|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 17, 2015 21:11:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 18, 2015 9:16:10 GMT -8
There will not be much comment on this thread. First, not many on the "alarmist" side will really read the entire piece. Second, not many people will agree that there is no computer model that can take into account all the factors that have an effect on the basic question. Third, there are many like Algore that have benefited from this false idea.
I would be much more interested if we would look at manmade pollution and how that could be changing our environment. I happen to believe in being responsible while at the same time having faith that Mother Nature has a huge capacity to clean up by herself.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 20, 2015 16:02:39 GMT -8
The question reversed is more interesting. What would it take to convince alarmists that they have oversold the effects and results of burning fossil fuels?
The IPCC has reduced their projections of temperature increases in every subsequent iteration.
The IPCC has reduced their projections of sea level rise in every subsequent iteration.
So they admit now that the past projections were oversold but even though temperatures have had a zero trend for over 18 years they are sure now that they are finally correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Apr 20, 2015 17:19:11 GMT -8
The question reversed is more interesting. What would it take to convince alarmists that they have oversold the effects and results of burning fossil fuels? The IPCC has reduced their projections of temperature increases in every subsequent iteration. The IPCC has reduced their projections of sea level rise in every subsequent iteration. So they admit now that the past projections were oversold but even though temperatures have had a zero trend for over 18 years they are sure now that they are finally correct. NASA disagrees with you, but you knew that. You are the same guy that says the "Left" is artificially holding down the World's population! Hey there is still time for you to lobby for an "up zone" in your neighborhood... |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 20, 2015 18:43:00 GMT -8
The question reversed is more interesting. What would it take to convince alarmists that they have oversold the effects and results of burning fossil fuels? The IPCC has reduced their projections of temperature increases in every subsequent iteration. The IPCC has reduced their projections of sea level rise in every subsequent iteration. So they admit now that the past projections were oversold but even though temperatures have had a zero trend for over 18 years they are sure now that they are finally correct. NASA disagrees with you, but you knew that. You are the same guy that says the "Left" is artificially holding down the World's population! Hey there is still time for you to lobby for an "up zone" in your neighborhood... A lot of NASA agrees with me. James Hansen of NASA disagrees but he also thinks the world should consist of a few hundred farming communities. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Apr 20, 2015 19:30:28 GMT -8
NASA disagrees with you, but you knew that. You are the same guy that says the "Left" is artificially holding down the World's population! Hey there is still time for you to lobby for an "up zone" in your neighborhood... A lot of NASA agrees with me. James Hansen of NASA disagrees but he also thinks the world should consist of a few hundred farming communities. we don't like "a lot of". we like stats. give me the percentage of NASA scientists who agree with your 18 year statement. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 21, 2015 12:52:23 GMT -8
No one has to agree with the 18 year statement because that is the data.  That is the data from NASA. Satellite data is the most accurate because of the well documented problems with ground based measurements. This chart shows why the IPCC took so many pages trying to explain why temperatures have flatlined when every prediction had them rising with CO2. It also explains why the IPCC reduces its temperature projections in every subsequent report. Some scientists say the "pause" extends over 20 years if you adjust for the cooling effect of volcanoes in the 1990s. |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Apr 21, 2015 14:49:11 GMT -8
No one has to agree with the 18 year statement because that is the data. That is the data from NASA. Satellite data is the most accurate because of the well documented problems with ground based measurements. This chart shows why the IPCC took so many pages trying to explain why temperatures have flatlined when every prediction had them rising with CO2. It also explains why the IPCC reduces its temperature projections in every subsequent report. Some scientists say the "pause" extends over 20 years if you adjust for the cooling effect of volcanoes in the 1990s. Thought so....... |
|
