Mass Plankton Die-Off

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Stick to the point.

You PROVE to ME that we are NOT changing the earths environment.

Go ahead, PROVE IT. And don't make any silly mistakes and make sure all of the folks who support your idea are sane and meticulous in their statements and NEVER MAKE MISTAKES.

Sheeesh!

Well then - you prove the opposite - that we ARE changing the climate. The problem here is that no one can PROVE it one way or the other.

That is the problem that we all face. I'm fairly certain that ranting is not a solution either.

Bye.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by mintyspilot

Well then - you prove the opposite - that we ARE changing the climate. The problem here is that no one can PROVE it one way or the other.

That is the problem that we all face. I'm fairly certain that ranting is not a solution either.

Bye.

Probably not my best post ever.

I'm pretty sure you did not understand my post (you seem to be trying to make the same point) but I'm not up to explaining this morning.

While ranting is not a solution, beating one dead horse into dust isn't either.

[Therapy]

Part of the dead horse is the IPCC itself. There are many instances in which what they came out with is just too far out. Part of the "scare" side.

When Hannibal crossed the alps there was much less snow and ice than there is today. Today the passes and trails he used are impassable.

[hpeer]

OK, I get it, you don't trust the IPCC. But the report I posted had nothing to do with the IPCC, it was from another group altogether, the WWF.

Or are you saying you do not and will not trust anyone who promotes the idea of human induced climate change?

To your second point you may or may not be accurate about Hannibal, I just don't know. There is no doubt that the climate changes on its own, and can change very fast on its own even without human intervention.

However there is also little doubt that human influences are influencing the climate, in addition to whatever else is going on.

This is not just about temperature, especially in a small region, but global changes in a wide range of variables including ocean acidity.

The large majortiy of climate scientist are convienced of human induced global climate change. Just repetatively pointing out some dumb asses mistake does not damn the entire scientific community.

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by hpeer

. . . The large majortiy of climate scientist are convienced of human induced global climate change. Just repetatively pointing out some dumb asses mistake does not damn the entire scientific community.

Here is where your argument breaks down - regardless of which side of any issue you are on - claiming that "most" - "large majority" - "97%" - "entire" or whatever is a totally ludicrous statement when you don't know who those folks actually are.
- - Anytime I hear or read news articles that use those terms it is an immediate "red flag" that whatever they are "pushing" really doesn't work. Like the famous commercial about 4 out of 5 dentists . . .
- - The infamous "97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change" back in post 168 was taken from a "science" online newsletter that blatantly falsified by omission exactly where that % came from. See: Expert credibility in climate change

In this particular case the 97% was comprised of: "We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC. . . We then imposed an a priori criterion that a researcher must have authored a minimum of 20 climate publications to be considered a climate researcher, thus reducing the database to 908 researchers.

The authors were clever in removing all scientists who were not actively engaged in promoting ACC and further restricting the pool to only those with an enormous amount of publications on ACC. Here was the "choir" singing to their own hymn, so to speak.

- - The point is don't accept something that is promoted with the "most" - "all" - "vast majority" - "97%" - "entire" or "4 out of 5 dentists" type claims. The numbers are carefully selected to "push" a point that is rarely ("never say never," but this comes close) valid.
- - I believe both sides are not overtly lying but carefully picking their "frame of references" to match their agenda. Just like the child at the beach playing in the surf splashing his arms and making waves. Yes! his waves are having an effect on the beach sand around him - but - the larger ocean waves are having a much longer and pronounced effect on the beach. It is simply a matter of scale/scope/perspective.

[bobsadler]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You presume wrong.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and it’s “Fourth Assessment Report - AR4" ("Climate Change 2007") shouldn’t be confused with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and it’s “Living Planet Report (2010)”.

The IPCC made the mistake to which you refer, and subsequently corrected it.

actually i presume right and here is the link to the wwf apology:

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/hi...report2005.pdf

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by hpeer

You PROVE to ME that we are NOT changing the earths environment.

Unfortunately as I'm not a Climate Creationist not possible for me to provide "proof" of something that ain't happening. Same reason that the Pope also struggles on that one

Not to say I am totally aganst releiving the gullible of cash or simply keeping 90% of folks as a simple resource - just don't expect me to swallow it all.

Anyway, can't do a longer reply now - the Sky is falling in, so gotta go and sacrifice another goat

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Can't say for sure but food production and water supply are the basics that are tenuous even today.

A "super bug" could do some damage.

Could be that technology will out pace our growing needs though. Fusion? Algae chips?

We don't know. We dream. Then as a collective we achieve those dreams - flight, medicines, wrist radios.

PS - there is one question I ask every so often. What is the single "invention" that has had the most profound effect in altering basic "Darwin Theory"?

Genetic Manipulation..???

