^does that draw electricity??? B/c if so I need to unplug a few of those...

2/10/2009 3:21:45 PM

^ a minuscule amount, that's not really worth thinking about.

Unless your gets especially warm, i wouldn't worry about it.

2/10/2009 3:25:45 PM

^ya know, that got me thinking that I leave my home laptop AC adapter plugged in all the time and that's warm. I must do something about it!

2/10/2009 3:32:42 PM

Mmm power strips.

2/10/2009 5:06:26 PM

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/02/climate-data-ugliness-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.ars

Here's an excellent article that explains why 2008 is one of the coldest years "this century" but also one of the warmest years on record. It does a good job explaining the difference between short term trends and long term trends that affect climate.

Quote :

"In both cases, the temperatures of 2008 combine with several years of largely similar data to create a slight drop in the trend. Drops of a similar magnitude appear in the past, meaning that the current one is consistent with an overall upward trend in temperatures. Should the current dip turn into a longer trend, then it would be cause for a significant revision of our understanding of the climate. The clearest indication of whether that's going to happen might be the next time an El Niño arrives—assuming Mount Pinatubo doesn't go off again in the meantime. "

[Edited on February 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM. Reason : ]

2/11/2009 10:23:16 AM

Simple minds have trouble understanding worldly phenomenon that are non-linear. Kinda like if global warming really exists why can last year be colder than year previous.

2/11/2009 10:49:19 AM

Very good piece written by Dr. William Gray on the outrage of the AMS awarding Hansen, an astronomer, the Rossby Research Medal.

Quote :

"On the Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society Update: One Meteorologist inspired by Dr. Gray’s statement below cancelled his AMS membership (not the only one) . See his note to me and the AMS response here. See in this essay by Richard Lindzen how the professional societies have been infiltrated and are now controlled by environmental extremists and opportunists with a political motive and have abandoned objective science. Earlier, I had posted a story on how the professional societies had strayed towards advocacy here. By Dr. William Gray I am appalled at the selection of James Hansen as this year’s recipient of the AMS’s highest award - the Rossby Research Medal. James Hansen has not been trained as a meteorologist. His formal education has been in astronomy. His long records of faulty global climate predictions and alarmist public pronouncements have become increasingly hollow and at odds with reality. Hansen has exploited the general public’s lack of knowledge of how the globe’s climate system functions for his own benefit. His global warming predictions, going back to 1988 are not being verified. Why have we allowed him go on for all these years with his faulty and alarmist prognostications? And why would the AMS give him its highest award? The American Meteorological Society (AMS) was founded in 1919 as an organization dedicated to advancing scientific knowledge of weather and climate. It has been a wonderful beacon for fostering new understanding of how the atmosphere and oceans function. But this strong positive image is now becoming tarnished as a result of the AMS leadership’s capitulating to the lobby of the climate modelers and to the outside environmental and political pressure groups who wish to use the now AMS position on AGW to help justify the promotion of their own special interests. The effectiveness of the AMS as an objective scientific organization has been greatly compromised. We AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and CO2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think. This small organized group of AGW sympathizers has indeed hijacked our society. Debate. The AMS is the most relevant of our country’s scientific societies as regards to its members having the most extensive scientific and technical background in meteorology and climate. It should have been a leader in helping to adjudicate the claims of the AGW advocates and their skeptical critics. Our country’s Anglo-Saxon derived legal system is based on the idea that the best way to get to the truth is to have opposite sides of a continuous issue present their differing views in open debate before a non partisan jury. Nothing like this has happened with regards to the AGW issue. Instead of organizing meetings with free and open debates on the basic physics and the likelihood of AGW induced climate changes, the leaders of the society (with the backing of the society’s AGW enthusiasts) have chosen to fully trust the climate models and deliberately avoid open debate on this issue. I know of no AMS sponsored conference where the AGW hypothesis has been given open and free discussion. For a long time I have wanted a forum to express my skepticism of the AGW hypothesis. No such opportunities ever came within the AMS framework. Attempts at publication of my skeptic views have been difficult. One rejection stated that I was too far out of the mainstream thinking. Another that my ideas had already been discredited. A number of AGW skeptics have told me they have had similar experiences. The climate modelers and their supporters deny the need for open debate of the AGW question on the grounds that the issue has already been settled by their model results. They have taken this view because they know that the physics within their models and the long range of their forecast periods will likely not to be able to withstand knowledgeable and impartial review (see Appendix). They simply will not debate the issue. As a defense against criticism they have resorted to a general denigration of those of us who do not support their AGW hypothesis. AGW skeptics are sometimes tagged (I have been) as no longer being credible scientists. Skeptics are often denounced as tools of the fossil-fuel industry. A type of McCarthyism against AGW skeptics has been in display for a number of years. Recent AMS Awardees. Since 2000 the AMS has awarded its annual highest award (Rossby Research Medal) to the following AGW advocates or AGW sympathizers; Susan Solomon (00), V. Ramanathan (02), Peter Webster (04), Jagadish Shukla (05), Kerry Emanuel (07), Isaac Held (08) and James Hansen (09). Its second highest award (Charney Award) has gone to AGW warming advocates or sympathizers; Kevin Trenberth (00), Rich Rotunno (04), Robert D. Cess (06), Allan Betts (07), Gerald North (08) and Warren Washington and Gerald Meehl (09). And the other Rossby and Charney awardees during this period are not known to be critics of the AGW warming hypothesis. Read much on this issue here. See his scientific appendix Part A here and Part B here. "

