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Grow up. Fossil fuel companies make money by selling fuel. Whereas hundreds of companies have sprung up strictly to cash in on environmental concerns and they are growing by the second thanks to intensive lobbying. Yeah those environmental companies really outlobby the fossil fuel industry. Get a brian you moran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skadden Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I do. And the two are linked. Rigorous examination leads to consensus. You don't normally get a consensus amongst scientists w/o rigorous examination.The consensus is a meaningful statement because of that. What?! What scientific background do you have? By your answer, no too much. Rigorous examination leads to truth. In this context, truth is something that's testable to determine whether or not it's valid. Consensus has ZERO to do with scientific development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 Your biggest hero - Al Gore - isn't one either, but everyone seems to bow to him as some High Priest of climate knowledge. That sound bite might work when you're in a room full of your fellow deniers of reality. In here, we have people who know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skadden Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 That sound bite might work when you're in a room full of your fellow deniers of reality. In here, we have people who know better. Know better what? The equivalent of the Great Pumpkin who believe scientific 'fact' can be decided by putting things to a vote? Good for you then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.