Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: "31,000 scientists just in the USA reject 'global warming' agenda"

  1. #21
    Havakasha is offline
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    It is not being arrogant it is being correct. Maybe when you two start being correct, you will see the difference. You guys think it is arrogance because you have been proven wrong so many times you think it is insulting. You have been hanging around your lefty blogs so long you are not used to people questioning your ideology, that is the arrogance you 2 are reading into me (How can this guy disagree with our ideology) unfortunately for you that is what makes you 2 the arrogant ones.


    A perfect example is you where totally wrong on ACORN and you still cant admit it. BTW, they have another video showing they where not thrown out of the ACORN office as you said they where and will be putting that one out also. They knew just how to play you guys and show just what idiots you are. They said that was exactly why they did not put them all out at the same time. He read the book "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky and used your own rules against you and now you cant stand it. I am laughing my ass off you got anymore article that are going to be proven wrong. They got shit loads of videos and every time they (ACORN) lie they put out yet another to prove ACORN lied.

    We arent talking about ACORN. STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT OVER AND OVER . ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR DOUBLE STANDARDS.

    Airsols isnt "correct. nor is your thesis about it. You still havent refuted what i posted.

    Now back to the topic YOU started but cant keep to.

    http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/1654

    Thats just the beginning.

    You still believe in Senator inhofe as a source of your climate change info.
    If you were "correct" you would correct you innacurate posting about scientist %' s. Never happen.

  2. #22
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    I put it up because you used to Senator inhofe quote some facts on scientists. I showed you that his so called facts on
    change and scientists have been thoroughly refuted. Get it?

    Of course you didnt read "my dumbass threads" (there is that maturity again)because its painful to admit when someone has produced scientific research which counters your strict adherence to ideology.

    Oh yes i can keep my shit straight. i know i put up Senator inhofe's post and you put up the 31,000 post (which has also been refuted and discredited). Anger has a way of blinding people. its kind of basic to psychology 101.

    Excuse me, when did I use "Senator inhofe quote some facts on scientists".


    As I said I didn't read your threads because after the fist 20, I found that you didn't take the time to do ANY research on them to see if they where correct or not. You also constantly get what you read wrong. That is one of the reasons why you get proven wrong so many times.


    You have not "refuted and discredited" anything or have you forgot this:


    REPOST

    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    I love it, Havakasha (lloyd) link says that 87 of those that signed the petition took money from industry. Really, well how much money has Al Gore made SO FAR from his man made global warming hoax (I say hoax because almost everyone of his predictions have now been proven wrong by one of the men that originally made them, "Mojib Latif"). Hummm it is over 100 million. How much money have the scientist that say man is the reason for global warming gotten from the industries of solar, wind and selling carbon off sets. Selling carbon offsets is a scam that even Madoff would be proud of.


    I love it, Havakasha (lloyd) says some of them that signed the petition are economist. Well maybe Obama should have read his own economist (or at least the "Heritage Foundation" who said almost exactly what his Treasury Department said) report on what the "Cap and Trade" bill would have cost before (wink, wink) he came out 2 months later and said that it will only cost "the price of a stamp a day". Hummmmmm I think 1,760 dollars is at least 10 times the 126 dollar Obama said it was. The reason there are economist involve in the petition is because the petition gos into what the cost of the man made global warming hoax will cost our economy.


    The man made global warming scientist have ether misrepresented their numbers or have out and out lied about their figures to make man responsible for global warming. The results of that have taken time to prove out that they have been wrong time and time again.

    Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

    ➢ The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
    ➢ CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
    ➢ Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
    ➢ The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
    ➢ The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
    ➢ “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
    ➢ Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
    ➢ The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
    ➢ It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
    ➢ Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
    ➢ In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

    http://nzclimatescience.net/index.ph...d=310&Itemid=1


    Look at what has happen everytime TIME proves that the man made global warming wackos are wrong in their predictions they come out with new evidence to change the predictions.

    Look at what Adumbical says about this: "Science is an ongoing process that CHANGES IF NEW CREDIBLE INFORMATION IS LEARNED." Ho really so from that I get, no matter how many times the people that say "man made global warming" is true, he will never believe the scientist that have been proven to be corect time and time again.

    Now I ask you, is it resonable (or even sane) for a person to keep believing in people that have been proven to be wrong time and time again (so much so they have to keep finding "NEW CREDIBLE INFORMATION") and then to say the people that have been proven to be correct time and time again are wrong.

  3. #23
    Havakasha is offline
    This is about the 31,000 petition.

    There was a study written in 1998 which was followed up by a petition

    The scientific paper was deceptively formatted to look like an officail document of the National ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. IT WAS NOT (this is kind of like Johns post that was made to look like a senate govt panel but was really Senator inhofe's blog)

    Of the original 17,000 signers (this was put together 10 years ago), DR.
    ROBINSON ADITTED ONLY 2,100 SIGNATORIES WERE ACRTUALLY FROM CLIMATE SCIENCE and it was also discovered that non-credentialed signatories existed.

    Writer Dr. Frederick Seltz initiiated the study and was a paid consultant to RJ Reynolds tobacco co. from 1979

    Dr. arthur robinson NOR ANY of the co-authors were climate scientistts.

    Dr. Arthur Robinson also doesnt believe in evolution.

    There will be more fACTS TO COME. lets see if john ever refutes one.

  4. #24
    Atypical is online now

    Refutation of Monckton Who Has ZERO Scientific Cred

    Cuckoo Science
    Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases Sun-earth connections— gavin @ 9 November 2006 - ()
    Sometimes on Realclimate we discuss important scientific uncertainties, and sometimes we try and clarify some subtle point or context, but at other times, we have a little fun in pointing out some of the absurdities that occasionally pass for serious ’science’ on the web and in the media. These pieces look scientific to the layperson (they have equations! references to 19th Century physicists!), but like cuckoo eggs in a nest, they are only designed to look real enough to fool onlookers and crowd out the real science. A cursory glance from anyone knowledgeable is usually enough to see that concepts are being mangled, logic is being thrown to the winds, and completetly unjustified conclusions are being drawn – but the tricks being used are sometimes a little subtle.

    Two pieces that have recently drawn some attention fit this mould exactly. One by Christopher Monckton (a viscount, no less, with obviously too much time on his hands) which comes complete with supplematary ‘calculations’ using his own ‘M’ model of climate, and one on JunkScience.com (‘What Watt is what’). Junk Science is a front end for Steve Milloy, long time tobacco, drug and oil industry lobbyist, and who has been a reliable source for these ‘cuckoo science’ pieces for years. Curiously enough, both pieces use some of the same sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary (coincidence?).

    But never fear, RealClimate is here!

    The two pieces both spend a lot of time discussing climate sensitivity but since they don’t clearly say so upfront, it might not at first be obvious. (This is possibly because if you google the words ‘climate sensitivity’ you get very sensible discussions of the concept from Wikipedia, ourselves and the National Academies). We have often made the case here that equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely to be around 0.75 +/- 0.25 C/(W/m2) (corresponding to about a 3°C rise for a doubling of CO2).

    Both these pieces instead purport to show using ‘common sense’ arguments that climate sensitivity must be small (more like 0.2 W/m2, or less than 1°C for 2xCO2). Our previous posts should be enough to demonstrate that this can’t be correct, but it worth seeing how they arithimetically manage to get these answers. To save you having to wade through it all, I’ll give you the answer now: the clue is in the units of climate sensitivity – °C/(W/m2). Any temperature change (in °C) divided by any energy flux (in W/m2) will have the same unit and thus can be ‘compared’. But unless you understand how radiative forcing is defined (it’s actually quite specific), and why it’s a useful diagnostic, these similar seeming values could be confusing. Which is presumably the point.

    Readers need to be aware of at least two basic things. First off, an idealised ‘black body’ (which gives of radiation in a very uniform and predictable way as a function of temperature – encapsulated in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) has a basic sensitivity (at Earth’s radiating temperature) of about 0.27 °C/(W/m2). That is, a change in radiative forcing of about 4 W/m2 would give around 1°C warming. The second thing to know is that the Earth is not a black body! On the real planet, there are multitudes of feedbacks that affect other greenhouse components (ice alebdo, water vapour, clouds etc.) and so the true issue for climate sensitivity is what these feedbacks amount to.

    So here’s the first trick. Ignore all the feedbacks – then you will obviously get to a number that is close to the ‘black body’ calculation. Duh! Any calculation that lumps together water vapour and CO2 is effectively doing this (and if anyone is any doubt about whether water vapour is forcing or a feedback, I’d refer them to this older post).

    As we explain in our glossary item, climatologists use the concept of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity because it provides a very robust predictive tool for knowing what model results will be, given a change of forcing. The climate sensitivity is an output of complex models (it is not decided ahead of time) and it doesn’t help as much with the details of the response (i.e. regional patterns or changes in variance), but it’s still quite useful for many broad brush responses. Empirically, we know that for a particular model, once you know its climate sensitivity you can easily predict how much it will warm or cool if you change one of the forcings (like CO2 or solar). We also know that the best definition of the forcing is the change in flux at the tropopause, and that the most predictable diagnostic is the global mean surface temperature anomaly. Thus it is natural to look at the real world and see whether there is evidence that it behaves in the same way (and it appears to, since model hindcasts of past changes match observations very well).

