FallbrookFarmer
Platinum Member
And just to let you guys know I am paying 1.38euro per liter of unleaded here.
I,ll do the math when I return, but I know that a big share of that price goes for the "Free" health care here.
Global Warming News
- Thread starter KB9UDE
- Start date
- Views: 107577
- Status
And just to let you guys know I am paying 1.38euro per liter of unleaded here.
I,ll do the math when I return, but I know that a big share of that price goes for the "Free" health care here.
Loren49
Veteran Member
1)Looks to me like you've drawn your own conclusions from his statements:
What Phil Jones really said about global warming | Midwest Voices
What Phil Jones really said about global warming
By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
What did climate scientist Phil Jones say to get the global warming deniers all, well, hot and bothered?
The Daily Mail has a story with this erroneous headline getting a lot of attention: "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995."
Uh, no, that's not what he said.
Don't take my word for it -- or the Daily Mail's -- in reporting what Jones has said. He has temporarily stepped down as the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Read the entire interview Jones had recently with the BBC, which was the source for the Daily Mail's story.
Here's the key part of the interview regarding warming in recent years:
Question: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
In other words, it has gotten warmer, despite what the deniers want to say.
And for good measure, here's another question and answer, verbatim:
"How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"
Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
2) Not sure what Phil Jones or Al Gore have to do with the beliefs of 3000+ scientists in the CNN article.
3) Even if there was a connection between price of gas and health care (which is a long reach) I doubt it would put much dent in the $3500 per capita extra that we pay in the US. Don't even have to do the math if you include our true cost of gasoline, etc.
4) I only posted the article to show some balance of the bottom post:
Get ready for seven-foot sea level rise as climate change melts ice sheets | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk
5) The certainty of some conclusions, many a result of errors including the 2035 - 2350 error, have resulted in retractions or modifications of the conclusions. The increase in CO2 is not disputed - the cause is and the result of these higher concentrations is.
6) Anyone who believes that the little guys were behind the hacking of emails and the timing of their release is naive.
7) If we wait until we have indisputable conclusions it is nearly certain that much of the damage will have been done. The possibility that our generation would have to change our habits because of our effect on climate change is close to zero. This would make the deniers and big energy pleased.
Loren
What Phil Jones really said about global warming | Midwest Voices
What Phil Jones really said about global warming
By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
What did climate scientist Phil Jones say to get the global warming deniers all, well, hot and bothered?
The Daily Mail has a story with this erroneous headline getting a lot of attention: "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995."
Uh, no, that's not what he said.
Don't take my word for it -- or the Daily Mail's -- in reporting what Jones has said. He has temporarily stepped down as the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Read the entire interview Jones had recently with the BBC, which was the source for the Daily Mail's story.
Here's the key part of the interview regarding warming in recent years:
Question: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
In other words, it has gotten warmer, despite what the deniers want to say.
And for good measure, here's another question and answer, verbatim:
"How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"
Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
2) Not sure what Phil Jones or Al Gore have to do with the beliefs of 3000+ scientists in the CNN article.
3) Even if there was a connection between price of gas and health care (which is a long reach) I doubt it would put much dent in the $3500 per capita extra that we pay in the US. Don't even have to do the math if you include our true cost of gasoline, etc.
4) I only posted the article to show some balance of the bottom post:
Get ready for seven-foot sea level rise as climate change melts ice sheets | Environment | guardian.co.uk
Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk
5) The certainty of some conclusions, many a result of errors including the 2035 - 2350 error, have resulted in retractions or modifications of the conclusions. The increase in CO2 is not disputed - the cause is and the result of these higher concentrations is.
6) Anyone who believes that the little guys were behind the hacking of emails and the timing of their release is naive.
7) If we wait until we have indisputable conclusions it is nearly certain that much of the damage will have been done. The possibility that our generation would have to change our habits because of our effect on climate change is close to zero. This would make the deniers and big energy pleased.
Loren
Pilot
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 1,224
- Location
- Oregon
- Tractor
- JD 770, Yanmar 180D, JD 420 (not running), had a Kubota B6200
Note how the survey was conducted--they emailed a bunch of scientists listed in a directory. Consider, we have forest scientists who know nothing about climate, geologists who know nothing about climate, economists who know nothing about the climate and on and on. Just because they are 'scientists' doesn't mean they know anything outside their field. They hear what's in the media, just like you and me and maybe some of them read the IPCC executive summary, which is all one sided. Few, and probably none, actually read and carefully evaluated the 2558 page IPCC report. So, for most of those 3,000+ "scientists" the survey means nothing, just another publicity stunt for the global warming, the sky is falling crowd.
But there is also reference to the 97% of climatologists, which could mean something. But out of all the scientists listed in the directory they used for the survey, how many are climatologists? They don't say. And "geoscience" is a broad field, encompassing geology, astronomy and other earth science fields. The directory they used is not where most people would look for a listing of climatologists, so how many were in their "survey"? Here is a listing of articles from the December 2009 issue (latest available online) in "Geoscience World" the journal of Geoscience:
Unraveling the stratigraphy of the Oriskany Sandstone: A necessity in assessing its site-specific carbon sequestration potential
Characterization of the Helderberg Group as a geologic seal for CO2 sequestration
Assessing spatial uncertainty in reservoir characterization for carbon sequestration planning using public well-log data: A case study
Reservoir uncertainty, Precambrian topography, and carbon sequestration in the Mt. Simon Sandstone, Illinois Basin
A couple articles on carbon sequestration, but none looked at is human caused warming happening.
So we have a survey of scientists most of whom are not working in a field that evaluates global warming but most of whom believe in it. It means nothing, not a thing. And they don't tell us how many are climatologists and if they did, I would like to know who those 2 or 3 climatologists are--Phil Jones?
Just more hype, that's all the survey is. Bunk.
And it's media trash like this is why everyone needs to be a critical and skeptical reader.
But there is also reference to the 97% of climatologists, which could mean something. But out of all the scientists listed in the directory they used for the survey, how many are climatologists? They don't say. And "geoscience" is a broad field, encompassing geology, astronomy and other earth science fields. The directory they used is not where most people would look for a listing of climatologists, so how many were in their "survey"? Here is a listing of articles from the December 2009 issue (latest available online) in "Geoscience World" the journal of Geoscience:
Unraveling the stratigraphy of the Oriskany Sandstone: A necessity in assessing its site-specific carbon sequestration potential
Characterization of the Helderberg Group as a geologic seal for CO2 sequestration
Assessing spatial uncertainty in reservoir characterization for carbon sequestration planning using public well-log data: A case study
Reservoir uncertainty, Precambrian topography, and carbon sequestration in the Mt. Simon Sandstone, Illinois Basin
A couple articles on carbon sequestration, but none looked at is human caused warming happening.
So we have a survey of scientists most of whom are not working in a field that evaluates global warming but most of whom believe in it. It means nothing, not a thing. And they don't tell us how many are climatologists and if they did, I would like to know who those 2 or 3 climatologists are--Phil Jones?
Just more hype, that's all the survey is. Bunk.
And it's media trash like this is why everyone needs to be a critical and skeptical reader.
Loren49
Veteran Member
Remember that local weather conditions have little to do with global temperature trends. Interesting graph on site also.
Global Temperature Trend Update - February, 2010 - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
Quote:
Notes on data released Feb. 10, 2010:
A large El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event exposed the atmosphere to enough extra heat energy to cause the warmest January and the third warmest month overall in 32 years, and the warmest month in almost a decade (compared to seasonal norms), according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
"This has the potential of breaking the records set in February and April 1998, during the 'El Nino of the Century,'" Christy said. "I looked at sea surface temperatures in the Central Pacific and it wasn't as warm as 1998, but what is there is spread out further than it was in 1998. That exposes the atmosphere to a lot of extra heat."
Why do deniers keep saying its colder this winter?
Loren
Global Temperature Trend Update - February, 2010 - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
Quote:
Notes on data released Feb. 10, 2010:
A large El Nino Pacific Ocean warming event exposed the atmosphere to enough extra heat energy to cause the warmest January and the third warmest month overall in 32 years, and the warmest month in almost a decade (compared to seasonal norms), according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
"This has the potential of breaking the records set in February and April 1998, during the 'El Nino of the Century,'" Christy said. "I looked at sea surface temperatures in the Central Pacific and it wasn't as warm as 1998, but what is there is spread out further than it was in 1998. That exposes the atmosphere to a lot of extra heat."
Why do deniers keep saying its colder this winter?
Loren
turbo36
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2004
- Messages
- 1,523
- Location
- Michigan
- Tractor
- JD X739 AWS (3), 2016 Toolcat, JD 2038R
Is there a point to this or are you just making random comments?
This reminds me of the Monty Python Sketch where a guy enters a room and says "I'm here for an argument" and the man already in the room say's "No your not!"
SpringHollow
Elite Member
Hi Pilot,
Things are not as simple as you make out. Yes, these are Geoscientists who have specialties in a wide range of areas. However, the vast majority received training in climate science - one does not only take courses in your specialty. I did not have a single course that was specific to my research. Also, these are academics who read the scientific journals and weekly attend seminars in areas outside of their specialty. It would be the rare one who was not much more knowledgeable than you or I on climate change.
Should we be critical and skeptical? Yes. In fact, that is key to what scientists do themselves. Is that survey trash? I do not think so. Does it prove global warming? Surveys do not prove who is right on global warming. But who cares? We should be doing all of the energy savings, renewable energy, etc. for economic and political reasons any ways. That is why i do not understand the vehemence of the feelings of people who do not believe in global warming.
Ken
Chuck52
Veteran Member
Just ran across this....
32000 scientists dispute global warming? | Grist
It would be interesting to study the overlap between the set containing AGW deniers and the set containing the tea bag party people. The rhetoric and how it is presented is remarkably similar. I note that the global CO2 levels, which no one seems to dispute, continue to increase. One happy argument often seen is that CO2 levels are increasing because of global warming rather than causing global warming. Then the same folks deny that there even is global warming. He's not a citizen....well maybe he is, but he changed his name...maybe not, but he's certainly a muslim...but who cares, since he's not even a citizen. Fortunately, the noise level is not representative of the number of noise makers.
Chuck
32000 scientists dispute global warming? | Grist
It would be interesting to study the overlap between the set containing AGW deniers and the set containing the tea bag party people. The rhetoric and how it is presented is remarkably similar. I note that the global CO2 levels, which no one seems to dispute, continue to increase. One happy argument often seen is that CO2 levels are increasing because of global warming rather than causing global warming. Then the same folks deny that there even is global warming. He's not a citizen....well maybe he is, but he changed his name...maybe not, but he's certainly a muslim...but who cares, since he's not even a citizen. Fortunately, the noise level is not representative of the number of noise makers.
Chuck
Last edited by a moderator:
Ken45101
Elite Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,679
- Location
- southern Ohio
- Tractor
- Kubota M5040, M9540, B21 TLB, B2710, RTV900, JD 325 Skid steer, KX-121-3 mini excavator
Obviously, all the HOT AIR in the controversy is the true cause of global warming.
DocHeb
Veteran Member
Since the AGW non-deniers are suggesting massive government intervention and taxation to prevent this possibility, it would be safe to say that Tea Party members would be against increasing government control. Not much suprise there.
The term teab**gers is a term describing a sexual act, and is a deraugatory term used as an insult by one end of the political spectrum against the other. It is interesting to see that name use as insult by the same group that supposedly is the party of tolerance.
When I see that term, I immediately dismiss anything that follows, since name-callers are not interested in facts, nor tolerance, nor an exchange of ideas, but rather elevating their opinion by ridiculing others.
Chuck52
Veteran Member
I had to look it up to see what you meant. I thought that was their own term for their movement, and I wasn't conversant with prison slang. Sorry about that. Don't look at that site I posted. At best it would probably just irritate you.
Chuck
- Status