Man, that Dr. Gray is a real quack! Right HUR?

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/on_the_hijacking_of_the_american_meteorological_society

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 3:11 PM. Reason : b]

2/13/2009 3:10:52 PM

I am glad someone has the balls to be teh whistleblower to call out 99% of climatologists that with the backing of the scientific community spread this evil communist lie as part of the Liberal Conspiracy about Global Warming.

On a serious note i respect the scholarly source as a dissenting opinion but this does not automatically invalidate every other scientific scholarly article about global warming.

Today it was 73 in Wilmingotn, Global Warming does exist [/sarcasm]

[Edited on February 13, 2009 at 5:16 PM. Reason : l]

2/13/2009 5:15:09 PM

^so you think he's a liar then. Not necessarily with AGW, but with the way things are going with the AMS?

2/13/2009 8:39:20 PM

Excuse me?

2/13/2009 9:15:11 PM

Quote :

"From my observation though conservatives merely just put there fingers in their ears singing "LA LA LA LA" ignoring any kind of evidence or rebuttal going against their way of thinking."

That kind of typifies the kind of "science" being done by James Hansen and others. Ironic, no?

Quote :

"Unless you are a stockholder in ExXon Mobil i am not sure if its a blind party loyalty thing or just a arrogant ignorance type deal."

So, does that go for Al Gore, too? You know, since he stands to gain a ton from his carbon-credits companies if such things go through...

Quote :

"It does a good job explaining the difference between short term trends and long term trends that affect climate. "

Man, if only the "climate scientists" would read that thing.

Quote :

"I am glad someone has the balls to be teh whistleblower to call out 99% of climatologists that with the backing of the scientific community spread this evil communist lie as part of the Liberal Conspiracy about Global Warming."

I sure am glad that consensus is what science is all about. Not repeatable results. or models that actually have predictive validity for not only the future, but the PAST.

2/23/2009 11:12:55 PM

Quote :

" So, does that go for Al Gore, too? You know, since he stands to gain a ton from his carbon-credits companies if such things go through... "

attempting a strawman?
Did i mention al gore or my agreement with carbon credits. I have no doubt that some liberals have hidden interests in
the many growth companies related to solar energy and other alternatives. Although i think this percentage is dwarved by
the number of republicans who speak 100% against any time of human factor in teh climate b.c of their own "interests" or
out of shear ignorance about climate, scientific research, or any other related field as pertains to global warming.

If you disagree human activity has effect on climate fine. Please though have evidence, good job TKE-Teg, to at
provide some rationale (if weak) to your standpoint beyond that global warming is part of the liberal conspiracy or that
Sarah Palin says its crap.

