New evidence that global warming is BS
Randy

Alamogordo, NM

#5296 Feb 10, 2013
Gorky wrote:
<quoted text>
I always use information presented by reliable sources (at least two independent sources). I do not say that these findings are the absolute truth, but that the findings are likely to be true with a high degree of confidence. That's the best anyone can do.
There you go again "likely" and you only use left wing sources that fit your agenda, you have been exposed long ago..
Gorky

Albuquerque, NM

#5297 Feb 10, 2013
"Likely","proba bly", "maybe", are words that indicate that there is a certain amount of uncertainty involved in a subject. Scientific uncertainty is determined by math. A "very likely" outcome, for example, is one that has a greater than 90 percent chance of occurring. Climate data or model projections in which we have "very high confidence" have at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct.

Scientists know with very high confidence, or even greater certainty, that: Human-induced warming influences physical and biological systems throughout the world, and:
-Sea levels are rising
-Glaciers and permafrost are shrinking
-Oceans are becoming more acidic
-Ranges of plants and animals are shifting

So, what's the bottom line? Science has learned much about climate change. Science tells us what is more or less likely to be true. We know that acting now to deeply reduce heat-trapping emissions will limit the scope and severity of further impacts – and that,[we know], is virtually certain, or in mathematical terms, at least 99% certain.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_...

Corporate polluters are 100% confident that addressing global warming will be bad for their bottom line.
James Hansen

Alamogordo, NM

#5298 Feb 10, 2013
Still no proof that man is causing "Man Made Global Warming".

Mars and other planets that have no industrial revolution occuring little alone klnown inhabitants are warming up.

Past history of $$$ funded scientists who have been caught proving misleading information that reselted in flawed data is reoccuring.

History of Earth have proven that this planet has had numerous cycles of weather pattern that have no bearing with mankind existence.

Andrew Freedman

Alamogordo, NM

#5299 Feb 10, 2013
His body of work is not at issue... Rather, the problem arises due to the AMS' recognition of Hansen's public communication work on climate change.
Gorky

Albuquerque, NM

#5300 Feb 10, 2013
James Hansen wrote:
Still no proof that man is causing "Man Made Global Warming".
Mars and other planets that have no industrial revolution occurring little alone known inhabitants are warming up.
Past history of $$$ funded scientists who have been caught proving misleading information that resulted in flawed data is reoccurring.
History of Earth have proven that this planet has had numerous cycles of weather pattern that have no bearing with mankind existence.
Out of whose dark crevice did you find these jewels of wisdom? If you are referring to the so-called email scandal named "climategate", about the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in 2009 by an external attacker, allow me bring you up to date.

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.

Please consult neutral sources before you form an opinion on this. This is not a partisan political issue and the outcome will affect people all over the globe, not just Democrats or Republicans.

I even corrected your typos to show my good will.
Dark Green Doomsayers

Alamogordo, NM

#5301 Feb 10, 2013
Andrew Freedman wrote:
His body of work is not at issue... Rather, the problem arises due to the AMS' recognition of Hansen's public communication work on climate change.
Concur.
George Will

Alamogordo, NM

#5302 Feb 10, 2013
Global Scientists speaking on climate change columns are a case study in how one can cherry pick scientific data to fit their own agenda.

"Reducing carbon emissions supposedly will reverse warming, which is allegedly occurring even though, according to statistics published by the World Meteorological Organization, there has not been a warmer year on record than 1998."
Poseidon

Alamogordo, NM

#5303 Feb 10, 2013
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story...

LAKE TAHOE, Calif.(KGO)-- Scientists in the High Sierra have discovered a previously unknown forest, and there's a twist. The ancient trees in this forest are under water. They are standing at the bottom of Fallen Leaf Lake, just south of Lake Tahoe. New research shows both the forest and the lake hold critical clues to climate change.

Fallen Leaf Lake is already known for its spectacular beauty. Now it turns out the lake also has a dramatic secret.

"What I like to call a ghost forest," says Prof. Graham Kent of the University of Nevada, describing trees up to 100 feet tall, as high as a 10-story building, but covered by water. "We have old wood from a thousand years ago, 2,000, 3,000 down there."

