Quote by Gerrit van der Lingen, scientist: “Being a scientist means being a skeptic.”
If the environmentalists (I affectionately call them greenies) would only start telling the truth and have facts to back them up.
For example
;http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
This shows that the temperature has cooled for over a decade. Phil Jones has even admitted to that fact. Yet the CO2 level has risen during that same time. When this is pointed out to the greenies they always spit and sputter. They go into their derogatory remarks, attack the credibility of the data, come up with some far out data that would make even Jimmy Hansen blush, sneer and insult your integrity, and the usual chain of stalls that avoid any answer to the facts.
Another example is where the actual rise in temperature is brought out.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/ho...
This is from the oldest continual temperature recording in history. It almost goes back to the birth of the reliable thermometer. 0.87 degrees in 353 years and that to the greenies constitutes a catastrophic rise in heat. This coincides with the 1990 IPCC report, page 202, section 7 where it has a chart that confirms that the record is valid. Two records and the same results. My goodness, I have a great thermostat and it doesn't keep the room temperature that close, and we are dealing with the entire earth.
Yet these same greenies will believe anything that Jimmy Hansen says. Even after looking at the facts.
http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...
Here is where Jimmy was caught red handed cooking the books. Yet these greenies lap up everything Jimmy says. He has retired over a year ago and is now a full time communist agitator. So what do you expect.
I could go on but being a skeptic is a good thing. Always question. Always verify. Always seek the truth. The greenies say, "The question is settled. Give us more money for research." And they don't see anything wrong in their thinking.
Gary F: Yes I believe you that you have programs that can prove that the Earth is cooling and heating at the same time. Jimmy Hansen had several of those programs and got caught. Ha! Ha!
And about Phil Jones:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/1...
Just look up Phil Jones plus insignificant. there is a whole bunch of articles on that subject. Notice he was the one who oversaw the corrupt data mutilation of East Anglia. If you really are a scientist, as you claim, all knowing about the subject, how on earth did a major event like that happen without you knowing it? Were you too busy rewatching and taking notes on Al Gore's movie, "The Inconvenient truth"? Come on and show some intelligence for a change.
Trevor, 2010 was the hottest year on record according to Jimmy Hanson's figures. But he cheated. NASA has now corrected those figures and 1934 is back to the hottest year and I believe 1997 was the second hottest. You as a Climate Scientist should keep up with the latest and not listen to Al 'The Earth has a fever' Gore.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/1934-hot...
Sadly a have to agree with Dr. Jello on this one.
Anybody should be open to considering new evidence.
Now if we could just get a few tidbits of evidence and less political rhetoric posing as evidence here, we could all be open minded.
I agree the climate science is not that good. I also say too many people do not understand the difference between climate and weather. We absolutely cannot predict the weather, but we can (sort of) predict the climate. Not well, but a little.
That is why I worry less about the future climate and more about the CO2 itself. The record is clear, not in doubt, accepted by all (even Dr,. Jello I think) and definitely caused by us, not by nature. Already the pH of sea water has changed (due to the added CO2 dissolved in it) enough to endanger some types of sea life. And in high enough concentrations CO2 is toxic to people. The Apollo 13 crew nearly suffocated, not from lack of oxygen, but too from much CO2, until they adapted the LM CO2 scrubbers to use the CM canisters.
My position is that man made CO2 should raise temperatures slightly but there will be no catastrophic warming that we need to concern ourselves with. If satellite temps take a sharp jump upward I would change my position. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. Alarmists exaggerate. It's what they do. They want to create fear to get people on their side. I wish to God people would stop listening to them and their fear mongering.
Less people die from natural disasters than in the past. There is no alarming sea level rise. There are no climate refugees. Worldwide food production is at an all time high. There are more people in the world than ever. Citizens in industrialized countries have higher life expectancies than third world countries. Electricity and clean water are good things.
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...
>>Just tell me if it will be warmer or colder in the future and show your work.<<
You will have to tell us what "work" you can understand since you do not seem familiar with anything that involves the use of numbers or scientific concepts.
=====
Sagebrush --
>>This shows that the temperature has cooled for over a decade.<<
It is not physically possible to show that because the temperature signal is multidecadal. I know you do not understand what that means, so let’s ignore it for now and get to your strength so you can show what a “real” scientist you are ---- show us that your cooling trend is statistically significant. And don’t worry about us not understanding it. I have a mountain of mathematical programs – both from the world’s leading producers of commercial software and programs that I have written myself – so I can replicate whatever mathematical tests you want to use.
