The Myth of Global Warming

[aquapub]

Once again, what is the National Registry of Environmental Professionals? What is an "Environmental Professional"? How do they define that? What is their criteria for becoming a member? For example, could a gas station worker claim to be an "Environmental Professional", pay the fee, and be a member?

Once again, you don't even understand the nature of modern science.

I don't understand modern science because you think a site advocating the liberal position on global warming is trying to use gas station employees to slant their data in favor of conservatives?

Nice logic. I love "debating" with liberals. :lol:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Here's what I cited from the article:

1) 34% said global warming is not a serious problem.
2) 41% disagreed that warming trends are a result of human behavior.
3) 71% disagreed with the notion that Katrina had anything to do with human activity.
4) 33% disagreed that the U.S. government isn't doing enough.
5) 47% disagreed with Kyoto."

Here are DIRECT QUOTES from the source you are saying disagrees with me:

1) 67 percent report they think the U.S. Government is NOT doing enough to address the effects of global warming (That matches what I said).

2) 59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity (That matches what I said).

3) 71 percent of environmental professionals, however, do consider the recent increase in hurricane activity in the Atlantic through 2005 and the Pacific through 2006, to be part of a larger natural cycle and not, for the most part, attributable to human activity (That matches what I said).

4) 67 percent report they think the U.S. Government is NOT doing enough to address the effects of global warming (That matches what I said).

5) 53 percent of professionals polled consider international agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol, provide a solid framework from which large volume energy producing countries like the U.S. can play a positive role in combating the effects of global climate change (That matches what I said).

http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm

So no, this source I provided DOESN'T contradict anything I've said, and portraying it as some conservative fraud, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS ADVOCATING IN FAVOR OF THE LIBERAL POSITION, merely reinforces my contention about liberals and literacy. Although now I am considering expanding the mental deficiency liberals are known for to include mathematics.

:lol:

Once again, how do they define environmental professional? According to this organization, does one have to be a scientist to be an "environmental professional"? Or, can one simply claim to be an "environmental professional"?

You do realize that "environmental professional" is a generic term that could apply to just about anything and is not a field of science. Moreover, climate science is a field of physics.

What part of that do you not get?

 

[aquapub]

Once again, how do they define environmental professional? According to this organization, does one have to be a scientist to be an "environmental professional"? Or, can one simply claim to be an "environmental professional"?

You do realize that "environmental professional" is a generic term that could apply to just about anything and is not a field of science. Moreover, climate science is a field of physics.

What part of that do you not get?

The part where you are expressing conern that a liberal site might have called a gas station attendant an environmental scientist so that they could slant results for conservatives.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The part where you are expressing conern that a liberal site might have called a gas station attendant an environmental scientist so that they could slant results for conservatives.

It is a simple question aquapub. You are claiming that about 1/3 of this organization that did the study say that Global Warming is not due to human activity. The problem is that if the organization is not made up of scientists, then your claim is pointless. Do you have any way of showing what the organization’s criteria is for becoming a member, or if their members have any expertise in climate science?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I'd like to recommend a Global Warming Subset within Environment.

 

[aquapub]

I just looked up your: National Registry of Environmental Professionals.

The website is here: http://www.nrep.org/

It is a scam...You are claiming that about 1/3 of this organization that did the study say that Global Warming is not due to human activity. The problem is that if the organization is not made up of scientists, then your claim is pointless.

As the web site explains, the National Registry of Environmental Professionals is like a Better Business Bureau for environmental professionals.

And before you throw up this smokescreen again about "environmental professionals" meaning gas station attendants, let me show you how environmental professional is plainly defined right there on their home page:

"environmental managers, engineers, technologists, scientists and technicians"

If this organization is a slanted conservative scam, then why did the mainstream media cover their press conference on 11-16-06, referring to them as a non-partisan group lobbying for environmental reforms to protect against climate change?


Here's an excerpt from the Associated Press on Lexis Nexis:

Headline: Environmental Group To Push For Climate Change Legislation

"Within an hour of Sen. James Inhofe, outgoing chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, calling a press conference to predict that climate change legislation had no chance of clearing the newly Democratic Senate, the non-partisan National Registry of Environmental Professionals announced it was seeking to lobby Congress to do exactly that: move a bill capping greenhouse gases in the very near future.

