By linking instead to wattsupwiththat, you're just self-labellling yourself as a denialist moron.
don't be surprised when we reach that timeline with no warming and then take the good Doctor at his word - there is a pause in global warming, and we only need 17 years to make that determination.
Wait? Why do we have to wait? We always have 17 years of latest data. You mean wait until you can cherry pick a period starting with 1998 again? Moron.
Anything is questionable. See any 5 year old kid for details. But there is nothing wrong with the study. Citations to the contrary have been requested and are conspicuous by their absence.
But I don't think you had a geek card in the first place, so don't worry.
We can only power about 10% of the US with wind before we are disrupting the jet stream.
You'd have a problem disrupting the jet stream if you covered every square mile of the US with wind turbines, given that the Jet Stream is several kilometers up in the sky, and they don't build turbines much bigger than a couple of hundred meters.
Ha ha ha! Your reference to this "being no myth" is a site that is guest hosting Ann Coulter, and calls Global Warming a myth! Thanks for demonstrating my point so well. The bird killing aspect of wind turbines is just a myth made up by the same anti-science people that deny global warming.
And, BTW, fracking has been around since the 40's. Whats you're problem? Are you one of those enviros that opposes everything?
I would have thought the fact that I said build nuclear would have answered that for you. And I don't care whether fracking has been around since the 1840s, it's an environmental blight and a serious health problem.
the damn commies in China
You're a fucking imbecile. No wonder you linked to a Ann Coulter supporting site.
Passing high school math and science courses would be more than enough in this case.
Which we may assume the professor of physics at McGill university has done. So what's the qualification you have that he doesn't?
And anyone with the slightest understanding of statistics knows that you cannot take a 500 year non-random sample out of a 500m year data set and expect this miniscule slice to accurately reflect the whole.
Try wind, but you probably won't have a bird left alive in the whole country.
It's a myth. The occasional bird is killed by a wind turbine, but as a cause of death it shrinks into irrelevance compared with other man-caused bird deaths - chief amongst them windows. Far more birds die from flying into windows than wind turbines.
PV gets cheaper every year, and is already very much the cheapest way to power an EV.
There's nothing wrong with nuclear. Built more plants.
And you haven't even considered the potential of the enormous power available in the oceans, both tide and wave.
Certainly the last thing we should be doing is drilling for more fossil fuels. Especially by fracking.
A political religious right, and a faux news channel that has no interest in reporting actual news, and a "democracy" in which politicians cannot be elected without bribes from big business (colloquially known as "donations".)
It's a shame there's so many useful idiots here though. Personally I think we should confiscate the geek card from anyone claiming the scientific consensus is proved wrong by X. Where X is any already long debunked myth.
Population trends show a rise to about 9 billion in 50 years time, with global population flatlining at that for the foreseeable future. Which is good news and bad news. Good news is that population isn't growing without end. Bad news is we need to plan for 9 billion when making AGW mitigation plans.
Enlighten me. How does a 500 year data set apply to a 4.5 billion year old planet?
What has led you to this bizarre conclusion that the percentage of the planet's existence is significant?
What postulate of statistics allows asserting accurate predictions from 0.0000001 repeating percent of the full data set?
What "postulate" do you imagine says you can't? I haven't heard but a small fraction of all music ever created. But I can still name a Beatles song in a few notes. The size of "everything" is not relevant to the question.
Could you predict the sentiments of every human on the planet (over 4 billion) by asking the last 500 people born?
Polling is indeed the way that we find out the opinions of people in general. And 500 is indeed a reasonable poll, depending on the question.
But the equivalent to "500 people", would be 500 temperature measurements taken at one point on the earths surface. There is vastly more climate data than that that we have over the last 500 years.
People who actually work in the field and spend decades of their life in this dedicated study have a vested interest in reaching a positive conclusion. If they found that there was no man-made global warming, they'd be out of jobs.
And yet SETI aren't reporting any alien contacts.
You're full of shit. There is MORE money available for any scientist that publishes papers that say there is no global warming. Oil companies are rich, and there are few qualified scientists willing to take their preferred side of the argument. And the reason they aren't taking this easy money? Because the science to say global warming isn't happening isn't there. It's easy to write blogs or newspaper articles denying it. It's impossible to write proper scientific papers that do so.
A baker will always claim his bread is the best.
And yet no bakers say yeast doesn't make CO2 to make the bread rise.
You've come up short when challenged to justify your denial. Let's try another angle. The person you are contradicting is a professor of Physics at McGill university. What's your qualification that makes you equipped to contradict?
You get what you pay for. IKEA is a place that makes it affordable to furnish a starter home. Then you get better stuff piecemeal as you build your life.
And that's different from Silicon Valley how? Those manufacturing jobs are in China regardless of whether the working standards are US level or Swedish level. But the creative jobs are in Silicon Valley and Sweden.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to quote Dr. Santer, then link to his press release.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/news...
By linking instead to wattsupwiththat, you're just self-labellling yourself as a denialist moron.
don't be surprised when we reach that timeline with no warming and then take the good Doctor at his word - there is a pause in global warming, and we only need 17 years to make that determination.
Wait? Why do we have to wait? We always have 17 years of latest data. You mean wait until you can cherry pick a period starting with 1998 again? Moron.
Anything is questionable. See any 5 year old kid for details. But there is nothing wrong with the study. Citations to the contrary have been requested and are conspicuous by their absence.
But I don't think you had a geek card in the first place, so don't worry.
I'm not aware that anyone publishes a total amount per year. That doesn't mean it's guessing. Exxon were offering $15,000 per paper.
Are you really going to deny that oil companies won't fund research to give the answer they want? Really? That would be pretty dumb.
It's not the environmentalists objecting to wind turbines. It's you right wing nutters.
We can only power about 10% of the US with wind before we are disrupting the jet stream.
You'd have a problem disrupting the jet stream if you covered every square mile of the US with wind turbines, given that the Jet Stream is several kilometers up in the sky, and they don't build turbines much bigger than a couple of hundred meters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Because it is not a sample, anymore than lining up a group from shortest to tallest and picking the 5 at one end is a sample.
By giving that example, you've already accepted that the trend is up, and not random fluctuations. :-)
Ha ha ha! Your reference to this "being no myth" is a site that is guest hosting Ann Coulter, and calls Global Warming a myth! Thanks for demonstrating my point so well. The bird killing aspect of wind turbines is just a myth made up by the same anti-science people that deny global warming.
And, BTW, fracking has been around since the 40's. Whats you're problem? Are you one of those enviros that opposes everything?
I would have thought the fact that I said build nuclear would have answered that for you. And I don't care whether fracking has been around since the 1840s, it's an environmental blight and a serious health problem.
the damn commies in China
You're a fucking imbecile. No wonder you linked to a Ann Coulter supporting site.
Don't tell me you're a truther as well...
Passing high school math and science courses would be more than enough in this case.
Which we may assume the professor of physics at McGill university has done. So what's the qualification you have that he doesn't?
And anyone with the slightest understanding of statistics knows that you cannot take a 500 year non-random sample out of a 500m year data set and expect this miniscule slice to accurately reflect the whole.
The slightest understanding of stats you say....
http://www.angrymath.com/2010/...
Oops.
Try wind, but you probably won't have a bird left alive in the whole country.
It's a myth. The occasional bird is killed by a wind turbine, but as a cause of death it shrinks into irrelevance compared with other man-caused bird deaths - chief amongst them windows. Far more birds die from flying into windows than wind turbines.
PV gets cheaper every year, and is already very much the cheapest way to power an EV.
There's nothing wrong with nuclear. Built more plants.
And you haven't even considered the potential of the enormous power available in the oceans, both tide and wave.
Certainly the last thing we should be doing is drilling for more fossil fuels. Especially by fracking.
A political religious right, and a faux news channel that has no interest in reporting actual news, and a "democracy" in which politicians cannot be elected without bribes from big business (colloquially known as "donations".)
Stop pointing your finger at those other people, over there. China takes global warming far more seriously than the USA.
You need to surrender your geek card.
It's a shame there's so many useful idiots here though. Personally I think we should confiscate the geek card from anyone claiming the scientific consensus is proved wrong by X. Where X is any already long debunked myth.
Population trends show a rise to about 9 billion in 50 years time, with global population flatlining at that for the foreseeable future. Which is good news and bad news. Good news is that population isn't growing without end. Bad news is we need to plan for 9 billion when making AGW mitigation plans.
Yeah. If only they'd limited themselves to 15 years (or how ever many years it has been since 1998) like the deniers do.
Enlighten me.
How does a 500 year data set apply to a 4.5 billion year old planet?
What has led you to this bizarre conclusion that the percentage of the planet's existence is significant?
What postulate of statistics allows asserting accurate predictions from 0.0000001 repeating percent of the full data set?
What "postulate" do you imagine says you can't? I haven't heard but a small fraction of all music ever created. But I can still name a Beatles song in a few notes. The size of "everything" is not relevant to the question.
Could you predict the sentiments of every human on the planet (over 4 billion) by asking the last 500 people born?
Polling is indeed the way that we find out the opinions of people in general. And 500 is indeed a reasonable poll, depending on the question.
But the equivalent to "500 people", would be 500 temperature measurements taken at one point on the earths surface. There is vastly more climate data than that that we have over the last 500 years.
The poster you are referring to made a legitimate argument.
He's not made any argument at all. He's simply repeated his opinion, contrary to the scientists paper, with nothing to back it up.
It's classic denial, no more.
Nowhere near long enough to hold the weight attached.
And your qualification or citation to make that claim is?
People who actually work in the field and spend decades of their life in this dedicated study have a vested interest in reaching a positive conclusion. If they found that there was no man-made global warming, they'd be out of jobs.
And yet SETI aren't reporting any alien contacts.
You're full of shit. There is MORE money available for any scientist that publishes papers that say there is no global warming. Oil companies are rich, and there are few qualified scientists willing to take their preferred side of the argument. And the reason they aren't taking this easy money? Because the science to say global warming isn't happening isn't there. It's easy to write blogs or newspaper articles denying it. It's impossible to write proper scientific papers that do so.
A baker will always claim his bread is the best.
And yet no bakers say yeast doesn't make CO2 to make the bread rise.
And what would make you think that percentage of all earth time covered by a data set would be relevant in any way?
You've come up short when challenged to justify your denial. Let's try another angle. The person you are contradicting is a professor of Physics at McGill university. What's your qualification that makes you equipped to contradict?
You get what you pay for. IKEA is a place that makes it affordable to furnish a starter home. Then you get better stuff piecemeal as you build your life.
And that's different from Silicon Valley how? Those manufacturing jobs are in China regardless of whether the working standards are US level or Swedish level. But the creative jobs are in Silicon Valley and Sweden.