Should the global warming scientist get at least one thing right before we believe AWG?

Alarmism is borne out of the need for the low-acheiver type scientists to get grant money so they can keep themselves employed. So they make some dire predictions, hire lobbyists, and get money to do studies. That is why politicians like Al Gore are their best friends.

The Heartland Institute are a joke they don't seem able to put forward anything that dosen't fall to pieces whether it is this list ~10% within 24 hours of its release saying they new nothing about being on the list sounds much like the Oregon Petition which used a similar tactic. This is Heartland Institute stock & trade the conference they held in New York recently claimed several hundred scientists but turned out to have only a handfull and they had been paid to attend.

You know, it struck me that rational analysis of the effects of global warming mention none of these things (at least in the time frame you claim). However, oddly, skeptics are quite fond of *saying* that rational analysis of the effects of global warming predict these things. Could you point to parts in the latest IPCC WG2 report where they make these claims? I don't think they're there, but maybe I missed those parts when I read it.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/

For instance, malaria is endemic to much of the globe, it was never a purely tropical disease. In contrast, Yellow and Dengue fever are tropical and are moving polewards. West Nile, SARS, and Avian Flu are emerging diseases, and especially in the case of SARS since the pathogen causing it is unknown, attributing their spread solely to climate change is ridiculous.

Hey, who was right in 1988 about what global mean temperature would do, Lindzen or Hansen?

What if you could back up your statements with links? That would be nice.

I don't think you can find any scientific papers claiming the things you suggest in your question.

Maybe you should pause your Y! global warming answers for a short time and read the IPCC reports instead. You may be surprised of what it says. Clue: It's not anything of the above although some of your statements may be available as possible future scenarios.

If you're mixing a possible future prediction with the past you really need to take a break.

Good points, Jello. I would still like to know 1 thing. Just 1 minor thing. What is the global mean temperature? 1 simple thing that the whole global warming scare is based on. If someone would like to give me that figure, I would like to ask how that number was derived. Is it derived from actual data dating back to the 19th century? How accurate is the data from the 19th and early 20th centuries? Were temperature readings collected from around the world?

Actually, I know the answers to most of that. I don't know the global mean temperature. I do know that the only semi-accurate temperature readings through the early 20th century came from North America and Europe. If we don't have accurate temperature readings from the rest of the world, how can we compare temperatures today to temperatures 120 years ago? We can't. If we can't do that, then someone please, please, please tell me how we can draw any conclusions about warming or cooling. We can't. Even if we had worldwide readings from the 19th century, how can we say that the Earth has warmed .7 degree C when half of the readings were only accurate to 0.25 degree C? We can't.

One last thing. Even if we had an accurate global mean temperature, how do we know that it is the "normal" temperature of the Earth (if there is such a thing)? What if the "normal" temperature is 2.0 degrees C above where we are now? In other words, how do we know what the scale is?

Bonus points for anyone proposing tree rings and core samples help us in determining accurate temperature readings.

Interestingly, one of the worst malaria outbreaks was in Siberia.

From this link:http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=330

In fact, the most catastrophic epidemic on record anywhere in the world occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, with a peak incidence of 13 million cases per year, and 600,000 deaths.

Even when they pretend that malaria is necessarily a heat related problem, the fear mongers get it wrong.

They look at it as being a on an off switch.It's never worked that way,and never will. This thing they have with control is really what scares me. I've been waiting on this forum for some pretty basic answers for a while now. All I get, is cut an paste post that have been unproven for years.But I can wait,knowing it's going to warm,then cool,then warm...etc.

Jello does love to preach to his ever dwindling choir.

Certainly not. They should always go by your opinions in lieu of facts. I'm sure you have a link to support this, don't you?

i think they never said that those things WILL happen. all of those were just their predictions. they never claimed their predictions would happen. by the way, icecaps in the north pole are shrinking because ships could now travel via north pole because no ice have been obstructing the sea. theories about GW is not yet all proven but because in the previous years, some of the signs of these phenomenon are happening. examples of those are the wildfires that happened last year. but i somehow believe in you. if they will predict a thing, they must be confident to it and not just predict because they just want to. it will be better if they invent a device that can accurately predict before they start to predict and predict the future.

have a nice day!