Exam Tips, Certification Exam Guides, Microsoft Exam Tips, CISCO Exam Tips

So, go back to your holes, hot-wired with FOX, and wait for the next migration to a "liberal" climate change article so you can once again just leave your droppings.

@mike egeler And 95% of climate scientist are government stooges! Without a crisis, they get no money!

Conwaythe Contaminationist 5pts

@Donnie McBee And what about the citizens of just about every developed country in the world, the majority of Americans, every single scientific institution that has any bearing on the subject, the US military, insurance companies, state governments, agribusiness companies, shipping companies, and all the other institutions that have some kind of stake in this? Are THEY all government stooges, too?

Who is the editor of this vile propaganda rag - Goebbels?

Not much to say here, just ANOTHER crap piece from national geographic!

Why not create a opinion area so people wont think this is factual!

Andrew Allison 5pts

3 Like

Yet another utterly irresponsible, and inaccurate "news" story from NGS. Note first that, "The research, detailed in this week's issue of the journal Science, synthesizes findings scattered across diverse fields ranging from archaeology to economics to paint a clearer picture of how global warming-related shifts in temperature and rainfall COULD fuel acts of aggression." and segues right into "Though scientists don't know exactly why global warming increases violence,. . ."

Where's the evidence of an increase in violence? Given that global temperatures have been at recorded highs for the past 16 years, there should be evidence to justify the hypothesis. Absent any evidence, it's just another climate change scare story. By the way, there's been no increase in extreme weather events, and no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, during the past century (NOAA has the data). The fact that there has been a huge increase in the cost of these events has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with increased population and infrastructure.

Interestingly, anthropomorphic emissions are currently 35% higher and increasing more than twice as fast as in 1997, when global warming came to a screeching halt (in other words, more than a quarter of all anthropomorphic have occurred since then). Note that this is not "could", but actual measured data. Unhappily for AGW hysterics like the NGS, not only have global temperatures not increased by a statistically significant amount since 1997, but the average temperature for each of the past four year has been LOWER than the average for the entire period. Doesn't this suggest to a rational mind that the projection of the HADCRUT4 data that global temperature is trending DOWN is correct?

AGW hysterics will respond either by denying the unimpeachable data or insisting that 16 years isn't long enough to establish a trend; to which I respond in advance that NOAA says that 15 years is long enough, and that AGW hysteria is based on a 20 year warming trend which, as noted above, came to a screeching halt in 1997. If 16 years isn't long enough to establish a trend, 20 years isn't either.

The fact is that global temperature is at the 95% probability lower bound of the AGW models, and appears to be falling. Simply put, the models have been shown by events to be rubbish.

@Andrew Allison Have you actually read the paper in question? Or even the abstract? Have you looked at any of the author's earlier work on the same subject?

You are entirely too quick to condemn something you haven't even seen. I suggest that your condemnation cannot possibly be based on a scientific analysis of the paper, and is instead based on your political prejudices.

You claim that 'NOAA says that 15 years is long enough'. I suggest that you are twisting what NOAA actually said. Moreover, if you look at the definition of climate as established by the World Meteorological Society some eighty years ago, you'll find that 30 years is considered the minimum time necessary to establish a pattern as part of climate. Moreover, if you know anything about physics and the heat capacity of the ocean, you'd know that 15 years is nowhere near enough time to establish a long-term trend. Besides, why cherry-pick the data? Why not look at ALL the evidence? If you do so, and look at sea level rise, at glacier retreat, at loss of Arctic sea ice, and a dozen other phenomena, you see the same pattern. The earth is warming.

You are wrong in multiple dimensions.

Donnie McBee 5pts like.author.displayName

@Chris Crawford Ask yourself one question. ok?

Has any of the climate models been accurate, even for 30 years? Sadly the answer is NO!

Here is another quote for you,"garbage in, garbage out". I consider climate science mostly garbage!

@Donnie McBee @Chris Crawford So you have one quote from one scientist in a newsmagazine, and I have thousands of scientific papers published by thousands of scientists. Honestly, do you really think that you have a rational basis for accepting the words of that single scientist?

As to a good civil debate, I am usually rather harsh with deniers because they are often dishonest, but I would love the opportunity to pursue our differences in a thorough and civil manner.

@Chris Crawford @Donnie McBee

"They've done a pretty good job. You've been getting bad data." I think you have bad data!

In an interview with the German news publication Der Spiegel, meteorologist Hans von Storch said that scientists are so puzzled by the 15-year standstill in global warming that if the trend continues their models could be “fundamentally wrong.”

“If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models,” Storch told Der Spiegel. “A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

I have researched climate change, probably more than the scientist!

