Iamon lyme: since every one is catching on to their hypocrisy, they are now referring to it as man made global CHANGE.

97% of those polled believe that it will cool in the northern hemisphere over the next few months while oddly enough, 97% of those polled believe the southern hemisphere will warm over the next few months

Bernice: I totally agree. I don't believe I "couldn't be wrong" as I'm not all knowing. There is an argument on the other side in support of man made climate change. The problem is, I am more convinced by the counter arguments against MMGW than those made for the idea.

On TV personality suggested that if "deniers" are wrong, we're all going to suffer environmentally. But if the "warmists" are wrong, the worst is we'd have a cleaner earth.

But he's oh so wrong. The law of unintended consequences is hugely at play here. Food prices are up, but for many, we can afford the jump. But in some cultures, it means little food and starvation. Millions would die of the "Alarmists" had their way. So much is at stake. Truth matters.

Also, those ringing the bell the loudest (FOR global warming) stand to make tons of money from it. Hardly a credible source from which to form an opinion. Most scientists in favor of warming would lose funds if warming was debunked totally. So they are motivated by the $$ and NOT the science.

Iamon lyme: .....well ONE person will ALWAYS be right :)

Iamon lyme: Be sure to check out the video I posted (I know some people believe you are me, in which case, you're already seen it...but...) just in case you're not me, Lord Monckton makes a strong case against the hysteria. In another video, he levels a scientist's claims (on live tv no less).

Vikings: Heck, I can remember when global cooling was supposed to usher in the next ice age.

They could at least wait until all of us old farts have died off before they start in predicting the opposite of what they had been predicting. The excuse is usually something like "Well, we know more now than we did then." I guess that means no one can be wrong about it now.. at least not until the next consensus is taken.

Vikings: I remember that! It all points to "proof" for their position.

Iamon lyme: There are two issues that the liberals love to cling to. Oddly enough, the two issues have something in common, even though they are very strange bedfellows indeed.

One is climate change and the other is racism.

Al Gore suggested that denying anthropogenic climate change is settled science is like denying that blacks are equal to whites. Somehow Gore sees both denials as a moral equivalent.

Another interesting parallel for liberals is the logic they use on both climate change discussions and racism charges.

On climate change: If it's getting hotter, that's due to climate change (caused by man).
If it's getting colder, that's also caused by man.
If it stays the same, yeah, you guessed it. Never mind that those are the only three climate choices.

On racism: IF you're a conservative and if you don't have any black friends, it's because you're a racist. If you do have a black friend, it's because you are a racist and only using that black person as an excuse to hide your racism.

If you oppose Obama, it's because you're a racist.
If you like Cain, it's because you're a racist trying to hide your racism.

No matter the facts presented to liberals regarding climate change or racism, they spin it against you ONLY if you are a conservative.

If you're a liberal, there's a 97% chance you can't think for yourself. The other 3% are moderates.

Iamon lyme: of course, don't you remember last year when they said that global cooling proves global warming

Artful Dodger: even if his figures were spot on it wouldn't make a difference. Many climatologists caved under political pressure to go along with this, some for financial gain and others out of fear for their jobs. Where I live the state climatogist came under fire for challenging the global warming position. No word after that whether he was able to keep his prestigious job or not.. odds are he has been quietly replaced or effectively muzzled. I saw the governor in a news cast expressing his displeasure over a scientist (his scientist) not going along with the program.

For whatever reasons (V) has jumped on the politically correct version of global climate science. What I've noticed about various liberal causes over the years is they can change at any time, and even promote the opposite of what they used to promote.

Iamon lyme: his consensus figures are wayyyyyyy off.

(V): Balony. Any scientist worth his salt can tell you that consensus is not the one and only method whereby science determines something to be true or not. The idea that no scientist would bow to political presure and never jigger results for financial gain is nonsense.

When I was 10 years old I had no trouble believing in the purity of science and anyone who called himself a scientist, but I had a good reason for being naive.. I was 10 years old.

And it's only A SOUND BITE

(V): Not true. Patiently false.

As a biologist whose publications live or die by scientific rules of evidence, and who's also had to deal with more than my share of departmental politics, I'd like to talk about those two things a bit.

Papers are sent out for external review before publication. If you're writing drivel, they won't pass review no matter what your department's politics are. The politics involve people being snooty about how significant your work is, not how true it is. The scientific rules of evidence set the bar so high that it's possible to miss some truths, but next-to-impossible for most scientists in the field to show a finding is valid and yet have it be false.

So the real kicker is that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS are in agreement about anthropogenic climate change. At those levels of consensus, there's no hope that it's all just departmental politics. We're knackering the planet, and if you're younger than 40, you're probably guaranteed to suffer some serious effects.

What scientists in general have to say is less important. I've known physicists who are creationists. (And as a biologist and science fiction fan, I'm convinced we'll have faster than light travel some day :) .)

Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12tD9)

Artful Dodger: You should know that in reality there is no real winning or losing on this board.

You've debunked nothing...

After all, they stopped Nuclear weapons testing over ground for what reason?

(V): You only had sound bites. And I've debunked your 97. Get over it and chalk up another loss to me.

Artful Dodger: Nope... all that you've demonstrated that there is a 3%.

Sound bites do not count.

(V): (V) (hide)show this user posts | show thread | linkSubject: Re:So.. can you personally prove the 97% wrong without changing the subject?
Artful Dodger: can you prove the 97% of climatologists who say you are wrong wrong then?
Reply (box)


Jules, as I've been demonstrating: it's NOT 97%.

Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man. One of the report’s authors, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made Global Warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification.”

