People on street do not consider environment important.

[B. Max]

Luckily for me I don't pay as much attention to them as I do to what a consensus of scientific study shows.

I thought you were a card carrying disciple.

There is no consensus of scientific study as you would have it. There is Hansen and his computer models. A man who should be on trial for scientific fraud.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...itive/#more-107

How is the Wikipedia law suit for libel coming along.

[jdobbin]

I thought you were a card carrying disciple.

There is no consensus of scientific study as you would have it. There is Hansen and his computer models. A man who should be on trial for scientific fraud.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...itive/#more-107

How is the Wikipedia law suit for libel coming along.

The Wikipedia lawsuit doesn't seem to be getting very far.

http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2005/12/12/wi...action-lawsuit/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OfficialWire#...nd_OfficialWire

The consensus isn't solely on Hansen's computer models.

I find it interesting you always use Patrick Michaels. Are there no scientists who agree with him?

[B. Max]

The Wikipedia lawsuit doesn't seem to be getting very far.

That's to bad.

One Response to “Wikipedia Class Action Lawsuit?”

Ron S. Says:

June 23rd, 2006 at 8:28 am

I don’t know about the law suit, but I am positive that it will happen again and again. Wikipedia is a clear case of the inmates talking over the asylum! It is run by organized volunteer super-nerds as though they were feudal lords! Just go on the site and see the nasty goings on for yourself. And they are at it twenty-four hours a day with a passion!

The consensus isn't solely on Hansen's computer models.

I find it interesting you always use Patrick Michaels. Are there no scientists who agree with him?

Hansen and his no work computer models are mentioned by many others.

They are always mentioned by those that are trotted out to promote the global warming scam.

It always goes like this : our models show, or the models show. It is never explained that they are talking about computer models that don't match real time observations.

[jdobbin]

Hansen and his no work computer models are mentioned by many others.

They are always mentioned by those that are trotted out to promote the global warming scam.

It always goes like this : our models show, or the models show. It is never explained that they are talking about computer models that don't match real time observations.

Not everything falls from Hansen's models.

http://origin.insidebayarea.com/ci_4898376

An island disappears. Is this a computer model? Also reported on one of your favourite sites: FOX News.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238634,00.html

[B. Max]

An island disappears. Is this a computer model? Also reported on one of your favourite sites: FOX News.

No, it's like everything else they try to fool the public. Blame it on global warming. They'll really be cranking this up.

Plate tectonics at work: "The last tide could come at any time. Then these islands at the end of the Earth will simply vanish." - "Blame it on global warming or a submerged volcano. Either way, the low-lying atoll seems doomed - and it is not the only one." (London Times)

True, the islands are subsiding. It's also true that they would be subsiding whether there had been an industrial revolution or whether humans had never discovered fire.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2513189,00.html

[jdobbin]

No, it's like everything else they try to fool the public. Blame it on global warming. They'll really be cranking this up.

Plate tectonics at work: "The last tide could come at any time. Then these islands at the end of the Earth will simply vanish." - "Blame it on global warming or a submerged volcano. Either way, the low-lying atoll seems doomed - and it is not the only one." (London Times)

True, the islands are subsiding. It's also true that they would be subsiding whether there had been an industrial revolution or whether humans had never discovered fire.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2513189,00.html

The article didn't conclude that it was plate tectonics. And this was a different set of islands than was mentioned in the other Times article.

In that article, scientists are pretty convinced that it is global warming.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece

Two-thirds of nearby populated island Ghoramara has also been permanently inundated. Dr Sugata Hazra, director of the university's School of Oceanographic Studies, says "it is only a matter of some years" before it is swallowed up too. Dr Hazra says there are now a dozen "vanishing islands" in India's part of the delta. The area's 400 tigers are also in danger.

Until now the Carteret Islands off Papua New Guinea were expected to be the first populated ones to disappear, in about eight years' time, but Lohachara has beaten them to the dubious distinction.

[B. Max]

Either way, the low-lying atoll seems doomed - and it is not the only one." (London Times)

The article didn't conclude that it was plate tectonics. And this was a different set of islands than was mentioned in the other Times article.

In that article, scientists are pretty convinced that it is global warming.

Well not every one is convinced, or even that the artic or ant artic is warming unusally. Im sure we'll get the real story before long after all the hipe and scare mongering milage has been rung out of it.

http://www.junkscience.com/mar02/AFP-Tuvalu.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html

[jdobbin]

Well not every one is convinced, or even that the artic or ant artic is warming unusally. Im sure we'll get the real story before long after all the hipe and scare mongering milage has been rung out of it.

http://www.junkscience.com/mar02/AFP-Tuvalu.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html

The island that sank in India seems to fall into something that other than people on the island created the problem and tectonic shifts. This is a real time event not related to computer models and scientists need to be able to explain it as it is an ongoing event that will require moving people.

[B. Max]

The island that sank in India seems to fall into something that other than people on the island created the problem and tectonic shifts. This is a real time event not related to computer models and scientists need to be able to explain it as it is an ongoing event that will require moving people.

So move people. They are local events from local conditions.

[jdobbin]

So move people. They are local events from local conditions.

The local conditions is what the debate is all about. For the Indian island, it doesn't seem to be a localized incident.

[B. Max]

So move people. They are local events from local conditions.

The local conditions is what the debate is all about. For the Indian island, it doesn't seem to be a localized incident.

They can make all the claims they want. Proof is something else.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...scare/#more-200

[jdobbin]

They can make all the claims they want. Proof is something else.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...scare/#more-200

The anti-climate change people have not been able to say for certain why the island has sunk and why the other Indians are headed that way.

What has been ruled out is tectonic activity and anything that islanders were doing.

One thing is certain, there are several more studies on sea levels being done now.

[B. Max]

They can make all the claims they want. Proof is something else.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...scare/#more-200

The anti-climate change people have not been able to say for certain why the island has sunk and why the other Indians are headed that way.

What has been ruled out is tectonic activity and anything that islanders were doing.

One thing is certain, there are several more studies on sea levels being done now.

I have not heard of tectonic activity and anything that islanders were doing being ruled out. As my post says, there is no connection between C02 and sea level rise.

[jdobbin]

I have not heard of tectonic activity and anything that islanders were doing being ruled out. As my post says, there is no connection between C02 and sea level rise.

And Calcutta's Jadavpur University says the islands have sunk because of rising sea levels.

So what is causing the rising sea levels?

[B. Max]

I have not heard of tectonic activity and anything that islanders were doing being ruled out. As my post says, there is no connection between C02 and sea level rise.

And Calcutta's Jadavpur University says the islands have sunk because of rising sea levels.

So what is causing the rising sea levels?

Who knows. But at a couple of MM a year it's no big deal.

[jdobbin]

Who knows. But at a couple of MM a year it's no big deal.

It would take more than a couple of mm per year to have sunk the islands in India. I'd say a lot more research needs to take place and fast before dismissing any idea.

[Who's Doing What?]

As my post says, there is no connection between C02 and sea level rise.

CO2 is one of the "green house" gases. It causes the atmosphere to retain more heat. The warmer the planet gets the more polar and glacial ice is melted. This newly freed water once it makes its way to the ocean causes the sea level to rise.

There's your connection.

[B. Max]

As my post says, there is no connection between C02 and sea level rise.

CO2 is one of the "green house" gases. It causes the atmosphere to retain more heat. The warmer the planet gets the more polar and glacial ice is melted. This newly freed water once it makes its way to the ocean causes the sea level to rise.

There's your connection.

However that's simply not true.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...scare/#more-200

Figure 1 below shows that sea level has undoubtedly been rising for 6,000 years, and the rates seem rather monotonic. Quotes from throughout the Larsen and Clark paper are priceless. They state “the earlier part of the Dennis Creek reconstruction shows general agreement with the long-term rate of RSL rise at 2.0 mm/y until about AD 1750. The RSL trend then rapidly rises until the early 20th century, when it slows and tends to parallel the historic tide gauge record of 2.6 mm/y.” The Dennis Creek reconstruction had accelerated sea-level rise alright, but it occurred from AD 1750 to the early 1900s!

