The Sun affects our weather??? Oh Noooooo!

[Weird]

http://energysolutionswecanbelievein.blogspot.com/


Climate Change and Disinformation
Are you confused about global warming? Are you a skeptic? Chances are that you have read or heard stories in the media about the number of skeptical scientists. Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) has stood up on the senate floor with a list of over 400 "prominent scientists" who were skeptical of the theory of man made global warming, or anthropogenic global warming(AGW). Or maybe you read the article in the Wall St. Journal with headlines declaring "Science Has Spoken, Global Warming is a Myth." You may have heard of "scientific conferences", like the one held in New York where hundreds of skeptical scientists met. Recently, the no. 2 executive at GM claimed to know of 32,000 "leading scientists" who don't believe in the AGW theory.

Sounds like convincing evidence that there really is no scientific consensus on global warming, doesn't it? Well it may sound that way, until you read between the lines.

 

[Weird]

Here's what physicist Dr. Joseph Romm says about Senator Inhofe's list.




As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus. But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does 'think global warming is real'). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea. What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant

from The Cold Truth about Climate Change by Joseph Romm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html

Senator Inhofe's list of 413 skeptics included:
20 economists
49 who are retired
44 television weathermen
70 scientists with no expertise in climate study
84 scientists who are either connected with the oil industry or are paid by it.
Scientists who were included against their will, and who agree with the IPCC

Inhofe and Morano misinterpreted a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters. It should be pointed out that Morano is no more a scientist than Senator Inhofe. More on Morano below.
They claimed that it showed proof that the sun was responsible for the warming that's been observed in the last 100 years. The paper they quote says exactly the opposite from what they claim. This has been verified by the author of the paper.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/...antly-correlated-with-temperature-since-1850/


note:
The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, founded in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

 

[Weird]

As for the new claim of 32,000 leading scientists who are skeptics, its basically an extended version of the Oregon Petition, and just as padded. Lets see how their numbers compare with the general population of scientists, using their own parameters for inclusion.

Total number of scientists in the United States 12,944,000
Number of scientists who signed the Oregon petition 31,486 or 0.24% of the total

Thats right, the Oregon Petition signers are less than one quarter of one percent of the number of scientists in the U.S., which isn't much to brag about. Maybe 150 are actually climate scientists. which is 0.3% of the 50,000 members of the AGU in Europe and the U.S.,

Scrutinizing the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project

http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html

 

[Weird]

The following scientific organizations support the findings of the IPCC. The reason I list the National Academy of Sciences first, is because they are like the Supreme Court of science in America. They decide what is real science and what is junk science.


National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)

NASA

Woods Hole Resesarch Center

US Geological Survey (USGS)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

American Association of State Climatologists

Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 (the study authorized by the Bush administration, and then Edited by a Petroleum Institute lawyer under the Bush administration, to water it down)

American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)

Geological Society of America

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

American Association of State Climatologists

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

American Astronomical Society

American Institute of Physics

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - (The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization)

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Royal Society, United Kingdom

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society of Canada

Science Council of Japan

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Brazilian Academy of Sciences

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

French Academy of Sciences

German Academy of Natural Scientists

Indian National Science Academy

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Union of Concerned Scientists

The Institution of Engineers Australia

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

National Research Council

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences

World Meteorological Organization

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

International Council on Science

American Physical Society (APS)

Australian Institute of Physics (AIP

European Physical Society

European Science Foundation

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS

Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN)

Network of African Science Academies

International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS

European Academy of Sciences and Arts

InterAcademy Council (IAC)

International Arctic Science Committee

Arctic Council

European Federation of Geologists (EFG)

European Geosciences Union (EGU)

Geological Society of Australia

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

American Quaternary Association (AMQUA

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians (AAWV

American Society for Microbiology

Institute of Biology (UK)

Society of American Foresters (SAF


Deniers would have you believe that somehow all these organizations and the thousands of scientists from 120 countries, who have been doing the research for 20 years, and over 30 years for some, are all scamming you in some dark conspiracy. Wow, and they call the scientists alarmists!


And here is the list of professional scientific organizations that don't agree with the IPCC.


American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

Canadian Association of Petroleum Geologists (CAPG)

That is the whole list.

 

[Weird]

i could keep on posting excepts from that one blog but I think you get the point

Grape & bilko -- since the consensus only counts on the references you make ill disregard it on your behalf before you even attempt to read it

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Wheres that Al Gore? Lemme at him!

.

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

Wow Wierd!
I spent my weekend golfing, throwing darts, having a cookout and getting laid.
Looks like you spent yours on the intraweb.
/Golf Clap/

Anyone who defends the IPCC and it's proven misrepresentation of climate data is themselves a fraud.
Are you suggesting they didn't misrepresent the data to come to their predisposed conclusion?
I'll prove you differently, and bet you 10:1 on that.
Man the fuck up Internet Tough Guy.