FYI I love a good civil debate!

Conwaythe Contaminationist 5pts

@Donnie McBee @Chris Crawford Perhaps you are unaware of the performance of the climate models. You can find an actual scientific assessment of the most common models here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/2012-updates-to-model-observation-comparions/

They've done a pretty good job. You've been getting bad data.

@Chris Crawford

And you are brainwashed by the Goebbelsian media.

T S 5pts

This is a very misleading article with a picture that twists the original words of the researchers into a direction they never intended.

The picture shows a woman after an acid attack at the hands of religious fundamentalists.

These fundamentalists have been around for centuries, maiming and terrorizing women who did not live by their rules is standard practice.

And this article provides a pathetic excuse for the behavior of these animals

Bob Lee 5pts like.author.displayName

Actually, the human violence component is simpler to explain: Serum testosterone levels increases with rising ambient temperature: More testosterone, the more likely male aggressive violence will occur. Evidence is clear from human birth records which show seasonal peaks due to impregnation during warm summer months in both hemispheres: Hence, June weddings are favored in the Northern Hemisphere. The more heat, the more aggressive the behavior: Redirecting the behavior to socially acceptable organized violence is actually key: Hence organized sports. Major amateur and professional sports programs enabling literally billions of males to exercise higher testosterone levels may be required social policy. The other alternative is military training at unprecedented levels. The other alternative is drug intervention with synthetic steroids such as Depo-Provera, which is commonly used as a female contraceptive, but is also used as a sex-drive depressant for known sex offenders, usually under US court orders requiring "chemical castration". One other alternative is allowing mass migration to more temperate latitudes. It is no accident that the "Arab revolutions" have occurred during months with high ambient temperatures, and are frequently associated with a peak in violence against women.

Nate Whilk 5pts

If Homer Simpson read all the articles about possible effects attributed to global warming, I'm sure he'd say, "Global warming--is there ANYTHING it can't do?"

@Bob Lee wrote, "One other alternative is allowing mass migration to more temperate latitudes." So when are you getting the first group of refugees in your neighborhood?

@Bob Lee wrote, "Evidence is clear from human birth records which show seasonal peaks due to impregnation during warm summer months in both hemispheres: Hence, June weddings are favored in the Northern Hemisphere."

It couldn't possibly be that impregnation is affected by other factors, could it? As far as a June wedding goes, that's actually to avoid the discomfort of a pregnancy in the heat of summer. (I have as much evidence for this as you do for your assertion.)

@Bob Lee wrote, "Serum testosterone levels increases with rising ambient temperature"

On the first page of google results for "higher temperature more testosterone" (without quotes) we get a study of north Norway men which says "Lowest testosterone levels occurred in months with the highest temperatures and longest hours of daylight. [...] The variations in hormone levels were large, with a 31% difference between the lowest and highest monthly mean level of free testosterone." http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/7/3099.long

We also get this: in rams, testosterone decreased in higher temperatures. PDF: http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/33/4/804.full.pdf

So, Bob, do you really have ANY idea of what you're talking about, not to mention your alarming suggestion of using Depo-provera?

Bruce Lancaster 5pts like.author.displayName

Well... thank God there has been zero global warming the last 15 years or we'd be in trouble, eh? Hans Von Storch started talking about his data and report due to the UN next year. Global warming has been "a number close to zero" for fifteen years. In fact .06 degrees... Yeah. You read that right. point zero six degrees of warming over the last fifteen years.

Chris Crawford 5pts like.author.displayName

@Bruce Lancaster Of course, sea level has continued to rise, Arctic sea ice has continued to fall, ice loss in Antarctica has increased, glaciers all over the world have retreated, extreme weather such as droughts and hurricanes have become much more destructive, forest fires have increased in size, and ocean heat content has continued to rise.

But you're willing to stake it all on one number that covers a span of time too short to qualify as 'climate'.

Conwaythe Contaminationist 5pts like.author.displayName

@Chris Crawford @Bruce Lancaster Kindly how us where it has an anthropogenic cause, using empirical evidence, not conjecture..

@Donnie McBee @Chris Crawford @Conwaythe Contaminationist @Bruce Lancaster I did not accuse Mr. Spencer of being a quack, I wrote that his writings are full of easily exposed falsehoods. The fact that some Republicans invited him to testify does not establish any credentials.