Honestly regardless of your opinion on the topic I think the issue is low priority until the economy is repaired.

2/24/2009 1:07:36 PM

Quote :

"attempting a strawman?"

Not at all. But why is it that only oil companies can be the greedy ones? Why is that only oil companies can have agendas that cause them to hide the facts? Face it: Gore stands to have massive financial gains if people buy into his hype. Why do you think his "pledge" that he asks his devout followers to take asks them to buy carbon credits and offsets? Right, because HE sells them, practically. It's the same reason that L. Ron Hubbard created a religion: to make money off of fools.

Or, more aptly, why is the percentage of shady pro-AGW-ers "dwarved" by the shady anti-AGW-ers? In case you didn't know, the "science" behind the issue is, at best, muddled, and at worst, down-right fraudulent. Hell, the whole movement was practically founded upon and bolstered by a rigged study!

Quote :

"If you disagree human activity has effect on climate fine. Please though have evidence"

I've done that time and time again. The best most people can do to the contrary is "but all these scientists say it!!!" or "hey, look at these graphs Al Gore gave me" or "hey, look at these cherry-picked studies!" or, my own personal favorite, "we can't pump all this shit in the air and expect it not to have consequences." None of those are any kind of evidence. Moreover, those that pretend to be evidence have consistently failed the most important tests of science: repeatability and predictive validity!

2/24/2009 8:22:26 PM

HUR

Quote :

"I have no doubt that some liberals have hidden interests in the many growth companies related to solar energy and other alternatives."

THAN

aaronburro

Quote :

"but why is it that only oil companies can be the greedy ones? Why is that only oil companies can have agendas that cause them to hide the facts?"

Quote :

". The best most people can do to the contrary is "but all these this scientists say it! look at these cherry-picked studies that global warming absolutely positively does not exist!"

lol aren't cherry picked studies the foundation of the republican counter to global warming???? Even if you are right and its all a hoax; you must admit within the scientific community right now the anti-climate change side is in a minority.

I've said it before and i am not sure what you are missing, perhaps not reading my replies, but my problem with the Right-wing argument is not that they believe the data is against human initiated climate change. My problem is that i think those leading in the issue from republican party will deny its existence till they are dead in the grave irregardless of the evidence.

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 8:39 PM. Reason : l]

2/24/2009 8:39:07 PM

Quote :

"lol aren't cherry picked studies the foundation of the republican counter to global warming????"

Nope, but cherry-picking data sure as hell is. Like starting temperature graphs in the 1900s and 1970s, during known lows in temperatures. Kind of dishonest, dontcha think? Or what about favoring data sets in temperature reconstructions that are heavily affected by CO2 concentrations when trying to show a CO2-temperature link? You know, the very thing that is the foundation of the movement.

Quote :

"you must admit within the scientific community right now the anti-climate change side is in a minority."

And even that much is hard to discern, because every time any of the anti-change people speak they are labeled as whackjobs. Hell, there are some places where legislation has been proposed to make it a crime to deny AGW, for crying out loud. That is NOT the hallmark of any kind of scientific debate. And, again, consensus is NEVER scientific. It is political. There are documented cases of "scientific societies coming out in support of AGW" that when we peek under the hood, we see there was no poll of the members; it was just a vote of a board of directors. We have the IPCC which is touted to be a panel of scientists, but what everyone really knows it is is a panel of bureaucrats.

Quote :

"My problem is that i think those leading in the issue from republican party will deny its existence till they are dead in the grave irregardless of the evidence."

And you don't think there are those on the other side of the aisle doing the same? Why is it ONLY the anti-crowd that is possibly guilty of this?

2/24/2009 9:25:42 PM

Quote :

"And you don't think there are those on the other side of the aisle doing the same? Why is it ONLY the anti-crowd that is possibly guilty of this?"

you completely missed the entire point of my posts above.

trying to rationalize with you is like talking to a brick wall.

I get it you don't believe in global warming. I myself do not buy into all of the global warming doomsday oceans flooding crap. Just drop the "Global Warming is all apart of the socialist liberal conspiracy." Sure some people have a stake in convincing the public of global warming just like there are more than plenty that benefit from destroying the global warming argument. At worst you can say many are misguided but there is no way even double-digit percentage of global warming .supporters have stock in something like First Solar, a part of the "liberal conspiracy", or have some other hidden agenda beyond just research in the name of science.

Technically you can make statistics say whatever you want it to say. This is a two way street though.

[Edited on February 24, 2009 at 10:34 PM. Reason : l]

2/24/2009 10:33:00 PM

remind me again where I quoted a "liberal socialist conspiracy" or whatever... that was totally someone else. And I ed at them, too

2/24/2009 10:42:31 PM

Quote :

"lol aren't cherry picked studies the foundation of the republican counter to global warming???? Even if you are right and its all a hoax; you must admit within the scientific community right now the anti-climate change side is in a minority. "

Where does anyone mention Republicans? In case you haven't noticed, not a lot of Republicans are speaking out against AGW. In fact I can only think of one.

Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying AGW is bunk and more are signing every day.

Why don't we look at the two poster boys of the AGW movement, Al Gore and James Hansen. Al Gore fueled this fire with his 2006 "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth. Every point made in that film has been proven false. James Hansen, while head of a prestigious scientific organization, has most of his scientific training and degree/doctorate in astronomy. Clearly these are people we should listen to.

2/25/2009 8:37:16 AM

and that's not even mentioning the fact that the foundation of Gore's bullshit-umentary was 100% fraudulent. And, it also doesn't mention the fact that Hansen has also been proven to have produced fraudulent numbers to support his claims

2/28/2009 9:46:42 PM

who the fuck even mentioned Al Gore in this thread. I never have. Nor have i really asserted that we are going buying beach front property in Raleigh in 40 years b.c global warming is flooding the oceans and doomsday is coming.

2/28/2009 10:42:03 PM

The point, HUR, is that so many of the outspoken people in this debate have zero scientific credentials and yet their words are heeded. For example:

Anthony Socci is the primary spokesman for the AMS in Washington. Is he an elected official of the AMS or a contributer to climate science? No, he's a former staffer for Al Gore.

John Holdren is a prominent and well known person arguing for AGW. He was a Clinton-Gore Administration spokesman on global warming and currently directs the Woods Hole Research Center, an environmental advocacy center. What are his scientific credentials? He's a professor in Harvard's Kennedy School of Gov't.

Michael Oppenheimer is a lead author with the IPCC and is regularly referred to as a prominent climate scientist by Oprah, NPR, etc. And yet his contributions to climate science are almost nonexistant. His postdoctorate research was astro-chemical!

And this is just brushing the surface.

3/2/2009 1:02:33 PM

Quote :

"is that so many of the outspoken people in this debate have zero scientific credentials"

Although it does not give more credit to the global warming side or eliminate our responsibility to interpret and respect research against global warming; I'd say the outspoken people in the anti-human influenced global warming debate with zero scientific credentials by FAR outnumbers the reverse.


Oh Knows it is snowing today in Raleigh and the high in Wilmington is 24 degrees below the March 2nd average. CLEARLY THIS IS PROOF GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST!!!

I wish we would call it Climate Change instead of Global Warming as the former tends to better grasp what is more realizable by human influence.

Realisticly unless there is a major break thru in research or we can take our time machine to methodically map temperature data in the future we might as well argue which is better Pepsi or Coca Cola. The emotionally charged whining "save the whales" global warming crowd as well as the indocternated paranoid (of the socialist liberal conspiracy) anti-global warming crowd; are not going to change their opinions regardless of what a respected scholarly climatologist presents at climate change seminar or what dissuading "evidence" some hand picked professor claims on the Rush Limbaugh show.

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 1:36 PM. Reason : g]

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 1:37 PM. Reason : aa]

3/2/2009 1:14:39 PM

yea climate change is also easier scientifically, since THE CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING!!!

Also, a cold day here or there is just as much proof against global warming as Hurricane Katrina was proof supporting global warming, which Al Gore and many other eco-activists use as arguments in their favor.

3/2/2009 1:40:21 PM

I call Katrina just Bad Fucking Luck for those living in N.O.

3/2/2009 1:52:17 PM

well thats great and all but I don't see you decrying Al Gore and all the other environmentalists for being opportunists

Quote :

"[neither side] are not going to change their opinions regardless of what a respected scholarly climatologist presents at climate change seminar or what dissuading "evidence" some hand picked professor claims on the Rush Limbaugh show."

because the pro-global warming advocates are "respected scholars" while the anti crowd is just a cherry-picked rush limbaugh guest... you'd make a great AP "journalist"

[Edited on March 2, 2009 at 1:59 PM. Reason : s]

3/2/2009 1:57:14 PM

Quote :

"well thats great and all but I don't see you decrying Al Gore and all the other environmentalists for being opportunists"

HUR

Quote :

"Sure some people have a stake in convincing the public of global warming just like there are more than plenty that benefit from destroying the global warming argument. At worst you can say many are misguided but there is no way even double-digit percentage of global warming .supporters have stock in something like First Solar, a part of the "liberal conspiracy", or have some other hidden agenda beyond just research in the name of science. "

I copied and pasted just to be nice b.c realistically your quote above is a blantant Red Herring.

I enjoy how the rebuttal to my assertion, that is not even an argument towards Global warming, is the typical pre-packaged
overly rehashed Garbage, that is Palin approved, "well but Al Gore is trying to make money on the global warming scam".

Thanks for teh complement though about being a good AP Journalist!

you did a great job of cherry-picking, out my whole reply, a piece that I may have exerted a little coloration towards my bias.

Nonetheless given proof backed by undeniable scientific
evidence I think one side of this debate would be more willing to relent their case than the other. Ironic I think is that the pro "global warming does not exist" crowd bitches about tax money spend on scientific research that would disprove global warming.

Why would climatologists need research grants if they are going to manipulate statistics and fudge their findings.

3/2/2009 5:04:16 PM

Solinari, don't fall for the troll!!! Just ignore him, and he might go back to Chit Chat where his peers reside.

3/2/2009 6:42:29 PM

oh word thx, I haven't been introduced to all the new trolls yet

3/2/2009 7:24:52 PM

Quote :

"Oh Knows it is snowing today in Raleigh and the high in Wilmington is 24 degrees below the March 2nd average. CLEARLY THIS IS PROOF GLOBAL WARMING DOES NOT EXIST!!!"

Oh knows, flurries in Wilmywood too! Global Warming Climate Change Ice Age is upon us!!!!!111!!!

3/2/2009 8:15:58 PM

no, don't you know any cold weather is ALSO caused by global warming? cause global warming causes erratic weather, so basically no matter what happens ever, its definitely because of global warming

3/2/2009 8:20:08 PM

lol agreed

3/2/2009 8:20:11 PM

Thousands Attend Global Warming Protest


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/shiver-global-warming-protest-frozen-massive-snowfall/

[Edited on March 3, 2009 at 1:23 AM. Reason : -]

3/3/2009 1:23:10 AM

seriously, you'd think they would hold these rallies in the middle of summer on days predicted to be the hottest of the year

Then they could even "underestimate" the amount of water that was needed so that some people would die or at least have to go to the hospital for heat stroke and dehydration.... (OMG GLOBAL WARMING KILLZ!!)

[Edited on March 3, 2009 at 7:35 AM. Reason : s]

3/3/2009 7:34:18 AM

Go back to chit-chat troll

3/3/2009 8:18:35 AM

^^ Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Kinda stupid to even risk protesting anytime that is not summer. I guess if they did that though, I would make fun of them for cherry picking the hottest days of the year.

