Did you help ruin the world?

[CountArach]

weathermen often being meteorologists, and climatology really being an off-shoot of earth-science, a discipline that has been studied by geologists, physicists and more for decades.

That is irrelevant. He has no speciality in that area and as such he cannot be quoted as an authority.

this weatherman running the best science blog of 2008.

Because it is sooooo hard to set up a macro to spam the voting... He received less than 40% of the vote and I believe every competitor was to his left-wing, thus splitting the vote. Why am I even arguing this...?

Al Gore has a hit movie... does that mean he is also a perfectly valid source? I'm going to take a wild guess that would you would disagree with that idea.

i love this attitude of play the man, it demonstrates zero interest in discussing the possible shortcomings of the science, and only reinforces my opinion of how dangerous this religion is.

Allow me to quote something that seems relevant to me.

what gore is managing to do (in my opinion), is bring public acceptance of the problem in advance of science confirming that anthropogenic CO2 is indeed the problem, by creating a faith in the public consciousness that the scientific world has already reached a consensus on what the problem is and therefore what direction to go in applying the solution.

Play the... ahh, bugger it.

it is not that i consider the IPCC to definately wrong, it is the amount of damage that can be done by the entranced public as they stampede in the wrong direction chasing after the redemption of consensus.

The IPCC says urgent action is needed. Every major non-partisan science organisation says urgent action is needed. And yet people claim that urgent action is not needed. Why is that sir? Are you simply picking whichever parts of the IPCC report follow your line of thought to agree with?

Meanwhile, Antarctica keeps on warming.

[Furunculus]

That is irrelevant. He has no speciality in that area and as such he cannot be quoted as an authority.
Because it is sooooo hard to set up a macro to spam the voting... He received less than 40% of the vote and I believe every competitor was to his left-wing, thus splitting the vote. Why am I even arguing this...?
Al Gore has a hit movie... does that mean he is also a perfectly valid source? I'm going to take a wild guess that would you would disagree with that idea.

Play the... ahh, bugger it.

The IPCC says urgent action is needed. Every major non-partisan science organisation says urgent action is needed. And yet people claim that urgent action is not needed. Why is that sir? Are you simply picking whichever parts of the IPCC report follow your line of thought to agree with?

Meanwhile, Antarctica keeps on warming.

still blithely ignoring anything to do with the articles on hand..................

does Gore or does Gore not see it as his job to radicalise the masses about AGW?

because more and more of the scientific establishment is peeling away from the IPCC consensus.

and there are very good local explanations before you need to look at CO2:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...-of-viewpoint/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...in-antarctica/

[CountArach]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...-of-viewpoint/

Oh, another convenient excuse. IT WAS THE VOLCANOES ALL ALONG.

When you average out the heat released by the volcanoes across the entire continent of Antarctica you come up with 1/1000th (Comment 93) of the energy required to light a bulb. Certainly not enough to heat up the continent at the levels being talked about here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...in-antarctica/

Problems with that article:
1) Hays has spent 1 or 2 summers there. The authors of this paper have collectively spent 8 seasons on the ice in Antarctica, 6 in Greenland and 1 on Baffin island.
2) it is based on anecdote.
3) He ignores the longer-term trend in the warming of the station he was talking about.

[Furunculus]

Oh, another convenient excuse. IT WAS THE VOLCANOES ALL ALONG.
When you average out the heat released by the volcanoes across the entire continent of Antarctica you come up with 1/1000th (Comment 93) of the energy required to light a bulb. Certainly not enough to heat up the continent at the levels being talked about here.

Problems with that article:
1) Hays has spent 1 or 2 summers there. The authors of this paper have collectively spent 8 seasons on the ice in Antarctica, 6 in Greenland and 1 on Baffin island.
2) it is based on anecdote.
3) He ignores the longer-term trend in the warming of the station he was talking about.

the point was that no effort was made in steigs paper to rule out volcanism as a source of warming, which is important because although the total heat output may be crazily small when spread out over a huge continent, you are refering to a dataset composed of less than half a dozen surface stations to cover a whole continent that have at least 50 years of data, most of which lie on the western peninsula which is where the volcanism is.

Meanwhile: climate forecasting as practiced by the IPCC is still dodgy - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...sting-climate/

and hansens 'poppa' say his little boy should still have his training wheels on - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...never-muzzled/

[Xiahou]

and hansens 'poppa' say his little boy should still have his training wheels on - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/2...never-muzzled/

Hansen is such a drama queen.

[Fragony]

How are YOU going to educate your parents about global warming?

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pm...big-hollywood/