97% of world Climate Scientists are 75 people

It seems that Mojo is increasing in his stridency of denial. In spite of his protestations to the contrary about being a "denier" clearly he is. Perhaps, like as has happened on the political forum portion of PC, we should just leave the trollish thread and behaviors to the trolls. Clearly beating ones head against the wall with his prejudices is fruitless. Too bad however since I seem to recall respecting his opinions on other subjects.

Icarus

 

"Believe it or not I have no bias."

<<crickets>>

Here is a clue for you: stop feeding yourself tea-bagger propaganda, it turns you into an idiot. If you do not have the science background to read the source literature, rely on sources who can, and translate into a level you can follow. Middle-men themselves should be PhDs in the core sciences of physics and chemistry, active researchers, and preferably publishing in peer journals of climate science.

You will not be comfortable, but at least you will be informed.

 

I took an upper division Ecology course at UC Davis, and the last thing the professor said on the last day of class was, "if you forget everything you learned here, I only want you to remember that global warming is real". I got an A+ so trust me, I know my sh*t, sh*t....

By the way, my professional title is "Scientist" so mark me down on whatever ballot you guys are using. Global warming is real. Thanks professor.

 

BULL! Prove that there has been "censurship" of any denial studies such that they don't get published. This is denialist tripe at it's worst1

You claim you have no bias, but you remind me a a poster here on PC (NevadaPrius if I remember) who started out in his first post on the environmental forum saying (sic) "I am a big 'supporter" of global warming" and then spent the next three months trolling with denialist tripe.

Icarus

 

For the life of me, I don't understand all the arguing over Climate Change. WHO IN GOD'S NAME WANTS TO TAKE THE CHANCE? WE COULD DESTROY OUR ONLY HOME!
All this for a bigger, faster car?

 

Who said that forcing stopped? It is always present but it can easily be overwhelmed by other agents unless you are talking about massive outgassing events like the Deccan Traps. Name the ice age and we can explain the theory behind why is started or ended.

 

Apparently you stop responding to thread as soon as the answer for you question is posted.. You will read it since you obviously only interested in unbias truth. here we go (this is 4th time now ):



===========================================

you might have missed these ones (we know that such champion of truth as you will not avoid them for mere "inconvenience"):

 

The one salient fact that every denialist I have ever wasted my time reading always misses or ignores is the warming dynamics. While it is most certainly true that the world has heated up in the past, and perhaps to levels that we worry about today, there are two important differences:

1. The past warming periods occurred over 10s of thousands of years, not a few hundred;
2. Six billion humans did not inhabit the earth and expect food and shelter, let alone a somewhat-modern quality of life.

 

Exactly! I'll let the scientists argue the science. What is the down side of being wrong on both sides of this debate?

 

any time I read mojo's post I cannot get out of the head the scene of sir Bedevere witch trial from Holy Grail.. there is a quote down the page http://priuschat.com/forums/environ...es-phil-jones-confesses-climate-fraud-12.html

 

What is all this political resistance to climate change in the USA? No other country has it.

Is it religion? Is it ignorance (K-12 education here is inferior to other major countries--primarily because of the localized way it is funded and controlled)?

I suspect it is a little of both.

I am also somewhat disturbed that Al Gore, a politician, has chosen to be the spokesperson for Global Warming. This is much too important an issue for a politician to be the message bearer--unless it's the President--especially Obama, who has been a big disappointment. Hardly the leader for any significant change.

 

This is a really great question.

we also the only western country to teach creationism and ostracize Darwin

 

Why did Australia get the criminals and the US get the Puritans?


Australia had first choice.

 

I find the AGW skeptic Solomon's article interesting in this paragraph:

Really? Most of the (non-scientist) skeptics I know would say that humans have no effect, and that no actual measureable warming has happened over the last century. If they knew that the scientists leading their cause felt like Solomon says they are, I think they would be quite disappointed. Disgusted even. In fact, I'm almost a skeptic by Solomon's standards, since I feel warming has happened, but human activity might only be 40-80% of the cause. I'll have to go tell my far-right co-worker than I'm actually a skeptic like him, we're just off by about 5%.

But to the point, if we can remove 40% or more of global warming over the next century by changing our consumption habits, keeping more of our money in this country instead of exporting to unstable and unfriendly countries for oil (which is >55% of our trade imbalance), saving money on our electric bill by having better appliances and insulating materials, and increasing local jobs for geothermal, wind energy and solar thermal/PV, then like TonyRenier says, what's the downside to all that?

 

"I can not understand why those poor people don't believe in Jesus. We told them they are going to go to hell if they don't believe" paraphrase of a missionary that somehow I got stuck near in the Narita airport. They were bringing the faith to aboriginal in Australia. Most of this sounds a great deal like religion. If there isn't a hell you haven't lost anything by believing. If you believe in AGW and it doesn't exist you haven't lost anything. Well except what ever you paid for it. But,.... we can actually do some science about AGW or is it ACC and see if some of the proposed actions will actually save us from Hell.

But if you didn't parrot global warming is real would you be a scientist. There is a community that says if you get money from the Koch brothers, you are not a scientist. If you don't believe you are a denier. IMHO whenever someone says denier, they must not be a scientist. What about a physicist from Berkeley that gets money from the Koch brothers? Should we say he isn't a scientist?

Koch-funded scientist Richard Muller makes up story about Al Gore, Ralph Cicerone, and polar bears | ThinkProgress

You haven't traveled much have you?

But, shouldn't this by itself tell you to be skeptical?

Well maybe in Kansas. Most of the country thankfully can not and does not teach creationism.

Back to the hand picking of peer reviewers, calling skeptics denyers, etc. Its just wrong. But here is what mueller, a good skeptical scientist got when doing temperature recreation, just in case phil jones had cooked the books.

Q&A With Richard Muller: A Physicist and His Surprising Climate Data - ScienceInsider

I'm sure those politicians that labeled him a heretic will be fine with him publishing that result. Which is the problem. Science isn't done by consensus. You don't say its science if you agree with it, but something else if you disagree. Things like bad temperature data ought to be free to be checked.

But Mojo, the lack of consensus is on things like whether warming is killing polar bears, versus hunting and polution, and how much humans are contributing, is warming causing more severe weather.

Some degree of AGW is agreed on because of the temperature record and CO2 record.

And to that tea bagger labeler, it is not at all settled science that tempertures have never increased this fast. There is not a detailed enough proxy record. It is agreed on that humans have been alive in hotter conditions.