Thread: Climate Change Info from an IPCC Scientist

[QUOTE=TexasBob;513456]Ya got me there! It's RIGHT WING! I wish I'd noticed that and not made such a fool of myself. I'll go hunt down some anti-American, anti-free-market, anti-capitalist source for a more balanced view.

Well, here's where you lose me. Not going to waste my time if your retort is nothing more than we should believe industry funded sources of "scientific inquiry" and those who don't are pinko commies.

Have a nice holiday.

[QUOTE=59caddy;513462]

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

so by using your standard, we can safely assert that ANYTHING that comes from any organization that is even remotely associated with any one or person that is right wing or knows someone who might be right wing, or has even read anything slightly right wing are idiots and have an agenda that cannot be believed. we should just all fall down at the altar of "left wing zealots" and thank them for saving our meager, miserable, hate filled, climate destroying lives....NOT!!!

Not at all. Not an issue of right wing vs left wing. It's an issue of whether an organization whose seed money/funding comes from the oil industry is credible when it comes to issues that impact the oil industry. Maybe you see this differently, but I tend to question the objectivity of that kind of arrangement. We all saw the sham of the tobacco industry funded scientists whose mission was nothing other than to obfuscate the findings of those who were conducting objective medical research. If you read up on who serves on the organization cited in the OP, you'll see what I mean.
There are numerous credible scientists who question the assumptions underlying AGW-these folks just aren't part of that crowd.

[QUOTE=billyjeff2;513471]

Originally Posted by 59caddy

Not at all. Not an issue of right wing vs left wing. It's an issue of whether an organization whose seed money/funding comes from the oil industry is credible when it comes to issues that impact the oil industry. Maybe you see this differently, but I tend to question the objectivity of that kind of arrangement. We all saw the sham of the tobacco industry funded scientists whose mission was nothing other than to obfuscate the findings of those who were conducting objective medical research. If you read up on who serves on the organization cited in the OP, you'll see what I mean.
There are numerous credible scientists who question the assumptions underlying AGW-these folks just aren't part of that crowd.

answer the question about why mid evil warming is left out of the "theories"
and also why you ignored my response when you asked if there was another period of warming and i pointed out the mid evil period??????
what about the sham of al "forest gump" gore and his crowd ignoring facts and refusing to answer scientific questions when posed to them??? it is always the same answer "we have already covered this science material at an earlier date" never wanting to discuss new evidence or explain why they leave out data or just plain ignore the data. if there was some type of forum and debate with them, it would possibly give some credence to their side. NO they call others "discredited" "right winged fools" "no credentials on this subject" when we all know that al gore has great "credentials" on absolutely nothing...NOTHING...i am from the same state as he is...he is a disgrace here and a complete embarrassment to the most of the population of the great state of Tennessee....

Oh WOW, look! A cow. I bet you can't swallow the whole thing. I'll bet you.

[QUOTE=59caddy;513476]

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

"answer the question about why mid evil warming is left out of the "theories"

The medieval warming period is not "ignored". Not sure what your source is for that statement. Can you cite me an example of what you're referring to?

and also why you ignored my response when you asked if there was another period of warming and i pointed out the mid evil period?????? "

vI'm not ignoring anything. I'm not claiming (and I don't know of any credible climatologist who claims) there was never a period referred to as MGW. But what is your point? That because there was an earlier period of warming, this means the current period of warming can't be explained with reference to man mande greenhouse gases since those gases did not exist during an earlier warming period? If that's what you're trying to argue, I think you may be missing the point, since that would seem to imply that, in theory, since there were prior instances of warming that couldn't have been caused by man made GHG, it is impossible for man made GHS to be the explanation for the current warming trend. Perhaps you are trying to make a different point that I am not understanding, however.

what about the sham of al "forest gump" gore and his crowd ignoring facts and refusing to answer scientific questions when posed to them??? it is always the same answer "we have already covered this science material at an earlier date" never wanting to discuss new evidence or explain why they leave out data or just plain ignore the data. if there was some type of forum and debate with them, it would possibly give some credence to their side. NO they call others "discredited" "right winged fools" "no credentials on this subject" when we all know that al gore has great "credentials" on absolutely nothing...NOTHING...i am from the same state as he is...he is a disgrace here and a complete embarrassment to the most of the population of the great state of Tennessee....

I do not consider Al Gore to be the person someone who interested in the science underlying the AGW discussion should focus on, just like I don't think Sen Inhofe is the person one should look to in terms of the arguments against AGW. Neither are climatologists.

[QUOTE=billyjeff2;513489]

Originally Posted by 59caddy

I do not consider Al Gore to be the person someone who interested in the science underlying the AGW discussion should focus on, just like I don't think Sen Inhofe is the person one should look to in terms of the arguments against AGW. Neither are climatologists.

Hmm. Something I might be in agreement with. Who do you consider to be a reliable source?

I'm kind of partial to these guys: Global Warming Petition Project

[QUOTE=TexasBob;513493]

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Hmm. Something I might be in agreement with. Who do you consider to be a reliable source?

I'm kind of partial to these guys: Global Warming Petition Project

I think you and I have different ideas of what constitutes a "reliable source"...I tend to gravitate to the scientists who practice in the fields of climatology or meteorology. There are pro and con within that group. The petition signers you referred to are not confined to those who practice in those fields. I don't much care if a biologist or a chemist agrees or disagrees with his or her colleagues whose study actually pertains to the science in question.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

I think you and I have different ideas of what constitutes a "reliable source"...I tend to gravitate to the scientists who practice in the fields of climatology or meteorology. There are pro and con within that group. The petition signers you referred to are not confined to those who practice in those fields. I don't much care if a biologist or a chemist agrees or disagrees with his or her colleagues whose study actually pertains to the science in question.

Well you didn't answer my question. Anyway, please read this page: Global Warming Petition Project -- Qualifications of Signers

Partial Quote re numbers of signers in various disciplines:

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,804)
1. Atmosphere (579)

I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)

2. Earth (2,239)

I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,683)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)

3. Environment (986)

I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)

[QUOTE=billyjeff2;513489]

Originally Posted by 59caddy

I do not consider Al Gore to be the person someone who interested in the science underlying the AGW discussion should focus on, just like I don't think Sen Inhofe is the person one should look to in terms of the arguments against AGW. Neither are climatologists.

well then...shut him up, along with all his companies he has earned millions of dollars from and all his spokesmen and their "scare tactics" advertising. he is the most outspoken person and he is also the money hungriest, fear mongering, soon to be multi billionaire(from climate change rules if enacted) that there is.
along with shutting him up, debate the topic of what proposed changes will do to this nations economy along with rising unemployment and the effects with all other countries. (please, notice that china is the only country with an "out" if there is ANY change for the worse in their economic condition)

This topic is too complex and important to ignore any bias.
What I do know from working around some of the computers
and computer scientists involved in this is that it is a complex
and difficult problem.

This complexity invites agenda driven research but agenda driven
research can still be high quality.

I know that as elections draw near I pick up news papers with
a wide range of bias on the assumption that the truth is some
place in the middle. Relying on information even from my own
personal bias is not sufficient.

Do charge your government to work and think globally on
the research and science of this issue. Hand written letters
well crafted and to the point do get attention.

What we do know is that this earth is a "shared commons" and
much research has been done on the issues of a "shared commons"
and the bad things that happen when the demand is larger than
the natural capacity.