Climate Scientists Face Organized Harassment in U.S.

Post Reply New Topic

It is extremely amusing that you keep assigning views to me, besides how you cannot see it is would be a pretty small conspiracy on the part of big companies to bribe a handful of people to parrot their s**t, as grandly illustrated in an infographic posted a page or so back in this thread. I would hardly call it a conspiracy at all, really.



"Fact of the matter" is I don't care where you worked, I care what you have to say



So you actually want me to figure out the bus route you took? That means giving me your starting point, which I discourage you from doing



I have yet to see any knowledge of the actual science from you, all you do is parrot that idiotic "climate gate" meme and post worthless Fox articles that attempt to discredit the scientists themselves instead of the work they present. So when I see you halt with the character assassination and start with the intellectual debate maybe I will stop looking upon what you consider "knowledge" in this area with contempt

It doesn't take a grand conspiracy, all it takes is for the scientists to be incredibly biased and a lack of academic honesty.



Actually to you it does matter where I worked, because once you admit that I did work at Goddard, then you've acknowledged the fact that I do know what I'm talking about.



I already said there were two bus routes, route 15 and the 15 express. I had to take a shuttle to the bus station (whatever you call it out East). Goddard is located in Greenbelt, Maryland. I'm not telling you where I was staying.



Vigilans to be rather blunt you wouldn't consider Fox News to be a valid source simply because they don't spew the standard left wing propaganda.

evidence, please?

Given that the scientists involved in climategate didn't 'tamper with the numbers' in any dishonest way, and were cleared of misconduct by outside investigators, I suspect that you were a junior intern who didn't understand what you were hearing or that you were listening to non-climate scientists speculating about what had happened based on nothing more than what had been publicized in the media.

Dude, having been on a bus, and having been an intern, does not make you an expert on this or any other area.

And do you know what the ratio of increasing areas to decreasing areas is, darling?
Here's a hint: it's not 1:1

The funny thing when people bring up climate change such as global warming people tend to forget the earth goes through warming and cooling periods. Also not to mention phenomina such as El Nino and La Nina.

When the NOrthern Ice Cap is melted, shipping will be sped up by 30 percent.

Since most of the ice melting, is floating ice, the ocean levels will not be raised much.

ruveyn

... And you somehow assume that climate scientists are unaware of this?

Interestingly, BTW, according to the current stage in the Milankovitch cycles, Earth should actually be cooling down, not heating up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovit ... conditions

... there are also feedback effects - positive (like ice-albedo) and negative (like clouds) - but these have also been incorporated into the current models of climate change...

Oh, and the the Wiki article above refers to a Science article (no anti-wiki pun intended, it *is* written in italics) which makes the following prediction:

"The climate system may take 50,000 years to assimilate the impacts of human activities during the early third millennium." (Berger A, Loutre MF, 2002 - Science 297 (5585): 1287–8 )

No biggie, though. The planet will be fine. The *people*, on the other hand...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Off-Topic Self-Demonstrating Addendum: I am getting exceedingly frustrated by the fact that WP turns my into . See! Give me back the power of the number 8 and the closing parenthesis! - This injustice is unbearable, and I will not stand for.... Oh, wait... I just noticed the "Disable Smilies in this post" option...

.


In the UK it's the scientists that claim the global warning "crisis" is nothing more than a government scam to collect more taxes who get the abuse.
A well know presenter of children's science programs (David Bellamy) was hounded out of his job by government backed stooges for daring to question the official government line (or should that be lie) that was being drummed into children at school.


.

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bell ... al_warming

Yep, annoying - but it can be tamed. Quote this post to see how.

7) A short
failing list

7) A short
8) tamed list

8)



Mandatory One-Liner: I am INVINCIBLE!

Excellent...

Yes it does, but the human effects are acting on top of any natural cycles. The earth's climate is more chaotic and unstable during glacial periods. The Holocene and other recent inter-glacial warm periods are characterized by relative stability.

In order to cause a net warming or cooling of the planet there needs to be a significant change in the overall energy balance. There is only one external input that can change energy balance, namely changes in the strength of solar radiation. This has been ruled out as a major factor over the past two centuries. The remaining climate forcing elements that effect energy balance are...

1.) changes in the geography of continents (only happens on a scale of millions of years)
2.) changes in the tilt of the earth's axis (only happens on a scale of 10-100 thousand years)
3.) changes in surface albedo due to changes in ice cover (will act to amplify any warming/cooling trend whenever a significant amount of ice is present)
4.) changes in atmospheric reflection/absorption due to changes in particulate matter and cloud cover characteristics (the subject of intense research, different factors can cause either warming or cooling but the general conclusion is that they effect climate locally more than globally as the effects tend to cancel out between different regions)
5.) changes in ocean currents (changes in the past 200 years are insufficient to explain the warming trend)
6.) changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.

It turns out that for the past two centuries 3 and 6 are the only biggies that cause warming. 4 has an anthropogenic component as increased pollution tends to lead to increased cloud cover, but it has been determined that this effect is mostly either neutral or leads to cooling. In other words 4 should cancel some warming which means the other effect that's causing the warming must be significant enough to overpower it. 3 is more of an amplification effect rather than a cause itself, so that leaves us at 6.