EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Fence sitters and those who are looking for more information
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24371
Page 4 of 85

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Nov 17, 2013 2:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

The problem is that zero multipied by two is still zero .... that whole math thing again.

Author:  Dingo [ Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

A little peak into the psychological reasons for the denialist process. It's not all hopeless as far as taking denialists into recovery. The Handbook offers a way for fence sitting denialist inclined folks to possibly be led out of the wilderness. ](*,) O:)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/De ... ndbook.pdf

Author:  Milton Banana [ Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Do fence sitters trust HadCrut? Many believers do.

http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013 ... nter-doom/

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Carbon- ... y_IPS.html

Who cares, it won't happen while I'm alive!!! Let's Party Like It's 1999!!! :mrgreen:

Author:  Milton Banana [ Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

If we're going to party lets do so responsibly. Watch the drinking and driving, and let's all buy some more warm clothing.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/ ... aused.html

Quote:
"Our analysis shows that the warming structure in the recent period (roughly from 1998) differs greatly from that in the earlier period. In the recent period, the surface was not clearly warming in summer, and 500 hPa air became colder in autumn. Before 1998, however, all the layers at 500 hPa or below were warming."

Author:  Milton Banana [ Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Fence sitters does this seem like legitimate science. Fence sitters is this the right approach?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59463

Quote:
You would think researchers would welcome an opportunity to balance that vast library of one-sided research with an analysis of the natural causes of climate change—to enable them to evaluate the relative impact of human activities, more accurately predict future changes, and ensure that communities, states and nations can plan for, mitigate and adapt to those impacts. You would be wrong.

Climate change politics and financing

A few weeks ago, Nebraska lawmakers called for a wide-ranging study of “cyclical” climate change. Funded by the state, the $44,000 effort was to be limited to natural causes—not additional speculation about manmade effects. Amazingly, University of Nebraska scientists are not just refusing to participate in the study, unless it includes human influences. One climatologist at the university’s National Drought Mitigation Center actually said he would not be comfortable circulating a study proposal or asking other scientists to participate in it; in fact, he “would not send it out” to anyone. The director of the High Plains Climate Center sniffed, “If it’s only natural causes, we would not be interested.”


I thought science looks at all avenues. Every possibility. Not climate science. What do you think about that fence sitters?

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters does this seem like legitimate science. Fence sitters is this the right approach?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59463

Quote:
You would think researchers would welcome an opportunity to balance that vast library of one-sided research with an analysis of the natural causes of climate change—to enable them to evaluate the relative impact of human activities, more accurately predict future changes, and ensure that communities, states and nations can plan for, mitigate and adapt to those impacts. You would be wrong.

Climate change politics and financing

A few weeks ago, Nebraska lawmakers called for a wide-ranging study of “cyclical” climate change. Funded by the state, the $44,000 effort was to be limited to natural causes—not additional speculation about manmade effects. Amazingly, University of Nebraska scientists are not just refusing to participate in the study, unless it includes human influences. One climatologist at the university’s National Drought Mitigation Center actually said he would not be comfortable circulating a study proposal or asking other scientists to participate in it; in fact, he “would not send it out” to anyone. The director of the High Plains Climate Center sniffed, “If it’s only natural causes, we would not be interested.”


I thought science looks at all avenues. Every possibility. Not climate science. What do you think about that fence sitters?


No, it is not right just as it was not right to offer a $10,000.00 payment for any scientist of note to publish a paper supporting only the natural cause view. It is paying for an outcome not trying to determine the truth and that is not right.

Maybe they can do the same to offset all of the research showing evolution is real as opposed to the belief in creationism? That is the same thing, but still just as wrong.

Author:  Milton Banana [ Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Okay fence sitters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/cap ... -saturday/

Quote:
“The overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming,” said Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington scientist, studying Antarctic ice. “Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists.”


Well, Dr. Zhang you've got a real interesting question. Why would sea ice be increasing? Perhaps you need to go over the methodology for your "overwhelming evidence." That would be a good place to start.


