Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an understanding of the scientific method, and a mental model that encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines. This model serves as the basis of their thoughts about scientific questions.
When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about aspects that interest him.
A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition.Read more
31,072 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,021 with PhDs
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Let's see.... IFplants love and EAT C02 and need it for the "magic" known as photosynthesis (etc) and pump out oxygen and other "healthy" byproducts. THEN healthy plant life is BAD for the environment!!?? This is what the environmentalists are saying operatively!!??
Natural or not, this is a definite warming trend for us here in this country. We still need to decide if man is influencing it in a negative way or not.
No, this is not a "trump you trump me" situation, I told you that.
What we should be MORE CONCERNED ABOUT is the CURRENT TREND in which we are currently experiencing. We can't do anything about trendlines from 3000 years ago, can we? That's old history.
What we CAN DO is try to find out what is influencing the CURRENT TREND.
I don't care what temps were in 1962 or 1062. That does not matter now.
What matters NOW is what is happening NOW in the global climate.
Permit me to say this but you are missing the whole point of the posts!!?? So given the "medieval optimum level are you headed toward an optimum level or another ice age?
Again just because you chose to live in the desert, doesn't global warming make!? Sunbirds from the north have been migrating to Florida for easily 100 years!?? Don't like the desert? Migrate to New Jersey during the winter!!?? Or my own personal hell hole, upstate New York during the winter. They won't publish this in the Chamber of Commerce, but they sure can use more TAXPAYERS !!
What matters NOW is what is happening NOW in the global climate.
If you read the long summary I posted you would see those 31,072 scientists are not saying the data is wrong about the fluctuation in global temperatures. They are saying it is NOT shown to be MAN MADE. So where is this Consensus of American Scientists that say it is man made? I presented a list of 31,000 scientist that are saying the evidence of man made climate change has not been exhibited. You have one chart by one obscure organization that you continually refer to. I want to see some compelling evidence. NYC floating away would be a good start.
Here is the petition signed by my consensus of scientists. I am waiting to see yours.
GW Bush was wise to throw out Kyoto and similar proposals. They are just a means to extract money from the US to further the UN's agenda of World control and one big happy government. Not even Al Gore believes we are the cause of GW, or he would not be expanding his already gargantuan carbon footprint. It is time to put the whole GW scam in the trash where it belongs. The cat is out of the bag and the scheme has been uncovered.
You pay for it then. I am tired of seeing my tax dollars wasted on such foolishness. I would rather they spent it on feasible alternative energy sources. Though we know they have done that and tossed the good ones out as they would interfere with the modus operandi.
Our government is NOT interested in using less energy. The last two energy bills are proof of that.
Gary says, "Our government is NOT interested in using less energy."
That's a very general statement. Which part of the guvmint? Because you know as well as I do that there are many dozens of guvmint agencies who are working on energy issues and alternative energy policy and studies and programs to reduce fossil fuel usage.
The guvmint is merely a reflection of the People.
As long as there are people around who see "green" as the enemy, then Congress will have enough people in their constituent base to resist energy changes.
That's why I'm in favor of higher fuel prices. It makes the general public, who in turn ELECT the guvmint, take notice of conservation and energy policy.
I love where the green movement is going right now. Green is becoming more important to a lot more people. That will eventually filter into Congress.
I can see you, Obama, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi sitting around sipping your Starbucks coffee and congratulating each other when gas hits $10. a gallon. Never mind the bread lines. Let em' eat cake.
Green is becoming more important to a lot more people. That will eventually filter into Congress.
I guess we will have to disagree again. I think by attaching itself to the GW Cult, the green movement is being considered part of the established extremism in our country. Check around you and find out how many people that believed in Al Gore a few years ago now consider him a hypocritical opportunist. When he and his group of elitist go down the green movement will go with him. There will always be environmentalist such as yourself that live what you preach. The hardcore greenies hang out by the beach in a 1957 VW microbus plastered with every kind of goofy propaganda. Kind of like that Bamboo Power guy I ran into the other day. Not bad people. Just living in a unrealistic world all their own. Many burnt out on drugs with little motivation to do anything productive, let alone making a difference about the environment. Our beach communities are covered with these types. What better place to spread your message?
Wyoming, though. Did anyone else watch the special on the imminent huge earthquake and volcanic explosion that will blow the top off of all of Yellowstone's land 'o geysers? When we were living in SE Idaho I watched this special and...ummm...allowed it to make me feel just a tad bit jittery. Ahh, the fun computer graphics programs allow us.
It's obvious that Al Gore has some inside knowledge. He parked his new yacht on a Tennessee lake apparently expecting it to be oceanfront property soon!
The current trend in Louisville Kentucky is a cooler than normal summer, or at least cooler than the last 28 years (hope I don't jinx us... knock on wood). :shades:
Your observations are once again REALLY CLOSE to reality but not quite making it all the way.
But since I know you are smothered by Greenies from Cali, I understand that that does kind of alter your perceptions a little bit.
Once you get out of Cali, you see more and more people like ME and fewer "hardcore greenies hanging out at the beach living in 1957 VW vans down by the ocean."
Those guys can be safely ignored - they are are extremists and are mostly irrelevant away from the beach. And every thinking person knows that extremism in any regard is almost invariably a BAD thing.
I'm talking about the larger numbers of people who see that doing LITTLE things here and there to reduce their own carbon footprint is a good thing and it makes them feel good to do it. Those are the people I was referring to when I said "Green is becoming more important to a lot more people."
Not Extreme Green. Normal Green.
If anyone is going to "fall" it will be the AlGore clones and his cronies. They are and will be "in charge" of nothing.
People like me will always be around and the number of MEs is growing daily.
More people like me will be voting in more Congress members like me and that is how it will eventually filter through to Congress.
Examples:
Texas leads the nation in "Energy Star" homes. There are lot of people there who drive SUVs because their family is large but who still like the feeling of living in an energy-efficient home and paying $105 A/C bills in the summer.
More and more homebuilders across the country are emphasizing "green" construction.
The kids are being taught conservation and recycling in schools.
It's nothing drastic or life-changing - it's just that all the small things add up when hundreds of thousands of people do them.
I'm talking about the larger numbers of people who see that doing LITTLE things here and there to reduce their own carbon footprint is a good thing and it makes them feel good to do it. Those are the people I was referring to when I said "Green is becoming more important to a lot more people."
I plant trees for food and beauty, drive less miles to save on gas, don't turn on air till the house is 80+ degrees, don't turn on the heat more than I have to and use CFL bulbs. None of this is to feel good. It is because I am CHEAP. I don't want to get put in a group with a bunch of tree hugging, GW whackos.
"...Is that a serious question or are you being sarcastic?..."
I'm being sarcastic because you choose to ignore the 3000 years of climate data that was posted in favor of your cherry picked 28 years. I thought you were serious but it seems you are no better than AL Gore.
Just for the record, I built my own solar house in 1982, I don't drive a SUV and never will. I also grow organic crops to sell locally. I will match my carbon footprint against any tree hugger you care to mention.
I also possess several advanced college degrees and while that does not make me smarter than anyone else it did teach me to be skeptical of wild claims supported by carefully selected data.
Rant over. :sick:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
If larsb can dismiss 3000 years because it is too long, and only interested in the most recent, I'll do him 1 better. I'll focus on the real recent - this summer.
It barely hit 70 the last week here, it's in the 50's at night, and it rains everyday. We're in a definite period of GC (cooling).
Same for San Diego. We are on average about 6 degrees below normal. It has been very pleasant in the 80s instead of the 90s. It was posted earlier that Anchorage Alaska is having the COLDEST summer on record.
Science Daily, seems to be saying the more they learn the less they know.
New scientist don't care if the studies do not give solid evidence, their mind is made up and we are the cause. As soon as we get rid of Bush we start collecting the big bucks.
FCW, seems happy to accept the Science Daily findings that a lot more evidence is needed to make any rash moves.
At least that is what I got from the three articles. Much of it is over my head. All I know is I ain't movin into a cave and becoming a hunter gatherer so Al Gore can afford to run his GulfStream, boat, limos and jet skis.
Fun word for the day. Sounds like an expensive part on my van that just died and is leaking coolant.
Interesting general interest story from someone in the field in today's Anchorage paper.
"It's futile to engage polar researchers like him on whether the planet is warming naturally or if mankind is to blame. You might as well challenge these biologists on evolution."
1) They state that the area in question has been frozen for "tens of thousands of years". How do they know that? Were they there? Maybe prior to the road being built nearby the area thawed and re-froze dozens of times.
2) They reference the warming trend against temps of the 1970s which were some of the coolest years recently. This is typical of the dishonest agenda-driven people who promote GW.
I might be able to pick a period of warm years that would make the current trends in the area look like there was cooling going on.
More bad science promoted by bad journalists.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
No matter how many times I say it, it appears that the one way you "think" you are dismissing my argument is to accuse me of "cherry picking."
In reality, it's not cherry picking at all. It's called "using the most current RELEVANT data." I've said that before, so let me repeat so that it might sink in.
It did not matter what the weather was 3000 years ago. What matters is the CURRENT TREND and where it is taking us.
That's not cherry picking AT ALL.
Like all scientifically tracked trendlines, the most CURRENT trend when you are trying to solve a problem is the one which should garner the most attention.
If current trends did not matter, there would be ZERO Global Warming discussion. The trend is at the core of what began the whole debate.
40 years ago, the intelligencia's dire warnings du jour were of dire global cooling. They gave overwhelming evidence of its imminence and dire consequences. It NEVER came to pass!!?? It might have been considered to come to pass, if one counts the 40 winters and leave out the 40 each springs, summers, falls, season's to make ones' point.
Take a step back! Take a look at a proportionally correct cross section of the earth. You will see the the earth crust is only 15 to 50 miles thick. To the center of the earth it is another ~4,000 miles. This approximates about the skin of an apple with the significant distinction that we (our little dirt crust) is floating on a fire ball traveling a gazillion miles every hour, held together by nothing more than a little gravity. To me it is a miracle that we are enjoying the level of climatic stability we have, save for the occasional super volcano eruption that will set you back a ~2,000,000 or the occasional meteorite impact to throw us for another trajectory and skews the axis of rotation..... ....and somehow life always seems to be coming back. If anyone thinks that our farts will change anything they should be checked in for delusions of grandeur!!!!
"Global Warming means that EVERY single location on Earf will be warmer this year than last year. And that EVERY year after this one will be hotter than the last one."
"...it appears that the one way you "think" you are dismissing my argument is to accuse me of "cherry picking."..."
I used the term "cherry picking" ONCE in response to a specific set of data you chose to use to ignore a much more comprehensive set of data posted by someone else.
I think you may be confusing me with Tidster and several others who have used that term several dozen times to refute your arguments.
While I am honored that you confuse me with Tidster I'm afraid my command of the facts is not nearly on a par with his. Therefore may I suggest you direct your vitriol towards him.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Sorry, oldfarmer50, it was not meant to single you out. I guess I was talking to the "whole group who have used the term" and not to JUST YOU specifically.
I think we have finally pushed ol' Larsb over the edge. Now he's not sure what the definition of global warming is and he is reduced to asking us what it it.
Also he can't seem to remember who his antagonists are so he lumps us all together. I think he has picked too many cherries....
Comments
Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an understanding of the scientific method, and a mental model that encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines. This model serves as the basis of their thoughts about scientific questions.
When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about aspects that interest him.
A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition.Read more
http://www.petitionproject.org/
31,072 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,021 with PhDs
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5984
Contiguous 48 states Surface Air Temperatures
Annual_Mean since 1880
1980 .22
1981 .65
1982 -.35
1983 .00
1984 .01
1985 -.41
1986 .74
1987 .84
1988 .33
1989 -.17
1990 .88
1991 .70
1992 .31
1993 -.43
1994 .47
1995 .36
1996 -.16
1997 .04
1998 1.24
1999 .94
2000 .54
2001 .78
2002 .55
2003 .53
2004 .46
2005 .71
2006 1.15
2007 .84
The last year of below-average temps was 1996.
Natural or not, this is a definite warming trend for us here in this country. We still need to decide if man is influencing it in a negative way or not.
What we should be MORE CONCERNED ABOUT is the CURRENT TREND in which we are currently experiencing. We can't do anything about trendlines from 3000 years ago, can we? That's old history.
What we CAN DO is try to find out what is influencing the CURRENT TREND.
I don't care what temps were in 1962 or 1062. That does not matter now.
What matters NOW is what is happening NOW in the global climate.
Again just because you chose to live in the desert, doesn't global warming make!? Sunbirds from the north have been migrating to Florida for easily 100 years!?? Don't like the desert? Migrate to New Jersey during the winter!!?? Or my own personal hell hole, upstate New York during the winter.
