Hey, alarmists...

[RW]

Read the 10,000+ studies for yourself Spec.

[Bricktop]

No need.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... ensus-not/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/



"Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that "...there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.



So where did that famous "consensus" claim that "98% of all scientists believe in global warming" come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered "yes" to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.



Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That "98% all scientists" referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered "yes".



That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"  Few would be expected to dispute this...the planet began thawing out of the "Little Ice Age" in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)



The second question asked: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" So what constitutes "significant"? Does "changing" include both cooling and warming... and for both "better" and "worse"?"

[Bricktop]

How about those Canadians...



"A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that "...the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." Only 26% of them attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels." Regarding these results, APEGGA's executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, "We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."

[RW]

I already linked where it came from on the first page.



Have you read anything I've posted?

[Bricktop]

Gee...here's a peer reviewed example.



"The greenhouse effect that is supposed to warm the world does not even exist as Ferenc Miskolczi has shown. He studied the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere using NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948. He discovered that the absorption had been constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time went up by 21.6 percent. This substantial addition of carbon dioxide had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. In science a theory that gives wrong predictions is thrown into the trash basket of history. That is where the greenhouse theory of warming belongs, right next to phlogiston, another wrong theory of heat. Miskpolczi's is an empirical observation, not derived from any theory, and it overrides any predictions from theory that do not agree with it. Quite specifically it overrides all those pseudo-scientists who try to tell us that CO2 is warming the world. It also invalidates all climate models using the greenhouse theory to predict warming. And it also agrees well with predictions he made before he made the observations. For technical details, read Energy & Environment, volume 21, issue 4, pages 243-262 (2010). That is a peer reviewed article the climatists hate."

[Anonymous]

Gee...here's a peer reviewed example.



"The greenhouse effect that is supposed to warm the world does not even exist as Ferenc Miskolczi has shown. He studied the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere using NOAA weather balloon database that goes back to 1948. He discovered that the absorption had been constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time went up by 21.6 percent. This substantial addition of carbon dioxide had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. In science a theory that gives wrong predictions is thrown into the trash basket of history. That is where the greenhouse theory of warming belongs, right next to phlogiston, another wrong theory of heat. Miskpolczi's is an empirical observation, not derived from any theory, and it overrides any predictions from theory that do not agree with it. Quite specifically it overrides all those pseudo-scientists who try to tell us that CO2 is warming the world. It also invalidates all climate models using the greenhouse theory to predict warming. And it also agrees well with predictions he made before he made the observations. For technical details, read Energy & Environment, volume 21, issue 4, pages 243-262 (2010). That is a peer reviewed article the climatists hate."

The repeated debate is over is anti science. That's what dictatorships say, not scientists.

[Bricktop]

There you go.  I may not have a shiny title or flashy credentials, but I have a brain and I know how to use it.  I highly recommend it!  Don't be distracted by the flash and the rhetoric.  Listen to what the man is actually saying.  In the end, it's really not very much.

This fellow has a brain and knows how to use it.



"Now recall: in 2004, by his computer calculations on the TIGR radiosonde empirical measurements, Miskolczi found an observed estimate of 1.87. In 2007, theoretically he derived 1.8676... . And in 2009, on the NOAA 61 year global average database, he found another empirical estimate   = 1.86875. According to this database, the atmosphere's moisture content during 61 years from 1948 to 2008 in global average decreased by about 1%. This amount was the climate process's automatic dynamic response and was enough to counter the impact of any CO2 and methane increase.



Let us be clear that these results recognise that the surface climate temperature can rise or fall. Of course it can, as it is driven by changing external radiative sources. It is driven mostly by the sun, but also in smaller measure by other natural or human energy sources such as geothermal energy from the interior of the earth or industrial heat generation.



But, remarkably and surprisingly, these results say that the ratio of the surface temperature to the sum of the incoming energies is fixed at a critical value; the ratio cannot be altered by adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2. The climate temperature is fully sensitive to real changes in the external drivers that increase the energy input. But it is not at all sensitive to addition of greenhouse gases such as CO2 to the atmosphere."



The Work of Ferenc Miskolczi.



http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/">http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/05/the ... zi-part-1/">http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-part-1/



I'm sure a boat engineer will be able to dispute this published and peer reviewed scientific report.

[RW]

Did you seriously just post some woman's opinion column as a rebuttal?



*facepalm*

[Anonymous]

My son gave the best present ever last summer. It was a tee shirt that read STOP GLOBAL WHINING. I wear it with pride whenever the greenbacks, I mean greenpeacers are doing the hey, hey, ho, ho Canada's resource industries have got to go.

[RW]

One thing climate change has really brought to light is how fucked up our priorities are as humans.

[Miss Stiletto]

Sometimes..however you have to remember the "continual evolution" process of the earth....warming changes...ice ages...repeat...repeat

[Frood]

One thing climate change has really brought to light is how fucked up our priorities are as humans.

I agree although from a completely different point of view. Climate change is a ruse and it demonstrates that people are easily duped into ignoring real problems in their lives so they can feel like they're part of a global movement which ironically seeks to add more real problems to their lives.

[Anonymous]

One thing climate change has really brought to light is how fucked up our priorities are as humans.

I agree although from a completely different point of view. Climate change is a ruse and it demonstrates that people are easily duped into ignoring real problems in their lives so they can feel like they're part of a global movement which ironically seeks to add more real problems to their lives.

I like the way you think Dinky Di.  ac_drinks

[Frood]

:6:

[Bricktop]

One thing climate change has really brought to light is how fucked up our priorities are as humans.

I agree although from a completely different point of view. Climate change is a ruse and it demonstrates that people are easily duped into ignoring real problems in their lives so they can feel like they're part of a global movement which ironically seeks to add more real problems to their lives.

Its called "socialism".



They lost their previous cause when "the worker's paradise" collapsed.



Equal rights for the environment was the next best option.