The NREP's decision comes out of a newly released survey conducted by the group showing a majority of registered environmental professionals -- including environmental engineers, scientists, and civil servants -- believe man-made climate change is real and that legislative action is necessary. "These are the guys and gals making a living off this. They understand the science, the technology, and to an extent, the politics behind it," said Dr. Richard Young, Executive Director of NREP. Of the 793 members surveyed from 47 states, including Puerto Rico and Guam, 67 percent believed the federal government was not doing enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions. As part of the group's new advocacy effort, the survey, which also address potential solutions, will be distributed to every member in the House and Senate. Committee chairs will be lobbied to hold global-warming related hearings as soon as possible. "We'd like to be called upon to testify," said Ed Badalato, a member of the NREP Board of Directors."

How's that foot tasting? :2wave:

This would be why you don't sling your feces at people like some kind of semi-literate gorilla (liberal), calling them things like "pathetic joke" without getting your facts straight. :lol:

As this non-partisan, media-respected organization's survey of environmental scientists demonstrates, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON GLOBAL WARMING. :nahnah:

 

[aquapub]

Now that the typical liberal "smear first, think later" witch hunt has been debunked, let's get back to my original announcement...


A new non-partisan study further demonstrates liberals are full of crap about there being a consensus among experts on global warming.

The non-partisan group is the National Registry of Environmental professionals.

Of 793 environmental scientists and practitioners...

-34% said global warming is not a serious problem.
-41% disagreed that warming trends are a result of human behavior.
-71% disagreed with the notion that Katrina had anything to do with human activity.
-33% disagreed that the U.S. government isn't doing enough.
-47% disagreed with Kyoto.


There's your "consensus of experts." :lol:

 

[OnionCollection]

Why do you think all those people are experts? I very much doubt health and saftey officials are for example. If you could seperate the opinions of the scientists in that poll, that might be different.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Now that the typical liberal "smear first, think later" witch hunt has been debunked, let's get back to my original announcement...


A new non-partisan study further demonstrates liberals are full of crap about there being a consensus among experts on global warming.

The non-partisan group is the National Registry of Environmental professionals.

Of 793 environmental scientists and practitioners...

-34% said global warming is not a serious problem.
-41% disagreed that warming trends are a result of human behavior.
-71% disagreed with the notion that Katrina had anything to do with human activity.
-33% disagreed that the U.S. government isn't doing enough.
-47% disagreed with Kyoto.


There's your "consensus of experts." :lol:

You are an idiot dude. Your above post states the following:

"environmental managers, engineers, technologists, scientists and technicians"

The only people qualified to voice an expert opinion on climate change science are scientists who work in a related field who have published work in a peer reviewed journal on climate change.

An "engineer, tech, or manager" does not fit that bill.

A scientific concensus is a concensus of scientists who work in the field related to the concensus. The opinions of managers, techs, and even engineers do not apply toward a concensus.

 

[Gill]

The only people qualified to voice an expert opinion on climate change science are scientists who work in a related field who have published work in a peer reviewed journal on climate change.

I guess that means you can't voice an opinion on climate change science then....

 

[Gill]

Actually, today the vast majority believe we are now warmer than in at least 12,000 years, and one degree short of being warmer than at least the last 1 million years.

I guess the National Academy of Sciences is not part of the majority then...

Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added.

High Confidence That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years - Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600

According to my calculator, A.D. 900 was a little less than 12,000 years ago.

 

[Sauwan]

You are an idiot dude.

Easy there tiger.

 

[aquapub]

You are an idiot dude.

:lol:

Somebody's bitter. It's not my fault you keep embarrassing yourself. :2wave:

Your above post states the following:

"environmental managers, engineers, technologists, scientists and technicians"

The only people qualified to voice an expert opinion on climate change science are scientists who work in a related field who have published work in a peer reviewed journal on climate change.

An "engineer, tech, or manager" does not fit that bill.

A scientific concensus is a concensus of scientists who work in the field related to the concensus. The opinions of managers, techs, and even engineers do not apply toward a concensus.

Says who? This is a desperate, arbitrary assertion. :sinking:

Environmental engineers, environmental technologists, and environmental engineers SHOULD know all about climate change, and to my knowledge, it is not standard to exclude everyone who does not sound scientific enough for SouthernDemocrat to accept while he looks for excuses to reject experts.

 

[aquapub]

I guess the National Academy of Sciences is not part of the majority then...


High Confidence That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years - Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600

According to my calculator, A.D. 900 was a little less than 12,000 years ago.

:lol:

Don't trouble him with your piddly facts. He has his liberal emotions and Gore's movie to tell him he's right. Nevermind the fact that liberals have an egregious record of being wrong about this kind of thing.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

:lol:

Somebody's bitter. It's not my fault you keep embarrassing yourself. :2wave:




Says who? This is a desperate, arbitrary assertion. :sinking:

Environmental engineers, environmental technologists, and environmental engineers SHOULD know all about climate change, and to my knowledge, it is not standard to exclude everyone who does not sound scientific enough for SouthernDemocrat to accept while he looks for excuses to reject experts.

