I feel honoured not to have been blocked by Jello (yet). In responding to his question I did make the point that he has been proven wrong again and again but doesn’t appear to have changed his mind about anything.
I also took the opportunity to remind him that when he was previously active (4+ years ago) he had something of an obsession about an impending ice-age, or at least he did when it suited the answer. Doesn’t seem to be much sign of an ice age around here, can you see any advancing glaciers from your window yet Lin?
Asking what it takes for someone to change their opinion about global warming is like asking when someone will stop accepting the existence of gravity or electricity or light. They’re all phenomena that are consequences of how the natural world functions.
As science learns more about global warming and the climates in general then clearly some revisions are going to be made regarding particular aspects, but the underlying principle of global warming or cooling isn’t going to change.
Opinions about how to deal with global warming or what the future consequences may be could be changed but the science itself is as settled as anything ever is in science.
Well, I'm not Jello, first off, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the earth exists the way a human body does. When it starts getting stressed to extreme, then we will have extreme temps..high or low, either way you go by what is causing the stress to take place. I tend to think that the oil is much like our bloodstream, when it becomes too low, then the tendency is to become real cold. When the pressure runs high, then it causes it to become too hot. If the pumping of oil is kept at a moderate pace, which it would naturally produce, then this would help keep normal temps. But, the clogging of a main artery, shutting it down, builds up pressure, and the opposite of pumping it out too fast, drains it's. Why it isn't set at a normal pace for what it would produce naturally, makes no sense at all, to think that this wouldn't have an effect on the weather, among other things. But, oil isn't the only thing that humans tend to abuse the earth about. Just saying, for an example....
Simple - Newton discovered that gravity acts on an object and we could calculate the speed, velocity, distance traveled, at any point in time. Maybe you don't consider Newton a scientist because he was able to prove his theories. But I'll make it simple for you. Tell me if it will be warmer or colder in the future, and tell me how you got your results. If your "science" is objective, you should have no problem. I don't "believe" science. It is or it isn't. The proof is with those who say it is. Show me.
My answer to Jello's question
I agree with that statement.
Probably the best way to change my mind about global warming would be a better explanation for the warming than carbon dioxide. And the Sun and PDO aren't.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
edit
< Considering jello's comparison to Newton and gravity, one might point out that gravity isn't affected by el nino, solar minimums, latitude, humidity, OR POLITICS. (Well, not since Galileo.)>
And the people who deny global warming are no different than the people in Galileo's day who denied Earth goes around the Sun.
Other then CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or that humans are not dumping the waste product from burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere? I would say that the negative feedbacks match the additional CO2 AND positive feedbacks.
I don't know what Sagebrush is smoking but it can't be good for him as he seems to be inventing numbers again [1]
Secondly the the Oregon Petition signatories represent (~0.3%) of all US science graduates. In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science.
"Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community" [2]
Impossible for you to understand from a "biased" point of view.
Here's a possibility that satisfies all involved : http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...
Alarmists only know how to "alarm". Skeptics are the ones who bring "possibilities" to light.
Thanks for all of your "doom and gloom"! Just shows how "impossible" it is to talk to an extreme environmentalist like yourself.
when you have "30,000 reputable scientists" like sagebrush claims actually be reputable. That list has the spce girls, Dr Hawkeye Pierce from MASH is is totally debunked. I would hardly call Dr Mann and Dr Hansen faceless.
Deniers obviously live in an alternate universe. Even Kano thinks there is a linear trend with CO2. Sign of flat thinking.
Intelligence, education and an unbiased evaluation of credible studies. It isn't going to happen.
Ha! Ha! Linny. Are you just mad that you can't hurl inane insults at Jello?
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”
—Bertrand Russell
Oh yah you have gotten 75 out of 77 scientists in the world and think that constitutes the majority of scientists.
There is a list of over 30,000 reputable scientists who have put down their names and attested to the fact they do not believe in Global Warming. but you keep going with the 75 nameless scientists who are afraid to show their faces.
What you are doing is an old Alinskyite trick. And I Quote, ? Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do." In case you don't know, Alinsky was against the US and an avowed communist.
So dream on Linny, the facts are against you. And I remember that the last time I pointed this out to you you had me vaporized. You cry like the big baby you are when you are blocked then have me deleted. I bet your mother is real proud of you.
A lot, first, the next 17 years having a temperature rise in line (or higher) with CO2 atmospheric content rise.
Next proof that Nikolov and Zeller's "unified theory of climate" is totally wrong.
Uh huh. Of course, jello blocks all of the folks who think global warming is a problem.
And claims that it's "religious conviction" to think that warming is a problem.
Of course, there is a considerable body of scientists that disagree with him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Mainstream_scientific_position.2C_and_challenges_to_it
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."
ALL of the National Science Academies, around the world.
But that's okay, "all of those scientists are expecting US gov't contracts."
Maybe when they all change their minds I will too.
On the other hand, with all these scientists thinking that global warming really is a problem,
What would it take for jello to find a different mold?
I think all it would take for Jello to change his position is money. I think that's why he holds the position he does now.
Perhaps a severe enough torture. And even then I'd keep my real view to myself that it's fake.
