herfacechair
Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling
Herfacechair, you are on to some stunning discoveries that have somehow escaped the entire international climatology community for years. You'd better run and get yourself a PhD in some climatology-related field, and then publish a few hundred peer-reviewed papers discussing your heretofore-unconsidered objections to the consensus. Because, somehow, every climatology-related scientific body in the entire world is unaware of your groundbreaking insights.
Again, from REAL scientists:
http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/200710/richard-lindzen-1.html
Global Warming Skeptics will be vindicated, October 2007.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf
Human caused global warming myth, no warming since 1998, 2006/2007.
Oh, and did you mention publishing peer reviewed papers? That’s been already done:
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005397.cfm
quote:
Researchers examined published between 2004 and 2007. They found that only 38 percent of scientists accepted claims about global warming without question. Forty-eight percent were neutral.
Now, this is just about claims concerning global warming, not on what’s causing it. You mentioned a “consensus”, well, since when did 38 percent constitute a consensus?
As for your claims that “every” climatology related field is unaware of my findings, I beg to differ.
From that same article, only one paper out of the 528 papers looked at talked about catastrophic global warming, the kind that the IPCC talked about.
I doubt you read my other posts, otherwise, you would’ve found out that I based my arguments partially on what climatologists, who disagree with the IPCC’s recommendations, have said.
Your claim that every climatology related body in the world is “unaware” of “my” findings is FALSE and falls flat on its face. It’s partially because of those findings, discovered by other climatologists, that 48% of the papers looked at were written by people that were neutral about the subject.
SuzanneKneeling: (My God, the persistance of ignorance in this country just knows no boundaries.)
From dictionary.com:
quote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorance
n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
Let’s examine the three. Those of us that disagree with human caused global warming have EDUCATED ourselves with the FACTS surrounding this argument. This includes climate facts that even the anthropogenic global warming crowd have access to.
Unaware? I’m aware of two things. The arguments the anthropogenic crowd uses, as well as the facts that prove them wrong. I presented those facts on this thread, which people have yet to prove wrong.
I wouldn’t be creating a counter argument if I were “uniformed” about what the other side is trying to convey.
However, by admitting that I’ve made some “stunning” discoveries, you’re admitting that you were uneducated, unaware, and uniformed about the information that I’ve presented on this thread.
Again, information that the other side has failed to prove wrong.
Now, if you’re confident that I’m “wrong”, you’re more than welcome to take the global warming challenge, and win $129,000.00. If you think that humans are “causing” global warming, and that it’s a “no brainer,” here’s a couple of links for you:
http://www.junkscience.com/
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
If the scientific community is all in “consensus”, or has a “majority consensus”, and if you’re sure that I’m “wrong,” and that I’m “ignorant” about this issue, why don’t you take this challenge?
I mean, at least one of those in the consensus should be able to jump in and claim this prize, right? As of this writing, nobody has claimed it! (70 days)
Heck, you don’t have to be a climatologist, linking to the peer reviewed papers you talk about should suffice.
If the people running this challenge are “ignorant”, certainly someone at “your” level of knowledge and understanding should be able to win the prize as easily as someone stealing candy from a baby, right?
quote:
ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling
National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".[1]
From someone that participated in the studies that lead to the IPCC position:
“It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else.” - Dr. Lindzen
“Ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.” - Dr. Lindzen
Those 2,500 AREN’T in consensus, per someone that was actually there. Other scientists have stepped forward to complain that their names were included as “rubber stamping” the IPCC’s conclusions despite the fact that their assessments weren’t included because it disagreed with what the IPCC wanted.
These weren’t just American scientists.
I mean, it speaks volumes when the people in charge of this project pressure scientists to IGNORE the errors between computer models among each other, as well as computer model error against the real climate.
And check this gem out:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm
quote:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
As of this writing, 19,000 American scientists have signed this petition.
Hmm, let’s do the numbers.
On one hand, we have 2,500 who don’t even have a consensus. On the other hand, we have 19,000 scientists, and counting, who DISAGREE with the theory that humans are causing global warming.
Again, your assumption that I’m on to some stunning discoveries that escaped the climatologist community for years falls flat on its face.
Now, let’s look at where the link in your source got its source:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
The working group, the IPCC! The very people that carried out a miscarriage of true scientific methods and principles.
Could you imagine if a lawyer were to use this standard of “proof” in a court of law?
“Your honor, my client is innocent, didn’t commit the crime, I submit to you my client’s statement to the police after he was arrested as proof of his innocence . . .”
< Message edited by herfacechair -- 10/15/2007 1:12:00 PM >
|
RE: The ice is melting on Mars - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread