Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 73 of 73
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Global warming is not a controversy to mainstream science like it is for conservative activists. If anyone wants to learn about global warming themselves from reputable science journals, the links are below.
    at one time a flat earth was also not in dispute...

    if you can explain how ice ages came and went eithout man made pollution, then you can claim it to be science... But until them, it's politics and logic, and we are al just as qualified as all gore to talk about logic and politics.
  2.    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    lol and the other global crisis that was looming was overpopulation.

    I got extra credit for going to a huge seminar where we learned that the earth couldn't support projected population by the time we reached...a few years ago... Didn't happen either.

    but just in case, lets warm up the earth so we can farm siberia and antartica...

    Nice try. But, sadly, no.

    There is no comparison between the media-driven Ice Age thing of the 70s and the current worldwide scientific consensus on warming caused by human activity.

    The fact is that it was a small minority of scientists asserting that we were entering a cooling phase, a hypothesis that was soon discarded as climate science matured and computational power for modeling advanced. It was not necessarily "junk" science, but science that was shown in the 1980s to be incorrect.



    The number of climatologists who deny climate change caused by human activity is even smaller--miniscule, in fact. And there are no other hypotheses that have come even close to overturning the consensus--except those put forth by the energy equivalent of the tobacco "Research Councils" of yore.
  3.    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    at one time a flat earth was also not in dispute...
    Right, and then scientists showed that was b.s. What's your point?
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    Right, and then scientists showed that was b.s. What's your point?
    they will eventually show that man-made global warming is also bs.

    just like mini-ice age, over population, etc. It doesn't make sense logically, and we haven't been keeping records long enough to plot a valid trend line.

    btw, what is the pptimal temp? A few degrees cooler? A few warmer? Exactly where we are today?
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    It's Micael. And this is supposed to be about science, not how many people believe in one politicized ideal versus another.
    I agree with the scientific consensus, you are the one who is against it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I guess you're too young to remember
    Even though I was around back in the 70s studying biology and being a medic in the army, I always appreciate it when someone mistakes me for being young, thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    the mini ice age "most scientists" were screaming about in the early to mid 70s. It didn't happen.
    Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s
    "The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

    The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

    But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

    The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

    "A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."
    "

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    And our air and water quality is much greater now than it was then.
    I'm glad of that
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #66  
    Wow. Guess you can find a memo/survey/back of a paper napkin/article that says just about anything you want and supports whatever you want.

    Meanwhile, I was there and remember the debate.... it wasn't a myth.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7.    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Wow. Guess you can find a memo/survey/back of a paper napkin/article that says just about anything you want and supports whatever you want.

    Meanwhile, I was there and remember the debate.... it wasn't a myth.
    Nobody is questioning whether or not people were talking in those terms--many probably were, because the media outlets named in cellmatrix's post were stoking the idea. However, the literature survey shows that, whoever was doing all that talking, it wasn't climatologists.

    I was there too, incidentally. Stoned perhaps, but there nonetheless.
  8.    #68  
    Also, I can't believe not a single person misses my old avatar.

  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Wow. Guess you can find a memo/survey/back of a paper napkin/article that says just about anything you want and supports whatever you want.
    FYI, the article in question was published by the American Meteorology Society in the number one ranked meteorology journal
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    Also, I can't believe not a single person misses my old avatar.

    your new avatar looks kind of like a llama but different. what animal is it?
  11. #71  
    What some one needs to explain to me, is why CO2 lags temperature Increases.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Just another bit of information for you, a survey of over 1300 leading climate researchers showed that 97-98% agreed with the likelihood of human induced global warming and only 2-3% disagreed. Thats a pretty strong consensus to me.
    Expert credibility in climate change
    In other words...only 2-3% had very secure funding sources that weren't linked to promoting global climate change. In the late 80s/early 90s, I used to work as a programmer at a federal installation that had as its primary goal of monitoring the planet and its resources. When the head of the science & applications branch announced to all the staff scientists that all projects had to be tied to global climate change in some way in order to insure funding, it became clear to me that the topic was more about chasing money than it was about science.
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjgem View Post
    What some one needs to explain to me, is why CO2 lags temperature Increases.
    They'd rather just quote surveys and count endorsements.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions