[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm curious about a couple of other things here. The focus of this study is the Mediterranean Sea and its warming, but they didn't cite the actual temperature increase that led to this increase in mucus. They refer to "sea temperature increases over decades, but nothing specifically related to the focus of the article. Studies suggest the Mediterranean Sea is not warming. How can this mucus be related to the warming of a sea that is not warming?

What am I missing here?

A blog mis-interpreting a news article which mis-reported data.


Warming and salinification, from the early 2000s to today, corresponding to ~0.3 °C and to ~0.06 respectively.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-1...6-0f329e879dc2

The Mediterranean Sea for its own characteristic can be considered as an hot spot basin. Experimental data spanning several decades show that the circulation of the Mediterranean Sea and the processes of water mass formation that it hosts are subject to pronounced variability and change.
...
Recent data analysis within the Strait of Gibraltar and in particular at Camarinal Sill South, point out an anomaly warming and salinification, from the early 2000s to today, corresponding to ~0.3 °C and to ~0.06 respectively. However, during the twentieth century also the Mediterranean basin has warmed quite significantly in the deep waters as well as in the surface layer.

Mediterranean Sea Level Could Rise By Over Two Feet, Global Models Predict

[hyteckit]

Arctic Sea Ice 101. Good 4 min overview.

YouTube - NASA | Arctic Sea Ice 101

[Snow-i]

Hyteckit:

This would be a great time to break out your army of socialized doctors and spider-killers analogy, except place "Mucus mitigator" in place of army/doctor/spiderkiller.

I can see it now...

"We must socialize energy because we need an army of mucus collectors, EXACTLY how we need an army of doctors, and an army of...well...army guys* They are all the same! They all fight bad things and save millions of millions of lives. Army/Doctors/Despiderers/Mucuscollectors kill or prevent terrorism/viruses/spiders/seamucus. Its so simple! It must be right!"











*Sea mucus is now the new currency for the United States.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

A blog mis-interpreting a news article which mis-reported data.
Warming and salinification, from the early 2000s to today, corresponding to ~0.3 °C and to ~0.06 respectively.

Oh... that was easy. Why didn't I think of that? Just claim they're wrong and post something else. Okay, here's a study using the exact same MEDATLAS dataset as your cited study, but claims the exact opposite of what the original "blog article" suggested of the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Mediterranean sea; Temperature and salinity trends in the upper waters of the Mediterranean Sea as determined from the MEDATLAS dataset
The historical database (Published by IFREMER/DITI/IDT on behalf of the MEDATLAS consortium under contract MAS2-CT93-0074, 1997) is analysed on a seasonal basis for trends in the surface and intermediate water masses of the Mediterranean Sea. Significant trends are found in both the East and West Mediterranean but often to differing degrees. The upper waters of the entire Eastern Mediterranean Basin have been undergoing a sustained period of cooling throughout all seasons since about 1950. Salinities have also been found to be increasing over the same period with the strongest trends often being found at the shallowest horizontal levels examined. The Western Mediterranean Basin exhibits the same salinification throughout the upper waters as seen in the Eastern Mediterranean but the temperature trends are more varied and a basin wide cooling is not evident. The origin of these trends is most likely related to changes in the large-scale meteorological forcing of the Mediterranean region.

Your cited link states clearly a warming since early 2000 when the National Geographic article states "decades of warming". So... someone is misinterpreting or misrepresenting data to be sure since both your article and mine refute their supposition. Thanks for the link hyteckit.

Again I ask... how can National Geographic be so sure the mucus is due to decades-long increasing temperatures at the surface of the Mediterranean when the surface of the Mediterranean shows overall cooling since the 1950's?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Mediterranean Sea Level Could Rise By Over Two Feet, Global Models Predict

Thanks for this link too hyteckit. I found the conclusion of the article very interesting;

In search of greater clarity
The conclusions of this study are not based on observations, but rather on global climate models that include a whole range of possible future socio-economic scenarios in order to predict what is likely to happen in the Mediterranean. According to the scientists, climatic conditions are going to change greatly, and for this reason it is impossible to make a completely precise prediction of what the future really holds.
In these circumstances, Marta Marcos and Michael Tsimplis say that, aside from temperature changes, the models show that the Mediterranean will also become saltier over the coming century. However, this prediction is also very uncertain because "the variations in salinity in the Mediterranean are controlled by the exchange of water through the Straits of Gibraltar, and this has not been incorporated as an indicator, meaning the related results are not very reliable".
This is due to the fact that IPCC models have very low spatial resolution, which means they can show global processes "reasonably well", but not always regional ones. In particular, the 14km-wide Straits of Gibraltar, which are of key importance in the processes of water exchange between the Mediterranean and Atlantic, are not well reproduced in the models.

In other words, lets give science a little more time to affirm the situation in the Mediterranean before we start making definitive claims about "this one is wrong", "that one is wrong", "they're misinterpreting", they're misrepresenting", "fish are dying and the seas are rising!"

All of this is far from conclusive and would only make the most zealous of you have to change your lingo again only this time replacing "sea levels rising" to "sea levels change" or from "fish dying!" to just "fish!".

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Oh... that was easy. Why didn't I think of that? Just claim they're wrong and post something else. Okay, here's a study using the exact same MEDATLAS dataset as your cited study, but claims the exact opposite of what the original "blog article" suggested of the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Mediterranean sea; Temperature and salinity trends in the upper waters of the Mediterranean Sea as determined from the MEDATLAS dataset
The historical database (Published by IFREMER/DITI/IDT on behalf of the MEDATLAS consortium under contract MAS2-CT93-0074, 1997) is analysed on a seasonal basis for trends in the surface and intermediate water masses of the Mediterranean Sea. Significant trends are found in both the East and West Mediterranean but often to differing degrees. The upper waters of the entire Eastern Mediterranean Basin have been undergoing a sustained period of cooling throughout all seasons since about 1950. Salinities have also been found to be increasing over the same period with the strongest trends often being found at the shallowest horizontal levels examined. The Western Mediterranean Basin exhibits the same salinification throughout the upper waters as seen in the Eastern Mediterranean but the temperature trends are more varied and a basin wide cooling is not evident. The origin of these trends is most likely related to changes in the large-scale meteorological forcing of the Mediterranean region.

Your cited link states clearly a warming since early 2000 when the National Geographic article states "decades of warming". So... someone is misinterpreting or misrepresenting data to be sure since both your article and mine refute their supposition. Thanks for the link hyteckit.

Again I ask... how can National Geographic be so sure the mucus is due to decades-long increasing temperatures at the surface of the Mediterranean when the surface of the Mediterranean shows overall cooling since the 1950's?

Exact same MEDATLAS dataset?

Your link is data from 2002, on ScienceDirect.

Don't confuse decades of global warming with regional warming. Regional data is not the same as global average temperatures.

ScienceDirect on SeaWiFS data set (1998-2003)

http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publ...iterranean.pdf

SeaWiFS-derived (1998–2003) data were used to monitor algal blooming patterns and anomalies in the Mediterranean basin.
....
These have been interpreted as symptoms of an increased nutrient-limitation, resulting from reduced vertical mixing due to a more stable stratification of the basin, in line with the general warming trend of the Mediterranean Sea in the last 25 years.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Hyteckit:

This would be a great time to break out your army of socialized doctors and spider-killers analogy, except place "Mucus mitigator" in place of army/doctor/spiderkiller.

I can see it now...

"We must socialize energy because we need an army of mucus collectors, EXACTLY how we need an army of doctors, and an army of...well...army guys* They are all the same! They all fight bad things and save millions of millions of lives. Army/Doctors/Despiderers/Mucuscollectors kill or prevent terrorism/viruses/spiders/seamucus. Its so simple! It must be right!"



*Sea mucus is now the new currency for the United States.

Yes, fighting global warming is a national defense/security issue.

Thanks for bring it up.


You on the other hand think national defense is about killing people and sending people over to other countries to bomb them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Exact same MEDATLAS dataset?

Your link is data from 2002, on ScienceDirect.

Yes, exact same MEDATLAS dataset. MEDATLAS is a model crafted through a consortium for data compilation and analysis. (i.e. data management) Surely you understand that while your study may have been published in 2009, it was likely not conducted in 2009 and there is no word or reference to what data they're using. If they're using metadata, it would very likely include not only the same method, but the exact same data.

Don't confuse decades of global warming with regional warming. Regional data is not the same as global average temperatures.

Don't confuse something I've said with things I've never said. If there is confusion between regional warming and global warming, the confusion was perpetuated by the National Geographic blog article, which was my original point of contention. The focus of the original National Geographic blog article was regional warming phenomena, not global, but they reference nothing in terms of the regional warming that correlates to the mucus development. Also, if the "anomalous warming" occurred "early from the 2000s to today" and the study I cite is from 2002, the warming must've begun after 2002? Anomalous of course in terms of acknowledging the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. As I said, both your cited links and mine challenge the OP.

For example; (from the original National Geographic article) Outbreaks, they discovered, were more likely when sea-surface temperatures were warmer than average. Yet I cite a study that in fact suggests a sustained period of sea-surface cooling throughout all seasons since about 1950. (regionally, not globally) The Western Mediterranean experiences vast fluctuations, but is proposed to be related to large-scale meteorological forcing. The National Geographic article suggests we've got to do something quick to mitigate climate change, but all the studies I'm finding suggest these are natural phenomena. (i.e. there isn't a blasted thing we could do about it)

ScienceDirect on SeaWiFS data set (1998-2003)
http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publ...iterranean.pdf

Another interesting study suggesting a potentially mistaken correlation between sea warming and land warming as the result of GHGs.
Oceanic Oscillations and Correlation to Climatic Phenomena
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yes, fighting global warming is a national defense/security issue.

Thanks for bring it up.

i rest my case

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Another interesting study suggesting a potentially mistaken correlation between sea warming and land warming as the result of GHGs.
Oceanic Oscillations and Correlation to Climatic Phenomena
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report.

Not sure what you are trying to argue.

Seems like you are going for the kitchen sink argument. Tossing out any argument you can, even if it contradicts yourself.


So you are arguing that Global Warming is happening now?

So you are arguing that there is a worldwide warming of the oceans?

So you are arguing that there is a worldwide land warming?


You just quoted that "the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land".


So you are arguing Global Warming is happening. The only distinction is that the "worldwide land warming" is a direct response to "worldwide warming of the oceans", rather than to greenhouse gases.


Basically you have come to the conclusion that Global Warming is happening.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Not sure what you are trying to argue.

Oh... the second half of my post that you reference here? That was just a fun aside challenging the AGW hype inherent in your OP. I gotta make the thread worthwhile for me too hyteckit.

So you are arguing Global Warming is happening.

I'm arguing for climate change. The climate changes. It warms and it cools. Yes.

Basically you have come to the conclusion that Global Warming is happening.

Yes, and global cooling. They both happen. Yes. What should we have the military do when it cools, break out the MOAAC? (mother of all aerosol cans)

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, and global cooling. They both happen. Yes. What should we have the military do when it cools, break out the MOAAC? (mother of all aerosol cans)

I hope you're not talking about the 1970s, because I already covered that. And, no, we didn't have a global cooling.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

So where can I get my Sea Mucus credits?

[olePigeon]

Sea Mucus Credit Union from AIG.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I hope you're not talking about the 1970s, because I already covered that. And, no, we didn't have a global cooling.

We did have global cooling then, most likely due to the large amounts of sulfates and aerosols that were put out post WWII and mostly curtailed due to health problems in following decades. I wonder what extent China's ( and other economies ) are contributing in that respect recently, and what part that could play in the recent lull in warming ( which doesn't necessarily imply cooling btw ).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, and global cooling. They both happen. Yes. What should we have the military do when it cools, break out the MOAAC? (mother of all aerosol cans)

Special thanks to ebuddy for having the time and patience I don't have right now, in pointing out the obvious.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

We did have global cooling then, most likely due to the large amounts of sulfates and aerosols that were put out post WWII and mostly curtailed due to health problems in following decades. I wonder what extent China's ( and other economies ) are contributing in that respect recently, and what part that could play in the recent lull in warming ( which doesn't necessarily imply cooling btw ).

There was no global cooling, only the media's lack of understanding of ice age cycles. Here is some information on it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Special thanks to ebuddy for having the time and patience I don't have right now, in pointing out the obvious.

Yes, I've noticed you come to the wrong conclusions as well.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There was no global cooling, only the media's lack of understanding of ice age cycles. Here is some information on it.

Actually, there was cooling regardless of what the media got right/wrong. Notice I don't chalk it up to some nebulous "natural cycle" and leave it at that—there is a reason, a cause, why that cooling took place. Not everything humans put into the air causes warming, some of it can have a cooling effect as well—in this case, detrimental health effects to boot.



Looking at these graphs again, the cooling doesn't seem terribly pronounced but it is there. The articles from the 1970's were based in part, on the cooling trend the earth underwent since the 1940's. The sensationalism came about from not understanding the length of time before the next glacial period would hit—10 to 20k years from now (though some of the articles mention these dates).

I also wonder what part all the smoke and particulates kicked up during the World War had on that cooling trend. A single volcano can produce a noticeable cooling effect from it's ash and dust, why not humans?

[Warren Pease]

Here is a literature review of scientific work tallying up articles that predicted global cooling/warming trends. THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS—Downloadable PDF at the link

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Here is a literature review of scientific work tallying up articles that predicted global cooling/warming trends. THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS—Downloadable PDF at the link

A perfect example of why this "consensus" on global warming is not necessarily truth, and should not be referred to as fact.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

A perfect example of why this "consensus" on global warming is not necessarily truth, and should not be referred to as fact.

The irony is rich, huh?!?!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Yes, I've noticed you come to the wrong conclusions as well.

Your mother wears army boots.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

A perfect example of why this "consensus" on global warming is not necessarily truth, and should not be referred to as fact.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I might be inclined to believe it if you can provide evidence that the scientific community is (or has ever been) evenly split on the issue. Can't wait to read your evidence.

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists’ thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth’s climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review shows the important way scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I have a sneaking suspicion that he lives in Aberdeen.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I might be inclined to believe it if you can provide evidence that the scientific community is (or has ever been) evenly split on the issue. Can't wait to read your evidence.

I quoted my support, that a split isn't necessary for the "consensus" to be wrong.


I still have yet to see yours...besides the "consensus" which lacks significant certainty.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I quoted my support, that a split isn't necessary for the "consensus" to be wrong.

Please re-quote. For some reason, I'm missing it. Thanks.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

A perfect example of why this "consensus" on global warming is not necessarily truth, and should not be referred to as fact.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The irony is rich, huh?!?!

The irony that neither of you can read but still manage to post to a computer forum?

Hint: Read the article before posting.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The irony that neither of you can read but still manage to post to a computer forum?

Hint: Read the article before posting.

Are you posting from recess again? You really should get out in the fresh air. It will do you good.

[olePigeon]

You both just posted the opposite of the point the article was making. I was suggesting you try reading the article before posting a response.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Please re-quote. For some reason, I'm missing it. Thanks.

"Here is a literature review of scientific work tallying up articles that predicted global cooling/warming trends. THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS"

[Snow-i]

I read the article. My question stands.

Infact I'll post another one.


What makes you think the climatology of tomorrow will look anything like it does today?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

"Here is a literature review of scientific work tallying up articles that predicted global cooling/warming trends. THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS"

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I read the article. My question stands.

Dear gods, you even quoted it and you still got it wrong. There was no scientific consensus on global cooling, that is the myth being perpetuated. Below is a quote from the very same abstract, which not only underlines the point of the article, but also appropriately describes exactly what you just did.

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What makes you think the climatology of tomorrow will look anything like it does today?

I don't.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Dear gods, you even quoted it and you still got it wrong. There was no scientific consensus on global cooling, that is the myth being perpetuated. Below is a quote from the very same abstract, which not only underlines the point of the article, but also appropriately describes exactly what you just did.

And that myth isn't being perpetuated today to suit an agenda? It was back then but it isn't now?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Dear gods, you even quoted it and you still got it wrong. There was no scientific consensus on global cooling, that is the myth being perpetuated. Below is a quote from the very same abstract, which not only underlines the point of the article, but also appropriately describes exactly what you just did.

And that myth isn't being perpetuated today to suit an agenda? It was back then but it isn't now?

It is being perpetuated for an agenda. Since you're perpetuating it, you tell us. What's your agenda?

[Uncle Skeleton]

No, he thinks that the current consensus about global warming is a myth. He doesn't believe scientists when they say they agree with each other. And he thinks that is equivalent to the "consensus" on global cooling from the 70s, in which no scientists ever said they agree with each other, and it was only a couple of reporters who came up with the "consensus" story. Basically he doesn't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, he thinks ...

Stop right there. That is where you're wrong!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Dear gods, you even quoted it and you still got it wrong. There was no scientific consensus on global cooling, that is the myth being perpetuated.

I believe what he's saying is that there is no real scientific consensus now either. Especially in regards to man-made catastrophic global warning. Not real scientists who don't depend on the facts being one way or another for funding.

What we do know is that politicians and the media ARE telling us that there is a consensus - just like they did back in the 1970's.

I could be wrong....but I think that's what he is saying.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Yes, I've noticed you come to the wrong conclusions as well.

You've got a degree of confidence rivaled almost by no one olePigeon. I gotta admire that.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I believe what he's saying is that there is no real scientific consensus now either.

I understand the idea that a consensus, in and of itself, is not proof that an idea is correct. There are many historical examples where scientists were on the wrong side of the argument when faced with evidence to the contrary - a tally of scientists for or against would not have indicated the emerging science to be true, simply because of the numbers. It was the foundation of science that proved them to be correct in the long term. (in this case, the science is sound and a majority of scientists support it)

The idea of global warming is not based on somebody counting the number of raised hands, but on the amount of scientific work that has been done in the area. The work aims to identify and quantify the various elements that go into the complex interplay of our climate, and that work to an increasingly accurate degree.

I read Hansen’s 1988 projections last weekend (and all the comments therein - well worth the read if you ask me) and lots of questions are raised about the parameters that were used.

This article addresses the commonly held belief that 'the models are all wrong' and it sounds like a pretty damning argument, but all the "errors" contained in the 1988 paper are simply due to the fact that it was written 20 years ago! Essentially the climate forcing numbers were not as well known as they are now and as such don't reflect reality. The interesting fact, and what proves this idea to be true, is how good the results matched reality, despite not having an overly complex model that takes into account many more forcings (due to advances in computing) and not having a more precise number to quantify those forcings.

Are there issues with the science? Sure, that is why scientists didn't hang their hats on Hansen's models and call it quits. The issues, though, that do remain deal with improving precision and accuracy, not with the fundamental processes involved. (Some scientists are looking at Galactic Cosmic Rays as having some influence. It should be telling that scientists are investigating something that originates outside our galaxy for influences on the earth's climate.)

Again, read the article for more info on it.

As far as the voices being higly partisan in the debate, my advice is to not listen to them. It makes for sensational headlines (and those are really the result of newspaper editors, not the people writing the story, who have a better understanding of the issue). It's more difficult to delve into things yourself, but when you do the cacophony of culture clash fades into the background, and you'll get a better understanding.

I listened to an interview on the Diane Rehm show with Henry Pollack, and has to be one of the better interviews I've heard on the subject.

He does make a prediction about Antarctic melting, but the time-scale is in the thousands of years. In short, if you want to find catastrophe in this issue, you'll find it easily, on both sides. My suggestion is don't look for the catastrophic, simply look for the truth.

[BadKosh]

When will we see the predictions come true? So far, this hasn't happened.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

When will we see the predictions come true? So far, this hasn't happened.

According to Pollack, a thousand years, as I said. That is for the most catastrophic case envisioned. Lots of other things will occur before then.

Which predictions are you talking about? (Should have asked first)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

According to Pollack, a thousand years, as I said. That is for the most catastrophic case envisioned. Lots of other things will occur before then.

I predict Jesus will come for us before then.

...if we are making predictions that will never be able to be proven, and all.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I predict Jesus will come for us before then.

...if we are making predictions that will never be able to be proven, and all.

If Jesus will be here in a thousand years, will we be able to detect trace amounts of Jesus in ten years, indicating that trend? How can you tell we are not in the presence of Jesus right now?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Stop right there. That is where you're wrong!

Thats your problem...you only read the first few words of the post and think you have it figured out.

And you're mocking me for not thinking!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I believe what he's saying is that there is no real scientific consensus now either. Especially in regards to man-made catastrophic global warning. Not real scientists who don't depend on the facts being one way or another for funding.

What we do know is that politicians and the media ARE telling us that there is a consensus - just like they did back in the 1970's.

I could be wrong....but I think that's what he is saying.

Bingo!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, he thinks that the current consensus about global warming is a myth. He doesn't believe scientists when they say they agree with each other. And he thinks that is equivalent to the "consensus" on global cooling from the 70s, in which no scientists ever said they agree with each other, and it was only a couple of reporters who came up with the "consensus" story. Basically he doesn't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources.

Strong language you're using there.

How bout instead of assuming you're so much smarter than everyone else you ask them what they mean if you can't understand it?

You've misinterpreted my point. Totally. Try again, smartass.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You've got a degree of confidence rivaled almost by no one olePigeon. I gotta admire that.

Yeah, but when I'm occasionally wrong it hits harder.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Strong language you're using there.

How bout instead of assuming you're so much smarter than everyone else you ask them what they mean if you can't understand it?

You've misinterpreted my point. Totally. Try again, smartass.

State your point then clearly so as to avoid any misinterpretation by Stupendousman or Uncle Skeleton.