Told ya so, here
From the American Geophysical Union weekly Journal Highlights:
A spate of research has indicated there may be a link between climate change and the prevalence of North Atlantic tropical cyclones. Upon closer inspection, however, researchers have noted that the prominent upswing in tropical cyclone detections beginning in the mid twentieth century is attributable predominantly to the detection of “shorties,” tropical cyclones with durations of less than 2 days. That the apparent surge in cyclone activity could be attributable to changes in the quality and quantity of detections has gained ground as a potential alternative explanation.
Using a database of hurricane observations stretching back to 1878, Villarini et al. try to tease out any detectable climate signal from the records. The authors note that between 1878 and 1943 there were 0.58 shorty detections per year, and between 1944 and 2008 there were 2.58 shorty detections per year. This increase in shorties, which the authors propose may be related to the end of World War II and the dawn of air-based reconnaissance and weather tracking, was not mirrored by an increase in tropical cyclone activity for storms longer than 2 days.
The authors compare the rate of shorty detections against a variety of climate parameters, including North Atlantic sea surface temperature, mean tropical sea surface temperature, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Southern Oscillation Index. The authors find that North Atlantic sea surface temperatures were related to tropical cyclones of longer than 2 days’ duration but were not related to the rate of short detections. Additionally, for every decade after 1950s the occurrence of shorties seems to be related to a different climate parameter. Both of these findings are highly suggestive of data quality problems for the shorties record. The researchers note that their finding does not rule out the possibility of a climate-driven increase in shorties over the twentieth century. Rather, any existing trend will be imperceptible, as it is masked by data quality issues.
Source: Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, doi:10.1029/2010JD015493, 2011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015493
Title: Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious?
Authors:
Gabriele Villarini: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA; and Willis Research Network, London, UK;
James A. Smith: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA;
Gabriel A. Vecchi and Thomas R. Knutson: Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phil you must have skimmed the article. The 97% came specificailly from climatologist.(the biggest experts in climate research) People specialized in the study of this subject that this blog is devoted to. It said that 46% of geologist did not believe in climate change(big suprise, they make money off oil). You need to slow down when reading the article and I am not going to endulge you about “the media”. This isn’t a witch hunt, CNN is a fair news source. What do they have to gain by hurting oil companies? Oil companies pay hella cash to get their propoganda commercials on all news channels. I mean, you gotta wonder how on earth companies can spend that much money on advertisements that don’t sell anything. The jest of their commercials is to do PR. I mean, how many commercials out there do no sales? Just oil.
Jeffery I don’t understand your point. Are you trying to explain motive?
No, I did not skim the article. Did you even read mine? it goes behind the numbers and shows EXACTLY what I said. The 97% is statistically irrelevant, and just a PR gimmick. In other words, it has no bearing in reality. The 97% figure comes from a total of 77 out of a total of over 10k. And then only 75 (not 77) agreed with the 2 loaded questions. Indeed, the questions did not even ask if Man was the sole cause of the warming, or the major cause of the warming, only if man was A “significant” factor. Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem as the link I gave you is less than 2 pages, and in easy to understand english.
So let’s take a scientific poll. All those who say that man is causing all the global warming, say yes, and the rest say no. Poll is limited to registered users at WUWT. Upon compilation, want to bet the opposite of what the UofI came up with? Why not? My poll is AS SCIENTIFIC, and AS VALID as that one is. But if I do not like the numbers, I will just add more qualifiers to the numbers until I get the exact results I want.
You are just plain wrong. Man up and admit it.
I’m going to start by laughing. I read your article and it really did nothing but underline my main point. People who know about the climate had different opinions than the scientists that aren’t specialized in the subject(I’m not even sure why they are asked).
Your essentially making this statement phil. You believe the people who believe the same way that already did before you even looked into the subject. If that point is simply made by a geologist(who makes his money off oil). Then you add them into the pool of climatologist and then it’s a wash. It’s like this example. I want to buy 20 lbs of beef that looks like it is not fit to eat. I take 20 inspectors and 99% of them agree don’t buy the beef, then you add in 20 beef salesman and of them 99% of them say buy the beef(because they are the ones selling it). Now the poll is 50/50 and see the water is muddied. I don’t know which way to chose!
The thing is, I know that the 20 inspectors actually know what they are talking about and that the motive of the beef salesman is to sell beef. Therefore their opinion is irrelevant.
