Poll was legit, as these things go. It was kept anonymous by the creator, so people could vote freely, so even the wingnuts who agree with Lying Ace could show their contempt for him anonymously, which they lack the guts to do in Poly. It showed what it showed, overwhelmingly, when it was created.
Poll was legit, as these things go. It was kept anonymous by the creator, so people could vote freely, so even the wingnuts who agree with Lying Ace could show their contempt for him anonymously, which they lack the guts to do in Poly. It showed what it showed, overwhelmingly, when it was created.
Where are the global warming losers ?
akphidelt
Global Warming Loser
Join Date Oct 2007
Location Anchorage
Posts 32,088
Are you the Earth is old kind of guy? I guess I never seen a stance from you on it.
he makes great points I think. Its a big scam it sure sounds like. Like he said about the phony 97%, you can make polls appear how you want. One of the questions being ... "do you think CO2 affect the planet's temperature?", which he of course answered YES. So he is actually part of the 97% LOL!
Like I've been saying all along. Global warming is not even a debate in academia anymore. Simply a given fact supported by mounds of evidence and physics.
“the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” He said the effect of carbon dioxide on global temperatures that the group measured so thoroughly “was not questioned by climate scientists.”
-------------------------------------------------
[h=1]Berkeley study directly IDs climate change culprit[/h]
Scientists training their instruments on the skies have caught the world’s major greenhouse gas right in the act of warming the planet, researchers reported Wednesday, providing the first direct evidence that human activity is dangerously altering the environment.
The instruments captured more than a decade of rising surface temperatures, changes that were directly triggered by the atmosphere’s increasing burden of carbon dioxide, a team of scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and UC Berkeley reported.
That gas, whose main source is emissions from burning fossil fuels, has long been the principal culprit in global warming investigations by the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists. Its rising levels in the atmosphere have been the basis for increasingly strong warnings about global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known as the IPCC.
'A technological coup’
“We have known for decades that there must be an effect, but getting a direct measurement and isolating the carbon dioxide component are a technological coup,” Christopher B. Field, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University who has led two major IPCC reports, said in an e-mail.
The Berkeley scientists’ study, he said, provides concrete evidence for the first time of carbon dioxide’s effect on global warming.
In November, the U.N. panel issued its fifth and most alarming report on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. It warned that global ice caps are melting, Arctic sea ice is diminishing, droughts, heat waves and storms are intensifying, coral reefs are dying, and many creatures on land and in the sea are migrating toward the poles.
Documenting warming
Daniel R. Feldman, a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, along with other physicists and engineers at the lab and at UC Berkeley, reported Wednesday in the journal Nature on their findings about “radiative forcing” — the process through which carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can block the Earth from reflecting the sun’s radiant energy and actually warm the atmosphere.
The scientists used an array of extremely precise instruments that the U.S. Department of Energy has installed at its climate research facilities near Barrow, Alaska, and Lamont, Okla., to document how the warming works.
In effect, their instruments measured the amount of infrared heat radiation coming down to the Earth’s surface from the sun, and the amount of heat radiation the Earth emits back up. And when the Berkeley scientists examined their data from 2000 to 2010, they found that some of the heat from Earth was being blocked by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and were able to calculate how much of that blocked heat was warming the planet.
Tough to visualize
The result of the warming, expressed in mathematical and engineering terms, appears tiny and difficult to visualize: It amounted to two-tenths of a watt per square meter of surface per decade. But the Earth’s surface covers a lot of square meters — 510 million square kilometers, in fact, and two-tenths of a watt over 10 years can mean a lot of heat for global warming.
The IPCC’s November report calculates that the Earth’s entire surface has already warmed by 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit since 1882.
The Berkeley scientists measured the direct effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and after excluding all the other greenhouse gases and water vapor as sources, they reported that levels of the gas had increased in the atmosphere by 22 parts per million between 2000 and 2010.
The effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s heat balance have long been understood by climate scientists, who have calculated them in their theories of climate change. But this is the first time the balance has been confirmed by laboratory instruments, according to Feldman and his colleagues.
“Our findings provide direct confirmation of the IPCC’s findings,” Feldman said in an interview. Although he did not discuss the political controversy generated by climate-change deniers, he added, “We can hope now that people everywhere will be convinced that the IPCC’s reports have been correct.”
Ken Caldeira, a physicist, climate change expert and also a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford who was not connected to the Feldman group’s research, said of their calculations that “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” He said the effect of carbon dioxide on global temperatures that the group measured so thoroughly “was not questioned by climate scientists.”
http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Berkeley-experts-study-strengthens-human-link-6101054.php
“the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” He said the effect of carbon dioxide on global temperatures that the group measured so thoroughly “was not questioned by climate scientists.”
