Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Chief, you forgot to cite the source for your big copy/paste. To anyone who knows science, the first paragraph gives away the author as a political hack:
Several recent polls have found “climate change” skepticism rising faster than sea levels on Planet Algore (not to be confused with Planet Earth, where sea levels remain relatively stable).
Sure enough, Chief's source on "science" is the right-wing American Enterprise Institute and author Jay Richards, an intelligent-designer with degrees in divinity and theology.
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/when-to-doubt-a-scientific-consensus/
Back on Planet Earth, here's the sea level that Richards tells the gullible remains "relatively stable."
Source and citation:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
Nerem, R. S., D. Chambers, C. Choe, and G. T. Mitchum. "Estimating Mean Sea Level Change from the TOPEX and Jason Altimeter Missions." Marine Geodesy 33, no. 1 supp 1 (2010): 435.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Or for a longer perspective on those sea levels that Richards declared to be "relatively stable,"
Citation:
A. Church and N . J. White, “A 20th century acceleration in
global sea-level rise,” Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2006):
doi:10.1029/2005GL024826;
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
NO WHERE NEAR THE IPCC's DOOMS DAY PREDICTIONs of 6-12 FEET.
Chief, you're creating your own reality again, WHILE SCREAMING IN CAPITAL LETTERS. The IPCC made no such prediction. Here's what they actually wrote (AR4).
"In all scenarios, the average rate of rise during the 21st century is very likely to exceed the 1961 to 2003 average rate of 1.8 ± 0.5 mm yr–1 (see Section 5.5.2.1). The central estimate of the rate of sea level rise during 2090 to 2099 is 3.8 mm yr–1 under A1B, which exceeds the central estimate of 3.1 mm yr–1 for 1993 to 2003 (see Section 5.5.2.2). The 1993 to 2003 rate may have a contribution of about 1 mm yr–1 from internally generated or naturally forced decadal variability (see Sections 5.5.2.4 and 9.5.2). These sources of variability are not predictable and not included in the projections; the actual rate during any future decade might therefore be more or less than the projected rate by a similar amount. Although simulated and observed sea level rise agree reasonably well for 1993 to 2003, the observed rise for 1961 to 2003 is not satisfactorily explained (Section 9.5.2), as the sum of observationally estimated components is 0.7 ± 0.7 mm yr–1 less than the observed rate of rise (Section 5.5.6). This indicates a deficiency in current scientific understanding of sea level change and may imply an underestimate in projections."
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html
|
|
Mike Bolte
Trad climber
Planet Earth
|
|
NO WHERE NEAR THE IPCC's DOOMS DAY PREDICTIONs of 6-12 FEET.
Hard to take The Chief seriously when he makes up his facts!
EDIT: Chiloe beat me to it
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
There is no way to argue with The Chief. It is like talking to a wall. I can communicate with my dogs better than anyone has been able to talk to The Chief.
He has such strong pre-existing prejudices that he gets upset with science if that science doesn't fit his pre-existing view.
That is pretty obvious, and The Chief should admit as much. It isn't that unusual. People get attached to beliefs all of the time.
Science, when done well, totally eliminates "belief" from the equation. You crunch the numbers and there ya go. I'm doing reservoir volumetrics all of several acquisition properties right now, meaning how much will an oil or gas well produce over time, hence what it is worth, and it is fairly simple. I could teach The Chief to do it in a couple of years...he needs to understand the differences in different types of reservoir permeability and drive. That means a few geology classes.
The Google toolbar is great. You just scroll over part of the quote and it will take you right to the website where he gets his info. From the way they sound, especially the last one denouncing science, I would guess that they come from websites with a strong agenda.
I often see the whole climate change framed like this:
1) It is NOT getting warmer.
2) OK. It IS getting warmer, but it is not climate change.
3) Screw all of those scientists because the have an agenda and are all part of a big conspiracy.
No lie. I see that general framework all of the time.
edit: I nuked my Google toolbar. Google loves to gather data on what you are looking at, and I am fairly paranoid about web privacy. Give it a try, though. It works great.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Ed, I asked about Widom-Larsen LENR paper because I had just seen an mention in the popular press which characterized it as NASA / CERN revisiting of topic with with both funding and some well-respected scientists.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Hi guys
I am the first to admit that I am not a scientist by profession.
I also do read almost all the posts on this thread and seemed to have learned a lot.
This thread is a running disagreement between one person the Chief and everyone else.
So Chief, correct me if I get your thoughts wrong, ok?
The Chief thinks:
1) Yes, the climate IS changing, and it IS getting warmer.
2) However, these changes are NOT caused by anything humans have or are doing.
3) These changes are simply normal, cyclical climate changes, nothing more.