[jdobbin]

However that's simply not true.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...scare/#more-200

Figure 1 below shows that sea level has undoubtedly been rising for 6,000 years, and the rates seem rather monotonic. Quotes from throughout the Larsen and Clark paper are priceless. They state “the earlier part of the Dennis Creek reconstruction shows general agreement with the long-term rate of RSL rise at 2.0 mm/y until about AD 1750. The RSL trend then rapidly rises until the early 20th century, when it slows and tends to parallel the historic tide gauge record of 2.6 mm/y.” The Dennis Creek reconstruction had accelerated sea-level rise alright, but it occurred from AD 1750 to the early 1900s!

You never quote the full thinking of the authors.

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=ge...112%2F03-0123.1

If proportionality exists among sea level, atmospheric CO2, and temperature, there may be a significant time lag before an anthropogenic increase in the rate of sea-level rise occurs.

There are now a few scientists looking at time lag and rising sea levels.

[B. Max]

There are now a few scientists looking at time lag and rising sea levels.

Just like the thousand year time lag of Co2 to past rising temperatures.

[Who's Doing What?]

As my post says, there is no connection between C02 and sea level rise.

CO2 is one of the "green house" gases. It causes the atmosphere to retain more heat. The warmer the planet gets the more polar and glacial ice is melted. This newly freed water once it makes its way to the ocean causes the sea level to rise.

There's your connection.

However that's simply not true.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...scare/#more-200

Figure 1 below shows that sea level has undoubtedly been rising for 6,000 years, and the rates seem rather monotonic. Quotes from throughout the Larsen and Clark paper are priceless. They state “the earlier part of the Dennis Creek reconstruction shows general agreement with the long-term rate of RSL rise at 2.0 mm/y until about AD 1750. The RSL trend then rapidly rises until the early 20th century, when it slows and tends to parallel the historic tide gauge record of 2.6 mm/y.” The Dennis Creek reconstruction had accelerated sea-level rise alright, but it occurred from AD 1750 to the early 1900s!

If it is not true then where does all the melting ice go?

It has to go somewhere. The melt that goes into the oceans has to raise the sea level. Simple logic.

To argue that adding water to the oceans doesn't raise their level is .... well.... illogical.

Ofcourse to take arguments like yours at face value one would have to make the erroneous assumption that mankind is the only thing influencing global warming. A large enough volcanic explosion can pump enough ash into the atmosphere to filter the sun and actually lower global temps.

[Technocrat]

'Who's Doing What' is referring to:

One of the 4 Laws of Ecology. Specifically the second law stated below.

2. Everything Must Go Somewhere. There no "waste" in nature and there is no “away” to which things can be thrown.

Melting Ice will become water, additional water volume in the ocean will lead to an increase in sea levels.

[jdobbin]

Just like the thousand year time lag of Co2 to past rising temperatures.

I think both CO2 and melting ice reach a tipping point.

[Saturn]

I don't know why you even bother discussing whether global warming is caused by human activity or not. It's like discussing whether smoking causes lung cancer or whether jumping into a pool full of water will cause you to get wet. The naysayers refuse to see the facts either because they see some personal benefit to it (most likely) and/or because prefer to ignore the facts (less likely) and you are simply wasting your time trying to change their mind.

[jdobbin]

I don't know why you even bother discussing whether global warming is caused by human activity or not. It's like discussing whether smoking causes lung cancer or whether jumping into a pool full of water will cause you to get wet. The naysayers refuse to see the facts either because they see some personal benefit to it (most likely) and/or because prefer to ignore the facts (less likely) and you are simply wasting your time trying to change their mind.

Many of the right wing here disagree that smoking is bad for you as well.