-------------------------------------------------
[h=1]Berkeley study directly IDs climate change culprit[/h]
Scientists training their instruments on the skies have caught the world’s major greenhouse gas right in the act of warming the planet, researchers reported Wednesday, providing the first direct evidence that human activity is dangerously altering the environment.
The instruments captured more than a decade of rising surface temperatures, changes that were directly triggered by the atmosphere’s increasing burden of carbon dioxide, a team of scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and UC Berkeley reported.
That gas, whose main source is emissions from burning fossil fuels, has long been the principal culprit in global warming investigations by the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists. Its rising levels in the atmosphere have been the basis for increasingly strong warnings about global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known as the IPCC.
'A technological coup’
“We have known for decades that there must be an effect, but getting a direct measurement and isolating the carbon dioxide component are a technological coup,” Christopher B. Field, a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University who has led two major IPCC reports, said in an e-mail.
The Berkeley scientists’ study, he said, provides concrete evidence for the first time of carbon dioxide’s effect on global warming.
In November, the U.N. panel issued its fifth and most alarming report on the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. It warned that global ice caps are melting, Arctic sea ice is diminishing, droughts, heat waves and storms are intensifying, coral reefs are dying, and many creatures on land and in the sea are migrating toward the poles.
Documenting warming
Daniel R. Feldman, a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, along with other physicists and engineers at the lab and at UC Berkeley, reported Wednesday in the journal Nature on their findings about “radiative forcing” — the process through which carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can block the Earth from reflecting the sun’s radiant energy and actually warm the atmosphere.
The scientists used an array of extremely precise instruments that the U.S. Department of Energy has installed at its climate research facilities near Barrow, Alaska, and Lamont, Okla., to document how the warming works.
In effect, their instruments measured the amount of infrared heat radiation coming down to the Earth’s surface from the sun, and the amount of heat radiation the Earth emits back up. And when the Berkeley scientists examined their data from 2000 to 2010, they found that some of the heat from Earth was being blocked by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and were able to calculate how much of that blocked heat was warming the planet.
Tough to visualize
The result of the warming, expressed in mathematical and engineering terms, appears tiny and difficult to visualize: It amounted to two-tenths of a watt per square meter of surface per decade. But the Earth’s surface covers a lot of square meters — 510 million square kilometers, in fact, and two-tenths of a watt over 10 years can mean a lot of heat for global warming.
The IPCC’s November report calculates that the Earth’s entire surface has already warmed by 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit since 1882.
The Berkeley scientists measured the direct effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and after excluding all the other greenhouse gases and water vapor as sources, they reported that levels of the gas had increased in the atmosphere by 22 parts per million between 2000 and 2010.
The effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s heat balance have long been understood by climate scientists, who have calculated them in their theories of climate change. But this is the first time the balance has been confirmed by laboratory instruments, according to Feldman and his colleagues.
“Our findings provide direct confirmation of the IPCC’s findings,” Feldman said in an interview. Although he did not discuss the political controversy generated by climate-change deniers, he added, “We can hope now that people everywhere will be convinced that the IPCC’s reports have been correct.”
Ken Caldeira, a physicist, climate change expert and also a senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford who was not connected to the Feldman group’s research, said of their calculations that “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” He said the effect of carbon dioxide on global temperatures that the group measured so thoroughly “was not questioned by climate scientists.”
http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Berkeley-experts-study-strengthens-human-link-6101054.php
This documentary ought to be good. Done by the director of Two Days in October and Food, Inc... he goes in to the world of denialism and how it is controlled by a small group of nutters. Pretty much everything us normal folk already understand, but it's good to have documentaries with actual supporting evidence of these nutters in action. "Merchant of Doubt", is a must see.
Here's a great quote about the documentary, pretty much what I say every day here.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And you wanted to get to the real science in Merchants?
No, it's about the deception. How we're being deceived into thinking there are two sides. The film isn't about climate science itself; I don't have anything to add to that, other than reminding people of the consequences. It's really that things are being discussed by a small but effective group of people. Only a handful of them actually have degrees in climate science, yet they've managed to make this look like a real debate. A lot of other people also deny the science, but they're not climate scientists.
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/merchants-of-doubt/
Here's a great quote about the documentary, pretty much what I say every day here.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And you wanted to get to the real science in Merchants?
No, it's about the deception. How we're being deceived into thinking there are two sides. The film isn't about climate science itself; I don't have anything to add to that, other than reminding people of the consequences. It's really that things are being discussed by a small but effective group of people. Only a handful of them actually have degrees in climate science, yet they've managed to make this look like a real debate. A lot of other people also deny the science, but they're not climate scientists.
