Weather Channel Founder Sets the Facts Straight

[iplaw]

quote:I fear this estimate is way, way, way too conservative.
If things continue at present pace,
the ice will be gone by 2 - 10 years.

Lemme go out on a limb and say that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up...

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

See polar ice melting isn't all bad:

quote:Tourist could open up to allow visitors Arctic cruises with cocktail parties over the North Pole that previously defied the best efforts of many explorers.

Oil companies would move in to tap resources previously protected by the ice and freight firms could use the ocean as a shortcut.

Smoking weed makes liberals paranoid.  Aox you ought to quit smoking it, it's making your carbon footprint larger and making you crazy.

You are paranoid of Aox.

Must be confused.

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:I fear this estimate is way, way, way too conservative.
If things continue at present pace,
the ice will be gone by 2 - 10 years.

Lemme go out on a limb and say that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up...

Here's some evidence:

"We have already witnessed major losses in sea ice, but our research suggests that the decrease over the next few decades could be far more dramatic than anything that has happened so far," said Professor Marika Holland who led the study.

And to quote you IP:

Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...

So you tell me, who has the evidence and who has a TV weatherman famous for doing weather standing on his head?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:I fear this estimate is way, way, way too conservative.
If things continue at present pace,
the ice will be gone by 2 - 10 years.

Lemme go out on a limb and say that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up...

Here's some evidence:

"We have already witnessed major losses in sea ice, but our research suggests that the decrease over the next few decades could be far more dramatic than anything that has happened so far," said Professor Marika Holland who led the study.

And to quote you IP:

Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...

So you tell me, who has the evidence and who has a TV weatherman famous for doing weather standing on his head?

First, the dear proferssor says "over the next decades," not 2-10 years, but I wouldn't have expected you to see that glaring detail.  And even the professor doesn't tell you WHAT is going to happen in detail, mainly because he doesn't know.

Second, there are numerous peer reviewed studies contradicting him.

Anything else?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:I fear this estimate is way, way, way too conservative.
If things continue at present pace,
the ice will be gone by 2 - 10 years.

Lemme go out on a limb and say that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up...

Here's some evidence:

"We have already witnessed major losses in sea ice, but our research suggests that the decrease over the next few decades could be far more dramatic than anything that has happened so far," said Professor Marika Holland who led the study.

And to quote you IP:

Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...

So you tell me, who has the evidence and who has a TV weatherman famous for doing weather standing on his head?

First, the dear proferssor says "over the next decades," not 2-10 years, but I wouldn't have expected you to see that glaring detail.  And even the professor doesn't tell you WHAT is going to happen in detail, mainly because he doesn't know.

Second, there are numerous peer reviewed studies contradicting him.

Anything else?

Yes, your "Frontiers of Freedom" group and their studies are paid for by Exxon-Mobile.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35

You are as bad al Altruism, you ignore mountains of scientific evidence and study because it disagrees with your political viewpoint and latch on to some fringe studies that in the case of global warming that are almost entirely paid for by energy companies that have a big stake in not being regulated for the pollution they cause.

[iplaw]

Regardless of who they are, they are using PEER REVIEWED material.  I don't care if the president of Haliburton himself wrote the piece as long as the source material is PEER REVIEWED.

As to your other point, comparing global warming to 9/11 or the Holocaust is patently false.  Those "issues" are past facts about empirically verifiable events.  Global warming predictions are THEORETICAL HYPOTHESES about possible FUTURE events.

Nice try. You lose again, anything else?

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:I fear this estimate is way, way, way too conservative.
If things continue at present pace,
the ice will be gone by 2 - 10 years.

Lemme go out on a limb and say that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to back this up...

Here's some evidence:

"We have already witnessed major losses in sea ice, but our research suggests that the decrease over the next few decades could be far more dramatic than anything that has happened so far," said Professor Marika Holland who led the study.

And to quote you IP:

Ignoring a man who has a PHD in meteorology and has worked as a meteorologist his entire life sounds like a real learned idea...

So you tell me, who has the evidence and who has a TV weatherman famous for doing weather standing on his head?

First, the dear proferssor says "over the next decades," not 2-10 years, but I wouldn't have expected you to see that glaring detail.  And even the professor doesn't tell you WHAT is going to happen in detail, mainly because he doesn't know.

Second, there are numerous peer reviewed studies contradicting him.

Anything else?

Yes, your "Frontiers of Freedom" group and their studies are paid for by Exxon-Mobile.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35

You are as bad al Altruism, you ignore mountains of scientific evidence and study because it disagrees with your political viewpoint and latch on to some fringe studies that in the case of global warming that are almost entirely paid for by energy companies that have a big stake in not being regulated for the pollution they cause.

Please stop and pick up your brain out of the ditch before you post again.....Thanks....

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Regardless of who they are, they are using PEER REVIEWED material.  I don't care if the president of Haliburton himself wrote the piece as long as the source material is PEER REVIEWED.

As to your other point, comparing global warming to 9/11 or the Holocaust is patently false.  Those "issues" are past facts about empirically verifiable events.  Global warming predictions are THEORETICAL HYPOTHESES about possible FUTURE events.

Nice try. You lose again, anything else?

