The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: World may not be warming, say scientists

  1. #11
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,094

    Default

    I'm amazed at how many of you are climate scientists and chose the RTF to pontificate.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  2. #12
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    Will Time recycle (that noble activity of man) this story?

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...944914,00.html
    Actually, you might want to look at Kukla's own later study from 1998 where he addresses the fact that while global temperatures are increasing, the effects are not uniform geographically, seasonally, or diurnally. He reviews the data in detail as compared with climate models and proposes explanations consistent with observed data, including an overall warming in global temperatures. See http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cove...b/webviewable/

    Also see http://www.nytimes.com/1981/10/19/us...pagewanted=all for Kukla's most recent work on global warming.

  3. #13
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    he is all over the place in that particular summary.

    What stood out to me amoung all the waesle words was this on page 2:

    The ultimate cause for the change in the temperature range however, still remains unknown.
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,245

    Default

    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive...mits_dutch.php

    More truth from the climate experts

  5. #15
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    he is all over the place in that particular summary.

    What stood out to me amoung all the waesle words was this on page 2:
    I provided links to both his 1998 and current work because I think they illustrate well that the road of science is not a straight line. Rather, it involves constantly challenging the data and the theories to build theoretical constructs that are more and more robust. Using snapshots taken over the history of the process to impugn the evidence is equivalent to accusing scientists of flip flopping over whether the earth is flat or more spherical.

    The theories of global warming -- which have increasingly evolved into theories of global climate change -- are not the product of a conspiracy of a group seeking to overturn our prior understanding of the world's climate. The theories come from the same people working with better data from more sources filtered through more years of focused investigation.

    The amazing thing is not the understanding that the climate is changing and that the change is a product, in part, of human activity. It is that anyone would think that we could dump so much garbage into our atmosphere without affecting world climate.

    When I was a teenager, I read a book titled "1-2-3 Infinity". It discussed the evolution of mathematics, and with that the evolution of our understanding of what was considered to be finite. We have been going through a similar process of evolution in our understanding of our environment.

    As cities and towns dumped their garbage into our rivers and oceans, they were certain that the ability of these bodies to cleanse themselves was infinite. They were wrong, as became evident only as species began to die off, fish became inedible, and waters unswimmable. With the advent of our explorations of the outer atmosphere and near space, we thought nothing of leaving our debris in orbit. After all, space was infinite. Increasingly, we must now deal with the hazards posed by this debirs both to the newer satellites we launch and to the earth as orbits deteriorate and objects reenter the atmosphere.

    In light of all we have learned about the finiteness of our environment, why would anyone think that we could continue to thoughtlessly alter the contents of our environment without impact? Why would one assume that these alterations would be benign in the absence of proof? Can we only learn through extinction?

  6. #16
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eildydar View Post
    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive...mits_dutch.php

    More truth from the climate experts
    The data wasn't invented by climate change scientists, it came from European Commission DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs.

    Although it is fun to just throw more crap against the wall.

    http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/...erlands_en.pdf

    And all the report really stated was that the Dutch are at the greatest risk regarding rising sea level.

    The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...12s12-2-3.html
    Last edited by Buzz; 02-15-2010 at 10:30 AM.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  7. #17
    Senior Member dnf777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Western Pa
    Posts
    6,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    why believe it is warming then?
    Because there is mounting evidence from apolitical scientific sources that show it is. The rate of change and the source of change is left to be answered. The rate of glacial melting and temp change is faster than any other time in earth's history, saving for Krakatoa's eruption, and I don't recall any such eruptions lately. The trick here is to figure out WHO is legit, apolitical, and trustworthy. Certainly there are many folks with chips on this table who cannot and should not be trusted. Arbitrary dismissal is reckless, as is arbitrary acceptance.
    God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!

  8. #18
    Senior Member WaterDogRem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SLC, UT
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dnf777 View Post
    Because there is mounting evidence from apolitical scientific sources that show it is. The rate of change and the source of change is left to be answered. The rate of glacial melting and temp change is faster than any other time in earth's history, saving for Krakatoa's eruption, and I don't recall any such eruptions lately. The trick here is to figure out WHO is legit, apolitical, and trustworthy. Certainly there are many folks with chips on this table who cannot and should not be trusted. Arbitrary dismissal is reckless, as is arbitrary acceptance.
    Contradicting? Just asking.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    2,888

    Default

    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

    http://tinyurl.com/ygmxtdk

    THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

    Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

    The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

    Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.

    -more-

  10. #20
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

    http://tinyurl.com/ygmxtdk

    THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

    Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

    The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

    Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.

    -more-
    A better source of what Jones said can be found in the transcript of the actual interview with the BBC, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm. I love sources such as the Daily Express, whose owner once told a Parliamentary Commission that he ran his papers "purely for the purpose of making propaganda". While the new owner, conservative Richard Desmond, has not made a similar comment, based on the litigation record he appears to have managed to lower the quality of reporting. This is a case in point, athough his story is largely lifted from other participants in the conservative blogosphere.

    As is apparent from the BBC interview, the statistical significance -- being measured at the 95% confidence level -- depends largely on the number of years included in the trend period. The question posed by the interviewer addressed a short period of time during which Jones noted that the temperature increase was 0.12 degrees centigrade per decade and that the trend came close to meeting the level of 95% confidence, but fell short and was therefore not statistically significant using that standard. He also noted that the trend was statistically significant at the 95% level if you included more years of data. Further, he noted that there was a slight decrease in temperatures during the period 2002 to present -- -0.12 degrees centigrade per decade -- but that this decrease was also statistically insignificant. On could be charitable and assume that journalists misrepresentation of his statements simply reflects their ignorance. Personally, I don't believe the reporters are that stupid. I think they are that dishonest.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •