Originally posted by DA Morgan:
[quote] dehammer wrote:
"...because they are quoted on a site that is not of your political party line or because its not pure science."[/unquote]
You just disagreed without yourself which, for most people, is reasonably hard to do. You start off saying "you refuse to discuss what the scientist are saying" and you follow it up with "because its not pure science." That is logically impossible. What the good scientists are saying IS pure science.
try rereading that for content. dont try to take parts of the sentence and put them together to make it say something totally different. thats rather third graderish.
But putting that aside for the moment. My point is that there is nothing at nightshadebooks.com that is serious science so how can one use it as a reference as to what serious scientists are thinking?
If one wants to know what serious scientists are thinking rather they go to these:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
A serious peer reviewed science magazine If you follow their links all of them of these quotes are based on the lies the IPCC (a very political entity that disregarded the scientists summeries to create its own summery)
this one is interesting. if you follow the links it has, it shows a graph that links the rise in co2 and temperature for the last 350000 years. the interesting point is that the graph shows the co2 following the rise, not leading it. If greenhouse is that big of an indicator of the future temperature, shouldnt it lead the temperature rise?
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf top of page 5
http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/Lindzen-NYT2006.pdf#search=%22%22consensus%22%20and%20%22global%20warming%22%22
University of California at San Diego
(you might note this item disagrees with me but anyone looking for credibility would have found it)
Im glad you at least read that there is not a complete agreement over it.
First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect.
how can 7000 plus scientist disagreeing with it be a near unanimous acceptance?
The reality is that the present state of science does not allow us to come to a conclusion that global warming has affected hurricanes.
this is proof that global warming from humans intervention is a major problem?
I find it interesting that this associate history professor could not find anything to disagree with humans causing the global warming when there were 7000 plus scientist signing a patition against the global warming alarmist tactics.
once again someone who cant find a single one of the 7000 scientist that disagree. Its interesting to me that right at the top, right under the graph, there is an ad for someone trying to sell the idea that coal will be the next fuel for cars since it will have less polutants (somehow). this site is all about how all scientist are in agreement that man has caused the global warming. (if it list any other possible cause i cant find it)
this one is all about how Bush is responsible for the hurricanes of last season, even though no scientist has every proven a solid link between mans polution and the increase in ocean temperature (except for the fact that they cant think of anything else that might consieveably have anything to do with it), or a change in the cycle of increases in hurricane activities that is decades long.
The last decade of the 20th Century was the warmest in the entire global instrumental temperature record, starting in the mid-19th century. All 10 years rank among the 15 warmest, and include the 6 warmest years on record
interesting that that happens to be the time when the solar activity was higher than its been in centruies. We only started coming out of it during the last few years, albet its still rather high on the average. interesting that the temperature has dropped since the "last decade of the 20th Century".
not sure where you were going with this one. I find it interesting that they have discovered that the earth has frequent changes of up to 30 meter in sea levels.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2005/2005041418803.html does that mean that part of the current changes in sea level might be part of another earth cycle?
But these gases are not the only cause of climate change. When the most recent climate model experiments, done since the latest IPCC report, include the effects of greenhouse gases, aerosols (particles in the atmosphere), volcanic eruptions, ozone depletion, solar variations, and El Ni?o in their calculations, they produce simulations of climate change of the past 100 years that agree quite well with the past surface temperature record. For example, Haywood et al. (1997) describe calculations made with the climate model of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) at Princeton University. When they attempt to simulate the climate change of the past 130 years taking into consideration just the effects of CO2 increases, the model produces too much warming as compared to observations.
so it appears that man has not been the major contribitor that many claim. Additional, this report indicates that co2 will stay in the atmosphere about a century, where as the other alarmist sites state multiple centruies.
I have to agree with some of these thing but you will note that they mentioned President Clinton being in the White House. A few things have changed since he was president.
And it would not have been hard to come up with a list of hundreds of serious references.
I have no doubt. the thing about that is that line that will get the most attension from the press. That will get the most traffic from net surfers. Both of those result in more money from ad buyers.
Here is something i think you should note. i addressed each of your links, without resorting talking about the site owners and things, even. can you do that?