I lose?

You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.

You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud. I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.

I lose? The more you post, the more foolish you look.

Please spell "nickel" again, ok?

[iplaw]

quote:
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.

Oh boy!  You got me!  I explained my post already, but I'll give further detail if you want.

quote:
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud.

Care to mischaraterize my post again?  I gave you peer reviewed source material contradicting your post (which in itself contained a myriad of errors which you never addressed).  Nowhere did any of the peer reviewed source material I provided you attempt to "prove global warming a fraud." The discussion was much more narrow than that, but else what can I expect from you?

quote:
I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.

I don't ever recall you proving that the peer reviewed sources cited in the report were energy funded.  Care to lie some more?

Oh, and playing the spelling/grammar nazi card doesn't buy you anything either...unless your 12. At least it serves to prove you've got nothing substantive to offer.

Maybe you could just call me "pooplaw" or "peepeelaw" to get your point across...

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.

Oh boy!  You got me!  I explained my post already, but I'll give further detail if you want.

quote:
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud.

Care to mischaraterize my post again?  I gave you peer reviewed source material contradicting your post (which in itself contained a myriad of errors which you never addressed).  Nowhere did any of the peer reviewed source material I provided you attempt to "prove global warming a fraud." The discussion was much more narrow than that, but else what can I expect from you?

quote:
I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.

I don't ever recall you proving that the peer reviewed sources cited in the report were energy funded.  Care to lie some more?

Oh, and playing the spelling/grammar nazi card doesn't buy you anything either...unless your 12. At least it serves to prove you've got nothing substantive to offer.

Maybe you could just call me "pooplaw" or "peepeelaw" to get your point across...

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.

[swake]

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/10/29/01920.html

Dr. Patrick Michaels, for example, is a Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia that is featured on The Denial Machine. He has been the State Climatologist for Virginia since 1980, and has been at the forefront of the global warming denial movement.
He is also associated with two think tanks: a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute.
Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."

[swake]

In January 2005, British anthropologist Benny Peiser challenged a study published in the prestigious magazine Science showing that 100 percent of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers agreed that human-caused global warming is a reality. Peiser urged Science to withdraw the study.

Less than two years later, on Oct. 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he examined denied global warming -- and it was published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, hardly a neutral source. Peiser was writing for an organization that has received at least $390,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/139539

[iplaw]

I'm sorry.  Maybe I didn't make myself clear.  I don't care who's interpreting the peer reviewed material.

I can post random links as well.

What I asked you to address was the more than two dozen peer reviewed studies used for that ONE specific issue of melting arctic ice shelf.

Try again.

Also, this statement:
"In January 2005, British anthropologist Benny Peiser challenged a study published in the prestigious magazine Science showing that 100 percent of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers agreed that human-caused global warming is a reality."

Has been soundly debunked by more people than Peiser.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.

Oh boy!  You got me!  I explained my post already, but I'll give further detail if you want.

quote:
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud.

Care to mischaraterize my post again?  I gave you peer reviewed source material contradicting your post (which in itself contained a myriad of errors which you never addressed).  Nowhere did any of the peer reviewed source material I provided you attempt to "prove global warming a fraud." The discussion was much more narrow than that, but else what can I expect from you?

quote:
I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.

I don't ever recall you proving that the peer reviewed sources cited in the report were energy funded.  Care to lie some more?

Oh, and playing the spelling/grammar nazi card doesn't buy you anything either...unless your 12. At least it serves to prove you've got nothing substantive to offer.

Maybe you could just call me "pooplaw" or "peepeelaw" to get your point across...

The paper you speficially cite is from "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change". This group and their website co2science.org IS an Exxon funded group having received $90,000 from Exxon-Mobile.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change#_note-3

So the paper you cite, specifically, IS from a energy industry funded study group.

You lose.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
You have claimed that a TV weather head was a PHD authority on weather, I showed he likely has a degree in nothing and is not even accredited TV Meteorologist.

Oh boy!  You got me!  I explained my post already, but I'll give further detail if you want.

quote:
You post a link to a paper that was supposed to prove global warming a fraud.

Care to mischaraterize my post again?  I gave you peer reviewed source material contradicting your post (which in itself contained a myriad of errors which you never addressed).  Nowhere did any of the peer reviewed source material I provided you attempt to "prove global warming a fraud." The discussion was much more narrow than that, but else what can I expect from you?

quote:
I show that your paper is by a energy funded group citing a few outlier energy company funded studies that fly in the face of the vast majority of thought in the scientific community.

I don't ever recall you proving that the peer reviewed sources cited in the report were energy funded.  Care to lie some more?

Oh, and playing the spelling/grammar nazi card doesn't buy you anything either...unless your 12. At least it serves to prove you've got nothing substantive to offer.

Maybe you could just call me "pooplaw" or "peepeelaw" to get your point across...

The paper you speficially cite is from "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change". This group and their website co2science.org IS an Exxon funded group having received $90,000 from Exxon-Mobile.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change#_note-3

So the paper you cite, specifically, IS from a energy industry funded study group.

You lose.

Try again, co2science.org did not write the source material.  You should try more than just clicking links.