(Thanks to Morten Morland for the laughter, thanks to Jeffrey Hill)

Well, let one of the correct possibilities work in his favor.

Doesn't the environmental protection community like Ya also have a long history of false propaganda and ugliness?

While promoting this cartoon, the over-hyped global warming threat seems a bit strange. I think you need a new show.

"At the same time promoting this cartoon, and the over-hyped global warming threat seems a bit strange. I think you need a new show."-Ray.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100517_globalstats.html

"According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States, between April (2010) and January-April (2010), the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the hottest on record. In addition, the last The monthly average ocean surface temperature is the hottest in any April on record, and the global surface temperature is the third highest on record."

In the eyes of the public, the threat of global warming is lower than that of tinea cruris. Overcome it and you have lost the debate.

Furthur claimed to be only portraying himself as one of the weird bearded men in a bed sheet claiming that the end is approaching.

It's better to keep going... Say Allah, oh, wait.

Well, it looks like Ray is right. Because the public does not accept "global warming", then the debate is over and it does not exist at all.

Or...this is the suggestion for you Ray. Just because the public doesn't believe in something, it won't make it disappear. AGW is not Tinker Bell. Whether people accept it or not, it will exist. You want to debate this issue based on science rather than ignorance (or is this all your weapon?).

Ray looked at the Roadrunner carton Mandas too much. He ran over the edge of the cliff, thinking that if he didn't look down, he wouldn't fall.

NASA GISTEMP also listed January to April 2010 as the hottest weather on record:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Not suitable for Ray. I don’t know if it’s Lei, Rong?

DW post 3. Did Trenberth find the heat of his disappearance?

Are you looking for some deep-sea monitoring equipment Kraka? . Unless someone does this, it won't get a reply.

In the past, people responded wholeheartedly to threats, wars, floods, and diseases. Convince them that they are about to be hurt and you will see action. Global warming has not done this, if it has become a joke.

DW, you don't seem to give the public too much trust for admitting awg's scam. They have, it was your lack of convincing science that caused this failure.

This cartoon tells of that failure.

very warm! Great, this is much better than the cold.

Although I don't know you personally, Ray, the argumentation style used hints to me what I often see in debates with AGW deniers. It is unlikely, for example, you read extensively or practice logical thinking. The appeal of public opinion as evidence against AGW is a fatal gift, that is, your main source of information is likely to be Fox News or similar simple resources. Maybe you heard it on the local forum; I admit that I can only speculate, but I can't help but doubt.

At this point, one thing I have been unable to track down is any specific polling information that denies the existence of a correlation between global warming and Christian fundamentalism. The ideological overlap seems intuitive enough, but I don’t know any of them have been verified. (Our dear Kraka, an open atheist is clearly not suitable for this generalization.)

Paula Kirby, the former Christian author of the WP editorial linked below, stated that any link between religious dogmatism and denial of global warming stems from "naive way of thinking." Simple belief in God's solution to our problems:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/paula_kirby/2009/1...

I can sympathize with her on a personal and intellectual level—as a former believer, as someone who is frustrated with the overconfidence that people like you can show to suspect AGW, Ray.

I would like to add a little bit of Kirby's wording. AGW's denial not only shows a "naive way of thinking" like religious dogmatism, but is also a gullible naive *argument* to seek a preferred position. Not only are religious fanatics/global warming deniers overlapping in ideology, but they will believe the so-called "stupidest" things to justify their preference.

Although the appeal to public opinion may not be the biggest fallacy committed by AGW's defense of denial, it is competitive.

Skip, you wasted five paragraphs, except for this in the sixth paragraph and said nothing.

"Although the appeal to public opinion may not be the biggest fallacy made by AGW's denial defense, it is competitive."

So, how do you evaluate the over-hyped consensus, or in other words, the popular opinion among scientists? Isn't this a fallacy against science?

Hint, consensus is meaningless to science. However, the majority consensus among voters is huge, and if we take measures to address climate change, it will determine the direction.

Hint, consensus is meaningless to science.

Um. You need to believe, don't you?

Ray, you are imitating something from Michael Clayton/American Enterprise Institute. .. Could not immediately think of other possible sources.

Ray, don't you believe in macroevolution? Do you believe that Genesis is true?

I'm really curious. This will be a progressive answer to my rhetorical question.

However, the majority consensus among voters is huge, and if we take measures to address climate change, it will determine the direction.

There is no argument here. But this has nothing to do with the true or false of man-made global warming. No. I don't even know from anything you write that you even understand this simple fact, even though you may already understand it.

I see you are arguing with the brick wall again-except in this case, the brick wall looks more flexible and smarter.

Note that Ray is not even sure of his location. He has always denied that climate change is happening, but he stated in 10 posts:

"...It's so hot! It's so good, so much better than cold..."

This obviously shows that he accepts climate warming, but thinks it is a good thing. So here is a challenge for you, Ray-tell us what you really think is happening, and then use some kind of evidence to support it. Maybe then we can have a rational debate with you, not just this dogmatic stand based on some preconceived worldview.

Please note that although Ray may think that warmth is better, I am very confident that there will be many species in the world who disagree, and consider a little about the impact on various ecosystems and the impact on human activities such as agriculture and fisheries may change Ray The perception that climate change is a good thing (of course, suppose he has this idea).

correct! It has nothing to do with the true or false of awg. The suspicious opinions of a large number of climate scientists and the public's rejections are not true.

But public voting and politics are well aware of this reality.

Maybe it would be better for you if you insist on the facts instead of demonizing those scientists or anyone who disagrees with awg theory and bachelor of rhetoric more severely when facing legal issues (see above).

"Hint, consensus is meaningless to science."-Rong Lei

Ray, you must stop getting information from the cartoon network. The universe is not based on the reality of the observer like Roadrunner and Wily Coyote cartoons. The world is not what you want, and of course science is not what you want.

Consensus is really important in the scientific community. If we do not have this kind of progress, it will not happen. Humans will still live in caves, arguing about how to make fires through grunting. Maybe this still happens in your woods? .

Taking Bohr’s atomic model as an example, there seems to be a lot of consensus, which led to the development of the atomic bomb. Do you still think consensus is meaningless? -Don't answer, that's rhetoric.

"Please note that although Ray may think warmth is better, I am very confident that many species in the world will disagree"-Mandas

Yes, it seems that Rong Ray is in the early stages of denial and he has not yet developed the full pain that affects Crakar v. 25. Yes, he ignored that previous continuous global warming events triggered mass extinction events, such as the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaleoceneâEocene_Thermal_Maximum

"But public voting and politics are well aware of this reality."-Rong Lei

Do CO2 molecules, shortwave and longwave radiation care about human thoughts? Or do you think it will not affect them? .

I did not post a cartoon, please discuss this with Cody.

The bloodletting was also approved by the "state-of-the-art" medical consensus. How does this and many other examples fit your point of view?

Climate science is still in its infancy, and the public apparently did not accept the catastrophic panic, in fact they even refused to shed blood. Would you like to call all of us proud?

Be careful, you risk painting yourself as a fool.

Let me be the first to reply and declare, yes, I would like to call your deniers "honour."

I will risk being portrayed as a fool-but I am very confident that it will not be a dogmatic belief that I have been shown to hold completely contradictory to every piece of information available.

I think this statement in article 16 succinctly summarizes Ray’s position:

"...Correct! This has nothing to do with the true or false of awg. The questioning opinions of a large number of climate scientists and the public's rejection cannot be regarded as fact..."

