Re: Breaking News (Was Re: Religious right and global warming)

On Sep 18, 11:59 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:51 pm, Arkalen <skiz...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Sep 18, 10:04 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 18, 3:48 pm, Ken Denny <k...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 18, 2:44 pm, UC <uraniumcommitteechair...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 18, 1:37 pm, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:47:09 -0000,

Arkalen <skiz...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 17, 3:28 pm, b...@xxxxxxxxx (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
In article <uranium-1190034505.485518.247...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 16, 6:03 pm, "louan...@xxxxxxxxx" <louan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 16, 4:19 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 16, 11:33 am, George Cleveland <georgeclevel...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The breaking news is that this year has the least amount of arctic ice
*ever* seen plus the difference between this year and the previous
record set in 2005 is a full 25% less, 4M sq mi. in 2005 vs. 3M sq mi.
in 2007.

Even if that were true, that does not make "global warming" true.

You've discovered a mechanism other than adding heat which melts ice
into water? Nifty. Tell us more.

No, even if measurements of CO2 increase, that does not make global
warming true.

Those who would like to know how we know that CO2 has increased,
and how we know that it is due to human activity, should take
a look athttp://www.radix.net/%7Ebobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
It's old at this point, but, then, the discovery is even older.

--
Robert Grumbinehttp://www.radix.net/~bobg/Sciencefaqsandamateuractivitiesnotesand links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Has UC demonstrated consistent global-warming-denying behavior
before ? Because half the time I think he must be Lokiying to annoy
us, and this is one of those times.

He's just a professional contrarian. He thinks saying the opposite of
everyone else (ie. Archy isn't a bird) makes him smart.

He's talking out of his ass. He doesn't know jack-*** about climate
change.

The climate changes all the time, or should we say the weather changes
all the time. The question before us is: how good is the science here?
It is a mistake to lump together right-wing conservatives, evangelical
Christians, and plain ol' skeptics (the latter describes me).

What are you skeptical about? That the climate is changing or that
humans are responsible?

Both.

I would say that the climate changing and getting warmer is pretty
well proven,

Not at all.

but if that's what you're skeptical about, let's make a
wager. Let someone who doesn't know how they are going to be used pick
100 random locations and dates (just month and day, no year). Then we
will look up the record high and low temperatures for those dates in
those locations and when they occurred.

The question: how reliable and accurate are those data? It is naïve in
the extreme to believe that we have data sufficient in accuracy or
comprehensiveness to make this claim. I don't buy it.

Yet all those climate scientists are naïve enough to buy it. Obviously
they should all be fired to the last one.

This looks interesting:

http://influencepeddler.blogspot.com/2007/08/only-45-of-climate-scien...

Yeah, interesting how the blogger took an article that was mainly
about this :

"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit
endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement
(accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises
to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus
outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to
either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus.""
with "consensus" "defined as humans were having at least some effect
on global climate change."

and titled his post "Only 45% of climate scientists accept "global
warming consensus"".

"Articles" and "Scientists" are not the same thing. For one thing in
an article you'll be more likely to hedge your bets than when
answering the direct question "do you accept the consensus on global
warming". For another, I'd like to see one of those articles that were
"neutral" about humans having a role in global warming. How much are
we gonna bet that human influence on climate was totally not the
subject of the paper and this is why it didn't talk about it ?


.