Scientific American

[ref1ect1ons]

I'm not saying anything other than most of them were not climate scientist or astrophysicist, many of them were not scientist and probably just the readership. That said, i give you a poll.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/scientific-american-poll-81-think-ipcc.html <<<there is some extra info here, but I copied most of it below.

Scientific American Poll: 81% think the IPCC is Corrupt, with Group-think & Political Agenda

'Scientific' American may regret taking their recent opinion poll on the state of climate science given the eye-opening results cast by their "scientifically literate" readership. With a total of 5190 respondents, a consensus of 81.3% think the IPCC is "a corrupt organization, prone to group-think, with a political agenda" and 75% think climate change is caused by solar variation or natural processes vs. 21% who think it is due to greenhouse gases from human activity. 65% think we should do nothing about climate change since "we are powerless to stop it," and the same percentage think science should stay out of politics. When asked, "How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?," 76.7% said "nothing."

Poll results http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=ONSUsVTBSpkC_2f2cTnptR6w_2fehN0orSbxLH1gIA03DqU_3d

Climate of Change?

1. Should climate scientists discuss scientific uncertainty in mainstream forums?

No, that would play into the hands of the fossil-fuel lobby. 3.0% 157

Yes, it would help engage the citizenry. 90.1% 4,673

Maybe—but only via serious venues like PBS's the NewsHour and The New York Times. 6.9% 358

answered question 5,188

skipped question 2

2. Judith Curry is:

a peacemaker. 69.1% 3,585

a dupe. 7.6% 392

both. 4.3% 224

I've never heard of her. 19.0% 987

answered question 5,188

skipped question 2

3. What is causing climate change? <<<there seems to be an error on this question.

greenhouse gases from human activity 30.9% 1,602

solar variation 33.1% 1,718

natural processes 75.8% 3,934

There is no climate change. 6.2% 320

answered question 5,188

skipped question 2

4. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is:

an effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts. 18.0% 932

a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda. 81.3% 4,220

something to do with Internet protocols. 0.7% 36

answered question 5,188

skipped question 2

5. What should we do about climate change?

Nothing, we are powerless to stop it. 65.4% 3,394

Use more technology (geoengineering, carbon capture and storage). 16.7% 865

Use less technology (cars, intensive agriculture). 5.8% 303

Switch to carbon-free energy sources as much as possible and adapt to changes already underway. 29.5% 1,528

answered question 5,188

skipped question 2

6. What is "climate sensitivity"?

the degree to which global temperature responds to concentrations of greenhouse gases 32.6% 1,692

an unknown variable that climate scientists still do not understand 52.2% 2,708

the phrase on which the fate of human civilization hangs 0.6% 30

all of the above 14.6% 758

answered question 5,188

skipped question 2

7. Which policy options do you support?

a carbon tax 15.1% 781

cap and trade (a price on carbon via an overall limit on emissions paired with some form of market for such pollution permits) 8.5% 441

increased government funding of energy-related technology research and development 38.8% 2,015

cap and dividend, in which the proceeds of auctioning pollution permits are rebated to taxpayers 6.6% 343

keeping science out of the political process 65.1% 3,375

answered question 5,188

skipped question 2

8. How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?

a 50 percent increase in electricity bills 3.8% 195

a doubling of gasoline prices 5.5% 286

nothing 76.7% 3,981

whatever it takes 14.0% 726

answered question 5,188

skipped question 2

Edited November 5, 2010 by ref1ect1ons

[Yeti101]

[ref1ect1ons]

It's ok, your beliefs are not scientific, and yet you look down on me, as if 'i dont get it'. Well it has failed to convince the world because it is wrong. It is not long now before you will have to swallow your pride and admit defeat.

Do you really want the Norfolk island measures here?, do you really believe they will save the world?

We need to focus on what can really be done, like reducing pollution such as the flouride that killed those kangaroos. We need to stop GM crops from contaminating the environment, instead of focusing on your stupid unprovable nonsense.

AGW is dead.

I pointed out some problems with the poll, but if anyone points any holes in AGW, you religious zealots act like I said 'Jesus isnt real'. You get what you deserve for not researching properly the science behind what you support. This was literally one of my special interest for months, I beleive in AGW when I first started, but I assure you, I have read more on this subject then you're even aware of.

You will have to admit that it's dead soon, with republicans in power, it's finished.

If we had a poll in a scientific magazine that supported AGW, you'd be wetting your pants while pointing it out to every 'denier' you come across.

Edited November 6, 2010 by ref1ect1ons

[synchromesh]

Which is what makes one particular item on the group’s discussion agenda so tremendously significant. See if you can spot the one I mean:

The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations.

Yep, that’s right. Global Cooling.

Which means one of two things.

Either it was a printing error.

Or the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming, but is so far unwilling to admit it except behind closed doors.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21218

[Distracted]

Mass extinctions have been tied in with temperature, the hotter it is the less diverse the species on earth is.

Global cooling would be very welcome, but these things don't happen suddenly.

Thanks for the link reflections.

<--- denier lol (truthseeker )

[ref1ect1ons]

Mass extinctions have been tied in with temperature, the hotter it is the less diverse the species on earth is.

Well to a certain point, if the atmosphere turns to plasma all things will die, as with an ice-age. But in general warmer temps means greater diversity of life, for example if Greenland was as it was in the middle ages (medieval times had a warm period were Greenland was green, who woulda thought), life would have an opportunity to thrive there, as it is now; nothing really thrives there.

This is a logical assertion made by me, ie. just an opinion, but I have seen it backed by many scientist and so if you push me, ill find a quote from a good source. So I say Colder =death, warmer =life.

It is toxic pollution (nuclear waste/chemicals that feminize alligator for example), rampant deforestation, poverty (which leads to unsustainable pop rates), hunting/or over use of resources, and fossil fuels (mining and carbon monoxide) which leads to most of the destruction of life and the environment.

I posted a vid on thorium nuclear reactors the other day. I also believe in funding free-energy and cold-fusion projects (yes the gov says it is lunatic fringe, I wonder why, believe what you want).

This is where AGW money should be spent, instead of jetsetting morons who really dont believe in their carbon footprint. Ie. James Cameron (i posted a vid on him in youtube section) and Al gore who tell everyone else to cut their carbon but own mansions that consume more 'carbon' then anyone else.

It is funny how they talk about 'overpopulation', if they really believe this, they should shoot themselves in the head first, before they tell anyone else to. And as an example to other AGW supporters.

PS. Although it has been a while and I am a bit rusty, I am prepared to argue someone on things such as positive feedback theory and hotspots (cornerstones of AGW once initial models were questioned), as well as changes in the sun and satellite data. I Also have a problem with some reports not having statistically significant results where many people who dont understand stats said it was 'close enough'. So I hope someone can find that report again if they wish to challenge me. I dont understand everything but I certainly understand more than many here, and as many have highlighted we (all humanity) have a limited understanding of climate (it involves more factors than any computer model could integrate) and this is why the AGW scam was able to confuse many 'scientist'.

Almost forgot, I can also find topnotch info on ocean levels, coral bleaching and other doomsday non-events that AGW supporters believe in, or as being related to climate change.

Judith Curry is one such dissenter, she was all AGW until recently, hence why The Scientific American conducted the poll. Bet you didnt read that ay Yeti.

Up for it YETI?, since you gave me the ad hominen face palm move. Lets see what you really know yeti, i am sure I will make a fool out of you.

Edited November 6, 2010 by ref1ect1ons

[Distracted]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562410/

The study name is "A long term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record".

I haven't read it all, just the abstract and some news articles discussing it.

[ref1ect1ons]

Ok so you found one paper by the AGW camp. In the abstract they actually highlight the reason for their research as being especially important to AGW theory. First sentence:

The past relationship between global temperature and levels of biological diversity is of increasing concern due to anthropogenic climate warming.

They have an agenda and are full of shit, and yes they are 'scientist'. Allow me to demonstrate.

I did a quick search on the triassic, jurassic and cretaceous periods (during some of this time antarctica was quite temperate and life was able to thrive there., this is generally (ie. I am only using wikipedia as I cant be fuked establishing known facts with research papers and cannot currently access the database) accepted as a very diverse period for life (I have a huge interest in dinosaurs etc). Also the land mass was shaped differently, antartica was closer to the equator, which is a confounding factor in it's climate of the time.

On land, large archosaurian reptiles remained dominant. The Jurassic was a golden age for the large herbivorous dinosaurs known as the sauropods—Camarasaurus, Apatosaurus, Diplodocus, Brachiosaurus, and many others—that roamed the land late in the period; their mainstays were either the prairies of ferns, palm-like cycads and bennettitales, or the higher coniferous growth, according to their adaptations. They were preyed upon by large theropods as for example Ceratosaurus, Megalosaurus, Torvosaurus and Allosaurus. All these belong to the 'lizard hipped' or saurischian branch of the dinosaurs.[16] During the Late Jurassic, the first birds, like Archaeopteryx, evolved from small coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Ornithischian dinosaurs were less predominant than saurischian dinosaurs, although some like stegosaurs and small ornithopods played important roles as small and medium-to-large (but not sauropod-sized) herbivores. In the air, pterosaurs were common; they ruled the skies, filling many ecological roles now taken by birds.[17] Within the undergrowth were various types of early mammals, as well as tritylodont mammal-like reptiles, lizard-like sphenodonts, and early lissamphibians.

Now to support such large life forms there had to be more oxygen in the air (fact look it up) and more plant life and generally more life to support these huge predators. The seas were full of large creatures, and although mammals hadnt gained a big foot-hold yet, life was Big and thriving.

What was the temperature like?. Well I have already pointed-out that antartica was temperate during the earlier times of jurassic and triassic, but here is a quote for the cretaceous:

A very gentle temperature gradient from the equator to the poles meant weaker global winds, contributing to less upwelling and more stagnant oceans than today. This is evidenced by widespread black shale deposition and frequent anoxic events.[11] Sediment cores show that tropical sea surface temperatures may have briefly been as warm as 42 °C (107 °F), 17 °C (31 °F) warmer than at present, and that they averaged around 37 °C (99 °F). Meanwhile deep ocean temperatures were as much as 15 to 20 °C (27 to 36 °F) higher than today's.[12][13]

After the end of the Berriasian, however, temperatures increased again, and these conditions were almost constant until the end of the period.[7] This trend was due to intense volcanic activity which produced large quantities of carbon dioxide.

During the cretacious period, many plants started to evolve into flowering kinds that we have today. This was during a period of increased carbon dioxide, as I quoted above.

So yeah, one research paper against a wealth of knowledge. They fail to convince me.

A quote from the paper, about a sample that did not fit their hypothesis.

For example, in the Mid–Late Jurassic (ca 180–150 Ma), both temperature and diversity residuals rise, giving rise to a positive association

CO2 was significant for both marine genus origination and extinction rate

Although co2 may have (seemingly) fluctuated with extinction rate, they dont provide a reason for the extinction (there is a quote in my next post where they admit that correlation studies cannot determine causation). Are we suppose to believe that non-toxic carbon (which lead to an increase in plant life) lead to the OPPOSITE in marine life?, clearly there is a confounding factor here which caused the extinction. (this is admitted later, when they say that they HAVE NOT determined causation).

Variation in global temperature has previously been implicated in several major features of the fossil record, most notably mass extinction events

Yes temperature is included in MASS extinction events, but not in general temperature variablility. This is because after a cataclysmic event the climate changed SIGNIFICANTLY and SUDDENLY, ie. one theory is the 'meteor' event which lead to mass extinction as the world went into the Ice-age as the sun was blocked out for days.

Even If the meteor theory is incorrect, scientist have evidence of a CATACLYSMIC event, which would have changed temperatures suddenly and drastically. This is NOT the same as natural variablity in temperature and does not represent the relationship between life and temp in general. Because as I have highlighted, Ice-age had little 'biodiversity, whereas the time before the ice-age was warmer and more biodiverse.

These scientist have incensed me. They know what they are doing, and obviously have no interest in dinosaurs or the periods in which they lived. I have a learning disability which leads me to be excluded alot at university, and to see professors dirty something I love with lies...

Edited November 7, 2010 by ref1ect1ons

[ref1ect1ons]

Apparently there is a quote limit. So here are is the end of my post.

Another quote:

Finally, although we have shown an association between temperature and both biodiversity and taxonomic rates, this association may not be causative.

, as I suggested, there is a confounding factor, like a mass extinction event, that may be the cause. Also many factors in the environment lead to the rise of mammals and the decline of dinosaurs, including the falling oxygen rates, which I highlighted earlier.

They admit that previous studies have shown a greater richness of life with higher co2:

Previous work at the scale of the Phanerozoic has suggested associations between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and taxonomic richness and rates

Here their agenda rears it's ugly head again:

Despite the above provisos, our results demand that we speculate on causative links between temperature and both biodiversity and taxonomic rates

In conclusion, we have discovered a second-order long-term association between global temperature and both biodiversity and taxonomic rates, and show that whether Earth climate was in an icehouse or greenhouse phase explains considerable variation in the Phanerozoic fossil record.

I would argue that the 'icehouse' periods had a greater effect on extinction then did the warm periods. A plausible assumption at the very least

Edited November 7, 2010 by ref1ect1ons

[krazykungfu]

You are one passionate dude ref1ect1ons! You certainly seem to have done your homework, as you state - I hope you put that much dedication in all aspects of your life and your bound to be successful in your endeavours...

In any case, AGW real or not, it's not going to bother any of us (i.e. the ones living and breathing right now) significantly... There is political and financial motivations in every institution, it's part of human nature and can be seen in every social interaction we partake in. There's even politics on this forum, even a community with a common interest and purpose fosters this kind of behaviour and displays significant differences in opinion...

I used to want to preserve the world for my children - but it is what it is and we just have to go along for the ride. If we all stop worrying about a couple of degree's change in either direction and instead stop plundering natural resources, destroying forests, creating GM plants and contaminating the natural environment in millions of other ways we'd all be better off...

Robust sceptisism is always needed, and that is what you have provided here - differences of opinion are a valuable resource, not a source of conflict...

[synchromesh]

If we all stop worrying about a couple of degree's change in either direction and instead stop plundering natural resources, destroying forests, creating GM plants and contaminating the natural environment in millions of other ways we'd all be better off...

 

Amen!

[Zen Peddler]

 

Yeti - originally i thought this was two hands catching an aussie rules football LOL