    So for our next trick, try dividing energy fluxes at the surface by temperature changes at the surface. As is obvious, this isn’t the same as the definition of climate sensitivity – it is in fact the same as the black body (no feedback case) discussed above – and so, again it’s no surprise when the numbers come up as similar to the black body case.

    But we are still not done! The next thing to conviently forget is that climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept. It tells you the temperature that you get to eventually. In a transient situation (such as we have at present), there is a lag related to the slow warm up of the oceans, which implies that the temperature takes a number of decades to catch up with the forcings. This lag is associated with the planetary energy imbalance and the rise in ocean heat content. If you don’t take that into account it will always make the observed ’sensitivity’ smaller than it should be. Therefore if you take the observed warming (0.6°C) and divide by the estimated total forcings (~1.6 +/- 1W/m2) you get a number that is roughly half the one expected. You can even go one better – if you ignore the fact that there are negative forcings in the system as well (cheifly aerosols and land use changes), the forcing from all the warming effects is larger still (~2.6 W/m2), and so the implied sensitivity even smaller! Of course, you could take the imbalance (~0.33 +/- 0.23 W/m2 in a recent paper) into account and use the total net forcing, but that would give you something that includes 3°C for 2xCO2 in the error bars, and that wouldn’t be useful, would it?

    And finally, you can completely contradict all your prior working by implying that all the warming is due to solar forcing. Why is this contradictory? Because all of the above tricks work for solar forcings as well as greenhouse gas forcings. Either there are important feedbacks or there aren’t. You can’t have them for solar and not for greenhouse gases. Our best estimates of solar are that it is about 10 to 15% the magnitude of the greenhouse gas forcing over the 20th Century. Even if that is wrong by a factor of 2 (which is conceivable), it’s still less than half of the GHG changes. And of course, when you look at the last 50 years, there are no trends in solar forcing at all. Maybe it’s best not to mention that.

    There you have it. The cuckoo has come in and displaced the whole field of climate science. Impressive, yes? Errrr…. not really

  5. #25
    Havakasha is offline
    that should have read Dr. Robinson ADMITTED that only 2,100 were actually
    from the climate sciences.

    Those stubborn words. CLIMATE SCIENCES. LOL. JOHN STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO DISCUSS THOSE WORDS.

  6. #26
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Atypical View Post
    Dear John

    Still not reading info contrary to your positions, huh.

    What you chose to miss and ignore...

    You get the picture. Countering decades of advancing understanding by the leading climate scientists by going straight to the Viscount – who has zero science credentials – and manufacturing a supposed scientific debate in order to justify the usual anti-regulation policy stance. One of Mr. Barton’s fellow members said, “It’s nice to have Lord Monckton here, he was a senior policy advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, so he’s a good witness to have.”

    How do you live with your dishonesty?

    Once again what about this that Lord Monckton stated was incorrect:

    The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
    ➢ CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
    ➢ Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
    ➢ The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
    ➢ The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
    ➢ “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
    ➢ Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
    ➢ The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
    ➢ It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
    ➢ Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
    ➢ In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.



    So in your own words "How do you live with your dishonesty"

    How do you think I said 6 months BEFORE, your guy said that global tempitures will go down in the next 10 to 20 years. Did I have information that was "NEW CREDIBLE INFORMATION IS LEARNED." before everyone of your scientist.

    DID I DID I REALLY, AM I A PSYCHIC!!!!

    How else do you explain ME saying something 6 months before your scientist comes out with "NEW CREDIBLE INFORMATION IS LEARNED". UNLESS it was not NEW information but information that has been out for some time and information I had access to and tried to tell you. I got that information from the same people that is trying to tell you people that man made global warming is a hoax. They are the same people that have been proven to be right.

  7. #27
    Havakasha is offline
    DR. ROBINSON wrote 2 books on surviving nuclear war, noting that "the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated'

    Dr Robinson was forced to resign from the Linus Pauling institute of Science and medicine, his research labeled as "amateurish" and inadequate.

  8. #28
    Havakasha is offline
    This thread is about the petition you listed isnt it?
    At least i was trying to address the facts.

  9. #29
    Havakasha is offline
    Climate sciences or climate scientists. Lol.

  10. #30
    john is offline
    Guru
    john's Avatar
    Joined: May 2008 Posts: 2,836
    I guess these MIT scientists guys are all a bunch of Cuckoo scientist to.


    http://www.tgdaily.com/html_tmp/cont...39973-113.html

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •