“This statement that temperatures are increasing faster than anything nature is capable of is certainly referring only to warming, correct? Because our planet has experienced a much greater temperature shift in a far shorter time frame.
“Climate change is one of the newest theories in science. We thought dinosaurs were lizards not that long ago in human history. I do not jump on anything any one scientist says but looks for the evidence to support. We need to continue to add to the knowledge, but not blindly accept that every new finding is in fact true. Science relies on dissent and anyone who excludes any challenge - unless it originates from Rush Limbaugh - is doing the field a disservice. As for alarmists, you will find them quoted in thinkprogress and Mother Jones articles quite frequently. Anything that comes from those liberal facts-be-damned publications should be challenged as strongly as anything from Fox News(?) or The Blaze. The truth lies in the middle and I do not believe it's as absolute black and white until I see every argument for AND against an issue investigated.
That being said, most can be dismissed easily, but not all. And to continually dismiss with talking points - as you have done - does not further or strengthen the science.
“I'm not a denier, nor am I an alarmist. And I work for a consortium of climate scientists and industry experts around the globe. Our focus is long-term abatement though real replacements for coal and oil, not wind, solar, or plug-in hybrids. There are many, many of us who work in the field that fail to drink every glass of Kool-Aid placed in front of us. Climate models and CO2 sensitivity are two areas that are not settled among many who believe in the overall science. If you buy into every climate change connection and claim, you will contradict yourself repeatedly. Nothing in science is ever absolute, and many aspects of anthropogenic climate change are not fully understood, even by the IPCCs admission. That is why a real scientist would never draw a connection between a singular event now versus a long-term collection of data.”
stranger1548 on Nov 17, 2013 at 12:39:09
“Climate sensitivity has been determined to be from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees for a doubling of CO2. Lindzen says it's only .5 degree for doubling but were well above that already.
"Alarmist" is a relative term. I only accept what the IPCC and scientists like Mike Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Pierrehumbert and other notable scientists publish. Do you consider those personalities as "Alarmist." There are people who make unfounded claims but there usually not climate scientists.
Many things are not absolute yet I think the laws of gravity like climate change are credible. Over the last 30 odd years that I've been paying close attention to the subject, I've been impressed how well the projections from the 80's and 90's have been. It's also interesting to see just how much more has been learned over those years. To say we don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing. We don't need to see every wrinkle of Mona Lisa to recognize it's a woman. Over the past 30 years we added to the knowledge 10 fold and the portrait is clearer by the day.
Your narratives are classic in the latest evolution of denier taking points.”
“I'm not a Republican, nor am I an alarmist. I believe too many conclusions have been jumped upon before there is really enough supportive data available. Many climate related claims have come and passed without ever broaching the dire predictions. Linking individual storms to climate change breeches any reasonable scientific protocol.”
stranger1548 on Nov 16, 2013 at 14:39:35
“You have been told things like predictions have been made that haven't come to pass. That's baloney! Those are second hand sources telling you that. They aren't producing any research to support their views but believe if they can confuse they can obfuscate the truth.
In 1981 James Hansen and his team released their study predicting that the earth, even though in the throws of arctic temperatures the nation over was about to see a large increase in warming. His paper concluded that the current sub zero winters were being caused by a buildup of aerosols but that dampening effect would soon be overcome.
You can also learn about predictions of the oceans and layers of the atmosphere. You've been mislead about models as well. Models predict trends not sort term year to year fluctuation in temperature. Thirty years is what the scientists will tell you is a trend. The denier fake experts won't.
What scientists tell us about storms is that CO2 is a climate steroid. We know that Sammy Sosa hit more and longer home runs because of the steroids he took. He still might have hit many of them but he helped to make them more powerful. CO2 in the atmosphere creates heat. Heat causes more moisture in the atmosphere. The added energy results in stronger events.”
“Read the IPCC report before jumping to conclusions. It is a reduction in temperature. You cannot just pick apart the one quote I listed. There has been a pause in warming and global temperatures have declined.”
stranger1548 on Nov 15, 2013 at 13:44:46
“Your the one picking things apart! It's how you guys try and obfuscate the truth. There is no credible research being done by any of you. I have no idea if you have any science skills at all. Just waving your arms about without providing anything of value when claiming "thousand of scientists" seems that your might not be on the up and up. It's no wonder only 6% of scientists identify as Republican.”
“This, from the IPCC AR5 report released on Sept. 26 talks specifically about the warming hiatus. 2010 is not seen as accurate by all climate scientists. This is located in Chapter 10.
"The observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence)."
“We can argue all we want about the future, but no science has been able to accurately predict it as of yet.”
If your going to solely hang your hat on Hansen, you will apparently dismiss the works of tens of thousands of us in the field. The fact I was referring to was climate modeling and their interpretation of reality. Those models have been unable to detect most of the current climate realities and were predicting a world on the brink of destruction by 2014. They all missed the mark, and most reasonable scientists are working on discovering their flaws so that they can improve their predictive capabilities. Truth is, this is still relatively new as scientific theories go. While there may be unity on cause, there is far less unity on effect and future impacts.”
stranger1548 on Nov 14, 2013 at 21:32:54
“Defined as “reduction in the trend.” That doesn’t mean there is no increase! Reducing is not ending.
Models are built to estimate trends rather than events. You don’t predict what the temperature is going to be next year or the year after. Climate models speak in 30 year trends.
You would do better by deconstructing Hansen’s predictions rather than talking about the work of thousands in your field. It’s not in the fields as they apply to AGW. If there is some I’ve missed I’d love the links.”
stranger1548 on Nov 14, 2013 at 17:30:49
“In your field? Can you link me to one of your peer reviewed papers?”
“We have seen more than a decade of global temperature decline, and regional data has no place in a global discussion. Work is still being done to determine why computer models have been unable to detect this pause, and the long-term impact of climate change is based upon models that have consistently shown themselves to be inaccurate.
We can argue all we want about the future, but no science has been able to accurately predict it as of yet. What we can do is focus on the now and continually explore all carbon-neutral fuel options and look to reduce where we can in the interim. Today, there is no viable large-scale way to wean ourselves from coal and natural gas, but ramping up methanol fuels would dramatically cut oil dependence and create a 50 percent reduction in CO2 until better alternatives can be found.
“We can argue all we want about the future, but no science has been able to accurately predict it as of yet.”
You mean that when Hansen et el was published in 1981, a time the nation was gripped by subzero weather his paper spoke of rapid warming over the coming decades, he was wrong? When the paper surmised that the reason for the cooling at that time was due to aerosols but that dampening effect would be overcome in a few years and warming would occur that he was wrong?
I think all you’re doing is what’s called hand waving.”
stranger1548 on Nov 14, 2013 at 14:44:09
““We have seen more than a decade of global temperature decline, and regional data has no place in a global discussion."
No it hasn't declined! Where did you get that from? How could 2010 be the warmest n record! Your right on the second statement, For people who read the science we know that regional data does not necessarily mirror the global phenomena. I was responding to the "Everyone I know" statement in the begging of this thread.”
“No direct link can ever be made between one singular event and climate change. The Philippines has traditionally been a magnet for such storms. Data over at least one decade is needed to chart any potential trend in weather patters. The current trend shows a decline in hurricane activity in the Atlantic, but it too has less than a decade of data to draw any real conclusions. Listen to science, not hype.”
“Ann Curry was awful as a news reader and never should have been elevated to co-anchor. Her interview skills are severely lacking and all she is suited for are puff celebrity promotional pieces. I haven't watched since Katie left, but I saw enough of Ann in those days to know this would not work.”
abbyj on Mar 26, 2013 at 04:23:48
“Sorry, I disagree very strongly, tima. Ann was an excellent journalist, a warm personality, a gracious woman, and a model to women across America. Her absence tore the heart out of that show. Coupled with Lauer's cruelty, it's done and over, finished. Dead. He'll never last out the year. He killed the goose who laid the golden eggs, and now he knows it. Tooo late for you, Lauer.”
Dr Alexander Hamilton on Mar 26, 2013 at 02:05:38
“I'm curious what specifically made her so awful and what made Lauer so wonderful?”
“There is scientific consensus on many, many things. You seem to be confusing consensus with scientific proof, which can never be 10% proven. Consensus occurs once a simple majority has been reached. We can add and remove disorders, which has happened before, but that does not change how practitioners will treat a patient.”
roadtonowhere on Mar 11, 2013 at 12:33:19
“You can argue semantics with me until the cows come home. I don't think you understand the crux of things. Someone that feels like they were born in the wrong body used to be viewed as mentally ill, they no longer are. How that change happened doesn't really matter. It happened. I have a friend that is transitioning. He was born a Tracy, but started identifying himself as Trey in his late teens, but he knew it as far back as he can remember. He is not mentally ill, he is a normal person that was born with a vagina instead of a penis. It is pretty simple, really.”