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/merchants-of-doubt/
The anti-science GoreBull Warming cult is strong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming McCarthyites Are Even Targeting Believers
Here's what happens when a climate researcher doesn't fully conform to the global warming narrative:
He becomes the target of a congressional inquisition.
Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at Colorado University's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, announced on his blog Wednesday that he is "one of seven U.S. academics being investigated by U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva," an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member of the House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.
And for what sins is Pielke being targeted? "Here," he writes, "is my crime":
His 2013 Senate testimony that "featured the claim, often repeated, that it is 'incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.'"
Pielke does not consider himself a denier or even a skeptic of man-made global warming, though he has, for example, questioned surface temperature data and cast a suspicious eye toward Britain's Climate Research Unit, which claimed it lost original records Pielke wanted to see.
At the same time, Pielke acknowledges that he has "written a book calling for a carbon tax," "publicly supported President Obama's proposed EPA carbon regulations," and "published another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect to disasters and climate change."
Yet Grijalva demands to know about Pielke's external funding sources. This comes after the alarmists began smearing Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Willie Soon, whose work shows that the sun, not man, is responsible for climate change. He stands accused of being on the take from fossil fuel interests.
If Grijalva will do this to a tenured professor who doesn't consider himself a skeptic or denier, imagine what's coming next for those who more strongly buck the Al Gore "consensus" narrative. If it's his intention to shut down dissenting scientific voices, he appears to be off to a strong start.
"When 'witch hunts' are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes," Pielke concludes, "we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics."
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...congressional-investigation.htm#ixzz3Ssb1BFhG
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming McCarthyites Are Even Targeting Believers
Here's what happens when a climate researcher doesn't fully conform to the global warming narrative:
He becomes the target of a congressional inquisition.
Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at Colorado University's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, announced on his blog Wednesday that he is "one of seven U.S. academics being investigated by U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva," an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member of the House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.
And for what sins is Pielke being targeted? "Here," he writes, "is my crime":
His 2013 Senate testimony that "featured the claim, often repeated, that it is 'incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.'"
Pielke does not consider himself a denier or even a skeptic of man-made global warming, though he has, for example, questioned surface temperature data and cast a suspicious eye toward Britain's Climate Research Unit, which claimed it lost original records Pielke wanted to see.
At the same time, Pielke acknowledges that he has "written a book calling for a carbon tax," "publicly supported President Obama's proposed EPA carbon regulations," and "published another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect to disasters and climate change."
Yet Grijalva demands to know about Pielke's external funding sources. This comes after the alarmists began smearing Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Willie Soon, whose work shows that the sun, not man, is responsible for climate change. He stands accused of being on the take from fossil fuel interests.
If Grijalva will do this to a tenured professor who doesn't consider himself a skeptic or denier, imagine what's coming next for those who more strongly buck the Al Gore "consensus" narrative. If it's his intention to shut down dissenting scientific voices, he appears to be off to a strong start.
"When 'witch hunts' are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes," Pielke concludes, "we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics."
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...congressional-investigation.htm#ixzz3Ssb1BFhG
What would a normal person do if he had strong feelings (ah heck for his sake let's call it) evidence on an issue?
1) Start a thread and make your case.
2) Naysayers who already despise you because well, you're generally an Asshole, throw mud.
3) Optional
3A) Give it one last effort, then realize you did your best, and be done with it.
3B) Realize it's just not worth it and not waste more time and effort.
3A or 3B ends it. Walk away, head held high, knowing that although you did not sway your detractors it's no big deal. The world is not being changed at Rx.
But no, an irrational self-hating person chooses...
3C) Label your opponents insane. But don't only do that. Continue to try really hard and spend all day still trying to convince the people you just labelled insane to come around to your position. The next day, open another thread on the same issue and restart the entire process. Now that's insanity!
akphidelt's meltdowns with other posters and mods indicate an individual with serious mental health issues. His manic attention whoring across the Internet ("I'm right!"; "I'm very, VERY educated and super intelligent!"; "You're dumb!"; "I win because I get the last word!"; "I'm VERY fat!") only solidifies this disturbing reality.
This isn't something that can be fixed in another self-help forum. The kid needs professional help.
Funny you mentioning this...
Al Roker Wishes 'Global Warming' Term Had Never Been Used
Poor Al. The weather hasn't cooperated with the predictions of the Global Warming Alarmists and now they just wish you would forget they had ever used that term over and over and over again. The preferred term is now "Climate Change" which can mean anything. Did it rain a lot? Climate Change! Was there a drought? Climate Change! Did the Great Lakes freeze over? Climate Change!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gla...term-had-never-been-used#sthash.Gpwv3fpx.dpuf
