# 97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility. 

A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

 Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous. 

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. 

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. 

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? 

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second. 

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. 

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 22, 2009)

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.  Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ] 

200808191759 | Global Warming Skeptics Prominently Featured At International Scientific Meeting | / | Energy & Environment

Global Warming Skeptics Prominently Featured At International Scientific Meeting  	  PDF   	  Print   	  E-mail

Indian Scientist Mocks Nobel Prize Award to Gore
August 19, 2008 -- A major international scientific conference prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears.  The International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Oslo, Norway, from August 4-14.
[The conference was criticized by the activists at RealClimate.org (who apparently are threatened by any challenges to their version of &#8216;consensus' on global warming science) for being too balanced and allowing skeptical scientists to have a forum. RealClimate's  Rasmus E. Benestad lamented on August 19 that the actual scientific debate during the conference "seemed to be a step backwards towards confusion rather than a progress towards resolution."  ]

During the Geologic conference, Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia of the Center of Advanced Study in Geology at Punjab University and a visiting scholar of the Geology Department at University of Cincinnati, openly ridiculed former Vice President Al Gore and the UN IPCC's coveted Nobel Peace Prize. [An online video of an August 8, 2008, conference climate change panel has been posted and is a must-see video for anyone desiring healthy scientific debate. See: HERE ]

"I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," Ahluwalia, a fellow of the Geological Society of India, said during a question and answer panel discussion. [Ahluwalia's remarks can be viewed beginning at 22:14 of the online video] - [ Ahluwalia's full bio here:  ]

&#8216;Elite IPCC'

Ahluwalia, who has authored numerous scientific studies in the fields of geology and paleontology, referred to the UN climate panel as the "elite IPCC." "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds." [See other critiques of IPCC here: UN IPCC 'a purely political body posing as a scientific institution' -  & here: Report Debunks So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming  ]

Ahluwalia, a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet (Planet Earth - Earth Sciences for Society) also criticized the promoters of man-made global warming fears for "drawing out exaggerated conclusions" and took the UN to task for failing to allow dissenting voices.

"When I put forward my points in the morning, some IPCC official got up to say that what I was [saying was] &#8216;nonsense.' See, when we have that sort of attitude, that sort of dogma against a scientific observation that would not actually end up in very, very positive debate. We should maintain our sense of proportion, maintain our sense of objectivity, allow a discussion -- not have fixed mindset about global warming," he said to applause from the members. [Note: Ahluwalia was also joined by another Indian scientist at the conference, see video at 17:18 - In addition, the government of India and several prominent Indian scientists have recently voiced their skepticism about climate change science. See: India Issues Report Challenging Global Warming Fears  - July 9, 2008 - 

Panel participants at the August 8 debate included skeptical Physicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Centre and Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University, former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council, who has published numerous peer-reviewed papers and is an outspoken dissenter of Gore and the UN IPCC's climate claims.

Prominent scientist Professor Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, was also on hand during the panel's question and answer session.

A Canadian paleoclimatolgist/sedimentary geologist openly dissented from UN IPCC views during the panel's Q & A session. "I think the scientific community is putting way too much faith on these models, especially given the fact that they have not been able to predict 5-day weather forecasts yet and weather systems are simpler than the climate, and every 5 days they have a chance to test the model and improve it," the Canadian scientist said. [ At 43:30 and 44:35 of online video]

"A lot of the predictions made by modelers and models do not match very well to the longer term geologic record and even more scary, most atmospheric scientists are not aware of that," he explained.

&#8216;For how many years must cooling go on?'

Another scientist stood up to a key question about the recent global cooling trend.

"We know temperature goes up and down, we know there is tremendous amount of natural variations, but for how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand -- we politicians and scientists-- that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" the scientist asked to applause from the audience.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jan 22, 2009)

It is easy to get a computer model to spit out the result you want when the information you enter is skewed or not even valid to begin with.  What I find amusing about global warming is that we couldn't stop it if we wanted to, even if we are responsible.  They've pretty much already told us that.  So instead of figuring out how we're going to change it, why not figure out how to deal with it if it actually takes place.  If the Southwestern US is going to completely dry up, how are we going to get water to the people that live there?  Maybe we should be thinking about that rather than how we're going to change something that we can't.


----------



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.  Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
> 
> The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]
> 
> ...



97% of the climatologists disagree with you.

So sorry....


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 22, 2009)

Yeah, amazing how it's been cooling since 1998 ...global warming obviosuly is real.


----------



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Yeah, amazing how it's been cooling since 1998 ...global warming obviosuly is real.



Nothing amazing about it. 1998 was the El Nino of the century. The sun is in the low part of its cycle right now, and the Southern Oscillation is too. As the sun and the Southern Oscillation move up in the cycle in the next few years, it will heat up. 

This is not to say that the sun could not trump global warming. It can. But the increase in CO2 is massive and relentless and is accelerating as China and India industrialize. Plus the force multiplier of arctic methane is starting to kick in. I believe what is happening is inevitable and will have consequences far beyond what we can imagine.


----------



## del (Jan 22, 2009)

97% of climatologists know a gravy train when they see one.


----------



## CSM (Jan 22, 2009)

del said:


> 97% of climatologists know a gravy train when they see one.



Ummm ...  that would be 97% of the climatoligists participating...just to make sure everyone understands it isn't 97% of ALL climatoligists.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 22, 2009)

And 97% of scientists in the field agreed T-Rex was a super carnivore as recent as 10 years ago... and 97% of astrophysicists agreed in a static model universe as well in the fairly recent past...

The key is it is only a fucking theory.. and there are still many who do not buy into this theory... just as the theories behind the ascertaining of historic temperatures over history, and not proof... just as there were theories behind the global cooling assertions just a couple decades ago...

There is no proof that man is having any huge effect on the cyclical change in the global climate... the temp has gone up as we have industrialized more as a species... but theorizing or saying for fact that we are the cause would be like deducing that when I started smoking in the house, and my energy cost to heat and cool my house went up, and hence smoking caused climate change in my house... when there are many more impacting events such as seals on the windows getting older, temp changes outside, the furnace and AC becoming less efficient, etc.... it is a theory of convenience, not an absolute fact


----------



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> And 97% of scientists in the field agreed T-Rex was a super carnivore as recent as 10 years ago... and 97% of astrophysicists agreed in a static model universe as well in the fairly recent past...
> 
> The key is it is only a fucking theory.. and there are still many who do not buy into this theory... just as the theories behind the ascertaining of historic temperatures over history, and not proof... just as there were theories behind the global cooling assertions just a couple decades ago...
> 
> There is no proof that man is having any huge effect on the cyclical change in the global climate... the temp has gone up as we have industrialized more as a species... but theorizing or saying for fact that we are the cause would be like deducing that when I started smoking in the house, and my energy cost to heat and cool my house went up, and hence smoking caused climate change in my house... when there are many more impacting events such as seals on the windows getting older, temp changes outside, the furnace and AC becoming less efficient, etc.... it is a theory of convenience, not an absolute fact



Sorry, Dave. Global warming is not a theory. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. That is not a theory, that is a provable fact. We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth. 

The only question is, by how much?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 22, 2009)

no its a fucking theory you dimwit because the #1 reason for warming is water vapor

so lets get rid of the clouds right!


----------



## del (Jan 22, 2009)

CSM said:


> Ummm ...  that would be 97% of the climatoligists participating...just to make sure everyone understands it isn't 97% of ALL climatoligists.



point well taken, thanks.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Sorry, Dave. Global warming is not a theory. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. That is not a theory, that is a provable fact. We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth.
> 
> The only question is, by how much?



And CO2 comes from many more sources than just humans.. more cows now... volcanic activity dwarfs the amount we put forth from industrialization... plus the other factors than CAN AND DO effect climate, including (as stated) water vapor, global cycles, solar activity, etc...

Again.... you, and the chicken little human caused global warming conspirators, like to focus on the 1 thing.. whether the reason be self loathing, guilt, fame, notoriety, profit, job security, or whatever

It is a theory.. and whether it be a widely held one or an unpopular one is of no consequence... as shown before.. just because a theory is popular at any one given time, does not mean it is the only theory, the correct theory, or fact

But nice try again kirkybot....


----------



## Sidestreamer (Jan 22, 2009)

CSM said:


> Ummm ...  that would be 97% of the climatoligists participating...just to make sure everyone understands it isn't 97% of ALL climatoligists.



LOL. That's like saying "that would be 54 percent of the voters  participating in the poll." There's always a margin of error, but 97 percent of 3,000 isn't going to translate to less than an overwhelming majority of all the climatologists in America.


----------



## CSM (Jan 22, 2009)

Vermin Armada said:


> LOL. That's like saying "that would be 54 percent of the voters  participating in the poll." There's always a margin of error, but 97 percent of 3,000 isn't going to translate to less than an overwhelming majority of all the climatologists in America.



So, just how many "climatologists" are there in America? Of those, how many are really "climatologists" and not just TV weathermen? How many of those "climatologists" don't  have a vested interest because they are not getting government grants? 

Lot's of variables that aren't answered just like every other survey ever taken.


----------



## CSM (Jan 22, 2009)

del said:


> point well taken, thanks.



You will also notice that they do not state how many of the 3,100 some odd scientists surveyed were actually climatologists. If there were only 2, then based on the figure of 97%, one was convinced and the other was nearly convinced.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 22, 2009)

CSM said:


> You will also notice that they do not state how many of the 3,100 some odd scientists surveyed were actually climatologists. If there were only 2, then based on the figure of 97%, one was convinced and the other was nearly convinced.



bingo

of the 3k scientists 9 were climatologists I bet.


Yet at the IPCC meeting, over 600 scientists told them what a farce global warming is.

EVeryone loves saying the IPCC says it so it must be true....the IPCC consists of 50 scientists.

Its such a joke orgnization


----------



## del (Jan 22, 2009)

CSM said:


> You will also notice that they do not state how many of the 3,100 some odd scientists surveyed were actually climatologists. If there were only 2, then based on the figure of 97%, one was convinced and the other was nearly convinced.



you're starting to make me lose faith in the stats that chris posts.


oh, wait. i never had any.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> 97% of the climatologists disagree with you.
> 
> So sorry....



From The Sunday Times
April 29, 2007
Climate change hits Mars
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake. 
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.
The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.
In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planets temperature.
Fentons team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasas Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker.
When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet.

There is the rumor that CNN is circulating a questionaire to to the Martian climatologists.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 22, 2009)

Given their track record of ommissions and misrepresentatins which are on the record, the credibility anything that comes from the IPCC or UN weak at best.


----------



## ReillyT (Jan 22, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> From The Sunday Times
> April 29, 2007
> Climate change hits Mars
> Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
> ...



I find it amusing that you actually wasted a portion of your day writing this.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 22, 2009)

ReillyT said:


> I find it amusing that you actually wasted a portion of your day writing this.



Is your point that you didn't understand this? Try to be more articulate.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Sorry, Dave. Global warming is not a theory. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. That is not a theory, that is a provable fact. We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth.
> 
> The only question is, by how much?



Based on my understanding, they are still arguing whether increased CO2 levels in the past were the reason for temperature increases, or if temperature increases caused the rise in CO2 readings.  So, I would argue that your conclusion is still based on theory rather than fact.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Sorry, Dave. Global warming is not a theory. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. That is not a theory, that is a provable fact. We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth.
> 
> The only question is, by how much?



In October 2007, a British judge ruled the movie An Inconvenient Truth had nine inaccuracies. And shortly thereafter, in reference to this movie, another British person, Chris Monckton, wrote 35 Inconvenient Truths, including the following:

Gore says that in each of the last four interglacial warm periods it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that caused changes in temperature. It was the other way about. Changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 concentration by between 800 and 2800 years, as scientific papers including the paper on which Gores film had relied had made clear. 

Ms. Kreider (Gore spokesperson) says it is true that greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes in the ice signals have a complicated relationship but they do fit. This does not address Gores error at all. The judge found that Gore had very clearly implied that it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that had led to changes in temperature in the palaeoclimate, when the scientific literature is unanimous (save only for a single paper by James Hansen, whom Gore trusts) to the effect that the relationship was in fact the other way about, with a carbon dioxide feedback contributing only a comparatively insignificant further increase to temperature after the temperature change had itself initiated a change in carbon dioxide concentration. 

The significance of this error was explained during the court proceedings, and was accepted by the judge. Gore says that the 100 ppmv difference between carbon dioxide concentrations during ice-age temperature minima and interglacial temperature maxima represents the difference between a nice day and a mile of ice above your head. This would imply a CO2 effect on temperature about 10 times greater than that regarded as plausible by the consensus of mainstream scientific opinion (see Error 10).

Ms. Kreider refers readers to a more complete description available at a website maintained by, among others, two of the three authors of the now-discredited hockey stick graph that falsely attempted to abolish the Mediaeval Warm Period. The National Academy of Sciences in the US had found that graph to have a validation skill not significantly different from zero  i.e., the graph was useless.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
> 
> A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.
> 
> ...



If it is science, it shouldn't be a matter of faith.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Sorry, Dave. Global warming is not a theory. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. That is not a theory, that is a provable fact. We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth.
> 
> The only question is, by how much?



If it were a provable fact, then you wouldn't have to worry about how many climatologists *BELIEVE* in it. The fact that even you couch it in terms of faith states more forcefully than anything else, that it is anything but a scientific fact.


----------



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Based on my understanding, they are still arguing whether increased CO2 levels in the past were the reason for temperature increases, or if temperature increases caused the rise in CO2 readings.  So, I would argue that your conclusion is still based on theory rather than fact.



No, it is not based on theory. CO2 causes the earth to warm, it is not the only cause, however. So by increasing the CO2 level by 40% in 200 years, we have caused the earth to warm. The only question is, how much has increasing the CO2 level by 40% caused the earth to warm?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 22, 2009)

it's a theory that man has any thing to do with it

if it was a solid fact then there would be no oppisition

Let me help you with that thought

the earth is not flat- fact!

Noone opposes this

Thousands of scientists around the world disagree about global warming giving scientific data to contradict people who believe this myth

Theory


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> No, it is not based on theory. CO2 causes the earth to warm, it is not the only cause, however. So by increasing the CO2 level by 40% in 200 years, we have caused the earth to warm. The only question is, how much has increasing the CO2 level by 40% caused the earth to warm?




Follow the money. Whenever you see "Global Warmiing," simply read "Global Governance" and you'll get the real scoop.  
The media cash in on every one of the "crises" to sell papers or viewership. Remember saving the whales?  Dodging the killer African Bees?  Escaping the heterosexual AIDS epidemic that was supposed to decimate the counry, and the world?  Get it , chicken little?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> No, it is not based on theory. CO2 causes the earth to warm, it is not the only cause, however. So by increasing the CO2 level by 40% in 200 years, we have caused the earth to warm. The only question is, how much has increasing the CO2 level by 40% caused the earth to warm?



Of the greenhouse gasses, do you know what percentage CO2 makes up?


----------



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Of the greenhouse gasses, do you know what percentage CO2 makes up?



It doesn't matter. Nice deflection, however.

What matters is the physical effect of increasing CO2 by 40%. I realize that your goal is to make this a political issue, but it is not a political question, it is a scientific one. And the question is.....

How much does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% warm the earth?


----------



## del (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> It doesn't matter. Nice deflection, however.
> 
> What matters is the physical effect of increasing CO2 by 40%. I realize that your goal is to make this a political issue, but it is not a political question, it is a scientific one. And the question is.....
> 
> How much does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% warm the earth?



i give up.
How much *does* increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% warm the earth?


----------



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

del said:


> i give up.
> How much *does* increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% warm the earth?



Predictions From the GISS Model

The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies' (GISS) computer model has been used to calculate the temperature increase during the next 50 years in response to gradual increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. The simulation shows a change of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), which would make Earth warmer than it is thought to have been at any point in history.

NASA Fact Sheets


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Predictions From the GISS Model
> 
> The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies' (GISS) computer model has been used to calculate the temperature increase during the next 50 years in response to gradual increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. The simulation shows a change of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), which would make Earth warmer than it is thought to have been at any point in history.
> 
> NASA Fact Sheets



NASA's crap means nothing on this issue. The people running that shop are bunch of turbo-wackos who lead this enviro-charade.

Find real evidence.


----------



## del (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Predictions From the GISS Model
> 
> The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies' (GISS) computer model has been used to calculate the temperature increase during the next 50 years in response to gradual increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. The simulation shows a change of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), which would make Earth warmer than it is thought to have been at any point in history.
> 
> NASA Fact Sheets



so in other words, neither you nor anyone else knows.
why am i not surprised?


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Predictions From the GISS Model
> 
> The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies' (GISS) computer model has been used to calculate the temperature increase during the next 50 years in response to gradual increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. The simulation shows a change of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), which would make Earth warmer than it is thought to have been at any point in history.
> 
> NASA Fact Sheets



And if you notice it said greenhouse gas.... not CO2 gas... because there are more than 1.. and the primary one is WATER VAPOR....

Again kirlybot trying to add to the supposed data make make it SEEM to be his way....

And again.. they THEORIZE


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Yeah, amazing how it's been cooling since 1998 ...global warming obviosuly is real.



No, it has not been cooling since 1998. Eight of the ten warmest years on record have been since 2000. 1998 was the warmest year recorded. It was a strong El Nino year. 2008 was a strong La Nina year, and one of unussual duration. It should have been one of the coldest on record, yet is tied 2001 for the eighth warmest on record. No, it has not been cooling since 1998, and the ice caps, the glaciers, and the temperatures worldwide have shown that the warming is still increasing.

Climate Progress » Blog Archive » No warming since 1998? Get real, deniers!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> And if you notice it said greenhouse gas.... not CO2 gas... because there are more than 1.. and the primary one is WATER VAPOR....
> 
> Again kirlybot trying to add to the supposed data make make it SEEM to be his way....
> 
> And again.. they THEORIZE



Get real. Water vapor has a residence time of less than ten days. CO2 has a residence time of about 200 years. Water vapor is a feedback from the forcing of longer lived GHGs.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> NASA's crap means nothing on this issue. The people running that shop are bunch of turbo-wackos who lead this enviro-charade.
> 
> Find real evidence.



You mean like that that the AGU presents?

2008 Fall Meeting: San Francisco, CA - 15-19 December 2008 | Program / Scientific Program

Now I realize that presenting the work of real scientists is totally against the rules for you modern conservatives. Fortunately we now have intelligent people making the judgements on these issues in government. Unlike the past eight years.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 22, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Get real. Water vapor has a residence time of less than ten days. CO2 has a residence time of about 200 years. Water vapor is a feedback from the forcing of longer lived GHGs.



Not like water vapor disappears, moron.. it is continually replenished in the atmosphere... WATER VAPOR IS THE BIGGEST % GREENHOUSE GAS THERE IS... PERIOD... hell, factor in the presence of clouds and not just water vapor, and it contributes to about 80% or so of the "greenhouse effect".. and it has been the major contributor throughout history


----------



## elvis (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> 97% of the climatologists disagree with you.
> 
> So sorry....



lies, damn lies, statistics, and chris


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> It doesn't matter. Nice deflection, however.
> 
> What matters is the physical effect of increasing CO2 by 40%. I realize that your goal is to make this a political issue, but it is not a political question, it is a scientific one. And the question is.....
> 
> How much does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% warm the earth?



for me to deflect something you would have needed to ask me something.  By defintion YOU are the one deflecting as you did not answer my question.

I hardly see how asking what percentage of the greenhouse effect is made of CO2 is a political question.

I granted don't know the science in depth, but from what I understand and contrarian opinions I have read, it is difficult to comprehend how not only a trace gas, but also a trace greenhouse gas could have such a magnafied effect on our climate such that man can be blamed for he bulk of or even significant portion of the warming effect. as of yet know science I have read explains how that is possibel.  Yes folks like yourself have posted the greenhouse effect time and again, but that doesn't explain why the real variables are yielding what they are yielding and it doesn't show evidence to support that x directly caused y.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 22, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Yeah, amazing how it's been cooling since 1998 ...global warming obviosuly is real.




Where do you guys come up with this stuff?  Did you hear that on the Rush Limbaugh show?


-Anonymous Rightwing Message Board Poster: _ "It's been cooling since 1998!  1998 was the hottest on record!"_


-NASA: _ "*2005* was the hottest year on record, followed by 2007 and 1998.  The eight warmest years on record have all occured since 1998"_



> NASA:
> The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". _The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle. _
> The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.
> 
> ttp://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/




Republicans hate science, evolution, and stem cell research.


----------



## Gunny (Jan 22, 2009)

> msnbc.com
> updated 3:54 p.m. CT, Thurs., Jan. 22, 2009
> 
> The mortality rate of old-growth forests across the West has more than doubled in recent decades, and those forests are now losing more trees than they gain, according to a new study that identified the most probable cause as warming temperatures.
> ...



Death rate of West's old forests doubled - Climate Change- msnbc.com


----------



## Gunny (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
> 
> A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.
> 
> ...



Great.  That means they believe in shit they can't prove just like you do.  What a shock.

Do us a favor and get back to us when you have some actual REAL evidence to prove global warming in man-made.  And not before, please.


----------



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Great.  That means they believe in shit they can't prove just like you do.  What a shock.
> 
> Do us a favor and get back to us when you have some actual REAL evidence to prove global warming in man-made.  And not before, please.



If a 40% increase in CO2 and the melting of the North Polar Ice Cap is not REAL evidence, I don't know what is.


----------



## Meister (Jan 22, 2009)

It's not evidence.  In the past there have been higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the Earth was cooling.  In the 1990's when there was a warming trend, the earth was warming before there was higher CO2, nobody can really explain that except for more sun spots showing on the surface of the Sun.


----------



## del (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> If a 40% increase in CO2 and the melting of the North Polar Ice Cap is not REAL evidence, I don't know what is.



exactly. you don't.


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 22, 2009)

Much of history is built on the exposure of wrong experts.


----------



## Meister (Jan 22, 2009)

It's not evidence.  In the past there have been higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the Earth was cooling.  In the 1990's when there was a warming trend, the earth was warming before there was higher CO2, nobody can really explain that except for more sun spots showing on the surface of the Sun.


----------



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

Meister said:


> It's not evidence.  In the past there have been higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the Earth was cooling.  In the 1990's when there was a warming trend, the earth was warming before there was higher CO2, nobody can really explain that except for more sun spots showing on the surface of the Sun.



Right...

CO2 levels now are the highest ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.


----------



## del (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Right...
> 
> CO2 levels now are the highest ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.



tell it again, duffy


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 22, 2009)

del said:


> tell it again, duffy


Don't give him so much credit.


----------



## Chris (Jan 22, 2009)

del said:


> tell it again, duffy



Right...

CO2 levels now are the highest ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.


----------



## del (Jan 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> Right...
> 
> CO2 levels now are the highest ever recorded, and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.



tell it again, duffy.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
> 
> A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris (Jan 23, 2009)

The Rise of CO2 & Warming


----------



## jreeves (Jan 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Rise of CO2 & Warming



POZNAN, Poland, December 18, 2008 - The UN global warming conference which concluded Friday in Poland faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.  A newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report was released last week featuring the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. 

The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. *The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. *
More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims


----------



## jreeves (Jan 23, 2009)

jreeves said:


> poznan, poland, december 18, 2008 - the un global warming conference which concluded friday in poland faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who criticized the climate claims made by the un ipcc and former vice president al gore.  A newly updated u.s. Senate minority report was released last week featuring the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former un ipcc scientists, who have now turned against the un.
> 
> The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. *the over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of un scientists (52) who authored the media hyped ipcc 2007 summary for policymakers. *
> more than 650 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Jan 23, 2009)

jreeves said:


> View attachment 6706



Ice cover is the same....
Global temperatures have been dropping...


----------



## Chris (Jan 23, 2009)

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Chris (Jan 23, 2009)

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11532237


----------



## jreeves (Jan 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



I don't doubt that some scientist say that there is a connection between man made CO2 and temperature change....

But climate records don't show a correlation...


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 23, 2009)

Chris, try and give us a thought or an insight.


----------



## Chris (Jan 23, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Ice cover is the same....
> Global temperatures have been dropping...



Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation


----------



## jreeves (Jan 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11532237



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ]YouTube - Another Global Warming Hoax exposed[/ame]


----------



## Chris (Jan 23, 2009)




----------



## jreeves (Jan 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation


Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age - Pravda.Ru
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years. 

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years. 

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earths orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earths wobble, which gradually rotates the direction of the earths axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials. 

Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal Science published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages, which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 23, 2009)

Chris said:


>


World Climate Report » U.S. Temperatures 2008: Back to the Future?
The data are just in from the National Climatic Data Center and they show that for the year 2008, the average temperature across the United States (lower 48 States) was 1.34ºF lower than last year, and a mere one-quarter of a degree above the long-term 1901-2000 average. The temperature in 2008 dropped back down to the range that characterized most of the 20th century.

Figure 1 shows the U.S. temperature history from 1895 to 2008. Notice the unusual grouping of warm years that have occurred since the 1998 El Niño. Once the 1998 El Niño elevated the temperatures across the country, they never seemed to return to where they were before. Proponents of catastrophic global warming liked to claim that is was our own doing through the burning of fossil fuels, but others were more inclined to scratch their heads at the odd nature of the record and wait to see what happened next.

You see, prior to 1998, there was little of note in the long-term U.S. temperature record. Temperatures fluctuated a bit from year to year, but the long-term trend was slight and driven by the cold string of years in the late 19th and early 20th century rather than by any warmth at the end of the record. In fact, from the period 1930 through 1997, the annual average temperature actually declined a hairdespite the on-going build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The only suggestion that global warming had involved the U.S. was to be found in the post-1997 perioda period unusual in that the temperatures went up and stayed up at near-record levels year after year. It was not so much that temperatures continued to climb after 1998, but just that they never fell. This grouping of warm years nearly doubled the apparent overall warming trend in U.S. temperatures (starting in 1895) from 0.07ºF/dedade (ending in 1997) to 0.13ºF/decade (ending in 2007). And with this doubling of the warming trend came the big push for emissions restrictions.

But now, 2008 comes along and has broken this warm stranglehold. Perhaps this is an indication that the conditions responsible for the unusual string of warm years have broken downand maybe they werent a sudden apparition of anthropogenic global warming after all.

Only time will tell for sure. But, at least for now, things seem like they have returned to a more normal state of being.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 23, 2009)

kirkybot... copy and pasting the same goddamn thing over and over and over and over and over... like the mindless robot that he is.... even if there are questions (BIG QUESTIONS) and contradictory data showing otherwise...

fact - kirkybot.... you still only have unfounded and unproven THEORIES...

Your arguments are so full of holes, Swiss cheese manufacturers are jealous


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> And CO2 comes from many more sources than just humans.. more cows now... volcanic activity dwarfs the amount we put forth from industrialization... plus the other factors than CAN AND DO effect climate, including (as stated) water vapor, global cycles, solar activity, etc...
> 
> Again.... you, and the chicken little human caused global warming conspirators, like to focus on the 1 thing.. whether the reason be self loathing, guilt, fame, notoriety, profit, job security, or whatever
> 
> ...



Dave, once again your profound ignorance on this matter is showing. Man puts more than 130 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as do vocanos, USGS figures.Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects


Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dave, once again your profound ignorance on this matter is showing. Man puts more than 130 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as do vocanos, USGS figures.Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
> 
> Volcanic Gases and Their Effects
> 
> ...




How come liberals on this thread are making statements that are backed up by USGS, NASA, IPCC, and other respected and qualified scientific bodies with expertise on climate science....

....while Bush supporters are throwing out unsubstantiated claims like "the earth is cooling, and 1998 was the hottest year ever!".   Claims which turn out to be false, but which are never retracted?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

jreeves said:


> I don't doubt that some scientist say that there is a connection between man made CO2 and temperature change....
> 
> But climate records don't show a correlation...



Crap. Do you ever read even kindergarten level science? 

The Rise of CO2 & Warming


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 23, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> How come liberals on this thread are making statements that are backed up by USGS, NASA, IPCC, and other respected and qualified scientific bodies with expertise on climate science....
> 
> ....while Bush supporters are throwing out unsubstantiated claims like "the earth is cooling, and 1998 was the hottest year ever!".   Claims which turn out to be false, but which are never retracted?



Just to mess with your head.


----------



## del (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Crap. Do you ever read even kindergarten level science?
> 
> The Rise of CO2 & Warming



not as extensively as you do. what's your point, rocky?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

jreeves said:


> World Climate Report » U.S. Temperatures 2008: Back to the Future?
> The data are just in from the National Climatic Data Center and they show that for the year 2008, the average temperature across the United States (lower 48 States) was 1.34ºF lower than last year, and a mere one-quarter of a degree above the long-term 1901-2000 average. The temperature in 2008 dropped back down to the range that characterized most of the 20th century.
> 
> Figure 1 shows the U.S. temperature history from 1895 to 2008. Notice the unusual grouping of warm years that have occurred since the 1998 El Niño. Once the 1998 El Niño elevated the temperatures across the country, they never seemed to return to where they were before. Proponents of catastrophic global warming liked to claim that is was our own doing through the burning of fossil fuels, but others were more inclined to scratch their heads at the odd nature of the record and wait to see what happened next.
> ...



Pure bullshit. First, the continental US is only 2% of the worlds area. Secondly, worldwide, 2008 tied 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record. That, in spite of a strong and persistant La Nina. The curve is still upward and accelerating.


----------



## del (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Pure bullshit. First, the continental US is only 2% of the worlds area. Secondly, worldwide, 2008 tied 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record. That, in spite of a strong and persistant La Nina. The curve is still upward and accelerating.





is it too late to panic?


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 23, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> How come liberals on this thread are making statements that are backed up by USGS, NASA, IPCC, and other respected and qualified scientific bodies with expertise on climate science....
> 
> ....while Bush supporters are throwing out unsubstantiated claims like "the earth is cooling, and 1998 was the hottest year ever!".   Claims which turn out to be false, but which are never retracted?


The reason is that scientific entities have become politicized and the direction they have turned is liberal.  Research that disagrees with global warming as a conclusion, or certain aspects of what is accepted by liberals is global warming is ignored, ridiculed, not funded, and stopped in the processes of scientific submission.

Remember, history is littered by experts respected by the people of their time, but who were plainly or by some relevant or crucial degree wrong.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> It is easy to get a computer model to spit out the result you want when the information you enter is skewed or not even valid to begin with.  What I find amusing about global warming is that we couldn't stop it if we wanted to, even if we are responsible.  They've pretty much already told us that.  So instead of figuring out how we're going to change it, why not figure out how to deal with it if it actually takes place.  If the Southwestern US is going to completely dry up, how are we going to get water to the people that live there?  Maybe we should be thinking about that rather than how we're going to change something that we can't.



Part of what you post is correct. What is in the atmosphere right now in the form of GHGs we are going to have to deal with 50 years down the road. So we had better prepare for that. But we can, by decreasing our output of GHGs, ameliorate the problem after that. 

Will we do that? I seriously doubt it. Too many really stupid people who will fight recognizing an inconvieniant truth untill they are in dire staights. The people on this board and others demonstrate that.


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 23, 2009)

del said:


> is it too late to panic?



sell all your winter clothes before they become worthless----I'm having a sale on mittens and ear muffs right now.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

FistyTheBadger said:


> The reason is that scientific entities have become politicized and the direction they have turned is liberal.  Research that disagrees with global warming as a conclusion, or certain aspects of what is accepted by liberals is global warming is ignored, ridiculed, not funded, and stopped in the processes of scientific submission.
> 
> Remember, history is littered by experts respected by the people of their time, but who were plainly or by some relevant or crucial degree wrong.



Totally wrong. Only by going outside of the US and making his plight known, did Hansen finally get the little censuring bastard assigned to him by the Bush administration off of his back. And many other scientists have came forward to testifiy to the fact that the Bush administration heavily censored science.


Powell's Books - Censoring Science: Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming by Mark Bowen

Synopses & Reviews
Publisher Comments:
From acclaimed writer and physicist Mark Bowen, Censoring Science tells the true story of the Bush administrations censorship of the worlds preeminent climatologist, and the science behind global warming that they do not want you to know. 
The facts dont lie: 

2005 was the warmest year since the invention of the thermometer.

2006 is on track to become the hottest year ever recorded in the United States.

The six hottest years on record have occurred in the last eight years, and the twenty-two hottest years on record have occurred in the last twenty-six years. 

Preeminent climatologist and leading NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen has been studying climate for over three decades. It was his testimony to a Senate committee in 1988 that first brought the threat of global warming to the worlds attention. In January 2006, news broke that the Bush administration had been attempting to censor Dr. Hansenobscuring his message and suppressing the vast body of his scientific work, which unequivocally demonstrates the reality and immense danger of global warming. 

Now, for the first time and with unfiltered access, writer and physicist Mark Bowen finally tells the exclusive story of Hansens decades-long battle to bring the truth about global warming to light. Censoring Science illuminates the real science behind global warming and maintains that we can still prevent environmental disaster, while both strengthening our economy and our national security. In the tradition of Ron Suskinds blockbuster bestseller, The Price of Loyalty, Censoring Science exposes the truth behind the administrations spin doctors, and shares the inside story of one of the most important andinfluential scientists of our time.

Synopsis:
From acclaimed writer and physicist Bowen comes the true story of the Bush administration's censorship of the world's preeminent climatologist, and the science behind global warning that the government does not want the public to know.
Synopsis:
The dramatic story of global warming, politics, and the scientist Al Gore calls athe most powerful and consistent voice calling for intelligent action to preserve our planetas environment.a 
Censoring Science is the gripping story of the worldas preeminent climatologist, Dr. James Hansen, the apivotal character in the greatest and most politically charged science story of our timea (New Scientist). NASAas leading climate expert, Dr. Hansen, first broke the international news on global warming at a Senate hearing in 1988. Little did he expect the rising storm of politically motivated resistance, denial, and obstruction. 

Revealing the extent of the Bush administrationas censorship of Dr. Hansenas findings, Censoring Science sets the record straight with solid scientific facts such as: the eight hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade, and ice is melting at record rates all around the planet. Dr. Hansen shows how we can still prevent environmental disaster if the country and the government are willing to face the truth about global warming.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dave, once again your profound ignorance on this matter is showing. Man puts more than 130 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as do vocanos, USGS figures.Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
> 
> Volcanic Gases and Their Effects
> 
> ...



And there is evidence and research to the CONTRARY.... again.. showing that this is THEORY and not fact being spewed by the global warming alarmists...

From the same research....

"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time." Gerlach (1991) 

Not to mention the research and speculation into a Chilean volcano (Chaiten) that has been in a state of full to semi-eruption for over 2 years that is ESTIMATED (see.. I say estimated or theorized) to have put out more CO2 and greenhouse gasses than all of our industry over the same time period...



And Red Dawn... the liberals, however, are spewing theory and research as FACT or proof, when it is neither


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 23, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> How come liberals on this thread are making statements that are backed up by USGS, NASA, IPCC, and other respected and qualified scientific bodies with expertise on climate science....
> 
> ....while Bush supporters are throwing out unsubstantiated claims like "the earth is cooling, and 1998 was the hottest year ever!".   Claims which turn out to be false, but which are never retracted?



Just one more chapter in the ongoing serial documenting how gullible liberals are. How many "crises" do you need to be sucked into before the "duh" moment, and you slap yourself on the forehead? You bought that claim that we need to save the whales, and I'll bet you still have the t-shirt. You probably wore a mesh mask to protect yourself from the killer African bees that were about to cross the southern border. And you must be thankful that you dodged the dreaded heterosexual AIDS epidemic.  Now global warming. Listen Chicken Little, its not science, its your keen ken of human nature, psychology and politics that leaves you a whimpering dolt. I blame both your innate intelligence and the government school system for this panic and our political situation.

Wise up.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> bingo
> 
> of the 3k scientists 9 were climatologists I bet.
> 
> ...



More lying bullshit. That meeting in Poland was attended by 11,000 scientists, and the 600 scientists that you refer to, were, for the most part, absent. Not only that, your referance is Inhofe's list of 650, many of whom were quite irate at being on the list, as it was just the opposite of their viewpoint. 

I truly find it astounding that you people just mindlessly repeat lies from the rightwingnut sources without ever even checking out the sources. Once again, every scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university in the world is in agreement with the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is real, is a clear and present danger, and the primary driver is the GHGs that mankind produces.


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Totally wrong. Only by going outside of the US and making his plight known, did Hansen finally get the little censuring bastard assigned to him by the Bush administration off of his back. And many other scientists have came forward to testifiy to the fact that the Bush administration heavily censored science.
> 
> 
> Powell's Books - Censoring Science: Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming by Mark Bowen
> ...


That is one case that I am not even going to accept, and the prevailing reason for this post is to take a jab at Bush because there is no end to your hatred of the man.


----------



## del (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> More lying bullshit. That meeting in Poland was attended by 11,000 scientists, and the 600 scientists that you refer to, were, for the most part, absent. Not only that, your referance is Inhofe's list of 650, many of whom were quite irate at being on the list, as it was just the opposite of their viewpoint.
> 
> I truly find it astounding that you people just mindlessly repeat lies from the rightwingnut sources without ever even checking out the sources. Once again, every scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university in the world is in agreement with the overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is real, is a clear and present danger, and the primary driver is the GHGs that mankind produces.



so it *is* too late to panic.
dayum, i loves me a good panic. 

looks like you got in on the ground floor, though.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> And there is evidence and research to the CONTRARY.... again.. showing that this is THEORY and not fact being spewed by the global warming alarmists...
> 
> From the same research....
> 
> ...



Subaerial and submarine CO2 get absorbed by the oceans before it gets to surface. And site your sources for the Chilean volcano. I sited mine, which is the USGS. However, I can also cite several independent sources, that reach the same conclusion.

How Volcanoes Work - volcano climate effects


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Just one more chapter in the ongoing serial documenting how gullible liberals are. How many "crises" do you need to be sucked into before the "duh" moment, and you slap yourself on the forehead? You bought that claim that we need to save the whales, and I'll bet you still have the t-shirt. You probably wore a mesh mask to protect yourself from the killer African bees that were about to cross the southern border. And you must be thankful that you dodged the dreaded heterosexual AIDS epidemic.  Now global warming. Listen Chicken Little, its not science, its your keen ken of human nature, psychology and politics that leaves you a whimpering dolt. I blame both your innate intelligence and the government school system for this panic and our political situation.
> 
> Wise up.



Why don't you wise up? Your posting of strawman, ridicule and invecutive in leiu of a real rebutul based on current scientific literature simply demonstrates the sophmoric nature of your thinking.


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Why don't you wise up? Your posting of strawman, ridicule and invecutive in leiu of a real rebutul based on current scientific literature simply demonstrates the sophmoric nature of your thinking.


Consider her a character witness.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Subaerial and submarine CO2 get absorbed by the oceans before it gets to surface. And site your sources for the Chilean volcano. I sited mine, which is the USGS. However, I can also cite several independent sources, that reach the same conclusion.
> 
> How Volcanoes Work - volcano climate effects



Trying to google the special recently seen on Science or National Geographic channel (within the past year or so) to cite the scientist who stated this on that show....

But as stated.... you are stating THEORY as FACT... you are stating research as fact... you are stating estimates as fact.... when they are not fact.... which is what you alarmists like to do in an effort to scare people into your belief and your own fears....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

FistyTheBadger said:


> That is one case that I am not even going to accept, and the prevailing reason for this post is to take a jab at Bush because there is no end to your hatred of the man.



Crock of shit. There was censorship of science under the prior administration. What you accept and what is reality is too very differant things. The scientists have made their case from the overwhelming evidence that they have collected over two centuries. Your failure to recognize that evidence and their expertise reflects on you, not on them.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Crock of shit. There was censorship of science under the prior administration. What you accept and what is reality is too very differant things. The scientists have made their case from the overwhelming evidence that they have collected over two centuries. Your failure to recognize that evidence and their expertise reflects on you, not on them.



And there you go again CLAIMING 'overwhelming evidence'.. when it is research and theory and nothing more...


Again.. I can claim that because I started smoking in the house and since that time my gas and electric bills have increased, that it is the smoking and emissions causing it... all the while ignoring all the other little factors and without me or anyone else having a complete view into all of what is possibly going on to have effect....

Plus the science into determining historical CO2 and greenhouse gas levels BEFORE ACCURATE HUMAN MEASURING is only theory... there is no proof of their accuracy and different outcomes from similar research are out there....

Theories are theories and facts are facts... what you have is an unproven theory that you and other alarmists CHOOSE to state as fact... to fit your purposes


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Crock of shit. There was censorship of science under the prior administration. What you accept and what is reality is too very differant things. The scientists have made their case from the overwhelming evidence that they have collected over two centuries. Your failure to recognize that evidence and their expertise reflects on you, not on them.


I think I am overcoming a weakness of mine as we type.  I believe what you are doing is called a "red herring" as far as argumentation is concerned.  The cenorship of science by one entity does not neutralize or affect in any way that I can reasonably interpret the censorship of science by another entity.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Trying to google the special recently seen on Science or National Geographic channel (within the past year or so) to cite the scientist who stated this on that show....
> 
> But as stated.... you are stating THEORY as FACT... you are stating research as fact... you are stating estimates as fact.... when they are not fact.... which is what you alarmists like to do in an effort to scare people into your belief and your own fears....



Fact. The north polar cap is melting.
Fact. The Greenland and Antarctic ice caps are melting.
Fact. The global temperature is continuing to warm.
Fact. Scientists predicts that at some point, the warming would start the release of CH4 from clathrates on the continental shelves. They just did not expect that point to be 2008.

There are many other facts that demonstrate that the warming is happening. There are scientific experiments that verified that CO2 was a GHG were done over a century ago, and have never been challenged. And the predictions made at that time we are seeing today. Experiments done, conclusions made from the data, and now the predictions from those conclusions verified. That is as good as science gets.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Fact. The north polar cap is melting.
> Fact. The Greenland and Antarctic ice caps are melting.
> Fact. The global temperature is continuing to warm.
> Fact. Scientists predicts that at some point, the warming would start the release of CH4 from clathrates on the continental shelves. They just did not expect that point to be 2008.
> ...











Newsfront	RSS

ARCHIVE


Print Page
 | 	Forward Page
 | 	E-mail Us



Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:55 AM

By: Phil Brennan 	Article Font Size    



Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory? 
Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly lost ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels. 
Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming. 
The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankinds alleged impact on the global climate. 
Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years. 
As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics. 
As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception  Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather. 
Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow. 
Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents. 
AFP news reports icy temperatures have just swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the government said Monday. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster relief office told AFP. 
Twelve people have died there, state Xinhua news agency reported, and four remained missing as of Saturday. 
An ongoing record-long spell of cold weather in Vietnam's northern region, which started on Jan. 14, has killed nearly 60,000 cattle, mainly bull and buffalo calves, local press reported Monday. By Feb. 17, the spell had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region, including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571 in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper. 
In Britain the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England, according to the Express, which reports that experts say that February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the week. And the BBC reports that a bus company's efforts to cut global warming emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather. 
Meanwhile Athens News reports that a raging snow storm that blanketed most of Greece over the weekend and continued into the early morning hours on Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures. The agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill on Monday in the wider Athens area, while ships remained in ports, public services remained closed, and schools and courthouses in the more severely-stricken prefectures were also closed. 
Scores of villages, mainly on the island of Crete, and in the prefectures of Evia, Argolida, Arcadia, Lakonia, Viotia, and the Cyclades islands were snowed in. 
More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C. 
If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death. 
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.	

Print Page
 | 	Forward Page
 | 	E-mail Us


		






Top News



----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 23, 2009)

jreeves said:


> POZNAN, Poland, December 18, 2008 - The UN global warming conference which concluded Friday in Poland faced a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.  A newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report was released last week featuring the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN.




That "list of 600 scientists" has already been debunked. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/971627-post93.html


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Fact. The north polar cap is melting.
> Fact. The Greenland and Antarctic ice caps are melting.
> Fact. The global temperature is continuing to warm.
> Fact. Scientists predicts that at some point, the warming would start the release of CH4 from clathrates on the continental shelves. They just did not expect that point to be 2008.
> ...



Theory - Because there is also results and research and evidence to the contrary and research showing ice increases in other areas
False - As shown many times, even if you only consider the sort term.. And also consider that even with the THEORIES behind historic temps from pre-history, the swings are still within ESTIMATED natural swings of the past
FALSE - You try and use PREDICTION as FACT... oh so typical for an alarmist

There are many other THEORIES and RESEARCH into warming... many involving man effect, many involving cyclical research... there are NOT facts.... just as there were theories a short time ago to the contrary by the same groups of enviro-whackos... and as science and research changes, we will have more theories and more sways in POPULAR theoretical thought behind it... but again, do not go confusing THEORY with FACT as you so easily do


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 23, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> That "list of 600 scientists" has already been debunked.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/971627-post93.html



May 27, 2008
Global warming consensus: 31,000 scientists disagree
Filed under: energy, life, media, news, politics, religion, science  tadcronn @ 12:50 am 
Tags: Al Gore, fraud, global warming, scam, scientific consensus
Ads by Google
Global Warming Facts
Are you worried about climate change? Get the facts.
Get Energy Active - Value of Electricity - Supply and Demand - Climate Change - Use Electricity Wisely - Diverse Fuel - Ways to Save Energy Costs - Smart Energy Use




Al Gore and global warm-mongers have won many converts with their claim that 2,500 scientific reviewers of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes report constitutes a consensus among scientists that man-made warming is destroying Earth.
Not only have many of those reviewers made it known that they disagree with the U.N. conclusions, but now there is a petition circulated Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, signed by more than 31,000 scientists who dispute the theory of man-made global warming. The petition states, in part:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earths atmosphere and disruption of the Earths climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
*The 31,000 signers all hold scientific credentials; approximately 9,000 of them hold scientific Ph.D.s.*
Robinson held a press conference earlier this month. Although members of the media and Congress were invited, attendance was light.
Robinson points out that over the past 150 years, scientists have found that global temperatures have been predicted with 79 percent accuracy by the sunspot index, which precedes climate changes by about 10 years. CO2, by comparison, has been only 22 percent accurate, and that number has rapidly declined in the past decade as temperatures have dipped and CO2 has continued to rise.
In fact, 70 percent of the Earths warming in the past hundred years occurred before 1940, while nearly all of humanitys industrial emissions have occurred after that date. Since 1940, the climate has only risen 0.2 Celsius.
Robinson notes that the U.N. has never produced any direct evidence that mankind is causing warming, but that the IPCC report is only a summary, written by a handful of authors, of discussions among scientists invited to a U.N. conference


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 23, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> That "list of 600 scientists" has already been debunked.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/971627-post93.html



Nice how you cite YOUR single post in a feeble attempt to keep someone from scrolling down further in the thread to see where it could be stated that your claim of debunking was hence debunked....

You could go back and forth all day about which one debunks the next and so on and so on... but one FACT is that these are theories and not facts supported by various groups of various scientists... and another FACT is that there are numerous people with numerous theoretical scenarios and results on BOTH sides of the fence on this one.. and 'popularity' of a theory means nothing in terms of whether it is fact or not... as stated.. over recent history.. MANY MANY MANY popular theories have been thrown aside for new theories and sometimes thrown away as facts disprove the popular theory

AGAIN... if people would just stop trying to assert theory as fact, the discussion and debate into research, findings, etc could probably do a lot more good... but that is not the goal of the alarmist, nor the alarmist poster


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 23, 2009)

Its pays to remember that bush supporters and rightwingers were *catastrophically wrong* about global warming in the 1990s.  They spent that entire decade whining and denying that global warming was _even happening at all._. 

For being so catastrophically wrong on the subject before, it takes a lot of balls to claim that _this time_ you'll be right on global warming; that man has nothing to do with it.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jan 23, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Its pays to remember that bush supporters and rightwingers were *catastrophically wrong* about global warming in the 1990s.  They spent that entire decade whining and denying that global warming was _even happening at all._.
> 
> For being so catastrophically wrong on the subject before, it takes a lot of balls to claim that _this time_ you'll be right on global warming; that man has nothing to do with it.



And enviro nazis were emphatically then wrong about their last theory of global cooling... what then makes you take their theories so easily now then? Paleontologists popularly screamed that T-Rex was a super carnivore, and now a newer more popular theory spouts that it was most likely a vulture like scavenger.. You now completely discredit all those paleo's?

THEORIES CHANGE.. popular thoughts on theories change.... 

Does not make a theory fact because one is now suddenly more popular


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 23, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Its pays to remember that bush supporters and rightwingers were *catastrophically wrong* about global warming in the 1990s.  They spent that entire decade whining and denying that global warming was _even happening at all._.
> 
> For being so catastrophically wrong on the subject before, it takes a lot of balls to claim that _this time_ you'll be right on global warming; that man has nothing to do with it.


Please back up your claim to make me believe you.


----------



## Chris (Jan 23, 2009)

FistyTheBadger said:


> Please back up your claim to make me believe you.



NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007


That really doesn't address the claim, and it actually suggests that global warming is a good thing.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 23, 2009)

70- Global Cooling
80- Acid Rain 
90- O-Zone Layer
00- Global Warming 


The Earth didn't become an popsicle
We didn't melt from Acid Rain
We didn't melt from the Sun's rays
And it was 29 degrees in Miami last night


But hey

I guess weather recordings for the past 2-300 years is a good sample for a planet that is 2 billion years old


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> And enviro nazis were emphatically then wrong about their last theory of global cooling... what then makes you take their theories so easily now then? Paleontologists popularly screamed that T-Rex was a super carnivore, and now a newer more popular theory spouts that it was most likely a vulture like scavenger.. You now completely discredit all those paleo's?
> 
> THEORIES CHANGE.. popular thoughts on theories change....
> 
> Does not make a theory fact because one is now suddenly more popular



What theory of global cooling? Some referances please. Such as an article from the National Academy of Science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> 70- Global Cooling
> 80- Acid Rain
> 90- O-Zone Layer
> 00- Global Warming
> ...



No, the earth did not become a popsicle, and just who said that it would? Could it be that you are refering to this;

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> 70- Global Cooling
> 80- Acid Rain
> 90- O-Zone Layer
> 00- Global Warming
> ...



No, we didn't melt. But our forests have sustained and are still sustaining considerable damage from acid rain;
Damage From Acid Rain Pollution Is Far Worse Than Previously Believed


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> 70- Global Cooling
> 80- Acid Rain
> 90- O-Zone Layer
> 00- Global Warming
> ...



By didn't melt from the sun's rays, I assume that you are talking about the thinning of the Ozone layer. Once again, you appear to have very little real knowledge about the subject that you are posting on. Here is some real information;

Ozone Layer


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 23, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> 70- Global Cooling
> 80- Acid Rain
> 90- O-Zone Layer
> 00- Global Warming
> ...



One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall average that is warming. Seems that you cool night is right in line with that prediction. 

And the Earth is approximately 4.53 Billion years old, not 2 Billion. Not only that, we know the climate for about 650,000 years through the ice cores that we have obtained. And now climatologists and other scientiest are studying a core that will take that figure past 1 million.


----------



## del (Jan 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall average that is warming. Seems that you cool night is right in line with that prediction.
> 
> And the Earth is approximately *4.53 Billion years *old, not 2 Billion. Not only that, we know the climate for about *650,000 *years through the ice cores that we have obtained. And now climatologists and other scientiest are studying a core that will take that figure past 1 million.



so you're saying that one can make valid extrapolations based on a sample that is .00014 the size of the whole. and that's using the 1MM yr core that you allege exists. and you call THAT science?


----------



## Chris (Jan 23, 2009)

del said:


> so you're saying that one can make valid extrapolations based on a sample that is .00014 the size of the whole. and that's using the 1MM yr core that you allege exists. and you call THAT science?



No, the science is that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years.


----------



## del (Jan 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> No, the science is that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years.



blow it out your ass, chris. you've already admitted you can't quantify either the 40% figure or the effect. your only purpose here is to make old rocks look intelligent, and you're not doing such a great job of that, either.


----------



## Chris (Jan 23, 2009)

del said:


> blow it out your ass, chris. you've already admitted you can't quantify either the 40% figure or the effect. your only purpose here is to make old rocks look intelligent, and you're not doing such a great job of that, either.



You deny facts with opinion and insults.

The science is undeniable.


----------



## del (Jan 23, 2009)

Chris said:


> You deny facts with opinion and insults.
> 
> The science is undeniable.



there ain't nothing scientific about a .00014 sample size, ace.
but you stick to your guns, kirky.


----------



## Chris (Jan 23, 2009)

del said:


> there ain't nothing scientific about a .00014 sample size, ace.
> but you stick to your guns, kirky.



No, the science is that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 23, 2009)

del said:


> so you're saying that one can make valid extrapolations based on a sample that is .00014 the size of the whole. and that's using the 1MM yr core that you allege exists. and you call THAT science?



Yes, that called science, and anyone who went to college and took a statistics class, or has any college level background in math or science understands the concept of probability and representative sampling. 

I did a quick calculation, and New York City uses over a billion gallons of water a day.  And you know what they do when they want to test the water quality for public safety?  They take 100 milliliter samples of the city water.   If my arithmetic is correct, that's a sample size of about 0.0000001 of the city's water.   And its considered standard garden vareity science that produces good results.   Let me ask you, when the doctor wants to give you a blood test, do you demand that he take _all 20 liters of your blood_ just "to be certain"?   Or do they draw a small 10 milliliter sample which is considered, in terms of statistical probablity, to be a representative sample of your blood chemistry?


----------



## del (Jan 23, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Yes, that called science, and anyone who went to college and took a statistics class, or has any college level background in math or science understands the concept of probability and representative sampling.
> 
> I did a quick calculation, and New York City uses over a billion gallons of water a day.  And you know what they do when they want to test the water quality for public safety?  They take 100 milliliter samples of the city water.   If my arithmetic is correct, that's a sample size of about 0.0000001 of the city's water.   And its considered standard garden vareity science that produces good results.   Let me ask you, when the doctor wants to give you a blood test, do you demand that he take _all 20 liters of your blood_ just "to be certain"?   Or do they draw a small 10 milliliter sample which is considered, in terms of statistical probablity, to be a representative sample of your blood chemistry?



that's great, but how does that correlate with extrapolating not just quality now, but quality over the course of 4.5 billion years?
good effort though
well, not really.


----------



## Chris (Jan 23, 2009)

del said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that called science, and anyone who went to college and took a statistics class, or has any college level background in math or science understands the concept of probability and representative sampling.
> ...



Going back 600,000 years is enough. 

What is remarkable is that we have increased CO2 levels by 40% in such a short time, and this increase is accelerating. Soon we will have DOUBLED the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. 

We are using the earth's atmosphere as a giant lab experiment. We know we are warming the earth, and when the force multiplier of arctic methane kicks in, we will see even bigger changes.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2009)

del said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > One of the primary predictions of global warming is that the weather swings will be wider and wilder, with an overall average that is warming. Seems that you cool night is right in line with that prediction.
> ...



What do you call science, Del? Snappy sophmoric one line comebacks? Come on, I have given you many links to the science supporting global warming theory. Have you no valid links that effectively debate the points raised by our present scientific establishment? Or do you consider your function to be the brainless joker?


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 24, 2009)

del said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that called science, and anyone who went to college and took a statistics class, or has any college level background in math or science understands the concept of probability and representative sampling.
> ...



Here's how science works: 

In terms of probabalistic theory and statistical validity, science compares apples to apples.   Not apples to oranges. 

The earth was entirely different 2 billion years ago.  The continents weren't even in the same place, the land masses were aggregated into a super continent, and as a result ocean currents, atmospheric currents, and volcanic activity was radically different than it has been in the recent geologic era.  The entire biosphere was different two billion years ago, and as a consequence the biologic equilibrium and partitioning of atmospheric and hydrologic CO2 would be nothing like it has been in recent geologic times.  Trying to equate the natural variablity of climate in the ancient Cambrian era to the natural variability in the more modern Pliestocne era has some uses, but its largely comparing apples to oranges.  

Today's climate is a function, in part, of the recent geologic, hydrologic, and biosphere framework of the earth. It is variation in the climate of the Modern and Pleistocene geolgoic era that informs us of what the natural variation of climate should be _within the era that modern humans and the rest of the modern biosphere have existed for the last million years._   The natural variation in the climate of the Cambrian era is scientifically interesting, but has relatively little bearing on what we should expect of natural climate variability in recent geologic times.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > I don't doubt that some scientist say that there is a connection between man made CO2 and temperature change....
> ...



There are various things in our enviroment that emitt CO2. Your link proves nothing. Why is ice cover the same in the Artic as it was 20 something years ago, when it was first measured?


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



It's not.

Average Arctic sea ice extent for the month of December was 12.53 million square kilometers (4.84 million square miles). This was 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) greater than for December 2007 and 830,000 square kilometers (320,000 square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 December average.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dave, once again your profound ignorance on this matter is showing. Man puts more than 130 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as do vocanos, USGS figures.Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
> ...



The Earth has shown an under-reported cooling trend for eight straight years, raising serious questions about the accuracy of the UNs climate projections, since not one of the computer models on which it relies had predicted so long and steep a cooling, says a new review paper -- *Temperature Change and CO2 Change  A Scientific Briefing --from the Science and Public Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank.*The paper posits that The chief reason for scepticism at the official position on global warming is the overwhelming weight of evidence that the UNs climate panel, the IPCC, prodigiously exaggerates both the supposed causes and the imagined consequences of anthropogenic global warming; that too many of the exaggerations can be demonstrated to have been deliberate; and that the IPCC and other official sources have continued to rely even upon those exaggerations that have been definitively demonstrated in the literature to have been deliberate.

In short, writes Monckton, science is being artfully manipulated to the point of what are in essence political and not scientific conclusions  a conclusion that is congenial to powerful factions whose ambition is not to identify scientific truth but rather to advance the special vested interests with which they identify themselves.

The paper demonstrates that if CO2 concentration continues to rise more slowly than the IPCC had predicted, and if climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration is in any event well below the IPCCs projected range, the likelihood of any global warming >2 °C/century to 2100 is vanishingly small.

Monckton also demonstrates that official sources have:
 relied upon questionable and occasionally downright dishonest methods to inflate the observed rate of temperature increase
 created the false impression that the rate of increase is itself rising when an identical argument can be used to demonstrate that it is falling
 diminished earlier and warmer temperatures in this century
 abolished the mediaeval warm period
 diverted attention away from the fact that throughout almost all of the Holocene, and throughout all four previous interglacial periods, surface temperatures were considerably warmer than they are today.

Says SPPI president, Robert Ferguson, When the climate science is wrong, the policies are wrong, and then both people and the environment are harmed. It is past time that the media and elected officials stop treating man-made global warming as a religion and started asking some serious and pointed questions. This paper lays the ground work for that.
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Global Cooling Under-reported, Says SPPI




*I am a skepticGlobal warming has become a new religion. - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. *Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical. The main basis of the claim that mans release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years. 

Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the historyWhen people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist 

*The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesnt listen to others. It doesnt have open minds I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists, -* Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet

So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming. - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. 

Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time. - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. 

*It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who dont buy into anthropogenic global warming. *- U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. 

Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.  . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. 

After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet. - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. 

The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way roundA large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact, Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher. 

Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.  Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungarys most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. 

For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. 

Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic campClimate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact. - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. 

The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. 

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) 

CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another.Every scientist knows this, but it doesnt pay to say soGlobal warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the drivers seat and developing nations walking barefoot. - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. 

Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications. 

But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all. - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

The global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities. - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC.The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millenniumwhich is why global warming is now called climate change. - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion? - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australias Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). 

Global Warming Hoax: News / Comments / More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims


Yep, Nobel winners and scientist around the world are all wrong. Just admit it, there is no proof that man made global warming exists.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close. ...Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. 


A Non-Melting Arctic Ice Update | NewsBusters.org

You notice how this article is updated with a recent ice rebound....
Man made global warming is a hoax...


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

jreeves, we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth. This increase in CO2 is accelerating, and now there are signs that arctic methane is joining the mix. 

The only question now is, how much will we warm the earth?


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves, we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth. This increase in CO2 is accelerating, and now there are signs that arctic methane is joining the mix.
> 
> The only question now is, how much will we warm the earth?



Even though ice levels are the same as the 80's? Your a piece of work....


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves, we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth. This increase in CO2 is accelerating, and now there are signs that arctic methane is joining the mix.
> ...



No, they are not....

Overview of conditions (December 2008) 

Average Arctic sea ice extent for the month of December was 12.53 million square kilometers (4.84 million square miles). This was 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) greater than for December 2007 and 830,000 square kilometers (320,000 square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 December average. 

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, *global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close*. .

A Non-Melting Arctic Ice Update | NewsBusters.org


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



newsbusters.org? 

Sorry, the National Snow and Ice Data Center are the ones I trust.

Nice try, though.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



*Based on satellite observations, the University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center reports that the amount of sea ice on the planet is the highest in 29 years, when satellite record-keeping began.*

University of Illinois&#8217; Arctic Climate Research Center &#8212; Kaplak Stream


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Here are the ACTUAL sea ice figures from the University of Illinois' Climate Research Center....

1979    12.45033  15.30425  14.04489   8.91983  11.54336
1980    12.53639  15.14431  13.98140   9.11966  11.91129
1981    12.41577  15.15012  14.01207   8.93554  11.57623
1982    12.79659  15.46149  14.36142   9.21566  12.15929
1983    12.60551  15.23657  13.92623   9.38671  11.88387
1984    12.28453  14.94473  13.96711   8.87393  11.36361
1985    12.43990  15.17809  14.38674   8.72955  11.47622
1986    12.45092  15.01633  13.82801   9.11791  11.85307
1987    12.65102  15.32136  14.15247   9.24041  11.90118
1988    12.55684  15.13654  13.93870   9.19005  11.97357
1989    12.44663  15.23958  13.54229   9.15674  11.85911
1990    12.11015  15.26338  13.51850   8.07264  11.59689
1991    12.20011  14.84334  13.87693   8.65789  11.43393
1992    12.44991  14.91764  13.67476   9.23874  11.98045
1993    12.25997  15.06794  13.78006   8.38387  11.81933
1994    12.37032  15.08149  13.84400   8.81259  11.75462
1995    11.88742  14.93296  13.35731   7.73501  11.53480
1996    12.07481  14.52469  13.28614   9.26375  11.23536
1997    12.06711  14.94603  13.58513   8.29756  11.45068
1998    12.40697  15.78411  13.96029   8.62229  11.27226
1999    12.39809  15.47643  14.14554   8.50241  11.47914
2000    12.14383  15.21040  13.71933   8.42643  11.22967
2001    12.34065  15.56816  13.86992   8.60746  11.32803
2002    12.13423  15.63629  13.63608   8.09367  11.18163
2003    12.14218  15.53214  13.75027   8.25143  11.04565
2004    11.90407  15.21956  13.24363   8.11353  11.04978
2005    11.64843  14.82359  13.36471   7.72954  10.68591
2006    11.48640  14.35250  13.14995   7.77557  10.67801
2007    10.32810  14.23611  12.56108   5.56487   8.96007
2008     0.00000  14.50902  12.60711   6.20727   0.00000

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/timeseries.1870-2008


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Cool you get it...


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



I do.

We are warming the earth and melting the polar ice cap.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



If the head of the program says that sea ice is at the highest level in 29 years then he would understand and be able to interpret that data correct?


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



I don't know that he said that. I don't trust your link. 

Plus....IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DATA... it's not true. 

If you look at the next to last column which is the summer melt, you can see how dramatic the loss of sea ice is. 

You can post as many bogus links as you want, but that doesn't change reality. We are warming the earth.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



The second link I provided is from the U of Ill. artic center.  There is also no explainations for the data, therefore the data could be incomplete. I trust the head of the artic center over yours....


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

Once again, here is the actual data from the University of Illinois. Your link is bogus...







http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

Here's the Northern Hemisphere sea ice chart from the University of Illinois...

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> Once again, here is the actual data from the University of Illinois. Your link is bogus...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The head of the U of ILL artic center stated that ice levels are at the highest point in 29 years. Even if you don't believe him, you have to admit that ice levels have increased in the last year, correct? If ice levels have increased, what is the reason for this? CO2 concentration has continued to increase, yet ice levels have rebounded greatly. Even to the point that the head of the U of ILL artic center stated that ice levels are at the highest point in 29 years.....


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

More data from the University of Illinois...great website thanks for turning me on to it, jreeves....

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> More data from the University of Illinois...great website thanks for turning me on to it, jreeves....
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg



Your welcome, maybe it will help with your global warming fears. Global warming only exists in your mind and the mind of those who hope to profit off of its pseudo existence.


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

On January 1, 2009, an article by Michael Asher entitled &#8220;Sea Ice Ends Year at Same
Level as 1979&#8221; appeared on the Daily Tech website. We have received many requests
for confirmation and clarification on this article from media outlets and interested
individuals regarding the current state of the cryosphere as it relates to climate change
and/or global warming.
One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing
the GLOBAL sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31,
1979. In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most
relevant indicator. Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern
Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse
gas scenarios. But, the same model responses of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice
are less certain. In fact, there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of
sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric
warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice.
(Details: Warmer Air May Cause Increased Antarctic Sea Ice Cover )
Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S.
Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as
noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is
almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice
area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> On January 1, 2009, an article by Michael Asher entitled Sea Ice Ends Year at Same
> Level as 1979 appeared on the Daily Tech website. We have received many requests
> for confirmation and clarification on this article from media outlets and interested
> individuals regarding the current state of the cryosphere as it relates to climate change
> ...



View attachment $untitled.bmp

Using an algorithm Nasa uses....
Global warming is a myth...


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > On January 1, 2009, an article by Michael Asher entitled Sea Ice Ends Year at Same
> ...



A graph with no link. Nice try.

The North Polar Ice Cap is melting with some year to year variablity related to the solar cycle and the Southern Oscillation. The Antarctic land ice is holding do to colder temps which are the result of the hole in the ozone which we created. As the sun moves upward in the solar cycle, and the arctic methane begins to kick in, and we increase CO2 at the current relentless rate, we will see rising temperatures unless the sun has a large and sudden drop in radiance. 

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Here you go...
Global Sea Ice Trend Since 1979 - surprising « Watts Up With That?

Also, the U of ILL artic center agrees with me. Sea Ice is the same as it was 29 years ago, but nice try of promoting your religion which is man made global warming.....


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



The What's Up With That? website?

You must be joking.

Still waiting for those peer reviewed studies.

Oops! You don't have any!


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



650 of them, I have posted the link...don't you remember or is the Kool-Aid effecting your memory


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2009)

Reeves, you were given legitimate web sites from people whose business and life's work is the study of the cryosphere. You replied with a right wingnut site. Sorry boy, no brass ring, you have struck out.


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007


----------



## jreeves (Jan 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Reeves, you were given legitimate web sites from people whose business and life's work is the study of the cryosphere. You replied with a right wingnut site. Sorry boy, no brass ring, you have struck out.


These scientist disagree with the man made global warming cult....
32,000 deniers
Question: How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming? The quest to establish that the science is not settled on climate change began before most people had even heard of global warming.

The year was 1992 and the United Nations was about to hold its Earth Summit in Rio. It was billed as -- and was -- the greatest environmental and political assemblage in human history. Delegations came from 178 nations -- virtually every nation in the world -- including 118 heads of state or government and 7,000 diplomatic bureaucrats. The world's environmental groups came too -- they sent some 30,000 representatives from every corner of the world to Rio. To report all this, 7,000 journalists converged on Rio to cover the event, and relay to the publics of the world that global warming and other environmental insults were threatening the planet with catastrophe.

In February of that year, in an attempt to head off the whirlwind that the conference would unleash, 47 scientists signed a "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," decrying "the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action."

To a scientist in search of truth, 47 is an impressive number, especially if those 47 dissenters include many of the world's most eminent scientists. To the environmentalists, politicians, press at Rio, their own overwhelming numbers made the 47 seem irrelevant.

Knowing this, a larger petition effort was undertaken, known as the Heidelberg Appeal, and released to the public at the Earth Summit. By the summit's end, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal.

These scientists -- mere hundreds -- also mattered for nought in the face of the tens of thousands assembled at Rio. The Heidelberg Appeal was blown away and never obtained prominence, even though the organizers persisted over the years to ultimately obtain some 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners.

The earnest effort to demonstrate the absence of a consensus continued with the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change -- an attempt to counter the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Its 150-odd signatories also counted for nought. As did the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship in 2000, signed by more than 1,500 clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics and policy experts concerned about the harm that Kyoto could inflict on the world's poor.

Then came the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Petition Project of 2001, which far surpassed all previous efforts and by all rights should have settled the issue of whether the science was settled on climate change. To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the effort was spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, and as reputable as they come.

Using a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who's who of Science, Robinson mailed out his solicitations through the postal service, *requesting signed petitions of those who agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity*. The response rate was extraordinary, "much, much higher than anyone expected, much higher than you'd ordinarily expect," he explained. He's processed more than *31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go -- most of them are already posted on a Web site at petitionproject.org.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2009)

Ya sure. A bogus list from OISM. That is Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, from the metropolis of Cave Junction, Oregon. With the vast population of 1200. Counting a few dogs just to even things out. Those people are a joke here in Oregon. A bunch of wing nut charlatans.

Climate "Science" by the Pound

A climate change petition started in 1988 by the tobacco industry's favourite scientist (Federick Seitz), has just been re-released with a reported 31,072 signatures of "scientists" - some of whom are reported to actually work in the field.

The Oregon Petition was originally started by Dr. Seitz (formerly the principal adviser to the RJ Reynolds medical research program) and by Arthur B. Robinson, a lapsed biochemist who now operates the one-man Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. 

Robinson himself was quoted recently saying that a survey was an inadequate way to pursue science. "The numbers shouldn&#8217;t matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them.&#8221; 

But that turns out to be an overstatement. Seitz, for example, died in March.

But the odd quirk has not lessened the excitement that this document is generating in the denier press. Take for example the breathless coverage offered by the National Post. Frequent contributor Lawrence Solomon declares that 32,000 is even more than the number of journalists who attended the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, which surely must prove something.

Of course, Solomon recently produced a whole book entitled The Deniers, which, despite the title, included NO ONE who actually takes issue with the fact that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate.

Yet now he trumpets this ever-expanding list of (unsubstantiated) names and celebrates their credibility, bizarrely, on the basis that "the effort was spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, and as reputable as they come."

"As reputable as they come"? Well that may have been true in 1962. when Seitz was appointed head of the National Academy of Sciences. It may still have been true in 1968, when he was named president at Rockefeller. But things apparently started going downhill, even before Seitz helped found the Exxon-funded George C. Marshall Institute, in 1984. And by 1989, Bill Hobbs, a senior executive at RJ Reynolds, was telling people that "Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice." (He was just 78 at the time.)

So, here's a guy who ended his career as paid flak for the tobacco and arms industries, who wsas dismissed by a tobacco executive in 1989 as "not sufficiently rational," who nine years later embarrassed himself and the National Academy of Sciences by helping to present his bogus petition as a NAS project, and Lawrence Solomon calls him "as reputable as they come."

That should be very helpful in establishing the relative reputability of everyone else on this list. 

One last comment: 32,000 turns out to be an interesting number. It's a favorite number for Art Robinson, keeper of the petition. That, he says, is how many copies he has sold of his Christian fundamentalist home-schooling kit - which is based, in part, on a free version of the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica.

As Larry Solomon might say: "as reputable as they come.

"http://www.desmogblog.com/flawed-oregon-petition-rises-again


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2009)

In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.) 

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming. 

"The mailing is clearly designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article, which is full of half-truths, is a reprint and has passed peer review," complained Raymond Pierrehumbert, a meteorlogist at the University of Chicago. NAS foreign secretary F. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist, said researchers "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them." NAS council member Ralph J. Cicerone, dean of the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California at Irvine, was particularly offended that Seitz described himself in the cover letter as a "past president" of the NAS. Although Seitz had indeed held that title in the 1960s, Cicerone hoped that scientists who received the petition mailing would not be misled into believing that he "still has a role in governing the organization." 

The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." 

Notwithstanding this rebuke, the Oregon Petition managed to garner 15,000 signatures within a month's time. S. Fred Singer called the petition "the latest and largest effort by rank-and-file scientists to express their opposition to schemes that subvert science for the sake of a political agenda." 

Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel called it an "extraordinary response" and cited it as his basis for continuing to oppose a global warming treaty. "Nearly all of these 15,000 scientists have technical training suitable for evaluating climate research data," Hagel said. Columns citing the Seitz petition and the Robinson paper as credible sources of scientific expertise on the global warming issue have appeared in publications ranging from Newsday', the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to the Austin-American Statesman, Denver Post, and Wyoming Tribune-Eagle. 

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world." 
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2009)

Reeves, old boy, you are keeping the company of charlatans.


----------



## Chris (Jan 24, 2009)

Lies and deception are the very essense of the global warming deniers MO.

It's ridiculous, really.


----------



## Meister (Jan 24, 2009)

Has anyone noticed that everyone but old rocks uses bogus sites????  Now that would make me wonder.   Everyone else is wrong but old rocks...is that anything like"everyone else is crazy but me?"


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 24, 2009)

Meister said:


> Has anyone noticed that everyone but old rocks uses bogus sites????  Now that would make me wonder.   Everyone else is wrong but old rocks...is that anything like"everyone else is crazy but me?"



Have you noticed that I use sites associated with scientific organizations with good scientific credentials, rather than partisan political sites. Sites like this;

Abrupt Climate Change : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution


----------



## Meister (Jan 25, 2009)

No I don't.  What I see is paid scientific bogus sites from your end.  Kinda like..."here's some money, this is the results we want to see."


----------



## jreeves (Jan 25, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone noticed that everyone but old rocks uses bogus sites????  Now that would make me wonder.   Everyone else is wrong but old rocks...is that anything like"everyone else is crazy but me?"
> ...



Yep all these scientists are bogus....
Global Warming Hoax: News / Comments / More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

&#8220;I am a skeptic&#8230;Global warming has become a new religion.&#8221; - *Nobel Prize Winner *for Physics, Ivar Giaever. 

&#8220;Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly&#8230;.As a scientist I remain skeptical. &#8220;The main basis of the claim that man&#8217;s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system&#8221; - *Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called &#8220;among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.&#8221; *

Warming fears are the &#8220;worst scientific scandal in the history&#8230;When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.&#8221; - *UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist *
&#8220;The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn&#8217;t listen to others. It doesn&#8217;t have open minds&#8230; I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,&#8221; -* Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet*
&#8220;So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.&#8221; - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. 

&#8220;Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.&#8221; - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. 

&#8220;It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don&#8217;t buy into anthropogenic global warming.&#8221; - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. 

&#8220;Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.&#8221; &#8211; . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. 

&#8220;After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.&#8221; - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. 

&#8220;The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round&#8230;A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,&#8221; Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher. 

&#8220;Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.&#8221; &#8211; Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary&#8217;s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. 

&#8220;For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. 

&#8220;Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp&#8230;Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.&#8221; - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. 

&#8220;The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.&#8221; - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. 

&#8220;All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead&#8221; - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) 

&#8220;CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another&#8230;.Every scientist knows this, but it doesn&#8217;t pay to say so&#8230;Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver&#8217;s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.&#8221; - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. 

&#8220;Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.&#8221; Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications. 

&#8220;But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.&#8221; - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

&#8220;The &#8216;global warming scare&#8217; is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.&#8221; - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey. 

&#8220;Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC&#8230;.The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium&#8230;which is why &#8216;global warming&#8217; is now called &#8216;climate change.&#8217;&#8221; - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

&#8220;I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?&#8221; - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia&#8217;s Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). 

But the level to which you and Chrissy pants will go to promote your pseudo *theory *is unbelievable. Sourcewatch is hardly unpartisan....


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2009)

jreeves, there is no theory involved, only fact.

Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. Therefore, we have caused the earth to warm. 

None of the above statements is a theory.


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves, there is no theory involved, only fact.
> 
> Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. Therefore, we have caused the earth to warm.
> 
> None of the above statements is a theory.



who cares and why ?


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves, there is no theory involved, only fact.
> ...



Apparently you do, since you responded to the post.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 25, 2009)

jreeves said:


> &#8220;I am a skeptic&#8230;Global warming has become a new religion.&#8221; - *Nobel Prize Winner *for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
> 
> &#8220;Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly&#8230;.As a scientist I remain skeptical. &#8220;The main basis of the claim that man&#8217;s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system&#8221; - *Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called &#8220;among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.&#8221; *
> 
> ...




You bush supporters keep clinging to this "list of 600 scientists".   Its been debunked over and over.  And why are you linking to a rightwing Senator's website anyway, instead of to a nationally recognized scientific organization with expertise in climate science?  

Some of the people on Senator Inhofe's list have asked to be taken off.   Some are quoted out of context. 

And many simply aren't experts in the field of climate science.  Why is this the one area in your life, where you would value the _opinion_ of non-experts, rather than the _research and conclusion_ of actual experts in the subject area? 

Do you go to a dentist when you have a respiratory infection?  No, you don't.  You go to an internal medical specialist. 


I looked up the first three guys on your list. 

The first guy did research decades ago on super conductors and electrical physics.  .  Not a shred of expertise in modern climate science. 

The second guy is an industrial chemist who's never done research in climate science and doesn't have a single peer reviewed published paper in climatology. 



> _Dr. Kiminori Itoh declares himself as a "physical chemist familiar with evironmental sciences, and not particularly specialized in climate science."  According to Google Scholar and Yokohama National University, Dr. Itoh has not published any work in the area of climate change in peer-reviewed science journals_



The third guy is a geologist. I might ask him about rocks.  But, I would never seek out his "opinion" on climate science.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Jan 25, 2009)

I suspect the basic picture of results are correct but I hate it when media put out a description of a survey without providing some access to details about the methods.  The minimal description provided suggests that it was not a "scientific" survey and I wish there was an easy way to find out if that impression is correct or not.  I did a Google search to try to find more details, including going to a Science News article then going to a website for the publication it was in and no luck.  

Otherwise, I'm among people who believe there's been a warming trend and that human activity has been a factor.  What I don't believe is that unvalidated models can allow us to say that if we do or don't do X then Y or Z will happen within reasonable bounds of certainty that are of practical value.  I also don't believe we know it's going to be some massive disaster for the planet if the Earth, which has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now or than it's predicted by the unvalidated models to be 100 years from now  during the tenure of life on it, if we don't take draconian action.

And I'm  of the opinion that there is a pervasive bias in the scientific community as well as western civilization at large towards being inclined to believe that anything different about the planet that is the result of human activity is "bad."  There seems to be this preservationist mentality holding that the imagined state of the planet as it would be without humankind  at this instant...with the certain set of species in place and all...is the best it's ever been or will be and that some different set of species and/or conditions is catastrophe.  

The planet has been in a constant state of change since it started.  There is no fixed, "balanced" ecosystem.  Things have changed more slowly at times. Things have changed more quickly at times.  I just don't agree with the hysteria over it.


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> I suspect the basic picture of results are correct but I hate it when media put out a description of a survey without providing some access to details about the methods.  The minimal description provided suggests that it was not a "scientific" survey and I wish there was an easy way to find out if that impression is correct or not.  I did a Google search to try to find more details, including going to a Science News article then going to a website for the publication it was in and no luck.
> 
> Otherwise, I'm among people who believe there's been a warming trend and that human activity has been a factor.  What I don't believe is that unvalidated models can allow us to say that if we do or don't do X then Y or Z will happen within reasonable bounds of certainty that are of practical value.  I also don't believe we know it's going to be some massive disaster for the planet if the Earth, which has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now or than it's predicted by the unvalidated models to be 100 years from now  during the tenure of life on it, if we don't take draconian action.
> 
> ...



What hysteria?

We aren't doing shit about it.


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> JohnStOnge said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect the basic picture of results are correct but I hate it when media put out a description of a survey without providing some access to details about the methods.  The minimal description provided suggests that it was not a "scientific" survey and I wish there was an easy way to find out if that impression is correct or not.  I did a Google search to try to find more details, including going to a Science News article then going to a website for the publication it was in and no luck.
> ...



good --it's a waste of time and money


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I've been asking all weekend for a link from denialists and flat earthers, to a recognized and established national or international scientific organization with expertise in climate science which supports their denialist position. 

I give up.  All I've been linked to is

-A rightwing website called "heartland.org" 

-A list of "600 scientists" from a rightwing senators website.  Who's going to trust a list in which some scientists have asked to be taken off, and most of the scientists aren't experts in climate science, don't have backgrounds in it,  or even do there own researh on the topic?

-Some guy named "Dr. Bob Carter" from some place called "James Cook University"

-An "Institute", which is nothing more than a crack pot think tank located on a farm in Oregon, and promotes homeschooling and how to survive nuclear war. 

-A wikipedia link to a list of "skeptics" in the science community, even though the wiki page itself explicitly states that the scientists on the list don't neccessarily deny that humans are affecting climate or that it will be harmful.  They're most just debating around the edges about quantification parameters and methodology. 


Look, when you wait for 48 hours to get a credible link to an expert organization which is highly qualified in the field, and rightwingers are still unable to provide one, then the debate is over.   They've got nothing.  They're shooting blanks.   They just have a partisan belief system about it that isn't backed up by anything substantial or expert.


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2009)

It may be a waste to you dillo, but not to the people of the Pacific island states....

Global Warming Threatens Pacific Island States By Kathy Marks


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> Not to the people of the Pacific island states....
> 
> Global Warming Threatens Pacific Island States By Kathy Marks



they need to move then


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Not to the people of the Pacific island states....
> ...



Maybe they could stay with you?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 25, 2009)

I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train - David Evans - Mises Institute

*I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.

In the late 1990s, this was the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming:

   1.      Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, proved in a laboratory a century ago.

   2.      Global warming has been occurring for a century and concentrations of atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century. Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.

   3.      Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985, allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then available (data points more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lockstep: they rose and fell together. Talk about a smoking gun!

 4.      There were no other credible causes of global warming.

This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions.
"Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit."

The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.

I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!

But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. Using the same point numbers as above:

   2. Better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled while atmospheric carbon increased. That 35 year non-correlation might eventually be explained by global dimming, only discovered in about 2003.
   3.      The temporal resolution of the ice core data improved. By 2004 we knew that in past warming events, the temperature increases generally started about 800 years before the rises in atmospheric carbon. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 &#8212; it runs the opposite way!

It took several hundred years of warming for the oceans to give off more of their carbon. This proves that there is a cause of global warming other than atmospheric carbon. And while it is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming ("amplification" of the initial warming), the ice core data neither proves nor disproves this hypothesis.

   4. There is now a credible alternative suspect. In October 2006 Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays cause cloud formation. Clouds have a net cooling effect, but for the last three decades there have been fewer clouds than normal because the sun's magnetic field, which shields us from cosmic rays, has been stronger than usual. So the earth heated up. It's too early to judge what fraction of global warming is caused by cosmic rays.

There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere &#8212; but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except in the tropics.

The only current "evidence" for blaming carbon emissions are scientific models (and the fact that there are few contradictory observations). Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. Some theories held by science authorities have turned out to be spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun orbits the earth, etc. For excellent reasons, we have much more confidence in observations by several independent parties than in models produced by a small set of related parties!

Let's return to the interaction between science and politics. By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions.
"Science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations."

But after 2000 the case against carbon emissions gradually got weaker. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken it. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming?

None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system. What has happened is that most research efforts since 1990 have assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.

Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.

The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effect of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming.

I recently bet $6,000 that the rate of global warming would slow in the next two decades. Carbon emissions might be the dominant cause of global warming, but I reckon that probability to be 20% rather than the 90% the IPCC estimates.

I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. 

Imagine the following scenario. Carbon emissions cause some warming, maybe 0.05C/decade. But the current warming rate of 0.20C/decade is mainly due to some natural cause, which in 15 years has run its course and reverses. So by 2025 global temperatures start dropping. In the meantime, on the basis of models from a small group of climate scientists but with no observational evidence (because the small warming due to carbon emissions is masked by the larger natural warming), the world has dutifully paid an enormous cost to curb carbon emissions.

Politicians, expressing the anger and apparent futility of all the unnecessary poverty and effort, lead the lynching of the high priests with their opaque models. Ironically, because carbon emissions are raising the temperature baseline around which natural variability occurs, carbon emissions might need curbing after all. Maybe. The current situation is characterized by a lack of observational evidence, so no one knows yet.

Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue, subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. It just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is. *


another article by the above scientist

Unleashed: The ETS: Completely unnecessary

*Rudd has failed to see through the vested interests that promote anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the theory that human emissions of carbon cause global warming. Though masquerading as "science based", the promoters of AGW have a medieval outlook and are in fact anti-science. Meanwhile carbon is innocent, and the political class is plunging ahead with making us poorer because they do not understand what science really is or what the real science is.

The Renaissance began when the absolute authority of the church and ancient texts was overthrown. Science then evolved as our most reliable method for acquiring knowledge, free of superstition and political authority. Suppose you wanted to know whether big cannonballs or small cannonballs fell faster. In medieval times you argued theoretically with what could be gleaned from the Bible, the works of Aristotle, or maybe a Papal announcement. In the Renaissance you ignored the authorities and simply dropped cannon balls from a tower and observed what happened - this was science, where empirical evidence trumps theory.

From 1975 to 2001 the global temperature trended up. How do you empirically determine the cause of this global warming? It turns out we can learn a lot simply by observing where the warming occurred: each possible cause of global warming heats the atmosphere differently, heating some parts before others. The pattern of warming is the cause's "signature".

The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics, and a combination of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming. The signature of ozone depletion consists just of the second feature. These signatures are theoretically derived by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and are integral to our understanding of how the atmosphere works. [1]

We have been observing temperatures in the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes - weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. The radiosonde measurements for 1979-1999 show broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming, but they show no tropical hotspot. Not even a small one. [2]

Empirically, we therefore know that an increased greenhouse effect was not a significant cause of the recent global warming. (Either that or the signatures from the IPCC are wrong, so its climate models and predictions are rubbish anyway.)

Human carbon emissions were occurring at the time but the greenhouse effect did not increase. Therefore human carbon emissions did not increase the greenhouse effect, and did not cause global warming. So AGW is wrong, and carbon is innocent. Suspect exonerated - wrong signature.

Alarmist scientists (supporters of AGW) objected that the radiosonde thermometers were not accurate and maybe the hotspot was there but went undetected. But there were hundreds of radiosondes, so statistically this is unlikely. They have also suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, and use the radiosonde wind measurements instead. When combined with a theory about wind shear they estimated the temperatures on their computers - and say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hotspot. But thermometers are designed to measure temperature, so it's a bit of a stretch to claim that wind gauges are accidentally better at it. Serious alarmist scientists do not claim that the hotspot was found, only that we might have missed it. The obvious conclusion is that the hotspot was too weak to be easily detected. We cannot collect any more data from the past warming, and there is no sign of the hotspot in the data that was collected - so the occasional claims that appear on the Internet that the hotspot has been found are simply wrong. [3]

So can we tell from the observed warming pattern what did cause the global warming? Unfortunately we have little idea of the signatures of some of the suspects, such as cosmic rays or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, so we cannot say except to note that ozone depletion was one of the causes.

Is there any observational evidence in favor of AGW? As of 2003, none at all.

The only supporting evidence for AGW was the old ice core data. The old ice core data, gathered from 1985, showed that in the past half million years, through several global warmings and coolings, the earth's temperature and atmospheric carbon levels rose and fell in lockstep. AGW was coming into vogue in the 1980s, so it was widely assumed that it was the carbon changes causing the temperature changes.

By the late 1990s ice core techniques had improved. In the old ice cores the data points were a few thousand years apart, but in the new ice core data they were only a few hundred years apart. In the early 1990s, New Scientist magazine anticipated that the higher-resolution data would seal the case for AGW.

But the opposite occurred. By 2003 it had been established to everyone's satisfaction that temperature changes preceded corresponding carbon changes by an average of 800 years: so temperature changes caused carbon changes - a warmer ocean supports more carbon in the atmosphere, after delays due to mixing. [4] So the ice core data no longer supported AGW. The alarmists failed to effectively notify the public.

After several prominent public claims by skeptics in 2008 that there is no evidence left for AGW, alarmist scientists offered only two points.

First, laboratory tests prove that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. But that observation tells us nothing about how much the global temperature changes if extra carbon enters the real, complicated atmosphere. Every emitted carbon atom raises the global temperature, but the missing hotspot shows that the effect is negligible.

Second, computer models. Computer models are just huge concatenations of calculations that, individually, could have been performed on a handheld calculator. They are theory, not evidence.

Governments have spent over $50 billion on climate research since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence for AGW. [5]

So if there is no evidence to support AGW, and the missing hotspot shows that AGW is wrong, why does most of the world still believe in AGW?

Part of the answer is that science changed direction after a large constituency of vested interests had invested in AGW. The old ice core data provided support from 1985, the IPCC was established by the UN in 1988 to look into human changes to climate, and the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 to limit carbon emissions. By 1999 the western political class were doing something, the western media were rallying behind "saving the planet", and scientists were being paid by governments to research the effects of human-caused global warming.

But then the evidence took science off in a different direction: the new ice core data in 2003, the missing hotspot in 2007, and the global temperature has stopped trending up since 2001 [6]. Governments, the media, and many scientists did not notice.

The remainder of the answer for the current belief in AGW is darker and more political. An offbeat theory in the 1970s, AGW was adopted by a group of about 45 atmospheric modelers and physicists. That group dominated climate science journals, peer reviewed each others papers, and hindered competing ideas by underhand methods [7]. AGW gained political support from proponents of nuclear power, and vice-president Gore appointed AGW supporters to science positions in the USA.

AGW grabbed control of climate funding in key western countries. Lack of diversity in science funding has been a major problem since government took over funding science in WWII. Science is like a courtroom - protagonists put forward their best cases, and out of the argument some truth emerges. But if only one side is funded and heard, then truth tends not to emerge. This happened in climate science, which is almost completely government funded and has been dominated by AGW for two decades. Skeptics are mainly scientists who are retired or who have moved on to other areas - their funding no longer depends on allegiance to AGW. The alarmists are full time, well funded, and hog the megaphone.

AGW was always promoted as being supported by nearly all scientists (though polls and history do not support this). Counting numbers of supporters and creating a bandwagon effect by announcing you are in the majority is a political tactic.

AGW always advanced principally by political means; as a scientific theory it was always weak, and now the evidence contradicts it. It's like a return to medieval times, where authority rules and evidence is ignored. Notice how the proponents of AGW don't want to talk about evidence of the causes? Anything but evidence of cause - attack people's motives, someone else "has the evidence", theoretical models, evidence that global warming is occurring, how important they are, what credentials they have, how worthy they are, the dog ate my evidence, "the science is settled", polar bears, anything. Talking about the evidence of the cause of global warming does not advance their cause. Politics says AGW is correct; science says it is wrong.

Science demands evidence. Evidence trumps theory, no matter what the political authority of those promoting the theory, even if they dress up in lab coats and have job titles that say "scientist". The hotspot is missing and there is no evidence for AGW. The alarmists cannot ignore this and continue to play political games forever. They are entitled to argue the case for AGW, but they should also acknowledge the evidence and inform the political class that AGW appears to be wrong - even if it means risking their status and their jobs (and yes, we scientists are also people who have kids and mortgages).

There are two central lies in the political promotion of AGW.

The first appears in Gore's movie. He gave the old ice core data as the sole reason for believing AGW (the rest of the movie presents evidence that global warming occurred, a separate issue). He said that increases in carbon caused increases in temperature in the past warming events. But Gore made his movie in 2005, two years after the new ice core data had established the opposite! Gore's weasel words when he introduced that segment show he knew what he was about to say was false. Who would have believed his pitch if he added "and each temperature rise occurred 800 years before the corresponding rise in carbon that caused it"? [8]

The second lie is the hockey stick graph, which presented the last thousand years of global temperature as the flat handle of a hockey stick and the next hundred as the sharply rising blade [9]. The hockey stick graph was heavily promoted by the IPCC in 2001, and the IPCC even adopted it as its logo before it got discredited. It is significant because most non-scientist AGW supporters seem to believe some version of the hockey stick. When the IPCC "scientists" who produced the graph were asked to show their data for past temperatures, they refused (true scientists share data). But one of those scientists was a British academic and subject to the British Freedom of Information Act, and after two years of stonewalling all was revealed. It showed they had grossly skewed the data (even omitting inconvenient data to a folder labeled "Censored"), and that the computer program used to process the data had the hockey stick shape built into it - you could feed it stock market data instead of tree ring data and you would still get a hockey stick! In reality it was warmer in the Middle Ages than today, and there was a mini ice age around 1700 from which we have since been warming ever since. [10] Finally, the sharply rising blade of the hockey stick is contradicted so far by actual temperatures, which from 2001 to 2008 have been flat - something all of the climate models got wrong.

Among non-scientists, AGW appeals strongly to two groups. Those who support big government love the idea of carbon regulations - if you control carbon emissions then you control most human activity. And those who like to feel morally superior to the bulk of their fellow citizens by virtue of a belief (the "warm inner glow" and moral vanity of the politically correct) are firmly attached to AGW. These groups are politically adept, are planning to spend your money and tell you how to eat, travel and how to live, and they are strenuously avoiding the evidence.

The media has avoided presenting information that undermines AGW, until recently. Instead they promoted alarmism, and discredited skeptics as being in the pay of big oil - while giving a free pass to Gore, who made a movie based on an obvious lie then made millions selling carbon offsets. The media is very keen to present evidence that global warming is occurring, but have you noticed how quiet it is on evidence that carbon emissions caused it?

In 2007 almost no one in the west knew that the hotspot was missing, that there was no evidence for AGW, that temperatures had been flat for six years, that the hockey stick was a fraud, or that Al Gore lied when he gave the old ice core data as a reason for blaming carbon. But due to the Internet the public is gradually finding out anyway, which risks further discrediting many media outlets. Why buy a newspaper if it's not going to tell you the actual news?

And as the public become generally aware, what politician is going to risk being so ideologically stupid as to unnecessarily wreck the economy by slashing carbon emissions? Hmmm, Kevin Rudd?



Endnotes

[1] The IPCC published several signatures in IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007, Chapter 9, Figure 9.1, page 675: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

[2] The US CCSP published the observed changes in atmospheric temperatures for 1979 &#65533; 1999 in part E of Figure 5.7 on page 116 in 2006: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf

[3] See http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf for links to debates, further commentary, and arguments from alarmist scientists.

[4] Callion's 2003 paper is at http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf, and a colorful but informative and link-filled presentation is at The Reference Frame: CO2 vs temperature: ice core correlation & lag.

[5] The US has spent about $30b (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/USGCRP-CCSP_Budget_History_Table_2.pdf) and other western countries combined have presumably spent about as much again. The UK will not release its sending figures. See also http://joannenova.com.au/2008/12/02/big-government-outspends-big-oil-1000-to-1.

[6] Look at the data from the four bodies that produce global temperature records. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but only goes back to 1979; satellites operate 24/7, measuring everywhere except the poles. Land based thermometer readings are corrupted by the urban heat island effect-and they show temperatures rising faster in areas with higher populations (see Odd sites and Projects « Watts Up With That?).
1. Remote Sensing Systems in California. Uses only satellite data: Image Container.
2. University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Uses only satellite data: Image Container.
3. The Hadley Centre in the UK uses a mix of satellite data and land-based thermometers: Image Container.
4. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA uses land-based thermometers (plus a few ocean thermometers), but no satellite data: Image Container.

[7] For many examples from an impeccable scientist in the trenches, see http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf.

[8] A British judge ruled that when Gore presented the ice core graphs of temperature and carbon in his movie, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts". The nine errors found by the judge in Gore's movie are summarized in the graphic at Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film| News | This is London.

[9] The Australian Department of Climate Change still sports the hockey stick on its website in 2008: Climate Change Science - Frequently Asked Questions - Question 2 - Is the Earth's climate really hotting up?. Hear from the scientist who uncovered the fraud: http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf.

[10] What the combined mass of independent researchers say about the historical past in 2007 is in Figure 3 at Roy Spencer, Ph. D. (the last blue downtick seems to be due to using 30 year averages with the last period ending in about 1975, the end of the last cooling).
*

But I'm sure this guy is not at all qualified to have an opinion either.

Science will win out but right now politics and government money are tainting the process.


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



lots of room here in Texas


----------



## JohnStOnge (Jan 25, 2009)

> And many simply aren't experts in the field of climate science. Why is this the one area in your life, where you would value the opinion of non-experts, rather than the research and conclusion of actual experts in the subject area?



I'm new here but as you come to know me you'll see that I do not automatically accept something as known truth because it's what a majority or even an overwhelming majority of experts in a particular field say.  I believe there are certain principles that transcend any particular scientific discipline.  In this case, for instance, people who are familiar with the general principles of modeling are qualified to make judgements about such things as whether or not climate models have been validated to an extent necessary to consider them to be reliable predictive tools.  They don't have to be climate scientists to do it.

I'll give you an example of a principle that transcends disciplines:  In order to estimate a mean of a population from a sample, you have to have a probability sample.  When climate scientists estimate the mean global temperature from temperatures observed at different points, they are not using probability samples. Certainly, when they look at temperatures from the 1800s, they're not looking at probability samples.  When they go back before thermometers were invented and look at proxy indicators, they're not looking at probability samples plus they don't have any way to validate the conceptual models they're using.  Such things raise  questions and issues, especially when dealing with a situation in which an error of 1 or 2 degrees C  in the estimate of the mean temperature would be viewed as a big deal. Or ice core data.  That _certainly_ can't be viewed as a probability sample of CO2 levels in past planetary atmospheres.  Such issues  can't simply be dismissed through saying, "they're the climate experts," and one doesn't need to be a climatologist to look into them and make judgements about whether or not the conclusions of climate experts might be off.

Don't get me wrong.  I personally believe there has been a warming trend for various reasons beyond temperatures measured at different points.  I also believe that it was way hotter than it is now during _most_ of the history of life on this planet.  But I think it's a mistake to automatically dismiss criticisms of client science from people who aren't climate scientists.


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2009)

I find this all amusing. 

Global warming is not a theory.

Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. Therefore, we have caused the earth to warm. Soon we will have doubled the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, so we will have warmed the earth even more. The only thing that is saving us right now is that the land ice on Antarctica has remained cool because our CFCs have created a hole in the ozone over the South Pole.


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> I find this all amusing.
> 
> Global warming is not a theory.
> 
> Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. Therefore, we have caused the earth to warm. Soon we will have doubled the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, so we will have warmed the earth even more. The only thing that is saving us right now is that the land ice on Antarctica has remained cool because our CFCs have created a hole in the ozone over the South Pole.



Well just think--places that have shitty climates now will have a lot to look foreward to, chicken little.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 25, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> > And many simply aren't experts in the field of climate science. Why is this the one area in your life, where you would value the opinion of non-experts, rather than the research and conclusion of actual experts in the subject area?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm new here but as you come to know me you'll see that I do not automatically accept something as known truth because it's what a majority or even an overwhelming majority of experts in a particular field say.  I.




If you were sick, and 11 out of 12 doctors who were experts in the field of oncology told you you had cancer, what would you do? 

Take immediate action to take care of your health?

Or tell the doctors, that there was one dissenting voice and you should wait and do more research?   


We all know which option you would choose.


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 25, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> JohnStOnge said:
> 
> 
> > > And many simply aren't experts in the field of climate science. Why is this the one area in your life, where you would value the opinion of non-experts, rather than the research and conclusion of actual experts in the subject area?
> ...




assuming a majority is always right is sheer lunacy


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 25, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > JohnStOnge said:
> ...




No one ever said to always blindly believe the overwhelming majority of experts. 

I don't know how old you are or what your life experiences are.  But life is about _risk management_.  Public policy is also about _risk management_. 

You take actions based on the best expert advice.   If the vast majority of doctors told you that tests indicated you had cancer, you wouldn't wait a single second to take steps to mitigate that risk.    Life is always about making choices based on the best available information, and the level of action you take is always comensurate with the level of risk.


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 25, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



I'm old and taking the path that was a little more risky has proved to be quite benficial on numerous occasions. And the number of times that science has blown it is phenomenal.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves, there is no theory involved, only fact.
> 
> Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. Therefore, we have caused the earth to warm.
> 
> None of the above statements is a theory.



BS it is a theory that man is causing the earth to warm through CO2 emmissions.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 25, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > I am a skepticGlobal warming has become a new religion. - *Nobel Prize Winner *for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
> ...



Oh yeah the leaders in their fields of science are not credible....unbelivable

Nobel prize winners not credible.....like I said global warming has a highly supportative cult


----------



## JohnStOnge (Jan 25, 2009)

Sigh.  I can't post a link until AFTER my 15h post so here's my 15th post.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Jan 25, 2009)

[





Red Dawn said:


> I've been asking all weekend for a link from denialists and flat earthers, to a recognized and established national or international scientific organization with expertise in climate science which supports their denialist position.



Since this is my 16th post, I can now link something.  Try this:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

I referenced it in another thread but this is a good place to actually link it.  It's Chapter 9 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Working Group 1 Report, _The Physical Science Basis_.  Hopefully you've got a pdf reader.  Go to the bottom left  of page 668, the 6th page of the chapter,  or do a search for the word "experiment."  That will lead you to the following language:

*"&#8216;Attribution&#8217; of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence see Glossary). As noted in the SAR (IPCC, 1996) and the TAR (IPCC, 2001), unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is &#8216;consistent with the estimated responses to the given  combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing&#8217; and &#8216;not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings&#8217;"*

The language I underlined is a concession to one of those principles that transcends any particular discipline.  Cause and effect cannot be inferred with statistical data without a controlled experiment.  An additional principle they _don't_ appear to concede is that a "level of confidence" for a cause and effect inference can't be established without a controlled experiment either. 

As a practical matter, we've sometimes concluded there  is a cause and effect relationship on the basis of statistical data without controlled experimentation. Smoking as a "cause" of cancer is an example.  But we have data on millions of "replicates" involving subjects to which the "treatment" of smoking was applied as well as billions of subjects we can use as controls.  There is only one Earth.  There are absolutely no other Earth's or similar planets we can look to to serve as "replicates" for the treatment; nor or there any subjects we can use as controls.  It's just wrong to say, as I've seen said, that the belief in a cause and effect relationship between human activity and a particular trend in planetary temperatures is a belief that is  as certain as it gets in science.

And that's probably where my biggest beef lies.  It's fine to say "we've studied this an awful lot and we think this is the case."  But, to me, they're creating a false impression when they start doing stuff like saying "Extremely Likely" and defining that to mean a 99% probability of occurrence.  I think that's giving the conclusion an aura of quantitative certainty that doesn't really exist.  I also think it's wrong to do things like issue a _Summary for Policymakers_ that doesn't contain any mention of that little problem about not being able to unequivocally say anything about cause and effect without controlled experimentation that's impossible to conduct.  I won't link for now but there's actually a place in Chapter 1 of the 2007 _Physical Science Basis_ report where the authors say that the impossibility of conducting controlled experiments is an important consideration.  If it's an important consideration, why is there no mention of it in the _Summary for Policymakers?_

I think I can guess.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> JohnStOnge said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect the basic picture of results are correct but I hate it when media put out a description of a survey without providing some access to details about the methods.  The minimal description provided suggests that it was not a "scientific" survey and I wish there was an easy way to find out if that impression is correct or not.  I did a Google search to try to find more details, including going to a Science News article then going to a website for the publication it was in and no luck.
> ...



This hysteria....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY]YouTube - Global Warming Hoax[/ame]

Senate poised to take up sweeping global warming bill - USATODAY.com
*Landmark legislation to reduce global warming is set to spark an intense Senate debate in early June.
While it is unlikely to become law this year, the Climate Security Act is seen by both supporters and opponents as evidence of how far Congress has moved on the issue and how quickly a bill is likely to pass after a new president moves into the White House in January and a new Congress takes office.*"I really believe that if we don't get across the finish line this year, we will next year," said bill proponent Jeremy Symons, executive director of the global warming campaign at the National Wildlife Federation. "This is the first bill to have a serious chance of getting passed."

The bill, by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., is the first major global warming legislation to be approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It would reduce global warming emissions by more than 65% by 2050 in an effort to slow devastating climate change that could cause massive flooding along U.S. coasts, increase the number and strength of hurricanes in the Gulf states, create drought throughout the Midwest farm states, and fuel more wildfires in the West.

Which would have this effect....
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Global Warming Legislation Would Prolong Recession
*According to the theory*, carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal and gasoline are chiefly responsible for warming. There is no dispute that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. But the highest global temperatures ever recorded were in 1998 -- ten years ago. Global temperatures have been declining since 2002. In the last year the decline was nearly great enough to offset all the warming that has occurred since 1980.
With the evidence turning against them, proponents of global warming theory are trying to manufacture their own. 

Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) -- one of four bodies which monitor global temperatures -- declared this past October to have been the warmest ever. This was startling to those who knew that on Oct. 29, 115 communities in the U.S. set or tied records for low temperature; that the day before it snowed in London in October for the first time since 1922, and Tibet experienced its worst snowstorm ever.

It turns out that Mr. Hansen -- who set off the global warming scare with his testimony before a committee headed by then Sen. Al Gore in 1988 --had carried over temperature readings from monitoring stations in Russia from September, an error so glaring it calls into question the reliability of all GISS data.

*"Whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought," wrote Christopher Booker in the London Telegraph.*


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2009)

So we are going to lower our CO2 emissions. So what?

We should be moving toward clean energy anyway.


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> So we are going to lower our CO2 emissions. So what?
> 
> We should be moving toward clean energy anyway.



cool----do your share and ride a bike.


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 25, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> JohnStOnge said:
> 
> 
> > > And many simply aren't experts in the field of climate science. Why is this the one area in your life, where you would value the opinion of non-experts, rather than the research and conclusion of actual experts in the subject area?
> ...


You should see a movie called "The Miracle of the Letters."


----------



## jreeves (Jan 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> So we are going to lower our CO2 emissions. So what?
> 
> We should be moving toward clean energy anyway.



You just stated what hysteria, I showed you. Renewable energy is a good thing. 
Although we shouldn't put ourselves in a depression to accomplish implementing such technologies. There is great dispute in scientific circles as to the reliability of the theory of man made global warming. As a matter of fact; recent cooling trends, along with rebounding total sea ice levels points to global warming being nothing more than a pseudo theory.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

Well Reeves, here is what a gathering of Noble Laureates think concerning global warming.


EDITOR'S NOTE: One hundred fifty Nobel Laureates will gather in Stockholm, Sweden, and Oslo, Norway, on Dec. 7 for an unprecedented celebration marking the 100th anniversary of the Nobel Prize. The prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and economics meet in Stockholm, where their prizes were awarded, and, correspondingly, the peace prize winners meet in Oslo.

The more than 100 signatories to the attached statement have their own individual priorities in viewing the future, but all agree to this broad outline of the challenge facing humankind. Among scientists signing are Dr. Francis Crick (Physiology/Medicine, 1962), co-discoverer of the double-helix; Dr. Hans Bethe (Physics, 1967), discoverer of the source of the sun's energy; Dr. Charles Townes (Physics, 1964), co-discoverer of the laser, and Drs. Mario Molina (Chemistry, 1995) and Paul Crutzen (Chemistry, 1995), honored for their studies of the chemistry of the atmosphere and the ozone hole. 

Among literature winners Miss Nadine Gordimer (1991), and among peace prize winners Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev (1990) ,Archbishop Desmond Tutu (1984) and His Holiness the Dalai Lama (1989). The final signature was received from Mr. Gorbachev in Moscow, where he is hospitalized.)

By Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, Jose Saramago, Nadine Gordimer, Francis Crick and more 

STOCKHOLM -- The attached statement, prepared in consultation with an extensive group of Nobel prize winners, was some time in the making. Sept. 11's appalling terrorist attacks occurred after the statement was written. The terrorization of civilian populations has, for too long, been a horrifying aspect of the global scene. The time has come to end it. This will require a reshaping of relations within the human family. Our statement, addressed to the long term, is a plea for just such a reassessment of our obligations to one another. 

The most profound danger to world peace in the coming years will stem not from the irrational acts of states or individuals but from the legitimate demands of the world's dispossessed. Of these poor and disenfranchised, the majority live a marginal existence in equatorial climates. Global warming, not of their making but originating with the wealthy few, will affect their fragile ecologies most. Their situation will be desperate and manifestly unjust. 
NPQ


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

No, Dr. Hansen did not carry over the reading, they were given to him that way. And it had a great effect. It reduced that month from the warmest November on record, to the second warmest on record. The primary problems with the predictions that Dr. Hansen has made, and Dr. Hansen himself will tell you this, is that they have been too conservative. And it does seem that people in the field of climate think highly of Dr. Hansen;
14 January 09 
American Meteorological Society gives top honors to Dr. James E. Hansen
Tags: American Meteorological Society, Award-worthy, Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, Emily Murgatroyd, james hansen, NASA climate change, US 
NASA climate scientist James E. Hansen has been chosen by his peers to receive the 2009 Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal, the highest honor bestowed by the American Meteorological Society (AMS).

Jim Hansen is performing a tremendous job at communicating our science to the public and, more importantly, to policymakers and decision-makers," said Franco Einaudi, director of the Earth Sciences Division at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

"The debate about global change is often emotional and controversial, and Jim has had the courage to stand up and say what others did not want to hear," Einaudi added. "He has acquired a credibility that very few scientists have. His success is due in part to his personality, in part to his scientific achievements, and in part to his refusing to sit on the sidelines of the debate."

As Andrew Revkin notes on his DotEarth Blog:

"Whatever one thinks of James E. Hansen&#8217;s mix of climate science and policy advocacy (just explore comments here for a cross-section of views), it&#8217;s hard not to take note when the country&#8217;s largest organization of weather specialists, the American Meteorological Society, gives this veteran climatologist its top honor."


----------



## jreeves (Jan 25, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Well Reeves, here is what a gathering of Noble Laureates think concerning global warming.
> 
> 
> EDITOR'S NOTE: One hundred fifty Nobel Laureates will gather in Stockholm, Sweden, and Oslo, Norway, on Dec. 7 for an unprecedented celebration marking the 100th anniversary of the Nobel Prize. The prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature and economics meet in Stockholm, where their prizes were awarded, and, correspondingly, the peace prize winners meet in Oslo.
> ...



Classic Global warming cultism, take an article that is 8 years old and put it forth as if it is current thought on the subject. Besides I never stated that some, who want to profit from the theory are willing to promote the theory as fact. I stated there is great scientific dispute as to the theory's accuracy.


----------



## garyd (Jan 25, 2009)

Okay in order to accept that CO2 is the chief culprit in Global warming one has to believe that a gas that Currently makes up just 385/1,000000 of our atmosphere and is not expected with in the next 100 years to rise above 500 parts per million if we do nothing is somehow magically absorbing all the infrared and near infrared light entering our atmosphere when in fact it does not In fact according to one Hungarian scientist - a physicist who studies light - The most we can expect CO2 to increase the temperature is about 1 degree centigrate and we have already received approximately 75% of that warming. He has some rather interesting formula to prove it as well.

Given the high degree of persecutioin of those scientist especially meteorologist in the Public eye who refuse to climb aboard the AGW band wagon I'd expect 90+ percent would go along to get along and keep those federal dollars coming in.

90 odd % of antartica has been cooling since the mid eighties. Kilomanjaro's glacier isn't melting bercause of higher temperature it is losing moisture  because the forests at its basehave been decimated. It was the moisture from those forests that grew the glacier not snowfall.


----------



## Meister (Jan 25, 2009)

Geeze, old rocks, I just noticed that your from Portland, Ore.   No wonder you think the way you do.  Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco are all peas from the same pod.  Hell, I wouldn't have ever wasted my time, if I had known that.  I feel sorry for you dude, you didn't have a chance.


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2009)

garyd said:


> Okay in order to accept that CO2 is the chief culprit in Global warming one has to believe that a gas that Currently makes up just 385/1,000000 of our atmosphere and is not expected with in the next 100 years to rise above 500 parts per million if we do nothing is somehow magically absorbing all the infrared and near infrared light entering our atmosphere when in fact it does not In fact according to one Hungarian scientist - a physicist who studies light - The most we can expect CO2 to increase the temperature is about 1 degree centigrate and we have already received approximately 75% of that warming. He has some rather interesting formula to prove it as well.
> 
> Given the high degree of persecutioin of those scientist especially meteorologist in the Public eye who refuse to climb aboard the AGW band wagon I'd expect 90+ percent would go along to get along and keep those federal dollars coming in.
> 
> 90 odd % of antartica has been cooling since the mid eighties. Kilomanjaro's glacier isn't melting bercause of higher temperature it is losing moisture  because the forests at its basehave been decimated. It was the moisture from those forests that grew the glacier not snowfall.




The Antarctic ice in the water is melting because the ocean is warming. The land ice is staying cool because of the hole in the ozone created by our CFCs.

You believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% will only warm the earth by one degree. The problem with that is that CO2 is not the only issue. Billions of tons of arctic methane are starting to be released as the permafrost melts, and methane is 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2. 

We have set in motion a series of events, and we do not know where the will lead.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > Okay in order to accept that CO2 is the chief culprit in Global warming one has to believe that a gas that Currently makes up just 385/1,000000 of our atmosphere and is not expected with in the next 100 years to rise above 500 parts per million if we do nothing is somehow magically absorbing all the infrared and near infrared light entering our atmosphere when in fact it does not In fact according to one Hungarian scientist - a physicist who studies light - The most we can expect CO2 to increase the temperature is about 1 degree centigrate and we have already received approximately 75% of that warming. He has some rather interesting formula to prove it as well.
> ...



