This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

What some of the world's leading climatologists really think

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Long, but worth the time

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/

View user profile
The right-wingers will tell us this so-called "scientist" is nothing but a liar and a fraud and he's saying all this ONLY because he knows it will get him some university or government funding.

Well here's the deal about that. If a "scientist" is willing to go to these lengths of lying and bullshit just because he's a whore and wants to make money from it, then we are absolutely fucked. That means science is no better than religion, just a big money making scheme. And if you can't believe anybody in this area of science then how can you believe any of the rest. That also means that medical science and all other science is nothing but a fraudulent money making scheme.
I repeat, if what the right-wingers are saying about people like this is true, then we are totally fucked.

View user profile

Guest


Guest
The science I learned formulated a hypothesis... built a model to test the idea... then plugged in the data to test the theory. If the model failed to confirm the hypothesis then the theory and model are questioned. I've never seen the data tortured to fit a model and theory that I can think of... except for maybe the flat earth, tobacco, and now global warming.

That article is full of fearmongering. If the climate change movement was not so intertwined with politics I would give it more due. Climate change fanatics crave political power, and they don't just want it on a country-by-country basis, they want it for the world--meaning, they want to rule the world. I can only imagine what they will legislate if they get that opportunity.

View user profile http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I would give it more due.

You don't have to give it any due.

It's happening in real time right in front of your face.

Canada and Alaska are burning as we speak.

There's no debate about why this is happening.

In ten years, there will be no more deniers because it will be impossible to deny.

I just wonder what the deniers will tell their grandchildren.

Will they deny that they were deniers?

View user profile

Guest


Guest
If the next ten years are so significant... why weren't the last twenty? There was no increase in temperature outside of the statistical margin of error until they tortured the data enough to create one. Lol... that's some good shit alright.

PkrBum wrote:If the next ten years are so significant... why weren't the last twenty?

Because it's accelerating even faster than predicted.

There was no increase in temperature outside of the statistical margin of error until they tortured the data enough to create one. Lol... that's some good shit alright.

No, that's some bullshit.

That is only true of you don't measure the oceans which cover 71% of the Earth's surface.

You want to be a denier, that's your prerogative.

The debate is settled, and each passing year will make it more clear that you were on the wrong side of history ...

... once again.

View user profile
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:That article is full of fearmongering. If the climate change movement was not so intertwined with politics I would give it more due. Climate change fanatics crave political power, and they don't just want it on a country-by-country basis, they want it for the world--meaning, they want to rule the world. I can only imagine what they will legislate if they get that opportunity.

It is intertwined with politics, but not for the reasons you think. Scientific consensus should never be a political issue

http://www.livescience.com/22069-polarization-climate-science.html

View user profile
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/timeline-the-politics-of-climate-change/

View user profile
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:That article is full of fearmongering. If the climate change movement was not so intertwined with politics I would give it more due. Climate change fanatics crave political power, and they don't just want it on a country-by-country basis, they want it for the world--meaning, they want to rule the world. I can only imagine what they will legislate if they get that opportunity.

If 97% of scientists are letting politics control their scientific research, then how can anyone put any credibility in science anymore. Science, like so many of our institutions, will then have morphed into nothing but just another whore getting paid to fuck us.
If I believe what you believe, it follows that I can no longer trust anything that calls itself science. Because it will then be likely that 97% of scientists in any discipline are liars and frauds just like the ones in climate change.

View user profile
Sal wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I would give it more due.

You don't have to give it any due.

It's happening in real time right in front of your face.

Canada and Alaska are burning as we speak.

There's no debate about why this is happening.

In ten years, there will be no more deniers because it will be impossible to deny.

I just wonder what the deniers will tell their grandchildren.

Will they deny that they were deniers?

What some of the world's leading climatologists really think AnimatedLaughterPink

View user profile
Markle wrote:

What some of the world's leading climatologists really think AnimatedLaughterPink

Yea when 97% of science has now been determined to be nothing but a load of utter horseshit, I guess laughing like a hyena is all we can do.

View user profile
What some of the world's leading climatologists really think 52d222e9

View user profile
TEOTWAWKI wrote:What some of the world's leading climatologists really think 52d222e9

But see, if 97% of these scientists are now nothing but charlatans, there is no bunker to hide in that will save us from that. Because the actual science we once had played a role in EVERYTHING in our lives. Including how bunkers are designed. So if climate change is all bullshit, then so are the bunkers.
So is everything. Game Over. Nowhere to run. Nowhere to hide. Not when our version of what's masquerading as science has now become no better than the Jim and Tammy and Jimmy Swaggart version of religion.

View user profile

Guest


Guest
TEOTWAWKI wrote:What some of the world's leading climatologists really think 52d222e9

What some of the world's leading climatologists really think Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjEJSQNwevngdmn6JmXTaJFakRVuGkTDPCQdhmd3wo8nfmXEza

I thought that said head for Budokan for a second there...