If that is your idea of a scientific poll then I could make any issue paliable to you. Even in your own example and link the climatologist and those who had written about the subject in scientific journals were overwhelmingly in the opinion that man was making an impact on his environment. Also that the temperature has risen.
Also, apparently you do not understand how scientific polls work by having a vote on a website that is devoted to tricking people into not listening to the experts. That is your idea of a scientific poll? You want me to man up and admit climate change isn’t real? I’ll do that whenever you go to school and learn science. Then after learning how theories work and how polls work. Then you can go work in the field, collect data, and form objective conclusions one way or another and support them with real data. Otherwise we’re shooting past each other on here.
Look, I’m not an expert on scientists. I am just a loud mouth a hole who actually listens to scientists and represents them w/o their permission. You, on the other hand, have taken a leap of faith and decided to listen to non-experts about a subject that you obviously already have an opinion about. Then you use whatever means you can to push your point of view, even if the facts say the contrary. It’s sad really, have you ever heard the story of “the allegory of the cave”?
Look buddy, it’s all in the reflexes!
faded….I made two points.
1. There is so much political rhetoric in this scientific issue that the people who really know (unlike us) DON’T, OR WON’T, DEBATE THIS IN A PUBLIC FORUM. Instead, they point fingers and misquote opinion pols. The science gets lost in the fog.
2. I thought this blog was about hurricanes. I have done a study of those in the Atlantic and merely pointed to the year 2005. It is quite the outlier, and yet, it is still within the statistical realm of “normal”. At the time it was blasted aound as just the beginning of AGW caused hurricane seasons….just wait! And then what?
I am just an Engineer with many years’ effort in the Environmental and Energy Conservation arenas. I like to dig into the ‘facts’. Unfortunately for me, this subject is loaded with innuendo, adhominum attacks and flat out hysteria. I find that I spend more time sifting than learning. I have learned to see wool when being pulled over my eyes.
BTW, please spell my name correctly.
fv;
Any sampling and statistical specialist would tell you that the procedure followed has exactly 0.0001% chance of being accurate, give or take 0.00002%. Your selection criteria must be set in stone PRIOR to beginning to count, and the resultant tally cannot be altered on ANY grounds. If you determine that your criteria were no good, make some new ones and start over with a new “population”.
These wet-behind-the-ears students followed none of the iron-clad rules for valid sampling and analysis. That you accept their work says all we need to know about your understanding of science, data, and statistics.
faded…one more point (from your last post):
“If that is your idea of a scientific poll then I could make any issue paliable to you. Even in your own example and link the climatologist and those who had written about the subject in scientific journals were overwhelmingly in the opinion that man was making an impact on his environment. Also that the temperature has risen.”
I have a problem with the characterization of ’cause and effect’. To make my point I’ll tell you a story: years ago out West there were quite a few from Washington and California who retired into Arizona. After a while they got tired of the hot weather and sand blowing in their faces, so they all (no, not actually every one of them, but enough to make a difference) went to Home Depot and bought the materials to plant a lawn in their front yards. After a few years of this, THE CLIMATE CHANGED IN THEIR TOWN! It actually got humid during the day, and there was dew on the grass in the morning. Then they wished it was dusty and hot again (after all, that was the reason to retire there in the first place). I moved away and have lost what transpired, but I expect that the humidity stayed. One thing I do know is that the humidity stays local to that town. It dissipates quickly into the desert.
Here are my points: (of course there are some exceptions)
1. Mankind can and does change climates everywhere they reside. Hippies in the 60’s liked to point to how a flapping butterfly on the other side of the world changes airflow everywhere it is connected (even remotely).
2. Mankind has a blatant disregard for his fellow beings. Why else would companies foul the air and water.
3. Mankind cares not what he leaves for the next generation. He is only in it for himself.
4. Getting back to your point above, political pols (even of scientists) are onlt relevant to opinions. They cannot be used as data used in a scientific exercise (even if it is a ‘scientific poll’).
5. Global temperatures are increasing. That has been true ever since the last Ice Age.
6. Mankind is having an influence on local weather. Read my little story above, which is a true personal story.
I am desperately trying to understand the AGW theory. I have yet to find the proof that #6 is causing #5. If you have a link to a scientific study that shows the cause and effect, please pass it along. Climate models (I have done a few myself when I was working as an Environmental Engineer) are interesting, but can never be used as proof. For proof, I need to measure some real life things. Design an experiment that I can do.
The burden is always on the ‘new’ theory to replace the current one. I have not seen the proof yet, so I’ll stick to the observations that got me here: current weather is a natural phenominon, modified slightly by human activity.
First off, it is neither “my article” nor is it an article. It is someone else’s analysis of a fraudulent poll. Why Fraud? The perpetrators may not have been attempting to commit fraud, but those who use it for their own purposes are committing fraud (like you and CNN). Simply put, as you appear to agree, it is no more relevant than the Miss USA Beauty pagent. For that is all it is. Second, you have no idea how many of the 7k scientists that did not respond are as qualified or more qualified than the 77 that did. Like any internet poll (and this one is simply that), those with a stake in the issue are more likely to respond that those who have no stake (or who are making better use of their time than preening for peacocks).
So the poll again does not prove your point. It does nothing other than simply show you that there are lies, damn lies and statistics (not the science, just polls like this).
You do have a reading comprehension problem. I made no statement. I showed you that your “97%” figure was totally bogus. Indeed, all I did was criticize the incorrect usage of that figure (as you used it) and point you to clarification of where it came from. The rest of your statements are simply your assumptions that have no bearing in the facts presented.
let’s start by you showing me where I asked you this or even insinuated this. Before you waste my time (and possibly yours), I willl state I never asked you to admit anything about climate change. I did tell you to man up and admit the 97% figure was fraudulent. Something you have tried to weasel out of doing, but very poorly I might add. Again, reading comprehension. Do not try to put up a straw man and claim it is mine. My words speak for themselves. So unless you are ESL, your actions are inexcusable.
I will say you got one thing right: Look, I’m not an expert on scientists. I am just a loud mouth a hole and another wrong who actually listens to scientists. The latter because you apparently only listen to SOME scientists, but you may well represent them since some of them are like you in not understanding what the science of statistics is all about.
I on the other hand, listen to them all. I then weigh evidence and evaluate it and come to my own conclusions. So I do know about scientific polls (and the one you and CNN quoted is NOT one). If you believe that is a scientific poll, then I dare say it is you that is totally clueless on what science, statistics, and statistical polls are all about. Or how to recognize them when you see them. For that, I am sorry for you.
First. let us clarify 2 things. 1 – it is not MY article, and second it is not an article. It is an analysis of a bogus number created out of virtually thin air. Laugh all you want, but then the laugh would be on you.
No, I am making no such statement. I merely pointed out to you that your quick googling of the subject found a bad source for information. CNN may be a news site, but apparently they do not report it very well since they did no research on the number nor have they printed a retraction once the analysis of the fake poll was done. My statement was that your 97% figure was bogus. That is ALL I said. Period.
But I will say that your contention about qualifications are totally bogus as well. Unless you can state – unequivocally – the qualifications of the 7k scientists that did not respond. Unless you can state that, anything else you say about the 77 is worthless.
You are incorrect. Nor do you understand anything apparently. As long as you know what a scientific poll versus an Internet poll is, how can it trick anyone? I see Internet polls all the time, and never have I seen any of them say they were scientific. This poll is an Internet poll, yet others have used it and claimed it scientific. The purpose of Internet polls is not to “trick”, but merely to allow readers to vent. And if you read the fine print, that is all they say. Show me where ANY Internet poll has been used authoritatively? I am sure you can find an example or 2 (like the one you quoted), but for the most part, other than reading them on the site, you will find them no where else.
Again, reading comprehension. I never stated, or even insinuated any such thing. Your attempt to create a strawman and then to debunk it is pathetic. And very bad manners on any forum. If you want to debate me, debate what I write, not what you want me to write.
And while you get some things right – Look, I’m not an expert on scientists. I am just a loud mouth a hole – you still get things wrong in the same sentence – who actually listens to scientists. – No you only listen to SOME scientists.
fadedvision says: @ur momisugly June 20, 8:52
“I came here because I feel that you guys are winning the argument and with 3% of the climatologist on your side I wonder how that can be.”
This is very interesting fadedvision that you have done two things. 1) That you managed to come here….. and 2) you “acknowledge” that “you guys” are winning the argument.
This is can be possibly explained because it was pointed out your statistics are terribly flawed and the science record plus behavior of the climatologists is equally suspect. There is abundance of behavior recorded to show how a minority of credentialed climatologists (you so highly regard) have managed to “hijack” the scientific process, with major help from Main Stream Media (MSM) and have in some instances translated this AGW belief into terrible government action and policy. You can’t fool all the people all the time fadedvision. Most people here are no fools.
The next thing you need to pay attention to is what that means if their proposed alarmist (tipping point) policies are successfully implemented with regard to the effect on the world and likely scenarios. This thread started because of a recent report that the increases in hurricane activity may be attributed to better detection methods. This is in direct confrontation of a lot of reports that AGW is going to cause extreme weather and hurricane activity is of course one of them. This current report made by reputable scientists, debunks or challenges a popular claim by some climatologists, the MSM, and folks like Al Gore. It is a small piece of the puzzle, but science builds on such reports and will never be the final word.
You see on one popular side, the MSM will report only that press releases of some obscure climatologist who claims the opposite and fadedvision, I’m confident you will only see the press release and base your information on that single point. Now, back at the Ranch, (Here) we are getting the “complete” picture of both sides. You have been “spanked” a few times for prematurely making silly claims and hope by now you are prepared to adjust to the fact why perhaps “we” are “winning” the argument. Think most of us here are not interested in the process of the “jest” required to win the argument, but are outraged by bad statements, false claims, and bad science. You seem to think this is a numerical contest of science by consensus and your 97 % figure is just a silly fact you rely on. I suggest you do the following fairly soon:
1 Do some reading on Climategate.
2 Read the Hockey Stick Illusion.
This will show you how the climate scientists behave you so highly regard, and may just start your journey into the “winning” camp where we actually celebrate scientists and their output. I have done both and am a better position to comment. The Oregon Project I referenced earlier is where noted scientists have previously journeyed and have rejected the thesis that catastrophic anthropogenic warming is to be likely encountered as laid out by the Kyoto protocol and the IPCC. That means a lot fadedvision and suggest you re-think your attitudes if possible.
Think most of us here hope that you (and others especially lurkers) are in a mode to learn and perhaps be swayed in your thinking that perhaps what you have been fed previously with regard to Global Warming needs to be challenged. If what is reported here and the science makes sense, adopt it but don’t look for scoring of science to resemble the numbers you get while playing professional sports like Hockey.
While I’m waiting for a reply from faded, I am asking any of the rest of you to comment regarding the science position that models are just as good as actual measurements of the global weather system. I have not read the study yet, but today it was reported that all of life in earth’s oceans are on the brink of extinction!
My question: is this another result of a model, or is this based on actual observation and measurement?
I can’t argue against 3-4 people at once. I’m going to stop posting here.
Thank you for the spirited debate and shame on you for your condescending and arrogant tone. I may be a loud mouth a hole but I cannot hold a candle to your collective hubris. It’s fine that you think your smart and I am a mainstream media sheep(which I am not) but the really sad thing is that you have such blind belief in something that you cannot prove yourselves. You rip on polls data(as I am sure you are all experts on polls), tell people that they just aren’t smart enough to comprehend the bold(and rediculous) claims that you make, and worst of all you try to character assasinate hard working scientists who are too busy doing their job to come here and try and persuad the unpersuadable.
Take pride in muddying the water on a subject that nearly every single expert in the field disagrees with you on. That is a fact and irresputable, nearly every expert in the field disagrees with you and that’s not spin, its reality.
Please do me a favor though. Do what you do w/ climate change. In the same way that you completely ignore the experts and follow the demigogues blindly in all instances(people who know very little about climate change in general. THEY ARE LOUD THOUGH). Next time something serious happens in your life, instead of going to an expert, go to someone who knows very little about the subject and ask them what you should do.
If your car breaks, go to your doctor and ask him how to fix it. If you break your arm, go ask the mechanic if he knows how to make a brace. When you want to know the facts about climate change. Ask a GEOLOGIST! Perhaps a weatherman or a high school life science teacher. Don’t ask the people who actually know about this subject.
I bid you all farewell, until the next time I feel like poking a stick in the hornets nest.
P.S. You all make your argument very well and you are true wordsmiths. I give you that complement and I only wonder how well you would do if you actually had the facts on your side. I would fear that debate. Ah well, like my pappy used to say. You can’t polish a turd. Keep trying though, it’s fun to watch.
))))Just remember what ol’ Jack Burton does when the earth quakes, and the poison arrows fall from the sky, and the pillars of Heaven shake. Yeah, Jack Burton just looks that big ol’ storm right square in the eye and he says, “Give me your best shot, pal. I can take it.”((((
****sigh********
fadedvision, I’ll repeat for you the wisdom of trusting the so-called current experts where in 1888 the procedure to fix a lot of your health ills was blood-letting. If you can’t see the simple analogy, how it so appropriately relates to today, and what we are trying to passionately indicate to you, guess we have failed and it is not our fault. If you don’t wish to be convinced and perhaps enlightened, so be it- and I hope you are happy in your state. You have been given some homework assignments and hope you take to the lessons. That will require some work however. Passing is optional.
You mentioned the Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, and believe me, it fits your situation precisely where you are trapped sitting on the chair- in the year 1888, with the comfort of listening to the projected reality from the so-called crop of your trusted self appointed experts behind you. Unfortunately you can’t recognize it for what it is, and where you sit. We have escaped out of the cave, fadedvision, seen the reality, and you won’t listen to what is being reported back. Sad, really sad.
Time will tell who has facts and good science on their side. We are not trying to polish poo, but it is unfortunate you can’t recognize when you are eating and consuming the same. We are trying to educate you (and unfortunately probably failed) a bit to the point where perhaps you can detect when things don’t pass the “smell test”. Eating is optional.
You picked the fights. I pointed out a problem with your post. One issue, which you then tried to defend (when there was no defense). My rebuttals and points have all been on that problem. I have not checked everyone else’s posts, but it seems you brought it upon yourself. Unfortunately, you are now attempting to play the victim and skulk away without admitting defeat. That is your perogative, but no one is fooled.
Wrong Phil, I’m declaring VICTORY as I walk away w/ my chin up. 🙂
Billy V thinks science should be blamed for blood letting? LOL dude, It’s not 1888. It’s 2011 and we can almost grow whole human organs now. We are literally at the tip top of scientific research. With stem scell research and the advanced technologies we have today science is at it’s peak and you need to wake up to that reality. It has grown exponentially over the past oh 120 years since blood letting was last practiced and you apparentely stopped listening to them. For the record, I never defeded 120 year old science(laughing). In all honesty, to attack science for blood letting is such a shallow and weak argument that it really shows the flaw of your case against science. Whenever you have to go that far back just to find embarassing theories then your case should probably be re-evaluated.
Jeffrey: you deserve a reply.
1. Mankind can and does change climates everywhere they reside. Hippies in the 60′s liked to point to how a flapping butterfly on the other side of the world changes airflow everywhere it is connected (even remotely).
A) Yes, to what extent seems to be the burning question on most of our minds.
2. Mankind has a blatant disregard for his fellow beings. Why else would companies foul the air and water.
A) That’s one theory. The other theory is that people are actually inherently good.(Which I subscribe to) Obviously the view of the founders of the United States too, I doubt they would give control of a country to inherently flawed people. I believe that foul air and water only effects a few people directely. Most of the pollution effects us indirectly and can obscured very easily by the company and their PR teams.
3. Mankind cares not what he leaves for the next generation. He is only in it for himself.
A) Some do, some don’t. You cannot simply paint all people w/ a broad brush. You did that in the last question. I will say most people are pretty stupid though.
4. Getting back to your point above, political pols (even of scientists) are onlt relevant to opinions. They cannot be used as data used in a scientific exercise (even if it is a ‘scientific poll’).
A) Yeah, polls only judge opinion. Wrong or right. Though, if I were to wonder where and how I should travel Europe. I would look at opinions from travel agents as experts in the field. That is why I made my point about climatologist in the poll. Their opinions are really the only ones that matter on the subject imo.
5. Global temperatures are increasing. That has been true ever since the last Ice Age.
A) True, how rapidly over time? Probably the most important indicator.
6. Mankind is having an influence on local weather. Read my little story above, which is a true personal story.
A) Good story, yeah I understand that. It’s also usually about 5-10 degrees hotter in cities than in rural areas because of all the concrete. It’s humid in the rain forest because of all the foliage and it’s dry in the desert because of the lack there of… There are a lot of humans and we are everywhere, you can see how that might effect an ecosystem on a larger scale. Similarly to your example.
Delusions do not become you. You lost. Man up and admit it. As of now, you just appear to be a weaseling Quisling
Subjective view Phil. If you tell me to man up again, I’m going to buy a horse and move to Wyoming and become a cowboy.
I had to google Quisling.
Defined: A traitor who serves as the puppet of the enemy occupying his or her country.
Wow, that’s pretty hardcore. I’ll have you know my family has lived in the United States since before there was a United States. My lineage dates back to the earliest settlers in this country and I take pride in that. I’m a proud patriot who just happens to be a little bit more balanced and objective than the likes of an internet tough guy named PhilJordan. Your next post better be an apology. Otherwise, don’t expect a response to your ignorant name calling.
Jack Burton quote: “May the wings of liberty never lose a feather”
fadedvision, sorry if you could not grasp my simple allegory (and others) about the state of medical SCIENCE in 1888. Let me try to explain it a bit better if I may. I acknowledge that today we are much better equipped with science and methods; that is not the contention. We benefit today from the quest of knowledge and the results of good proven science.
Please for the sake of the allegory you seemed to miss, and try to grasp that in 1888 medical SCIENCE said that blood-letting was a recognized treatment for many diseases. Hope you knew that as it is crucial for the argument. I assumed you did and perhaps I was wrong? Pretend anyway for the moment we are back in the year 1888. In fact, let’s say 97% of scientists said so- at that time. (It’s 1888 remember, and we know nothing about the future) Had we been in existence and perhaps been engaged in conversation at the local feed-store, we could have had the exact same discussion about the effect of blood-letting as a great treatment. If you were on the side of the 97 percentile argument supporting the current science consensus, and “we” the other 3 percenter’s, said- not so fast buster, I don’t think so. You would have railed to the folks in the store and perhaps clear out to the street as well, how medical science and the treatments (solutions) must be trusted and we all should follow the 97% consensus. Furthermore, shame on us because we are “deniers”, hate science etc. ad nauseum. Do you “get” now the allegory?
Please understand how science works; new theories emerge, old ones fade because a lot of new information (correct this time) is found, withstands examination and scrutiny of other competent scientists within and out of the specific field. It is an on-going process and history of science has many records of total failure of research that was wrong, dead wrong.
The goal of science is not to develop agreement, but to pursue truth that fits long standing agreement on what is good science. A notorious few (listed by this Blog) of the current crop of climatologists have, and are currently “bending” the generally accepted scientific protocols that require a few challenges. This Blog (and others) is questioning in both a serious and humorous way, their failings, and quite successfully I may add. You need to read more, do some homework beyond reading just your own and other’s limited postings here (mine included). Listen and observe before you offer your untenable arguments.
This thread is going a bit off topic and I have said my piece. I’m not interested in winning arguments but hoped to educate some folks that need it. If you fail to do your homework and won’t just observe for a while to see what constitutes good science, I sincerely hope you don’t participate in policy (vote) because your current ability to grasp things based on your current state of knowledge is terribly skewed from reality.
Ignorance is often bliss, and I’m sure you are very happy.
I’m sure you would be happier if you got your truck back.
faded, I thought you left….I do have some comments on your reply:
Jeffrey: you deserve a reply.
1. Mankind can and does change climates everywhere they reside. Hippies in the 60′s liked to point to how a flapping butterfly on the other side of the world changes airflow everywhere it is connected (even remotely).
A) Yes, to what extent seems to be the burning question on most of our minds.
Reply: SINCE THE IPCC IS ONLY CHARGED IN GATHERING IN ALL THE RESEARCH THAT SUPPORTS AGW, THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY IS EXCLUDED. THE RESULT IS THAT THE “MAIN VIEW” THAT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE IS PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY NATURAL CAUSES REMAINS UNTIL THERE IS ENOUGH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. I HAVE BEEN SEARCHING FOR THE EVIDENCE AND HAVE YET TO FIND IT. SO, I SAY, AGW IS A SMALL CONTRIBUTOR.
2. Mankind has a blatant disregard for his fellow beings. Why else would companies foul the air and water.
A) That’s one theory. The other theory is that people are actually inherently good.(Which I subscribe to) Obviously the view of the founders of the United States too, I doubt they would give control of a country to inherently flawed people. I believe that foul air and water only effects a few people directely. Most of the pollution effects us indirectly and can obscured very easily by the company and their PR teams.
Reply: I HAVE A MULTITUDE OF PERSONAL EXAMPLES FROM THE EARLY DAYS OF THE CLEAN WATER AND CLEAN AIR ACTS FROM THE 70’S. THE MAIN REASON: “IT WOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE TO CLEAN UP MORE THAN OUR ALOWANCE”. THEY KNEW IT WAS DAMAGING TO THE PLANET, BUT THEY HAD A PERMIT TO DO IT.