Ok, next time you go in for surgery, have the lab tech or nurse assistant do it.

Scientific concensus is a concensus among scientists. Not techs or managers.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I guess the National Academy of Sciences is not part of the majority then...


High Confidence That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years - Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600

According to my calculator, A.D. 900 was a little less than 12,000 years ago.

Yes, when they reviewed Mann's 9 year old study, they found that the evidence presented in it was only strong enough to show that we are the warmest in 400 years.

However, there are about a dozen more studies on this issue since then.

For example, one month later in PNAS a study was published that showed we were warmer than in 12,000 years.

Warmest World in 12,000 Years


A new study by NASA climatologists finds that the world’s temperature is reaching a level that has not been seen in thousands of years.
The study appears in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, authored by James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, N.Y. and colleagues from Columbia University, Sigma Space Partners, Inc., and the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB). The study concludes that, because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels in the current interglacial period, which has lasted nearly 12,000 years. This warming is forcing a migration of plant and animal species toward the poles.

Read more here: Universe Today » Archive » Warmest World in 12,000 Years

Another recent peer reviewed study:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Glaciers Are Melting at Their Fastest Rate for 5,000 Years [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Steve Connor[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Mountain glaciers are melting faster now than at any time in the past 5,000 years because of an unprecedented period of global warming, a study has found.
Ice cores taken from mountains as far apart as the Andes in South America and the Himalayas in Asia have revealed how climate change is leading to a full-scale retreat of the world's tropical glaciers.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

These photos released by the Glacier National Park Archives show the dramatic recession of the Grinnell Glacier as seen from the Grinnell Glacier Overlook off the Highline Trail in Glacier National Park, Montana. The first view taken in circa 1940 shows the early formation of Upper Grinnell Lake, a proglacier lake visible at the terminus of the glacier. The 2004 photo shows a dramatic increase in the size of the lake as a result of melting ice. (AP Photo /1940 c. Unknown; 2004 Karen Holzer, USGS/Courtesy of Glacier National Park Archives)
[/FONT] Scientists have warned that human activities over the past 100 years may have nudged the global climate beyond a critical threshold which could see most of the highest ice caps disappearing within the near future. Melting glaciers in South America and Asia not only contribute to rising sea levels, they are also vital sources of freshwater for many millions of people who live within their range at lower altitudes, the scientists said.
The scientists, led by Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University, present three lines of evidence pointing to a dramatic melting of glaciers in both the Andes and the Himalayas: a change in the chemical isotopes of the ice cores, the widespread retreat of glaciers and the uncovering of frozen plants that had been buried for thousands of years.
"These three lines of evidence argue that the present warming and associated glacier retreat are unprecedented in some areas for at least 5,200 years," the scientists wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. "The ongoing global-scale, rapid retreat of mountain glaciers is not only contributing to global sea-level rise but also threatening freshwater supplies in many of the world's most populous regions."
Professor Thompson said the research was based on nearly 50 scientific expeditions to seven mountain glaciers over the past three decades, including the Huascaran and Quelccaya ice caps in Peru, the Sajama ice cap in Bolivia and the Dunde and Puruogangri ice caps in China. He said: "We have a record going back 2,000 years and when you plot it out, you can see the medieval warm period [from 1000 to 1300] and the little ice age [from 1600 to 1850]. And in that same record, you can clearly see the 20th century and the thing that stands out is how unusually warm the last 50 years have been. There hasn't been anything like it, not even in the medieval warm period.
"The fact that the isotope values in the last 50 years have been so unusual means that things are dramatically changing."
The most dramatic evidence comes from 28 sites where the retreating ice has exposed plants that have been frozen and preserved for between 5,000 and 6,000 years by the glacier's base.
"This means that the climate at the ice cap hasn't been warmer than it is today in the last 5,000 years or more," Professor Thompson said. "If it had been, then the plants would have decayed."

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited​

[/FONT]

 

[Sauwan]

Environmental engineers, environmental technologists, and environmental engineers SHOULD know all about climate change

Yes, they should know all about global warming. As should a good chunk of the population.

The problem is that unless they are conducting the research themselves it's meaningless else it is nothing but repetition of the thoughts of someone who knows what they are talking about.

For example: Take a small sample of 5 scientists. 4 of which believe global warming is a problem, and one which does not. If the one who does not has more funding he may have plenty of technicians working for him where as the 4 scientist's do not.

Upon taking a poll, there might be a 50-50 split even though there is a majority among the people who have the background and experience to actually be credible.

 

[Gill]

Yes, when they reviewed Mann's 9 year old study, they found that the evidence presented in it was only strong enough to show that we are the warmest in 400 years.

NO, this study was not only about Mann's outlandish hockey stick. The paper stated categorically that the evidence that temps were warmer more than 400 years in the past was not reliable.

 

[aquapub]

Yes, they should know all about global warming. As should a good chunk of the population.

The problem is that unless they are conducting the research themselves it's meaningless else it is nothing but repetition of the thoughts of someone who knows what they are talking about.

For example: Take a small sample of 5 scientists. 4 of which believe global warming is a problem, and one which does not. If the one who does not has more funding he may have plenty of technicians working for him where as the 4 scientist's do not.

Upon taking a poll, there might be a 50-50 split even though there is a majority among the people who have the background and experience to actually be credible.

I understand this, but it is intellectually dishonest to deem those who have made environmental science the focal point of their education unqualified to render an opinion on global warming just because they aren't specifically climatologists.

It would be like dissmissing a survey of microbiologists and virologists showing wide disagreement about whether viruses are living things or not just because microbiologists were also consulted. Anyone who's ever been through a microbiology program is definitely qualified to render such an opinion.

At worst, this point you have made requires me to revise my statement to, "Among those who've made environmental science the focal point of their education, there is no consensus on global warming."

I think you're splitting hairs here, but at least you didn't declare the survey invalid due to the chance that this non-partisan, respected group used the term, "environmental scientist" to describe a gas station attendant like Southern Democrat. :lol:

 

[aquapub]

"When the public comes to understand that there is no 'consensus' among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the economy and the environment." -2006 open letter to the Canadian government from 60 climate experts. "Open Kyoto to Debate." National Post.

Open Kyoto to debate

Consensus? :bs

 

[aquapub]

Here's what the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) says...

"Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties...Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth?s environmental system. These components include the oceans, land, lakes, and continental ice sheets, and involve physical, biological, and chemical processes. The complicated feedbacks and forcings within the climate system are the reasons for the difficulty in accurately predicting the future climate."

Send to:

Consensus? :bs

 

[aquapub]

"People come to me and say: 'Stop talking like this; you're hurting the cause." -Dr. Robert Giegengack, Geologist at the University of Pennsylvania, commenting on reactions to his noting unhelpful facts about greenhouse gases...like the fact that most of them aren't man-made.

-Nitrous Oxide: 95% naturally occuring.
-Methane: 82% naturally occuring.
-C02: 97% naturally occuring.
-CFCs: 34% naturally occuring.

Al Gore's lie about the "928 scientific papers" consensus has been debunked. There is no consensus, the energy companies are on the side of environmentalists, not the skeptics, and contrary to what self-appointed victims and long time friends of Gore such as Dr. James Hansen claim about Bush, the only people ACTUALLY silencing dissent here are liberals, as is standard.

 

[aquapub]

"The World's Climatologists are agreed...Once the freeze starts, it will be too late."

Douglass Colligan. Science Digest, 1975.

Junk science, plain and simple.

 

[OnionCollection]

"People come to me and say: 'Stop talking like this; you're hurting the cause." -Dr. Robert Giegengack, Geologist at the University of Pennsylvania, commenting on reactions to his noting unhelpful facts about greenhouse gases...like the fact that most of them aren't man-made.

-Nitrous Oxide: 95% naturally occuring.
-Methane: 82% naturally occuring.
-C02: 97% naturally occuring.
-CFCs: 34% naturally occuring.

Funnily enough this is incorrect, but then the guy is a geologist and doesnt necessarily have anything to do with the atmosphere...but still it's suprisingly incorrect for a claim to be made in public.

A quarter of the co2 in the atmosphere is due to human activity. The rise from about 280ppm pre-industrial to about 380ppm today.

The CFC one is especially suspicious given that as far as I am aware CFC is an artificial molecule not produced naturally on Earth.

 

[aquapub]

Funnily enough this is incorrect, but then the guy is a geologist and doesnt necessarily have anything to do with the atmosphere...but still it's suprisingly incorrect for a claim to be made in public.

A geologist would definitely be qualified to render opinions on naturally occuring gases. That shouldn't even be controversial.

And although the term "naturally occuring" is being loosely applied here, the point is that combustion emissions (man) contribute about 2% of the greenhouse gases liberals are creating all this rape-the-economy-hysteria about.