So it seems that Ray believes that the general population of scientific illiteracy (especially those who watch the greatest self-contradiction-Fox News) have more opinions than those who spend years of research, decades of research and have to defend their work. Human views have greater influence against criticism from peers.

Is there nothing more like Thunder than holding a fundamentalist position in the absence of evidence?

Mandas, "It seems that Ray believes that the general population of scientific illiteracy (especially those who watch the greatest self-contradiction-Fox News) have more views than those who spend years of research, decades of research and have to defend them. Work is free from criticism from peers."

Well, yes, in fact, unless we abandon democracy, this situation will continue.

Do you have any question?

Gosh, Ray-yes, I do have a problem.

Science is not a question of democracy. Not that the theory with the most votes is correct (I seem to remember the discussion about some kind of consensus that is going on here. Then what do you think of Ray? It seems to have changed, so maybe my opinion of you is wrong and inflexible ).

Science is about theories and the evidence behind them. You know, people who know what they're talking about do research and study to find out the truth. You cannot overturn this by conducting a poll among the ignorant ordinary people. Just because Billy Bob, Claytus, and Ray didn't believe in certain things, that wouldn't be the case.

You can understand the thoughts of people who are educated and lack any scientific knowledge at will. It doesn't matter if everyone on the planet votes against climate change-this is still a fact.

Uh-huh. Mandas. Believe me, the government works best from the bottom up. Your method has not really worked in the past.

The political consensus of a few elites? ...I'm sorry, no, trust the masses.

Tell me Lei, are you illiterate? Are you unable to read what others have written, or are you just refusing to read other people’s posts before you put your finger on the keyboard to respond?

Just to solve this problem, let's try a few things.

First, go back, read skip and what I said about this question. Then come back and make a wise, well-thought-out response, which is actually somewhat similar to the original position. It's not that difficult (although it seems to be a common disease, it afflicts many people in the earth's society).

Remember-read it first. Then make sure you understand what is said. Then think about it-if you know nothing about this topic, please do some research. Then, only then should you respond.

I started to write a check, but then I found this, so I tore it up.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/some-comments-on-earth's-%e...

Want to see something interesting? This is from Wikipedia:

"...Dr. Roy Spencer is a supporter of intelligent design as a mechanism for the origin of species. [22] Regarding this issue, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I studied in depth. The debate over evolution and intelligent design lasted for about two years. Finally, although I previously accepted the theory of evolution as a "fact", I began to realize that intelligent design, as a theory of origin, is not more pious than the theory of evolution, nor is it lacking in science. ... I am not alone in the scientific world. There are many good books on this subject. Strangely, most books are written by scientists who have lost faith in evolution as adults, after they have learned how to apply the analytical tools of university professors. "[22] In the evolutionary crisis, a compilation of five scientists who rejected evolution, Spencer said, "He said further." I am finally convinced that the theory of creation actually has a better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, because the model of creation can actually be better. A good explanation of the physical and biological complexity of the world.. Many discoveries and advances in science have shocked us, but it has encountered difficulties in trying to get rid of the demand for creators and designers..."

Here are some interesting things from Desmogblog, fonts of all ethical and real things about climate change:

"... Spencer is listed as a "scientific advisor" for an organization called the "Interreligious Management Alliance" (ISA). According to their website, ISA is "a group of religious leaders, clergymen, theological Experts, scientists, scholars, and other policy experts are committed to bringing appropriate and balanced biblical management perspectives to critical issues of environment and development. In July 2006, Spencer co-authored an ISA report that refuted the work of another religious organization called the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The title of the ISA report is "Call for truth, prudence, and protection of the poor: an evangelical response to global warming." Along with the report is an endorsement letter signed by many representatives of different organizations, six of which have received a total of US$2.32 million in donations from ExxonMobil in the past three years..."

Talk and laugh! I want to know who the next source will be, Kirk Cameron?

Go on, Ray won’t be too long before Mandas stops arguing with you, on the other hand, skipping...Like a terrier that won’t let go, his barking is much worse than biting ( Supplement skip, don't be angry).

I might be wasting time here, but Mandas said

"Please note that although Ray may think warmth is better, I am very confident that many species in the world will disagree."

Seeing that you are an expert in this field, can you tell me which species will be directly affected by temperature changes? For example, in the past 100 years, the temperature has increased by 0.5C. Which species have been affected by this and how?

Let us see if you are more flexible and smarter.

"This obviously shows that he accepts that the climate is warming, but thinks it is a good thing. So this is a challenge for you, Ray-tell us what you really think is happening, and then use some kind of evidence to support it. Maybe that way we There can be rational debates with you, not just such dogmatic positions based on a certain preconceived worldview."

1. Maybe you can explain your dogmatic view that carbon dioxide causes temperature to rise, even if the temperature has not risen for many years. If you are to blame the weather for good, but I will ask you to explain how this -ve feedback works and why it is more powerful than CO2. In addition, I hope to explain how all model manufacturers failed to include/expect this -ve feedback.

2. Why do your dogmatic views make you believe Trombos's words, he has lost more than 50% of the predicted calories, but you will start a long discussion about Spencer (see post 26), and his research shows that Trombos Si is wrong.

3. Is it because of your dogmatism that you accepted the IPCC statement, claiming that the descendants of the NTH hemisphere will never snow, but when NH experiences the most snowy ten years on record, you would rather blame the weather Don't want to question the IPCC?

4. Although the real-world rainfall meter shows that the 100-year trend in the region is rising, have you accepted the CSIRO model's prediction of the future drought in the Murray-Darling Basin because of your dogmatism?

5. In fact, from 1751 to 1994, the ocean pH dropped from 8.2 to 8.1. Is it because of your dogmatism that you accept the view that the ocean is becoming acidic?

I can go on, but I think it will do now.

"DW, want to see something interesting?"-Mandas.

Yes, it is clear that Dr. Roy Spencer's prank, he should appear in the TV series "Being a Good Scientist Becomes Barbaric" or something similar.

"Well, yes, in fact, unless we give up democracy, this situation will continue."-Rong Lei

Do you like to change the subject?

Crakar v.25 What happened to the sock puppet? .

"Be careful, you risk painting yourself as a fool."-Rong Lei

You have no such guilt, eh, Ray? .

"5, is it because of your dogmatic view that you accept the view that the ocean is becoming acidic, but actually from 1751 to 1994, the ocean pH dropped from 8.2 to 8.1?"-Crakarv.25

Yes, but the reduction in ocean alkalinity does not have the same loop.

"I think you are arguing with the brick wall again-except in this case, the brick wall looks more flexible and smarter."

Obviously Mandas did not read my post (28) before post (27). Interestingly, I wrote that article without reading what Mandas said. Even if you have never met them, you can understand their thoughts well.

Is this a good example of narrative skipping?

Read Section 2 of Post 28, and then read the previous post by Mandas. Now this is very interesting.

Are you kidding me? Do you really want me to tell you which species will be affected by temperature changes? Instead of listing almost all the species on the planet here, it is better to provide me with a list of species that will not be affected by the increase in temperature.

But I believe this answer is not enough for you. I will provide you with a species that my wife is currently writing about-turtles (yes, she is an animal scientist. Two scientists in a family!!! Great). I'm not sure if you are capable of doing any research yourself, so here are some studies to get you started.

http://ww2.coastal.edu/msci302/st-nest1.pdf

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117991562/abstract

Oh, and answer your other questions:

1-The temperature has risen in the past ten years, so your question is meaningless.

2-I don't believe what Trombos said, but Spencer is an idiot, and only people who have no knowledge of reality or science will provide a link to Spencer's website on a science blog. I don’t believe anyone who believes in creationism will tell me the time of day, let alone a rational debate on climate change (or anything related to it).

