Why do Y!A Libs completely avoid scientific questions about climate change?

Question

Have a look at this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhBDDhtRLaFZkNb59Xp.eRvsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071016104954AAMX5jO

It asks: "Why do Libs base their environmental faith on the gospel of a two-time College Dropout?"

Some Y!A Libs spew DNC talking points about "scientific consensus." Yet when I ask them within the same question thread to validate their scientific claims, or provide links to someone who can, all we get are chirping crickets.

Here are the questions Y!A Libs run from like deer from wolves:

1 - What percentage of current climate change is attributable to man-made factors, and what percentage is attributable to random variation of the sun?

2 - Why is warming occurring on Mars?

3 - Why will the coders of global climate models not release their computer code?

4 - How are temperatures pre-1700 validated?

5 - Why do global climate models predict future warming, even when *RANDOM* values are input for past temperatures?

Steve C. I have my degree from Big Time University, as you can see on my 360 page.

Answer the questions.

Please note...after 17 people saw fit to type what was on their mind, *NONE* of the Y!A Libs actually addressed the *QUESTION*!!

Answer 1

Yes. Temperatures Dropped For Decades While CO2 Was Increasing.

This is the August 2007 chart of the NASA corrections. From the high point of 1934 (yellow line with black dot), temperatures fell for decades while CO2 was increasing. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708_1.gif

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvbKBhxzVvvyPZ93NPZPrEbsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071016023638AACM6ke

In August, NASA announced a correction to historic temperature data for the 1900's. (The mistake was discovered by a Canadian scientist) The warmest year on record is now 1934, not 1998. That means CO2 is not causing the rise in temperatures because temperatures dropped in the middle of the 1900's while CO2 levels were increasing.

There are many links to websites and NASA data in the link below.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AopqLo1dwbJqEOdCG4bxjS3ty6IX?qid=20070815194816AAHukeS
" The 'CO2' Global Warming Theory Officially Proven Wrong. When Will Liberals Announce The Corrections? "

Also, USA Today recently printed an article about Japan's record temperature was in 1933. NASA's corrected data shows the greatest temperature was in the U.S. was in 1934. Japan's records are separate from NASA's records and both have similar figures.

Answer 2

I have issues with the wonks on both sides of the "climate change" debate and what should or shouldn't be done about it.

All I know is that we only have good GLOBAL (global is in caps because i don't want to see we have ice core data - that is a point source) data from the last 100 years or so. This data is showing that the earth is warming. What I don't see is anybody proving that the warming is outside of the statistically significant mean variation of the global earths temperature. Nobody can, that data is not available. The earth is over 6 billion years old. Data on Mars is irrelevant. Also, any claim on a "natural cycle" is bogus based on the same lack of data. Also, someone needs to prove to me that correlation implies causation (yes I know CO2 has been rising but pirate prevalence has been falling over the same period).

If you don't understand, how about this as an example. You are 30 years old and you have only started taking your body temperature last week (also, nobody on the planet has ever taken their temperature). Last Tue your temp was 98.0. Wed it was 98.4 and was rising everyday till today and it's 99.0. Do you rush to the hospital? Are you dieing? If you didn't know that the normal body temperature is 98.6 with a +/- 1 deg variation you may think so. Would you take an aspirin? An aspirin could kill you if you had bleeding problems or were allergic.

Get the point?

Answer 3

Even this UK court ruling concerning the validity of "An Inconvenient Truth" is banished from their minds -

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.

* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.

* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.

* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

"In order for the film to be shown (in an educational setting), the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

3.) (The) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth

Answer 4

As a computer programmer, I find 3 troubling. Academia has long been known for making its algorithms and techniques widely available for others to study. As a global warming skeptic, I would love to get my hands on it and study it myself. Believe me: if I see a computer crunching the numbers demonstrating to me global warming is real, I'd be a believer. I actually attempted to find algorithms, and I couldn't find anything. Like I said before, this is rare for academia to do this. They usually are known for publishing plausible alternatives to valuable algorithms that in some cases have been patented by private companies, giving the masses the ability to utilize the same concepts.

