myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 311, 312, 313 ... 323, 324, 325  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
reinerehlers



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 863

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2014 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool, so you are offended by my assumptions yet do the same yourself. Born that way...to you too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
youwindsurf



Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 475
Location: North Shore High School

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2014 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

reinerehlers wrote:
Cool, so you are offended by my assumptions yet do the same yourself. Born that way...to you too.


I took no offense and made no assumptions, I merely answered your questions and asked for clarification. Apparently you have no intent to answer my questions.

End of discussion I guess. In addition, I have no idea what "...to you too" means. Is that designed as an insult?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13804

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
LHDR wrote:
isobars wrote:
Since when does melting FLOATING ice (the reports so far say the Antarctic ice field had broken loose from the sea bed) raise the world's sea ice by four feet ... or millimeters?

Well, either the scientists who published the two articles and their reviewers made a silly mistake, or you are missing something. It should be obvious which one it is.

I agree. But what am I missing?

"The Economist", at http://tinyurl.com/m822u2w , briefly addressed my question with a short analysis of how glaciers separate from the sea bed. In line with its finality on the AGW issue, I'll headline and then summarize their explanation:
OCEANS RISING. RUN FOR THE HILLS; WE'RE ALL GONNA DROWN.

NOT.

This just in, in two published research papers from NASA and UC/Irvine and from U of WA/Seattle: The oceans might start rising a whole millimeter (maybe even a FEW millimeters if other glaciers join the party) EVERY YEAR beginning a few hundred years from now.

OOOOh! Now THAT sounds worth the destruction of a few economies and partial confiscation of our retirement funds, doesn't it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13804

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2014 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From http://tinyurl.com/m68rwa9 :
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
Joseph Bast And
Roy Spencer
May 26, 2014
In short: [Bullcrap.]
The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

"debunked". In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.

Rigorous international surveys ... found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. .

Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ... yada yada yada.

Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4971

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2014 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a hoot. Isobars citing the Heartland Institute as a credible source. That's kind of like arguing that Mikey is sane, well adjusted, calm, and persuasive. Here's who funds those guys--guess, oil companies? Ya think?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/17/428111/exposed-the-19-public-corporations-funding-the-climate-denier-think-tank-heartland-institute/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2544

PostPosted: Wed May 28, 2014 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Talking of credibility, the table "exposing" the 19 public companies donating to Heartland does not include a single oil company. Incidentally, ThinkProgress, a far left blog, apparently chooses not to disclose it's own donors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2575

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Fick-shun wrote:

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

An interesting point, Mikey.

You disparage a sample of 79 data points as unreliable and not statistically sound. And yet your audience is supposed to accept your word -- a SINGLE DATA POINT, a sample size of one -- as fact.

Truly amazing. Laughing Laughing Laughing
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13804

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
Talking of credibility, the table "exposing" the 19 public companies donating to Heartland does not include a single oil company. Incidentally, ThinkProgress, a far left blog, apparently chooses not to disclose it's [sic] own donors.

Do any of these lefties ever confront the message rather than the cherry-picked (out of 32,000 scientists) source? Is that concept completely beyond their ken?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4971

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mrgybe takes issue with my sarcastic comment, implying that the Heartland Institute is credible, and not funded, directly or indirectly, by oil money:

Quote:
Talking of credibility, the table "exposing" the 19 public companies donating to Heartland does not include a single oil company.


In fact, the Koch Brothers have contributed $200,000. In fact, Heartland uses "scientists" like Fred Singer, and has close ties to the "scientists" who pimped for the tobacco companies, arguing that there were no links to heart disease or lung cancer. When such arguments are shown to be lies, when can always count on conservatives to switch to the "personal responsibility" mantra. While they advertise an addictive product, tobacco, to youngsters.

The bigger contributors to the lies about climate change are the coal folks--but they don't have their own apologist on this forum. They do have many bought politicians in Congress who argue that we can't afford clean air. Really? Have you read this?

Quote:
Homer City, Pa. --

A massive coal-fired power plant in western Pennsylvania is turning from one of the worst polluters in the country to a model for how such a facility can clean up its act.

Homer City Generating Station is expected to make the transformation in a few years. When it does, it will end four decades of nearly limitless pollution from two of its units that had long escaped regulation.

Three years ago, the plant was the first to sue the Obama administration over a rule to force it to reduce its sulfur dioxide pollution, arguing it would spike electricity prices and cause "immediate and devastating" consequences. None of those dire predictions came to pass, and the Supreme Court has upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's rule in the case initiated by the plant.


The story of the Homer City plant reflects the precarious position of older coal-fired plants these days, squeezed between cheap and plentiful natural gas and a string of environmental rules the Obama administration has targeted at coal, which supplies about 40 percent of the nation's electricity.

The latest regulation, the first proposal to curb Earth-warming carbon dioxide from power plants, is due next week and will pose yet another challenge to coal-fired power plants. Dozens of coal-fueled units have already announced they would close in the face of new rules.

Homer City also shows how political and economic rhetoric sometimes doesn't match reality. Despite claims by Republicans and industry critics that the Obama administration's regulations will shut down coal-fired power plants, Homer City survived - partly because it bought itself time by tying up the regulation in courts. Even environmental groups that applaud each coal plant closing and protested Homer City's pollution now say the facility is setting a benchmark for air pollution control that other coal plants should follow, even if it takes decades.

The owners of the western Pennsylvania power plant - it releases more sulfur dioxide than any other power plant in the U.S. - have committed to installing $750 million worth of pollution control equipment by 2016 that will make deeper cuts in sulfur than the rule it once opposed.

The EPA estimates that about 30 percent of the coal-fired units in the U.S. are operating without scrubbers, pollution control equipment to control not only for sulfur dioxide, but also mercury, a toxic metal that will be controlled for the first time from power plants next year.




Today's San Francisco Chronicle. Inconvenient facts vs. pimps.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2544

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
What a hoot. Isobars citing the Heartland Institute as a credible source. Here's who funds those guys--guess, oil companies? Ya think?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/17/428111/exposed-the-19-public-corporations-funding-the-climate-denier-think-tank-heartland-institute/

I repeat.......none of the 19 public corporations in the linked blog are oil companies. The statement from Berkeley was, at best, misleading. Not a persuasive tactic when demeaning the credibility of others and totally ignoring the substance their opinions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 311, 312, 313 ... 323, 324, 325  Next
Page 312 of 325

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group