3-I do not accept that children in New Hampshire will never snow. So your question is pointless again.

4-Not sure why what is predicted to happen in the future has anything to do with what happened in the past under different conditions. You know the climate is changing, right? You may wish to leave here to view the BOM information for this area: http://reg.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20071004_de.shtml

5-Hmm, you know that a drop in pH means that something becomes more acidic, right? ? ? Are you completely ignorant of science? I mean, this is something from junior high school.

Now you also go away and do a little research on this topic. No-blog posts are not research, you need to really read and understand some science. It looks like you lack science education like other idiots who often post here, Kraka. But as I have been telling members of the flat society, science is fun! ! (And you receive education at the same time)

Thank you DW for your honest reply.

The potential cost of adapting to warm climates: the growth of heat-resistant coral reefs and sensitive symbiont types Jones, A. & Berkelmans, R. (2010) PLOS ONE, Vol. 5

Abstract: One of the main ways that reef-building corals may cope with warm climates is to change to a more heat-resistant endosymbiotic algae (zoxanthellae) genotype. Carrying more heat-resistant algae genotypes is likely to be accompanied by trade-offs in coral physiology. To better understand one of these trade-offs, the growth of the Indo-Pacific reef-building coral Acropora millepora was studied in the laboratory and in the field. In the Keppel Islands in the south of the Great Barrier Reef, this species naturally contains nrDNA ITS1 heat-sensitive C2 or heat-resistant D-type zooxanthellae of the genus Symbiotic bacteria, and can change the dominant type after bleaching. We show that under controlled conditions, corals with D-type symbionts grow 29% slower than corals with C2-type symbionts. In the field, the growth rate of type D colonies was 38% slower than that of C2 colonies. These results indicate that when this species adapts to warmer conditions by changing to a more heat-resistant type D zooxanthellae, they may experience a degree of trade-off. Regardless of the symbiont genotype, corals are more affected by the pressure of the bleaching event. Compared with the rate before bleaching, coral growth is reduced by more than 50% for up to 18 months. As coral reefs adapt to more stressful and warm conditions, the process of symbiotic changes and acute heat stress may act synergistically on coral growth, thereby further impairing its ability to regenerate after climate change

Phenological trends in southern Spain: responses to climate change Garcia-Mozo H, Mestre A and Galan C. (2010) Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Volume: 150

Abstract: The analysis conducted at six locations in southern Spain from 1986 to the present focused on the nutritional and overall reproductive phenology of Olea europaea L, Vitis vinifera L, and various Quercus spp. And Gramineae. Early results showed that the flowering pattern trends obtained from field phenology observations were similar to the trends of aerobiological data of most researched species, and indicated that there were earlier trends in leaf deciduous, flowering and fruit ripening. This progress is more pronounced in arboreal species than in herbaceous species. Statistical analysis shows that temperature increase is the main factor that affects early leaf defoliation, flowering and fruit maturity, and delays leaf defoliation. Changes in rainfall records have a greater impact on herbaceous plants than trees.

Local effects of temperature and precipitation on West Nile virus infection in Culex mosquitoes in northeastern Illinois, USA. Ruiz, MO, etc. (2010) Parasites and Vectors Volume: 3

Abstract: Background: Models of the impact of environmental factors on West Nile virus disease risk have produced conflicting results. The role of precipitation is particularly difficult to discern from existing research, partly because of differences in the habitat and behavior characteristics of specific carrier species and the temporal and spatial scales of published studies. We use spatial and statistical modeling techniques to analyze and predict the fine-scale spatial (2000-meter grid) and time (weekly) patterns of West Nile virus mosquito infections, relative to the changing weather conditions in the urban landscape of the Greater Chicago Area, Illinois , From 2004 to 2008. Results: Increased temperature is the strongest time predictor for the increase of mosquito infections in pipiens and Culex restuans, and the difference in cumulative high temperature is a key factor to distinguish between mosquito infection and human prevalence years. Lower interest rates. Dry weather in spring and wet weather immediately before the increase in infections are factors in some years, but not all years. Overall, 80% of the weekly changes in mosquito infections are explained by previous weather conditions. Spatially, lower precipitation is the most important variable for predicting stronger mosquito infection; precipitation and temperature alone can explain the pattern of spatial variability better than other environmental variables (explained 79% in the best model) . Variables related to impervious surfaces and elevation differences are of little importance in the spatial model.

Conclusion: The fine-grained spatiotemporal patterns of precipitation and temperature have a consistent and significant impact on the time and location of increased mosquito infections in the study area of ​​northeastern Illinois. The use of local weather data at multiple monitoring locations and the integration of multi-year mosquito infection data from multiple sources are very important to the strength of the presented model. Other often important spatial environmental factors, including impervious surfaces and elevation measures, will regulate the impact of rainfall on soil and urban catchment basins. Weather patterns change with global climate change, so it is particularly important to improve our ability to predict how interrelated local weather and environmental factors affect the risk of vectors and vector-borne diseases.

High-altitude plants exposed to experimental warming in the central Chilean Andes have reduced frost resistance in summer. Sierra-Almeida, A & Cavieres, LA (2010) Oecologia, Volume: 163

Abstract: Alpine habitats are considered to be particularly sensitive to climate change. Shorter snow cover may expose high-altitude plants to extremely low temperatures, increasing their risk of frost damage, thereby reducing their population viability. In addition, longer and warmer growing seasons may affect the hardening process of these species. Therefore, understanding the ability of these species to withstand freezing events under warm conditions is essential to predict how alpine species will respond to future climate change. Here, we evaluated the frost resistance of 11 species from the central Andes of Chile by determining low temperature damage (LT50) and freezing point (FP) after heating in the field. Use an open top chamber (OTC) to expose plants to passive increases in air temperature during the two growing seasons. Over-the-counter transactions increased by approx. 3 K Average air and soil daytime temperature, but has a small effect on freezing temperature. At noon, the leaf temperature of different species was 5.5 K higher in OTC on average. Although the LT50 of control plants ranged from -9.9 to -22.4, the LT50 of warm plants ranged from -7.4 to -17.3A degrees Celsius. Overall, the high Andean species growing in the OTC increased their LT50 by approximately. 4 K, indicating that warming reduces their ability to survive severe freezing events. In addition, plants in OTC have increased FP ca. In some species studied, it is 2 K, indicating that warming changes the process of ice crystal formation. Tolerance to extremely low temperatures is a key feature of high-altitude species; our research results show that the current climate warming trend will reduce the ability of high-altitude plants to withstand severe freezing events, thereby seriously threatening their survival.

Climate change and the polar shift of Pacific white dolphins in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. El Salvador, CJ etc. (2010) Endangered Species Research Volume: 11

Abstract: The rise in water temperature due to global warming means that certain isotherms are moving towards the poles. This may result in a restricted range of species found only in specific thermal habitats to move to the poles. This range change has been recorded in many plant and animal species. In the past 3 years, we have observed a decrease in the number of Pacific white-side dolphins Lagenorhynchus obliquidens in the southwestern Gulf of California (GOC), which is considered to be the southern boundary of their distribution. Considering that the thermal environment is of great significance to the physiology of animals, we believe that this shift in the general geographic range of the Pacific baiji to the poles is due to long-term changes in the local climate. In order to obtain the conceptual framework needed to discuss such a hypothesis, we summarized and analyzed the current knowledge about the Pacific baiji in the Southwest GOC and the changes in sea surface temperature on a regional scale.

Hey Chris, do you see this? :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100518064614.htm

"An international team of scientists discovered that climate change played an important role in the mass extinction of mammals in the late Quaternary period 50,000 years ago."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100516195655.htm

"Geologists led by Brown University have determined that the East African Rift Lake has experienced unprecedented warming in the last century, and its surface water is the warmest on record. The scientists wrote in the journal Nature Earth Science, This finding is important because the warm surface waters may affect the fish populations that millions of people in the area depend on."

"Our data shows a consistent relationship between lake surface temperature and productivity (such as fish populations)," said Jessica Tierney, a Brown graduate student who received her PhD this spring. And is the main author of the paper. "As the lake warms, we expect productivity to decline, and we expect this to affect the [fisheries] industry."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100517111914.htm

"Climate threatens trout and salmon"

"Trout and salmon are among the most familiar freshwater fish in the world, but their numbers have declined in recent decades-in some areas, the decline has been substantial. In the past, they blamed pollution, habitat loss, and overfishing, but New evidence from Diff University suggests that climate change may be a major factor putting both species at risk."

“Scientists have studied young salmon and trout populations in the Wye River in Wales, which is traditionally one of the best fishing rivers in the UK. Professor Steve Ormerod from the Cardiff School of Biological Sciences and colleagues found that salmon populations have fallen by 50% , Trout populations fell by 67% between 1985 and 2004-even though the river itself became cleaner. After the hot and dry summers of 1990, 2000, and 2003, fish were hardest hit. The results show that the increase in water temperature and the decrease in river water level affect both species. Because both trout and salmon like cool water, if climate warming continues as expected in the next two to three years, they will face potential Major issue."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100513143447.htm

“For many lizards, global climate change is a matter of life and death. After decades of investigating the Sceloporus lizard population in Mexico, an international research team found that rising temperatures have led to the extinction of 12% of the country’s lizard populations. The extinction model is based on this. The discovery also predicts the grim future of these ecologically important organisms, and predicts that by 2080, 20% of all lizard species may become extinct".

Extinction due to temperature rise is in line with the effect of temperature rise, right? .

And the most terrible extinction! A fund to pay rent in the forum of these crazy doomsday prophets.

Thanks to Brick Wall's message, I have heard of all this garbage in various forms before... Now Copenhagen and the cap and deal have failed. This is entertainment.

And the most terrible extinction! A fund to pay rent in the forum of these crazy doomsday prophets.

Observe how the denier hits the keyboard to convince himself that his blindness is wisdom, and his ignorance wins happiness.

Not only is the scientific consensus "meaningless", but so is the general scientific work.

So Lei: I'm still curious if you (1) don't believe in macro-evolution (2) believe that God created the earth in six days.

You seem to have also found a soul mate in our veteran Kraka. Generally speaking, do you agree with his comments?

PS DW and Chris thank the research abstract. I hope that refuting ignorance will not be so frustrating.

Skip, is this your name? Maybe it's a nickname or instruction given to you by someone else?

You seem to have nothing to say.

Obviously, the same is true for science, and the same is true for scientists-that is, according to you.

In your opinion, Ray, who has "a lot" to say?

So I'm still curious-do you doubt evolution, take Genesis literally? (If you want to know, I don’t know.)

"PS DW and Chris thank you for the research summary. I hope that refuting ignorance will not be so frustrating."-Skip.

Don't worry, man, there are more available. Once you accept it, you will get past depression, and you are responding to idjits that rely on pure imagination rather than scientific facts. Taking Rong Lei as an example, he accepted the absurd view that consensus is not important in science, and one of the zombie thesis that deniers are repeatedly resurrected is destined to wander around the earth in search of brains.

I don't expect to persuade any idjits, but for each of them, there may be many rational observers interested in finding the truth. I know a fact, I convinced rational people, but idjits? , Not one, which is not surprising.

As I have read elsewhere, everyone who understands the science of man-made global warming has a responsibility to expose professional crooks working for vested interests and nonsense peddled by their little cheerleaders or echo chambers. idjits may be willing to gamble, but I think science should best inform our actions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100519081444.htm

"The ocean absorbs nearly one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels is rapidly becoming more acidic. Carbon dioxide is produced when carbon dioxide is dissolved in the sea. So far, the ocean It absorbs nearly one-third of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans using fossil fuels, thereby buffering the effects of global warming. Today, the acidity of the ocean is higher than ever for at least 20 million years."

What I want to say is that this is one of the best denials I have had the honor to witness. It was even possible to say, "The wall has been pushed down."

However, I am waiting for a foreseeable response! ! !

Did I miss the "Polar Bear's Dilemma" or did you forget to add the link?

Maybe you can't read a lot of it, or it's just because you are highly aware that your pet theory is breaking down and you just read what you want.

I said: "Seeing you are an expert in this field, can you tell me which species will be directly affected by temperature changes? For example, if the temperature has increased by 0.5C in the past 100 years, which species have been affected by this? How?"

English translation: The temperature has risen by 0.5C in 10,000 years. Please tell me how this rise affects animals, etc.

Response, do I expect any difference

Post 36, I believe your wife is a very good scientist, but I would think that things like plastic bags and fishing lines are more threatening to sea turtles than anything else. I looked at your two links and my suspicion was confirmed. One person talked about that if the temperature rises, they will all be girls, and another person claims that the nesting period has been reduced by 10 days due to the increase in water temperature (shock and horror).

All research is based on the idea of ​​temporary workers to predict the future, this is not the question I asked. I am not interested in the crystal ball prediction. I asked Mandas to show what actually happened. To some extent, he has done it, but the others have not.

"We predict that if the temperature passes and so on, and so on, and so on, it gets hotter"

Let me ask you one or two questions. Regarding the ocean pH level, it was about 8.1 today, 7000 years ago, and between two times it rose to 8.3 and as low as 7.9 while the temperature fluctuated. I don't know how much the temperature has changed, at least or-1 degree. Is it safe to say?

You said that life is something fragile and needs to be wrapped in cotton wool, but we know that life exists in the deepest ocean. We know that life exists in the coldest and driest desert. It is even on the fuel rod of the heart. Grow a nuclear reactor.

If, as you said, small changes in temperature or pH can/will wipe out thousands of species in the scenario we predict, how did it survive for so long?

By the way, carbon dioxide was about 8000 ppm many years ago. Does this mean that the ocean lacks carbon dioxide? If so, it will make the ocean pH more alkaline, which of course will make it as corrosive as acid. What effect will this have on marine life?

I just read the #28 post and I saw this problem (maybe I am missing something, can you help me here?):

"...Seeing that you are an expert in this field, can you tell me which species will be directly affected by temperature changes?..." (Thick as a brick)

Now, maybe my grammar is as bad as some other famous people here (can't figure out science or language; I want to know how he survived day in and day out). Anyway, I checked the phrase "...WILL BE..." and shocked, this is the future tense. In other words, things that have not yet happened but can be predicted or may happen.

On the other hand, the phrase "...HAS BEEN...." refers to something that happened in the past. Fortunately, when someone asked us to provide information about "...will...", we mentioned what will or may happen in the future, just like the grammar of the question.

I must admit that we did provide some information about past and current events, but this did not really answer the questions raised. My sin! !

I will not continue to talk about "influence" and "affected" (that is, non-words and verbs), but I hope you can understand my point and help me here.

With the collapse of Copenhagen, the global warming hype bubble destroyed Rudd’s leadership. If you ride on a bubble, you will fall when it bursts. Puff...disappeared AGW...disappeared.

Hi, DW. No, I didn’t-I just got five relevant clicks from the first two pages of the ISI WoS search. The search term "temperature change species" is not very strict, but I don't want to waste too much time answering this question: "Which Species are directly affected by temperature changes? For example, the temperature has increased by 0.5C in the past 100 years. Which species have been affected by this and how?"

I'm sure there are better papers that can answer this question more closely, but that's the point, isn't it? It’s not hard to find answers to these questions (the search term has approximately 14,500 clicks-although it includes such things as "the rate of thermal heating affects the evolutionary potential and the species differences in the thermal upper limit of fruit flies").

As for the paper you linked to, I found it difficult to be sure that we are correct in claiming the exact reason for the change 50,000 years ago. At least compared to looking for the reasons for the changes now (for example (on the species level) the dolphins and mosquitoes I cited above, or (on a larger scale) the Spanish phenology papers), or looking for the mechanisms of recent changes. The effect (such as coral paper) or will be effective (mountain plants in Chile). On that note, I found that the experimental evidence that warming directly affects the ability of plants to resist extreme cold (plus the fact that they are more likely to experience the cold due to the loss of a layer of insulating snow) is fascinating.

As an entomologist interested in phenology, my main concern is nutritional asynchrony, as shown in this article: the trophic asynchrony of the phenological change rate of marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments, Thackery et al. (2010) Global Change Biology

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123233053/abstract?CRETRY=1&...

Oh crakar "Maybe many of you don't understand... The temperature has risen by 0.5C in 10,000 years. Please tell me how this increase affects animals, etc."

Post #38 (Coral) "We show that under controlled conditions, corals with D-type symbionts grow 29% slower than corals with C2-type symbionts. In the wild, D-type colonies grow faster than C2 colonies 38% slower...not related to symbiont genotypes, corals are more affected by the pressure of bleaching events. Compared with the rate before bleaching, coral growth is reduced by more than 50% for up to 18 months."

Post #38 (Spanish Oak, etc.) "Statistical analysis shows that temperature increase is the main factor that affects early leaf fall, flowering and fruit ripening, and delays leaf fall."

Post #38 (mosquitoes) “Rising temperature is the strongest time predictor for the increase of Culex pipiens pallens and Culex mosquitoes. The difference in cumulative high temperature is a key factor in distinguishing years with high mosquito infection rates and low human prevalence. Rates. .. In general, 80% of the weekly changes in mosquito infections are explained by previous weather conditions. Spatially, lower precipitation is the most important variable for predicting stronger mosquito infections; precipitation and temperature alone are sufficient Better explain the pattern of spatial variability. Other environmental variables"

Post #39 (Dolphin): "In the past 3 years, we have observed a decrease in the number of Pacific white-sided dolphins Lagenorhynchus obliquidens in the southwestern Gulf of California"

Now, who do you say is illiterate?

"Regarding the paper you linked to, I found it difficult to be sure that we are correct in claiming the exact reason for the change 50,000 years ago"-Chris S

Hey, not my research paper. When dealing with the distant past, there will always be great uncertainty, just like the future, eh? There is no doubt that the reason for the extinction of mammals has been controversial for more than a century.

The link between climate change and extinction is not isolated in the history of the earth.

"With the collapse of Copenhagen, the global warming hype bubble destroyed Rudd's leadership. If you ride the bubble, you will fall when it bursts. Puff...disappeared AGW...disappeared." -J Krau S

Yes, I can imagine:

-Foreman CO2 Molecule-"Hey, guys put it away! Stop warming the earth mmmmkay?"

-Worker CO2 molecule 1-"Uh, boss, where are we going? Venus?"

-Workers 2-"No, my cousin Jimmy, he is on Venus. He said it is too crowded and there are carbon dioxide molecules everywhere. It is also very hot."

"Today's ocean is more acidic than it has been for at least 20 million years."

What part of Kraka do you not understand?

I think you missed my point a little bit, I will try to make it a little better...

When dealing with "ancient" history (that is, anything before the Enlightenment), there is a large degree of uncertainty—from the cause of the extinction of prehistoric animals to the precise etymology of Viking vanilla—which means that there is enough Space for (wrong) interpretation.

In contrast, in modern times, the measurement of supporting and dominant theories has more certainty. Not only can we measure the response of a species to a changing environment*, we can also use laboratory and field experiments (such as the Chilean study I cited above) to determine the mechanism that drives the response.

*Note the careful use of the word environment here. No researcher believes that temperature is the only cause of any change-changes in precipitation, land use, chemical load, etc. have their own effects. The challenge is to determine the relative influence of many variables and find the most important factors, re-citing the mosquito paper "Compared with other environmental variables, precipitation and temperature alone can better explain the pattern of spatial variability." These researchers did not just Focusing on temperature and rainfall, they tested a whole set of variables before publishing their findings.

Chris, absolutely, I have no objection to this. Your previous post seems to imply that this uncertainty in the past makes research "useless", this is not my opinion.

Some time ago I promised Coby that I would never swear again. If I swear, I would never post here again, so I need to be careful here.

Mandas, did you giggle like a kid when you wrote the 53rd post? You call yourself a scientist, but I doubt you are. Over the years, I have worked with many real scientists, so I think when I see a person, I know that person. Anyone who follows people like goats to pick up shit is not a scientist.

But hey, don't believe me, just look at what you wrote in post 27. Spencer completed a study that included suspicions about the lack of calories in Trenberths. If a real scientist wants to refute, he will look at the data, not you. No, you just laughed at his religious beliefs. Is this the work of a real scientist?

No, Mandas, you are not a scientist, you are not even a scientist. If it happens that you are indeed a scientist, whether through deception or clerical error, then you are a total fucking embarrassment to the entire field of science...Oh, I swear it’s funny when it lasts. .

"....... A survey conducted by Dawson and Ellis (1994) on the open plains of western New South Wales showed that domestic sheep (Ovis aries) and red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) have considerable dietary overlap with grass (87%) Dawson and Ellis (1996) studied the diet of wild goats (Capra hircus) at the Fowlers Gap research station (about 250 kilometers north of the study area). Fowlers Gap is located at 250 kilometers of NATO. The research site has a variety of terrain, and the west includes part of the Barrier Ranges. The eastern part is the flood plain. Goats eat extensively and like to browse. The taxa that they consume include Acacia aneura (Mulga), Alectryon oleifolius (Rosewood), Canthium oleifolium (Wild Lemon), Casuarina pauper (Belah) and Myoporum platycarpum (Sugarwood) ), the eucalyptus was not eaten. Manure was collected during the vegetation survey. At this time, there were water and clay in many places in the lake bed. Grazing animals, especially kangaroos, were observed near the stagnant water. All sections of manure were collected. Kangaroo faeces are recorded in China. Goats are the second largest animal species found in the area..."

From: http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/87796/Cun63611...

An interesting paper on the eating habits of animals in western New South Wales, based on a survey of plants and an analysis of animal feces.

Giggle-I fucking laughed! ! ! ! ! ! !

I guess crakar didn't read my post #56. I mean, after being proven wrong, it is almost impossible for him to try to change the subject (Did anyone mention Gish?) Is it? Crakar was too much to confess, so I guess he missed one of my posts again-which is very interesting.

Regards from Seattle. I will go to New York with my mother in a few days, but I will try to keep up with the forum when I come back.

You seem a little confused there, because you seem to want crakar to actually read whatever we post. He didn't—because he knew deep in his heart that if he read any science, he might find that his worldview was based entirely on false assumptions. He is more willing to read idiots such as Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, and Roy Spencer, and then cut and paste things he doesn't understand, as if they were the truth.

I think he showed his perfection in post 62. Does he make it clear that anyone who picks up and examines shit is definitely not a scientist. Obviously, he has a completely distorted view of the actual work of scientists. I'm not sure about your job, but many of my colleagues and I spent a lot of time picking up feces in the wild (although we call them feces) and inspecting them. Although the Peanut Gallery issued a clear statement, I happen to think that they are all excellent scientists.

But this is just my opinion-what will I know?

Scats, zombies deny the argument, they all smell the same, don't they? .

I guess Crakar didn’t read all the references I gave him here and on the topic of "Falsification Theory"...

I stumbled upon this link on Deltoid, and it reminded me of Crakar’s irony about "Polar Bear’s Dilemma" @#52. Slides 11-21 are very interesting in this regard.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

In fact, it seems that many of Crakar’s recent assertions appear to come from Monkton’s talks (see, for example, his "IPCC predictions for 2010" in the Falsifying Theories thread-and see slides 38 and 39 of JP Abraham’s talk, or "Pachauri Just a railway engineer" asserts the statement made by Crakar on several occasions-see slide 37). If you are still near crakar, I strongly recommend that you spend 83 minutes listening to JP Abraham's detailed deconstruction of the Monckton screed. I will be interested in what you (and others) think.

How could you do this? I hope everyone will comment on this sentence: "...but my challenge to opponents who have any commitment to climate change is to answer this question: what is going on in the 21st century, you can support this An opposition leader, did he say that the world in the time of Jesus was hotter? How can you stick to a belief and ignore the comprehensive science of the whole world. In the past 2000 years, the world has become colder and not warmer in some way? How can you? Can you support a leader who said that the Industrial Revolution did not actually happen? The core difference between us is that the opposition leader does not believe in climate change. He said this is "absolute" nonsense. He rejected science, and now he tells us, The age of Jesus in Nazareth is hotter than it is today. I want to say to opposition leaders: This view is really strange." This is a speech delivered by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in the Australian Parliament on Thursday, May 13, 2010. (In The Hansard) I found it on Jo Nova's website, and I think I will post it here to solicit opinions from both parties. (My personal opinion is that this proves that Rudd will say anything he thinks voters who are not thinking about it will swallow.) I would like to comment on how such a statement will eventually become the "mainstream" view of the national parliament, and your opinion The Prime Minister’s "scientific" view. I think it is very suitable for the cartoon above.

So Rudd called Tony Abbott on his stupid views on climate change. Do you think there is anything wrong with Rudd?

To quote another well-known Australian politician, "please explain."

Hmm... Mandas, I was taken aback! Didn't you read what Rudd said? ? Please read it again, (or maybe the first time) and tell me what you think. How scientific is he talking about? Are you saying the same thing? That is, you mean that the climate of the earth has never been warmer than it is now? Are you saying that admitting that the earth’s climate is actually warmer than it is now is "denying" the industrial revolution? ? Because this is what K Rudd said! It's his habitual emotional garbage!

Although I disagree with the way Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party deal with this issue, you must admit that the above quote is completely "wrong". In my opinion, the opposition party should actively and openly oppose the AGW movement and solve the real environmental problem-reduce pollution by developing renewable energy. As I have written here many times before, I don’t believe that the carbon emitted by humans is causing changes in the Earth’s climate. This is the content of this debate after all, isn't it? No one "denies" climate change. No one "denies" global warming. (Or cool down) I look forward to your answers to all these questions.

"As I have written here many times before, I don't believe that the carbon emitted by humans is causing changes in the Earth's climate."-Michael.

This is not to say that the increased greenhouse effect leads to the warming of the planet, this is all the evidence. Your opinion is very lacking in information.

You mean the earth’s climate has never been warmer than it is now? Are you saying that admitting that the earth’s climate is actually warmer than it is now is "denying" the industrial revolution? ? Because this is what K Rudd said!

No, it's not. He clearly limits his statement to the past 2000 years.

Are you surprised? what is it about? I read this sentence over and over again, and I still want to know where the flawed science is. Maybe it's just me (naaaa-every climate scientist in the world), but I don't think the world has cooled down in the past 2000 years. But maybe you have some evidence to the contrary-if you do, how about you post it?

But then again, you did show your hand in the last part of the post:

"...As I have written here many times before, I don't believe in the argument that human carbon emissions cause climate change on the planet. After all, this is the subject of this debate, isn't it? No one "denies" Climate change. No one "denies" global warming. (or cooling down)..."

Therefore, you do not agree with the argument that climate change is a human factor, but you seem to be saying that you do accept that the climate is changing. Is that correct?

If so, please tell us all the reasons that caused it to change. No-just saying it is a "natural cycle" or something like that will not wash. You need to tell us what caused it, because even "natural" events are caused by something. If you think the Prime Minister’s criticism of our opposition leaders is wrong, can you also provide evidence of the increase in world temperature 2000 years ago? (Hint-if you want any credibility on this issue, you need to actually read some scientific papers instead of cutting and pasting opinions from other websites).

Hi Mandas. (This is my personal opinion) Yes! As I have written here many times before, I firmly believe that the earth does have a climate, and that the climate of the entire earth is constantly changing in different time periods. Do you deny that this is true? Are you saying that human industry is the only thing that can change the entire climate? Do you deny that the Earth’s climate is a complex system that is affected by many different behaviors and reactions? (I really don’t think you believe in all these things. I just want you to answer every point)

What surprised me by what you wrote is that you can't see what I saw in this sentence. In my opinion, what Tony Abbott said is metaphor and not literal. I believe he is talking about "climate change" in general. I don't believe what he said is science. I don't think it should be read scientifically. This is a link that took about 3 seconds to find: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/abbott-feels-heat-o... Do you agree with the quote in the same link ? (From the famous "Tas van Ommen, the chief research scientist of the Australian Antarctic Division, collecting climate data from ice cores,")

"He cited the 2007 report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found that the available data in the climate record was too scarce to make a clear statement about 1,000 years ago." (I noticed that he was not Citing his own research, but citing IPCC)

I think this may be the root cause of our differences. If only the history of the earth’s climate can be determined 1,000 years ago, then I will become a believer of AGW wholeheartedly, and I can understand your sense of urgency. However, I believe that we can have a fairly accurate understanding of climate change by studying history. Do you agree or disagree with this? Do you agree or disagree with Tas van Omen?

You wrote that I "showed my hand" as if it was some kind of mistake I made. I wrote these words deliberately, I assure you. I want to be clear! I firmly believe that Kevin Rudd will say anything he thinks easy voters will hear. I firmly believe that the AGW debate is political, not scientific. (I have written many times here) Just as I imagine you believe that "deniers" are funded by "Big Oil", I believe that "believers" are being fooled by capitalists who pretend to be socialists. ETS and Cap'n' Trades will make a lot of money for those who participate in them, without actually reducing or limiting human carbon emissions. We will all pay the "credit" to the company will get huge profits. Do you agree or disagree?

Just a brief explanation for an international audience who may not realize it... The local time for my last post was around 10:30 on Monday night. It's not 5:30 in the morning, and I haven't been sitting all night drinking wine and reading this blog! (So ​​there!) I'm going to jump into bed now. Good night, you guy... zzzzzzzzzzzzz (snoring)

Michael, you missed the rest of the quote from Tas: "Dr. van Ommen said that confidence in global warming and greenhouse gas emissions is based on multiple sources of evidence." This is based on our knowledge of physics, our measurement of carbon, carbon dioxide And our understanding through climate models and the increase in temperature," he said.

When you ask "Are you saying that the only thing that can change the entire climate is human industry?", you also show a common misunderstanding.

This is a full proof of a basic misunderstanding-no one (reason) says that the only thing that can change the climate is people. This is too stupid. Climate has many drivers, of which carbon dioxide is the main driver-see here for example: http://www .ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.png

Searching for Tas van Ommen on Google also opened this link. Good doctor provided a photo: http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0909-niwa_csiro.html

Selected quotation: "At least for the past 2000 years, we can see human fingerprints in atmospheric methane emissions. Humans have been an integral part of the Earth’s carbon cycle for much longer than we thought... this Research is important because in the past 250 years, the increase in methane has been second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change, accounting for about 20% of carbon dioxide. The warming caused by all greenhouse gases is increasing"

(Quoted from James White, Dr. van Ommen is listed as a co-author)

Wow-I hope your house has not been burnt down by all the scarecrows you built there. I actually want to know if it's worth responding, but I will try it to fill a little time.

".....As I have written here many times before, I firmly believe that the earth does have a climate, and that the climate of the earth as a whole changes continuously in different time periods. Do you deny that this is the case?... "

Well, no, I don't deny it at all-I'm pretty sure the earth has a climate. Wait-I'll take a look outside. Yes-there must be a climate! ! ! Yes-I am very confident that it will change sometimes.

"...You mean that the only thing that can change the entire climate is human industry?..."

No-don't remember ever saying this. I know that changes in sunlight (among other things) do change the climate. But then again, there is one thing I absolutely don't deny (obviously unlike others), that person can change the climate.

"...Do you deny that the earth's climate is a complex system that is affected by many different behaviors and reactions?..."

Of course not-but you only need to read some of my posts here to get my opinion on this issue.

"...In my opinion, what Tony Abbott is talking about is metaphor and not literal. I believe he is talking about "climate change" in the general sense. I don't believe he is talking about science. I don't I believe it should be read scientifically..."

nonsense. You didn't say anything, and neither did Tony Abbott. He (and you) expressed your opinions very clearly based on your views on the science of climate change. To make matters worse, Tony Abbott expressed this in front of vulnerable elementary school students.​​​ According to the article, he said this:

"... Opposition leaders urged the 5th and 6th grades of Trinity Gardens Primary School in Adelaide to be skeptical about humanity’s contribution to climate change, saying this is an open question... in Q&A On Friday during the session, Mr. Abbott said, ``In the time of Jesus of Caesar and Nazareth, ``it was warmer than it is now..."

This is very obviously unscientific and wrong in two respects. This is not an open scientific question-the contribution of mankind to climate change is a clear fact, not an issue of debate. The extent of the change may not be resolved, but the fact that the climate has changed due to human influence cannot be debated in science. Before 2000, the weather was not warm, and Tony Abbott hinted that it was warm, thus showing his true background. He has no evidence to support his view, and there is plenty of evidence that he is wrong. But then again, what do you expect from fundamentalists?

"...I think this may be the root cause of our differences..."

No-the basis of our disagreement is that I accept evidence and science that show that our climate is changing due to human influence, and you accept the opinions of bloggers and politicians without any scientific training.

"...If you really can only find out the history of the earth's climate, it can be traced back to about 1,000 years ago, then I will become a believer of AGW wholeheartedly. I can understand your sense of urgency. However, I believe it can be learned by studying history. Obtain a fairly accurate picture of climate change. Do you agree or disagree with this?..."

Are you talking about WTF? We do have a fairly accurate understanding of the climate over millions of years, but I don’t know why the fact that the climate has changed due to various influences during that time has changed in any way the fact that it changes due to climate change. Human influence. In any case, when you said you would become a believer in AGW, you lied-both you and I know that you will not do this under any circumstances unless you are submerged by a few meters of sea level rise (this is not expected to happen) In your life, so you are safe in denial).

'...Just as I imagine you believe that "deniers" are funded by "Big Oil", I believe that "believers" are being fooled by capitalists who pretend to be socialists..."

No-some deniers are funded by Big Petroleum, but then again, some are just ignorant people without scientific knowledge who are fooled by propagandists. Then some people are the kind of people who deny the "unpleasant truth", which is normal human nature. And not sure where you got the stupid view that "believers" are people fooled by socialists. Many "believers" are scientists who have been studying this problem for decades, and when it looks directly at them, they can identify obvious facts and evidence (obviously different from some people). Other "believers" like me used to be skeptics, but the more I read, the more obvious I was wrong. Maybe if you really read some science instead of an idiot like Jo Nova, you might also discover the truth.

"...ETS and Cap'n' Trades will make a lot of money for participants without actually reducing or limiting human carbon emissions. We will all pay "credits" to companies that will make huge profits. Do you agree or disagree?..."

Maybe-but so what? People will make money from anything—many people get rich from the financial crisis. Many people get rich by mining fossil fuels and polluting the environment and changing the climate in the process. You show the same concern for their profiteering, and you obviously show the same concern for people who might benefit from clean energy technology.

I told you before, and I will say it again-when you came here, you showed embarrassment of lack of understanding of climate science. It’s not your fault, that’s great, I used to be (and still learning), and so is Mandas-it just means you need to read more (real SCIENCE, peer-reviewed papers in top journals, not blogs, etc.) )) The things that you think are worthy of debate are not at all. They have been suspected, hypothesized, studied and confirmed decades ago. Do you think that the point of view you are arguing is wrong, as far as the Earth’s climate drivers are concerned, professional scientists just "did not think about it"? To be honest, you get information from less than ideal sources.

I’ve suggested to you before, and I’m serious-you should read a comprehensive text from start to finish, such as the forthcoming "Principles of Planetary Climate" (Ray Pierre Humbert) to get a Thoroughly understand the nature of climate problems. Oops, even the first chapter will give you a good overview of the history and background you are talking about. Because frankly speaking, I am not rude at all. You clearly show to those who have a certain background in the field that you do not really grasp the types of questions that need to be asked and the profound history of all the research behind planetary climate science, and Not just for the earth. These problems are mainly thermodynamics in nature, and have little to do with meteorology (on a longer time scale). The history of life on this planet is inextricably linked to global climate change (Google "banded iron strata" is an early example), in fact, this is only because we have life here: (a) Average surface Conditions can exist in a semi-stable state far from the chemical and thermodynamic equilibrium, and (b) the average global surface temperature is not around -15 degrees Celsius. All this is easy to calculate.

You have been misled inadvertently, and I strongly recommend that you read it further. Oz’s political debate on this issue is sad (because it is worldwide, in general), and people who really “understand” the urgency of the situation are very frustrated not hearing their voices, not just I am a little worried about the future impact of this decade or two. It is no exaggeration to say that these are critical years. If you like, I’m very happy to communicate with you on this matter via private email, but I just want to make it clear from the perspective of a lurker that you did not fully “understand” what Mandas and others said to you and were mistaken The land is in a dilemma. There are still some "debated" views about the dangerous warming caused by carbon dioxide. That's not it.

Unfortunately, the book does not expire until June, and the preview copy online for reading/editing has been deleted:-(

(No, Crackar, I have nothing to do with JoNova's sad anti-science website, so somewhere in the ether there must be another "MattB, Matt Bennett" etc...)

You have been misled inadvertently, and I strongly recommend that you read it further. Oz’s political debate on this issue is sad (because it is worldwide, in general), and people who really “understand” the urgency of the situation are very frustrated not hearing their voices, not just I am a little worried about the future impact of this decade or two.

Ok you guys, ok! ......uncle! Chris, Mandas, and Matt, I sincerely thank you for your response. Now I know I need to do more reading. I thank everyone for writing reasonably, without insulting or ridiculing. I am grateful. Matt, I will get "Principles of Planetary Climate" and read it. (It's June. It can't be too long...) I will say, at least at this stage, I disagree with what you have said, but I am willing to admit that you have convinced me that I need to learn more. I have said for many years that any day you learn something new is a good day! I am almost 42 years old. I am a self-employed electrical contractor with 3 employees. (If you don't know; in the "trade" world, electricians are the people with the most skills, mathematics, and knowledge.) I think this makes me a little smart! (Smartass!)...and the traditional "top" but the "bottom" of intellectuals... :((Sobbing! Sniffing! SNOOOORT! Blow your nose loudly through a handkerchief)

However! This is a topic that fascinates me, and I really want to know more. However, the political aspect of the whole debate fascinates me the most. How can opposing political views easily align with opposing "scientific" views? Thanks again, friends! I think I will ReadYaSoon! Cheers me

Michael: I must say how refreshing it is to talk to people who listen. I'm afraid you will find that many commentators on the "Passion" website are bored with the deliberate ignorance shown by commentators who claim to be disbelieving in science (ingeniously used by bloggers such as JoNova). It's good to find someone who can recognize the need for continuing education-after all, no one here fully understands the whole problem, even though some people read more extensively than others.

There is no doubt that climate science is difficult-an exciting mix of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and statistics, and a small amount of ecology, social science, and economics is needed to understand its impact. I will not fund you by pointing you in the direction of the text I like, but I will remind you to question and double-check everything you are told (especially on the blog)-in this regard, Google Scholar is your friend, The same is true for library cards.

You are right-the politics of this issue is very interesting, and I find it interesting that the extreme ends of political ideology are reluctant to accept scientific evidence as a basis for decision-making (see, for example, Lysenkoism and McCarthyism).

Good luck in your search for knowledge, and I look forward to further conversations (oh, happy birthday in the near future!)

Thank you for your comment in post 82-it is very refreshing to see someone admit that they need to learn more about a topic before forming an opinion-as all of us have done.

If you really want to learn more about climate change or any scientific topic related to this, you should read scientific papers and not just the opinions of bloggers-although it is undeniable that there are several excellent websites that can express your wisdom opinion. Of course, you can get some information here, but here is another great climate science website: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

The beauty of a good website is that they provide links to original data sources or papers and provide comments, so you can check their facts.

But the best way is to go to googlescholar: http://scholar.google.com.au/

You can use it like a regular Google, but it will provide you with links to scientific journals and papers. Many of them require a subscription to access the complete paper, but many are free and provide good information. Even the abstract of the paper (always free) can usually provide enough clues to start your science education, and can provide hints for additional reading, etc.

Good luck-science is fun!

I will respond to the wonderful responses that others have heard to welcome you, as a breath of fresh air in the debate, which rarely seems to allow such moments of self-doubt. Like Mandas, I am also skeptical of the early "noughties" and made a conscious effort to study in detail many things outside of my professional field, most of which I still don't have a firm grasp of. As Chris said, this is a field full of details that needs to be absorbed across many disciplines. There are still many areas that need to be enriched, but the basic premise is to confirm these things as close as possible to 100%.

I still have a copy on my hard drive. If you don’t want to bother to buy it, I’m happy to email you the first chapter of Lei’s book. I can't explain why Chris thinks that providing you with a starting point is a patronage, but you are obviously open to it, so I'm happy to help. I don’t see any major difference between this and Mandas, which provides you with clickable links... This book is just one of many books that people can point to you, but I chose it because it’s the latest (June 2010 Month), has a logical flow, listed a good summary in the first chapter, and insists on pure science. This is a textbook, not a political propaganda film. So, if it's patronage, so be it, even though I'm still scratching my head for that. I would attribute it to the old "misreading intention" of non-face-to-face communication.

If you can catch it, last week's "New Scientist" magazine also had an excellent summary of the latest research on ice age fluctuations, about five pages. The great diagram shows very clearly how Milankovitch’s orbital period connects them.

Good luck and thank you for your reply.

"...Will echo with others here..." should read :-)

I don't know Matt-'echo' and'hear' seem to fit together.

Yes, Mandas, I suspected that this mistake was Freudian, but I was too busy this morning to express my meaning :-) I'm very happy Michael, it's not like we can tell Others have indeed "heared" what you said and kept talking. It’s refreshing, I almost choked on NutriGrain...

Trying to catch up with the forum after the trip to New York. ..

Yes Chris, I mixed gin and OJ and watched the entire slide in Moncton. What shocked me was that this person had credibility to anyone. I mean, what do the relatively smart deniers think of this clown?

The narrator (forgot his name now-no gin involved this time) recognized all the same frustrations I encountered when trying to sift through Moncton's trash-no citations, misquotes, etc. resonated as much. The guy is a first-class *hacker*.

What it still needs is a smoother, faster, and clearer presentation. Maybe highlight the most heinous mistakes in advance and have a link to investigate further, or something. My experience is that your average denier has an attention span defined by the Fox News story cycle.

Good choice for laser engraving machine

Good choice for laser cutting machine

Jinan Kaihuan Technology Co., Ltd. is located in Jinan. We specialize in the contact, production and sales of CO2 laser engraving machines, CO2 laser cutting machines, woodworking series CNC routers, CNC engraving machines and CNC cutting machines. Jinan Kaihuan Technology Co., Ltd. has made considerable progress in the field of heavy industry, and has received extensive support from well-known universities and technical research institutes. Jinan Kaihuan technology products are widely used in the advertising industry, packaging and printing industry, handicrafts and gifts industry, mold manufacturing industry, clothing industry and leather industry. Jinan Kaihuan Technology has become an industry pioneer in providing the most complete series of high-quality laser engraving machines, laser engraving machines, laser cutting machines, CNC routers and CNC engraving machines. The business goal of K-Ring Tech is to provide the market with the most reliable products, the most favorable prices, and impeccable service support.

Contact: Amanda Shi Tel: 86-531-88627822 Fax: 86-531-86551618 Email: jnkring@yahoo.cn Website: www.kringcnc.com

Jinan K-Ring Tech 1) Laser engraving machine KR40B/KR400/KR530 2) Laser engraving machine KR450/KR640/KR960 3) Laser cutting machine KR1290/KR1212/KR1410 4) Laser cutting machine/KR1316R KR1316R KR13130R KR1316R NC/KR13102000 3) /KR1212/KR1215/KR1218/KR1325 6) Woodworking machine KR1325B/KR1325A/KR2030

Okay, the above is spam, but it is not your usual Viagra, WOW gold or porn spam, I just need to leave it!

crakar: Since you have not commented on my posts (for example, #56 above), you must agree with me (the temperature change of 0.5 degrees Celsius has affected the ecosystem).

See how it works? Thank you Kraka!

(For context-articles 41 and 42 here: http://scienceblogs.com/illthinked/2006/06/sea-level-in-arctic-is-fa...)

ScienceBlogs is a place where scientists communicate directly with the public. We are part of Science 2.0, a science education non-profit organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. If you value independent scientific communication, cooperation, participation, and open access, please make a tax-free donation.

You can also use Amazon Smile to shop, although you do not have to pay more, but we will get a little bit of something.

© 2006-2020 Science 2.0. all rights reserved. Privacy statement. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Science 2.0, a science media non-profit organization operating in accordance with Article 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Law. Donations are completely tax-free.