15 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt is you duped. The rise is accelerating and will be a lot greater in a couple decades. YOU google that, I'm just telling you the latest findings.
There is a lot to poo poo about.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/24/alarmists-are-in-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/
14 cm per century amounts to very little per year. Nobody is losing their homes from it. You have been duped by propaganda.
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseMore wild predictions from unreliable climate models? Why am I not surprised? You idiots always fall back to that.
It is you duped. The rise is accelerating and will be a lot greater in a couple decades. YOU google that, I'm just telling you the latest findings.
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThat I have written? No need for that. Singer already did that and I did provide those for you. Go back and read them if you ignored them when I posted them.
Show us the papers you have written as to why climate models are unreliable. You must have them, being an expert on geology and climate.
To assert that all of the variables can be accounted for with climate models is idiotic. I really should not even have to tell you that. The fact that you are unwilling to accept it says a lot about how you believe things because you want to regardless of common sense.
16 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainAre we talking about S Fred Singer:
That I have written? No need for that. Singer already did that and I did provide those for you. Go back and read them if you ignored them when I posted them.
To assert that all of the variables can be accounted for with climate models is idiotic. I really should not even have to tell you that. The fact that you are unwilling to accept it says a lot about how you believe things because you want to regardless of common sense.
"Climategate
In December 2009, after the release of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit—a controversy that came to be known as "Climategate"—Singer wrote an opinion piece for Reuters in which he said the scientists had misused peer review, pressured editors to prevent publication of alternative views, and smeared opponents. He said the leaked e-mails showed that the "surface temperature data that IPCC relies on is based on distorted raw data and algorithms that they will not share with the science community." He argued that the incident exposed a flawed process, and that the temperature trends were heading downwards even as greenhouse gases like CO2 were increasing in the atmosphere. He wrote: "This negative correlation contradicts the results of the models that IPCC relies on and indicates that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is quite small," concluding "and now it turns out that global warming might have been 'man made' after all."[73] A British House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee later issued a report that largely exonerated the scientists.[74]"
This is from a Wiki article on Singer. Notice his last statement, "And now it turns out that global warming might have been 'man made' after all"
BTW he WAS getting financial support from big tobacco and he just so co-incidentally published a paper saying second hand smoke causing cancer was nonsense.
Of course you see nothing wrong with that.
17 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Wiki article on Singer is clearly not accurate. Notice the contradiction in the very same sentence.
Are we talking about S Fred Singer:
"Climategate
In December 2009, after the release of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit—a controversy that came to be known as "Climategate"—Singer wrote an opinion piece for Reuters in which he said the scientists had misused peer review, pressured editors to prevent publ ...[text shortened]... ing second hand smoke causing cancer was nonsense.
Of course you see nothing wrong with that.
He wrote: "This negative correlation contradicts the results of the models that IPCC relies on and indicates that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is quite small," concluding "and now it turns out that global warming might have been 'man made' after all."
Although I do rely on wiki sometimes but we all know wiki is not always accurate and needs to be corrected from time to time.
"BTW he WAS getting financial support from big tobacco and he just so co-incidentally published a paper saying second hand smoke causing cancer was nonsense."
Subsequent studies confirm Singer's findings that there is no evidence second hand smoke causes cancer. I once posted a link about that in reply to deepthought. Did you see it?
You don't have a problem with Monsanto funding studies about GMOs. Why the double standard?
17 Mar 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainI have some concerns regarding GMO's. I don't think they have been studied fully and you have to wonder if Monsanto is financing the project simply to make money. That is the standard MO of such companies.
The Wiki article on Singer is clearly not accurate. Notice the contradiction in the very same sentence.
He wrote: "This negative correlation contradicts the results of the models that IPCC relies on and indicates that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is quite small," concluding "and now it turns out that global warming might have been 'man made' a ...[text shortened]... ?
You don't have a problem with Monsanto funding studies about GMOs. Why the double standard?
I think the main objection to GMO's have to do with the possibility of the genes inserted into some crop will escape to the wild and become part of trash plants making them more difficult to eradicate and perhaps genes jumping to insects giving them a man made protection against pesticides and such.
Looks to me like GMO's are a double edged sword and they need to make bloody certain they won't be spreading the genes to other lifeforms.
It is well known that bacteria can swap genes like monopoly cards so there is something to that objection.
I never said I approved of Monsanto funding GMO research in the first place.
22 Apr 15
Originally posted by humy"A significantly harmful amount in this case obviously can mean something like enough to cause thousands (if not millions ) of human deaths in many civilizations because of droughts, flooding etc."Nobody knows what you mean by significant harmful amount
Really? Strange then all the climate scientists would know what they would mean by a “significant harmful amount” or any other words of that effect. A significantly harmful amount in this case obviously can mean something like enough to cause thousands (if not millions ) o ...[text shortened]... ? If not, you are even more stupid than I thought.
The rest of your post is mainly nonsense.
Do you admit you are an alarmist now?
22 Apr 15
Originally posted by humySo after denying you are an alarmist you have gone back to being an alarmist again. Why does this not surprise me?
New global-warming-related topic insert:
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-experts-zero-carbon-world.html
I suspect that most governments privately couldn't care a less whether they actually keep any of their promises, but we, or at least our descendants, shall see.
Those people at the earth league are a fringe minority that do not represent the majority of climate scientists. They represent about 0.5% of climate scientists.
Anybody can form a voluntary organization of like minded people . It is not just the earth league.
http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html
How does it feel to be an alarmist again right after denying it in a dishonest way?
22 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyDo you still deny being an alarmist? You can't have it both ways.
My post wasn't directed to you but rather only to anyone here who may have a genuine interest in the topic especially those who may wish to have intelligent and constructive conversation about the topic.