@Chris Crawford @Donnie McBee @Conwaythe Contaminationist @Bruce Lancaster

If he is such a quack, why was he testifying at the Senate EPW hearing on climate change on July 19,2013? Do they let all quacks testify at Senate hearings?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_EPW_Written_Testimony_7_18_2013_updated.pdf

@Donnie McBee @Chris Crawford @Conwaythe Contaminationist @Bruce Lancaster I'm sorry, Mr. McBee, but I have sampled Mr. Spencer's writings on numerous occasions and it is entirely too easy to expose his falsehoods. Mr. Watts' blog is the only denier blog I have seen that includes ANY kind of scientifically competent commentary -- and that commentary is usually marred by distortions or falsehoods.

As to my reading, it includes IPCC AR4 WG1, and I regularly follow the discussions -- not just the articles, but the discussions as well -- at realclimate.org. I also read many of the important scientific literature on critical subjects. More important, I *understand* much of that literature!

@Chris Crawford @Conwaythe Contaminationist @Bruce Lancaster Chris. have you done any reading yet?

@Chris Crawford @Conwaythe Contaminationist @Bruce Lancaster

Chis, please read just a little?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

@Conwaythe Contaminationist @Chris Crawford @Bruce Lancaster There's mountains of evidence: thermal gradients in the atmosphere as well as thermal gradients in the oceans demonstrate that the source of the heating is in the atmosphere itself.

And by the way, what you call 'conjecture', scientists call 'laws of nature'. If you believe that the laws of nature don't apply, then don't take any modern medicines, get on any aircraft, use GPS systems, or just about anything else technological, because they're ALL based on the laws of nature.

Bruce Lancaster 5pts

4 Like

@Chris Crawford @Bruce Lancaster - Ripley says arctic ice is shrinking - Bellowitz says it is expanding. Forsyth says extreme weather events are related - Plesco says they're not..... The current cooling trend is because of volcanoes (as if those didn't exist before 2010) - and there's less acid rain... or more acid rain... but at least the holes in the ozone are shrinking.... unless they haven't and have just moved north... It's hard to judge anything when none of these guys can agree. What I do know for sure is this: Leading climate scientists colluded to silence anyone who offered data that didn't fit their narrative a couple of years ago. They discouraged peer review - they pressured publishers to refrain from publishing authors who disagreed with them - and they engaged in smear campaigns. They got caught and their emails published. That's what I know for sure. The people selling you and me global warming lied, cheated, stole, and engaged in conspiracy.

@Chris Crawford @Donnie McBee @Bruce Lancaster For one IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers is completely false!

@Donnie McBee @Chris Crawford @Bruce Lancaster Mr. McBee, did you know that Mr. Glantz is not a climatologist; in fact, he's not even a physical scientist! He's a social scientist, and therefore has no basis to make any scientific pronouncements on climate change. Moreover, his claim to have been fired from NCAR for failure to toe the line is flatly refuted by the fact that the Bush Administration terminated funding for NCAR -- see this:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2008/08/08/abrupt-termination-of-nsf-funded-climate-humanitarian-program-raises-fundamental-questions/

They did not fire Mr. Glantz per se, they terminated funding for the entire unit that he headed. For him to claim that it was due to political factors -- when they never replaced him or his group -- is not honest.

So you still have not provided evidence of any conspiracy to shut down adversarial discussion in the scientific literature, and certainly nothing at all related to the stolen emails, which provided the original basis of your accusation.

You also aver that you have studied climate science extensively. Have you read IPCC AR4 WG1? If so, is there anything in that document that you find false?

@Chris Crawford @Donnie McBee @Bruce Lancaster

94-year-old Ken Hechler, the legendary West Virginia congressman and coal miner hero who has been battling mountaintop removal since 1971 was arrested in a non-violent protest with NASA’s celebrated climate scientist James Hansen, actress Daryl Hannah, Michael Brune, the executive director of Rainforest Action Network, and Goldman Prize winner Judy Bonds. Vietnam veteran Bo Webb, and dozens of other coalfield residents were arrested by crossing onto the property of leading mountaintop removal coal mining company, Massey Energy–purposely trespassing to protest the destruction of mountains immediately above the Coal River Valley community.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/06/23/204278/james-hansen-top-us-climate-scientists-arrested-protest-on-mountaintop-removal/

@Chris Crawford @Donnie McBee @Bruce Lancaster

I have several emails from Mickey, plus several other scientist! I used to be the biggest climate change person on earth! Until climate gate, I read the emails, all the emails! They lied, the conspired to keep any evidence denying climate change from being published, I emailed climate scientist, and even met Hanson at a MTR protest, "and watched him get arrested, which I found hilarious! Even I know better to trespass on mine companies property! I even watched them stuff Goldie Hawn into a police car! LOL

I despise MTR!

@Chris Crawford @Donnie McBee @Bruce Lancaster

complete email

"thanks for noting my comment on how so called peer review is used.

the climate gate situation really goes well beyond the set of emails. i

have met scientists from ipcc who are super arrogant. there needs to be turn

over in the ipcc.

finally, i am no longer at ncar. i was fired from there in august 2008, i

suspect for reasons related to not towing the line on 'selling science' to

the public. my goal was to share and explain the science, certainties and

uncertainties.

regards, mickey glantz

@Donnie McBee @Chris Crawford @Bruce Lancaster So your evidence consists of a personal anecdote that is conveniently unverifiable? Sorry, I'm not THAT gullible! It's pretty clear that you have zero real evidence to support your accusation, and that you're just making it all up.

Donnie McBee 5pts like.author.displayName

@Chris Crawford @Bruce Lancaster

Chris, I see you are dedicated to your cause.

I have spoke with scientist at NCAR, also with scientist that went to Copenhagen in 2007

Here is a quote from a email with one of those scientist.

"the climate gate situation really goes well beyond the set of emails. i

have met scientists from ipcc who are super arrogant. there needs to be turn

over in the ipcc.

finally, i am no longer at ncar. i was fired from there in august 2008, i

suspect for reasons related to not towing the line on 'selling science' to

the public."

Here is another quote "thanks for noting my comment on how so called peer review is used." Notice the wording? "so-called peer review" See what happens to climate scientist who do not tow the line on climate change?

@Bruce Lancaster @Chris Crawford You're quite mistaken if you think that there's serious disagreement on the basics of climate change. For every denier scientist you can list, there are at least 30 who will contradict him. So you list one denier and one supporter and call it confusion. I'd say that you are the one confusing a clear matter.

And you are making a false accusation when you claim that "Leading climate scientists colluded to silence anyone who offered data that didn't fit their narrative a couple of years ago." I challenge you to present one case -- just one -- of a scientific paper that was refused publication because of such a conspiracy. You can't, of course, because it never happened. You're making it up.

Chris Crawford 5pts like.author.displayName

I think it important to differentiate between spontaneous violence and organized violence. The former consists of violent crimes and riots; the latter is war. It has long been known that there's a solid concomitance between temperature and these crimes: higher temperatures promote it, and lower temperatures inhibit it.

War, on the other hand, is often driven by resource issues, and here the picture is complicated. As others have pointed out, there will be winners and losers. Canada and Siberia will likely be winners; many countries in the Sahel and along the coast will be losers. When Country X can justify its aggression with the argument that it is merely leveling a playing field that was originally tilted by Country Y, you've got a high likelihood of war.

John Bailo 5pts like.author.displayName

Gee, Napoleon in Russia was pretty bloody.

And what about the record rainfall in New Mexico? Isn't that a good thing?

John Bailo 5pts like.author.displayName

Gee, Napoleon in Russia was pretty bloody.

And what about the record rainfall in New Mexico? Isn't that a good thing?

Janet Weeks V 5pts

Bite global warming: live vegan! http://www.greenyourdiet.org/

Jordan Henkel 5pts

I did a report in college on studies that suggested the renaissance was caused by a 1 degree tempeture increase because it made conditions more favorable for agriculture and thus happier people in civilizations. It sounds like they are lacking a lot of quatitative data on this subject.

Daniel Stoner 5pts like.author.displayName

Well, the answer is, of course! But not so much because "tempers flare" - that's a small component. The LARGE component is what wars are always fought for - land / resources... WHEN the billions of acres of tundra / permafrost unfreezes across Siberia and Canada, allowing this land to be good ag (grazing & crop) land, and "living on" land, you bet your azz China is going to try to "annex" in one way or another Mongolia and parts of Russia, as but one example..and if hydrocarbons are found and much easier to access in those places without the permafrost, then it will be even worse. Then you've also got the factors of the rainfall / precip winners and losers consequential to GW - the losers (drier areas) will need more water for ag irrigation and everything else, and will seek access to land with water on it, not to mention domestic unrest by farmers and others in new-drought areas. But all of this massive conflict will pale in comparison to the chaos which is coming when oil, nat gas, and coal get REALLY scarce in about 75-100 years. World War II times 10, I think. Maybe if it happens all about the same time, we can just get the violence over with. A couple billion will die, but after adjusting to the new climate and energy-low lifestyles, there is actually great potential for an unprecedented peace era, in my view.

Clayton Turner 5pts like.author.displayName

Of course We are all going to die and horrible death and we did it to ourselves by using fossil fuels and living fat celebrity lives. We are the problem. We should just all kill ourselves now and get it over with.

William Cody 5pts like.author.displayName