The question is, why? No chart anyone can post will answer that question. That's why the GW debate rages on.
If you read the long summary I posted you would see those 31,072 scientists are not saying the data is wrong about the fluctuation in global temperatures. They are saying it is NOT shown to be MAN MADE. So where is this Consensus of American Scientists that say it is man made? I presented a list of 31,000 scientist that are saying the evidence of man made climate change has not been exhibited. You have one chart by one obscure organization that you continually refer to. I want to see some compelling evidence. NYC floating away would be a good start.
Here is the petition signed by my consensus of scientists. I am waiting to see yours.
That's why more study is needed.
You pay for it then. I am tired of seeing my tax dollars wasted on such foolishness. I would rather they spent it on feasible alternative energy sources. Though we know they have done that and tossed the good ones out as they would interfere with the modus operandi.
Our government is NOT interested in using less energy. The last two energy bills are proof of that.
That's a very general statement. Which part of the guvmint? Because you know as well as I do that there are many dozens of guvmint agencies who are working on energy issues and alternative energy policy and studies and programs to reduce fossil fuel usage.
The guvmint is merely a reflection of the People.
As long as there are people around who see "green" as the enemy, then Congress will have enough people in their constituent base to resist energy changes.
That's why I'm in favor of higher fuel prices. It makes the general public, who in turn ELECT the guvmint, take notice of conservation and energy policy.
I love where the green movement is going right now. Green is becoming more important to a lot more people. That will eventually filter into Congress.
I can see you, Obama, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi sitting around sipping your Starbucks coffee and congratulating each other when gas hits $10. a gallon. Never mind the bread lines. Let em' eat cake.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I guess we will have to disagree again. I think by attaching itself to the GW Cult, the green movement is being considered part of the established extremism in our country. Check around you and find out how many people that believed in Al Gore a few years ago now consider him a hypocritical opportunist. When he and his group of elitist go down the green movement will go with him. There will always be environmentalist such as yourself that live what you preach. The hardcore greenies hang out by the beach in a 1957 VW microbus plastered with every kind of goofy propaganda. Kind of like that Bamboo Power guy I ran into the other day. Not bad people. Just living in a unrealistic world all their own. Many burnt out on drugs with little motivation to do anything productive, let alone making a difference about the environment. Our beach communities are covered with these types. What better place to spread your message?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But since I know you are smothered by Greenies from Cali, I understand that that does kind of alter your perceptions a little bit.
Once you get out of Cali, you see more and more people like ME and fewer "hardcore greenies hanging out at the beach living in 1957 VW vans down by the ocean."
Those guys can be safely ignored - they are are extremists and are mostly irrelevant away from the beach. And every thinking person knows that extremism in any regard is almost invariably a BAD thing.
I'm talking about the larger numbers of people who see that doing LITTLE things here and there to reduce their own carbon footprint is a good thing and it makes them feel good to do it. Those are the people I was referring to when I said "Green is becoming more important to a lot more people."
Not Extreme Green. Normal Green.
If anyone is going to "fall" it will be the AlGore clones and his cronies. They are and will be "in charge" of nothing.
People like me will always be around and the number of MEs is growing daily.
More people like me will be voting in more Congress members like me and that is how it will eventually filter through to Congress.
Examples:
Texas leads the nation in "Energy Star" homes. There are lot of people there who drive SUVs because their family is large but who still like the feeling of living in an energy-efficient home and paying $105 A/C bills in the summer.
More and more homebuilders across the country are emphasizing "green" construction.
The kids are being taught conservation and recycling in schools.
It's nothing drastic or life-changing - it's just that all the small things add up when hundreds of thousands of people do them.
I plant trees for food and beauty, drive less miles to save on gas, don't turn on air till the house is 80+ degrees, don't turn on the heat more than I have to and use CFL bulbs. None of this is to feel good. It is because I am CHEAP. I don't want to get put in a group with a bunch of tree hugging, GW whackos.
What happened in those other 5 years? Was global warming on vacation?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I'm being sarcastic because you choose to ignore the 3000 years of climate data that was posted in favor of your cherry picked 28 years. I thought you were serious but it seems you are no better than AL Gore.