>>Phil Jones has even admitted to that fact.<<
Either provide evidence for that statement or at least man-up that you are an idiot and a liar.
Unfortunately for you I was also on here when you were spreading your nonsense several years ago and I happen to have a pretty good memory. I remember all those questions about what the temperature would be this year, next year, in five years etc. You were rather obsessed about an impending ice-age and on one occasion talked about temperatures falling 20° in the next 20 years, but then when it suited, you also claimed another ice-age wasn’t even a possibility.
Guess what. The skeptic’s predictions were truly abysmal, the realists were far more accurate. Dana even won a $1,000 bet with one of the skeptics, although I very much doubt he ever received his money. Over the years I made numerous predictions (they’re all there still in the past answers) and every one of them was reasonably correct, some were absolutely spot-on.
Of course, we could be 100 years down the line and still making correct predictions and there’s no way you’d change your mind. You’ve been wrong about so many things and have emphatically been proven to be wrong over and over again, yet I’m not aware you’ve ever changed your mind about anything or admitted you were wrong.
- - - - - - - - -
Given that global warming is a consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics then it’s going to be pretty hard to get anyone with any scientific comprehension to change their minds about the mechanisms that cause warming or cooling. The principles that govern the existence of gravity are weaker than those for global warming.
Where opinions are changed concerns the consequences of global warming, the accuracy of future projections, certain hypothetical aspects, unanswered ‘problems’, climatic interactions and variations etc. This does not mean that the theory of global warming falls apart, it can’t, but it does mean that as our understanding grows certain aspects have to be revisited, dismissed or revised.
- - - - - - - - - -
As for future temperatures…
It’s very difficult to specify what will happen in the short-term and that’s primarily because the significant cooling associated with the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation will shortly be switching to positive. The PDO may already be in the transitional stage.
When it switches to positive there’s a lag of a few years before the warming signal kicks in, when it does there will be pronounced warming. If the PDO is in transition then this signal could become distinct from all the other noise in about 5 years time, if the PDO remains in a neutral phase for several years then this will delay any upturn in temperatures and the next phase of warming could be as much as 15 years away.
Furthermore, the Indian and Chinese authorities have stated that they will be taking measures to reduce sulphate and aerosol emissions. These are causing some degree of cooling. Once emissions levels drop they will begin to dissipate out of the atmosphere very quickly (ave atmospheric residence period of just two years). Once measures are put in place then the cooling influence will quickly disappear, but quite when that will happen is anyone’s guess.
Pretty much every country in the world has set targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The success or failure of these policies is another big unknown that will affect future temperatures.
- - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO JIM
Sorry Jim, you should have learned by now that I never make statements that can’t be backed up.
DANA “Do you think 2010 will be a record hot year”
PETER J “Bet you $1000 it's going to be cooler in 2010 than it was in 2008.”
DANA: “peter - I'll take that bet.”
OUTCOME: 2010 was the hottest year on record.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
As for alarmists not making very good predictions. Dana asked a very similar question “Another new temperature record - new predictions for the calendar year 2010 temperatures”, my prediction (made in 2009) was that the temp for 2010 would be 287.862K, the actual temperature turned out to be 287.862K
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Dana may think he won a $1000 dollar bet. I am guessing the reason Trevor didn't provide the details is because he didn't really win. Alarmists don't have a very good record of predicting things.
Alarmists never admit to being wrong. I often make the point of AGW being about politics but in fact leftism is more like a religion and AGW is simply one of the pillars of the religion not that all leftist are that gullible. Many people would therefore have to make huge changes in their belief systems to change their position.
As a skeptic, I will remain a skeptic because that is what science really is all about. I might become more or less convinced, but I will always remain a skeptic. It isn't that I am closed minded on the issue. It is that I am open minded.
evidence/theory, that CO2 is not the culprit.
(Go read Trevor.)
you would have to show CO2 and H2O are not greenhouse gases, then you'd have to show the planet's climate does not respond to concentration of CO2.
Any evidence which you denialists refuse to provide (because you can't) that it is not occuring
The difference between a science and a dogma is that people can change their minds when it comes to science. Dogmas always are believed to be true no even when the evidence starts to fall apart. What would it take for you to change your mind from your current opinion on global warming?
I'm called a "skeptic" which is funny because a skeptic is defined as "a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skeptic?show=0&t=1407445796 Unlike others who call themselves scientists, I don't equate science with religion as they do.
Just tell me if it will be warmer or colder in the future and show your work. If you're right, you'll change my mind. Why will it take to change yours?