“Hormones are released by the endocrine system, but it does not operate independently of DNA. The so-called transgender gene proposed in 2008 was found to be a mutation of a gene for an enzyme called cytochrome P17. But the mutation was found in non-transsexuals as well at reasonably large numbers. What the study seems to show is the control of testosterone levels is the key in offsetting its effect. It does appear to produce - in some - a feeling of confusion in some people. That is a mental response to improper hormone levels.
“I certainly did not intend to assert that these systems are separate (so I hope that's not how I came across). Thanks for the link, I did go and read it - and it's quite interesting. What I will note though is that study only pertained to female to male transsexuality - which would suggest to me that there is another biological force at work with men who feel they are women (as in this case). All body systems working together as they do, I'm not sure we can distill it down to just a mental response to improper hormones - as in - I don't think it's all in their head. - however it seems to suggest to me that it does affect how the brain of a transsexual person is hard-wired - so I would suggest that while, yes, it it an abberation of human sexual functioning, it is, in fact, their hard-wired nature - and therefore should not necessarily be changed, unless the person wants that - and as the study says, further research will enable earlier diagnosis, and better treatments either way. I note that they made comment about the 'nurture' aspect of sexual development in terms of the childs environment - how much that pertains to Coy is not something I can speculate about.”
“I understand anatomy. My point was not well written, but it remains that the hormone levels we produce are the determinate of our sex. Low hormones for a man or a woman can be boosted to necessary levels. We should not treat a hormone imbalance by boosting the opposite hormone. That is not nature.”
bendygirl on Mar 11, 2013 at 12:37:02
“Excellent - now we can talk! I agree with all of the facts you present here, with the exception of the action we should or should not take about it. In a person who wishes to be 'normalized' or as you put it, in line with nature - absolutely, I agree that person should receive that treatment. However, in a person who genuinely identifies opposite to their anatomy and wishes to change, we have the technology to do that and that choice should also be made available to them - at an appropriate age. Personally, I think 6 is a bit young, however, I do not know this child, and it's not up to me...that's just my opinion really. I have to trust that Coy's medical team knows better than I do - and that all are acting in the child's best interest.”
“What's lost on me is a parent who would allow a child who has no understanding of the world assume an identity that is contrary with nature (DNA) at such an early age. And why that is being forced upon others. It appears these parents have an agenda, and the best interest of the child is not a priority for them.”
“What is your educational background? You make statements as if you know a great deal about transgender, but they are far from knowledgeable. I have a degree in behavioral psychology and my career is in scientific research.”
Audrey Jocelyn Remusat on Mar 10, 2013 at 03:34:45
“Um first of all, I am transgender... and I'm intimately involved, and probably a bit bias... but I remain objective because I can see it from both sides.. experienced it from both sides... as for my credentials in education... I don't have to answer you to validate what I know... but since I'm proud of what I've earned I've a BA in Sociology with a minor in Psychology focusing in social psychology. Furthermore, I hold a MA in Sociology with a focus on social psychology, diversity, and social inequality. I'm quite knowledgeable in the issues of the LGBT. But I don't need your approval or validation... and it's nice you a degree in Behavioral Psych. but it still seems something is lost on you, otherwise your opinion of this would different....”
“"...much of what goes into sexuality and gender is internal hormonal functioning." Well said! He has NO female hormones, as male DNA does not produce female hormones. He will remain a male until he is legally old enough to begin that change. But no matter how many hormones he takes for the rest of his life, he will always have male DNA. Always.”
bendygirl on Mar 10, 2013 at 11:13:10
“sigh....You clearly need a basic anatomy course. We all produce both estrogen and testosterone - women much more so, and we produce progesterone and HGH (when pregnant)...the clitoris is, for all itents and purposes, a precursor to a penis, if the foetus is to be male, it will produce sufficient testosterone to grow one....in a hermaphrodite, sufficient quantities of estrogena and testosterone are produced such that a hermaphrodite has the sex organs of both genders. So, you and I each have an X chromosome and we both produce estrogen - I guess that means that I can insist that you are a girl if I want to, right?”