*****HeeHeeHee*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFsPO-ftbuw

Very Happy

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

View user profile

Guest


Guest
A small list of failed climate predictions:

“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss. Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.

June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.

Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

“The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’” Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”

“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012. Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth’s remaining resources. The Canadian, 8 Jan 2007

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters…A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The Guardian 22 Feb 2004

Guest


Guest
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/12/weekinreview/ideas-trends-continued-a-dire-long-range-forecast.html

May 12, 1985

As global nightmares go, the greenhouse effect has managed not to keep policy makers awake nights devising plans of action. Scientists see an assortment of theoretical catastrophes just over the horizon, but the more dire their predictions, the more difficult it seems to find an appropriate response.

A new scientific study has confirmed a swiftly changing view of what causes the greenhouse effect -heightening both the urgency of the problem and the difficulty of controlling it. The study finds that the leading role in the earth's warming belongs not to carbon dioxide, as long believed, but to an assortment of rare, mostly artificial gases, many never seen in the atmosphere before the 1960's.

That supports the view of atmospheric scientists that the world is rushing toward global climate change on a startling scale. Already the changes in the atmosphere are thought to have changed the balance of incoming and outgoing energy, holding in infrared radiation the way the glass of a greenhouse does.

Beginning in a decade or two, scientists expect the warming of the atmosphere to melt the polar icecaps, raising the level of the seas, flooding coastal areas, eroding the shores and sending salt water far into fresh-water estuaries. Storm patterns will change, drying out some areas, swamping others and generally throwing agriculture into turmoil. Federal climate experts have suggested that within a century the greenhouse effect could turn New York City into something with the climate of Daytona Beach, Fla.

But the new view of the greenhouse effect, as much as the old, highlights the difficulty of finding practical weapons against what remains an uncertain demon.

So far, the greenhouse effect has not been clearly felt. In the generations since scientists first theorized that increased carbon dioxide would alter the earth's temperature balance by trapping heat in the atmosphere, no one has been able to measure a significant warming. Scientists have explanations for that, and they believe their temperature curves will soon soar off the scale. But for now the greenhouse effect remains part of a hypothetical, if not so distant, future.

Even if officials were moved by the urgency of the problem, it would be hard to know what they should do. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated last year, for example, that a drastic 300 percent worldwide tax on fossil fuels to discourage their use - a tax conceivable in a world of scientists, if not in a world of politicians and business executives - might make a tiny difference of about five years.

So the Government waits. ''It's a creeping problem, an incremental problem, and we're very bad at dealing with incremental problems,'' says Stephen H. Schneider, a climate expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. ''There always seems to be an intermediate problem of higher value.''

Until recently, the culprit seemed to be strictly carbon dioxide, which has been increasing steadily for the last century. But the new study, to be published next month in the Journal of Geophysical Research, confirms that an even greater greenhouse effect is likely to come from 30 or more trace gases, mostly emitted by industry and agriculture. These gases are more efficient at trapping heat on its way out to space, and they are increasing much faster than carbon dioxide.

That seriously complicates the problem of finding effective controls. And it suggests to climate experts that they should be giving more credence to the high end of the most recent predictions. But those predictions have great uncertainty built in. ''Whenever you work with a climate model, you are trying to play God,'' says V. Ramanathan, one of the authors of the new study. For example, as the bright polar icecaps melt, they might reflect significantly less sunlight back out to space - and since the earth would then absorb that much more energy, the warming would be amplified. For similar reasons, big changes in temperature could come from small changes in cloud patterns, and scientists aren't sure whether the changes will warm or cool.

Eroded Beaches

In an October 1983 report, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that the sea level could rise as much as 11 feet by the end of the next century - or as little as 2 feet. It settled on 5 to 7 feet as the likely range. The higher figure would put substantial pieces of Florida and Louisiana under the waves and flood parts of some coastal cities. Even the lower figure would cut away chunks of shoreline. Experts estimate that a one-foot rise in the ocean could erode 100 to 1,000 feet of sand beach all along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts.

One certainty is that people will first feel the greenhouse effect not in slight changes but in extremes. Areas that now get severe floods once a century might get them once a decade. Temperate locales will get many more heat waves and many fewer cold snaps. In the long run, to be sure, not all the news would be bad. Plenty of places could benefit from extra warmth, and if the corn belt loses territory to the south it could gain it to the north. But in the century to come scientists expect painful dislocations. Some argue that the Government ought to be aggressive about acting, even in small ways, to buy time. One way or another, a lesson is under way in people's ability inadvertently to change the face of the planet.

''The only way to be certain is to perform the experiment on ourselves,'' says Mr. Schneider. ''For better or worse, that's what we're doing.''

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum