Global Warming Thread VIII

[David Flick]

[Jim]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[Jim]

[Jim]

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[Ed Edwards]

Kenneth P. Green (the pointer is in the last post) has an interesting opinion. But it is just an opinion. Opinions are good, I have two or three myself

[David Flick]

[David Flick]

.
.I'm continuing to collect internet articles that mention global warming "tipping points." When I began documenting these articles a year & a half ago (January, 2009), articles were being written at the rate about 30 per week. After the breaking of Climategate (November, 2009) interest in AGW tipping points dropped off to a mere trickle. Hardly anyone is writing articles now. Currently I'm locating about 2-5 articles per week. Many of the recent articles are being written by skeptic authors. Although it was written in the middle of February,
.
.
.

[David Flick]

[Jim]

Non-reading (translated ignorance) has become the accepted modus operandi within the government, as well. Nobody in Congress had read the stimulus bill but passed it anyway. Even Speaker Pelosi said we wouldn’t know what was in the healthcare bill until it was passed…she hadn’t read it apparently (nor had most Congresspersons). The House passed cap/trade without its members having read the bill, which wasn’t even finished until the night before passage. The president and attorney general castigated the Arizona Immigration bill admittedly without having bothered to read it. The prez accused policemen of acting stupidly without ever bothering to discover (translated read) the facts. It’s obvious that lawmakers (at least in the House) haven’t bothered to read what knowledgeable military leaders have said regarding the DADT policy. It’s obvious that the president has read virtually nothing that this country’s top climatologists have said about global warming. Neither have perhaps the majority of Congresspersons (including in the House), but there may yet be hope for them, though they won’t have time in an election year. And so it goes, government via ignorance.

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

Since when did "Ancient" mean 2008.

If you think Climategate changed many climatologist's minds, it is up to you to prove that point; not just make yet another argument based on your assessment of an article being "alarmist" (your points 1 &3) or claim a notion is "bogus" (point 2). Investigations have said there is no compromise in the thermometer data of near surface temps and besides it is confirmed by 2 indepenednt sets of satellite data at about +0.13 deg/decade rise.

And btw only the public's view was a Gallup poll (the survey of 3146 scientists was conducted by Doran/Zimmerman).

Let's wait to see Hulme's newest book (and the context around that quote) instead of quoting an article about it by a clearly denialist source. Denialists work on planting seeds of doubt and usually do not produce data to make their points. Merely saying there are only a few dozen scientists developed this "concensus of AGW" is quite frankly disproved by the 2008 data I gave above as well as the many diverse skills that agreed with the IPCC reports in 2001, 2007.

Since July 2009 and DATA shows increased near surface air temps (about 0.2-0.3C higher than the highest years ever - 1998 or 2005). . Or look at the ground temp measurements data . Read instructions at both sites.

I look at DATA not rhetoric.

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[KeithE]

[Ed Edwards]

Consider the following source titled: Experto Crede: Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... S_20100624

Personally I read a 1954 book about climate (Climateology - came across it used in 1974) and a 2085 book about Geology (Geology - bought a reprint in 2005). I also took a Stats course in College (after Integral Calculus in 1969) and a have some training on testing stats (1986-1998): how to collect data, how to read data, etc.

[Ed Edwards]

[Ed Edwards]