4) Us humans should not make anything at all of this current warming trend, it will run its course and thus it is futile to think that humans can do anything worthwhile to try to mitigate or lessen any negative consequences of this natural warming trend.
5) it is especially important that nothing be done about this, we have better things to worry about, and government should not pass legislation that would seek to reduce ozone weakening emissions and spend any taxpayer's money on this.
6) The Chief is also quite concerned that individuals, such as retirees like himself on government fixed pension incomes, be not "taxed" in any manner for the purpose of that money being used to mitigate or lessen the negative impact of this admittedly true but normal large cycle warming trend in our earth's history.
Do I have this right, Chief? If not please correct me.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
2) However, these changes are NOT caused by anything humans have or are doing.
In my experience, most of these issues are tied up with money. If people believe they are being or are going to be done out of money, they will deny the truth no matter what.
So of all those saying us humans have no part in global warming, find out what they're issues are with economic insecurities and you will likely have the truth - and it will have nothing to do with factors having or not having to do with global warming.
JL
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
Attention!! Earth to Norton!
Ozone and GW are separate issues.
Don't you think its weird that the beard strokers have claimed victory over the Earth's Ozone hole 18yrs after America banned the mfg and use of Freon, yet China is still making thousands of tons of the stuff and using it everywhere in home, auto, and industrial cooling systems all over Asia?
Buy some now, save the world.
http://www.made-in-china.com/products-search/hot-china-products/Freon.html
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Ok Chief
from your reply, it seems I got your positions pretty well spot on with only minor corrections
Really, it appears the big disagreement is whether human activity is a causation of warming or not
and also if human activity now can or even should do anything to lessen any negative impact of this warming. Your position being no, no, and no.
and you also stressed, as I suspected you would, the importance of you not being asked to pay any taxes or fees of any kind at all that would go towards anything to do with any of this
ok, thanks
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Certainly the chief has stared that his primary skepticism has more to do with understanding of his supposed economic circumstances than his understanding of the science.
and I would be concerned also if I was on a fixed government retirement pension
ain't nothing wrong with looking out for one's own financial health
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
nah,
I am going to go with it, Chief
it just makes a lot of sense to me, also being retired and all
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Ivar Giaever is yet another "expert" bought and paid for by the Heartland Institute the same corporate lobbyists who also fight tobacco, telecom, and pharma industry regulation.
The challenge is finding a scientist who doesn't agree with AGW who isn't bought and paid for by the oil companies.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 4, 2012 - 12:34pm PT
|
Norton makes an attempt to create an adult discussion with The Chief, to which The Chief quickly replies:
That is because "everyone else" is kissing each others asses and totally in agreement with the AGW fanticism spoof.
Then I have to laugh when he brings up ad hominem attacks as a tool with which denier's must live.
@The Chief, you're raised many points that show your case for denying AWG. Yet as far as I can tell, the real scientists on this thread have debunked each of you claims with hard science. Can you tell, has even a single one of your claims held water? If so, please repeat it, because at this point, I'm thinking you're just being belligerent.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Exactly what many of the denier PhD's in the field of Climate Science state.
How many are they today? I believe that you started with claiming something like 4000, backed up that claim with 30000 people that didn't even needed to have any education at all and then posted a list of maybe 6-7 climate scientist where every one was involved with the heartland institute.
Have you finished reading the article you said that you already had read? Could we start discussing that article now or do you agree with the results in the paper? You remember the article about the frequency of hurricanes.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Spencer - bought and paid for by the Heartland Institute.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Spencer - bought and paid for by the Heartland Institute just like all your sources. You're just proof money talks.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
and Spencer/Christy are being funded by the exact same entities as James Hansen.
So why do you choose to believe that Spencer/Cristy should be trusted and that James Hansen shouldn't be trusted?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 4, 2012 - 03:00pm PT
|
And who determines who is real and who isn't??
The elite Pro CCers Consensus?
I get it, so if a scientist has peer-reviewed studies, but they conclude that AWG is real, they they are part of the "elite Pro CCers." You know, the ones the insurance companies are basing their business models on.
However, scientists that deny AWG, and can be shown are funded by companies related to propaganda pushed by big oil, then they are the to which we need to listen.
So The Chief, I am still waiting for you to provide a single claim of yours that hasn't been debunked by peer-reviewed scientists.
But, if you instead want to claim that peer-reviewed science isn't worth listening to, then you should move your rants to a thread about opinion, and not one that is aimed at showing scientific evidence.
I say this because my agenda when I started this thread was to show how scientific study has shown AWG to be true, even though million$ are being spent to cloud the issue.
Your continued rants prove to me that you've swallowed hook, line, and sinker the propaganda pushed by special interests. There is no other reason I can think of why you'd be so willing to discount scientific study.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!