Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[Flying Crane]

uh no, he read from an article by a liberal columnist...

um, no. Paul Mulshine is a conservative columnist. sorry, you are wrong yet again.

 

[Flying Crane]

Cherry picking? It is your post and the first sentence...

yup, but i included enough info, plus the link to the full report, to give clear context. unlike you, i am not afraid of the complete picture.

if you cannot understand that issue, well...

 

[billc]

And then there's the question of the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation as positied by Henrik Svensmark:


"In the 1990s, Svensmark developed a theory that links cloud formation to sunspots. When the number of sunspots is low, more cosmic rays get through to the atmosphere. And these rays, Svensmark theorizes, are the primary cause of cloud formation. The clouds reflect more sunlight back into space. Earth gets colder."

Well, Rush said the guy didn't like him so it seemed like the guy had to be a liberal...

 

[billc]

you know, for something that explains your side of the issue, and which you used to defend your side...they use that word..." LIKELY" an awful lot...for people who claim they are absolutely right in what they believe...

 

[Flying Crane]

you know, for something that explains your side of the issue, and which you used to defend your side...they use that word..." LIKELY" an awful lot...for people who claim they are absolutely right in what they believe...

yup. it's called "science" and it includes gathering evidence and drawing conclusions from analysis of that evidence.

this has been discussed here already. look back a bit in the thread, you'll find it.

 

[Flying Crane]

Hmmmm...Freeman Dyson, a genius...who doubts greenhouse gases ate bad...

no, he doesn't, actually. He agrees with human-caused global climate change, tho he believes the models have too much room for error and he believes the discussion between people like you and I should be more cordial.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, Rush said the guy didn't like him so it seemed like the guy had to be a liberal...

yup, the guy has at least pointed out Rush's stupidity, tho I don't know if that means he doesn't like him in the overall.

But yup, he's conservative.

 

[billc]

From wikipedia

Global warming[edit]
Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[42] However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:


The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in ...[42]

He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC[43][44] and has also argued against the ostracization of scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "heretics" have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. "[H]eretics who question the dogmas are needed ... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."[42]


Dyson says his views on global warming have been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[45]

 

[Flying Crane]

From wikipedia

yup, I read that too. The first sentence:

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[42]

is where Dyson agrees with man-made climate change. The rest qualifies and clarifies his position. He feels the models are not accurate enough, and he feels people should be nicer in the debate.

that's what I said already.

 

[billc]

Not accurate enough...I believe he actually said...

the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:

They do not begin to describe the real world we live in

And yet...we must all change our lives on "too much error to reliably predict future trends"...:lfao:

 

[billc]

And here is hoping for global warming...global cooling will be a lot less fun...a lot fewer women in bikinis...more peopsicles...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...bal-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.


At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,
“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”
That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.
But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,
“Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”
That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.

The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,
“German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years – and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a “Mini Ice Age.” Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’”


Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,

 

[K-man]

If the dollars from oil companies can compromise research, then dollars coming from the NGOs and other international organizations to push their agenda can compromise research. If human caused climate change is a real problem, there are many solutions that could handle it. This overwhelming push toward carbon taxes and global bureaucracy is the worst solution and reeks of agenda driven science.

Let's see if I've got this right. The research by scientists paid for by the oil companies and not peer reviewed is valid but the research undertaken by scientists who are actually independent and would be happy to publish peer reviewed papers whatever the result, is flawed because governments fund universities and require the university to produce flawed papers to support the governments position to ensure future funding.
:hmm:

As to your second point ... you are in a position to make billions of dollars with your simple solutions if you can make them work.
:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Let's see if I've got this right. The research by scientists paid for by the oil companies and not peer reviewed is valid but the research undertaken by scientists who are actually independent and would be happy to publish peer reviewed papers whatever the result, is flawed because governments fund universities and require the university to produce flawed papers to support the governments position to ensure future funding.
:hmm:

As to your second point ... you are in a position to make billions of dollars with your simple solutions if you can make them work.
:asian:

As to your first point, you don't know who owns the journals that are peer reviewing the research. You don't know how people get on those boards. You don't know where the money comes from to support the studies that go to these journals. You don't know anything about the gatekeepers that could approve or disapprove a study from actually being done.

You do know that information regarding the opposition research. I'm thinking you've got a blind spot here my friend.

As to the second point, research the first point I made and get back to me. If you aren't producing justifications for controlling global emissions, you aren't getting much funding...or attention.

That decision is not scientific, it's political.

Here is some food for thought.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...rming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/

Global warming activists claim vast amounts of untraceable special interest money fund global warming skeptics and give skeptics an unfair advantage in the global warming debate. The undeniable truth is global warming alarmists raise and spend far more money – including far more untraceable special interest “dark money” – than global warming skeptics.

 

[K-man]

As to your first point, you don't know who owns the journals that are peer reviewing the research. You don't know how people get on those boards. You don't know where the money comes from to support the studies that go to these journals. You don't know anything about the gatekeepers that could approve or disapprove a study from actually being done.

You do know that information regarding the opposition research. I'm thinking you've got a blind spot here my friend.

As to the second point, research the first point I made and get back to me. If you aren't producing justifications for controlling global emissions, you aren't getting much funding...or attention.

That decision is not scientific, it's political.

Here is some food for thought.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...rming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/

Conspiracy theory gets me every time. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Let's have a hypothetical. What if the climate scientists were right and the global warming was caused by carbon emissions. What if the result was going to cost the world economy trillions of dollars in damage and lost production. In this scenario what would be a reasonable amount of funding from Government?
:hmm:

 

[Makalakumu]

Conspiracy theory gets me every time. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Let's have a hypothetical. What if the climate scientists were right and the global warming was caused by carbon emissions. What if the result was going to cost the world economy trillions of dollars in damage and lost production. In this scenario what would be a reasonable amount of funding from Government?
:hmm:

Two words. Weather modification. There are a lot of ways that people could alter the Earth's albedo in non permanent ways that would counteract any increased warming. You could spray water, you could inject dust, you could even, heaven forbid CHEMTRAIL!!!!!

Now that is a conspiracy theory! The fact that global central planners are using climate change as an excuse to create a global tax and bureaucracy isn't a very good conspiracy. They just tell you that up front.

In fact....planting tongue firmly in cheek....

It's ironic that you accusing "deniers" of being part of some larger "conspiracy" and are claiming that people opposing you are "conspiracy theorists". Lol.

Here is something you might not know about that term.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/jfk-assassination-marked-the-end-of-the-american-republic/5346419

.... "In January 1967, shortly after Jim Garrison in New Orleans had started his prosecution of the CIA backgrounds of the murder, the CIA published a memo to all its stations, suggesting the use of the term “conspiracy theorists” for everyone criticizing the Warren Report findings. Until then the press and the public mostly used the term “assassination theories” when it came to alternative views of the “lone nut” Lee Harvey Oswald. But with this memo this changed and very soon “conspiracy theories” became what it is until today: a term to smear, denounce and defame anyone who dares to speak about any crime committed by the state, military or intelligence services. Before Edward Snowden anyone claiming a kind of total surveillance of internet and phone traffic would have been named a conspiracy nut; today everyone knows better." ...

Lol. Your use of the term "conspiracy theory" is just part of another conspiracy. ROFL!

 

[Flying Crane]

And here is hoping for global warming...global cooling will be a lot less fun...a lot fewer women in bikinis...more peopsicles...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...bal-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

more people grasping at straws. the author peter ferrara is with the heartland institute, that discredited source that takes funding from big oil. anything connected to them is automatically disqualified.

instead of posting links to articles by columnists with an agenda who don't know what they are talking about and who are trying to make hay out of thin air, try finding some reports or something by real scientist that support your position. oh yeah, you can't. they don't exist.

 

[Flying Crane]

Not accurate enough...I believe he actually said...

wow, you just hang on to any shred of hope you can find. because there is so little of it, for your position.

 

[Flying Crane]

Here is some food for thought.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...rming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/

you realize of course, that the author, james taylor, is with heartland which takes funding from big oil. kinda funny and ironic, that he writes this piece. i'd say someone is trying hard to make a smokescreen.

he say something that i find really funny, in this article:

Brulle’s paper and the media narrative may score some temporary points with members of the general public who do not closely follow the global warming debate, but ultimately Brulle’s paper and the media narrative will backfire on global warming activists. The narrative will backfire because the general public is not stupid. Slick lies may win some converts who will not check the facts, but the greater number of people will check the facts and hold the liars accountable.

i find this really funny, because what he says here really applies to the global climate change deniers, like himself. they are the ones spreading lies. that may work on the uneducated and those with an agenda (billc) but the general public is not stupid and does see thru the lies.

i gotta ask, does everyone who writes for forbes have connections to the heartland institute? seems in every link to a forbes article this shows up.

 

[ballen0351]

you realize of course, that the author, james taylor, is with heartland which takes funding from big oil. kinda funny and ironic, that he writes this piece. i'd say someone is trying hard to make a smokescreen.

he say something that i find really funny, in this article:

i find this really funny, because what he says here really applies to the global climate change deniers, like himself. they are the ones spreading lies. that may work on the uneducated and those with an agenda (billc) but the general public is not stupid and does see thru the lies.

i gotta ask, does everyone who writes for forbes have connections to the heartland institute? seems in every link to a forbes article this shows up.

Lol you can't beat his argument so you AGAIN cry about the money. Prove him wrong...........oh wait we established you can't. Never mind carry on chicken little

 

[billc]

As a climatologist Flying Crane, or at least a meteorologist...you must know that what the "cliamatologists" are telling you is 100 percent true( since you and others claim only climatologists can be trusted with knowing the absolute truth...right )...right...that they aren't influenced by money from government grants...the one guy in Britain in "climategate" received 13.7 million pounds in grants to study manmade global warming...I wonder what happens to the grant money if he doesn't find any? That they don't have their own agenda behind their research...anti-capitalism, anti-industrialisation, anti-population growth...yeah, none of those things could influence their views...they are as pure as the wind driven snow...