|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 17, 2009 21:25:46 GMT
Members of the ACS protest at the ACS Editor's biased views on AGW pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.html"The question of whether humans have an impact on climate change presents a great opportunity for a scientific society to take the lead in a debate involving physical science. How about using your position as editor to promote a balanced scientific discussion of the theory behind the link of human activity to global warming?
" "Instead of debate, members are constantly subjected to your arrogant self-righteousness and the left-wing practice of stifling debate by personal attacks on anyone who disagrees" It was in protest at this: pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/87/8725editor.htmlThe Physicists are also revolting (as every chemist knows! ;D) heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/07/revolt-at-american-physical-society.html
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Sept 17, 2009 22:25:57 GMT
Don't let the facts get in the way of the movement. Science lost, the Marxists won at least here in the UK and now in the US. We just need a few years of bitterly cold weather which I think an awful lot of the brighter people who actually question the science now expect. It may take a few hundred thousand pensioners freezing to death before the warmists can be finally defeated. Casualties of war against state control.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 17, 2009 22:34:44 GMT
and when this bitterly cold weather doesn't materialize what will it be then? will the line then become "warming is natural and we expected it"?
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Sept 17, 2009 22:58:26 GMT
socold. and when this bitterly cold weather doesn't materialize what will it be then? will the line then become "warming is natural and we expected it"?
Come back in 30 years with that comeback socold. even the warmist loonies are promoting a 30 year heat in the pipeline effect. Just think, you will be 50 by then and probably have a few kids. Will you go back to warmist ever alarmist man or will you have mellowed by then.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 17, 2009 23:22:10 GMT
Did you notice one of the responses (R. Shamel Lexington, Mass.
), which included this paragraph? We humans seem to learn from experience, and thus our modern systems of justice are not well geared for dealing effectively with climate-change deniers. This is a shame, because every month's delay in taking meaningful action likely will lead to more climate-related death and destruction in the future. There should be a law.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 18, 2009 1:14:05 GMT
With the president and most of congress being lawyers, the law will certainly come, unless we the voters vote them out. Science is not discussed in Washington only ways to tax and control people.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Sept 18, 2009 6:32:28 GMT
With the president and most of congress being lawyers, the law will certainly come, unless we the voters vote them out. Science is not discussed in Washington only ways to tax and control people. Funny that, it's the same here in Australia ....
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 18, 2009 7:14:20 GMT
and when this bitterly cold weather doesn't materialize what will it be then? will the line then become "warming is natural and we expected it"? I don't see why you should expect others to face that reality when you haven't faced it for yourself. The fact remains that we have only briefly seen warming rates high enough to reach a 2C anomaly and that was during a period that should have warmed anyway. Neither a linear trend nor a projection based on current rates of increase in atmospheric CO2 show the slightest hint of going much beyond about .7C by 2100 (it's actually lower though because 2100 we will probably fall on a cooling cycle if the timing holds). The real world doesn't seem to support your notion that there will be any substantial warming...and the fact that we will have changed energy sources naturally by then means we won't even get that far. By 2050 we'll have largely switched to something other than coal/oil and IF CO2 was causing the increases we'll level off at a total anomaly of about .9C. On the other hand if CO2 isn't causing the warming we'll probably be wishing it did.
|
|
|
Post by msphar on Sept 18, 2009 16:13:39 GMT
I seriously doubt that the replacement of oil and coal will be further along in 50 years. More likely the world will have shifted more of the flow of these power sources to the rest of the world and places like the UK and USA will be struggling with ever increasing costs of acquisition as well as increasing cost of government taxation. Great, if you speak Mandarin, and unfortunate otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 18, 2009 16:16:21 GMT
Back in 1957 top US meterologists were agreeing that it if did not get colder it was going to get alarmingly warmer! It did get colder to about 1973 when top climatologists like stephen scheider were predicting a little ice age possibility in his first book Then it got warmer to about 1998 or whenever when people like you were predicting it would get warmer for ever.Now it seems to be getting colder.s680.photobucket.com/albums/vv161/Radiant_2009/?action=view¤t=MOV01122.flv
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 18, 2009 17:44:12 GMT
It doesn't in fact appear to be getting colder.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 18, 2009 17:59:49 GMT
It doesn't in fact appear to be getting colder. Apparently if you believe something for 66 days and remind yourself each day you believe it then for you it becomes true and you are unable to know the difference. It is a kind of brain washing and the reason why people who have been prompted and interviewed over long periods of time dont make reliable witnesses. Similarly people who invent childhood fantasies about parental sexual relationships can no longer tell the difference in adulthood. Consequently humans are not so reliable with what to them seems very evident. Otherwise said we see what we believe to be true and ultimately we cannot see what we cannot believe.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 18, 2009 18:27:18 GMT
It doesn't in fact appear to be getting colder. Maybe not but the 40% loss of ice noted in 1957 is more than the difference between the JAXA mean and 2007. So is it getting warmer? Doesn't sound like it cause 40% ice loss is merely a natural variation.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Sept 18, 2009 18:32:12 GMT
Hmm I see the letter to ACS was written on 30th July Still no reply after 6 weeks?
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 18, 2009 18:49:21 GMT
It doesn't in fact appear to be getting colder. Talk about denial. Even the AGW scaremongers acknowledge that global tempatures have dropped over the past decade. Of course they claim that this is a sign of global warming, but at least they pulled their heads out of the sand long enough to attempt to downplay facts working against their theories.
|
|