PS: I like the jpl.nasa link you posted. Did you read it?
Yes I did, and you're welcome. I thought you would like it. Now, if I had cared to continue a discussion with you, we could have had an agreeable link to debate. This is how civil a discussion should take place.
I note you ignored my point about your search criterion being biased.
No, I addressed that.
I note you ignored my point about the equally low value of biasing in the other direction.
No, I took the comment for what it was worth. In fact, you ignored most of my post and only want to debate two very small aspects of my first post.
I agree with leaving politics and religion out of it.
Then why did you mention them. Republicans and democrats are the same people to me. Sick people that insist on manufacturing hate. Republicans bankrupt the country and democrats tax us to no end. It's a game, and they are quite good at fooling people. Religion is a personal issue and there is no benefit to science with insulting religion.
I didn't suggest your links were bogus. I stated flat out, in plain English, that they have zero credibility on a topic of serious science.
That is an outright lie. Once again, I will repeat myself...I have only left NASA links. Your desperate attempts to fool the few that read this forum (yourself) are obvious. Now, you're even trying to discredit your own recommended "brneurosci.org" link. I guess the google link blew a fuse in your brain, and you didn't know how to discredit such a wealth of scientific information. Your opinion of a link is meaningless. The content of the link is all that is relevant. Again...I don't play the link game, and I could tell that you do, so I left the list for you to choose from hoping to avoid this link game nonsense. I'm a busy man, and have no time to search for links that you will accept. I have no time to play the "discredit the link" game with you. There is nothing to be gained with the link game. Especially, if you only post a link without reference to what you are talking about.
If you like UT links, this one states the ice gain/loss is yet to be determined. But you are completely sold on loss, without evidence.
http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2002/polarice.htmlAnother from Ohio State
www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/rsl/documents/science.ppt
A .gov site...
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777Three links for you to tear apart...have fun. I?m through. No,I didn?t bother to read them. I accept that both are occurring.
I guess we'll have to disagree with the statement about linear projections. I have a HUGE problem with it. I'll let you try to figure out why.
Here is a link to an article with the IPCC admitting that they knew the numbers were wrong in the 2001 report, and said nothing for 6 years. Many scientists took these studies as being accurate. Many websites are based on the bogus 2001 report. I'm sorry, but it is the truth. You claim to be a teacher. Did you teach from the 2001 report? LOL. Please read the last few paragraphs on page two, and also pay close attention to this statement.
"The first chapter, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries," then "The 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by government officials for several days in Paris next week and released to the public on Feb. 2."
Do you not have alarms going off? Secretly edited word by word, BY BUREAUCRATS? Do you not see something wrong here? Do you really want science reports that are edited in secret by government officials?
And the closing statement...
"I think probably the low value (in the 2001 report) and also the high value came from models that probably had mistakes in them," Trenberth recently told the Rocky Mountain News of Denver. "The confidence in those numbers was probably not that good, and they probably never should have been used in the way in which they were used."
"Never should have been used in the way in which they were used!"
WOW! I agree.
Thousands of website used the bogus 2001 report and are now discredited. The internet is full of pseudo-science and they let it happen. Just think of all the wasted work, and those poor scientists that stood behind the 2001 report. So much for their credibility. Why anyone would listen to them, after backing the CFC scam and now the confession of CO2 misinformation, is beyond me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16760730/#storyContinuedIf you would like, I can give you another link to a climate modeling scientist from Scripps that also speaks of how their models are inaccurate. I know you love Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Roger Revell was Gore's favorite teacher. Here it is.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/somerville.htmlAlso, I won't fall for the alarmist language. Websites that use language such as..."highly likely, could happen, probably, appeared to accelerate, could reach" Been there, done that. That's bad science.
I have two EPA licenses, obtained in 1992 and started in this business in 1980. The company I work for produces CFC's, and also developed the HFC's that do not destroy ozone, and have less GWP. I understand (more than most) chemical reactions with the atmosphere. It's my job. Here's what the IPCC says. Read this and tell me why everyone is more worried about CO2 than anything else is.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.htmlIf you are serious about human impact,this is another good read.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/other_gases.htmlOh, NASA and NOAA all have an agenda. Funding. Drew Shindell of NASA just admitted at the hearing that he knew of unrealistically high numbers being used in the reports. He also admitted they wanted to alarm people with his Antarctica report, because his funding decreased. The IPCC was wrong about CFC's just like all of the real scientists said they were, but they still managed to make billions off of the industry from impact fees, licensing, fines...They even named a glacier after the NOAA scientist that did the CFC research. They now admit to fear mongering with CO2 for 6 years with false data. The IPCC has zero credibility in my books.
(FYI) The Union of Concerned Scientists? Great group! What does it take to become a member of the UCS? $25 and no education required. $35 will get you a free mouse pad. Join today.
https://secure.ga3.org/03/Join_UCS?qp_source=wacpromogooglefr Who has actually read the Kyoto Protocol? Please tell me how selling carbon credits will do anything other than make the IPCC scientists rich.
You should really look at the real environmental problems instead of focusing on CO2. Humans are doing a lot of damage to the planet, and CO2 is the least of our problems. CO2 is the basis of all food on the planet. Do you really want to starve the planet into another ice age? (GWer's logic, not mine) Read up on the Atmospheric Brown Cloud. Pick any website that you feel is credible.
Hey, did you realize that we didn't have one hurricane hit the US in 2006? Not one. In fact, it was the mildest hurricane season recorded in years. What happened to the predictions that said we would have a very active season in 2006? It must be the cooling oceans. Remember all of the fear mongering after Katrina? Remember how they used Katrina and the 2006 predictions to DOUBLE home insurance rates. I?m sure a federal carbon tax will help...fund wars. WAKE-UP!
It's easy to see the limits of ones education when they use terms like "round earth, flat earth." and such. Not too many people thought the earth was flat. (Until the modern flat earth society...lol) Even Plato knew the Earth was a sphere. Here, read and learn?and stop getting your science from Washington Irving's fantasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth You know, I would mention simple facts like "where are we going to get the fuel to force CO2 levels to double." We have used up about half of our fossil fuels and only added about 100 ppm CO2. Isn't it safe to say the other half will only add another 100 ppm? Where are we supposed to get the fuels to reach the alarmists claims of +-750 ppm? It won't happen due to human impact. Why didn't the runaway greenhouse effect happen when the Earth was at 7000 ppm CO2? Why didn't the temps rise when CO2 levels were at 7000 ppm?
How much research has gone into the earthquakes in Indonesia? You do realize that the 2004 earthquake raised the floor of the ocean so high that 10 or 12 new islands emerged. (going off of my memory) This displaced a lot...A LOT of water. Where did it go? The tsunami that followed also washed away entire islands and coast lines. How much water did all of that soil and rock displace? You know it had to raise the sea level. What about the millions of gallons of water that is being displaced due to the lava from the Mauna Loa volcano? Not to mention, the hundreds of underwater volcanoes. How much water do they displace? Erosion? No, the alarmists will blame the rising sea level on global warming and runoff from polar ice melt. I would wonder if this recent ocean cooling was due to the earthquake and tsunami displacing the cooler water from the depths. The timeline fits with the observed cooling. Hmmm. Just a passing thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Driving_forces_of_plate_motionAnother new island in Tonga. It had to have displaced water.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17462How about a man-made island? This had to have displaced water.
http://geography.about.com/b/a/132077.htm.
I must admit, that picture of China that shows lower sea levels really has me confused. Could plate tectonics be lifting Asia, and be a driving factor in sea level change?
Do you want to terraform Mars? Forget it, it will never happen. The magnetic field on Mars is too weak to sustain life. Not to mention...the gravity is too weak to create an atmosphere and all gases would be lost to space.
About your comment,
"It is rather the determination of climatology and meteorology experts from all countries looking at serious science covering a very large number of years."
I agree. Do you know any of them? I do. My father is a very well known meteorologist. He co-founded what became a worldwide weather company in 1958. In fact, he has been credited with being a pioneer in the field. They now have offices in over 180 countries, and have hundreds of meteorologists/climatologists working for them. He retired last year, but he worked with NASA on a daily basis. His opinion of CO2 forced GW? Junk science fueled by politics. (Not his exact words, but close enough)
I hope you gain some insight before you delete this post. LOL
Anyway, I'm off to the real science forums. I was looking for a new forum and found this pseudo-science a go-go nonsense. Have fun with it. LOL!
Peace, and chill out. I think your temper may be causing GW.