Edit. Oh no, the housewife engineer and /gasp/ petroleum geologist who were trained in using the scientific method are frauds, but the sociologists, economists, lawyers, full time activists and web site designers on the IPCC panel are reputable.

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal-thyself.html

Gimme a break.

 

[D4sh3y]

let me just be the first to say this thread is ass and reeks of shameless ignorant rage.

 

[grapeman]

Warming projections? Not so much, not so fast, not so accurate.

Weird - feel free to download the full paper. LOL

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-calculate-0-66°ccentury-for-agw/

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Why are you laughing, grape? The 'study' is a day old. If there's 32,000 climatologist deniers, why did only two men sign it? Don't they have peer review?

 

[grapeman]

Here's what physicist Dr. Joseph Romm says about Senator Inhofe's list.




As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus. But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does 'think global warming is real'). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea. What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant

from The Cold Truth about Climate Change by Joseph Romm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html

Senator Inhofe's list of 413 skeptics included:
20 economists
49 who are retired
44 television weathermen
70 scientists with no expertise in climate study
84 scientists who are either connected with the oil industry or are paid by it.
Scientists who were included against their will, and who agree with the IPCC

Inhofe and Morano misinterpreted a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters. It should be pointed out that Morano is no more a scientist than Senator Inhofe. More on Morano below.
They claimed that it showed proof that the sun was responsible for the warming that's been observed in the last 100 years. The paper they quote says exactly the opposite from what they claim. This has been verified by the author of the paper.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/...antly-correlated-with-temperature-since-1850/


note:
The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, founded in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Instead of cheering for your miss-informed and dangerous "home team", why don't you respond directly to the ORIGINAL POST and the scientific paper that began this discussion. Dragging up already dis-credited citations and faux-scientists is boring and laughable.

 

[grapeman]

http://energysolutionswecanbelievein.blogspot.com/


Climate Change and Disinformation
Are you confused about global warming? Are you a skeptic?

Not confused. I am positively skeptical and I'm positive that what you call "consensus science" is NOT science at all. Grow up and read.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/...ic-global-warming-agw-based-on-false-science/

http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html

 

[KSP]

Second!

Second!

let me just be the first to say this thread is ass and reeks of shameless ignorant rage.

Let me be the second.

 

[Weird]

Wow Wierd!
I spent my weekend golfing, throwing darts, having a cookout and getting laid.
Looks like you spent yours on the intraweb.
/Golf Clap/

i goggled a blog post that gave me that info in less than the 5 minutes it took you to Google your 32,00 list

glad to see your ego got you so warped your going to try to attack my real life persona

lol wow

Anyone who defends the IPCC and it's proven misrepresentation of climate data is themselves a fraud.
Are you suggesting they didn't misrepresent the data to come to their predisposed conclusion?
I'll prove you differently, and bet you 10:1 on that.
Man the fuck up Internet Tough Guy.

how did this go from scientific consensus to cause ?

im not arguing cause im arguing global scientific consensus and the difference in AFFECT vs EFFECT

OHH WAIT, you haven't even proved the first bet (that your "petitioned signers" were actually more than 10 percent of the scientific community as a whole) instead you cried TOU over when I called you on your hand and your faulty logic

now your little man ego is soooo crushed that your head is spinning off in all directions

if you cant keep on topic go back toe he bridge you crawled out from under

none of you denial genius can argue the truth so you skirt around it and attack the intangible difference

its common tactics for common thinkers

Edit. Oh no, the housewife engineer and /gasp/ petroleum geologist who were trained in using the scientific method are frauds, but the sociologists, economists, lawyers, full time activists and web site designers on the IPCC panel are reputable.

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal-thyself.html

Gimme a break.

as illustrated in that blog, by the statements the academy and bodies I referenced STILL SUPPORT the ipcc report was discussed fully and is one of many indices used to determine that the warming trend is man induced

but if your not able to figure it out on your own and your going to use other peoples observations then i think consensus is important
and if you want to drop name and degree of scientist of list groups of scientists with current standings on global warming ill still give you 2-1 on your money.price.ego and ill post 10 for your every 1

but seriously doesn't take a genius to realize the global eco-system is not a supernatural limitless thing as big and mysterious as the whole of the universe

there are plenty of proofs of the cause and effect of warming and acceleration there of in conjunction with the industrial revolution

but please, enlighten me since you and grape are so sure WEATHER EFFECTS GLOBAL WARMING opposed to AFFECTING IT as the article states

and that is the argument that had you drop your unscrupulous list you and grape NEVER addressed the original statement

i mean you went on every other fucking tangent but whatever i have prepubescent children so im used to the argument you present

you know the cumulative EFFECT from various AFFECTS doesn't mean the weather causes is the complete cause of global warming