Scientists in a small submarine took photos showing just a few of the hundred or more trees on the bottom of the lake. They're using state of the art sonar to map the mysterious forest and try to figure out why it's there.

"Side scan sonar technology is exactly the equipment that's used to find sunken ships," says Kent.

A high-tech image shows the lake has seen big changes in the water level over many years. A sonar device shows slices of the ground under the lake bottom.

Researchers say all this evidence confirms that a thousand years ago there was a prolonged drought in the Sierra. It lasted about 200 years -- long enough for huge trees to grow where Fallen Leaf Lake now sits. The precipitation is believed to have been just 60 percent of normal. That is similar to the devastating midwest "Dust Bowl" in the 1930s. Scientists believe it may happen again.

"So take the great Dust Bowl and extend it from 10 years to 200 and some years," explains Kent. "And just wonder how the economies of California and Nevada are going to be affected by it."

Kent says the long Sierra drought happened naturally a thousand years ago. But he and other top researchers believe human-caused global warming might bring on another severe drought even faster in the future. If that happens, Fallen Leaf Lake could be the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

"This is the lake that's going to start feeling the effects of the next drought, whenever that happens, much more than any other lake in the area," he says.

The research indicates the lake level might drop fast, as much as 50 to 100 feet in just a couple of decades, and that could bring huge change for thousands of vacationers who flock to the lake every summer.

Scientists plan more research to make more accurate predictions. But now at least they know Fallen Leaf Lake and its ghostly forest is the place to find answers.

"You don't get many chances to get a perfect record," says Kent.

The forest at the bottom of the lake was actually discovered by another professor who happened to be fishing on the lake. His lure got stuck in the top one of those 100-foot tall trees.

Written and produced by Jennifer Olney.

Funny that they hads to include that little smear about man made global warming, yet the trees are evidence of severe weather conditions well before man had any measurable input to this planets normal cycles.

Man would be wise to learn from history and resolve their thirst for water.
Not Credible

Alamogordo, NM

#5304 Feb 11, 2013
Gorky wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of whose dark crevice did you find these jewels of wisdom? If you are referring to the so-called email scandal named "climategate", about the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in 2009 by an external attacker, allow me bring you up to date.
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.
Please consult neutral sources before you form an opinion on this. This is not a partisan political issue and the outcome will affect people all over the globe, not just Democrats or Republicans.
I even corrected your typos to show my good will.
There you go AGAIN, "so-called" you love to use these type of words to fit your left wing agenda. Was it an email scandal or not? You lost ALL credibility a long time ago..
Gorky

Albuquerque, NM

#5305 Feb 11, 2013
Yes, I just keep going, don't I.

The words, "so-called" are legitimately used to identify claims that have no substance and are untrue. At issue here is not left-right politics, but the truth about an event that happened in 2009 at a British university. You talk about the original claims that were proven to be untrue. You have chosen to support the lie and shun the truth.

If I have lost my credibility in your eyes, I take that as a compliment and a sign that I'm on the right track.

I truly wish that you and the climate change deniers were right, that we were not polluting our planet and that our future ecology would remain intact. However, the evidence now speaks against that possibility.
Guns are Bad

Alamogordo, NM

#5306 Feb 11, 2013
Gorky wrote:
Yes, I just keep going, don't I.
The words, "so-called" are legitimately used to identify claims that have no substance and are untrue. At issue here is not left-right politics, but the truth about an event that happened in 2009 at a British university. You talk about the original claims that were proven to be untrue. You have chosen to support the lie and shun the truth.
If I have lost my credibility in your eyes, I take that as a compliment and a sign that I'm on the right track.
I truly wish that you and the climate change deniers were right, that we were not polluting our planet and that our future ecology would remain intact. However, the evidence now speaks against that possibility.
You have already proven that you are not stable enough to own a gun. Have a good day friend..
You demand