Answer 5

The Poles have not any land below them. the united statesNautilus sailed below the North in 1958. Ice, while floating in water, displaces precisely the comparable volume it will develop into while it melts. possibly Al Gore could glide a cube in his Kool-help in an test he can do at abode. Erosion of sand (exceptionally) and sediment into the sea motives it to upward thrust. The Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea are crammed with "wind-blown" African sand. middle samples from their flooring instruct this. possibly why each and every canal, lock, dam, slip, pier, berth, dock, port/harbor have a dredge (or a team) to scoop the crud returned out returned. The "palm-tree" in Dubai is outfitted completely out of dredged sediment. wager their water point went down. The standard consensus is that sea stages upward thrust a million.8 millimeters a 365 days (one inch in 13 years), and not from ice-soften ... from erosion. i'm able to stay with that. If that bothers you, get a activity on a dredge & do some thing (different than whine) approximately it.

Answer 6

First of all, you are not considered a college drop out if you do not finish a graduate program. A college drop out is one who has never finished college.

The real question is why do the repugs lie about global warming. Scientists say that global warming is real and man made. Paid political hacks say that global warming is fake and as proof, smear liberals and other patriots. We know who you believe, but come on, do you really expect intelligent people to believe political hacks over the experts? Have some common sense. Not all of us are stupid enough to vote Republican.

Why is global warming happening on mars? It isn't. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

How are temperatures measured in the past? All sorts of ways. Some of them are discussed here
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/11/20/6027

"a major source of historical climate data comes from studying the ratio between the most abundant isotopes and other less abundant, but still stable cousins."

Also looking at tree rings and other vegetative records as well as the bones and teeth of animals.

Answer 7

Be prepared to be called a heretic for defiling the house of GORE.

I would also like an explanation from these people how Al Gore can get a carbon offset by giving money to a company that has not offset a single gram of CO2 since coming into existence. Yet he still claims he is Carbon neutral. (whatever that means).

Answer 8

OK, you need to provide me the Physical and Chemical laws that indicate altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere, (as we have done) has no subsequent Thermodynamic Reaction. Good luck....

Answer 9

I don't.

Objection:
Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUV's on Mars, CO2 can't be causing Global Warming.

This is quite rich. One hundred years of weather station temperature data all over the globe and these guys still don't buy it. Three photos of one piece of ice on Mars and they have no doubts! As for Pluto, it hasn't even completed one orbit in the 150 years we've been reading the thermometers here on Earth! Still, avoid the temptation to laugh out loud...

Answer:
Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence but it does not necessarily have to have the same cause. The only relevant factor the Earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related it would have to be due to the sun. The sun is being watched and measured very carefully back here on earth and it is not the primary cause of the current climate change.

As for this alledged finding, there is very little evidence to go on when it comes to discerning a global climate change on Mars. The only evidence out there that I am aware of is a series of photographs of a single icey region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a two year (~1 martian year) period. Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region strains credulity. In fact, scientists studying Mars believe this is a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles.

See Global Warming on Mars? from Real Climate for more details.

As for Pluto, a cursory glance at Pluto's orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from two occultation observations 14 years apart way out there in the ice cold and lonely Kuiper Belt!

Back to Mars, here is a nice and succint way to compare the available evidence:

On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers world wide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting and stratosphere cooling which leads us to believe we have GHG driven global warming.

One Mars we have one spot melting which leads us to believe...one spot is melting.



Objection:
Global Warming has been going on for 20,000 years.

This one varies in the length of time quoted, but the essential fallacy is the same. You can cherry pick any particular year you wish to get a trend in the direction you wish. But of course this only works if you ignore all context or considerations of relevance.

Answer:
It is quite true that 20Kyr ago the temperature was some 8 to 10 oC colder than it is today, but it is highly arbitrary and dubious to simply draw a line from that point to today and say "Look! 20K years of Global Warming!". If you have look at this nice graph of temperature starting at a point when we were finishing the climb out of deep glaciation, you can clearly see that rapid warming ceased around 10,000 years ago (rapid relative to natural flucuations, but not compared to warming today). After a final little lift at 8000 years bp the temperature trended generally downward for the entire period of the Holocene. So the post industrial revolution warming is really the reversal of a many thousand year trend.

A closer view of today's trend with the context of the last 1000 and 2000 years attached makes it even clearer that today's trend is striking and opposite to what one might expect without an anthropogenic disturbance.

If you really wanted to play this game you could talk about how we are reversing a five million year cooling trend, or go crazy and track global temperatures right back to the origins of the planet! But I don't recommend it...

Answer 10

"Libs" didn't answer your "questions" about climate change because your main question consisted of an attack on Gore's career as a student. You then followed that with an addendum of 5 questions about climate change. If you'd like to get a specific answer to a specific question, you should ask just one or two at a time, rather than 7.