IN FACT if you really possessed any cognitive reasoning you would realize logically since weather has existed since our known existence it is a constant and therefore a null variable in the analysis

OHH NO WEATHER HAS ALWAYS AFFECTED THE WORLD EVEN BEFORE WE STARTED WARMING HE SHIT OUT OF IT!!!

in fact the weather is one of the indices used to gauge warming
maybe i should stop i wouldn't want to get smarter than a 5th grader and cock block anyone from honing some common sense

 

[Weird]

Instead of cheering for your miss-informed and dangerous "home team", why don't you respond directly to the ORIGINAL POST and the scientific paper that began this discussion. Dragging up already dis-credited citations and faux-scientists is boring and laughable.

i did

i told you that AFFECT doesnt mean EFFECT and that the inflation of the proof. your "OHH I GOT HE PROOF RIGHT HERE !!!!" is really proof of your fanatical thought process

surely enough, you never got back to me on that but you sure as shit dropped a magic petition list

im sure you never researched the subject outside some content driven searches on Google which of course are analytically weighted by your last searches and your visits to conspiracy themed wed content

listen it doesn't have to be money it can be a fat seed donation to IC mag what ever you want it to be

list the names of people and correlation degree who can be referenced without bias (almost anyone on record of repute will publicly have associations with many of the bodies and academies listed ) and i will match them 10 - 1 and cover your wager 2 - 1

if skepticism is really your tool then its done by healthy comparison of raw data and if that raw data is the consensus of a community then it can surely be qualified

if its born of paranoia you maintain the same behavior as usual because there will never be anything to negate your skepticism its strictly neurons firing in the off in same part of your brain regardless of the stimulation it receives

since you have no solution to the problems you see, just alarmist, conflictual rhetoric

same shit different thread

you can't deal with your paranoia so you look to spread it like a disease

if you don't understand the cause effect and motivations of your actions you really need to sit down and reflect what the fuck your all about

 

[greenmatter]

YO ... gentlemen ...FYI you aint gonna solve this debate in my or your lifetime ..... so what is the point?

FWIW i think you guys just like to spank each other but thats just MHO and shit.....

 

[grapeman]

i did

i told you that AFFECT doesnt mean EFFECT

You're not so smart.

When Should You Use Affect?

Affect with an a means "to influence," as in, "The arrows affected Ardvark," or "The rain affected Amy's hairdo." Affect can also mean, roughly, "to act in a way that you don't feel," as in, "She affected an air of superiority."

When Should You UseEffect?

Effect with an e has a lot of subtle meanings as a noun, but to me the meaning "a result" seems to be at the core of all the definitions. For example, you can say, "The effect was eye-popping," or "The sound effects were amazing," or "The rain had no effect on Amy's hairdo."

Since cosmic rays have an absolute influence on our weather, but is NOT included as a factor in any IPCC or other flawed study that you worship, the use of "affect" is correct.

Now back to why you still haven't addressed the OP and why you worship flawed studies.......

 

[grapeman]

i did

i told you that AFFECT doesnt mean EFFECT and that the inflation of the proof. your "OHH I GOT HE PROOF RIGHT HERE !!!!" is really proof of your fanatical thought process

Wrong. Since cosmic radiation DOES AFFECT our weather and said cosmic radiation is increasing due to a weakening magnetic sphere around our earth, the proof contained herein is that ALL the studies put forth by the AWG crowd are FLAWED, since they all ignore cosmic radiation effects. They are ALL missing a very important variable in their made up analysis and conclusions.

BTW - I just read a study that goats cause the same tree ring anomalies that Mann's study claimed was caused by climate change. And guess what, they found heavy amounts of fossilized goat dung in that same forest. Imagine that.

Did you even go to high school?

 

[Scout]

Are not most of these climate studies flawed on some level? Who the hell knows exactly how everything is connected and the various cause and effects amongst all the parts. But since the neocons/libs tell us through their various media filters we are blameless, let us continue on with our global gluttony and retardation. We must 'fulfill the Book'.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

IMO, attempting to absolutely prove that man's contribution to climate change doesn't exist is the skeptic's weakest argument.

97% of the scientific community only forecasts conditions we've yet to see while skeptics say 100% bunk (while conditions worsen faster than otherwise predicted.)

The super-majority of the scientific community has honed their estimates through peer review while (individual) skeptics say bunk. Even the infant study that Grape recently referenced had no less than 11,000 blog-site postings in less than 24 hours.

I wonder if grapeman settles for the result first, then considers the details. Otherwise, he'd recognize the fact that 97% of the global scientific community doesn't release individual studies with all the fanfare of a ticker tape parade. 97% of the global scientific community releases their post-reviewed information via scientific publications, not a small army of blogs.