[tuccillo]

Only on the short term. Climate trends, either natural or man-made, have a much longer time scale. "Climate" and "weather" mean much different time scales.

Originally Posted by Justus

...And one single volcanic eruption has a greater effect on the atmosphere and global weather conditions than the machinations of all humans combined.

[tuccillo]

The issue is that the "data" is modelling based. Modelling is very incestuous so the fact that there are several modelling groups does not increase my comfort with modelling results. Having written models, I always cringed at some of the assumptions I was forced to make because of a lack of understanding and/or lack of computer power to do what I really wanted to do. Just keep in mind that many of the conclusions are not based on real observational data. Keep an open mind.

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

Regardless of where you stand this is an easy read from NASA:

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

Regardless of where you stand this is an easy read from NASA:

What's Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise

This article is not from NASA. The article is from two guys who have nothing to do with NASA and use data from ONE of NASA's models to draw their own conclusions.

They take very little time to show their bias...the first sentence is all it takes.

("...proves..."? That's a good one.)

[Justus]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I suspect you were never trained as a scientist. I was. Although I remain skeptical, I try to be open minded. I know some of the players involved in the research and to state there is a conspiracy is nonsense. Time will tell if we are on a bad trajectory of man's doing as more research is done. To state categorically that there is no anthropogenic impacts is as ludicrous as saying the "science is settled". By the way, many papers are about results from model simulations and the modellers control their own datasets, not some "few men".

I am not a scientist, but am married to a former published research scientist, so I do know about how cutthroat and conspiratorial the scientific community is. One poster described it perfectly...it's all about keeping that government grant money rolling in. If they have to alter data or destroy the credibility of a fellow researcher, as has happened in this case, those wed to the cause are not above doing so.

Not everyone is fooled or intimidated by the dropping of a Federal Agency name. The EPA, NASA and NOAA (or Noah) have s**t in their mess kits on this subject, and now they're backing and filling on the subject in an effort to find safe ground...ergo the change from "global warming" to "global climate change".

I will grant you this...time will tell. However, the continuing cost to the American taxpayers has gone much over the value of this religion.

[tuccillo]

You really should try to know what you are talking about before you go off on a rant and slander other people. I think we are done as I have no time or interests in extremists and those who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Originally Posted by Justus

I am not a scientist, but am married to a former published research scientist, so I do know about how cutthroat and conspiratorial the scientific community is. One poster described it perfectly...it's all about keeping that government grant money rolling in. If they have to alter data or destroy the credibility of a fellow researcher, as has happened in this case, those wed to the cause are not above doing so.

Not everyone is fooled or intimidated by the dropping of a Federal Agency name. The EPA, NASA and NOAA (or Noah) have s**t in their mess kits on this subject, and now they're backing and filling on the subject in an effort to find safe ground...ergo the change from "global warming" to "global climate change".

I will grant you this...time will tell. However, the continuing cost to the American taxpayers has gone much over the value of this religion.

[Justus]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

You really should try to know what you are talking about before you go off on a rant and slander other people. I think we are done as I have no time or interests in extremists and those who don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Phew! Thanks! BTW, it's not slander when it's true. Check it out on line.

[Chi-Town]

Originally Posted by Justus

Phew! Thanks! BTW, it's not slander when it's true. Check it out on line.

"It's true. Check it out on line".
That's rich. Thanks.

[Arctic Fox]

One area to which Mankind contributes significantly is air pollution. According to the World Health Organization, seven million people die every year because of it.

So, whether or not you believe that much of recent climate change has been caused by Mankind, reduction in the use of carbon fuels is still a worthwhile aim.

[tcxr750]

The mini Ice Age should be good news for your favorite cruise line. The Glaciers you see now look nothing like the same glaciers 30 years ago. Once they refreeze the 7 day Alaska Cruise will be worth the trip. Start saving now!

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by tcxr750

The mini Ice Age should be good news for your favorite cruise line. The Glaciers you see now look nothing like the same glaciers 30 years ago. Once they refreeze the 7 day Alaska Cruise will be worth the trip. Start saving now!

I can state from experience...the 7 day Alaska cruise was worth it last month.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by Justus

I am not a scientist, but am married to a former published research scientist, so I do know about how cutthroat and conspiratorial the scientific community is. One poster described it perfectly...it's all about keeping that government grant money rolling in. If they have to alter data or destroy the credibility of a fellow researcher, as has happened in this case, those wed to the cause are not above doing so.



Not everyone is fooled or intimidated by the dropping of a Federal Agency name. The EPA, NASA and NOAA (or Noah) have s**t in their mess kits on this subject, and now they're backing and filling on the subject in an effort to find safe ground...ergo the change from "global warming" to "global climate change".



I will grant you this...time will tell. However, the continuing cost to the American taxpayers has gone much over the value of this religion.

And the cost continues to help Al Gore pay his $1200/month electricity bill for his estate in the Bellemeade section of Nashville. Now he's someone who has no scientific training unless you include tobacco farming.

[mtdjed]

Global Warming is upon us.

The last snow from Boston's winter melted 7/14/2015. From NPR

"If you bet that Boston's last bit of snow would melt July 14, you'd be right.

You may remember that the city got a lot of it this winter, and it dumped much of the cleared snow in unused parking lots — which it called "snow farms." The last one to melt, in Boston's Seaport District, was once 75 feet high.

As member station WBUR reports, "Mayor Marty Walsh tweeted Tuesday that a giant snow pile in a Seaport District parking lot, where the city dumped some of the winter's record-breaking snowfall after moving it off city streets, had finally melted." Walsh had challenged people to guess when the giant snow pile would disappear."

[tcxr750]

Alaska is a beautiful state full of scenic wonders. We need someone in the villages from Alaska to testify on the changes in glacial formation in our lifetimes. It isn't Global Anything it's just melting caused by hot exhaust gasses from the stacks of cruise ships.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I suspect you were never trained as a scientist. I was. Although I remain skeptical, I try to be open minded. I know some of the players involved in the research and to state there is a conspiracy is nonsense. Time will tell if we are on a bad trajectory of man's doing as more research is done. To state categorically that there is no anthropogenic impacts is as ludicrous as saying the "science is settled". By the way, many papers are about results from model simulations and the modellers control their own datasets, not some "few men".

Since when do model simulation results constitute data sets? Model simulations are not scientific experiments.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I suspect you were never trained as a scientist. I was. Although I remain skeptical, I try to be open minded. I know some of the players involved in the research and to state there is a conspiracy is nonsense. Time will tell if we are on a bad trajectory of man's doing as more research is done. To state categorically that there is no anthropogenic impacts is as ludicrous as saying the "science is settled". By the way, many papers are about results from model simulations and the modellers control their own datasets, not some "few men".

I didn't say there weren't AGW impacts. I merely stated the AGW movement is a scam. CO2 is now classified as a pollutant by our government! This is what every human EXHALES in each breath. This is what plants REQUIRE to thrive. I wonder how many people on the anti fossil fuel train think that CO2 is the black sooty stuff that comes out of the 18 wheeler exhaust stack, or think that the "smoke" rising out of the infamous power plant cooling towers is CO2? Although I am familiar with the scientific method, I don't think it takes a "scientist" to understand the corruption and deception that has permeated this Global Climate Warming/Change/Disruption scheme. But at least you are leaning toward minor AGW impacts.