Another blow to global warming...

He didn't say that, but guess what brainiac? Cocaine is illegal to sell/buy because people do make dumb decisions, and coke is easy to get addicted to, and being hooked on coke doesn't just hurt individuals, but hurts families, communities, and society as a whole (because addicts abandon their families, don't work, and are more apt to commit crimes). See the analogy? People left to their own selfish, dumb desires would pollute the environment at will, and it would hurt everyone, NOT just them. But let's let them do it in the name of freedumb! And while we are at it, let's let people own fully automatic machine guns and any size bomb they want and have no speed limits on roads! We wouldn't stomp on their rights, correct? And if some dummies abuse this right and blow up a few 1000 people, or drive too fast and highway deaths greatly rise, oh well, that's the price of freedumb, correct?

And no one is going to stop you from using oil or force you to walk/bike/rollerskate to work. No, elected officials (by you and me, the democratic process dummy) are just trying to make it easier for people to choose alternative forms of energy, and maybe build some bike paths to give people an ACTUAL choice about biking or not. Who in their right mind will bike if they will likely die while doing it? Government is just trying to give people real choice, not just be in the backpocket of oil companies and other businesses that only care about their fairly short term bottom line of their stock price and bonuses. If the planet is polluted when they are dead and gone, what the hell do they care??

oh the irony. YOU are the one "blaming" the real science of global warming on Al Gore because he sensationalized it and you don't like him. Talk about shooting the messenger.

monkey lovin wrote:

Japan’s Society of Energy and Resources disses the IPCC -

"disses" huh? Sounds like you have yourself a real creditable reporter as your source. "Watts up with that?" ? Yup, you found yourself an anti-science "science" blog. Congratulations, you found the answer you wanted to find on the internet! It isn't hard to do. While you are at it, I know you can easily find me some reports of "experts" on the internet telling us all that milk is terrible for humans, soy will kill you, vaccines cause autism, George Bush planned 9/11, evolution is a fraud, the earth is flat, the holocaust never happened, and yes, Al Gore in cahoots with 1000's of scientist made up the global warming issue to enrich himself and them.

It's all there if that is what you want to find.

Somebody asked for the link. The discussion on UN IPCC WG1 SPM page 2 (the first page of text) begins with this headline:

1. "The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C."

Not "may have", or even "is likely to have', but simply "has". FALSE CERTAINTY. Any suggestion of doubt is omitted, but there is plenty to doubt.

2. The text itself says "The global average surface temperature (the average of near surface air temperature over land, and sea surface temperature) has increased since 1861. Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ±0.2°C (Figure 1a). This value is about 0.15°C larger than that estimated by the SAR for the period up to 1994, owing to the relatively high temperatures of the additional years (1995 to 2000) and improved methods of processing the data. These numbers take into account various adjustments, including urban heat island effects."

This is the only reference in the text to any possible problems with the temperature record. It says they have been "taken into account", with special reference to the urban heat island effect. FALSE CERTAINTY. The discussion of these problems, how likely they are to be significant, and how they have been taken into account, has simply been omitted. In fact how well they have been taken into account is highly contentious.

Soy will give you man boobs.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

monkey lovin wrote:

Japan’s Society of Energy and Resources disses the IPCC -

"disses" huh? Sounds like you have yourself a real creditable reporter as your source. "Watts up with that?" ? Yup, you found yourself an anti-science "science" blog. Congratulations, you found the answer you wanted to find on the internet! It isn't hard to do. While you are at it, I know you can easily find me some reports of "experts" on the internet telling us all that milk is terrible for humans, soy will kill you, vaccines cause autism, George Bush planned 9/11, evolution is a fraud, the earth is flat, the holocaust never happened, and yes, Al Gore in cahoots with 1000's of scientist made up the global warming issue to enrich himself and them.

It's all there if that is what you want to find.

P.S. and Al Gore is a hedge fund manger of Generation Investment Management which invests heavily in companies which benefit from global warming scare mongering.

Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that they are not after you.

monkey lovin wrote:

apparently, those "thousands of scientists" were not japanese.

Japan’s Society of Energy and Resources disses the IPCC - says “recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity”

The above represents the views of THREE Japanese Scientists.

The other TWO scientists in the society dissented.

The conclusion of the report states (word for word translation from Japanese)

To summarize the discussion so far, compared to accurately predicting solar eclipses by celestial mechanics theoretical models, climate models are still in the phase of reliance on trial and error experiential models. There are still no successful precedents. The significance of this is that climate change theory is still dominated by anthropogenic greenhouse gas causation; the IPCC 4th Evaluation Report's conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to continuously, monotonously increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis; it will be necessary investigate further and to evaluate future predictions as subject to natural variability.

out of your element wrote:

what weird gratification do you climate-change deniers get out of trying to disprove this phenomenon anyway? i don't get it.

Because they are Republican and global warming activists are not.

Saying that there are conflicting opinions about climate change does not mean that SCIENTISTS disagree about whether there is global warming and whether it is partly caused by human activities. They all agree on those points. Republicans want to believe that global warming isn't human-caused or even happening, because they have anti-environmental (not in the days of TR) and pro-business ideologies. It's so dreary to have a reality-based view of the world; better to see it as you want to see it.

31,000 scientists, engineers and physicians signed a petition by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which opposes adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.

Is it me or do liberals just not get sarcasm at all?

jonesy. wrote:

Saying that there are conflicting opinions about climate change does not mean that SCIENTISTS disagree about whether there is global warming and whether it is partly caused by human activities. They all agree on those points. Republicans want to believe that global warming isn't human-caused or even happening, because they have anti-environmental (not in the days of TR) and pro-business ideologies. It's so dreary to have a reality-based view of the world; better to see it as you want to see it.

Jonesy, are you the same guy on the sub 4min 1500 thread? If you are, then please go play with the kids. The grown-ups are talking.

IPCC wrote:

31,000 scientists, engineers and physicians signed a petition by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which opposes adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.

OISM is a bunch of nut jobs with a dubious history of trying to fake scholarly publications, and the "petition" can be signed by anyone:

IPCC wrote:

Somebody asked for the link. The discussion on UN IPCC WG1 SPM page 2 (the first page of text) begins with this headline:

1. "The global average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6°C."

Not "may have", or even "is likely to have', but simply "has". FALSE CERTAINTY.

They are speaking of the sample mean. It is similar to saying 'the average height of a person has increased' over the 20th century. We didn't measure every single human being, but the mean of the sampled people went up.

You go on to say that the IPCC ignores uncertainty in their reports. This is essentially proof that you have not read the reports themselves. A HUGE portion of climate science and the IPCC summaries of this science has to do with estimating uncertainties. (And the standard error of the mean is included in one of the very sentences you quoted. In case you didn't notice, standard errors are measures of variance, or uncertainty.)

well done wrote:

Is it me or do liberals just not get sarcasm at all?

no, it's you.

If the IPCC report used the correct methodology of statistical error, then I would agree with you. However, this is NOT the case. Here goes:

The IPCC is using a "convenience sample" not "random sampling" of the earth's surface as required in sampling science. What is "convenience sampling"? It is simply taking temperature measurements in or around population centers. Areas ignored are the oceans, North & South poles, jungles, deserts, and mountain ranges. This is a "convenience sample" because one takes data where it is easy to get. In statistical theory that one cannot draw meaningful conclusions about the whole from a convenience sample, plus the time period being measured covers the last 100 yrs. This time frame To do so is a logical fallacy.

One other item to consider. Satellites, they can measure the overall atmosphere temperatures. They do not show the warming that the surface thermometers show. So either the statistics based on the thermometers are wrong, which is likely, or somehow the surface is warming while the atmosphere is not. The latter is not impossible, but it is completely inconsistent with global warming due to CO2, because CO2 would trap the heat in the atmosphere, not at the surface.

IPCC wrote:

If the IPCC report used the correct methodology of statistical error, then I would agree with you. However, this is NOT the case. Here goes:

The IPCC is using a "convenience sample" not "random sampling" of the earth's surface as required in sampling science. What is "convenience sampling"? It is simply taking temperature measurements in or around population centers. Areas ignored are the oceans, North & South poles, jungles, deserts, and mountain ranges....

Once again, you prove that you have not read the IPCC reports.

"Areas ignored are the oceans..." Um sorry. No. Not by a mile.

IPCC wrote:

31,000 scientists, engineers and physicians signed a petition by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which opposes adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.

"When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists."

31,000 just became..... one or two experts. As Homer would say "D'oh!"

The "copy with a different theme" stunt just doesn't work here. You would be much better off responding to him sensibly instead of just trading mantras.

IPCC wrote:

31,000 scientists, engineers and physicians signed a petition by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which opposes adoption of the Kyoto Protocol.

Most of them could in no way be described as scientists, engineers and physicians.