Climate Scientists Plan to Hit Back at Skeptics

**michaelr** · 8th March 2010 11:25 AM

Climate Scientists Plan to Hit Back at Skeptics

Stinky feet poo poo head....The Goracle.

They will continue to use the left/right bullshit to further their agenda.....

Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics.

They have spent billions on the illusion, and it is their favorite tool.

**kmiller1610** · 8th March 2010 11:35 AM

They honestly should try showing they can predict something.

**Dr.Knuckles** · 8th March 2010 11:55 AM

"This was an outpouring of angry frustration on the part of normally very staid scientists who said, 'God, can't we have a civil dialogue here and discuss the truth without spinning everything,'"

No good sirs. No we cannot. Take that Commie quitter attitude somewhere else, we've got some winning to do and we don't need losers questioning who's 'right' and who's 'wrong'.

**Fishmint** · 8th March 2010 11:59 AM

[quote name='michaelr' date='08 March 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1268072704' post='126396']

http://www.foxnews.com

Stinky feet poo poo head....The Goracle.

[/quote]

Another great thread.

**michaelr** · 8th March 2010 11:59 AM

[quote name='Fishmint' date='08 March 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1268074753' post='126428']

Another great thread.

[/quote]

Thank you.

**Pragmatist** · 8th March 2010 01:29 PM

[quote name='kmiller1610' date='08 March 2010 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1268073331' post='126406']

They honestly should try showing they can predict something.

[/quote]

Well let's see, when did this whole GW issue arise and what were some of the predictions? Take for instance mean ocean temperatures, have they done what they said they would? How about ice pack and what was going to happen to it? Has it done what they said it would? What were some of the predictions 10 yrs ago and how close to them are we?

If you think we are dealing with a science here where they could predict ocean temp to within 1/10th of a degree thats ridiculous. I think the predictions made 10 yrs ago are pretty much coming true are they not?

**kmiller1610** · 8th March 2010 02:19 PM

Here's what the EPA says (note the absence of any formulae):

Factors up front: predictions in back

The amount and speed of future climate change will ultimately depend on:

Whether greenhouse gases and aerosol concentrations increase, stay the same or decrease.

How strongly features of the climate (e.g. temperature, precipitation and sea level) respond to changes in greenhouse gas and aerosol concentrations.

How much the climate varies as a result of natural influences (e.g. from volcanic activity and changes in the sunâ€™s intensity) and its internal variability (referring to random changes in the circulation of the atmosphere and oceans.

**steezer** · 8th March 2010 02:33 PM

[quote name='michaelr' date='08 March 2010 - 12:25 PM' timestamp='1268072704' post='126396']

They have spent billions on the illusion, and it is their favorite tool.

[/quote]

What illusion exactly are thes scientists pushing?

I heard a scientist put in the simplest terms which made a hell of lot more sense than anything the right wing media pushes and it goes as follows.

1. More carbon dioxide allows for more of the suns radiation to heat up the air

2. The hotter the air the more water it can hold.

3. When the air cannot hold more wate it comes down and the result is the crazy weather we've been having which in essence proves that climate change is occurring.

**kmiller1610** · 8th March 2010 02:38 PM

[quote name='steezer' date='08 March 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1268083988' post='126571']

What illusion? [/quote]

The climate science mainstream focuses on atmospheric gases. But that isn't the whole picture

The illusions are as follows:

The natural climate separate from man is a constant (not).

We can predict natural variability (can't)

We know that warming will be bad because mankind's 200 ppm of Co2 has eclipsed the forces of nature (not true)

Here is what the actual consensus means: If natural variability is removed from the equation and we assume nature as a constant, then increased C02 will mean increased temperatures.

**steezer** · 8th March 2010 02:49 PM

[quote name='kmiller1610' date='08 March 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1268084290' post='126577']

The climate science mainstream focuses on atmospheric gases. But that isn't the whole picture

The illusions are as follows:

The natural climate separate from man is a constant (not).

We can predict natural variability (can't)

We know that warming will be bad because mankind's 200 ppm of Co2 has eclipsed the forces of nature (not true)

Here is what the actual consensus means: If natural variability is removed from the equation and we assume nature as a constant, then increased C02 will mean increased temperatures.

[/quote]

Wrong. More CO2 is going into the air because of mankind. Then what happens? Read my previous post to find out. I'm no scientist, but the fact that man is putting more of that shit into the atmosphere kind of makes the natural variability a lot less of factor in the equation. If you want to hold onto that thin straw, be my guest, but its an excuse in my opinion to do nothing.