Conservative & Patriotic t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons and more! RightNation.US Conservative & Patriotic t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons and more!
Conservative & Patriotic t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, buttons and more!
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   opus313 

  • What are you lookin' at?
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 2,156
  • Joined: 04-November 03

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:04 AM

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.



Posted Image

Linky


Oops, well then, nevermind.
0

#2 User is online   horseman 

  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 10,091
  • Joined: 07-September 03

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:38 AM

Quote

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming


What we need is some dispassionate scientists studying "Global Warming"
0

#3 User is offline   d2lv 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,204
  • Joined: 13-September 03

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:41 AM

The environmental wackos have been so embarrassed over many years that you would think they would shut up. For example; the spotted owl could not live in anything but old growth trees until it was found nesting in a K Mart sign, a picture of an iceberg that had receded was touted as a current picture when in fact, it had been taken in 1923, some wackos found in an area the wackos wanted to declare off limits tufts of hair from an endangered species bobcat when tested the hair from bobcat that was on display in a display in Canada. The global warming people from East Anglia University have been caught changing data over many years. The wackos have been saying that the polar bear population was declining until an honest group in Canada did a study and found that there were more polar bears today than there has ever been.
0

#4 User is offline   Italian Biker 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,642
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 21 February 2012 - 12:45 PM

Don't forget their claiming how bad 2005's hurricane season was, and that every season and storm afterwards was going to be worse due to global warming, and how Al Gore was going to film some of his farce there but couldn't because of Katrina. So, what caused the mild hurricane seasons of 2006, 07, 08, 09, and 2010. Any one want to guess what the environmentalists claimed? This point will shut them up in an argument, but they will still ignorantly believe in the movement.
Also, there was a photo they used of a stream with what appeared to dead fish all over the place in the stream, just floating on the top. Used it as a big story, managed to get one of the national rags to run the story about how polution is killing everything in this waterway. Turns out the picture was taken when the state DNR sent in just enough electricity to stun the fish so they could get an accurate count.
I can't remember the URL, but there was a site that was called globalwarmingwatch, or something like that, that had a list of all the things that have been claimed as caused by global warming, and alot of it was organized in a way where the exact opposite as the next item, also supposedly caused by global warming.
0

#5 User is offline   opus313 

  • What are you lookin' at?
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 2,156
  • Joined: 04-November 03

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:17 PM

You guys just don't understand scientific consensus.
0

#6 User is offline   rocketraccoon 

  • Marxists make my fur fly
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,616
  • Joined: 11-March 08

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:34 PM

View Postopus313, on 21 February 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

You guys just don't understand scientific consensus.


Wait...is that when a bunch of scientists can't validate their models and then have a working group at one of their annual meetings decide "Here's what we'll all say, because people are too stupid to know what's right, anyway"?

Can I add that their annual meetings are usually at high-priced convention centers in big cities, rather than small regional meetings that cost less? Can I add further that many of these scientists "work" for the government, or have government grants for their research--which means they're attending these meetings on our dime? I know b/c I used to do it when I was a grad student. You'll never meet more arrogant people, perfectly happy to spend taxpayer money recklessly. And don't ever mention where their money comes from directly to them. They really don't like that. I can't tell you how many dirty looks I've gotten from pointing that out, although it's 100% true.
0

#7 User is offline   kestrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 500+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 22-January 05

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:41 PM

View Postopus313, on 21 February 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.



Posted Image

Linky


Oops, well then, nevermind.


A friend sent me this: One weird thing...if you notice, for instance that between the years 1912-1922 these isn't any media stuff written...maybe its because of WW1 and then the Spanish Flu...you had real dead people to sell your crappy papers with.

There is most certainly a pattern to climate change…but it’s not what you may think:

For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.

* 1895 - Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
* 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
* 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
* 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
* 1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
* 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
* 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
* 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
* 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
* 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
* 1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
* 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
* 1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
* 1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” – New York Times, August 10th, 1962
* 1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
* 1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
* 1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
* 1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
* 1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
* 1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
* 1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age” – Washington Post
* 1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
* 1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
Cassandras are becoming
increasingly apprehensive,
for the weather
aberrations they are
studying may be the
harbinger of another
ice age
* 1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
* 1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
* 1976 - “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
* 1981 - Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
* 1988 - I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His superior’s objection for context
* 1989 -”On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
* 1990 - “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
* 1993 - “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S. News and World Report
* 1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998
* 2001 - “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday, Apr. 09, 2001
* 2003 - Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen, NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
* 2006 - “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006
* Now: The global mean temperature has fallen for two years in a row, which is why you stopped hearing details about the actual global temperature, even while they carry on about taxing you to deal with it…how long before they start predicting an ice age?

Read
0

#8 User is offline   Hieronymous 

  • Men with ropes around their necks don't always hang
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,171
  • Joined: 16-April 09

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:46 PM

Then there is this:

http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews
0

#9 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • The Dark Lord is not pleased
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,942
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 21 February 2012 - 06:20 PM

View Postkestrel, on 21 February 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

* 1998 - No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment, Calgary Herald, 1998

The headline that really describes what is going on.

:coffeenpc:
0

#10 User is offline   kestrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 500+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 22-January 05

Posted 22 February 2012 - 07:57 AM

View PostHowsithangin, on 21 February 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

The headline that really describes what is going on.

:coffeenpc:


Yep...I remember someone saying after the iron curtain crumbled "what will western commies flog now that the workers paradise has been consigned to the ash heap of history?" [s]"Beware the Utopians!"

Kestrel...

This post has been edited by kestrel: 22 February 2012 - 07:58 AM

0

#11 User is offline   opus313 

  • What are you lookin' at?
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 2,156
  • Joined: 04-November 03

Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:28 AM

View PostHieronymous, on 21 February 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:




Yea, but his intentions were good...
0

#12 User is offline   Italian Biker 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,642
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 22 February 2012 - 03:41 PM

Kestral, there was some truth to just one of those headlines. The solar activity will cause global temps to fluctuate.
0

#13 User is offline   ASE 

  • You do NOT have a right to NOT BE OFFENDED!!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 5,451
  • Joined: 15-June 03

Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:46 PM

Nice little graph, but I disagree with the arbitrary starting point of 1989 for those dotted lines - that starting point makes all the lines to the other peaks go up. But, why not start at say, 1998? Of course if you did that all the dotted lines to the peaks on the right would be downward (and not in keeping with the global-warming mantra). Why isn't 1998 as good an arbitrary starting point as 1989? Is that the beginning of the CO2 increase or was is selected solely because it would show (inaccurately) an upward trend that other starting points would not?
0

#14 User is offline   Maneck 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Community-Supported
  • Posts: 134
  • Joined: 21-February 11

Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:38 PM

View PostASE, on 22 February 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

Nice little graph, but I disagree with the arbitrary starting point of 1989 for those dotted lines - that starting point makes all the lines to the other peaks go up. But, why not start at say, 1998? Of course if you did that all the dotted lines to the peaks on the right would be downward (and not in keeping with the global-warming mantra). Why isn't 1998 as good an arbitrary starting point as 1989? Is that the beginning of the CO2 increase or was is selected solely because it would show (inaccurately) an upward trend that other starting points would not?


Only the first dotted line starts at 1989 (edit: 1990), because it represents a projection made in that year. The other lines, starting at other years, represent projections made in those years. The graph as a whole intends to show that global temperatures have not risen as much as projected.

This post has been edited by Maneck: 24 February 2012 - 11:46 PM

0

#15 User is offline   Whitey 

  • Smoking never hurt anyone
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 13,311
  • Joined: 21-July 04

Posted 25 February 2012 - 03:04 AM

View Postopus313, on 21 February 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

You guys just don't understand scientific consensus.


The science is settled, so says the Goracle.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users