Political Forum
     

Go Back   Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment & Conservation


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 11-25-2007, 11:53 AM
JP5's Avatar
JP5 JP5 is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 22,663
us texas
JP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 149,184
Default /

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daybreaker";p=&quot View Post
What does an inability to predict specific weather have to do with global warming trends?
Duh. IF the scientists cannot predict the weather accurately, how can they predict global warming? They have no idea, for sure, what the weather trends are going to be. They are looking back believing they can make an accurate prediction of the future. They were wrong in the 1970's and there's no more proof now of what the alarmists are saying.
__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 11-25-2007, 12:00 PM
JP5's Avatar
JP5 JP5 is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 22,663
us texas
JP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond reputeJP5 has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 149,184
Default ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MannieD";p=&quot View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot View Post
Then there is this noted scientist and expert on weather and climate:

"I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people, " says Bill Gray.

"BILL GRAY, professor emeritus. He is often called the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert. He's the guy who, every year, predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical storm season. He works on a country road leading into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, in the atmospheric science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists"

"Gray believes in the obs. The observations. Direct measurements. Numerical models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.

"Few people know what I know. I've been in the tropics, I've flown in airplanes into storms. I've done studies of convection, cloud clusters and how the moist process works. I don't think anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions better than me."

In just three, five, maybe eight years, he says, the world will begin to cool again."


"Bill Gray has a favorite diagram, taken from a 1985 climate model, showing little nodules in the center with such labels as "thermal inertia" and "net energy balance" and "latent heat flux" and "subsurface heat storage" and "absorbed heat radiation" and so on, and they are emitting arrows that curve and loop in all directions, bumping into yet more jargon, like "soil moisture" and "surface roughness" and "vertical wind" and "meltwater" and "volcanoes."

"It's a big can of worms!" Gray says. It's his favorite line.

The models can't even predict the weather in two weeks, much less 100 years, he says.

"They sit in this ivory tower, playing around, and they don't tell us if this is going to be a hot summer coming up. Why not? Because the models are no (*)(*)(*)(*) good!"

Gray says the recent rash of strong hurricanes is just part of a cycle. This is part of the broader skeptical message: Climate change is normal and natural. There was a Medieval Warm Period, for example, long before Exxon Mobil existed."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301305_pf.html
My emphasis
For starters: his opinion. Show me the evidence he bases his opinions on.

Dr. Gray "believes" in observations. Anyone here want to guess how the paths of hurricanes are predicted? I'll give you a clue, meteorologists don't use crystal balls. So Dr. Gray's lack of trust in numerical models appears to be a bit misguided.

His misuse of the term weather also discredits him. No one is attempting to predict the weather in 100 years; climatologists are attempting to predict the climate in 100 years. Look up the difference.
Your story on Dr. Gray is an appeal to authority. His opinions are not backed by evidence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot View Post
Still lots of controvery and conflict among scientists. So, yes Raytri. I read all the pros and cons opinions on global warming. I've yet to see any hard and fast proven conclusions that what we're seeing now is NOT more a part of the natural phenomonon of climate.
But have you studied the evidence. Have you, JP, read the "Working Group I: The Science of Climate Change". No, I didn't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot View Post
And as far as consensus of scientists....look at where the funding is going for your answer. The funding is going to those who are trying hard to prove that global warming IS caused by man.
Sure it is. And Bush was the one that planned 9/11. Oh wait! We don't have any evidence of that either?
The funding is going to scientists who are studying our climate. End of story! Unless you have evidence that their agenda is other than the advancement of science, your allegation is nothing more than another conspiracy theory.

So you JP post one scientist who disagrees with the consensus based on opinion. I give you Hansen (NASA) and Kevin Trenberth, (National Center for Atmospheric Research), who base their conclusions on data.
JP, which doctors' conclusions would you accept: a doctor that looked at you and, without gathering any data concluded that you were healthy or 2 doctors who've done blood tests, ie gathered data, and told you you had diabetes?

For every scientist who is of the opinion that humans are not the part of the reason for GW, I'll match you 2 scientists who conclude from the data and evidence that humans are partly responsible.
What YOU want us to believe that if a doctor says BECAUSE your parents and ancestors had diabetes, we'll just assume YOU will also at some point in time....and WITHOUT DOING ANY TESTING OR OBSERVATIONS of you. In fact, global warming alarmists wouldn't even say....'look at the ancestors." They would say START with the parents only. Because the figures they look at in making their dire predictions is but a drop in the bucket of years the world has been around. For instance, way back in the world's history we've had global warming and we've had ice ages. NONE of which could have been contributed to man using fossil fuels.

Here's my best prediction of things to come: IF the Dems are lucky enough to get the presidency next time---(and they'll need to be very lucky)....I predict during his or her term as president we will hear NO MORE from the global warming alarmists about global warming. Just as the "homeless" suddenly disappear during a Democrat's presidency, so will the dire warnings of global warming.
__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 11-26-2007, 11:03 AM
Liberty's Avatar
Liberty Liberty is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 4,594
usa us georgia
Liberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud ofLiberty has much to be proud of
Credits: 23,208
Default .

The most "hysterical" global warming comment I've heard lately? On the Sunday Pregame show yesterday, they suggested that the reason there are so many long kicks this year is due to the influence of global warming -- cold balls are harder to kick.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 11-27-2007, 06:13 AM
MannieD's Avatar
MannieD MannieD is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New England
Age: 57
Posts: 821
usa us new hampshire
MannieD is on a distinguished road
Credits: 4,183
Default you are confused

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot View Post
What YOU want us to believe that if a doctor says BECAUSE your parents and ancestors had diabetes, we'll just assume YOU will also at some point in time....and WITHOUT DOING ANY TESTING OR OBSERVATIONS of you. In fact, global warming alarmists wouldn't even say....'look at the ancestors." They would say START with the parents only. Because the figures they look at in making their dire predictions is but a drop in the bucket of years the world has been around. For instance, way back in the world's history we've had global warming and we've had ice ages. NONE of which could have been contributed to man using fossil fuels.
No! What I want you to accept is diabetes/AGW is diagnosed with current observations. Nowhere in the IPCC is it suggested that current GW is caused by our ancestors.

The second part, 'we've had global warming and we've had ice ages' refers to the past and without knowing the cause of past global warming you assume the past cause is the same as the current cause even though the current data and evidence suggests the a majority of the GW is anthropogenic! Just because we've had global warming and ice ages in the past in no way discredits the current data of AGW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot View Post
Here's my best prediction of things to come: IF the Dems are lucky enough to get the presidency next time---(and they'll need to be very lucky)....I predict during his or her term as president we will hear NO MORE from the global warming alarmists about global warming. Just as the "homeless" suddenly disappear during a Democrat's presidency, so will the dire warnings of global warming.
JPGWprediction
__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2007, 04:35 PM
skeptic-f skeptic-f is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 767
skeptic-f will become famous soon enoughskeptic-f will become famous soon enough
Credits: 6,355
Default Another bit of evidence

Did you know that over the last 20 years, natural disasters have increased by about 300% ( in other words, they are occurring at four times the rate they occurred 20 years ago.

I know this is also not proof that climate change / global warming is occurring, but is yet another strong indicator. If JP5's cows are dying at his waterhole, it may not be from the water but he should check the water quality first rather than saying it's not a problem or looking for other causes first (so to speak).

How's that flat earth going, anyway?
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 11-28-2007, 05:42 PM
Blade Blade is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,965
Blade is a splendid one to beholdBlade is a splendid one to beholdBlade is a splendid one to beholdBlade is a splendid one to beholdBlade is a splendid one to beholdBlade is a splendid one to beholdBlade is a splendid one to behold
Credits: 21,474
Default .

How about the obesity epidemic in america? That's probably due to global warming, too.
__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2008, 08:14 PM
Dragon Dragon is offline
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 79
usa us illinois
Dragon is on a distinguished road
Credits: 456
Default

As far as the consenses thing. It is wrong. NOT ALL or MOST scientists agree on the global warming issue.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20080104a.html
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2008, 02:21 PM
BillyBob's Avatar
BillyBob BillyBob is offline
Banned
Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Music City USA
Posts: 6,127
usa us tennessee
BillyBob has a reputation beyond reputeBillyBob has a reputation beyond reputeBillyBob has a reputation beyond reputeBillyBob has a reputation beyond reputeBillyBob has a reputation beyond reputeBillyBob has a reputation beyond reputeBillyBob has a reputation beyond reputeBillyBob has a reputation beyond reputeBillyBob has a reputation beyond reputeBillyBob has a reputation beyond reputeBillyBob has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 6,807
Default

This thread is not categorized properly. The Global Warming Myth is not an environmental issue, it is a political issue.
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 02-29-2008, 06:20 PM
bugalugs bugalugs is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,290
australia au queensland
bugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud of
Credits: 9,528
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5 View Post
Duh. IF the scientists cannot predict the weather accurately, how can they predict global warming? They have no idea, for sure, what the weather trends are going to be. They are looking back believing they can make an accurate prediction of the future. They were wrong in the 1970's and there's no more proof now of what the alarmists are saying.
Plese look up the words "cliamatology" and "meteorology". You may find your answer there.

Also - why do you mention the 1970s? Are you trying to bring up the "they said we are heading towards a new ice age" stuff?

Please show me some evidence of any climatologist who has published research on antrhopogenic climate change who also published research on a "new ice age" in the 1970's. One single example will be fine. Until you can do that - please drop that nonsense.

(BTW - we are heading towards a new ice age. Any time in the next 10,000 or so years)
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 02-29-2008, 06:26 PM
bugalugs bugalugs is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,290
australia au queensland
bugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud of
Credits: 9,528
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
As far as the consenses thing. It is wrong. NOT ALL or MOST scientists agree on the global warming issue.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20080104a.html
I generally agree:
"There is an unrestrained contest among media, environmental groups, and politicians to paint as dire a picture as possible,"

Of course "NOT ALL or MOST scientists agree on the global warming issue" - there is much debate over the level of impact and the mitigation strategies required. Where there is consensus though is that antropogenic climate change is occuring. If you think that is not true - then show me a peer-reviewed paper from a scientific journal that agrees with you.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Template-Modifikationen durch TMS
vBCredits v1.3 ©2007 by Darkwaltz4
Advertisement System V2.1 By   Branden