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by osirissail

Here is where your argument breaks down - regardless of which side of any issue you are on - claiming that "most" - "large majority" - "97%" - "entire" or whatever is a totally ludicrous statement when you don't know who those folks actually are.
- - Anytime I hear or read news articles that use those terms it is an immediate "red flag" that whatever they are "pushing" really doesn't work. Like the famous commercial about 4 out of 5 dentists . . .
- - The infamous "97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change" back in post 168 was taken from a "science" online newsletter that blatantly falsified by omission exactly where that % came from. See: Expert credibility in climate change

In this particular case the 97% was comprised of: "We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC. . . We then imposed an a priori criterion that a researcher must have authored a minimum of 20 climate publications to be considered a climate researcher, thus reducing the database to 908 researchers.

The authors were clever in removing all scientists who were not actively engaged in promoting ACC and further restricting the pool to only those with an enormous amount of publications on ACC. Here was the "choir" singing to their own hymn, so to speak.

- - The point is don't accept something that is promoted with the "most" - "all" - "vast majority" - "97%" - "entire" or "4 out of 5 dentists" type claims. The numbers are carefully selected to "push" a point that is rarely ("never say never," but this comes close) valid.
- - I believe both sides are not overtly lying but carefully picking their "frame of references" to match their agenda. Just like the child at the beach playing in the surf splashing his arms and making waves. Yes! his waves are having an effect on the beach sand around him - but - the larger ocean waves are having a much longer and pronounced effect on the beach. It is simply a matter of scale/scope/perspective.

OK osirissail,

I'll try to refrain from "most" and like statements, you bury your horse about the IPCC glacier statement.

OK?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by bobsadler

actually i presume right and here is the link to the wwf apology:
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/hi...report2005.pdf

My apologies - Bob is absolutely correct, and I was wrong, about the origins of the Himalayan glacier fiasco.
The IPCC glacier error came to light after four prominent glaciologists and hydrologists wrote a letter to the prestigious U.S. journal Science. They said the paragraph's (in AR4) mistakes stemmed from a report by the conservation group WWF.
WWF had picked up a news report based on an unpublished study, compounded by the accidental inversion of a date - 2035 instead of 2350 - in a Russian paper published in 1996.

I also apologise for the smart alec tone of my post; not nice & uncalled for, whether I was factually right or wrong (as it turns out).

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by hpeer

. . . I'll try to refrain from "most" and like statements, you bury your horse about the IPCC glacier statement.
OK?

Actually the "glacier" statement is interesting - not because it is or isn't true, misquoted, or contains proof-reading errors. It is interesting, as are other such statements/conclusions, because these things are the stock and trade of "political" style agenda pushers.
- - Look at any political race and you will see a certain deliberate technique being used. First, make a totally outrageous claim or pronouncement loud and persistently. After the public has seen it in 36pt bold headlines for awhile and digested/learned it - then, apologize and claim it was a typo or misstatement or taken out of context.
- - This is stock political technique and what I am seeing is the "climate scientists/organizations" using the same political technique of "chicken little" and then apologizing for "clerical/other" errors. Come on, these are mega million, if not trillion dollar, consuming organizations that cannot "proof-read" or fact check their products? ACC/AGW has been and is firmly entrenched in "politics" not science. Which all revolves back to "follow the money" to find the motivations. Any real science being done in the area is swamped under the tidal wave of trash science for monetary benefits.

[hpeer]

Well, perhaps you are right. Here is an article on how NOAA misled the public for the benefit of the climate scientist oil industry.

Oil on seabed in Gulf may pose long-term problems

"I expected to find oil on the sea floor," Samantha Joye, lead researcher for the University of Georgia's team of scientists studying the effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill, told reporters. "I didn't expect to find layers two inches thick. It's kind of like having a blizzard where the snow comes in and covers everything," Joye said.

But some researchers say NOAA misled the public by saying that much of the oil simply disappeared. Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University, says that initial reports from NOAA about how much oil remains in the Gulf were too optimistic. The oil "did not disappear," he says. "It sank."

Read more: Oil on seabed in Gulf may pose long-term problems - Earthtalk - Kentucky.com

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by osirissail

Actually the "glacier" statement is interesting - not because it is or isn't true, misquoted, or contains proof-reading errors. It is interesting, as are other such statements/conclusions, because these things are the stock and trade of "political" style agenda pushers ...

I don't think everyone utilizes the "big lie" technique; but it certainly gets used by the unscrupulous.

“But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.”

Often missattributed to Joseph Goebbels, it’s actually from "War Propaganda", in Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Genetic Manipulation..???

Only one response.

Should have started another thread.

I will.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Only one response.

Should have started another thread.

I will.

Guess I was the only one dumb enough to try...lmao