(V): that doesn't prove anthropogenic global warming

.. a 1 degree centigrade increase in sea temps does not mean more Hurricane, but it does mean that the odds of a major hurricane being created much higher.

Vikings: No, Dan's logic says so.

(V): The point in play is your claim that 97% of scientists support anthropogenic global warming. I've soundly refuted your claim. Like I said, you lose.

(V): Global warming is real, a poll said so, you just defined what spin is

Artful Dodger: I 'll take the dodging as just another meaningless post.

hehehehehehe

Vikings: I posted figures from various polls and the like in 2009. I've asked Dan to find such that refutes these polls and surveys of those in the field in Climatology to back up his claim more scientists support his and your view.

Are you going to keep spinning?

You could try finding such stats... polls do seem to have been good enough for the conservative mindset in the past.... so what's changed??

(V): Your 97%. Defend why it's significant.

(V): so your facts are now polls and survyes,

Artful Dodger: Where? I see no polls, surveys and stats just sound bites.

Meaningless.

(V): You said 97% and I've PROVEN that THAT is bogus. End of story. You've been debunked. again.......

Vikings: I know, but I'm desperate.

Artful Dodger: No Dan.. I see just sound bites, no sound surveys and statistics on what I aksed for.

Keep digging and keep dodging.. it is your name sake after all!!

....eheheheheh

Artful Dodger: can't you site a more reputiple source like say the huffington post

Artful Dodger: there were a lot of model-t's in the 30's

You have been sufficiently debunked. Next topic please. After your wounds heal of course.

In another fictional story of 'global warming,' it was claimed that 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US (part of ye olde 'runaway warming').

However, more investigation by climate skeptics appears to have handily debunked that claim as well, causing NASA to retract its claim and reinstate 1934 as the warmest year on record in the US.



Steve McIntyre, of Toronto operates www.climateaudit.org and began to investigate the data and the methods used to arrive at the results that were graphed by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

What he discovered was truly amazing. Since NASA does not fully publish the computer source code and formulae used to calculate the trends in the graph, nor the correction used to arrive at the “corrected” data. He had to reverse engineer the process by comparing the raw data and the processed data.


Source: wattsupwiththat.com



He further refines his argument showing the distribution of the error, and the problems with the USHCN temperature data. He also sends an email to NASA GISS advising of the problem.

He finally publishes it here, stating that NASA made a correction not only on their own web page, attributing the discovery to McIntyre, but NASA also issued a corrected set of temperature anomaly data...


Source: wattsupwiththat.com



According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is.

Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.


Source: wattsupwiththat.com



It was never supposed to be a trick question. Which year is the hottest on record? Depending where one looks, there are three different answers: 2006, 1998 or 1934. Until last week, the answer was supposed to be 2006, but it might have been 1998. Now, citing corrections of faulty data, NASA says it was actually 1934. The National Climactic Data Center disagrees; it still says 1998.

The differences are a matter of tenths of a degree Celsius, which might seem to diminish the significance of the corrections. Except that unusually warm years in the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s are themselves only a few tenths of a degree Celsius away from the purportedly dangerous hot temperatures of the present. Only one thing is certain: The political debate over global warming has rushed far ahead of the science.


Source: washingtontimes.com



When researchers checked, they found that the agency had merged two data sets that had been incorrectly assumed to match.

When the data were corrected, it resulted in a decrease of 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit in yearly temperatures since 2000 and a smaller decrease in earlier years.

That meant that 1998, which had been 0.02 degrees warmer than 1934, was now 0.04 degrees cooler.

Schmidt said that researchers had always known that the difference between 1934 and 1998 was so small, it was virtually impossible to rank them.


Source: articles.latimes.com


Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Scientists Increasingly Dissent With Global Warming Proponents. | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/scientists-increasingly-dissent-global-warming-proponents#ixzz1aJGSSGUq

The newest analysis was released by Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery, who said of the 500 scientists who have refuted at least one element of the global warming scare, more than 300 have found evidence that a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to the current circumstances since the last Ice Age and that such warmings are linked to variations in the sun's irradiance.

"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," he said.


Source: worldnetdaily.com

(V): than quit dodging.

More than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting the current man-made global warming scare, according to a new analysis of peer-reviewed literature by the Hudson Institute.


Source: worldnetdaily.com


BTW, these papers were ignored by Jules "study"

Artful Dodger: mmmmm not enough time to find something that disproves it.....

..Dodging only works for so long.... eheheheheh

(V): As I said, the study your insist on citing is FLAWED. You lose.

Artful Dodger: Then... show me figures that back up your claim from a reputable poll or survey.

I did post results from a 2009 gallup poll, which is more current then your 2006 60 scientists so...


.... nahhhhhh!!

Btw.. a 250,000 scientists scientific union is over 4100 times bigger.

so nahhhhh ... nahhhhhh

Vikings: yep

While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal this is an illusion. Climate skeptics -- the emerging silent majority of scientists -- receive much smaller shares of university research funds, foundation funds and government grants and they are not plugged into the well-heeled environmental special interest lobby.

On the other side of the climate debate, you have an comparatively well funded group of scientists and activists who participate in UN conferences, receiving foundation monies and international government support and also receive fawning media treatment.

The number of skeptics at first glance may appear smaller, but the skeptics are increasingly becoming vocal and turning the tables on the Goliath that has become the global warming fear industry.


Source: epw.senate.gov

or else there won't be any by the year 2000

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears "bite the dust."


Source: epw.senate.gov

Earlier ... a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote.


Source: epw.senate.gov