United States

#5307 Feb 11, 2013
Gorky wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of whose dark crevice did you find these jewels of wisdom? If you are referring to the so-called email scandal named "climategate", about the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in 2009 by an external attacker, allow me bring you up to date.
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.
Please consult neutral sources before you form an opinion on this. This is not a partisan political issue and the outcome will affect people all over the globe, not just Democrats or Republicans.
I even corrected your typos to show my good will.
neutral sources, yet the so-called 8 committies were ALL scientific global warming committies, FUNDED through the UN Climate Change council. I'll bet they had absolutely zero reason to declare the findings fraudulent other than all of their funding would have been cut off?
The got BUSTED using terms like "Tricked the system" and "FIXED the results"
When a sports bookie talks about a "fixed" game, everyone knows what he is talking about because he is educated in his profession.
Same with scientists. They don't just use words because they are short and sweet.
And the UN Leaked report does CONFIRM temps have NOT risen near as high as once thought. They once said it was almost 3 degrees Centegrade. Now it's more like 1.2. Less than HALF!
Gorky

Albuquerque, NM

#5308 Feb 11, 2013
In November 2009, private e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were stolen and made public. Climate change disbelievers called it "Climategate," saying that the e-mails proved collusion and conspiracies that would discredit man-made global warming. We found that there was no solid evidence of wrongdoing in the e-mails, but noted that a detailed investigation by the university was underway.

As it turns out, this investigation came to more or less the same conclusion we did. The report reads, in part: "We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention." Researchers should have worked more closely with professional statisticians, the university said, but the investigation did not find evidence that they were using misleading statistical methods.

This follows a Parliamentary hearing of former CRU head Phil Jones, in which the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said that climate scientists should be more forthright in publishing data and methodologies, but concluded that Jones should be allowed to return to his post at CRU. Jones had stepped aside after the e-mails came to light. The committee found no evidence for unusual obstructionism or peer review mishandling on the part of Jones:

Committee Report: We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced.…

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers.…

We are content that the phrases such as "trick" or "hiding the decline" were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.

Here is some evidence that your claim is false
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climate...

If you have other evidence, I would like to see it. If you have good evidence, I will apologize to you and admit I was wrong.
Book Burner

Alamogordo, NM

#5309 Feb 12, 2013
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/11/cnn...

The threat of global warming may stretch so far beyond Earth that it affects meteorites millions of miles away in space -- at least according to one CNN anchor.

“Talk about something else that’s falling from the sky and that is an asteroid. What’s coming our way? Is this an effect of, perhaps, of global warming, or is this just some meteoric occasion?” CNN’s Deborah Feyerick asked Bill “The Science Guy” Nye, head of the Planetary Society, in a Saturday segment.


'What’s coming our way? Is this an effect of, perhaps, global warming?'

- CNN anchor Deb Feyerick


Feyerick, who had earlier quizzed Nye about the possible link between global warming and the weekend snowstorm, was referring to Asteroid 2012 DA14, which will whiz within 17,000 miles or so of Earth on Feb 15. The asteroid’s relatively close trajectory on its latest pass of Earth has been extensively covered in recent weeks.

“No, no, no, no,” Nye replied to the spaced-out question, before gracefully extending Feyerick a lifeline by saying “except it’s all science. The word meteorology and the word meteor come from the same root, so, uhh…”

Several of Nye’s fellow scientists were less diplomatic.

“Nye was good enough to respond with what sounded like a non-sequitur … instead of saying,‘No, dummy,’” noted Popular Science’s website.

“Dinosaurs unavailable for comment,” one person slyly commented on Twitter.

Most asteroids are leftovers from the formation of our solar system about 4.6 billion years ago, noted Space.com , making it impossible for it or anything else hurtling through space to be affected by changes in Earth’s atmosphere.

Now i hope she was not reading this from a teleprompter.
If she has kids, she should not let them see there mom in her finest blonde moment.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#5310 Feb 12, 2013
Global Warming is a real problem and will get a lot worse if world leaders collectively do not take some drastic steps to reduce CO2 emissions.
If you

Rio Rancho, NM

#5311 Feb 12, 2013
Gorky wrote:
In November 2009, private e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were stolen and made public. Climate change disbelievers called it "Climategate," saying that the e-mails proved collusion and conspiracies that would discredit man-made global warming. We found that there was no solid evidence of wrongdoing in the e-mails, but noted that a detailed investigation by the university was underway.
Committee Report: We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced.…
In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers.…
We are content that the phrases such as "trick" or "hiding the decline" were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.
Here is some evidence that your claim is false
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climate...
If you have other evidence, I would like to see it. If you have good evidence, I will apologize to you and admit I was wrong.
HONESTLY read the words these SCIENTISTS used, and seperated yourself from your own left sided bias, you would see that there was something FISHY and wrong going on.