3/3/2009 11:23:23 PM

Quote :

"Nonetheless given proof backed by undeniable scientific evidence I think one side of this debate would be more willing to relent their case than the other. "

You are right. The anti-crowd would probably back off. The pro-crowd has been given tons of scientific research that refutes their claim. it's research THEY DID. What was their response? Oh, the sensors must be wrong. let's make a model based on something else and that will show the [i]real[/] numbers. They've done this with satellites, weather balloons, all tons of shit. Really, what kind of scientist blames the instruments when he doesn't get the desired results?

3/6/2009 10:02:06 AM

Quote :

"The pro-crowd has been given tons of scientific research that refutes their claim. it's research THEY DID. What was their response? Oh, the sensors must be wrong."

Are we talking politicians or scientists. I have a very difficult time, except for a few outliers, believing that experts and professionals in the field of climatology are attempting to doctor their results in order to rally the pro-global warming camp. We are talking about science and research not social policy (aka Pro-Choice- abortion). There is a reason why "global warming" is a Theory not a fact/law.

Quote :

"The anti-crowd would probably back off"

Very possibly within the scientific community. Doubtful though in the political community and real world. The politicians that have interests in the non-existance of global warming will still pursue their goals. Meanwhile your Average Joe tuned into Rush Limbaugh lacks the depth to process anything beyond garbage spouted by their favorite media pundit. They'll just think its still part of the Continued Liberal Conspiracy! Much like the war on christmas and gov't trying to take their monies to give free healthcare to crack whores.

Quote :

"Really, what kind of scientist blames the instruments when he doesn't get the desired results? "

No real scientists beyond those made up in Sarah Palin imagination land or people that are arm chair climatologists.

[Edited on March 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM. Reason : a]

3/6/2009 11:47:24 AM

Quote :

"I have a very difficult time, except for a few outliers, believing that experts and professionals in the field of climatology are attempting to doctor their results in order to rally the pro-global warming camp."

then you need to think again, because the fucking hockey-stick that practically started this mess was a proven fraud. Much of the purported "peer-review" was done by people involved in the original study.
James Hansen has been shown to be doctoring his numbers.
There have been efforts to put in "fudge-factors" in weather satellites because they aren't recording the same temperatures for urban areas that ground-thermometers are recording.
The greenhouse-signature's absence was attributed to faulty temperature probes, and the "solution" to "find it" was to, gasp, create a computer model based on other sensors in the probe-delivery system that are not directly temperature-related.
Other temperature-CO2 correlation studies consistently use CO2-influenced data sets to try and prove their point. As in, you take a factor that is supposed to be only temperature induced and look at that value of several years to try and deduce the temperature. Only, it turns out that increased CO2 also produces the same results that increased temperature would. And these kinds of data sets are consistently used in models with no attempt to remove the CO2 component.

3/6/2009 11:55:15 AM

you are delusional and all i am seeing is blah blah blah from your post above.

Hopefully in 50 years we will be like global warming was just a misguided theory that has since been disproven by the same climatologists whose job it is to research this shit; not play politician on public policy. Alternatively maybe the green actions being taken today will dampen previous impacts humans have had and future variations in global temperature will be purely natural.

Regardless the scale measuring who stands to lose versus profit from the reality of human created climate change is very one sided toward the former. Sure some scientists did not utilize proper scientific research techniques to acculuate their data and some were just plain biased towards the results they wanted to find. There are likely scientists like this on BOTH sides of the coin. Nonetheless every climatoligist that believes in the THEORY of global warming is not some hidden member of the liberal conspiracy, paid off by Al Gore, working in the back pocket of solar energy companies, to scare/trick the world into buying into their big scandal that humans are effecting the climate.

I find it way more likely that some scientists are paid by the oil barons and automakers to find results and influence public policy.

3/6/2009 12:36:09 PM

Has anyone seen any sort of poll or survey on, for example, AMS members, and their stance on AGW? A lot of folks have claimed that some large percentage is anti-AGW, and others have claimed that 99% or some overwhelming majority supports AGW. I think it would be interesting to see the actual numbers if they exist.

3/6/2009 2:24:06 PM

Quote :

"42% of Americans believe that "there is a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about whether human activities are a major cause" of global warming". I posed the same question to members of the wunderground community on Monday, and even higher 56% of them thought so. However, the results of a poll that appears in this week's edition of the journal EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, reveals that the public is misinformed on this issue. Fully 97% of the climate scientists who regularly publish on climate change agreed with the statement, "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures". "

97% of climate scientists must be part of the socialist liberal agenda to convince the public to believe in global warming so they can hurt capitalism, make money on their solar energy stocks, and so Al Gore will be their buddy.

I am glad that 3% of climate scientists are true patriotic americans who stand up in the face of adversity to spread the truth about the human induced global warming LIE.[/sarcasm]

A contributing factor can many any range of influence. This is not saying 97% believe teh ice caps are melting, florida will be under water, and category 5 hurricanes will be the norm due to artificial global warming.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1184

I am forgetting though Jeff Master's a PhD at the university of michigan CoFounder of weather underground is part of teh conspiracy and merely put together this blog to trick me into believing most climatoligists do recognize the potential for AGW rather it is very minor or major change.

3/6/2009 4:11:50 PM

Quote :

"the scale measuring who stands to lose versus profit from the reality of human created climate change is very one sided toward the former."

how do you figure that? There are shit tons of money to be made from the global warming scare, yet no one seems to be able to prove any negative ramifications of global warming if it happened to be true. We've been told the sky was falling in the form of rising sea levels, but that's turned out to be severely overstated. Warmer temperatures would mean more abundant food crops, which is rarely a bad thing.

3/6/2009 10:36:55 PM

Quote :

"yet no one seems to be able to prove any negative ramifications of global warming if it happened to be true."

Of course no one has been able to prove anything about what will result. We can only estimate based on past and current observations. And those estimations are constantly being revised as we observe more. That's how science works.

Quote :

"Warmer temperatures would mean more abundant food crops, which is rarely a bad thing."

So, no one is able to prove any negative effects. But you use some bs presupposed positive effect to support yourself?



[Edited on March 7, 2009 at 2:44 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2009 2:35:51 AM

Quote :

"yet no one seems to be able to prove any negative ramifications of global warming if it happened to be true"

This comment is so fucking stupid that it nearly does not deserve a response. I do not necessarily believe that AGW will have any of severe effects some scientists preach fire and brim stone about. Actually I would like warmer temps b.c i hate cold weather. Nonetheless you are partially correct like anything there is trade offs. Sure we might be able to create more abundant food crops but on the other hand if the theories are true some cities would be underwater, some arid regions may turn to desert, and some locales may experience a decrease in global temperature due to altered sea currents.

These are all speculations though but to say that there is no negative consequences IF AGW DOES exist is pure ass.

3/7/2009 1:19:09 PM

3/7/2009 3:45:59 PM

Quote :

"Warmer temperatures would mean more abundant food crops, which is rarely a bad thing.""

Contrary to popular belief, there is no shortage of arable land on this planet. The United States could grow enough food to feed the world twice over. Hunger is just one of mankind's may failures.

3/7/2009 6:13:20 PM

^ Merely giving away food does not solve hunger; it is merely a band-aid on a gushing wound. All we would be doing is delaying the inevitable as a well fed, uneducated, young, 3rd world population will continue given the lack of economic opportunity to reproduce exponentially. Reproducing to the point where the population is once again above that to which our current food resources could support.

3/7/2009 6:45:43 PM

Properly distributing food supplies would indeed stop current hunger. Whether the population would eventually become too large for the planet to feed remains up for debate. We could produce far more staples if we so desired.

3/7/2009 9:18:38 PM

Quote :

"These are all speculations though but to say that there is no negative consequences IF AGW DOES exist is pure ass. "

I guess it's a good thing I didn't say that then. You may be so fucking stupid that you read it that way, but I stated a fact that there is no proof that warmer temperatures will indeed have a negative impact on this planet.

3/7/2009 11:42:02 PM

There is no proof that if I eat a fish from the mouth of the cape fear river down in Wilmington that i will get sick or poisoned. However, i am not going to test this though.

3/8/2009 1:35:37 PM