And...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/29/ ... e-the-u-s/

Quote:
Yes, those are snowfall records in Texas. And yes, it is still Fall.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Mon Dec 02, 2013 12:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Milton Banana wrote:
Okay fence sitters.


http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/29/ ... e-the-u-s/

Quote:
Yes, those are snowfall records in Texas. And yes, it is still Fall.


Can you say cherry picking?

Almost 1000 record low max temps vs 17 record high temps
Records in the last 7 days:
205 snowfall records.
969 Low Max. 203 Low temps.
17 High Temp.
61 High minimum.


The ratio for the last 365 days shows a much different story, in fact all of the metrics show a different story ...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/

Author:  Milton Banana [ Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Everybody knows this.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/12/pred ... ay-re.html

Quote:
Simply put, the IPCC's climate models and experts are unable to predict cloud formation and coverage, which makes accurately predicting climate conditions an impossible task.

As a result, the models have huge problems with predicting actual polar sea ice coverage and albedo characteristics - a continuing major fail that shreds the IPCC's creditability as a reliable source for climate fearmongering prognostications.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Milton Banana wrote:
Everybody knows this.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/12/pred ... ay-re.html

Quote:
Simply put, the IPCC's climate models and experts are unable to predict cloud formation and coverage, which makes accurately predicting climate conditions an impossible task.

As a result, the models have huge problems with predicting actual polar sea ice coverage and albedo characteristics - a continuing major fail that shreds the IPCC's creditability as a reliable source for climate fearmongering prognostications.


..... is crap, but people keep bringing it up.

Author:  Milton Banana [ Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

The bleeding continues for the true believers. Take note fencesitters and read on.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/28/is-ea ... more-13871

Quote:
So what does this imply?
1.To the extent that the CFSR radiance is accurate, it implies that earth was in radiative deficit, not surplus, for the decade of the 2000s and that for this decade, there is no ‘missing heat’ to be found.
2.The negative trend in CFSR net radiation implies a divergence from the NASA GISS model projections cited above.
3.The CFSR net radiative deficit also implies that energy loss to space, rather than shifting of energy within the climate system may be responsible for the negative trend since 2001 in many of the global temperature data sets.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Milton Banana wrote:
The bleeding continues for the true believers. Take note fencesitters and read on.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/28/is-ea ... more-13871

Quote:
So what does this imply?
1.To the extent that the CFSR radiance is accurate, it implies that earth was in radiative deficit, not surplus, for the decade of the 2000s and that for this decade, there is no ‘missing heat’ to be found.
2.The negative trend in CFSR net radiation implies a divergence from the NASA GISS model projections cited above.
3.The CFSR net radiative deficit also implies that energy loss to space, rather than shifting of energy within the climate system may be responsible for the negative trend since 2001 in many of the global temperature data sets.


Since most scientists actually publish such important papers in peer reviewed journals rather than as a "guest poster" on an internet blog, I would caution against taking either the data or conclusions as accuratly related by the poster.

Author:  Milton Banana [ Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Now fence sitters I’d like you to consider one thing. Here we have renowned climatologist by the name of Dr. Trenberth who claims the lack of warming must be some “missing heat.” Its there but its missing somehow. The whole believers system leaps into action to find this “missing heat.” Without it no global warming. Its there but its missing. The whole idea of Trenberth’s missing heat is preposterous. Desperate to keep the grant proposals written and the gravy train rolling.

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fence sitters and those who are looking for more informa

Milton Banana wrote:
Now fence sitters I’d like you to consider one thing. Here we have renowned climatologist by the name of Dr. Trenberth who claims the lack of warming must be some “missing heat.” Its there but its missing somehow. The whole believers system leaps into action to find this “missing heat.” Without it no global warming. Its there but its missing. The whole idea of Trenberth’s missing heat is preposterous. Desperate to keep the grant proposals written and the gravy train rolling.


Interesting hypothesis, too bad it ignores the facts. There were grants for weather and climate study long before the concern over climate change and there would still be such if there were no change happening. The problem is there is a change happening and the scientists are generally trying to determine what is going on and how we can mitigate the effects. Some are just trying to buy time for the industries who do not want to have to make changes, but most are actually dealing with science rather than making money as a hired gun.

Page 4 of 85 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/