Just imagine your "significant other" or your "child" staing these things to you when you questioned them. ANY sane person would begin to see problems. Could someone else convince you that they might have been lying, but their INTENTIONS were good or that the means justified the ends? If you WANTED to believe them enough, sure.
However, SCIENTISTS are educated above that simple idea.

Here are a few excerpts:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones.

Why would you have to "COVER" anything that was truthful? Why would a SCIENTIST delete anything? Even the military cannot delete official E-mails anymore. They have to keep everything, no matter what.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email.“I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

Research needs to be hidden so they can continue to get grants? Why wold a SCIENTIST hide anything?

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

Here is another E-Mail talking about leaving things out to help their findings.

The use of FACTCHECK and SNOPES are not accepted in universities just like most will not accept WICKI information, so I refuse to accept your link based on examples given from higher educational facilities. I ain't asking for an apology about anything, just as I do not intend to offer one. We are passionate in our beliefs. I just grow tired of being told what an azzhole I am to the planet and how I am a "crony" to some industrial complex whilst you sit atop your throne of judgement and hipporcracy.

If you took a look at the words used by educated SCIENTISTS and the context they used them in, ANY person cold see that as "questionable" and not require more scientists to tell them that "There is nothing to see here folks" like a cop in a comedy movie.

How about you?
SNOW today

Alamogordo, NM

#5312 Feb 12, 2013
Gorky wrote:
In November 2009, private e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were stolen and made public. Climate change disbelievers called it "Climategate," saying that the e-mails proved collusion and conspiracies that would discredit man-made global warming. We found that there was no solid evidence of wrongdoing in the e-mails, but noted that a detailed investigation by the university was underway.
As it turns out, this investigation came to more or less the same conclusion we did. The report reads, in part: "We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention." Researchers should have worked more closely with professional statisticians, the university said, but the investigation did not find evidence that they were using misleading statistical methods.
This follows a Parliamentary hearing of former CRU head Phil Jones, in which the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said that climate scientists should be more forthright in publishing data and methodologies, but concluded that Jones should be allowed to return to his post at CRU. Jones had stepped aside after the e-mails came to light. The committee found no evidence for unusual obstructionism or peer review mishandling on the part of Jones:
Committee Report: We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced.…
In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers.…
We are content that the phrases such as "trick" or "hiding the decline" were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.
Here is some evidence that your claim is false
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climate...
If you have other evidence, I would like to see it. If you have good evidence, I will apologize to you and admit I was wrong.
No matter how long of a diatribe you post it still brings no credibility to your global warming theory. I see snow outside today..
In all

Rio Rancho, NM

#5313 Feb 12, 2013
SNOW today wrote:
<quoted text>No matter how long of a diatribe you post it still brings no credibility to your global warming theory. I see snow outside today..
honesty, you are speaking of weather, not climate. But I get your point.
SNOW today

Alamogordo, NM

#5314 Feb 12, 2013
In all wrote:
<quoted text>honesty, you are speaking of weather, not climate. But I get your point.
Can you have one without the other and I never get your point..
You say

Rio Rancho, NM

#5315 Feb 12, 2013
SNOW today wrote:
<quoted text>Can you have one without the other and I never get your point..
never get my point, yet I haven't really made a bunch to begin with? Do I know you?
And no, you cannot have one without the other, but they are different.
Weather is local while Climate is a study of the whole.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alamogordo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Grandpa says' (Jan '16) 3 hr Ralph 613
Quotes from famous people. 3 hr Ralph 23
Chump Joke of the Day 3 hr Ralph 287
President Trump Inherited A Mess 3 hr Ralph 15
President Trump had a great press conference ! 3 hr Ralph 20
The Nature of God . 3 hr Ralph 29
HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2014 3 hr Ralph 21

Alamogordo Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Alamogordo Mortgages