3. Mankind cares not what he leaves for the next generation. He is only in it for himself.
A) Some do, some don’t. You cannot simply paint all people w/ a broad brush. You did that in the last question. I will say most people are pretty stupid though.
Reply: ONE (OF MANY) EXAMPLES: THE HUDSON RIVER (NY) IS LOADED WITH PCB’S BECAUSE GENERAL ELECTRIC WOULD NOT CLEAN THEM UP UNTIL FORCED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO IT. EVEN THEN, THEY ONLY DO SO MUCH PER YEAR — BECAUSE OF THE COST.
4. Getting back to your point above, political pols (even of scientists) are onlt relevant to opinions. They cannot be used as data used in a scientific exercise (even if it is a ‘scientific poll’).
A) Yeah, polls only judge opinion. Wrong or right. Though, if I were to wonder where and how I should travel Europe. I would look at opinions from travel agents as experts in the field. That is why I made my point about climatologist in the poll. Their opinions are really the only ones that matter on the subject imo.
Reply: SORRY, YOUR EXAMPLE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RESEMBLANCE TO A SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. IN SCIENCE WE NEED POSTULATION, EXPERIMENT OR OBSERVATION OF THE ACTUAL PROCESS IN QUESTION, CONCLUSION, THEORY, DISSEMINATION OF ALL PERTINENT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO ALL OTHER INTERESTED SCIENTISTS, REPLICATION AND COMMENT. POLLS ONLY HAVE RELEVANCE IN POLITICS – NOT SCIENCE.
5. Global temperatures are increasing. That has been true ever since the last Ice Age.
A) True, how rapidly over time? Probably the most important indicator.
Reply: WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE EXTENT OF NATURAL CAUSES (LIKE WATER VAPOR, FOR INSTANCE), THE IPCC HAS DISMISSED THEM AS A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE, AND HAS STATED THAT CO2 (~1.5 DEGREE INCREASE IN THE NEXT 100 YEARS) IS THE MAIN CULPRIT
6. Mankind is having an influence on local weather. Read my little story above, which is a true personal story.
A) Good story, yeah I understand that. It’s also usually about 5-10 degrees hotter in cities than in rural areas because of all the concrete. It’s humid in the rain forest because of all the foliage and it’s dry in the desert because of the lack there of… There are a lot of humans and we are everywhere, you can see how that might effect an ecosystem on a larger scale. Similarly to your example.
Reply: YOU LOST MY NUANCE, THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS THAT HUMANS DO CONTRIBUTE TO CHANGES IN WEATHER, BUT IT IS LOCAL IN ITS IMPACT. EVEN “GLOBAL WARMING” IS HEAVILY WEIGHTED TO THE NORTHERN LATITUDES AND THEN MOSTLY ON LAND SURFACES, EVEN THOUGH THE OCEANS COMPRISE 70% OF THE EARTH’S SURFACE.
Really, all this back and forth was in response to your assertion:
“If that is your idea of a scientific poll then I could make any issue paliable to you. Even in your own example and link the climatologist and those who had written about the subject in scientific journals were overwhelmingly in the opinion that man was making an impact on his environment. Also that the temperature has risen.”
IT IS THE LINK BETWEEN MAN’S IMPACT AND RISING TEMPERATURES THAT I AM QUESTIONING…IF YOU HAVE A LINK TO A SCIENTIFIC STUDY THAT LINKS THE TWO, PLEASE SEND IT TO ME. ONE THING IS THAT IT CANNOT BE A COMPUTER STUDY, SINCE I AM LOOKING FOR SOMETHING REAL…….DO YOU HAVE ONE???????
[Snip. Zero tolerance for the d-word. ~dbs, mod.]
Thanks for the warning dbs, but in reality, I don’t know what the official D-word is? ( I am quite naive sometimes ) I can think of some dirty words and agree they are not necessary and quite unacceptable in this forum and contribute nothing except debasing the discussion ongoing. Wanted to know what the reply was from fadedvision if he had anything substantial. Perhaps he can “modify” his response and re-submit?
Oh, and Jeffery please, resist the need to shout. We should be listening to each other at a normal volume. It’s the ideas that can shout, if they make sense.
What d word? Debate? You could have edited the word out because I completely forgot what I had said.
BillyV, sorry…all I was trying to do was differentiate one response from another. I would prefer to do that with color, but can’t seem to do that here…lol.
Fade, I am glad you can google. Now try to learn how to read.
I’m glad you can insult. Try being respectful.