Just for the record, I built my own solar house in 1982, I don't drive a SUV and never will. I also grow organic crops to sell locally. I will match my carbon footprint against any tree hugger you care to mention.
I also possess several advanced college degrees and while that does not make me smarter than anyone else it did teach me to be skeptical of wild claims supported by carefully selected data.
Rant over. :sick:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
It barely hit 70 the last week here, it's in the 50's at night, and it rains everyday. We're in a definite period of GC (cooling).
Climate Change Science Program Issues Report On Climate Models (Science Daily)
The spin versions:
Humans cause climate change, US body accepts (New Scientist)
Climate change computer models are limited (FCW.com)
(iluvmysephia1 - New Scientist also is reporting that the Yellowstone supervolcano may be cooling).
New scientist don't care if the studies do not give solid evidence, their mind is made up and we are the cause. As soon as we get rid of Bush we start collecting the big bucks.
FCW, seems happy to accept the Science Daily findings that a lot more evidence is needed to make any rash moves.
At least that is what I got from the three articles. Much of it is over my head. All I know is I ain't movin into a cave and becoming a hunter gatherer so Al Gore can afford to run his GulfStream, boat, limos and jet skis.
Interesting general interest story from someone in the field in today's Anchorage paper.
"It's futile to engage polar researchers like him on whether the planet is warming naturally or if mankind is to blame. You might as well challenge these biologists on evolution."
Scientists dig into Alaska tundra's effect on warming
Two problems with that article:
1) They state that the area in question has been frozen for "tens of thousands of years". How do they know that? Were they there? Maybe prior to the road being built nearby the area thawed and re-froze dozens of times.
2) They reference the warming trend against temps of the 1970s which were some of the coolest years recently. This is typical of the dishonest agenda-driven people who promote GW.
I might be able to pick a period of warm years that would make the current trends in the area look like there was cooling going on.
More bad science promoted by bad journalists.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
In reality, it's not cherry picking at all. It's called "using the most current RELEVANT data." I've said that before, so let me repeat so that it might sink in.
It did not matter what the weather was 3000 years ago. What matters is the CURRENT TREND and where it is taking us.
That's not cherry picking AT ALL.
Like all scientifically tracked trendlines, the most CURRENT trend when you are trying to solve a problem is the one which should garner the most attention.
If current trends did not matter, there would be ZERO Global Warming discussion. The trend is at the core of what began the whole debate.
You won't be laughing in 20 years if we don't get a handle on what's causing the warming.
Are you able to prove that statement? Do you have a link that's to a valid source?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Take a step back! Take a look at a proportionally correct cross section of the earth. You will see the the earth crust is only 15 to 50 miles thick. To the center of the earth it is another ~4,000 miles. This approximates about the skin of an apple with the significant distinction that we (our little dirt crust) is floating on a fire ball traveling a gazillion miles every hour, held together by nothing more than a little gravity. To me it is a miracle that we are enjoying the level of climatic stability we have, save for the occasional super volcano eruption that will set you back a ~2,000,000 or the occasional meteorite impact to throw us for another trajectory and skews the axis of rotation..... ....and somehow life always seems to be coming back.
If anyone thinks that our farts will change anything they should be checked in for delusions of grandeur!!!!
"Global Warming means that EVERY single location on Earf will be warmer this year than last year. And that EVERY year after this one will be hotter than the last one."
Which of you folks here believe that to be true?
I used the term "cherry picking" ONCE in response to a specific set of data you chose to use to ignore a much more comprehensive set of data posted by someone else.
I think you may be confusing me with Tidster and several others who have used that term several dozen times to refute your arguments.
While I am honored that you confuse me with Tidster I'm afraid my command of the facts is not nearly on a par with his. Therefore may I suggest you direct your vitriol towards him.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Thanks for the clarification though.
Also he can't seem to remember who his antagonists are so he lumps us all together. I think he has picked too many cherries....
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Never even seen a cherry tree either.
I'm asking the question to disprove a point which seems to be something that the people arguing with me like to ATTEMPT to make.
Once I get an answer I can hammer home how wrong you certain people have been with your certain posts.
Anyone willing to answer, or are you fearful of allowing me to make my point at your expense?
But it'd be interesting to see if a weather chart for a year corresponded to a eon long climate chart.
Start spelling "Earf" properly and I may answer your question. :sick:
LOL... good luck then with your "poll". :shades: