American Meteorological Survey on Global Warming

fbrissette said:

......I'm certainly not giving up skiing.......

Click to expand...

Given that skiing or riding emits so much co2 as oppose to other winter activities, I find this remark so hypocritical from someone who believes in AGW. The Carlin ytube just about states it.

jack97 said:

Given that skiing or riding emits so much co2 as oppose to other winter activities, I find this remark so hypocritical from someone who believes in AGW.

Click to expand...

So if we believe in global warming, it is hypocritical to ski ? Are we allowed to drive a car ? How about farting ? after all methane has 21 times the warning potential of CO2...

jack97 said:

btw.... no comment on the 17 year pause ?????

Click to expand...

If you'd bother to read what I write, you'd find that I have already discussed that earlier.

btw, since you keep on saying that temperature drives CO2, how do you explain that CO2 keeps on increasing when temperature is plateauing ?

jack97 said:

...but you have to zero in on the smear.

Click to expand...

How about this: Your poster boy Roy Spencer is on the board of governor of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think-thank that receives significant funding from oil companies.

Since you enjoy misinforming and misdirecting, I think it's only fair that we're allowed to play by your rules. I'm done discussing science with you. In the mean time I'm having fun and increasing my number of posts. 77 more to get my fourth mountain !

fbrissette said:

So if we believe in global warming, it is hypocritical to ski ? Are we allowed to drive a car ? How about farting ? after all methane has 21 times the warning potential of CO2...

Click to expand...

for AGW believers, yep.... given they side with the IPCC policies that tells one how to live, it is hypocritical.

fbrissette said:

If you'd bother to read what I write, you'd find that I have already discussed that earlier.

btw, since you keep on saying that temperature drives CO2, how do you explain that CO2 keeps on increasing when temperature is plateauing ?

Click to expand...

So you admit CO2 has increased and temps have flatlined.

btw, I have already stated what I believe and what i think of scientist who forgot about cause and effect. And those who think correlation equals causality.

fbrissette said:

How about this: Your poster boy Roy Spencer is on the board of governor of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think-thank that receives significant funding from oil companies.

Click to expand...

this is the institute's charter....

The George C. Marshall Institute was established in 1984 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation to conduct technical assessments of scientific issues with an impact on public policy.
We publish reports, host roundtables, workshops and collaborate with institutions that share our interest in basing public policy on scientific facts.

As you like to put people in political ideology camps for this subject matter, I like to judge people in what they can bring to the table. Haha... Spencer has probably added more enlightenment to this global warming issue through his instrumentation process than you can ever imagine.

fbrissette said:

Since you enjoy misinforming and misdirecting, I think it's only fair that we're allowed to play by your rules. I'm done discussing science with you. In the mean time I'm having fun and increasing my number of posts. 77 more to get my fourth mountain !

Click to expand...

I have posted ytubes since it't the best way to get info out to others. Anyone who wants to weigh the significant (or lack of) of testimony to government bodies can judge themselves.

and btw.... the chaps from the IPCC you always cite are just propaganda used for political ideology. You may thinks its science but it really isn't . Most scientist have come to realized this or they will soon. The longer the IPCC makes statements like unequivoval, catastrophic change and the longer the temps stays flat... the sooner the shell game is over.

jack97 said:

So you admit CO2 has increased and temps have flatlined.

btw, I have a.

Click to expand...

??????? Nobody is denying that temperatures have plateaued. I've discussed this in an earlier post. You really have to work on your reading skills.

jack97 said:

and btw.... the chaps from the IPCC you always cite are just propaganda used for political ideology. You may thinks its science but it really isn't . Most scientist have come to realized this or they will soon. The longer the IPCC makes statements like unequivoval, catastrophic change and the longer the temps stays flat... the sooner the shell game is over.

Click to expand...

Let me see. The IPCC assessment report from group 1, which is a literature review of thousands of papers from thousands of scientists from hundreds of universities and research centers, that is written by several scientists and reviewed by dozens of others, all donating their time for free is not science.

On the other hand, the YouTube videos and website of a guy who believes in intelligent design and is on the board of directors of a think tank supported by oil companies are science.

It's a good thing we have you to show us the way.

fbrissette said:

So if we believe in global warming, it is hypocritical to ski ? Are we allowed to drive a car ? How about farting ? after all methane has 21 times the warning potential of CO2...

Click to expand...

Quite possibly yes, quite possibly no.

It all depends on how self-righteous the individual is about Global Warming.

IME, the MOST "passionate" people about this issue often, if not typically, are in fact the biggest hypocrites. And FWIW, if we're going to go down this road, he didnt touch on the biggest hypocrisy of all, which is eating meat.

If, IF, you're going to believe in this theory, you should know that human meat consumption is about the most destructive behaviour you can practice. Even worse than driving one of those gas-guzzling (*GASP*) SUVs. Thus it is written by the "Church of the IPCC". So why does almost nobody know this?

Two reasons:

1) You cannot extract money from people and corporations by getting them to not eat meat.
2) If people knew this "inconvenient truth", they'd tell the Global Warming complex to piss off.

fbrissette said:

Let me see. The IPCC assessment report from group 1, which is a literature review of thousands of papers from thousands of scientists from hundreds of universities and research centers, that is written by several scientists and reviewed by dozens of others, all donating their time for free is not science.

On the other hand, the YouTube videos and website of a guy who believes in intelligent design and is on the board of directors of a think tank supported by oil companies are science.

Click to expand...

the YTube I posted had testimony from Christy and Lindzen both were lead authors of their respective sections. If you value your sacred IPCC chapters, would it not be wise to listen to what they have said and are currently stating???

fbrissette said:

It's a good thing we have you to show us the way.

Click to expand...

lol..... I never implied wanting to lead.... but people wanting to be lead can interpret it that way. And yeah.... if someone disagrees in politics, the smear campaign begins. Haha... iirc, boxer gave Happer harder time than she did when Spencer testified, what irony!

BenedictGomez said:

IME, the MOST "passionate" people about this issue often, if not typically, are in fact the biggest hypocrites. And FWIW, if we're going to go down this road, he didnt touch on the biggest hypocrisy of all, which is eating meat.

If, IF, you're going to believe in this theory, you should know that human meat consumption is about the most destructive behaviour you can practice. Even worse than driving one of those gas-guzzling (*GASP*) SUVs. Thus it is written by the "Church of the IPCC". So why does almost nobody know this?

Two reasons:

1) You cannot extract money from people and corporations by getting them to not eat meat.
2) If people knew this "inconvenient truth", they'd tell the Global Warming complex to piss off.

Click to expand...

+1

In addition, the good church according to the single book wants to make sure the third world countries in Africa want to stay under-develop. They can use solar and wind power, yet the powers to be can still use other forms of efficient power. This will further radicalize the population against western nations..... no wonder Al Qaeda is wining their hearts and minds.

jack97 said:

the YTube I posted had testimony from Christy and Lindzen both were lead authors of their respective sections. If you value your sacred IPCC chapters, would it not be wise to listen to what they have said and are currently stating???

Click to expand...

btw.... Lindzen was the lead author for Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks in the IPCC third assessment report. Christy was the lead author in Temp Trends in the lower Atmosphere. Anyone with half a brain would want to know why they became heretics to the views of the IPCC establishment.

"it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way." -John Christy

Cannonball said:

"it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way." -John Christy

Click to expand...

haha..... you and fbrissette crack me up. That's your recant??? A cherry pick of a quote? Put it under the context of what he is saying and has been saying. Here's a post of a lecture in 2010, go to 14:48 since you don't have the time! lol..... i think he has some more remarks on polar bears and the big scandal/misdirect on that topic.

If you have the time of course.... haha




btw.... I like listening to the whole lecture or interview, that way the views or quotes are not distorted or placed in a different context. Call me strange but that's the way I roll.

Just finished up a good ski day and a nice hike. So I gave this a shot over some lunch and beer. How does this support the case you're making? He says:

4:00: “There is no doubt that carbon dioxide has gone up, I mean that’s for sure. And carbon dioxide is a thermal gas so it will cause warming”

4:30-ish: Discussing Central Valley of CA: “Because of irrigated agriculture this is now a green moist vegetated plain. That changes the climate…it’s got to have changed the climate somehow.” He then goes on to discuss how human development changes the climate. So much for your whole “humans can’t change the climate” argument.

I had trouble following the gist of the next 10 minutes where he uses extremely localized examples to say that global climate models aren’t accurate. I’m pretty sure he understands that difference between local and global, so I’m not sure where he was going with that.

19:05: Yup very well documented that Antarctic ice area has increased…..as the overall Antarctic ice mass has declined. Melting of the mass and refreezing at the edges increases ice area while being an overall net loss in ice.

19:38: just flat inaccurate. Polar bears are listed as “Threatened” by FWS. He can toss around whatever stats he likes but “threatened” is a legal term that is developed through both science and policy. I’m pretty sure he’s not a biologist so I’m not sure where he gets to make scientific claims outside of his field. And that's how the rest of the talk goes. He stops talking about climate (his field of expertise) and gets into worldwide medical issues, policy, and economics. All of which he doesn't seem anymore qualified to speak on that you or I. So at that point he's just another voice in the crowd.

So the take home for me is: When John Christy the climatologist is talking about climate science he is confident that global CO2 increase results in global temperature increases, and that other human activities also change the climate. This is pretty consisent with your original post that started the thread. Where the survey showed that the more expertise in climate science a person has they more they believe in AGW. Christy fits that description. However, when John Christy the man-on-the-street talks about public policy he thinks it's too expensive for us to work towards changes. It's a great example of science vs opinion, and how scientists are also regular people who have opinions outside of their work.

Cannonball said:

Just finished up a good ski day and a nice hike. So I gave this a shot over some lunch and beer.

Click to expand...

Cannonball said:

So the take home for me is: When John Christy the climatologist is talking about climate science he is confident that global CO2 increase results in global temperature increases, and that other human activities also change the climate.

Click to expand...

I would suggest you watch that vid again perhaps without the beer. I'll give you a hint, when he talks about negative feedback in the systems this goes against the AGW hypothesis.

One way to look at it.... in order for co2 to drive temp and have an isomorphic relationship, the co2 must amplify the temp and that can be only be done with positive feedback. This is not seen in the satellite observations, meaning co2 and temp as seen in the real world is no longer isomorphic; co2 still increases but temps have flatline. Christy has been consistent with this message from the great global warming swindle movie you have dismissed and iirc even to his latest testimony to the senate.

I'll try this again..... check out the section where he and other scientists talks about AGW's greenhouse effect and that CO2 is not a dominate factor. If it was a greenhouse effect, increases in temps would be seen in the troposphere. Observations show little change. Time mark 14:40

I don't know what to tell you man, I played your game, I watched your video. If you need to pick and choose which parts I was supposed to ignore for it to support your case, then that makes for a moving target we'll probably never hit. And this last propaganda piece that you keep pushing...seriously? This thing was so roundly denouced and discredited when it came out in 2007 that the UK even took legal action against it. You seriously consider it to be of value? I'm gonna go drink more beer now.

Cannonball said:

I don't know what to tell you man, I played your game, I watched your video. If you need to pick and choose which parts I was supposed to ignore for it to support your case, then that makes for a moving target we'll probably never hit. And this last propaganda piece that you keep pushing...seriously? This thing was so roundly denouced and discredited when it came out in 2007 that the UK even took legal action against it. You seriously consider it to be of value? I'm gonna go drink more beer now.

Click to expand...

lol.....I figure you would reply in this manner, anyone who would does a take away that Christy believes in AGW has been in the echo chamber too long.

btw... its not propaganda if it turns out to be true and observe data is supporting that vid in 2007. If you want another data point here's the vid of Christy's testimony to the senate.... in full context but no q&a. Its clear he does not believe co2 as a dominate factor. lol.... Watch it if you want to take the red pill or let it be if want the blue pill.

yet another reality check if you think Christy believes in AGW.

If we lived in a closed society, he would be burned at the stake by the church of the IPCC!