Please at least attempt to sound intelligent on the subject, Please?
SOTC: Sea Ice
Sea ice is frozen seawater that floats on the ocean surface. Blanketing millions of square kilometers, sea ice forms and melts with the polar seasons, affecting both human activity and biological habitat. *In the Arctic, some sea ice persists year after year*, whereas almost *all Southern Ocean or Antarctic sea ice is "seasonal ice," meaning it melts away and reforms annually.* While both Arctic and Antarctic ice are of vital importance to the marine mammals and birds for which they are habitats, sea ice in the Arctic appears to play a more crucial role in regulating climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

garyd said:


> Okay in order to accept that CO2 is the chief culprit in Global warming one has to believe that a gas that Currently makes up just 385/1,000000 of our atmosphere and is not expected with in the next 100 years to rise above 500 parts per million if we do nothing is somehow magically absorbing all the infrared and near infrared light entering our atmosphere when in fact it does not In fact according to one Hungarian scientist - a physicist who studies light - The most we can expect CO2 to increase the temperature is about 1 degree centigrate and we have already received approximately 75% of that warming. He has some rather interesting formula to prove it as well.
> 
> Given the high degree of persecutioin of those scientist especially meteorologist in the Public eye who refuse to climb aboard the AGW band wagon I'd expect 90+ percent would go along to get along and keep those federal dollars coming in.
> 
> 90 odd % of antartica has been cooling since the mid eighties. Kilomanjaro's glacier isn't melting bercause of higher temperature it is losing moisture  because the forests at its basehave been decimated. It was the moisture from those forests that grew the glacier not snowfall.



Antarctica is warming;
That is the conclusion of scientists analyzing half a century of temperatures on the continent, and the findings may help resolve a climate enigma at the bottom of the planet. 

Some regions of Antarctica, particularly the peninsula that stretches toward South America, have warmed rapidly in recent years, contributing to the disintegration of ice shelves and accelerating the sliding of glaciers. But weather stations in other locations, including the one at the South Pole, have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models.

In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.

We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earths continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases, said Eric J. Steig, a professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, who is the lead author of a paper to be published Thursday in the journal Nature.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/science/earth/22climate.html

Your Hungarian scientist is full of it. By the way, if you refer to a scientist saying something, give us a referance as to when and where this was said. Otherwise, it is just hearsay, and worth only that.

Persecution of the scientists that are sceptical of global warming? Bullshit. The oil companies pay them far more than the honest researchers into this subject make.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

Meister said:


> Geeze, old rocks, I just noticed that your from Portland, Ore.   No wonder you think the way you do.  Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco are all peas from the same pod.  Hell, I wouldn't have ever wasted my time, if I had known that.  I feel sorry for you dude, you didn't have a chance.



Well, actually from Eastern Oregon. But Portland is a very nice city. Just keep feeling sorry for us Oregonians. And stay away. We would hate for you to have to put up with our beautiful sea shores, the majesty of our mountains, the wonders of our high desert. As for Seattle and San Francisco, both wonderful cities. In fact, the whole of the West Coast is a place of wonder, from the San Juans, to the Mojave east of San Diego. But we do not need any help appreciating it, so just stay away. You won't be missed.


----------



## garyd (Jan 25, 2009)

NO the actual temperature reading show it is cooling the satellite data which has been rendered essentially useless by tinkering with it to get it to suit the models  disagrees with the stations on the ground which have and still do show a cooling trend that began in the 80's


----------



## jreeves (Jan 25, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > Okay in order to accept that CO2 is the chief culprit in Global warming one has to believe that a gas that Currently makes up just 385/1,000000 of our atmosphere and is not expected with in the next 100 years to rise above 500 parts per million if we do nothing is somehow magically absorbing all the infrared and near infrared light entering our atmosphere when in fact it does not In fact according to one Hungarian scientist - a physicist who studies light - The most we can expect CO2 to increase the temperature is about 1 degree centigrate and we have already received approximately 75% of that warming. He has some rather interesting formula to prove it as well.
> ...



Damn are you really this ignorant....
*They found that from 1957 through 2006*, temperatures across Antarctica rose an average of 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, comparable to the warming that has been measured globally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/science/earth/22climate.html

*The IPPC 2007 report didn't mention Antarctica except to say there were no measurable changes there. *But as usual the IPPC wanted to cherry pick research. *A 2004 study of Antarctica found that since 1850 the average temperature has dropped 2 degrees C. That's 3.6 degrees F. Seeing how the IPPC frets about a .5 degree rise in temperature anywhere else in the world, interesting they don't want to even think about a 3.6 degree drop. *http://climatechangeskeptic.blogspot.com/2008/01/antarctic-cooling.html

Our 14-year continuous weather station record from the shore of Lake Hoare reveals that seasonally averaged surface air temperature has decreased by 0.7 degrees Celsius per decade, they write. The temperature decrease is most pronounced in summer and autumn. Continental cooling, especially the seasonality of cooling, poses challenges to models of climate and ecosystem change. 

The findings are puzzling because many climate models indicate that the Polar regions should serve as bellwethers for any global warming trend, responding first and most rapidly to an increase in temperatures. An ice sheet many kilometers thick in places perpetually covers almost all of Antarctica. 

Temperature anomalies also exist in Greenland, the largest ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere, with cooling in the interior concurrent with warming at the coast. 

Peter Doran, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, the lead author of the paper, and his co-authors, acknowledge that other studies conducted in Antarctica have deduced a warming trend elsewhere in the continent. But they note that the data indicate that the warming occurred between 1958 and 1978. They also note that the previous claims that Antarctic is warming may have been skewed because the measurements were taken largely on the Antarctic Peninsula, which extends northwards toward South America. The Peninsula itself is warming dramatically, the authors note, and there are many more weather stations on the peninsula than elsewhere on the continent. 

*Averaging the temperature readings from the more numerous stations on the Peninsula has led to the misleading conclusion that there is a net warming continent-wide. Our approach shows that if you remove the Peninsula from the dataset, and look at the spatial trend. The majority of the continent is cooling, said Doran. *

*He added that documentation of the continental cooling presents a challenge to climate modelers. Although some do predict areas of cooling, widespread cooling is a bit of a conundrum that the models need to start to account for, he said." *The Dry Valleys are the largest ice-free area in Antarctica, a desert region that encompasses perennially ice-covered lakes, ephemeral streams, arid soils, exposed bedrock and alpine glaciers. All life there is microscopic. 

The team argues that the cooling trend could adversely affect the unique ecosystems in the region, which live in a niche where a delicate balance between freezing and warmer temperatures allows them to survive and where liquid water is only available during the very brief summer. They argue that a net cooling of the continent could drastically upset that balance. 

We present data from the Dry Valleys representing the first evidence of rapid terrestrial ecosystem response to climate cooling in Antarctica, including decreased lake primary productivity and declining soil invertebrates, they write. 

Their data, they argue, are *the first to highlight the cascade of ecological consequences that result from the recent summer cooling. *
Pondering A Climate Conundrum In Antarctica; Unique, Distinct Cooling Trend Discovered On Earth&#39;s Southernmost Continent


----------



## garyd (Jan 25, 2009)

Funny thing about that antarctic warming it only shows up in the satellite data the ground based weather ovservation station show a cooling trend has been under way for some time now..


----------



## jreeves (Jan 25, 2009)

garyd said:


> Funny thing about that antarctic warming it only shows up in the satellite data the ground based weather ovservation station show a cooling trend has been under way since the mid 80's.



It is very difficult to obtain a correct ice cover using satelittes, due to cloud cover....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

The Melting (Freezing) of Antarctica; Deciphering Contradictory Climate Patterns Is Largely a Matter of Ice 
E-MAIL 
Print 
Single-Page 
 Reprints 
Save 
Share
Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
Yahoo! Buzz
Permalink
By KENNETH CHANG 
Published: April 2, 2002
Antarctica is experiencing some of the fastest warming in the world. Antarctica is cooling. 

Some of its glaciers are thinning. Some are thickening. Ice shelves are disappearing. More sea ice is forming. 

Scientists have reported all this in recent months. It may all be true, even the contradictory parts. 

''Confusing, isn't it?'' asked Dr. Eric Rignot, a glacier expert at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. 

Dr. Peter T. Doran, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, agreed. ''It's a mixed bag of signals.'' 

The reason is that Antarctica is not a single, simple place. At 5.4 million square miles, it is one-third larger than the United States, and just as the Midwest may experience a heat wave while the Northeast is unusually cool, climate does not move in lock step across Antarctica. Those warning of dire consequences from global warming and those playing down the dangers of heat-trapping greenhouse gases can both find pieces of data to support their views. 

''People forget that it's a continent,'' said Dr. David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey. ''We don't expect everything to be the same across Asia when climate changes. It's the same thing there.'' 

Antarctica's role in climate and the oceans is largely a story of ice. Ninety percent of the world's ice lies either on the continent, in ice sheets that are on average 1.3 miles thick, or in sheets that have flowed offshore to form floating platforms of ice along the coast, hundreds to thousands of feet thick. The largest of these, the Ross Ice Shelf, covers 200,000 square miles, an area about the size of France. 

The third component of Antarctic ice is a thin layer of frozen ocean, or sea ice, that grows and shrinks with the seasons. A few feet thick, sea ice covers one million square miles of ocean in summer and grows to six million square miles in winter, doubling the size of the continent. 

News like the disintegration of an ice shelf the size of Rhode Island a month ago conjures a vision that a warming world will lead to doom by drowning -- not from melting ice shelves, which like melting ice in a glass do not change water levels, but from melting ice sheets sending their fresh water flowing toward the sea. If all of Antarctica's ice sheets turned to water, the world's oceans would deepen by more than 200 feet. 


The Melting (Freezing) of Antarctica; Deciphering Contradictory Climate Patterns Is Largely a Matter of Ice - New York Times

This is the newest information, and the article and links cover the contradictions in data. This link from 2002 sums up the problems dealing with that continent. However, the Grace satellite has meaured the amount of ice that Antarctica is losing on a yearly basis, and there is a net loss.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

jreeves said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > Funny thing about that antarctic warming it only shows up in the satellite data the ground based weather ovservation station show a cooling trend has been under way since the mid 80's.
> ...



Not affected by weather;
Title: 
 Antarctic Ice Sheet Mass Variation Using GRACE Satellite Gravity Data- Removal of Atmospheric Correction Error and Recalculation of the Interannual Mass Trend- 
Authors: 
 Yamamoto, K.; Fukuda, Y.; Doi, K. 
Affiliation: 
 AA(Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, 457-4 Motoyama, Kamigamo, Kita-ku, Kyoto, 603-8047, Japan ; yamamoto@chikyu.ac.jp), AB(Department of Geophysics, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa Oiwake-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8502, Japan ; fukuda@kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp), AC(National Institute of Polar Research, 1-9-10, Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, 173-8515, Japan ; doi@nipr.ac.jp) 
Publication: 
 American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #G31A-0643 
Publication Date: 
 12/2008 
Origin: 
 AGU 
AGU Keywords: 
 0726 Ice sheets, 1218 Mass balance (0762, 1223, 1631, 1836, 1843, 3010, 3322, 4532), 1240 Satellite geodesy: results (6929, 7215, 7230, 7240) 
Abstract Copyright: 
 (c) 2008: American Geophysical Union 
Bibliographic Code: 
 2008AGUFM.G31A0643Y 

Abstract
An accurate knowledge of Antarctic ice sheet mass trend is one of the important issues for the study of global scale sea level change. GRACE has provided information on the temporal mass variations on the Earth in the form of monthly gravity field solutions, and has enabled us to monitor the ice sheet mass changes directly. However, GRACE cannot distinguish between the various sources of the mass variations. It is well known that Post Glacial Rebound (PGR) also causes large mass trends in Antarctica. To estimate Antarctic ice sheet mass change, PGR mass trend should be estimated and subtracted from the GRACE"fs mass trend. One of the methods to estimate PGR mass trend is to compare elevation change data from ICESat satellite altimetry with mass variation data from GRACE satellite gravimetry. Using GRACE and ICESat data, we previously estimated PGR mass trend in Antarctica and obtained agreeable value for some large mass trend areas. However, because of large errors and limited time span of both GRACE and ICESat data sets, it is difficult to obtain reliable value for small mass trend areas. One of the errors which give serious effect on the small mass trend area in Antarctica is modeling error of short time period atmospheric variation. In the GRACE monthly data processing, ECMWF operational objective analysis data is routinely used to remove atmospheric pressure effect for the purpose of the de- aliasing of the monthly solutions. However, the atmospheric model error is relatively large in Antarctica compared to other areas mainly because of small number of the reliable ground and satellite data. In this study, to improve the ice sheet mass estimation of small mass trend area in Antarctica and to obtain more reliable continental scale Antarctic ice sheet mass variation, we estimated and corrected the atmospheric modeling error in the GRACE monthly solutions. We firstly investigated correlation between GRACE monthly gravity field solutions in Antarctica and monthly average of atmospheric pressure, and removed the error of the atmospheric monthly components from the GRACE monthly solutions. We assumed that the obtained GRACE"fs residual data can be mainly explained by the 3 following components: i.e. ice sheet mass variation, PGR mass trend and aliasing error from insufficient removal of short period atmospheric components. Spatial and Temporal correlation between the residual GRACE data and these 3 components are investigated and estimated atmospheric aliasing error by the least squares method. We used ICESat ice sheet elevation data obtained for the calculation. Using the corrected monthly solutions, we calculated Antarctic ice sheet mass trend and PGR mass trend, and assessed how much the uncertainty of the Antarctic ice sheet mass trend is improved by the correction. 
Antarctic Ice Sheet Mass Variation Using GRACE Satellite Gravity Data- Removal o


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

Erica Hupp/Dwayne Brown 
Headquarters, Washington 
(202) 358-1237/1726 

Alan Buis 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. 
(818) 354-0474 

March 2, 2006 RELEASE : 06-085  NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss   Scientists were able to conduct the first-ever gravity survey of the entire Antarctic ice sheet using data from the joint NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). This comprehensive study found the ice sheet's mass has decreased significantly from 2002 to 2005. 

Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr, both from the University of Colorado, Boulder, conducted the study. They demonstrated for the first time that Antarctica's ice sheet lost a significant amount of mass since the launch of GRACE in 2002. The estimated mass loss was enough to raise global sea level about 1.2 millimeters (0.05 inches) during the survey period; about 13 percent of the overall observed sea level rise for the same period. The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005. 

That is about how much water the United States consumes in three months (a cubic kilometer is one trillion liters; approximately 264 billion gallons of water). This represents a change of about 0.4 millimeters (.016 inches) per year to global sea level rise. Most of the mass loss came from the West Antarctic ice sheet. 

"Antarctica is Earth's largest reservoir of fresh water," Velicogna said. "The GRACE mission is unique in its ability to measure mass changes directly for entire ice sheets and can determine how Earth's mass distribution changes over time. Because ice sheets are a large source of uncertainties in projections of sea level change, this represents a very important step toward more accurate prediction, and has important societal and economic impacts. As more GRACE data become available, it will become feasible to search for longer-term changes in the rate of Antarctic mass loss," she said. 

Measuring variations in Antarctica's ice sheet mass is difficult because of its size and complexity. GRACE is able to overcome these issues, surveying the entire ice sheet, and tracking the balance between mass changes in the interior and coastal areas. 
NASA - NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss


----------



## garyd (Jan 25, 2009)

Do we by the gravity survey or the earlier Radar survey that said it was getting thicker?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

garyd said:


> Do we by the gravity survey or the earlier Radar survey that said it was getting thicker?



Which means what? We are trying to determines whether the continent is gaining or losing ice at present. For the past we use proxy data from ice cores. However, what matters is the present state, for that is what will affect our ports and low lying farmland.


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2009)

The Antarctic ice in the water is melting because the ocean is warming. 

The land ice is staying cool because of the hole in the ozone created by our CFCs.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jan 25, 2009)

Let's do nothing and see what happens. = )


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Let's do nothing and see what happens. = )



I'm sure that's what we will do.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jan 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > Let's do nothing and see what happens. = )
> ...



Don't you love it when _everybody loses_?


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



Well, at least it will be warmer.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 25, 2009)

That's odd. 

Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies. 

And the denialists are still posting some crap from a far rightwing senator's website, and from some crack pot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon. 


What a catastrophic performance by the flat earthers.   Four days later and they still haven't been able to hook us up with one major recognized international scientific body that supports their position.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Jan 25, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> That's odd.
> 
> Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.
> 
> ...



Well, I'll admit that I think the IPCC as well as the environmental sciences in general are dominated by people with what I call a "Gaian" bias.  But I would've thought people on your side of the debate would consider it a credible source.

Besides, "scientifically literate" people shouldn't need reference to others to see concerns about what's going on with the climate change thing.  These people are not only implying that they've shown cause and effect. They're claiming that they understand the cause and effect relationship enough to say that if we do or don't do X, Y or Z will happen.  They're also, in a separate effort, claiming to know that raising the Earth's temperature to a level that will still be below what it's believed to have been for most of the history of life on this planet will threaten our species.


----------



## Chris (Jan 25, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> That's odd.
> 
> Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.
> 
> ...



That's because there aren't any.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is causing the earth to retain more heat.


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 25, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> That's odd.
> 
> Four days into this thread and Chris, Old Rocks, and other scientifically literate people are backing up their arguments with NASA, AGU, USGS and other bonifide worldwide recognized scientific bodies.
> 
> ...


It isn't valid just because it is from the government.

And who are these flat earthers you are talking about?  I think you are just throwing that in to deride them.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > That's odd.
> ...



You did not show anything other than a play on semantics. 

Scientifically literate people base their arguements on real scientists and the work that they have done. No one person can be expert in all realms of science. Therefore, we site the work of others. 

We know from geological evidence what happens when there is an adrupt climate change. And, no, it would not threaton the survival of our species. A few would survive. But it would be the end of civilization as we know it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

FistyTheBadger said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > That's odd.
> ...




From the government scientists. From the scientists worldwide. From the scientists that work for other governments and private institutions.


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 25, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> JohnStOnge said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...


Quickly "scientifically literate" is equaling "going along with the program."


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

Scientifically literate as in backing positions with evidence and reputable scientific sources.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 25, 2009)

FistyTheBadger said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > That's odd.
> ...




The National Academy of Science isn't "the government." 

It's america's, and probably the world's, premeir body of distinguished scientists who are either privately employed or who work in universities, and they work _pro bono_ as an advisory panel on issues of national importance.   

The national academy of sciences says human impacts on climate are a near certainty. 

Fisty the Badger and some "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon is about a good a source as you flat earthers have been able to contribute to the thread.  Pathetic.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 25, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > That's odd.
> ...



So your contention is that every single recognized national and international science organization on the planet is engaged in a massive conspiracy to try to make you flat earthers look bad?  





> Besides, "scientifically literate" people shouldn't need reference to others to see concerns about what's going on with the climate change thing.  These people are not only implying that they've shown cause and effect. They're claiming that they understand the cause and effect relationship enough to say that if we do or don't do X, Y or Z will happen.  They're also, in a separate effort, claiming to know that raising the Earth's temperature to a level that will still be below what it's believed to have been for most of the history of life on this planet will threaten our species.



Now I know you're not telling the truth.  You can't be an armchair expert in climate science, why would you suggest you're capable of expert interpretation of the data?.  Do you have a PhD in science? 

I know when you have medical problems, you go to qualified and expert doctors.  You don't try to "research" it yourself and find a cure for yourself. 

Why is climate science the one, solitary area in your life where you laugh off the experts?  People who have spent years training and studying to be experts in the field. 

Honestly, you and I know the answer.  Because many Sean Hannity supporters are invested in a partisan way in never admitting that they spent 20 years denying that global warming was even happening at all.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 25, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> FistyTheBadger said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



The Royal Society, Britain's equivelant of our National Academy of Sciences, is the oldest National Academy of Science in the world, and it is also in total agreement on AGW

Climate change controversies: a simple guide



The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science. 

This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.

Misleading argument 1 : The Earth's climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans. 
Misleading argument 2 : Carbon dioxide only makes up a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming. 
Misleading argument 3 : Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way round. 
Misleading argument 4 : Observations of temperatures taken by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming. 
Misleading argument 5 : Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions. 
Misleading argument 6 : It's all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots on the Sun. 
Misleading argument 7 : The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays. 
Misleading argument 8 : The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action. 
Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.


This document was compiled with the help of the Royal Society Climate Change Advisory Group and other leading experts.

April 2007
Climate change controversies: a simple guide



The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science. 

This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.

Misleading argument 1 : The Earth's climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans. 
Misleading argument 2 : Carbon dioxide only makes up a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming. 
Misleading argument 3 : Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way round. 
Misleading argument 4 : Observations of temperatures taken by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming. 
Misleading argument 5 : Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions. 
Misleading argument 6 : It's all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots on the Sun. 
Misleading argument 7 : The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays. 
Misleading argument 8 : The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action. 
Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.


This document was compiled with the help of the Royal Society Climate Change Advisory Group and other leading experts.

April 2007
Climate change controversies: a simple guide



The Royal Society has produced this overview of the current state of scientific understanding of climate change to help non-experts better understand some of the debates in this complex area of science. 

This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of global warming. Instead, the Society - as the UK's national academy of science - responds here to eight key arguments that are currently in circulation by setting out, in simple terms, where the weight of scientific evidence lies.

Misleading argument 1 : The Earth's climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans. 
Misleading argument 2 : Carbon dioxide only makes up a small part of the atmosphere and so cannot be responsible for global warming. 
Misleading argument 3 : Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way round. 
Misleading argument 4 : Observations of temperatures taken by weather balloons and satellites do not support the theory of global warming. 
Misleading argument 5 : Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions. 
Misleading argument 6 : It's all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots on the Sun. 
Misleading argument 7 : The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays. 
Misleading argument 8 : The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action. 
Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.


This document was compiled with the help of the Royal Society Climate Change Advisory Group and other leading experts.

April 2007

Climate change controversies: a simple guide


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 25, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Scientifically literate as in backing positions with evidence and reputable scientific sources.


"Reputable" is the term that allows for social ramifications to interfere with accurate, valid, reliable, and freely and harshly scrutinized data to occur.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 25, 2009)

FistyTheBadger said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Scientifically literate as in backing positions with evidence and reputable scientific sources.
> ...



Joint Science Academies Statement, 2007

*"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere.* These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."

The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of 

the United States.
Brazil, 
Canada, 
China,
France, 
Germany, 
Italy, 
India, 
Japan, 
Mexico, 
Russia, 
South Africa, 
and the United Kingdom,




You know better than them, right FistyTheBadger?

What's your PhD in?


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 25, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> FistyTheBadger said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


It depends on the constitution and merit of our arguments, not on their popularity or relative prestige.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 26, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> FistyTheBadger said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





US temps last year were at the lowest level since 2000, what gives?
I've already posted 650 scientist who say global warming is a myth or at the very least greatly exageratted....


----------



## jreeves (Jan 26, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Erica Hupp/Dwayne Brown
> Headquarters, Washington
> (202) 358-1237/1726
> 
> ...



Meteorology News » Features » Global Sea Ice on the Rebound?

*Jan 5th, 2009 *
While much of the northern hemisphere sea ice melting has been relatively well-handled by global climate models, *the antarctic ice expansion has been under-resolved by the models.  Such disparities raise several questions concerning the reliability of such computer models of the climate. * Such disparity would not have been significant in the early days of computer climate modelling, as such models were only seen as one indication of potential trends.  Today, however, as climate change is bringing about legislative and regulatory action, the accuracy and reliability of model output is increasingly important.  While the 3o-year spans examined by the satellite data of both the northern and southern hemisphere is insightful in its detail and short-term trend indications, it is worth noting what a short span of time these data represent in the context of geologic time.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 26, 2009)

JR Reeves: 

From your article: 


> *While some may see this as evidence in direct opposition to global warming trends, NASA-funded research from 2005 indicates that expanding Antarctic ice may actually be proof positive of such warming (Warmer air may cause increased antarctic sea ice cover).  *&#8220;Most people have heard of climate change and how rising air temperatures are melting glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic,&#8221; said Dylan C. Powell, lead author of the paper and a doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. &#8220;However, findings from our simulations suggest a counterintuitive phenomenon. Some of the melt in the Arctic may be balanced by increases in sea ice volume in the Antarctic.&#8221;



Ooops. 

Expanding sea ice is a consequence of the melting of land ice, and is consistent with predictions of global warming.  Makes sense to me.  As land ice melts and chucks of it slide into the ocean, it increases sea ice. 

OOPS. 

Here's the deal dude.  First, you should read your articles before posting them. 

Second, nobody is really that concerned about *sea* ice.  Other than its albedo properties.   Melting *land* ice is what is of grave concern.  Because melting land ice is what increases sea level.   Melting ambient sea ice doesn't increase sea level. 

And guess what?  The last decade has been the warmest in recorded history, and land ice contines to melt at a rapid pace.


----------



## Meister (Jan 26, 2009)

Geeze, old rocks, it's too late for that.  Lived in Ca. for 40 years.  Seen it all, especially Ca. going to the damn spend everything, and more democrats.  They're giving out IOU's for tax refunds this year.  Going to be 42 billion dollars into the red until Obama bails them out with your tax dollars.  I had to move to the great state Idaho to fine some sanity. I do love to fish for Ore. Salmon, though.  Maybe we will meet some day and have a cup of jo.  See how nice I am now that I know your from the "progressive" state of Ore?  PS might have pinched an arrow point or two from Christmas Valley.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 26, 2009)

Gorey Truths by Iain Murray on National Review Online


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Gorey Truths by Iain Murray on National Review Online




And yet again, the flat earthers provide us with an epic fail to demonstrate any real science, or credible links to recognized scientific organizations. 

Thus far we've been provided with an opinon article from some dude at National Review, a rightwing website no one's ever heard of called "heartland.org", a link to a rightwing senator's website, and a link to some crackpot "Institute" which is located on a rural farm in Oregon and which promotes homeschooling as an alternative to "socialist" public schools. 

And the link about "increasing" sea ice it turns out, actually supported the contentions of the scientifically literate on the thread, and support the statements of the National Academy of Science an every single other world scientific body who's weighed in on this.   Which is that "increasing sea ice" is a predicted consequence and supports global warming.  Because as land ice melts and flows into the ocean, and chunks of land ice slough off into the water, sea ice will naturall increase.   Makes total sense. 

There's no land at the north pole, so please flat earthers, don't try to draw analogies of north pole ice, to land ice in greenland and antarctica.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 26, 2009)

http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf


Just because you don't know who the heartland institute is doesn't mean they are meaningless...they speak to the UN every year on their finding and research

Why don't you actually try reading their report..that you know uses actually scientific fact and data


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf
> 
> 
> Just because you don't know who the heartland institute is doesn't mean they are meaningless...they speak to the UN every year on their finding and research
> ...




I'm going to trust the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, over "heartland.org"

I went to "heartland.org"'s website.   They have one scientist on their staff.  And he's a hydrogeologist, with zero expertise in climate science.  He works on water supply projects, presumably dams, irrigation, and water wells.     He has no peer reviewed publications, no formal training, and no expertise in climate science.   

You've gotta be kidding me. 

Do you do to a dentist, instead of a dermatologist, for a skin condition? 

No?  

I wonder why in ALL _other_ areas of science you rely on experts?


----------



## Chris (Jan 26, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf
> ...



Because some people prefer the right wing echo chamber to genuine scientific research.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 26, 2009)

its ok...god forbid you actually read shit with scientific data thaty proves you are wrong..you just expect people to only read your shit that you believe and you won't open your pea seized brain to something different.

Just some contributors to the report

Frano Battaglia- Professor of chemical physics and Enviromental Chemistry

Bob Carter- Paleoclimatologist and professor

Richard Courtney-  Engineer for fuel use and climate consequence

Joseph D'Aleo-  Meteorolgist elected councilor of AMS, first director of meteorolofy for the Weather Channel

Fred Goldberg- PHD Polar expert, organizer of 2006 Stockholm Climate Conference

Vincent Gray- PHD (Chemistry) publisger of New Zealand Climate Newsletter

Klauss Heiss- PHD Economist 

Craid Idso- PHD Meteorology 

Madhav Khandekar-- PHD Meteorologist, formelly with Enviorment Canada, Expert Reviewer for the IPCC 2007

Fred Singer-  Atmorspheric Physicist and former director of US Weather Satellite Service

Anton Uriarte- Professor of Climatology PHD


Yeah, you're right no scientists...its ok ignore the report and dont read it cause it could prove you wrong


----------



## Chris (Jan 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> its ok...god forbid you actually read shit with scientific data thaty proves you are wrong..you just expect people to only read your shit that you believe and you won't open your pea seized brain to something different.
> 
> Just some contributors to the report
> 
> ...



Fred Goldberg? Polar expert?

Fred Goldberg
Biographical Information
Fred Goldberg was born 26th of August 1942 in Oslo, Norway. 
1963 Graduated from high school in Stockholm, Sweden 
1963-1064 Military' service in the Royal Swedish Navy as radio operator 
1964-1969 Studied mechanical engineering at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm Graduated with a diploma project in welding technology "The source of increased carbon in gas cut steel surfaces and its effect on construction steels"

Fred Goldberg, Biographical Information


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 26, 2009)

Funny how you stopped your cut and paste

2004 started to get interested in the climate debate and greenhouse effect. 
2005 was asked by the President of the Royal Institute of Technology to be Secretary General and organize an international climate seminar to scrutinize the latest research in the climate area. The seminar took place on the 11 -12th of September 2006. During the last two years FG has studied the climate issues and built up a network with leading climate scientists around the world and written a series of magazine articles. 
*Fred Goldberg has all of his life been interested in polar history research and therefore traveled extensively in the polar regions, North and South. He has made many nature films shown on national TV and made historical documentary films *


----------



## Chris (Jan 26, 2009)

Fred Singer?

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9] 

[edit]Oil Industry Contractor
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10] 

However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry. 

S. Fred Singer - SourceWatch


----------



## Chris (Jan 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Funny how you stopped your cut and paste
> 
> 2004 started to get interested in the climate debate and greenhouse effect.
> 2005 was asked by the President of the Royal Institute of Technology to be Secretary General and organize an international climate seminar to scrutinize the latest research in the climate area. The seminar took place on the 11 -12th of September 2006. During the last two years FG has studied the climate issues and built up a network with leading climate scientists around the world and written a series of magazine articles.
> *Fred Goldberg has all of his life been interested in polar history research and therefore traveled extensively in the polar regions, North and South. He has made many nature films shown on national TV and made historical documentary films *



He has a degree in welding.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 26, 2009)

Siegfried Frederick Singer is an American atmospheric physicist. Singer is Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia,[1] specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues. Singer received a B.E.E from Ohio State University in 1943; an A.M. in physics from Princeton in 1944; and a Ph. D in physics from Princeton in 1948. Singer has received an honorary Doctorate of Science from Ohio State University in 1970.[2]


I guess he isn't educated enough for you


Do you realize how many IPCC scientists are nothing more then liberal lapdogs


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Do you realize how many IPCC scientists are nothing more then liberal lapdogs



Well I don't! Name them. Which ones are you talking about?
How are they lapdogs?
What results have they given that makes you believe they are not kosher and are working to another agenda?
Which of these scientists have produced work that is dodgey? And how is it dodgey?

These are just a few preliminary questions. The real questions start when you provide some answers...


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 26, 2009)

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming

Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.

On Monday, NASA&#8217;s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore&#8217;s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

&#8220;This was startling,&#8221; reports the London Telegraph. &#8220;Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China&#8217;s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its &#8220;worst snowstorm ever&#8221;. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.&#8221;

It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.

When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new &#8220;hotspot&#8221; in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.

The figures published by Dr Hansen&#8217;s institute are one of the primary sets of data used by the IPCC to promote its case for man-made global warming and they are widely quoted because they consistently show higher temperatures than other figures.

&#8220;Yet last week&#8217;s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen&#8217;s methodology has been called in question,&#8221; reports the Telegraph. &#8220;In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.&#8221;


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 26, 2009)

First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged 'Consensus' on Global Warming; Poll Exposes Disagreement and Confusion Among United Nations Scientists

First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged 'Consensus' on Global Warming; Poll Exposes Disagreement and Confusion Among United Nations Scientists 



    WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Is there really a
"consensus" on global warming among the scientists participating in the
United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? To find
out, DemandDebate.com conducted the first-ever survey of the U.S.
scientists who participated in the most recent IPCC report.

    "Our results indicate that the notion of a meaningful scientific
consensus on global warming is ludicrous," said Steve Milloy,
DemandDebate.com's executive director.

    During the month of October, DemandDebate.com polled each of the 345
U.S. scientists listed as contributing authors and reviewers of the IPCC's
"Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis" with a six-question survey on
climate change. Fifty-four IPCC scientists completed the survey, including
several of the most prominent global warming alarmists and several IPCC
lead authors.

    Less than 50% of the respondents said that an increase in global
temperature of 1-degree Celsius is flatly undesirable. Half of the
respondents said that such a temperature increase is either desirable,
desirable for some but undesirable for others or too difficult to assess.

    "Among survey respondents, then, there's no consensus on desirability
of 1-degree Celsius of global warming -- twice the level of warming that
occurred during the 20th century," observed Milloy.

    When asked about the ideal climate, only 14% said that the ideal
climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that
there is no such thing as an ideal climate.

    "So if there's no agreement on what the target climate should be, what
precisely is the point of taking action on global warming? What is the
climatic goal at which we are aiming?," Milloy asked.

    Another notable result is that an astounding 20% of those surveyed said
that human activity is the principal driver of climate change.

    "So was there no climate change before mankind?" Milloy asked. "And if
there was natural climate change before man, why not now also?" he added.

    Forty-four percent didn't think that the current global climate was
unprecedentedly warm.

    "The survey results indicate that when asked routine questions about
the climatic role of manmade CO2, the IPCC scientists responded for the
most part with the Pavlovian manmade-CO2-is-bad view seemingly demanded of
them by the IPCC," Milloy noted. "But when you ask questions that are off
the IPCC script, the supposed consensus seems to readily fall apart,"
concluded Milloy.


----------



## jillian (Jan 26, 2009)

Prison Planet? Home of the Alex Jones "conspiracies r us" show???? 

Awwwwwwwwww come on... that's not even a good try.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 26, 2009)

I'll find you another source there are liek 10 of them


----------



## jillian (Jan 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> I'll find you another source there are liek 10 of them



"demanddebate" is an anti- climate change organization that is trying to undermine the accepted science in the area. Do you know who funds it? Who are the "scientists" on whose behalf they rely on for "debate"?

I'm not certain why it's so hard to believe that we contribute to climate change and it's our responsibility to be better caretakers of our planet. Is common sense in such short supply?


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 26, 2009)

No one argues we need to be more enviormentally sound...what the arguement is we are the sole cause that the planet is warming and we are all ging to die soon if nothing changes...when it's all a fucking farce and scare tactic.


----------



## Chris (Jan 26, 2009)

jillian said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll find you another source there are liek 10 of them
> ...



Yes!


----------



## jillian (Jan 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> No one argues we need to be more enviormentally sound...what the arguement is we are the sole cause that the planet is warming and we are all ging to die soon if nothing changes...when it's all a fucking farce and scare tactic.



I've never heard anyone argue that we are the SOLE cause. But it is time to stop ignoring our responsibility.

As for anyone who would say we're the sole cause, I'd kind of see the difference between them and me as being the difference between a PETA loony and someone who is for animal conservation. 

Maybe if people stop politicizing this we'd get to just do what's right. It's time to start getting energy independent anyway, simply as a security matter. I, personally, would like to stop us sending money to countries that distribute the money to people who hate us and want to blow us up.

just sayin'


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jan 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming
> 
> Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.
> 
> ...



And this is why I have been saying throughout this thread that NASA is not a reputable source on this issue. James Hansen ought to be sitting in the Federal Pen right next to Robert Hanssen and for about the same thing. Selling out his country.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jan 26, 2009)

jillian said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > No one argues we need to be more enviormentally sound...what the arguement is we are the sole cause that the planet is warming and we are all ging to die soon if nothing changes...when it's all a fucking farce and scare tactic.
> ...



The problem Jillian is not that people don't want to be more responsible stewards of the environment, this argument is not over that. The people claiming that we are the cause (that's but for causation. But for human contribution to CO2 emissions, there would be no global warming), do not want us to "be more responsible stewards," they want to make ultra drastic decisions that risk the lives and livelihoods of millions of people in this country on flimsy evidence (and as Andrew cited above, cooked books).

I'll be a good citizen, but let's not rip the heart out of the country on a mere suspicion. And that's about all the evidence they have.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> No one argues we need to be more enviormentally sound...what the arguement is we are the sole cause that the planet is warming and we are all ging to die soon if nothing changes...when it's all a fucking farce and scare tactic.



First, the arguement is that the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere is the primary driver, not the only one. Strawman number one. Strawman number two. No, we are not all going to die. But, down the road, and we do not yet know have far, is an adrupt climate change if we stay on the present course. And a great many of the population then alive will die.

What is a fucking farce is people like yourself that comment without the least idea of the subject on which you are commenting. You are sitting in front of the greatest research tool ever devised by man, and do not seem to have the least idea of how to use it.


----------



## del (Jan 26, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > No one argues we need to be more enviormentally sound...what the arguement is we are the sole cause that the planet is warming and we are all ging to die soon if nothing changes...when it's all a fucking farce and scare tactic.
> ...



you should try to be more condescending.
it really strengthens your argument.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2009)

del said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew2382 said:
> ...



I have little toleration of fools. In my trade, they get people killed.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming
> ...



You silly ass. The claim is that the hottest decade is the one that we are in, and the claim is not for the US, but for whole world. The continental US comprises 2% of the worlds area, so while it may have been very hot here in 1934, it was not all that hot for the rest of the world.


----------



## Truthspeaker (Jan 26, 2009)

Hey I am about as far right as anyone in the San Francisco Bay Area. Downright heretic as far as liberals are concerned. 
I am a religious white american who is anti-abortion, pro-gun and yes on 8. I also can barely stand to listen to Al Gore speak. It shivers me timbers.
But I think there is truth to global warming, I think the whole truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe in conserving the environment and producing as many forms of energy as possible. That, I think would regulate the prices of the different energies. I am for responsible off-shore drilling and the twirly light bulbs which I think perform very well.
I think we can contribute to global warming by pollution but not to the extent that it will cause an apocalypse. I believe in not spending more than we make and not using more than we need. I think obesity plays as much a part to pollution as anything. I think the government should regulate the food industry and stop making excuses for our kids to stay fat and overwhelm our hospitals.... We need to get our citizens out of the hospital so that those who really need the care(illegal immigrants) get what they need.

I am not middle of the road on too much so enjoy this while it lasts. 
__________________


----------



## del (Jan 26, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



blah. blah. blah.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 26, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> its ok...god forbid you actually read shit with scientific data thaty proves you are wrong..you just expect people to only read your shit that you believe and you won't open your pea seized brain to something different.
> 
> Just some contributors to the report
> 
> ...



I see you gave up providing links, because every single wingnut link you guys have been putting up has been shredded. 

But, I can't believe you're trying to sneak this shit in again.  Did you really think we wouldn't look up the "qualifications" of your scientists.  

Chris already shredded Fred Singer.  That guy has no credibility in the international science community.  

And for fucks sake, your trying to sneak in "Bob Carter" again?  Skull pilot tried to pass him off, and I shredded "Bob Carter".  And skull pilot dissapeared from the thread.  

"Bob Carter" is a adjunct professor at the "James Cook University"   Who the fuck has ever heard of "James Cook University"?? 

Do you know what an adjunct professor is?  Its a dude who works part time and isn't on tenure track.  Because he wasn't good enough to be offered a full time tenured faculty postion. 

And his degree is in paleontology.  Get fucking real man.   He's not a real climate scientist and he is not considered anywhere remotely close to being an internationally recognized expert in the field.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 26, 2009)

Meister said:


> Geeze, old rocks, it's too late for that.  Lived in Ca. for 40 years.  Seen it all, especially Ca. going to the damn spend everything, and more democrats.  They're giving out IOU's for tax refunds this year.  Going to be 42 billion dollars into the red until Obama bails them out with your tax dollars.  I had to move to the great state Idaho to fine some sanity. I do love to fish for Ore. Salmon, though.  Maybe we will meet some day and have a cup of jo.  See how nice I am now that I know your from the "progressive" state of Ore?  PS might have pinched an arrow point or two from Christmas Valley.



Christmas Valley. Fort Rock, Hole in the Ground. Lost Forest. Been there, done that, going to do it again. Went from Fort Rock to the Green Mountain Lookout. From there through the Lost Forest until we hit a gravel road north to 20. Didn't look for arrowheads. Been spoiled for that. Eastern end of the John Day Valley and Logan Valley are where I have done most of that kind of hunting. The old lake country that is now high dessert is full of the first nation artifacts. And some are very old. On the West side of the Steens, they have found Clovis points, putting the habitation of that area much further back than previously thought. Also extending the range of the Clovis culture far further than previously thought.

An off topic thought on this off topic post. Last year, I was at Hot Springs, South Dakota, and stood beneath the skeleton of a Columbian Mammoth, and held my hands at the angle that I would have had to thrust to strike a vital organ. Almost straight up. Those people were very serious about getting their meat.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 27, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> JR Reeves:
> 
> From your article:
> 
> ...



OH, good job in pointing that out....you missed a key word....*MAY* BE.....Not for fact...

Try to think while you read....that actually helps.

In the same article it says that climate models didn't predict this either...

So again think before you post, what you think someone else should be reading....

Thank you and thanks for playing


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 27, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > its ok...god forbid you actually read shit with scientific data thaty proves you are wrong..you just expect people to only read your shit that you believe and you won't open your pea seized brain to something different.
> ...



lol, more like I don't check the site every 10 seconds like you and I lose track of threads you fucking moron.


Yes Fred Singer has no credentials

Siegfried Frederick Singer (born 27 September 1924 in Vienna) is an American atmospheric physicist. Singer is Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia,[1] specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues. Singer received a B.E.E from Ohio State University in 1943; an A.M. in physics from Princeton in 1944; and a Ph. D in physics from Princeton in 1948. Singer has received an honorary Doctorate of Science from Ohio State University in 1970.[2]

Singer invented the backscatter photometer ozone-monitoring instrument for early versions of US weather satellites[3][4][5] Singer was Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, Chief Scientist, United States Department of Transportation from 1987 to 1989, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the United States Environmental Protection Agency from 1970 to 1971, and the first Director of the National Weather Bureau's Satellite Service Center, where upon his leave he received a Gold Medal for Distinguished Federal Service.[6][2][7] In 1964, he became the first dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami.[6][8]

yes you are right...no credentials

you fuckin moron


----------



## Chris (Jan 27, 2009)

A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine &#8212; including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon &#8212; met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.[40]

In 2007, the nonprofit advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists called Singer a "climate contrarian."[41] ABC News has reported that Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once received an unsolicited $10,000 from Exxon.[42]

Fred Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 27, 2009)

lol and? 

ABC News has reported that Singer insists he is *not *on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once received an *unsolicited *$10,000 from Exxon

thats all you got?

fail

Union of Concerned Scientists-

Scientists formed the organization to "initiate a critical and continuing examination of governmental policy in areas where science and technology are of actual or potential significance" and "devise means for turning research applications away from the present emphasis on military technology toward the solution of pressing environmental and social problems

Physicists Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford have criticized the UCS for opposing a United States-run nuclear waste reprocessing program. The UCS had claimed that the separation of weapons-usable plutonium from spent nuclear fuel could "make it easier for terrorists to acquire the material for making a nuclear bomb," but Marsh and Stanford argued that "reactor fuel is going to be recycled, whether we like it or not."[28]

Capitalism and free market-advocacy groups have also criticized the UCS for its stance on environmental and other regulatory issues. TimesWatch.org, a project of Media Research Center (MRC), has called the UCS an "unlabeled left-wing activist group".[29] L. Brent Bozell, founder of the MRC, which catalogs what it asserts is liberal bias in the United States mass media, has claimed that the UCS is "a left-wing activist organization...trying to position itself as being some kind of objective, centrist, moderate, apolitical entity when it is nothing of the sort."[30] Capital Research Center, a conservative non-profit that studies left-political organizations, criticized the UCS as having "policy positions that are predictably those of a far-left pressure group".[31]

S. Fred Singer, physicist, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia, NewsMax science advisor, and founder of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, a group that disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke,[32] has said that the UCS has "zero credibility as a scientific organization." Singer has been labeled a "climate contrarian" by the UCS

In a 2005 article for Jewish World Review, consumer reporter, author, and co-anchor for the television newsmagazine 20/20 John Stossel commented, "The key word in 'Union of Concerned Scientists' isn't 'Scientists' &#8212; you don't need any particular degree or experience to join &#8212; but 'Concerned,' and the concerns in question are decidedly left wing."
yeah, they arent biased right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists#History
you fuckin hack


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 27, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Yes Fred Singer has no credentials
> 
> Siegfried Frederick Singer (born 27 September 1924 in Vienna) is an American atmospheric physicist. Singer is Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia,[1] specializing in planetary science, global warming, ozone depletion, and other global environmental issues. Singer received a B.E.E from Ohio State University in 1943; an A.M. in physics from Princeton in 1944; and a Ph. D in physics from Princeton in 1948. Singer has received an honorary Doctorate of Science from Ohio State University in 1970.[2]
> 
> ...



Again, you didn't provide the link, because your Wiki link has some rather embarrasing revelations about Fred Singer that cast in doubt his credibility, and perhaps his sanity.   

Your Wiki link:



He's a professional denialist and flat earther, from climate change, to second hand smoke, to ozone depletion:



> Singer is skeptical of scientific findings on human-induced global warming[11],[12][13] the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion,[14] and the link between second hand smoke and lung cancer.[15][16] Singer has also worked with organizations with similar views, such as the Independent Institute,[17] the American Council on Science and Health,[18] Frontiers of Freedom,[19] the Marshall Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis,[20] and the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which Singer founded.



He invented some gizmos for satellites in the 1950, but hasn't had a real academic or research postion in _nearly two decades_, and he's never, not once published any original scientific research in the field of climate change in any peer reviewed scientific journal. 



> In the 1940s and 50s Singer designed the first instruments used in satellites to measure cosmic radiation and ozone.[1]
> Previous government and academic positions:[1]
> Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland, College Park (1953-62)
> Special advisor to President Eisenhower on space developments (1960)
> ...



*And he believed the Martian Moon of Phobos was evidently contructed by space aliens:*



> Space and exploration
> In 1960, Singer was one of several scientists who speculated that the Martian moon Phobos was artificial in origin.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 28, 2009)

Just checking it to see if, after nearly a week, one of our esteemed flat-earthers has been able to provide a link to an established national or international science body, or to an actual climate scientist with a PhD who is currently doing research on climate change and getting published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. 



.......nope. 

Still nothing more than links to a rightwing senator's website, to some "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon, to some righwing political websites I've never heard of, and to a handfull of scientists who don't actually do any original reseach in climate change and publish the results in bonafide peer-reviewed scientific journals.   

Although one of the flat earth scientists thinks that second hand smoking is a liberal myth, and that space aliens evidently constructed the martian moon of Phobos.   

How dissapointing.  This has been yet another utter and catastrophic failure of flat earthers to provide anything robust and substantion to back up the things they heard on Sean Hannity's show.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 28, 2009)

yeah because the center for concerned scientists critizes the foundation it has no merit lawl

you fuckin loon

Prominent Scientists Debunk Global Warming

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which was held at the Marriott Marquise Hotel in New York City, concluded Tuesday. It got very little coverage in the dinosaur press, even though it was a gathering of some of the most prestigious and most learned experts on climatology from around the world.

The conference didn&#8217;t attract much attention from the dieing dinosaur media because it didn&#8217;t have any of the falderal that attracts the &#8220;journalists&#8221; and management of faltering old media. Plus, the scientists presented facts and scientific research that debunks the global warming hoax the dinosaur media helped create and is invested in perpetuating.

Rather than speeches and fear mongering propaganda films from a hack politician turned huckster, or outlandish suggestions from a geneticist turned broadcaster, the conference presented science from some of world&#8217;s leading climatologists and scientists in related fields, along with world renowned economists, and policy analysts.

*Instead of David Suzuki, who isn&#8217;t a climatologist, he&#8217;s a geneticist turned broadcaster, and one of the leaders in spreading the global warming hoax, calling for jailing politicians who don&#8217;t participate in the hysteria or fall for the hoax, (Last month at a conference in Canada, Suzuki said: &#8220;What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there&#8217;s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they&#8217;re doing is a criminal act.&#8221, the conference heard from people like Patrick J. Michaels, PhD, Research Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, Robert Balling, PhD, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, James J. O&#8217;Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, and Dr. Yuri Izrael, Science Advisor, President Vladimir Putin, Russia, to name just a few.

Instead of Al Gore, failed journalist turned political hack turned con-man, the conference featured such academic heavyweights as J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D., a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, an expert on mathematical forecasting. Dr. Armstrong challenged the Gore to a $10,000.00 wager to see who could more accurately predict the Earth&#8217;s temperature over the next 10 years. Gore refused saying he was too busy. *


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 28, 2009)

yeah because the center for concerned scientists critizes the foundation it has no merit lawl

you fuckin loon

Prominent Scientists Debunk Global Warming

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which was held at the Marriott Marquise Hotel in New York City, concluded Tuesday. It got very little coverage in the dinosaur press, even though it was a gathering of some of the most prestigious and most learned experts on climatology from around the world.

The conference didnt attract much attention from the dieing dinosaur media because it didnt have any of the falderal that attracts the journalists and management of faltering old media. Plus, the scientists presented facts and scientific research that debunks the global warming hoax the dinosaur media helped create and is invested in perpetuating.

Rather than speeches and fear mongering propaganda films from a hack politician turned huckster, or outlandish suggestions from a geneticist turned broadcaster, the conference presented science from some of worlds leading climatologists and scientists in related fields, along with world renowned economists, and policy analysts.

*Instead of David Suzuki, who isnt a climatologist, hes a geneticist turned broadcaster, and one of the leaders in spreading the global warming hoax, calling for jailing politicians who dont participate in the hysteria or fall for the hoax, (Last month at a conference in Canada, Suzuki said: What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether theres a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what theyre doing is a criminal act.), the conference heard from people like Patrick J. Michaels, PhD, Research Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, Robert Balling, PhD, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, James J. OBrien, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, and Dr. Yuri Izrael, Science Advisor, President Vladimir Putin, Russia, to name just a few.

Instead of Al Gore, failed journalist turned political hack turned con-man, the conference featured such academic heavyweights as J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D., a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, an expert on mathematical forecasting. Dr. Armstrong challenged the Gore to a $10,000.00 wager to see who could more accurately predict the Earths temperature over the next 10 years. Gore refused saying he was too busy. *


----------



## Chris (Jan 28, 2009)

2008 International Conference on Climate Change...

The conference was described by Washington Post reporter, Juliet Eilperin, as "a sort of global warming doppelganger conference, where everything was reversed." At the event, skeptics unveiled their response to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, edited by corporate-funded skeptic Fred Singer, argued that "recent climate change stems from natural causes." Eilperin notes that "while the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists."[1] 

The New York Times reports that while the Heartland conference "was largely framed around science ... when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so." The conference invitation identified its goal as "to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science."[2] 

The Heartland Institute offered "$1,000 to those willing to give a talk," and "a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend," according to the RealClimate blog.[3] 

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change - SourceWatch


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 28, 2009)

lol getting info from source watch lmao

why not go to move on.org you hack

SourceWatch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SourceWatch (formerly Disinfopedia), is an internet site which is a collaborative project of the left-wing Center for Media and Democracy (CMD


----------



## del (Jan 28, 2009)

Chris said:


> 2008 International Conference on Climate Change...
> 
> The conference was described by Washington Post reporter, Juliet Eilperin, as "a sort of global warming doppelganger conference, where everything was reversed." At the event, skeptics unveiled their response to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, edited by corporate-funded skeptic Fred Singer, argued that "recent climate change stems from natural causes." Eilperin notes that "while the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists."[1]
> 
> ...



well no wonder al gore didn't come, he requires $35K/speech to save the world.


----------



## Chris (Jan 28, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > 2008 International Conference on Climate Change...
> ...



For $1,000 and a weekend at the Marriott, I'll denounce global warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 28, 2009)

Every scientific society on earth, every National Academy of Science, and every major university agrees with the overwhelming consensus on AGW. Yet you people throw up flakes, paid hacks, and the whores of the energy companies.

Have a look at the peer reviewed scientific journals. How many articles are there that are offering evidence that the warming has nothing to do with man's actions? How many articles are there that offer evidence that the warming is slowing? 

So, you are saying that all the peer reviewed scientific journals from every nation in the world are in on a plot to fool all of us? If not, what are you saying?


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 28, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> yeah because the center for concerned scientists critizes the foundation it has no merit lawl
> 
> you fuckin loon
> 
> ...




You're in deep doo-doo, and your opinon would be considered borderline crackpot or partisan hack, based on your performance and your sources on this thread. 

Look at the link you just gave us. 

*TheLandofTheFree.net/conservativeopinion.com*


You've got to be fucking kidding.   Chris and old rocks have been giving you links to the most established, venerated, and admired scientific organizations in the history of the planet, not least of which is the U.S. National Acadecmy of Sciences. 

And your reduced to giving us "Thelandofthefree.net", "heartland.org" and some crackpot "Institute" located on a rural farm in Oregon. 



Pathetic.   A simply horrible and laughable showing by the esteemed members of the USMB flat earth society.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 28, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > yeah because the center for concerned scientists critizes the foundation it has no merit lawl
> ...



Lmao...

Just a few "flat earthers"...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."   

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." 

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The [IPCC] Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."   

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: "The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming." 

Poland: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor emeritus of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and a former chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and currently a representative of the Republic of Poland in UNSCEAR: "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels."   

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."   

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions." 

China: Chinese Scientists Say CO2 Impact on Warming May Be Excessively Exaggerated' - Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change."  

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: "The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth's surface will therefore affect climate." 

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. "Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."   

*USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: "In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this." Wojick added: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates." *

*Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards.* "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!" Paldor told EPW on December 4, 2007. "Second, our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling efforts (the same models that yield abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100 years!)," Paldor explained. "Third, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is much smaller (by about 50%) than that expected from the anthropogenic activity (burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas), which implies that the missing amount of CO2 is (most probably) absorbed by the ocean. The oceanic response to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere might be much slower than that of the atmosphere (and is presently very poorly understood). It is quite possible that after an adjustment time' the ocean (which contains far more CO2 than the atmosphere) will simply increase its biological activity and absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere (i.e. the atmospheric CO2 concentration will decrease)," he added. "Fourth, the inventory of fossil fuels is fairly limited and in one generation we will run out of oil. Coal and natural gas might take 100-200 years but with no oil their consumption will increase so they probably won't last as long. The real alternative that presently available to humanity is nuclear power (that can easily produce electricity for domestic and industrial usage and for transportation when our vehicles are reverted to run on electricity). The technology for this exists today and can replace our dependence on fossil fuel in a decade! This has to be made known to the general public who is unaware of the alternative for taking action to lower the anthropogenic spewing of CO2. This transformation to nuclear energy will probably rake place when oil reserves dwindle regardless of the CO2 situation," he wrote. Paldor also noted the pressure for scientists to bow to the UN IPCC view of climate change. "Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," he concluded.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 28, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Just checking it to see if, after nearly a week, one of our esteemed flat-earthers *has been able to provide a link to an established national or international science body, or to an actual climate scientist with a PhD who is currently doing research on climate change and getting published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. *
> 
> 
> .......nope.
> ...



Here you go...
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf

The following concluding statement is not in the Fourth Assessment Report, but was
agreed upon by the ISPM writers based on their review of the current evidence.
The Earth&#146;s climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the
difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties,
knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding
data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms.
The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and
the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in
many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local
land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult. Other, more stable data sets,
such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends. The
actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of
known natural variability. There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented
changes are underway.
The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a
variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes. The hypothesis
that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant
warming of the Earth&#146;s climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and
merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical
arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed.
Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive
as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations
of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale
processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are tuned to produce a credible simulation
of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate
regimes. And there are enough degrees of freedom in tunable models that simulations
cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated
with a strong effect from greenhouse gases.
There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the
uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or
modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty
as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether
or not such change is a good or bad thing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 28, 2009)

At Woods Hole, eh? Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute is a very respected scientific organization. Here is their opinion on global warming;

Global Warming : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution


----------



## manu1959 (Jan 28, 2009)

remember when 97% of scientists believed the world was flat...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 28, 2009)

Fraser Institute?  LOL!

History
In 1974, a group of academics and business executives, concerned about big government, founded the Fraser Institute. [[1]] 

At the time, there were concerns about the institute's agenda given that one of those who helped set it up, Michael Walker, an economist from the University of Western Ontario, had received financial support from the forestry giant, MacMillan-Bloedel [Ibid]. To allay these charges, the Fraser Institute stated that its research priorities would not be determined by its funders but by its staff, that the staff of the institute would not engage in political activity, not its funders, and that its conclusions would not be shaped to favour any political or economic group. [Ibid] 

In his book Thinking the unthinkable, Richard Cockett outlined that Antony Fisher, who founded the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) played a critical role in the development of the Fraser Institute. "On the strength of his reputation with the IEA, he was invited in 1975 to become co-director of the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, founded by the Canadian businessman Pat Boyle in 1974. Fisher let the young director of the Fraser Institute, Dr Michael Walker, get on with the intellectual output of the Institute (just as he had given free reign to Seldon and Harris at the IEA) while he himself concentrated on the fund-raising side," Cockett wrote. 

On page 2 of its 2005 Annual Report, the Fraser Institute features a photograph of Michael Walker with US Vice President Dick Cheney at the Eisenhower Administration Building, followed by a photograph of Canada's "future Prime Minister" Stephen Harper attending the Institute's annual general meeting. 

This suggests that the institute is indeed engaged in political activity, and certainly many of its Senior Fellows are. 

The Fraser Institute's list of Senior Fellows includes Tom Flanagan, originally of Ottawa (Illinois), who is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary. Tom Flanagan was campaign manager to Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he headed Canada's newly formed Conservative Party in federal elections in 2004, and then again in 2005, when the Conservatives won a minority in government. 

Other senior fellows of the institute have been deeply involved in political activity. Preston Manning is the founder of the right-wing Reform Party in Canada, which later merged with the Progressive Conservative Party to form the new Conservative Party, led by Stephen Harper who became Prime Minister in 2006. Former Conservative Premier of the province of Ontario, Mike Harris, is also a fellow at the Fraser Institute.[[2]] 

There are also questions about how much the institute's work is shaped by its corporate funders. 

In 1999, the Fraser Institute sponsored two conferences on the tobacco industry: "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." [Ibid] 

More recently, the Fraser Institute has led the campaign to deny the science behind and the dangers of climate change, with several of its fellows and authors signing letters to political leaders and writing Op Eds to that effect. ExxonMobil donates to the Fraser Institute for "climate change" work. 

Professor Ross McKitrick, author of the popular book that denies climate change "Taken By Storm" and known for his opposition to the Endangered Species Act in Canada, is also a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute. 

[edit]Funding
An article by Donald Gutstein of Simon Fraser University examines recent rises in funding for the Fraser Institute. [3] 

The Fraser Institute has sought and received funding from several tobacco companies, including Rothmans, British American Tobacco and Philip Morris, according to a 2000 letter found in the tobacco industry documents.[4] 

In 2003 Fraser Institute income was $6,620,038. In its annual report it discloses that 52% was from unspecified foundations, 38% from unspecified "organizations" (presumably corporations) and only 10% from individuals. 

"During the year, the Institute approached prospective donors to support over 50 specific projects including student seminars, teachers&#8217; workshops, the elementary and secondary school report cards, environmental studies, aboriginal studies, globalization studies, global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, fiscal studies, economic freedom, managing risk and regulation, pharmaceutical and health care studies, CANSTATS, and democratic reform," it states in its 2003 annual report. [5] 

While ExxonMobil discloses in it annual statements that it contributed $60,000 to the organisation to work on "Climate Change", the Fraser Institute does not explicitly disclose the contribution. [6] 

According to Media Transparency between 1985 and 2003 the Fraser Institute has received 30 grants totalling $ 403,301 (unindexed for inflation) from the following U.S. foundations: 

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation 
Sarah Scaife Foundation 
Charles G. Koch Family Foundation 
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation 
John M. Olin Foundation 
Carthage Foundation [7]


----------



## jreeves (Jan 29, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Fraser Institute?  LOL!
> 
> History
> In 1974, a group of academics and business executives, concerned about big government, founded the Fraser Institute. [[1]]
> ...



Yawn....nice sourcing...let me help you out....
... fIENDISH.net ....*sourcewatch*.org/index.php?title=Fraser_Institute

A little about your precious little liberal sourcewatch...
NationMaster - Encyclopedia: SourceWatch
*SourceWatch has a generally liberal and left-wing outlook on issues*, and most of the project's investigative and critical articles are aimed and directed at what SourceWatch perceives to be prominent conservatives, those that are right-of center and Republican Party organizations and individuals. Look up liberal on Wiktionary, the free dictionary Liberal may refer to: Politics: Liberalism American liberalism, a political trend in the USA Political progressivism, a political ideology that is for change, often associated with liberal movements Liberty, the condition of being free from control or restrictions Liberal Party, members of... In politics, left-wing, political left, leftism, or simply the left, are terms which refer (with no particular precision) to the segment of the political spectrum typically associated with any of several strains of socialism, social democracy, or liberalism (especially in the American sense of the word), or with opposition... Conservatism or political conservatism is any of several historically related political philosophies or political ideologies. ... In politics, centrism usually refers to the political ideal of promoting moderate policies which land in the middle ground between different political extremes. ... This article is about the modern United States Republican Party. ... 


*Sourcewatch has been criticised by conservatives and opponents of environmentalism for its political stance. *Alan Caruba, who describes himself as a critic of "environmental propaganda' writes "Source Watch is a project of the Center of Media & Democracy, a left-wing organization that devotes a lot of time to attacking the public relations profession in general and conservative writers in particular."[4]. Alan Caruba is a public relations advisor, a critic of environmentalism and founder of the National Anxiety Center. ... 


The website ActivistCash.com, operated by industry lobby group the Center for Consumer Freedom, describes the Center for Media & Democracy, the organisation behind SourceWatch, as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization... it is essentially a two-person operation" run by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. ActivistCash adds "If someone in a shirt and tie dares make a profit (especially if food or chemicals are involved), Rampton and Stauber are bound to have a problem with it." [5] The Centre is funded by organisations, described by ActivistCash as 'leftwing', such as the Homeland Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the DJB Foundation, the Carolyn Foundation, and the Foundation for Deep Ecology.CMD Financials. ActivistCash. ... The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), formerly called the Guest Choice Network, is a non-profit U.S. advocacy group funded by the food, alcohol, and tobacco industries, and more than 1,000 concerned individuals, according to its website. ... The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber. ... Sheldon Rampton (born August 4, 1957) is the editor of PR Watch, and the author of several books that criticize the public relations industry and what he sees as other forms of corporate and government propaganda. ... John Stauber is an American writer and political activist who co-authored five books about propaganda by governments, private interests and the PR industry. ... The DJB Foundation was set up Wilbur Hugh Ferry and his second wife, Carol Underwood Bernstein. ... 


In April 2001, The Village Voice, in a review of Rampton and Stauber's book wrote: These guys come from the far side of liberal. Saying so is not to detract from their exhaustively detailed reportage and calmly convincing tone; indeed, the book is generally light on rhetoric, and there's hardly a radical quoted. But the public stranglehold of corrupt experts is framed as a crisis of "democracy," which the authors see as not just freedom from having your mind messed with, but also a level of engagement that drives citizens to become their own experts. [6] The Village Voice is a weekly newspaper in New York City featuring investigative articles, analysis of current affairs and culture, arts reviews and events listings for New York City. ... 


Much like other Wiki-systems, content disputes arise on SourceWatch. SourceWatch administrators have been accused of preventing other members from making edits that the administrators are opposed to. Another criticism of SourceWatch is that it opposes contributors changing or deleting information on the basis that it is old and therefore irrelevant. SourceWatch policy is that relevant information does not cease to be relevant merely because time has passed, but some critics disagree with this policy. SourceWatch has also been critical of Wikipedia for not always referencing its sources. [7].


----------



## elvis (Jan 29, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Every scientific society on earth, every National Academy of Science, and every major university agrees with the overwhelming consensus on AGW. Yet you people throw up flakes, paid hacks, and the whores of the energy companies.
> 
> Have a look at the peer reviewed scientific journals. How many articles are there that are offering evidence that the warming has nothing to do with man's actions? How many articles are there that offer evidence that the warming is slowing?
> 
> So, you are saying that all the peer reviewed scientific journals from every nation in the world are in on a plot to fool all of us? If not, what are you saying?



More partisan bullshit.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jan 29, 2009)

Chris said:


> It's not.
> 
> Average Arctic sea ice extent for the month of December was 12.53 million square kilometers (4.84 million square miles). This was 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) greater than for December 2007 and 830,000 square kilometers (320,000 square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 December average.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis



So ... it changes a lot ... like everything natural.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jan 29, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Every scientific society on earth, every National Academy of Science, and every major university agrees with the overwhelming consensus on AGW. Yet you people throw up flakes, paid hacks, and the whores of the energy companies.
> 
> Have a look at the peer reviewed scientific journals. How many articles are there that are offering evidence that the warming has nothing to do with man's actions? How many articles are there that offer evidence that the warming is slowing?
> 
> So, you are saying that all the peer reviewed scientific journals from every nation in the world are in on a plot to fool all of us? If not, what are you saying?



Really? They must have been deleted.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 29, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > Just checking it to see if, after nearly a week, one of our esteemed flat-earthers *has been able to provide a link to an established national or international science body, or to an actual climate scientist with a PhD who is currently doing research on climate change and getting published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. *
> ...





The level of dishonesty and desparation from members of the flat earth society on this thread is simply astonishing. 

Did you really think you could sneak this in and I wouldn't check out your link?  

I asked for a link to a recognized international scientific body or to a trained PhD climate scientist who does orginal research on climate change and publishes in bonafide scientific journals. 

You provided me a link to a industry funded rightwing canadian think tank I've never heard of, their publication is not a peer-reviewed science journal, and the lead author has a PhD in economics with zero academic background, training, or research in climate science. 


Try again.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 29, 2009)

I've given you flat earthers a week to flail around and come up with some internationally recognized scientific bodies who support your contentions. 

Its time for the final tally of the sources and documentation used to support both sides of the argument. 



Complilation of the list of sources provided by the scientifically literate, versus the sources provied by the USMB flat earth socity:




> *The Scientifically literate provided:*
> 
> The US National Academy of Science
> 
> ...






> *The USMB Flat Earth Soceity provided:*
> 
> A rightwing senator's website link
> 
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Jan 29, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



This is typical of the "Chicken Little"(the sky is falling....) crowd. Attack the source, at all cost. The bolded area of your previous post is a great example of attacking the source. FYI the author does have training, a backgroud, research in climate science.....see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist specializing in *environmental *economics and policy analysis.


By the way do you know what environmental economics is? Let me help...

Environmental economics is a subfield of economics concerned with environmental issues. Quoting from the National Bureau of Economic Research Environmental Economics program:

&#8220; [...] *Environmental Economics [...] undertakes theoretical or empirical studies of the economic effects of national or local environmental policies around the world *[...]. Particular issues include the costs and benefits of alternative environmental policies to deal with air pollution, water quality, toxic substances, solid waste, and *global warming*.[1] 
Environmental economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, you being bright and everything, jumped all over the economics portion of the title without looking any further.

And of course you jumped all over any liberal lies spread on a vast network of "chicken little" rumormongers but the fact is McKitrick has authored science journal articles on the topic of global warming that has been peer reviewed......see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
*McKitrick has (1997-2005) authored or coauthored 16 peer-reviewed articles in economics journals, and four in science journals (as well as two in Energy and Environment). Outside academia, in addition to co-authoring Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming he has also written a number of opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, many of which have also written about McKitrick.[4] In his latest work, he is lead author of "Stationarity of Global Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions:Implications for Global Warming Scenarios." along with Mark Strazicich.[5]*


....another "Chicken Little" plucked


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 29, 2009)

It's so funny. Global warming is an absolute non-issue. It has never been proven that there is an issue with carbon dioxide..and an accumulation actually cools the earth, it doesn't warm it.

Even more funny....the head meterologists at NASA say that global warming is complete and utter crap...that we should be worried about the absence of SUNSPOTS and global COOLING. They are particularly concerned given the recent rush to eliminate all economical, easy, and effective energy sources and replace them with difficult, unreliable and expensive ones....because they think that when the earth cools, we'll be hurting for food and heat, and we're going to be screwed if we can't get to our oil, or if we haven't figured out how to grow crops without heat.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 29, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Furthermore, Ms.....Chicken little
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf

*Coordinator* Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph
and Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute, Vancouver BC.
*Writing Team *Joseph D&#8217;Aleo, M.Sc. Chief Meteorologist (Ret&#8217;d) WSI Corporation. Past Chairman, American
Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting. Member,
American Meteorological Society Council. Fellow, American Meteorological Society. Certified
Consulting Meteorologist.
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Research Scientist (ret&#8217;d), Environment Canada. Editor, Climate
Research 2003-2005. Member, Editorial Board, Natural Hazards since 1999. Previously,
Lecturer in Meteorology, Barbados (West Indies); International Civil Aviation Organization
Expert in Aeronautical Meteorology, Qatar.
William Kininmonth, M.Sc. M.Admin. Head (ret&#8217;d) National Climate Centre, Australian
Bureau of Meteorology. Previously: Consultant to the World Meteorological Organization
Commission for Climatology; Scientific and Technical Review Coordinator, United Nations
Task Force on El Niño.
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario,
and Associate Director, Program in Theoretical Physics. Formerly, NSERC Postdoctoral
Fellow, Canadian Climate Centre.
Wibjörn Karlén, Ph.D. Professor emeritus, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary
Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Senior Research Associate, Atmospheric Sensing Group, Tartu
Astrophysical Observatory, Tõravere, Estonia.
Ian Clark, Ph.D. Professor of Arctic Paleohydrology and Geology, University of Ottawa.
Tad Murty, Ph.D. Adjunct Professor, Departments of Earth Sciences and Civil Engineering,
University of Ottawa; Editor, Natural Hazards; Associate Editor Marine Geodesy; Leader,
World Meteorological Organization group to prepare a manual on storm surges from
hurricanes and extra-tropical cyclones. Formerly: Senior Research Scientist, Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Professor of Earth Sciences, Flinders University,
Adelaide, Australia; Director of Australia&#8217;s National Tidal Facility.
James J. O&#8217;Brien, Ph.D. Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor, Meteorology & Oceanography
and Director Emeritus of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies,
Florida State University. Florida State Climatologist. Fellow of the American Meteorological
Society, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, Fellow of the Royal Meteorological
Society, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Jan 29, 2009)

careful...they might discredit more scientists from sources like

sourcewatch

rofl


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 29, 2009)

jreeves said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...





That's a report published by an industry funded conservative think tank.  

It's not a scientific report that's gone through the standard variety of scientific peer review. 

I googled a couple scientists on the list, and couldn't find any original research on climate change they had published in established and respected scientific journals. 

Although I did find some opinon articles they wrote, which hadn't been subject to the peer reivew process. 

Perhaps you could help me out.   I personally could link you up with thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles from dozens of the world's most respected climate science researchers, if I had the time. 

Could you hook me up with like at least three or four peer-reviewed scientific articles these people have published from their own original field or laboratory research on climate change?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> It's so funny. Global warming is an absolute non-issue. It has never been proven that there is an issue with carbon dioxide..and an accumulation actually cools the earth, it doesn't warm it.
> 
> Even more funny....the head meterologists at NASA say that global warming is complete and utter crap...that we should be worried about the absence of SUNSPOTS and global COOLING. They are particularly concerned given the recent rush to eliminate all economical, easy, and effective energy sources and replace them with difficult, unreliable and expensive ones....because they think that when the earth cools, we'll be hurting for food and heat, and we're going to be screwed if we can't get to our oil, or if we haven't figured out how to grow crops without heat.



Well, Allie, what do you base your assertation that CO2 cools the earth. Source, please. 

Ed Zipser is no longer the head meteorologist for NASA. However, he is still active in climate research. Here is an excerpt from research he was active in last year, 2008;


Utah group goes storm-chasing in Australia &mdash; Department of Meteorology

In fact, scientists have yet to formulate a precise picture of what they call the dynamics and microphysics of clouds. Meteorologists, who rely on models and simulations, are working without an accurate model of why, for example, a cloud forms, or how particles within a cloud are sized and spaced, and what determines a cloud's life cycle.


Why is this important?


"We want to understand clouds on a microscopic scale so we can determine the impact on a massive scale," said Mace, who is one of half a dozen lead scientists who conceived of the experiment.


TWP ICE scientists and researchers based in Darwin, Australia, tracked storms by air, sea and land using an elaborate network of satellite technology, computers and manpower. Northern Australia's monsoon season is January and February, providing ideal conditions for daily exposure to high level cloud formations.


"Our focus is to understand how high-level clouds, cirrus clouds, impact the climate system. Global warming is the climate change we're the most worried about," Mace said. "We are in the process of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere since the Industrial Age began. The cause is the burning of fossil fuels, and it is significant because it is drastically changing the composition of the atmosphere."


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 29, 2009)

More research from Dr. Zipser.


THUNDERHEADS
Wednesday October 17, 2007 at 10pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld
Repeating Wednesday June 4, 2008 at 10pm PT on CBC Newsworld


Armed with seven planes, a ship, 250 scientists and researchers and the best gadgets money can buy, a daring and intrepid group tries to catch the 'perfect storm.' Launching the 2007 season of WILD DOCS! Thunderheads is a thrilling ride that follows pilots and scientists as they battle to better understand the role of thunderstorms in the climate change puzzle.

Thunderheads tells the gripping tale of I.C.E.-the 'International Cloud Experiment', a multinational force of 250 people from Australia, Russia, England, Germany and the U.S. as they learn all they can about 'Hector,' one of the largest thunderstorms on the planet.

To the scientists, led by thunderstorm guru professor Ed Zipser and NASA branch chief Dave Starr from the U.S., 'Hector' may hold the key to better understanding how thunderstorms affect global warming. Indeed, clouds in general may be the sleeping giants of climate change. They have the ability to both trap heat-and to reflect sunlight back into space. As the Earth heats up, will the planet's cloud cover change? Currently, scientists simply don't know, but part of the answer lies in thunderheads, because they are the clouds that make other clouds.


Perhaps Senator Inhofe lied again. Seems that Dr. Zipser is very much into researching Global warming.

This observational documentary intimately captures the blood, sweat and tears that go into conducting a vast, ambitious and perilous experiment.

Thunderheads is written and produced by Klaus Toft.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 29, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Every scientific society on earth, every National Academy of Science, and every major university agrees with the overwhelming consensus on AGW. Yet you people throw up flakes, paid hacks, and the whores of the energy companies.
> ...



Hey dingbat, post a scientific society that states AGW is a fraud!


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 29, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Hey dingbat, post a scientific society that states AGW is a fraud!



For someone from Oregan you sure do use a lot of Aussie sayings...


----------



## elvis (Jan 29, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hey dingbat, post a scientific society that states AGW is a fraud!
> ...



Oregon


----------



## jillian (Jan 30, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hey dingbat, post a scientific society that states AGW is a fraud!
> ...



dingbat's an Aussie saying? lol.. I thought it was from All In The Family


----------



## elvis (Jan 30, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I have posted articles from scientists that hold the opposing view but you ridicule them.  Even though they went to school for God knows how long.


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Jan 30, 2009)

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Maybe he was thinking "dingo."  Whatever he was thinking, he is a meathead.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jan 30, 2009)

Dingbat originated in Aussie slang, but was later used as a computer term. Then somehow got adapted into American slang ... it's an odd word now.


----------



## Red Dawn (Jan 30, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...




You posted _opinion_ pieces from people who have degrees in science, and flat earthers have posted links to rightwing political websites, conservative think tanks and repbulcian senator's webistes. 

Here's how science works.  It's fine to write an opinion piece and get an industry funded think tank to publish it. 

But, it you want any real scientific crediblity, where is the actual scientific field and lab research these "scientists" are doing, which have been published in bonafide respected scientific journals which debunk the theory of AGW?  Where is the actual bonifide _scientific research_ that demonstrates AGW is bunk?   Here's a tip:  it doesn't exist.  

Not a single piece of orignal peer reviewed research has been provided. 

And not one, single, solitary bonifide nationla or international scientific body has been provided by flat earthers, supporting their assertion that AGW is bunk.


----------



## Meister (Jan 30, 2009)

According to red dawn


----------



## jreeves (Jan 31, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...




You really are dense as a rock aren't you? Don't you remember this from a previous post?
McKitrick has (1997-2005) authored or coauthored *16 peer-reviewed articles in economics journals, and four in science journals *(as well as two in Energy and Environment). Outside academia, in addition to co-authoring Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming he has also written a number of opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, many of which have also written about McKitrick.[4] In his latest work, he is lead author of "Stationarity of Global Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions:Implications for Global Warming Scenarios." along with Mark Strazicich.[5]

That would be 4 articles correct?


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2009)

Were the articles about global warming?


----------



## del (Jan 31, 2009)

Chris said:


> Were the articles about global warming?



are you about stupid?


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Were the articles about global warming?
> ...



Are you?

The only article he quoted about global warming was "outside academia." That means it was not peer reviewed.

The point is there are no peer reviewed articles in scientific journals denouncing global warming. How could there be? We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years, and CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. No scientific journal would deny that.


----------



## jreeves (Jan 31, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...




Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming
Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 31, 2009)

97% of the climatologists disagree with you.

So sorry....[/QUOTE]


I'll raise you 30 K.
So VERY sorry

May 27, 2008
Global warming &#8216;consensus&#8217;: 31,000 scientists disagree
Filed under: energy, life, media, news, politics, religion, science &#8212; tadcronn @ 12:50 am 
Tags: Al Gore, fraud, global warming, scam, scientific consensus
Ads by Google
Global Warming Facts
Are you worried about climate change? Get the facts.
www.GetEnergyActive.org


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2009)

jreeves, thanks for proving my point...

Taken By Storm is a *book* about the global warming controversy by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick.

It is not a peer reviewed article.

Taken By Storm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## del (Jan 31, 2009)

Chris said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...









<yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn>


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 31, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...


----------



## del (Jan 31, 2009)

talk about your unintended irony.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Jan 31, 2009)

Chris said:


> The point is there are no peer reviewed articles in scientific journals denouncing global warming.



Actually, there are. I had links to several and some no longer work. But here's one:

http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p155.pdf

I looked into that stuff when  Naomi Oreskes claimed that there were no peer reviewed publications contrary to the anthropogenic "global warming" hypothesis in 2004.  It's just not true.  I don't deny that the majority of published papers presented conclusions consistent with the "global warming" bandwagon.  But the assertion that there have been _no_ peer reviewed papers published that were contrarian is just objectively false.

I also think the significance of "peer review" is way overrated to begin with. I have had many occasions upon which I have had to apply research to real problems and if you people think "peer review" means questionable information can't get through or that lack of "peer review" in the sense of published literature means something has to be unreliable you are sadly mistaken.  I think it's VERY possible for something that's been "peer reviewed" to be way off and VERY possible for something that hasn't been to be dead on.

All "peer review" means is that two or three...maybe four... people looked at it in a cursory manner.  If they tend to agree with it they don't pay much attention.  If they tend to disagree with it they'll nitpick it.  I[ve seen papers get through "peer review" with graphs reversed, etc.  It's clear that if anybody would've paid the slightest bit of attention they'd have picked up on it.   Or like trying to use a regression equation in a published paper and seeing that it's obvious that some kind of error was made. 

I'm serious.  One of the great tragedies of our time is that people have a WAY overinflated opinion of the credibility associated with getting a paper through "peer review."  The most important things are 1) don't reach a conclusion that won't be popular and 2) make sure you follow all the rules with respect to format, etc.


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2009)

Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures -- is now well documented and accepted by scientists as fact. A panel convened by the U.S National Research Council, the nation's premier science policy body, in June 2006 voiced a "high level of confidence" that Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, and possibly even the last 2,000 years. Studies indicate that the average global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.5-1.0°F (0.3-0.6°C) over the last century. This is the largest increase in surface temperature in the last 1,000 years and scientists are predicting an even greater increase over this century. This warming is largely attributed to the increase of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane) in the Earth's upper atmosphere caused by human burning of fossil fuels, industrial, farming, and deforestation activities.
Global Warming -- Research Issues


----------



## JohnStOnge (Jan 31, 2009)

I think the study referenced in the article at Analysis Finds Twentieth Century Climate Unremarkable - by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas - Global Warming Facts is one I used to have linked but the link didn't work anymore.  Anyway, it's a reference to a study that is contrary to the general anthropogenic global warming "sound the alarm" outlook and was published in a peer review journal.  You can attack the journal (Energy in the Envorinment) if you wish. But it's a peer review journal. So it's another illustration of the fact that the assertion that no "contrarian" view has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals is objectively false.

Naomi Oreskes did a tremendous disservice in claiming what she claimed. She was wrong. Anybody with a computer can use Google and demonstrate her conclusion to be false.  Also, there was an independent assessment of the same scientific articles she looked at that ended in the conclusion that she mispreprestented the many of the conclusions.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Jan 31, 2009)

Here's something I'd been looking for:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ls-are-censoring-debate-on-global-warming.htm

Now, you can dismiss the possibility of that sort of thing if you wish.  But I think you are naive if you do.  Global warming alarmism is the popular position right now.  It's the position that gets through without much scrutiny.

Oh, this is great. The link won't work when I post it here.  It gets truncated.  I guess I'll have to resort to a quote:

*"Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been 'widely dispersed on the internet"'.*

I don't know what to tell you to get you to the article except to do a Google search on something like, "Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming."


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2009)

John, you posted an article from the Heartland Institute from 6 years ago. 

This was before a large portion of the North Polar Ice Cap melted.


----------



## Chris (Jan 31, 2009)

Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1). At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). *If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year* (see Figure 3).

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> John, you posted an article from the Heartland Institute from 6 years ago.
> 
> This was before a large portion of the North Polar Ice Cap melted.








	July 1, 2008 		


GLOBAL VIEW 
By BRET STEPHENS 	 






	DOW JONES REPRINTS 



Global Warming as Mass Neurosis
July 1, 2008; Page A15
Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.
What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").


AP 
The New True Believers
But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.
The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.
This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.
So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.
The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore  population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations  and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.
A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.
And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.
Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?
As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.
In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.
Write to bstephens@wsj.com1
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal2.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum3.
 	URL for this article:
Global Warming as Mass Neurosis - WSJ.com

 	Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto: bstephens@wsj.com 
(2) Op-Ed News, Political Opinion Columns International Social Commentary at WSJ.com - WSJ.com 
(3) WSJ.com Forums :: t=3143


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 1, 2009)

Good article--if it wasn't for the global warming conspiracy many people would be left with no cause at all. Being aimless is so uncomfortable.


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

A bogus commentary from a wing nut in the WSJ. Very funny.

I love the fact that he lies about what NASA is saying with no attribution whatsoever. 

Satellite photos don't lie. Only people lie.

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007

*If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year.*


----------



## Red Dawn (Feb 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> *John, you posted an article from the Heartland Institute from 6 years ago. *
> 
> This was before a large portion of the North Polar Ice Cap melted.



OMFG! 

This thread is more fun than a jumpsuit full of weasels!   



"Heartland.org"


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 1, 2009)

PoliticalChic said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > John, you posted an article from the Heartland Institute from 6 years ago.
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Feb 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves, thanks for proving my point...
> 
> Taken By Storm is a *book* about the global warming controversy by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick.
> 
> ...



He's wrote *4 articles *that have appeared in science journals that are peer reviewed.....damn your dense..


----------



## jreeves (Feb 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> A bogus commentary from a wing nut in the WSJ. Very funny.
> 
> I love the fact that he lies about what NASA is saying with no attribution whatsoever.
> 
> ...



Damn...last year sea ice rebounded to 1979 levels...remember the UIUC report.
You argue in circles much?


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > A bogus commentary from a wing nut in the WSJ. Very funny.
> ...




No, Arctic sea ice did not rebound to 1979 levels. 

Average Arctic sea ice extent for the month of December was 12.53 million square kilometers (4.84 million square miles). This was 140,000 square kilometers (54,000 square miles) greater than for December 2007 and 830,000 square kilometers (320,000 square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 December average.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Meister (Feb 1, 2009)

National Snow & Ice Data Center???? Who's ever heard of that one, Chris.  Sounds just like one more of your left wing radical sites dude.  Nice try though, I must admit.  You need to bring your "A" game to this board, Chris.


----------



## del (Feb 1, 2009)

Meister said:


> National Snow & Ice Data Center???? Who's ever heard of that one, Chris.  Sounds just like one more of your left wing radical sites dude.  Nice try though, I must admit.  You need to bring your "A" game to this board, Chris.



this is his "A" game.


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

The National Snow and Ice Data Center, or NSIDC, is a United States information and referral center in support of polar and cryospheric research. NSIDC archives and distributes digital and analog snow and ice data and also maintains information about snow cover, avalanches, glaciers, ice sheets, freshwater ice, sea ice, ground ice, permafrost, atmospheric ice, paleoglaciology, and ice cores.

*NSIDC is part of the University of Colorado Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), and is affiliated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Geophysical Data Center through a cooperative agreement. NSIDC serves as one of eight Distributed Active Archive Centers funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to archive and distribute data from NASA's past and current satellites and field measurement programs. NSIDC also supports the National Science Foundation through the Arctic System Science Data Coordination Center and the Antarctic Glaciological Data Center.*

National Snow and Ice Data Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jreeves (Feb 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Circles....Circles....Chrissy's tactic...Argue in cirlces
Sure...
Report: Global Sea Ice at 'Unprecedented' Levels

Dont expect to hear this reported on the your evening newscast, but according to new data, sea ice levels in the Southern Hemisphere are at 25-year highs. 



     On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were unprecedented for the month of April in over 25 years, Steve McIntyre wrote on Climateaudit.org on May 4. Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982.



     McIntyre, along with Ross McKitrick, debunked the validity of the hockey stick graph used in a journal article by Michael Mann, which described the increase in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature. The two claimed Manns graph was based on flawed calculations and data defects.



      That data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAA) National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) suggests the effects of global warming arent as dire as some media reports would have you believe. A segment on ABCs March 28 Good Morning America warned melting sea ice is endangering the global warming alarmists favorite mascot, the polar bear.


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

jreeves, you are the best! You make it so easy!

Stephen McIntyre is the primary author of *Climate Audit, a blog *devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is most prominent as a critic of the temperature record of the past 1000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, and the data quality of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

*He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics *from the University of Toronto.[1] He studied philosophy, politics and economics at the University of Oxford.

McIntyre has worked in hard-rock mineral exploration[2] for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada.[3] He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[4]

Stephen McIntyre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jreeves (Feb 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves, you are the best! You make it so easy!
> 
> Stephen McIntyre is the primary author of *Climate Audit, a blog *devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is most prominent as a critic of the temperature record of the past 1000 years, particularly the work of Michael E. Mann, and the data quality of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
> 
> ...




Here's the data discredit this..
its the same


----------



## Andrew2382 (Feb 1, 2009)

I'm sorry Jreeves

That data has red in it which is a clear symbol of the GOP which therefore makes it more right partisan hack data which I must not give any credit too.


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

A graph with no link?

jreeves, you are killing me!


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- NATO&#8217;s chief played down the risk of military confrontation in the Arctic as the melting polar ice cap threatens to trigger a race between Western countries and Russia for oil and gas resources. 

Increased Russian bomber patrols over the North Atlantic and the planting of the Russian flag on the seabed are not even a &#8220;nuisance,&#8221; North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said. 

&#8220;The word threat is unjustified and inappropriate in this regard,&#8221; De Hoop Scheffer told reporters today in Reykjavik. &#8220;I would be the last one to expect or to make any reference to military conflict, definitely not.&#8221; 

The U.S., Denmark, Canada and Norway -- all part of NATO -- and Russia have staked claims to Arctic raw materials, as thawing sea ice eases access to 90 billion barrels of oil, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. 

*Arctic sea ice shrank to the second-smallest size on record in 2008*, and the breakaway of an ice shelf nearly the size of Manhattan island from the Canadian mainland offered dramatic evidence of the pace of global warming.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=agWnAbB2Xc_c&refer=canada


----------



## Andrew2382 (Feb 1, 2009)

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6345050 Hot & Cold Media.pdf

OMGZ ITS FROM A REPUB SENATOR


Don't even bother looking at pages 66-68 with all the PHD people who contributed to the report.

Don't bother looking at all the graphs and data

Just keep going back to the joke of an IPCC says because they are in the business of global warming to make money


----------



## jreeves (Feb 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- NATOs chief played down the risk of military confrontation in the Arctic as the melting polar ice cap threatens to trigger a race between Western countries and Russia for oil and gas resources.
> 
> Increased Russian bomber patrols over the North Atlantic and the planting of the Russian flag on the seabed are not even a nuisance, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said.
> 
> ...



OMG..arguing in circles, here is an article that I posted from earlier in this thread...damn your dense...
Meteorology News » Features » Global Sea Ice on the Rebound?
*Sea ice has quickly re-taken previously thawed regions of the ocean at both ends of the globe*, according to satellite observations recently published by NOAAs National Snow and Ice Data Center.

*While global sea ice extent has only been measured with high resolution since 1979, the recent increase in sea ice coverage now puts the start of 2009 in the same place as the year when records started:  1979. * While the extent of sea ice in the northern hemisphere is currently slightly below the 30-year mean, the coverage in the southern hemisphere exceeds the thirty-year mean by approximately 500,000 square kilometers.  While some scientists argue this is a clear and obvious sign of catastrophic global warming, others have urged restraint.  They argue this data cannot be reliably compared to older historical records that had less resolution and reliability.

BTW you can find the graph I posted there Chrissypants...


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

jreeves can't provide a link for his graph! 

Maybe you can find them here....

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is a strong critic of the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities. In a July 28, 2003, Senate speech, Inhofe claimed to offer "compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists."[12] He cited as support for this the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal and the Oregon Petition (1999), as well the opinions of individual scientists that he named (although most climate scientists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), now believe that climate change is an existing phenomenon). In his speech, Inhofe also claimed that, "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."[13] However the satellite temperature record corroborates the well-documented warming trend noted in surface temperature measurements.[14] Additionally, the satellite record begins in 1979 and the balloon record effectively in 1958, so it is unclear what Inhofe means by "last century". Inhofe's views have been opposed by climate scientists.[15]

In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, Inhofe said regarding the environmentalist movement, "It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy... A hot summer has nothing to do with global warming. Let's keep in mind it was just three weeks ago that people were saying, 'Wait a minute; it is unusually cool...." He then said, "Everything on which they [the environmentalists] based their story, in terms of the facts, has been refuted scientifically."[16] Inhofe had previously compared the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo[17] and he compared EPA Administrator Carol Browner to Tokyo Rose.[18] He had also made allegations that the Weather Channel is behind the alleged global warming hoax, so as to attract viewers.[19][20] Inhofe had previously claimed that Global Warming is "the second-largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state."[21]

Inhofe, claiming uncertainties related to climate science and the adverse impact that mandatory emissions reductions would have on the U.S. economy, voted on June 22, 2005 to reject an amendment to an energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and created a mandatory emissions trading scheme. "Global warming is still considered to be a theory and has not come close to being sufficiently proven", he said.[citation needed]

Inhofe has similarly criticized predictions of ozone depletion, particularly in relation to the Arctic.[22]

In 2006, Inhofe gave a speech in the Senate in which he argued that the threat of global warming was exaggerated by "the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture." Inhofe claimed that "From the late 1920s until the 1960s they [the media] warned of global warming. From the 1950s until the 1970s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years." He also accused the media of ignoring scientists such as Roger A. Pielke and William Gray who, Inhofe claims, disagree with global warming.[23]

*Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry than Inhofe in the 2002 election cycle.[24] The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.[25]*

Jim Inhofe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jreeves (Feb 1, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- NATOs chief played down the risk of military confrontation in the Arctic as the melting polar ice cap threatens to trigger a race between Western countries and Russia for oil and gas resources.
> ...



BTW you can find the graph I posted there Chrissypants....


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

jreeves can't provide a link!

I'm still waiting....


----------



## jreeves (Feb 1, 2009)

jreeves said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg for the really dense...


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

So your graph shows that sea ice is WELL BELOW the 1979 level.

Thanks for proving my point! You are the best!


----------



## jreeves (Feb 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> So your graph shows that sea ice is WELL BELOW the 1979 level.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point! You are the best!



They have fluttered back and forth...and are currently at 1979 levels....you are trip...Chrissy pants
*While global sea ice extent has only been measured with high resolution since 1979, the recent increase in sea ice coverage now puts the start of 2009 in the same place as the year when records started:  1979.*

Meteorology News » Features » Global Sea Ice on the Rebound?


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

But the graph you posted has current sea ice levels below 16 million square miles.

The sea ice now is WELL BELOW the 1979 level according to the graph YOU POSTED!


----------



## Meister (Feb 1, 2009)

Chris....your a "one trick pony."


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

jreeves is the best.

He posts a graph which disproves what he is saying.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 1, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves is the best.
> 
> He posts a graph which disproves what he is saying.



I posted a graph that showed Ice levels at the same levels they were in 1979 and with ice levels quite greater than what they were in 1984, 1993, 1996 and 1998. Now a quick question if ice levels have rebounded anywhere close to what they were in 1979 and greater than the levels recorded in 1984, 1993, 1996 and 1998. What is the reason for this have CO2 concentrations dropped? No, this is the reason the theory of man made global warming is just a myth. 
Meteorology News » Features » Global Sea Ice on the Rebound?
*While global sea ice extent has only been measured with high resolution since 1979, the recent increase in sea ice coverage now puts the start of 2009 in the same place as the year when records started:  1979. 

Such disparities raise several questions concerning the reliability of such computer models of the climate.*


----------



## Chris (Feb 1, 2009)

The graph you posted puts the 1979 low at 16 million square miles.
The same graph puts the current sea ice level at 15.5 million. 

500,000 square miles less....

Of course ARCTIC ice levels have dropped by about 10% each decade since 1979. Antarctic levels are starting to drop, but some scientists think they may rise because the warming of the Antarctic is forcing land ice into the ocean. 

In any case you have no real data on your side. Even Exxon no longer denies global warming!


----------



## jreeves (Feb 2, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves is the best.
> ...



*While global sea ice extent has only been measured with high resolution since 1979, the recent increase in sea ice coverage now puts the start of 2009 in the same place as the year when records started:  1979. 


Of course if the facts aren't on your side play dumb....good job Chrissy pants*


----------



## Chris (Feb 2, 2009)

The graph you posted puts the 1979 low at 16 million square miles.
The same graph puts the current sea ice level at 15.5 million. 

500,000 square miles less....

Of course ARCTIC ice levels have dropped by about 10% each decade since 1979. Antarctic levels are starting to drop, but some scientists think they may rise because the warming of the Antarctic is forcing land ice into the ocean. 

In any case you have no real data on your side. Even Exxon no longer denies global warming!


----------



## jreeves (Feb 2, 2009)

Chris said:


> The graph you posted puts the 1979 low at 16 million square miles.
> The same graph puts the current sea ice level at 15.5 million.
> 
> 500,000 square miles less....
> ...



Repeating a lie, doesn't make it true....
While global sea ice extent has only been measured with high resolution since 1979,* the recent increase in sea ice coverage now puts the start of 2009 in the same place as the year when records started:  1979.*
Meteorology News » Features » Global Sea Ice on the Rebound?


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 2, 2009)

Exxon is trying to make money, like most companies that pander to environuts. They pick the side that will increase profits the most because environuts are well ... nuts. They think "Oh, at least they will do something with the money to protect the environment" and still over use the product that does the damage, in the mean time the company just uses the profits to expand their business and line their pockets. Why does this work? Because environuts do NOT like whole stories, they look for one tiny thing to latch onto so they can sleep easier feeling "at least I did something."


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 2, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The graph you posted puts the 1979 low at 16 million square miles.
> ...



The sea ice at the North Polar Cap is less than it was in the record low year of 2007. The Antarctic Sea Ice, while important, is far less important than the North Polar Ice because of the feedback effects of the permafrost CH4 and CO2, as well as the Arctic Ocean clathrates. 

Both the Greenland Ice Cap, and the Antarctic Ice Cap are losing volume at an increasing rate every year. The Sea Ice arround Antarctica is transitory, and neither adds nor subtracts from the rising sea level as does the melting of the Antarctic Ice Cap.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 3, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Meteorology News » Features » Global Sea Ice on the Rebound?
While much of the northern hemisphere sea ice melting has been relatively well-handled by global climate models, the antarctic ice expansion has been under-resolved by the models.  *Such disparities raise several questions concerning the reliability of such computer models of the climate.* 

The reason total sea ice levels are important....


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 3, 2009)

JR, the models are less important than what nature is actually doing. The models predict that Antarctica should be gaining ice, not losing it. The models did not predict the level of North Polar Cap melt that we are seeing until 2050. In fact, nature seems to be determined to prove the models way too conservative.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 3, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> JR, the models are less important than what nature is actually doing. The models predict that Antarctica should be gaining ice, not losing it. The models did not predict the level of North Polar Cap melt that we are seeing until 2050. In fact, nature seems to be determined to prove the models way too conservative.


Meteorology News » Features » Global Sea Ice on the Rebound?
Early in the northern hemisphere summer, the rate of sea ice melt painted a grim picture of the upcoming winter season.  Some even predicted that there would be enough open water that one could sail to the north pole.  Such predictions failed when the seasonal sea ice minimum was reached on September 12, 2008 and the arctic was still covered by 1.74 million square miles of ice.  Since mid-September, arctic sea ice has been growing in response to the normal seasonal cooling.

While the rate of ice growth has since slowed from the *near-record rates of October and November, the NSIDC data points to a logical conclusion:  The polar ice is simply running out of physical room to expand as the surface area of open water shrinks as ice fills it.  While the rate has slowed over the last month, the rapid early season growth meant that the arctic has experienced a greater extent of sea ice than most of the 2007-08 winter season.  The recent slowing in growth now puts this season roughly on par with last year at this time with roughly 13 million square kilometers of ice covering the region*.

Come on now things aren't that bad....


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2009)

January 2009 average extent compared to past Januaries 

Average ice extent for January 2009 was the sixth lowest in the satellite record. January 2006 had the lowest ice extent for the month; January 2005 claims second place; and January 2007 is in third place. Including 2009, the downward linear trend in January ice extent stands at -3.1% per decade.
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## jreeves (Feb 4, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> January 2009 average extent compared to past Januaries
> 
> Average ice extent for January 2009 was the sixth lowest in the satellite record. January 2006 had the lowest ice extent for the month; January 2005 claims second place; and January 2007 is in third place. Including 2009, the downward linear trend in January ice extent stands at -3.1% per decade.
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis



So in other words, Jan. 09 was better than Jan. 05 or Jan. 06 even though CO2 emmissions have increased drastically. Go figure......


----------



## Chris (Feb 4, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > January 2009 average extent compared to past Januaries
> ...



We are at the bottom of the solar cycle and the Southern Oscillation. 

You can read about it at this link....

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation


----------



## jreeves (Feb 4, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


From your article...Chrissy pants...
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation
*Solar irradiance will still be on or near its flat-bottomed minimum in 2008. *

Which means, the solar cycle would be on the upcycle in 2009, yet more ice cover in 2009 than 2008. Despite an increased CO2 concentration.


----------



## Chris (Feb 4, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Not necessarily.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 5, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > January 2009 average extent compared to past Januaries
> ...



Which tend to prove the current theory that CO2 is not a leading indicator of higher temps but a trailing indicator. In other words higher temps cause more CO2 not more CO2 causes higher temps.


----------



## Chris (Feb 5, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. Therefore, we have warmed the earth.

Are there other factors involved in climate? Of course!.......the sun's radiation, the earth's orbit, the eruption of volcanoes, etc.

But the people who study the sun say that the sun alone cannot account for the increased temperatures we have seen in the last 50 years.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Feb 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...





why would a fireball 3 million times the size of earth have any effect on tempature


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 5, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Haven't you heard, there's a new thing the environutty scientists discovered, space is too cold to let all that radiation through. 



*sarcasm, in case you don't notice*


----------



## Chris (Feb 5, 2009)

Here is a good summary of solar vs CO2 from the Stanford Solar Center scientists......

Global Warming -- Research Issues


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 5, 2009)

You forced me to do this:
[YOUTUBE]JAu68OsFggw[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]5weG9IllCpo[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]ictpPrle3EQ[/YOUTUBE]

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=382578B02EFAE637 Can't seem to get those to work right.
Found the typo.


----------



## Chris (Feb 5, 2009)




----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 5, 2009)

Chris didn't watch the vids ... figures.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Nope, CO2 is a trailing indicator of temperature. That's why it has been getting cooler for the last 10 years and CO2 is continuing to increase. In DC for instance, it's the coldest winter in 13 years and we're just entering the coldest month.

Face it, your side got it ass-backward. Now be a man and admit it.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. That is not a theory, that is a provable fact. .



It is not. Even the IPCC concedes that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2009)

Well no, no one concedes that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Tyndale explained how it works about 150 years ago.




Resolved QuestionShow me another » 
Global warming:If CO2 already absorbs all of the relevant IR radiation,how is more CO2 going to warm the Earth?
In Wikipedia under "Greenhouse Effect" there is a chart on the right that shows the various wavelengths of radiation that various greenhouse gasses absorb. The Wavelengths that CO2 absorb are already being absorbed 100%. So what if we've added 30% more CO2 to the atmosphere. It can't absorb 130% of the radiation. 100% is all there is. So the CO2 at the top of the atmosphere radiate out into space, and everything below that is a closed system. Right?
2 months ago 
Report Abuse 
 by ThatOneG... Member since: 
October 25, 2006 
Total points: 
9883 (Level 5) 
Add to My Contacts

Block User

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Good question. What you're saying relies upon an extremely common misconception about how the greenhouse effect actually works. Most simple physics explanations say that CO2 "traps" energy in the atmosphere like a net and produces a warming effect, which is quite wrong. What CO2 actually does is raise the atmosphere's effective radiating altitude to a higher layer of the atmosphere. (The wikipedia article actually explains the effect very well, but it's a little difficult to understand so I'll try and simplify it.)

Earth's atmosphere doesn't act as a single unit, but is made up of hundreds of different layers. Some of the energy radiated from Earth's surface is absorbed by the greenhouse gases in each of these layers. The energy is then re-radiated in a random direction, but on average we can say that the energy is moving "up" or "down." The atmosphere gets thinner as you go higher, so eventually the radiation will reach a layer high enough and thin enough to escape to space.

If you increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere, the thin upper layers will become more opaque and thus absorb more of the outgoing terrestrial energy; therefore the place where the majority of the energy finally escapes moves to a higher level. These higher levels are much colder, and so they do not radiate heat so well. Thus the rate that radiation escapes to space is lower, and the planet will take in more than it radiates. As the higher levels emit some of the excess downwards, the lower levels will warm all the way down to the surface.

The imbalance will remain until the higher levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

19th century physicist John Tyndall described the logic fairly neatly like so:

"As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial (infrared) rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at Earth's surface."

Using the analogy from Tyndall above, we can see that adding more CO2 is like building the dam taller. And just in the same way that adding height to a dam will always make the stream deeper, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will always make the planet warmer.
Source(s):
Greenhouse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report....com/question/index?qid=20081124111424AAZ2UvZ


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Feb 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
> 
> A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.
> 
> ...



Junk science.

2005-6 saw the coldest winter in recorded history in eastern Europe and Russia, colder than even the 1941-42 winter that stopped the Wehrmacht in its tracks.

2006-7 saw the coldest winter in China since 1966-67 and the coldest in the Central plains of the US since 1977-79

2007-8 saw and even colder winter in N. America

So far Florida has suffered its coldest January in its 150+ year recorded history.

Glaciers on Kilimanjaro and throughout China are growing again as are ones on Mt. Hood and Rainier and the other Cascade peaks.

Global cooling since 2005 has completely wiped out 100 years of warming (.7 C since 1900, wiped out in three short years).


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2009)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
> ...



Good God, what a crock! Eight of the ten warmest years on record are since 2000. And the other two were 1997 and 1998. 
Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2009)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
> ...



Man, have you even looked at the real data on glaciers? Do you know how to use the internet at all? Or are you just a born liar? Here is real data on the state of the glaciers worldwide;
Glaciers : Weather Underground


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2009)

Sunday, 16 March 2008 

Glaciers suffer record shrinkage  

Some glaciers in Europe have suffered significant losses
Image: Glaciers Online
Jurg Alean 
The rate at which some of the world's glaciers are melting has more than doubled, data from the United Nations Environment Programme has shown. 
Average glacial shrinkage has risen from 30 centimetres per year between 1980 and 1999, to 1.5 metres in 2006. 
Some of the biggest losses have occurred in the Alps and Pyrenees mountain ranges in Europe. 
Experts have called for "immediate action" to reverse the trend, which is seen as a key climate change indicator. 
Estimates for 2006 indicate shrinkage of 1.4 metres of 'water equivalent' compared to half a metre in 2005. 
Achim Steiner, Under-Secretary General of the UN and executive director of its environment programme (UNEP), said: "Millions if not billions of people depend directly or indirectly on these natural water storage facilities for drinking water, agriculture, industry and power generation during key parts of the year. 
"There are many canaries emerging in the climate change coal mine. The glaciers are perhaps among those making the most noise and it is absolutely essential that everyone sits up and takes notice. 
Litmus test 
He said that action was already being taken and pointed out that the elements of a green economy were emerging from the more the money invested in renewable energies. 
Mr Steiner went on: "The litmus test will come in late 2009 at the climate convention meeting in Copenhagen. 
"Here governments must agree on a decisive new emissions reduction and adaptation-focused regime. Otherwise, and like the glaciers, our room for manoeuvre and the opportunity to act may simply melt away." 
Dr Ian Willis, of the Scott Polar Research Institute, said: "It is not too late to stop the shrinkage of these ice sheets but we need to take action immediately." 
The findings were compiled by the World Glacier Monitoring Service which is supported by UNEP. Thickening and thinning is calculated in terms of 'water equivalent'. 
Glaciers across nine mountain ranges were analysed.   

Glaciers have been monitored for more than a century 
Image: Glaciers Online
Jurg Alean  
Dr. Wilfried Haeberli, director of the service, said: "The latest figures are part of what appears to be an accelerating trend with no apparent end in sight. 
"This continues the trend in accelerated ice loss during the past two and a half decades and brings the total loss since 1980 to more than 10.5 metres of water equivalent." 
During 1980-1999, average loss rates had been 0.3 metres per year. Since the turn of the millennium, this rate had increased to about half a metre per year. 
The record annual loss during these two decades - 0.7 metres in 1998 - has now been exceeded by three out of the past six year (2003, 2004 and 2006). 
On average, one metre water equivalent corresponds to 1.1 metres in ice thickness. That suggests a further shrinking in 2006 of 1.5 actual metres and since 1980 a total reduction in thickness of ice of just over 11.5 metres or almost 38 feet. 
In its entirety, the research includes figures from around 100 glaciers, with data showing significant shrinkage taking place in European countries including Austria, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. 
Norway's Breidalblikkbrea glacier thinned by almost 3.1 metres in one of the largest reductions. 

    Melting glaciers Tibet, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Himalayas, Kilimanjaro, Mt Rainier, Cascades, Alaska, US... Fastest area of glacial retreat      Soot ice melt, glaciers turn desert      The WE News Archives


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Feb 5, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Zoomie1980 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Underground's data is woefully incomplete and obsolete.  NOAA is run by a warming zealot and it's data has long been rendered useless, relying almost solely on "urbanized" reporting stations and complete ignoring rural located stations.

Global Warming is a complete and utter SHAM.

I live in Nebraska and we have 3 top ten cold winters now since 2005.  Hit -16 this year, the coldest since 1992.  11 days below zero, the most since 1983, average is four.  Crop losses to frost in Florida, Texas and California have hit records every winter since 2005.

Warming is a MYTH, a JOKE and JUNK science, especially since the bulk of the "science" has been rendered USELESS due to complete politicization of the entire field.

We are in and extended period of COOLING, can't help it if that doesn't jibe with your Al Gore based lunacy....


----------



## Meister (Feb 5, 2009)

I can't believe this thread is still going on, and not one mind has changed since it started.  Each side has there own sites that gives the results that they want.  All the research is paid by some grant, institute, government, etc.  All want the results to lean toward what they desire.  All the research comes back to reflect this fact.  So go on, keep up this thread going with bias views.  I don't need to know what site says what.  I don't need to know that my sites are full of crock, and I know nothing at all about this, and I don't want to give where I got my information.  You wouldn't believe them anyway.  It's not gloom and doom.  The sea levels aren't going to rise 50ft over the next 100 years.  Life as we know isn't going to change over the next 200 years, except for technology.  This earth isn't facing anything that it hasn't seen 1,000+ times before.  It always swings back, as it's doing now.  There has been much more CO2 in the atmosphere than now, and will have more in the future, as it will have less in the future, with or without Man.  The world is not in its End Days, it's just in one of its cycles.  OK kids, go ahead and bash this post all to hell, and tell me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.  Have fun with it...or not.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



If it flat bottomed in 2008 the only logical conclusion would be an upcycle in 2009. If you want to deny go ahead but a resonable mind could only come to that conclusion. Therefore, with the solar cycle on an upswing and CO2 concentrations rising the ice cover increased.


----------



## Chris (Feb 5, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



It takes several years for the solar cycle to upswing.

Keep trying.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 6, 2009)

*ponders posting the P&T vid again*

Seriously, jump off the band wagon ... they don't really care about you ... they just want your money ... there is no real threat to the planet.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Is flat bottomed, hard for you to understand? Oh yeah that's right, I forgot you believe we are going to be swalllowed up by 50 ft waves....Lmao


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 6, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Is 11 year cycles too hard for you to understand? 50 ft. waves? From what? Creating strawmen out of nothing is all you have, JR. 

We were at a sunspot minimum last year. We had a strong La Nina of long duration last year. Still, 2008 tied 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record. That represents a warming, not a cooling.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 6, 2009)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Zoomie1980 said:
> ...



Ya sure. NOAA is part of a vast conspriracy involving every scientific society, every National Academy of Science, and every major university in the world. They have even managed to get the glaciers and polar caps to shrink just to go along with that conspiracy. Come on, Zoomie, is that all you have?

Eleven days below zero? Total? Where I lived in Oregon as a child, mid 50s, we had that many in a row in November. Local analomies prove nothing. Other than the prediction that one result of global warming will be wider and wilder swings in the weather. Overall, the Earth is warming, and accelerating the pace at which it is warming. Eight of the ten warmest years in the last 150 have been since 2000. 
Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 6, 2009)

globeandmail.com: Sea levels would rise unevenly as ice sheet melts, study says

"Although no one is predicting the imminent demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet, some scientists worry that it is at risk from global warming. It would likely take centuries or even millenniums to melt, so it is a modest near-term threat to humanity  but a possible major problem over the longer term."

"The researchers also believe the melting would cause the Earth's rotation axis to shift by about 500 metres, causing the equator to move northward by that amount and water to shift from the Southern to the Northern Hemisphere."


Global warming will hopefully be predictable. 
(Just like any large-scale experiment done for the first time by people who can't stop it once it starts.)


----------



## jreeves (Feb 6, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Zoomie1980 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Quick question for Old Rocks and Chrissy pants are you both vegans?


----------



## jreeves (Feb 6, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Try to stay focused here, we were talking about how Januarys in previous years compared to this year's January. I showed where this January there was more ice cover in the artic than there was last year in January. Even though Solar activity last January was flat bottomed. This January with increased Co2 concentrations and an upswing from last year's solar activity there was more ice cover in the Artic. yawn.....pay attention ok?


----------



## Chris (Feb 6, 2009)

We are at the low point of the sun's cycle. It will take 5 years to get back to the top of the cycle.....







http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig3_irradiance.gif


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 6, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Quick question for Old Rocks and Chrissy pants are you both vegans?



Completely irrelevant. However, not only am I not a vegan, but I hunt and fish as oppertunity avails itself.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 6, 2009)

jreeves said:


> OK, let's stay focused on the sea ice. Here is a graph of sea ice since '79. Notice that the max amounts have declined since '79, as have the minimums. Pretty much blows your nonsense out of the water.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


----------



## jreeves (Feb 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> We are at the low point of the sun's cycle. It will take 5 years to get back to the top of the cycle.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey...if we are in the same solar slump even then, why has the artic gained ice cover this year? When CO2 concentrations play such a large role in ice cap melting....

Your theory of AGW has so many holes it looks like swiss cheese....


----------



## Chris (Feb 6, 2009)

jreeves, check back with me in September.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 6, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > OK, let's stay focused on the sea ice. Here is a graph of sea ice since '79. Notice that the max amounts have declined since '79, as have the minimums. Pretty much blows your nonsense out of the water.
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Feb 6, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves, check back with me in September.



I was doing a little research about global warming supporters are you vegan?


----------



## Chris (Feb 7, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves, check back with me in September.
> ...



That has to be the dumbest question ever.

No, not even close.

There is an enormous amount of evidence for global warming. I don't have to investigate the deniers. They are all right wingers who believe this is a political issue. It is not. Rising CO2, melting glaciers and melting ice caps have no political affiliation.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Really ... Global Warming is a crazy hoax dreamed up by Gore to make a huge profit by the mindless followers who have to have a doomsday myth of their own since they don't like the religious ones.

So .. what am I?


----------



## jreeves (Feb 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



*My research is entitled how much are Chrissy pants and Old Rocks hypocrites?*Are you a vegan? 
Chrissy pants----No, not even close.

Old Rocks----Completely irrelevant. However, not only am I not a vegan, but I hunt and fish as oppertunity avails itself. 

Now from your beloved IPCC....

Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the *Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), *will make the call at a speech in London on Monday evening. 

*UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.*BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Shun meat, says UN climate chief

Hmm....so you think AGW is a real problem?
Yet the one thing you could do to eliminate....

They found that eating a vegan diet prevents the equivalent of 1.5 tons of CO2 emissions every year
Eating Meat Contributes to Global Warming | ChooseVeg.com

You both are hypocrites.....


----------



## Chris (Feb 7, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Chris (Feb 7, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.

When the law is on your side, argue the law.

When you have neither, bang on the table.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



LOL ... hey Gunny, RGS, Willow ... he thinks I am a right-wingnut! LOL


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


----------



## Chris (Feb 7, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 7, 2009)

JR, it is you that is being dishonest. No, the caps are not always expanding and contracting by the degree that they have been diminishing in the last 50 years. And we are seeing significant acceleration in the diminishment in just the last decade. 

No, by rapidly reducing the our use of fossil fuels, we will not prevent the what will be happening in the next 50 years. The inertia of the system is such that we will feel the effects of a major reduction only toward the end of this century. But if we continue as we are, we will definately feel the effects of the CO2 that we will be adding in a decade.

Essentially, the alpine glaciers will be mostly gone by mid-century, no matter what we do. And that will vastly affect agriculture on all the continents. A rapidly rising sea level will reduce the agriculteral land available even further. This is not a future forecast, the affect with the glaciers has already started. And aquifers are being affected by the small rise in sea level that we have already had.

However, you, and the rest of the ostrichs here, as things get bad, will say "Why didn't those damn scientists tell us that this was coming!". LOL


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> I love how people simple state their opinion with no evidence to back it up.
> 
> We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years. Soon we will have *doubled* the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We continue to add 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. There is no question that we are warming the earth.



I think I backed up my opinion about cause and effect inference earlier in this thread.  I think at some point I quoted the IPCC _Physical Science Basis_ report indicating that what it would take to achieve "unequivocal attribution" is impossible.  But if you choose to read a description of why that is so, I keep something from a textbook used during 1997-1998 for two general graduate level Experimental Statistics courses.  I'll include the entire discussion so no one will think I'm quoting anything out of context.  I'll underline some of the key statements.  While reading it, understand that the assertions about human beings as cause of climate change are based on _observational_ data.  It is _observational_ study.  The author illustrates the point with cigarette smoking, but the principle applies to any instance in which statistical data are used.  It is not a principle I made up, and there are reasons for it.  Maybe I'll attempt to elaborate on those reasons at some point.   For now, here goes:

*From Ott, R. Lyman (1992). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis. Chapter 2.  Belmont California: Duxbury Press.

"Before leaving the subject of sample data collection, we will draw a distinction between an observational study and a scientific study.  In experimental designs for scientific studies, the observation conditions are fixed or controlled.  For example, with a factorial experiment laid off in a completely randomized design, an observation is made at each factor-level combination.  Similarly, with a randomized block design, an observation is obtained on each treatment in every block.  These 'controlled' studies are very different from observational studies, which are sometimes used because it is not feasible to do a proper scientific study.  This can be illustrated by way of example.

Much research and public interest centers on the effect of cigarette smoking on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.  One possible experimental design would be to randomized a fixed number of individuals (say 1,000) to each of two groups &#8211; one group would be required to smoke cigarettes for the duration of the study (say 10 years), while those in the second group would not be allowed to smoke throughout the study.  At the end of the study, the two groups would be compared for lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.  Even if we ignore the ethical questions, this type of study would be impossible to do.  Because of the long duration, it would be difficult to follow all participants and make certain that they follow the study plan.  And it would be difficult to find nonsmoking individuals willing to take the chance of being assigned to the smoking group.

Another possible study would be to sample a fixed number of smokers and a fixed number of nonsmokers to compare the groups for lung cancer and for cardiovascular disease.  Assuming one could obtain willing groups of participants, this study could be done for a much shorter period of time.

What has been sacrificed?  Well, the fundamental difference between an observational study and a scientific study lies in the inference(s) that can be drawn.  For a scientific study comparing smokers to nonsmokers, assuming the two groups of individuals followed the study plan, the observed differences between the smoking and nonsmoking groups could be attributed to the effects of cigarette smoking because the individuals were randomized to the two groups; hence, the groups were assumed to be comparable at the outset.

This type of reasoning does not apply to the observational study of cigarette smoking.  Differences between the two groups in the observation could not necessarily be attributed to the effects of cigarette smoking because, for example, there may be hereditary factors that predispose people to smoking and cancer of the lungs and/or cardiovascular disease.  Thus, differences between the groups might be due to hereditary factors, smoking, or a combination of the two.  Typically, the results of an observational study are reported by way of a statement of association.  For our example, if the observational study showed a higher frequency of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease for smokers relative to nonsmokers, it would be stated that this study showed that cigarette smoking was associated with an increased frequency of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.  It is a careful rewording in order not to infer that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.
*


----------



## dustyp (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm happy today to discover that there are other citizens out there actually questioning the global warming panic. How many of us remember the dire warnings of "the coming ice age?" 

How pompous we are to think that we can change the climate! Thanks for the exchange. If you haven't read "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg, I highly recommend it.

Happy trails.


----------



## Chris (Feb 7, 2009)

dustyp said:


> I'm happy today to discover that there are other citizens out there actually questioning the global warming panic. How many of us remember the dire warnings of "the coming ice age?"
> 
> How pompous we are to think that we can change the climate! Thanks for the exchange. If you haven't read "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg, I highly recommend it.
> 
> Happy trails.



Ignorance finds a friend.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> I love how people simple state their opinion with no evidence to back it up.
> 
> We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years. Soon we will have *doubled* the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We continue to add 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. There is no question that we are warming the earth.



Ok. I tried looking for an earlier reference to the IPCC _Physical Science Basis Report_ in this thread but I can't find an easy way to search for my posts in a thread and there are just too many posts.  So I will repeat the reference.  You can go to Chapter 9 of the 2007 IPCC _Physical Science Basis Report_ at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf .  Do a "search" in the word "experiment."  The first occurrence of the word is in the following discussion that starts at the bottom left of page 668 of the overall report (the 6th page of Chapter 9).  I have underlined the key statement:

*"Detection does not imply attribution of the detected change to the assumed cause. Attribution of causes of climate change is the process of establishing the most likely causes for the detected change with some defined level of confidence (see Glossary). As noted in the SAR (IPCC, 1996) and the TAR (IPCC, 2001), unequivocal attribution would require controlled experimentation with the climate system. Since that is not possible, in practice attribution of anthropogenic climate change is understood to mean demonstration that a detected change is consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing and not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings" (IPCC, 2001).*

You say "There is no question that we are warming the earth."  To me, that's saying there is unequivocal attribution.  In the language above, the IPCC says that the controlled experimentation that would be necessary to achieve unequivocal attribution is not possible.  And I agree.  In fact, it's a position I maintained long before I realized the IPCC made the above statement in its report.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 7, 2009)

dustyp said:


> I'm happy today to discover that there are other citizens out there actually questioning the global warming panic. How many of us remember the dire warnings of "the coming ice age?"
> 
> How pompous we are to think that we can change the climate! Thanks for the exchange. If you haven't read "Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg, I highly recommend it.
> 
> Happy trails.



OK, another person that thinks that Newsweek speaks for the scientific community. No, there were not dire warnings from the major scientific community concerning global cooling. 
Science-type stuff

The differance between an interglacial climate is the differance between 180 ppm of CO2 and 280 ppm of CO2. We have added another 100 ppm of CO2, and now have about 385 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere. How can that not change the heat budget of the Earth?

Lomborg? The same Lomborg that was censored by the Danish Academy of Science for trying to back up his arguements with obvious falsehoods?


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 7, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> JR, it is you that is being dishonest. No, the caps are not always expanding and contracting by the degree that they have been diminishing in the last 50 years. And we are seeing significant acceleration in the diminishment in just the last decade.
> 
> No, by rapidly reducing the our use of fossil fuels, we will not prevent the what will be happening in the next 50 years. The inertia of the system is such that we will feel the effects of a major reduction only toward the end of this century. But if we continue as we are, we will definately feel the effects of the CO2 that we will be adding in a decade.
> 
> ...



You're entire outlook appears to be based on the premise that we know what the effects are; that 1) we have that  demonstrated certain cause and effect relationships between anthropogenic activity and climate change are occurring and that 2) we know the form of the synthesis of those cause and effect relationships well enough to predict with some acceptable level of confidence that if we do or don't do X then Y or Z will happen.  You write of what will and will not happen above as though it's as certain as knowing that distilled water will freeze if you hold it at below 0 degrees Centigrade at sea level.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that we (or they who create the impression that they do) do not.  It's not possible.  The standards for making such claims have not and can not be met.  We do not know that alpine glaciers will be gone mid century.  For all we know, we might be talking about entering an ice age then.  We have scientists who _believe_ a certain trend will unfold based on their _beliefs_ about how things work.  And I accept that their _beliefs_ about how things work are reasonable as well as based on a whole lot of thought and assessment. But they _can not_ test their beliefs about how things work through controlled experimentation and they don't even have the benefit of more than one observational subject (the planet).


----------



## jreeves (Feb 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



When you're a hypocrite try to convince everyone else your not.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 7, 2009)

Actually ... here's a fact environuts always miss ... all their evidence (just for pretend let's say it is actually based on complete facts) is based on things we could not predict would happen one way or the other. Our history as a species is so tiny compared to how old the world is, and the recorded history of science used for "Global Warming/Cooling/Whatever it is now" is even smaller. For the areas we can analyze all we have is effect ... no cause. Even then much of that evidence is often contradictory depending on where you look. This is why many call it "junk science", it's like looking in the junk yard and saying that the future of cars is going to be ... whatever.


----------



## Meister (Feb 7, 2009)

Your spot on, Kitten, but these global warming nuts seem to think that they know it all just from the last 120 years.  They will tell you that there is evidence from the glacial cores, and such.  But...they really can't answer why there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, and we are in a cooling cycle.  When I have mentioned that the Earth has been a lot warmer than today, and has cooled, they just ignore that little fact, and go forward with their agenda, just like the sites they worship.  It's no more than the new religion, with some followers.  Kinda like the Jim Jones Cult of the 1970's.  These people would drink the Kool-Aid, too.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 7, 2009)

You're entire outlook appears to be based on the premise that we know what the effects are; that 1) we have that demonstrated certain cause and effect relationships between anthropogenic activity and climate change are occurring and that 
................

We have established, a hundred years ago, that CO2 has a certain absorbtion spectra. We have established that as you increase the percentage of CO2, the layers in the atmosphere absorb more of the energy that is normally emitted into space. We know from the records of the coal used and the oil burned for fuel the amount of CO2 that mankind is putting into the atmosphere every year. We also know what percentage of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere right now is the result of the use of fossil fuels by mankind. That information is obtained through isotopal analyztion of the atmospheric CO2. As all studies have predicted, we are warming the surface of the Earth by adding more than 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere.
............
............


2) we know the form of the synthesis of those cause and effect relationships well enough to predict with some acceptable level of confidence that if we do or don't do X then Y or Z will happen. You write of what will and will not happen above as though it's as certain as knowing that distilled water will freeze if you hold it at below 0 degrees Centigrade at sea level.

.............

If we continue to add more CO2, we doggone well know that the atmosphere will absorb more energy, warm, and increase the amount of water vapor that it can hold. Therefore, since water vapor is also a potent greenhouse gas, even though the retention time is less than ten days, this too will increase the heat trapped in our atmosphere. Also lead to more, and more violent, precipitation.

..............
..............

What I'm trying to get across to you is that we (or they who create the impression that they do) do not. It's not possible. The standards for making such claims have not and can not be met. We do not know that alpine glaciers will be gone mid century. For all we know, we might be talking about entering an ice age then. We have scientists who believe a certain trend will unfold based on their beliefs about how things work. And I accept that their beliefs about how things work are reasonable as well as based on a whole lot of thought and assessment. But they can not test their beliefs about how things work through controlled experimentation and they don't even have the benefit of more than one observational subject (the planet). 

............

When Glacier National Park was established, there were 150 glaciers in it. Today, there are less than 30. Given the present rate of melt of the surviving glaciers, barring the climate getting much cooler, there will be no glaciers in Glacier National Park after about 2030. Worldwide, glaciers are in an accelerating retreat. Again, simple real time observations indicate that barring major cooling most will be gone mid-century.

The observational subject that we are speaking of here is our only source of life. Screw up it's systems badly enough and a lot of the human race is going to die. From Greenland to the Maya, we would not be the first civilization to screw up it's natural support system badly enough to destroy all that we have built.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 7, 2009)

Meister said:


> Your spot on, Kitten, but these global warming nuts seem to think that they know it all just from the last 120 years.  They will tell you that there is evidence from the glacial cores, and such.  But...they really can't answer why there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, and we are in a cooling cycle.  When I have mentioned that the Earth has been a lot warmer than today, and has cooled, they just ignore that little fact, and go forward with their agenda, just like the sites they worship.  It's no more than the new religion, with some followers.  Kinda like the Jim Jones Cult of the 1970's.  These people would drink the Kool-Aid, too.



Silly ass. We have ice cores that go back 650,000 years. And there are many other proxies that tell us how things were even as far back as a billion years ago. 

Why is there more CO2 in the atmosphere now than 150 years ago? Where the hell have you been? Do you really thing that you can burn carbon and hydrocarbons at a multi-billion a year ton rate and not put massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere? No, we are not in a cooling cycle. The warmest 11 years of the last 150 years have occurred in the last 13 years. Now explain how you claim that is a cooling cycle?

Oh sure, numbnuts, it is a religion. A religion that all of the scientific societies of the world, all the National Academies of the World, and all the major universities of the world subscribe to. Now go make your tinfoil hat and crawl back under your bed.


----------



## Meister (Feb 7, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Your spot on, Kitten, but these global warming nuts seem to think that they know it all just from the last 120 years.  They will tell you that there is evidence from the glacial cores, and such.  But...they really can't answer why there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, and we are in a cooling cycle.  When I have mentioned that the Earth has been a lot warmer than today, and has cooled, they just ignore that little fact, and go forward with their agenda, just like the sites they worship.  It's no more than the new religion, with some followers.  Kinda like the Jim Jones Cult of the 1970's.  These people would drink the Kool-Aid, too.
> ...



Not in all scientific societies, not in all national academics of the world.  Just the ones you that you want.  You want to talk about university acedemia...which is really far left bias, well that is an entire subject all by its self.  CO2 has been higher than today, you dumb ass.  It has dropped from the high levels....just how did that happen you dumb ass.  Cycles, cycles, cycles. Get off your CO2 kick, there is much more than CO2 that causes greenhouse gasses. So Old Rock, you get under YOUR bed and shudder that the world won't come to an end.  Who's your messiah???  Oh, I know...global warming.
  By the way dude you sound like an old record.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 7, 2009)

OK. Name one scientific society that states that the current warming is not the result of the burning of fossil fuels. Name one National Academy of Science. Should be an easy enough task, correct?

Yes, levels have been higher in the past. And there have also been times of very rapid increase in GHGs in the past. And those times were also periods of extinction.
Bad things a-comin&#8217; &#8212; global warming edition « Later On


----------



## Chris (Feb 7, 2009)

In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. *Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.*

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 8, 2009)

There's the problem ... we have posted opposing views ... many wingnuts and people like me who don't take sides until all the facts are in. Guess what ... you ignored them while posting more obviously biased links that just happen to support your side. Penn and Teller did the best at explaining why I don't believe it at all, they showed the documents submitted to the government to advance this con by your "wonderful" leader, Al Gore.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 8, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> There's the problem ... we have posted opposing views ... many wingnuts and people like me who don't take sides until all the facts are in. Guess what ... you ignored them while posting more obviously biased links that just happen to support your side. Penn and Teller did the best at explaining why I don't believe it at all, they showed the documents submitted to the government to advance this con by your "wonderful" leader, Al Gore.



What really cracks me up, is that Chrissy and Rocks would have everyone paying a ton of money for new cars that didn't emit CO2. While the greatest cause according to the IPCC is meat production. Yet Chrissy and Rocks have not taken the steps according to their own religion(AGW) to save the planet from AGW, as they are not vegans.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 8, 2009)

jreeves said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > There's the problem ... we have posted opposing views ... many wingnuts and people like me who don't take sides until all the facts are in. Guess what ... you ignored them while posting more obviously biased links that just happen to support your side. Penn and Teller did the best at explaining why I don't believe it at all, they showed the documents submitted to the government to advance this con by your "wonderful" leader, Al Gore.
> ...



Environuts just really don't like facts.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 8, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > We are at the low point of the sun's cycle. It will take 5 years to get back to the top of the cycle.....
> ...


*Hey...if we are in the same solar slump even then, why has the artic gained ice cover this year? When CO2 concentrations play such a large role in ice cap melting....

Your theory of AGW has so many holes it looks like swiss cheese..**..*
I know, here is what I said to Chrissy and here is his dumbass response...

*jreeves, check back with me in September. *


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2009)

jreeves said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > There's the problem ... we have posted opposing views ... many wingnuts and people like me who don't take sides until all the facts are in. Guess what ... you ignored them while posting more obviously biased links that just happen to support your side. Penn and Teller did the best at explaining why I don't believe it at all, they showed the documents submitted to the government to advance this con by your "wonderful" leader, Al Gore.
> ...



When the facts are not on your side, you resort to personal attacks. It is your MO.  

I don't eat beef, which is the source of the CO2 you mentioned, so even your personal attack fails. I eat only chicken and fish.

No, it all boils down to the right wing nuts don't want to "spend money" for clean cars and clean power plants, and they don't like Al Gore. Personally, I couldn't care less about Al Gore, and I have never seen his movie. He is a sidenote to all this. Why? Because every major scientific society on the earth understands what is happening. Only the silly right wing extremists are global warming deniers. When even Exxon admits there is a problem, it is time to give up the ghost. Melting glaciers, ice caps, and rising temperatures have no political affiliation.

By the way it is going to be 70 degrees here today.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
> 
> The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. *Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.*
> 
> BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science


 
I think the Oreskes paper you reference provides an excellent illustration of the fact that it's wise not to just accept things because they were published.  When I first heard of it, I did a Google search.  Within about five minutes I was able to find two articles published in peer reviewed journals during the time frame she looked at (1993-2003) that disagreed with the "consensus" position.  One is at http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf and the other is at http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10/c010p155.pdf .

I knew I would find some because anybody who had been paying attention would've noticed the news media reporting periodic publication of such papers.  Plus there are well known skeptics like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spender who publish.  Take a look at Lindzen's publication list through 2007, for instance, at http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html .  Given how outspoken a critic of the "consensus" view he is, how likely do you think it is that _none_ of the 63 papers he published 1993 - 2003 expressed disagreement with the "consensus" view?  

Frankly, the fact that Oreskes' paper was published in _Science_ shows a bias on the part of the editorial and review boards of that journal.  Her conclusion was, at the least, misleading on its face and it shouldn't have taken any work at all to establish that.  If it wasn't bias, it was a pretty shoddy review process; given that it only took me about five minutes (if that) of Google search to rebut the impression she created.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 8, 2009)

Some interesting discussion of the Oreskes paper can be seen at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-are-censoring-debate-on-global-warming.html

A quote:

*"They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been 'widely dispersed on the internet"'.*

Another quote from the article:

*"'Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: 'It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important.'

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. 'Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. 'The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming.'"*

You guys are operating under the assumption that the peer review process associated with journals is unbiased and objective even under circumstances in which there is passionate devotion to certain beliefs that are associated with political issues.  I think that's a big assumption.  But, either way, it would've taken only one published paper dissenting from the "consensus" view 1993 - 2003 to prove the impression created by Oreskes' paper false and I linked two in the post above.  Do you doubt that, if I wanted to take the time,  I could go through the Lindzen publications and find more?  

The Oreskes paper is a croc.  We don't need to rely on others to tell us that.  It can be very directly demonstrated as such.  Global warminsts would do well to stop citing it.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> When the facts are not on your side, you resort to personal attacks. It is your MO.
> 
> I don't eat beef, which is the source of the CO2 you mentioned, so even your personal attack fails. I eat only chicken and fish.
> 
> No, it all boils down to the right wing nuts don't want to "spend money" for clean cars and clean power plants, and they don't like Al Gore. Personally, I couldn't care less about Al Gore, and I have never seen his movie. He is a sidenote to all this. Why? Because every major scientific society on the earth understands what is happening. Only the silly right wing extremists are global warming deniers. When even Exxon admits there is a problem, it is time to give up the ghost. Melting glaciers, ice caps, and rising temperatures have no political affiliation.



Do you see any kind of contradication involving the idea of discouraging ad hominem attacks between the two underlined portions?

On Exxon:  If it was fair to dismiss Exxon's position  because they had an economic interest, it's just as fair to dismiss it now.  It's reasonable to think that a point came such that Exxon could see the public relations battle was lost and that it would be both futile and contradictory to its interest to continue to argue against the "anthropogenic climate change" hypothesis or certain details of it even if it had good arguments.  It's very easy to see a scenario in which it switched to a "go along to get along" posture.  It could very well be that, instead of opting to continue to resist, the corporation opted to play to public perception and cast itself as a "good guy" for political and public relations purposes.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2009)

Acknowledgements. This work was supported by funds from
the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579), the Air
Force Office of Scientific Research (Grant AF49620-02-1-
0194) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(Grant NAG5-7635). The views expressed herein are those of
the authors and are independent of the sponsoring agencies.
We have benefitted greatly from the true and kind spirit of
research communications (including a preview of their
thoughts) with the late Jean Grove (who passed away on January
18, 2001), Dave Evans, Shaopeng Huang, Jim Kennett,
Yoshio Tagami and Referee #3. We thank John Daly, Diane
Douglas-Dalziel, Craig and Keith Idso for their unselfish contributions
to the references. We also thank the Editor, Chris
de Freitas, for very helpful editorial changes that improved
the manuscript. We are very grateful to Maria McEachern,
Melissa Hilbert, Barbara Palmer and Will Graves for invaluable
library help, and both Philip Gonzalez and Lisa Linarte
for crucial all-around help.


    Very interesting. Not only did this study get oil money, it also got government grant money. So was it a liberal or conservative study? However, it did not address the affects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and I have read many studies that concluded just the opposite in relationship to how much of the Earth's area was affected by the Medevial Warm period. Interesting, with a lot of information, most subject to mulitiple interpretations.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2009)

JR;


I knew I would find some because anybody who had been paying attention would've noticed the news media reporting periodic publication of such papers. Plus there are well known skeptics like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spender who publish. Take a look at Lindzen's publication list through 2007, for instance, at http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...ationsRSL.html . Given how outspoken a critic of the "consensus" view he is, how likely do you think it is that none of the 63 papers he published 1993 - 2003 expressed disagreement with the "consensus" view? 


Many of the papers that were included in that list were published in non-peer reviewed publications, like the Wall Street Journal, and the Brookings Institute. Those that were published in peer reviewed journals had a pdf link that did not work, so I cannot judge what they did say. From publications of Lindzen that I have read, he never states that CO2 is not a GHG, in fact, he states just the opposite. But he states that there are negative feedbacks that limit the effect of GHGs. One of these hypothesized effects, the iris effect, has already been shown not to exist. Another, the supposed limit on the amount that increasing CO2 can heat the atmosphere was shown not to exist over 50 years ago. The atmosphere does not act as a single layer in respect to the GHG effect, rather as a mult-layer blanket.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2009)

Now I have read some of Spencer's drivel. For anyone with the least scientific education, Spencer's '50 years of CO2, Time for a Vision Test' is an insult to our intelligiance. Spencer no longer has any credibility within scientific circles. Same for Singer. For the same reasons.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Lmao, sure you only eat chicken and fish. That is the reason you said no not even close. That's the reason you said lets wait until Sept. right, cause their is just so much evidence of this AGW. Hypocrite, give up meat before you come preaching about your clean cars.....


----------



## jreeves (Feb 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Lmao, more rock hard evidence. I wonder if it has ever been 70 degrees in Febuary?


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2009)

jreeves, you don't care about evidence.

Melting glaciers, melting ice caps, and rising temperatures....

There is plenty of evidence.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 8, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Now I have read some of Spencer's drivel. For anyone with the least scientific education, Spencer's '50 years of CO2, Time for a Vision Test' is an insult to our intelligiance. Spencer no longer has any credibility within scientific circles. Same for Singer. For the same reasons.



When you say something like that, you ought to give at least one example from the piece you're citing of why it's an insult to our intelligence.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 8, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Very interesting. Not only did this study get oil money, it also got government grant money. So was it a liberal or conservative study? However, it did not address the affects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and I have read many studies that concluded just the opposite in relationship to how much of the Earth's area was affected by the Medevial Warm period. Interesting, with a lot of information, most subject to mulitiple interpretations.



Remember, Rocks, what I was getting at is that the Oreskes paper created the impression that there were _no_ peer reviewed, published papers contrary to the "consensus."  There obviously were a number of such papers.  What she did was intellectually dishonest; extremely so.  And what _Science_ did in publishing her paper as well as in refusing to publish rebuttals was also pretty bad.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2009)

This is from the conclusions from Lindzens paper.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind..._Cli_Dynam.pdf


 it was, in fact a scenario
designed to double effective CO2 by 2030 and quadruple it later in the
century. In order to arrive at such a scenario, it was necessary to project
substantial increases in population, higher standards of living in the currently
less developed world, increased reliance on coal, restrictions on
nuclear power, etc. Recognition of the vast uncertainty of all projections
over such long periods led to the presentation of a broad range of possibilities
in Houghtone t al (1992). It became  clear that the main determinant
of emissions would be population and economic growth in the currently
less developed countries, and that emmission controls in the currently
developed countries was of relatively small long-term importance. In
addition to socio-economic uncertainties, there are significant geochemical
uncertainties in translating emissions into atmospheric CO2
.................

That was an interesting read, thank you, JR. And the quote you gave was out of context in that it refered to the equatorial warming, rather than the whole warming. 

Now look at the paragraph that I copied for you. Lindzen makes the point that the projected increase by other scientists in the amount of CO2 could only take place if there were substancial increases in the standard of living in the then large third world countries. Only if there were substancial increases in the use of coal for power generation. This was written in 1993. Lindzen seemed to feel that this would not happen. It is now 2009. China now produces more CO2 than does the US. India is doing all it can to build more coal generation. Living standards have risen enormously in both nation.

The scientists that Lindzen was critisizing for making what he considered unwarrented assumptions concerning the growth and emmission of CO2 by the then third world countries were spot on in their predictions. And no where in the paper did Lindzen ever state that the increase in CO2 would not increase temperature. He seemed to think that there would be a point where the emmissions of CO2 would taper off. He also pointed out that in the PETM in the early Eocene, the poles warmed, and the equatorial regions either did not, or only warmed very little. At the time that he wrote the paper, the polar warming was not occuring at the rate we see it today. So, by his own data, we are now in a warming created by GHGs, in a classical pattern, no less.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now I have read some of Spencer's drivel. For anyone with the least scientific education, Spencer's '50 years of CO2, Time for a Vision Test' is an insult to our intelligiance. Spencer no longer has any credibility within scientific circles. Same for Singer. For the same reasons.
> ...



50 Years of CO2: Time for a Vision Test
January 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. 
(Jan. 10 update: A few people seem to have missed the point of this satirical post. It is a counterpoint to Al Gores use of millions of tons when talking about CO2 emissions. Im pointing out that relative to the total atmosphere, millions of tons of CO2 is miniscule. And even a 50% increase in a very small number [the CO2 content of the atmosphere] is still a very small number.)

Now that there have been 50 full years of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration monitoring at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, I thought January1, 2009 would be an appropriate time to take a nostalgic look back.

As you well know from Al Gores movie (remember? Its the one you were required to come to English class and watch or the teacher would fail your kid), we are now pumping 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day as if its an open sewer.

Well, 50 years of that kind of pollution is really taking its toll. So, without further ado, heres what 50 years of increasing levels of CO2 looks like on the Big Island:


As you can see, there has been a rapidwhat? You cant see it?oh, Im sorry. Its that flat line at the bottom of the graphhere let me change the vertical scale so it runs from 0 to 10% of the atmosphere, rather than 0 to 100%.


Now, as I was sayingyou can see there has been a rapid increasewhat? what NOW? You still cant see it?? Its that blue line at the bottom! Are you color deaf? 

Obviously, you had too much to drink at the New Years party last night, and your eyes are a little blurry. Here, Ill change the scaleAGAIN..to go from 0 to 1% of the atmosphere.


Now can you see it? Good. As I was saying, 50 years of carbon dioxide emissions by humanity has really caused the CO2 content of the atmosphere to surge upward. It might not look like much, but trust me, Mr. Gore says.

NOW what?? Carbon dioxide is what? Necessary for life on Earth?

What are you, some kind of global warming denying right-wing extremist wacko? The polar bears are drowning!!

I can see Im just wasting my timesheesh.

50 Years of CO2: Time for a Vision Test « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Very interesting. Not only did this study get oil money, it also got government grant money. So was it a liberal or conservative study? However, it did not address the affects of GHGs in the atmosphere, and I have read many studies that concluded just the opposite in relationship to how much of the Earth's area was affected by the Medevial Warm period. Interesting, with a lot of information, most subject to mulitiple interpretations.
> ...



OK, you have yet to show a peer reviewed paper that states that the anthropogenic CO2 is not the cause of the heating that we are presently seeing. You produced one that stated that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the present, an old one from Lindzen that stated that he thought that the projected rise in CO2 was wrong, and made several other statements which the present has shown to be wrong. 


What we are looking for is a paper that states that anthropogenically created CO2 has no effect on the climate. Not one that says, "Oh my, it has been warmer before" or the incorrect predictions in a rather good paper with interesting observations. In fact, I will now use Lindzens's paper to bolster my arguements concerning global warming. After all, he definately pointed out that one of the evidences for a GHG induced warming, such as we saw in the late paleocene and early eocene, is the rapid warming of the polar regions. And we are seeing that right now.


----------



## del (Feb 8, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> JohnStOnge said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



nice deflection. 
do you use a corkscrew to put on your pants?


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 8, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Many of the papers that were included in that list were published in non-peer reviewed publications, like the Wall Street Journal, and the Brookings Institute. Those that were published in peer reviewed journals had a pdf link that did not work, so I cannot judge what they did say. From publications of Lindzen that I have read, he never states that CO2 is not a GHG, in fact, he states just the opposite. But he states that there are negative feedbacks that limit the effect of GHGs. One of these hypothesized effects, the iris effect, has already been shown not to exist. Another, the supposed limit on the amount that increasing CO2 can heat the atmosphere was shown not to exist over 50 years ago. The atmosphere does not act as a single layer in respect to the GHG effect, rather as a mult-layer blanket.



You say the Iris effect has been shown not to exist.  I say some have argued that it doesn't exist. You have decided that those who argue that are correct.  I say that I don't know.

Regardless, the point is that Oreskes claim of the total absence of dissent in peer reviewed articles is false.  I am able to go to the links on the list of Lindzen publications and have no problem finding articles of dissent.  This one, for instance: http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/161scb~1.pdf .

Unfortunately, I can't cut and paste from it because it's a "picture" pdf so I have to limit what I quote (because I have to type it).  But look at the abstract.  Then go to the concluding remarks on page 132 where it says this:

*"Much of the debate on how the society should respond to the purported danger of global warming hinges on one's interpretation of and response to 'uncertainty.'  In point of fact, there is neither an observational nor theoretical basis for expecting substantial warming."*

You have opted to believe the majority view. But the point isn't whether Lindzen is/was correct or not.  The point is that it isn't hard at ALL to find published, peer reviewed papers from the 1993-2003 period dissenting from the consensus position.  At the least Oreskes was disingenous.  At worst she is an out and out liar when she creates the impression of "no dissent."


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Many of the papers that were included in that list were published in non-peer reviewed publications, like the Wall Street Journal, and the Brookings Institute. Those that were published in peer reviewed journals had a pdf link that did not work, so I cannot judge what they did say. From publications of Lindzen that I have read, he never states that CO2 is not a GHG, in fact, he states just the opposite. But he states that there are negative feedbacks that limit the effect of GHGs. One of these hypothesized effects, the iris effect, has already been shown not to exist. Another, the supposed limit on the amount that increasing CO2 can heat the atmosphere was shown not to exist over 50 years ago. The atmosphere does not act as a single layer in respect to the GHG effect, rather as a mult-layer blanket.
> ...



How old is that article?

All the graphs end in 1990!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2009)

Two things here. One, you are correct that he did state that he did not expect substancial warming, and unlike his earlier paper, he now seems to state that the increase in CO2 is not a problem. This was written in 1994, 14 years ago. His concluding sentence is;

It will be of great interest to see whether, in the event that scientific evidence profoundly diminishes the expected danger, the momentum can be reversed.

The momentum that he felt had to be reversed was any action to diminish the output of CO2 of the coal plants. He, and others, were successful. There was no action taken.

But what has really happened? The evidence is that the danger was greatly underestimated by even the most pessimistic scientists of the period in which this paper was published. We are seeing very real and very major feedbacks in exactly the area that Lindzen had earlier said we should be seeing them. However, now that we are at 285 ppm instead of 255 ppm, and seeing an accelerating increase, we can see what a failure that Lindzen is as a prophet. 

Again, thank you, JR, you have definately given me more information concerning how wrong in the past that Lindzen has proven to be. Lindzen predicted in 2004 that there would be 20 years of global cooling. Twenty percent of that period is now past, and it has been very warm.
2008 Global Temperature Ties As Eighth Warmest On Record


----------



## Sinatra (Feb 8, 2009)

CSM said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > 97% of climatologists know a gravy train when they see one.
> ...



Exactly.  All this report represents is the alarm within the Global Warming money-making community over what to do with the prevailing data of the last 10 years indicating the earth's climate has been in cooling mode, with the last two years erasing all the warming that took place during the warming trends of the late 80's and peaking around 1998.

And so we will be inundated with more of these reports until another bogus study is circulated explaining the warming trend away (utilizing the already well established moniker of "climate change") and attempting to keep the hysteria up to optimum profit making levels.

The fact is, if these so called Global Warmers were serious about the issue - they would be demanding that China and India clean up their industrialized mess. 

But no, these same GWs only wish to exercise control in the United States where the real $$$ is to be made via carbon credits and the "Go Green" industry.  (See: GE)

It has always been a sham.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvLt3nU14W4[/ame]








What we see is a flat global temperature trend between 1995-1998 - temps dropped considerable following that high point in 1998, then remained fairly constant, and have now been falling considerably since 2007.  2008 was the coldest year in the last eight, with indications of continueing cold into 2009 and beyond.   Basically, what Al Gore and the GWs did was utilize a chart starting during the colder than normal global temp trends in the 1070's as teh basis for rising global temperatures.  This finally caught up to them as the earth follows a 25-35 year climate pattern in which global temperatures rise and fall marginally within that cycle.

The GW proponents were quite aware of this fact - that is THE reason for the change to the far more ambigious "Climate Change" mantra that has been chanted for the last few years.

Now please note that in the wake of these cold temps, you have those within the science community whose livelihoods are directly linked to selling the GW theory, minimizing the reality of the cooling trend data.  Come summer, as they do every year, when there is a hot spell, you will see a substantial increase in Global Warming/Climate Change stories.

This is funded by BIG MONEY - 10 years ago Enron was one of the primary funders of GW research.  It wanted a slice of the multi-billion dollar GW business pie.  Other large multi-nationals have followed suit.

Open your eyes folks and do your own thinking on this - Global Warming has, and remains, a gaint money-grabbing lie.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves, you don't care about evidence.
> 
> Melting glaciers, melting ice caps, and rising temperatures....
> 
> There is plenty of evidence.



More ice cover in 2009, colder temperatures with an increase in CO2 emmissions in 2008 and 2009....you are right there is plenty of evidence. 

Btw....why can't you eliminate your 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emmissions? What a joke you are calling for major policy changes, yet you can't eliminate your personal 1.5 billion carbon emmissions. LOL


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 9, 2009)

One thing I keep forgetting ... colder temps doesn't always mean more ice, it means an increased chance of ice. Two things can decrease the amount of water that will freeze, salt and movement. Temperature changes in either direction can decrease oceanic ice, so using polar caps as a measurement only shows a change, not which way. It's still junk science.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 9, 2009)

Finally ... after a strange snow storm in December (unseasonably cold) we get our normally scheduled snow ... so, it's warmer how?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2009)

Eleven of the warmest years in 150 years in the last 13 years, but it is getting colder? Lordy, lordy

And global warming is a lie and a conspriracy involving all the scientific societies on earth, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities. Talk about a tenuous grip on reality. You people take the cake.


----------



## Chris (Feb 9, 2009)

Let's review shall we....

Glaciers in retreat....

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

The Polar Ice Cap melting....

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007

Antarctic warming.....

Science News / Antarctica Is Getting Warmer Too

CO2 increased by 40%....

The Rise of CO2 & Warming

Every major scientific group on the planet in agreement about the cause.....

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science


----------



## Sinatra (Feb 9, 2009)

Antarctic warming.....

Science News / Antarctica Is Getting Warmer Too
__________________


This study you cite is a perfect example of how this GW story is spun in the face of contradicting facts.

That study has already been disproven - it was based upon faulty data.

» Snow Job in Antarctica SOS Forests

You have a young gentleman go down on a GW finding mission paid for by GW funding.  The data is compiled incorrectly to come up with a pre-determined conclusion.  The paper, due to its pro GW stance, is widely published.

The facts that dismiss this paper are then ignored or given scant attention, thus the lie becomes the reality.

This scenario has been played out time and time again.  

GW is BIG BUSINESS, and as such, the very corporations that so many liberals state they are against, are actually the ones now forwarding the GW agenda.  You are being played as pawns in the game of profits, the monkey to the grinder.

As more and more in the scientific community bravely stand against this abomination to science though, the more difficult this ruse becomes, despite the acidic combination of corporate greed and human arrogance that we are the controlling factor behind earth's vast climate.

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change - Times Online


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 9, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Eleven of the warmest years in 150 years in the last 13 years, but it is getting colder? Lordy, lordy
> 
> And global warming is a lie and a conspriracy involving all the scientific societies on earth, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities. Talk about a tenuous grip on reality. You people take the cake.



What part of the books are being cooked by people chasing $$$$ and control don't you get? NASA has already been busted on several occasions re-writing history to arrive at just the statistics you cite. Then they pump it into the echo chamber so that willing stooges will repeat it until it becomes "truth".


----------



## Chris (Feb 9, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Eleven of the warmest years in 150 years in the last 13 years, but it is getting colder? Lordy, lordy
> ...



http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 9, 2009)

Global Warlarmists were the first ones to cry conspiracy when they were proven wrong, so of course they'd ignore the fact that their savior (Gore) was the one to actually start a conspiracy ... to make money.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 9, 2009)

Rocks, Chris, I use to be like you. I use to believe in the junk science, until I learned the real science and facts about it. Guess what, you've been conned and are still falling for it. It's more adult to admit you were fooled than it is to stick to the myth.


----------



## Chris (Feb 9, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Rocks, Chris, I use to be like you. I use to believe in the junk science, until I learned the real science and facts about it. Guess what, you've been conned and are still falling for it. It's more adult to admit you were fooled than it is to stick to the myth.



http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 9, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Again, thank you, JR, you have definately given me more information concerning how wrong in the past that Lindzen has proven to be. Lindzen predicted in 2004 that there would be 20 years of global cooling. Twenty percent of that period is now past, and it has been very warm.
> 2008 Global Temperature Ties As Eighth Warmest On Record



New global temperature record expected in the next 1-2 years

*"2008 was the coolest year since 2000 but still ranks in the top 10 warmest since 1880."*

Nothing about that refutes Lindzen's prediction. Besides, the point is that the impression Oreskes created was false.  There were dissenting opinions in he published literature during 1993 - 2003.


----------



## Chris (Feb 9, 2009)

Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1). At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year (see Figure 3).

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007


----------



## Chris (Feb 9, 2009)

XINING, Feb. 4 (Xinhua) -- Chinese scientists said Wednesday glaciers that serve as water sources on the Qinghai-Tibet plateau are melting at a "worrisome speed," having receded 196 square km over the past nearly 40 years. 

The decline is equal to about one-fourth of the area of New York City. 

Xin Yuanhong, senior engineer in charge of a three-year field study of glaciers in the region, said glaciers at the headwaters of the Yangtze, China's longest river, cover 1,051 square km, down from 1,247 square km in 1971. 

    "The reduction means more than 989 million cubic meters of water melted away," said Xin, whose team surveyed the glaciers between June 2005 and August 2008. That much water would fill Beijing's largest reservoir. 

Melting glaciers on China's Qinghai-Tibet plateau water source "worrisome"_English_Xinhua


----------



## Chris (Feb 9, 2009)

ZURICH, Switzerland (AP) &#8212; The world's glaciers thinned by an average of almost 29 inches (74 centimeters) in 2007, indicating that they are melting twice as fast this decade as during the 1980s and 1990s, Swiss scientists said Thursday.

The World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich regularly measures 80 glaciers around the globe.

It found that some Alpine glaciers lost as much as 10 feet (3 meters) of ice cover, while coastal glaciers in Norway actually thickened in 2007.

The rate of decline was less than in 2006, according to Michael Zemp, one of the scientists involved.

But 2007 was the sixth year this decade that the glaciers lost on average more than 20 inches (50 centimeters) thickness.

"This means that the rate of melting during the 1980s and 1990s has more than doubled," Zemp said.

The Associated Press: Swiss scientists say world&#39;s glaciers melting fast


----------



## del (Feb 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> *Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979*. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1). At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year (see Figure 3).
> 
> NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007



WOW! based on that, i'd have to say it's time to panic. i mean, the lowest in 30 YEARS, almost! since the earth is roughly 6 billion years old, that's a sample size of what-almost .0000005%?

how could we have doubted with methodology like that?








idiot


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> How old is that article?
> 
> All the graphs end in 1990!



The point, Chris, is that Dr. Oreskes' article has been used to create the impression that there was no dissent from the "consensus" view in published literature during 1993 - 2003.  It's a false impression.  

Here is a statement by Oreskes on what the "consensus" she referred to is:

*"There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason."*

Then she wrote:

*"There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. "* 

That was based on her assessment of papers published "between 1993 and 2003.

You can see those statements at Undeniable Global Warming (washingtonpost.com) .

Yet here is a paper by Richard Lindzen published in a peer reviewed journal in 1994:

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/161scb~1.pdf

If you go to page 7 of the pdf document or page 131 of the journal, you will see this statement:

*"What we see in the past record is most consistent with an equilibrium response to a doubling of about 1.3 C  - assuming that all of the observed warming was due to increasing CO2. However, there is nothing in the record that can be distinguished from the natural variability of the climate.*

The point is that the Oreskes "study" was crap. You can argue about whether or not published articles dissenting from the "consensus" view as she defined it or valid but you can not argue that they are abesent from the world of published peer reviewed articles.  It is very easy to find published  peer reviewed papers that dissent from the "consensus" as she defined it.  The tragedy is that her "study" became popularized and accepted as meaningful when it was total junk.


----------



## Chris (Feb 9, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > *Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979*. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1). At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year (see Figure 3).
> ...




The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year (see Figure 3).


----------



## del (Feb 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



for almost three whole decades out of 600,000,000 decades!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dope


----------



## Chris (Feb 9, 2009)

The Associated Press: Swiss scientists say world&#39;s glaciers melting fast


----------



## Sinatra (Feb 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Associated Press: Swiss scientists say world's glaciers melting fast



Followed by:  So please keep funding us!!!


----------



## Sinatra (Feb 9, 2009)

The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/PDFs/NationalReviewAd.pdf


----------



## jreeves (Feb 9, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Rocks, Chris, I use to be like you. I use to believe in the junk science, until I learned the real science and facts about it. Guess what, you've been conned and are still falling for it. It's more adult to admit you were fooled than it is to stick to the myth.



They are hypocrites, they don't believe in what they advocate for because if they did, they would be saving the world from 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emmissions. That would be a grand total of 3 billion tons between the two.....

They like speaking from their ass, even though there isn't a lick of solid scientific evidence to prove their quasi position.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> Let's review shall we....
> 
> Glaciers in retreat....
> 
> ...


Despite the hot air, the Antarctic is not warming up - Telegraph
The problem with Antarctica, though, is that has so few weather stations. So what the computer had been programmed to do, by a formula not yet revealed, was to estimate the data those missing weather stations would have come up with if they had existed. In other words, while confirming that the satellite data have indeed shown the Antarctic as cooling since 1979, the study relied ultimately on pure guesswork, to show that in the past 50 years the continent has warmed  by just one degree Fahrenheit. 

One of the first to express astonishment was Dr Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a convinced believer in global warming, who wryly observed "it is hard to make data where none exists". A disbelieving Ross Hayes, an atmospheric scientist who has often visited the Antarctic for Nasa, sent Professor Steig a caustic email ending: "with statistics you can make numbers go to any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage." 

But it was also noticed that among the members of Steig's team was Michael Mann, author of the "hockey stick", the most celebrated of all attempts by the warmists to rewrite the scientific evidence to promote their cause. The greatest of all embarrassments for the believers in man-made global warming was the well-established fact that the world was significantly warmer in the Middle Ages than it is now. "We must get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period," as one contributor to the IPCC famously said in an unguarded moment. It was Dr Mann who duly obliged by getting his computer-model to produce a graph shaped like hockey stick, eliminating the mediaeval warming and showing recent temperatures curving up to an unprecedented high. 

This instantly became the warmists' chief icon, made the centrepiece of the IPCC's 2001 report. But Mann's selective use of data and the flaws in his computer model were then so devastatingly torn apart that it has become the most comprehensively discredited artefact in the history of science. 

The fact that Dr Mann is again behind the new study on Antarctica is, alas, all part of an ongoing pattern. But this will not prevent the paper being cited ad nauseam by everyone from the BBC to Al Gore, when he shortly addresses the US Senate and carries on advising President Obama behind the scenes on how to roll back that "spectre of a warming planet". So, regardless of the science, and until the politicians finally wake up to how they have been duped, what threatens to become the most costly flight from reality in history will continue to roll remorselessly on its way. 

Not the least shocking news of the week was the revelation by that admirable body the Taxpayers Alliance that last year the number of "middle managers" in Britain's local authorities rose by a staggering 22 percent. Birmingham City Council alone has more than 1,000 officials earning over £50,000 a year. All over Britain senior council officials are now earning salaries which 10 years ago would have seemed unthinkable. 

Future historians will doubtless find it highly significant that just when Britain's economy was about to collapse, an already hopelessly bloated public sector was expanding faster than ever. One of the more dramatic changes in British life over the past two decades has been how, aided by their counterparts in Whitehall and Brussels, the officials who run our local authorities have become separated from the communities they used to serve. Floating free of political control, they have become a new privileged class, able to dictate their own salaries and extend their own empires, paid for by a public to whom they are no longer accountable. 

But if this gulf has already become wide enough, how much more glaring is it going to become now that the private sector is shrinking so fast? Already last year an astonishing 2.5 million people were in court for failing or being unable to pay ever soaring council taxes. Tellingly, the only response of the Local Government Association to these latest revelations was plaintively to point out that as many as "2,700" council jobs have already been lost in the economic downturn. But outside those walls three millon may soon be out of work. Who will then be left to pay for those salaries and pensions that our new privilegentsia have arranged for themselves? 

How appropriate that Kenneth Clarke should become "shadow" to Business Secretary Peter Mandelson. As fervent "Europeans", both men know that almost all the policies of the ministry laughably renamed the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform are now decided at "European level". There is therefore hardly any job left for them to do. Mr Clarke will be free to continue advising Centaurus, one of the largest hedge funds in Europe. Lord Mandelson can carry on running the Labour Party, But the last thing either will want to admit is that all the powers they claim or seek to exercise have been handed over to Brussels. 
The Government last week announced that in March it is to sell off 25 million "carbon credits". These European Union Allowances permit industry and electricity companies to continue emitting CO2, ultimately paid for by all of us through our electricity bills. Last summer, when these permits were trading at 31 euros each, this sale might have raised more than £500 million pounds, Today, however, thanks to the economic meltdown creating a surplus of credits no longer needed, their value is dropping so fast that Mr Darling will be lucky to get £100 million. That should help reduce our electricity bills  even though Mr Darling will merely have to extract the cash from us in other ways.


----------



## Chris (Feb 9, 2009)

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Chris (Feb 9, 2009)

Photos don't lie. 

Only people lie.

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf


----------



## del (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Photos don't lie.
> 
> Only people lie.
> 
> http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf



*yawn*

an original thought would knock you over stone cold dead.


----------



## Chris (Feb 10, 2009)

Please explain these 34 glacier photos....

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf


----------



## del (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Please explain these 34 glacier photos....
> 
> http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf



sure, right after i alphabetize my sock drawer.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level *could* gravely affect our future.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



Could being the operative word...


----------



## Chris (Feb 10, 2009)

Please explain these photos of Alaskan glaciers...

Photos: Glacier meltdowns amid global warming - CNET News


----------



## del (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Please explain these photos of Alaskan glaciers...
> 
> Photos: Glacier meltdowns amid global warming - CNET News



they were taken with a camera and then uploaded to the web.
hope that helps, kirky


----------



## Chris (Feb 10, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain these photos of Alaskan glaciers...
> ...



It does.

You can't explain them.


----------



## Chris (Feb 10, 2009)

Great before and after photos....

Boulder Glacier Photos in 1932 and 1988


----------



## del (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



explain them?
i didn't even look at them. 
i don't do junk science. 
i leave that to you and the other chicken littles like old rocks.


----------



## Sinatra (Feb 10, 2009)

What is so apparent with the contradicting posts that have numerous scientific studies to back them up is that there has NEVER been an actual consensus on this issue.

So if Gore etc. are stating "The Debate Is Over" you must ask yourself WHY they would do that.  What is the motivation to lie?  

$$$$$$$$$....


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2009)

Oh my, every scientific society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major university states that global warming is occuring, that it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and that it represents a clear and present danger to our future, but that is not a consensus?. LOL

You dingbats have no arguement. The continental caps are melting by the giga-ton, the alpine glaciers are rapidly disappearing, and we are seeing major feedbacks now from the arctic tundra, permafrost zones, and clathrates in the arctic ocean. And you cretins are bleating about a 'cooling'?

You are presented with peer reviewed artilcles from scientific journals, articles from Scientific American and the National Geographic, and you reply with articles from Prison Planet. Lordy, lordy. And when you did reply with a peer reviewed article, Lindzen's, it's conclusions and predictions from 1993 were so far from reality that we now experiance that one can have no confidence at all in his ability to draw correct conclusions from the evidence that is presented to him.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 10, 2009)

Here's a new thought, or theory, that most environuts won't like.

The earth itself is a living organism .. at least many believe so. We can agree that most of the earths resources actually come from rain forests. Rain forests need warmer temperatures to thrive, tropical weather patterns more specifically. Perhaps the planet is evolving to support the life it has by warming up so that the rain forests can thrive in more places, thus cleaning the atmosphere and providing larger amounts of oxygen for the species that require it. Let's just suppose this is the case, then stopping it would actually not help us, but allowing it to happen would increase our resources vastly to accommodate our species' increasing population while increasing our chances of finding better and more resources for fuel and sciences (primarily medical) without harming the current limited rain forests.


----------



## Chris (Feb 10, 2009)

Sinatra said:


> What is so apparent with the contradicting posts that have numerous scientific studies to back them up is that there has NEVER been an actual consensus on this issue.
> 
> So if Gore etc. are stating "The Debate Is Over" you must ask yourself WHY they would do that.  What is the motivation to lie?
> 
> $$$$$$$$$....



No, what is apparent is that in spite of irrefutable photographic evidence of global warming, the deniers can't accept the truth.

Once again, why have these glaciers melted?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf


----------



## jreeves (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > What is so apparent with the contradicting posts that have numerous scientific studies to back them up is that there has NEVER been an actual consensus on this issue.
> ...



Why does a dog lick his ass? Both have about the same to do with AGW...


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Great before and after photos....
> 
> Boulder Glacier Photos in 1932 and 1988



No controls, no science. Nice pics.


----------



## Chris (Feb 10, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Great before and after photos....
> ...



As I suspected. No answer from the wingnuts.

Once again, why did these 34 glaciers melt?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf


----------



## del (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



lex luthor's giant microwave
the horror


----------



## Tech_Esq (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> > What is so apparent with the contradicting posts that have numerous scientific studies to back them up is that there has NEVER been an actual consensus on this issue.
> ...



Stop fearing change Chris. I hate you people on my network, I upgrade the software and nothing but bitch, bitch, bitch from you change fearers. 

The climate is not static. It has never been static. It gets warmer and colder over time. Just deal with the change. Maybe you need to get religion to help you through it. I mean real religion not this global warming substitute for religion. Not everyone is strong enough to handle real life on their own. It appears you might be one of them.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Why are we still not in the Ice Age?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 10, 2009)

Because of the Milankovic Cycle.


----------



## Meister (Feb 10, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Because of the Milankovic Cycle.



Milankovic Cycles, has to do with planetary wobble, there is truth to that, but also, and the global warming alarmists don't talk about, is the solar cycles of the Sun.  They will try and tell you it has little effect with all the warming going on because of Man made CO2.  Like in an earlier post, if the government was really concerned about all the Man made CO2, they would be hitting up China, India, and Russia.  The dirty little secret of these damn alarmists is that those countries don't have the money that could be sucked from them.  But, the United States of America is the cash cow for the world.  These alarmists don't have a nickels worth of common sense between them.  They read and listen to the their far left wing nuts for orders.  I used to think that Old Rocks was just a global warming fanatic, I did have some respect for his passion. But after reading some of his posts in other threads with politics, he is certainly just a left wing nut that hates everything but the far left liberals.  I have no respect for the man what soever.


----------



## Chris (Feb 10, 2009)

"Blah, blah, balh, far left liberals.."

What bullshit!

The question is, why is the earth warming?


----------



## del (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> "Blah, blah, balh, far left liberals.."
> 
> What bullshit!
> 
> The question is, why is the earth warming?



heat


----------



## Meister (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> "Blah, blah, balh, far left liberals.."
> 
> What bullshit!
> 
> The question is, why is the earth warming?



Truth hurt, Chris????


----------



## Chris (Feb 10, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > "Blah, blah, balh, far left liberals.."
> ...



No, the truth is you didn't answer the question.

Why is the earth warming?


----------



## jreeves (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Because that is what the earth does, it goes through cycles of heating and cooling.


----------



## Chris (Feb 10, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



What mechanism is causing it to warm?


----------



## jreeves (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Nature


----------



## Meister (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



The Sun, you dumb ass.  Have you ever heard the term, "Keep it simple, stupid"?  Well the Earth and the Sun have been doing it for billions of years.


----------



## Chris (Feb 10, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



But the Stanford Solar Center scientists say the Sun only accounts for a fraction of global warming...

Global Warming -- Research Issues


----------



## Meister (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Stanford????get real, Chris.  Think about this....  Stanford says that the Sun accounts for a fraction of global warming, right???  Now just pretend we didn't have a Sun.  Wouldn't you have one very cold dead planet???  I rest my case.


----------



## Chris (Feb 10, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



The Sun has not increased its radiation enough to account for the warming.


----------



## Chris (Feb 10, 2009)

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png


----------



## Meister (Feb 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Chris, I give up...you wore me out.  You will never get it.  If you study your graph with all those colored lines...the temp. really doesn't go along with your CO2 line.  During 1880 and 1910 CO2 was rising, and the temps were falling.  During the 1940's and 1950 the same thing was going on...now this was with the chart you provided.  Go back to school son.  And your quote from this post about the Sun's radiation....well, obviously your wrong there too, because there was enough radiation to warm us up in the 1990's.  Chris I'm not going to post anymore here, because I think I stated my case good enough to you...a right wing nut.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 10, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Oh come on, don't you enjoy debating the brainless?


----------



## Chris (Feb 11, 2009)

I enjoy when people have no facts, only insults.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 11, 2009)

Chris said:


> I enjoy when people have no facts, only insults.



You wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you in the face. Cooling temperatures while CO2 emmissions have grown, increased ice cover....etc...


----------



## Chris (Feb 11, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I enjoy when people have no facts, only insults.
> ...



This year is the bottom of the solar cycle. That's why.

It is going to be 74 degrees here tomorrow by the way.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 11, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Lmao, what have CO2 emmissions done in the last year? Which is it, the sun or CO2 emmissions?


----------



## Chris (Feb 11, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



Both. That's the point. 

It isn't one or the other.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 11, 2009)

Chris said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



We are on an upswing in the solar cycle remember it was flat bottom last year? It's fun to argue in circles...


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Because of the Milankovic Cycle.
> ...



LOL. And you are an ignoramous. There has been no increase in total solar irradiance for the last 50 years that we have had satellites accurately monitoring the sun. 

Yes, we are vitally concerned with the GHG outputs of China, India, and Russia. But we can hardly lecture them on their output, when we do nothing about ours.

I neither need nor desire your respect. You see it counts for nothing. You have shown yourself to be driven by ideology, rather than reacting to reality.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jreeves said:
> ...



No, the sun has nothing at all to do with the increase in the warming in at least the last 50 years. We have had solar observatories in orbit for that long, and there has been no increase in the total solar irradiance. So, no increase in solar irradiance, then it has to be another factor. 

What other major factor in the Earth's heat budget has changed? Were the Earth totally dependent on just the sun, our planet would be permentanly frozen. Without the CO2 that the atmosphere contains, the average temperature of the Earth's surface would be well below the freezing point of water. However, the earth's atmosphere does contain GHGs, and we enjoy, for the most part, a temperate climate. But, we have changed the control on our heat budget. We have added nearly 40% more CO2 in just over 150 years. And the temperature is climbing as a result. 

Have there been other periods in the Earth's history where there was a rapid increase in GHGs? Yes, a number of them. The P-T extinction event, the PETM event in the late Paleocene, early Eocene, that also involve a minor extinction event, are just two of several. So we know what happens when there is a rapid buildup of GHGs in the atmosphere. What we do not know is at what point the process becomes irreversible. But we are on our way to finding out.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Sheesh, folks like you are amazing! There are a number of other things going on besides the increase in CO2. First, the eruption of Krakatoa depressed the tempretures from 1883 to at least 1890. Second, there are natural cycles, such as the El Nino-La Nina cycle that increase and decrease global temperatures. 

No, you have presented no case. All you have presented is unsupported opinion, opinion contrary to all evidence that the scientists have shown us.


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 11, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



no one cares and you have failed to create the fear that you so desperately want the rest of us to feel.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Feb 11, 2009)

you do realize that Humans are only responsible for 3.5% of the CO2 in the Atmosphere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2009)

Andrew2382 said:


> you do realize that Humans are only responsible for 3.5% of the CO2 in the Atmosphere.



Do you realize that you haven't the faintest idea of what you are saying?

EIA - Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy


----------



## Meister (Feb 11, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > you do realize that Humans are only responsible for 3.5% of the CO2 in the Atmosphere.
> ...



THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!  THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!  Oh brother


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew2382 said:
> ...



Ever bother to read anything from credible sources on this subject? Ever bother to read anything at all? Thus far, I see nothing in your replies that indicate that you are capable of rational thought.


----------



## Meister (Feb 11, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Old Rocks, I'm just going to say this once...have you ever bothered to read anything from a credible source on this subject????  Everything has been from your liberal wing nut sources...EVERYTHING!!!  THE SKY IS FALLING!!!  THE SKY IS FALLING!!!


----------



## Chris (Feb 11, 2009)

Melting glaciers, melting ice caps, and rising temperatures have no political affiliation.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 11, 2009)

Chris said:


> Melting glaciers, melting ice caps, and rising temperatures have no political affiliation.



No ... but statistics and interpretation does.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2009)

Kitten, the glaciers I have walked on and by for the last 45 years are not subject to interpretation or statistics. The photos from the satelites that clearly show the retreat of the glaciers on all continents are not statistics. The "Drunken Forests" of Alaska are not statistics. 

There is a warming occuring, and as with all things natural, there is a reason why it is warming.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 11, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Kitten, the glaciers I have walked on and by for the last 45 years are not subject to interpretation or statistics. The photos from the satelites that clearly show the retreat of the glaciers on all continents are not statistics. The "Drunken Forests" of Alaska are not statistics.
> 
> There is a warming occuring, and as with all things natural, there is a reason why it is warming.



Ignoring some facts to focus on only those which support your claim ... yes they are being interpreted.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Kitten, the glaciers I have walked on and by for the last 45 years are not subject to interpretation or statistics. The photos from the satelites that clearly show the retreat of the glaciers on all continents are not statistics. The "Drunken Forests" of Alaska are not statistics.
> ...



OK, Kitten, I know of four glaciers that are growing. One on St. Helens, and three on Shasta. Otherwise, all that I know of are retreating. And that is from satellite photos on all the continents.
Retreating Glaciers: Nature's Warning by VK Joshi



Kulkarni and his co-researchers selected Baspa, Parbati and Chenab basins as their area of study. They state to have monitored 466 glaciers in these basins from 1962 onwards with the help of remote sensing data. In addition they undertook expeditions to Chota Shigri, Patsio and Samundar Tapu glaciers in Chenab basin; Parbati glacier in Parbati basin and Shaune Garang glacier in Baspa basin. 

Based on their data they have claimed that the glaciers studied have shown a reduction in area from 2077 sq. km. in 1962 to 1628 sq. km. at present. In other words it means an overall deglaciation of 21%. Kulkarni claims that due to heavy melting many glaciers have been defragmented, thereby the number of glaciers have increased, though the total quantity of ice carried by them has reduced. Glaciers with less than one sq. km. area have shown a retreat of more than 38% says Kulkarni.


Now I can post this kind of real research from all the inhabited continents. What can you post to support your position?


----------



## Meister (Feb 11, 2009)

old rocks said:


> kittenkoder said:
> 
> 
> > old rocks said:
> ...



the sky is falling!!!  The sky is falling!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2009)

Meister, we already realize you are a fool. No need to continue to demonstrate the fact. Come back when you can make better than a third grade reply.


----------



## Meister (Feb 11, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister, we already realize you are a fool. No need to continue to demonstrate the fact. Come back when you can make better than a third grade reply.



I will quit acting like a third grader when you stop spewing those left wing nut sites that you worship, and start using your own mind.  Your brainwashed big time, dude.  Until then, I see this as no more than a push on each of our sides.  Mine is just less wordy, than yours.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Meister, we already realize you are a fool. No need to continue to demonstrate the fact. Come back when you can make better than a third grade reply.
> ...



Left wing nut sites? You mean like the USGS? NOAA? The Royal Society? The United States National Academy of Science? The scientific journals, Science and Nature? 

Brainwashed, you stupid ass? I have walked mountains in all the western states. I have seen over half a century of change in the Pacific Northwest. I have seen the change in the glaciers of the Cascades, Blues, and Rockies. 

You have yet to show any evidence for your position. Just vitriol and stupidity.


----------



## Meister (Feb 11, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



  Yup, those are the sites I'm talking about...you brainwashed idiot.  Like I said you can't do your own thinking.  You need the far left wing sites to expound your point.  If that's it, don't bother to respond to this post.  Your mindless.  It ain't Man that's causing it you blooming idiot!!!  PS you left off those socialist teaching universities, you dumb ass.
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!  THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 11, 2009)

Well, Meister, you have definately made my point.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Not the facts I was talking about, which proves my point. It's ALL the facts that matter. Try looking into the people who came up with the info, and no, it's not all of the scientific community that agrees, more importantly look into what those who did publish the data have to gain.


----------



## Chris (Feb 12, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



What do these melting glaciers have to gain?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 12, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The people publishing the data do.

Did you know that less than half what we recycle is usable, the rest turns into toxic chemicals not to mention all the toxic chemicals and gases created and used during the process. In reality recycling everything except paper is just as bad if not worse for the environment. Also the high cost of recycling has raised taxes in areas where is was mandated, all that money goes to the companies that own the recycling plants instead of helping anything. So yeah, someone does benefit from the scare tactics used here. The more people fear that the sky is falling, the more money they pay the umbrella makers.


----------



## Chris (Feb 12, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Absolutely clueless.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 12, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yes, we see that you are though I didn't need to point this out because your own statements have already proven it.


----------



## Chris (Feb 12, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Why are these glaciers melting?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 12, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Because that's what nature does ... changes.

The only reason people want to rant and rave about it is because you either have stock in an environut company that's making a fortune on the fear or you have to have something to fight for and just can't find a good cause to fight for. Might I suggest you turn all that fight against ... I don't know ... cancer, diabetes, you know, something that's real.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



When are you becoming a vegan?
If never is the answer, STFU.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2009)

JR;

When are you becoming a vegan?
If never is the answer, STFU. 

When are you going to get a second brain cell? 
I can see the answer is never.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> JR;
> 
> When are you becoming a vegan?
> If never is the answer, STFU.
> ...



Hypocrite you really don't believe the crap that spews from your mouth. If you did you would personally eliminate 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emmissions.


----------



## Meister (Feb 13, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, Meister, you have definately made my point.



OK, I've made your point...now you can make my point...if you have the 'nads.  I have read....one of my sites...of coarse not yours, because yours is nothing but BS.  You cannot prove that the temperature rising is a lagging indicator to the CO2.  It could very well be that the temperature rising is primary and the CO2 is a lagging indicator.  Which would mean that CO2 would not be the cause, and your religion may very well be nothing more than a cult.  Also...if you really look at what man has put in the atmosphere...it ain't that much in percentages, rockhead.


----------



## Swoop187 (Feb 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> > POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.  Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
> ...



Are you that naive, stupid or both? 

97% of what?

Let me guess those 650 or so dissenters dont count? 

Are you trying to claim their are 60,000 UN recognized climatologists that concur with man made global warming? 

No sorry their are 58 people that agree and 650 that dont... 

Now with those numbers you can clearly see their is an agenda!


----------



## Swoop187 (Feb 13, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



I agree, however, there are some people who just pathologically loathe man kind. 

I'm not going to deny natural climate change but to blame it on man is ridiculous. 

What these man made global warming nuts wont tell you is that ONE volcanic eruption spews more poison into the atmosphere then man kind has produced since the industrial revolution.


----------



## Chris (Feb 13, 2009)

Swoop187 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Volcanic eruptions cool the earth.

So what's your point?


----------



## Meister (Feb 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> Swoop187 said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



That's it, Chris???  I did notice you didn't have the 'nads to refute what my post stated.  Let's see what rockhead comes up with.


----------



## Chris (Feb 13, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Swoop187 said:
> ...



Refute what? That volcanoes effect climate? Of course they do. But that doesn't change the fact that we have increased the level of CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. And this increase in CO2 is relentless and continuous and accelerating.


----------



## Meister (Feb 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Chris, you might want to back up a few posts to an earlier post I had.  Maybe I didn't make that clear enough for you.  Also, I would like to know where it states that *MAN* has increased CO2 by forty percent?


----------



## Chris (Feb 13, 2009)

Meister, if you do a little research, you will discover that we have a record of CO2 in the atmosphere that goes back 600,000 years. CO2 is currently at the highest level in all that time. We are adding 8 billion metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. That's one ton of CO2 for every person on the earth.


----------



## Meister (Feb 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister, if you do a little research, you will discover that we have a record of CO2 in the atmosphere that goes back 600,000 years. CO2 is currently at the highest level in all that time. We are adding 8 billion metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. That's one ton of CO2 for every person on the earth.



Chris, Rising temperatures could be the leading indicator and the CO2 is the lagging indicator.  Also, you can't say that it's  MAN that has put 40% of CO2 in the atmosphere    You can't find that in any of your left wing wacko sites.  Also, Chris....there has been higher CO2 in our atmosphere.  Your leaning too much on your left wing sites dude.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 13, 2009)

We'll never be able to save the environment now. The Damn Dems are going to spend us into ruin. Bu in ruin at least our emissions should drop. hey maybe thats their plan.


----------



## Chris (Feb 13, 2009)

CO2 over the last 600,000 years....

CO2 Concentration (ppm) by Date - Swivel


----------



## Chris (Feb 13, 2009)

&#8220;The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air,&#8221; Zeebe said.

Since the beginning of the widespread human use of fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.

&#8220;That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do,&#8221; Zeebe said.

And it appears to be getting worse: the U.S. government reported last week that in 2007 alone, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.

Earth Canât Keep Up with Modern Carbon Emissions - Science - redOrbit


----------



## Meister (Feb 13, 2009)

Chris said:


> &#8220;The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air,&#8221; Zeebe said.
> 
> Since the beginning of the widespread human use of fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.
> 
> ...



Chris, let's let rockhead get involved with this.  You still haven't refuted the fact that the CO2 could very well be a lagging indicator of the Earth's temperature rising.  Which mean by the way, that the Sun has more to do with this than your paid for sites.  Next, when the ice ages...all of them were retreating, I'm sure there were higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  Lastly.....You still haven't proved that MAN is responsible for 40% of the CO2 emitted.  Like I said it could very well be a lagging indicator.  Let's just end this discussion for now, you need to go back to the books.


----------



## Chris (Feb 13, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air, Zeebe said.
> ...



CO2 has not changed more than 22 ppm in the last 600,000 years. Now it is up by 100. That proves man is the cause. 

You just won't admit it.


----------



## Meister (Feb 14, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You goofball, it hasn't remained at 22 ppm for 600,000 years.  You really believe that???  You are a prize, Chris.  Thank God your Mother loves you.


----------



## Chris (Feb 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



When people can't accept evidence, they resort to personal attacks. 

The Antarctic ice core records are well established. We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. There is no mystery about what is going on.


----------



## Meister (Feb 14, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Calling you a goofball??  You haven't proven anything, I'm just saying there is alternative reasons for what is going on.  You resort to your junk science...don't give me all those sites, they are bought and paid for, Chris.  Plus, the Sun is warming, and you can't comprehend that.  I have stated that CO2 might be a lagging indicator to what's going on and you can't prove otherwise.  If all you stated is true...we wouldn't have nothing but rising temperatures with no downturn, but you can't comprehend that. Geeze, you are a goofball, Chis...just like rockhead.


----------



## Chris (Feb 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



The Stanford Solar scientists say it's not the sun.

Global Warming -- Research Issues


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 14, 2009)

I feel compelled to once again note that there is no way to get an estimate of what CO2 levels were globally 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 600,000 years ago from ice cores.   I think that people really need to make the distinction between what investigators _believe_ based on informed assessment of what's in ice cores and what is _known_ to be fact.

The reason is that an observation of a CO2 concentration in an ice core is one element of the population "all CO2 concentrations occurring at all points in the Earth's atmosphere at that time."  To have an unbiased estimate of, say, the mean CO2 concentration at the time, you'd need a probability sample of that population.  You'd need randomization.  Also, to have a relatively small standard error around the estimate, you need a relatively large sample size.  An ice core observation is one observation that is taken at that point because the's where it's possible and convenient to take it.  And even if they took a million ice cores and were able to take a million readings from the same time, they'd just have a very large sample that was not collected so as to assure an unbiased estimate.  

In any case, 600,000 years represents about 2 1/100ths of one percent of the tenure of life on this planet.  It is not, when taken in context, a long time.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 14, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> I feel compelled to once again note that there is no way to get an estimate of what CO2 levels were globally 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 600,000 years ago from ice cores.   I think that people really need to make the distinction between what investigators _believe_ based on informed assessment of what's in ice cores and what is _known_ to be fact.
> 
> The reason is that an observation of a CO2 concentration in an ice core is one element of the population "all CO2 concentrations occurring at all points in the Earth's atmosphere at that time."  To have an unbiased estimate of, say, the mean CO2 concentration at the time, you'd need a probability sample of that population.  You'd need randomization.  Also, to have a relatively small standard error around the estimate, you need a relatively large sample size.  An ice core observation is one observation that is taken at that point because the's where it's possible and convenient to take it.  And even if they took a million ice cores and were able to take a million readings from the same time, they'd just have a very large sample that was not collected so as to assure an unbiased estimate.
> 
> In any case, 600,000 years represents about 2 1/100ths of one percent of the tenure of life on this planet.  It is not, when taken in context, a long time.



There is very little variation of CO2 content in the atmosphere. And 600,000 years represents about three times as long as Homo Sapiens has existed.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 14, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> [There is very little variation of CO2 content in the atmosphere. And 600,000 years represents about three times as long as Homo Sapiens has existed.



_Homo sapiens_ is a young species if things are as they're thought to be.  I suspect it (we) could handle conditions as they were for most of the history of life.  Not all, but most. And we certainly, I think, could handle all of the conditions that have occurred over the last 60 million years or so.

On CO2 variation:  I've tried to find something on CO2 measurements at different points that would allow me to develop some idea of variability but haven't been successful.  I found this: World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) .

But as far as I can tell the spots at which they measure CO2 don't really allow for any kind of assessment of overall variability.  For example, I did a query on every spot at which they measure CO2 in a "square" defined by the area between latitude 15 N to 30 S and longitude 90W to 30 W.  That encompasses the Amazon basin.  The only station that came back as including CO2 measurements was at the very northern extreme of the defined area on an Island out in the carribean.  

It would be a tedious process to go through all the CO2 sites.  Maybe I'll do that for fun.  But it looks to me like they're intentionally avoiding localities that would be reasonably expected to introduce significant variability.  I think I can figure out why they do that.  But there's no way they can have an ubiased estimate of mean CO2 level (or variability, for that matter).

The situation is the same with estimating variance as it is with estimating a mean.  You have to have a probability sample.  They don't have any.  In fact from what I've seen so far in looking at that site they are intentionally biasing their estimate to understate the variation as well as the mean.   Which I guess would make people on your side worry even more.


----------



## Chris (Feb 14, 2009)

JohnStOnge said:


> I feel compelled to once again note that there is no way to get an estimate of what CO2 levels were globally 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 600,000 years ago from ice cores.   I think that people really need to make the distinction between what investigators _believe_ based on informed assessment of what's in ice cores and what is _known_ to be fact.
> 
> The reason is that an observation of a CO2 concentration in an ice core is one element of the population "all CO2 concentrations occurring at all points in the Earth's atmosphere at that time."  To have an unbiased estimate of, say, the mean CO2 concentration at the time, you'd need a probability sample of that population.  You'd need randomization.  Also, to have a relatively small standard error around the estimate, you need a relatively large sample size.  An ice core observation is one observation that is taken at that point because the's where it's possible and convenient to take it.  And even if they took a million ice cores and were able to take a million readings from the same time, they'd just have a very large sample that was not collected so as to assure an unbiased estimate.
> 
> In any case, 600,000 years represents about 2 1/100ths of one percent of the tenure of life on this planet.  It is not, when taken in context, a long time.



600,000 years is not a long time?

This is how lame the deniers are. 

They are forced to argue that 600,000 years is not a representative sample.

Unbelievable!


----------



## del (Feb 14, 2009)

Chris said:


> JohnStOnge said:
> 
> 
> > I feel compelled to once again note that there is no way to get an estimate of what CO2 levels were globally 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 600,000 years ago from ice cores.   I think that people really need to make the distinction between what investigators _believe_ based on informed assessment of what's in ice cores and what is _known_ to be fact.
> ...



of 3+ billion?
it's not.
keep swinging, kirky.


----------



## Chris (Feb 14, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > JohnStOnge said:
> ...



Fuck you, punk.


----------



## del (Feb 14, 2009)

Chris said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



that's the the kind of well reasoned answer you're famous for, chrissie.

keep swinging.


----------



## Chris (Feb 14, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



No problem.

I'm going to be here all day.


----------



## del (Feb 14, 2009)

Chris said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



what a shock. 
i guess if you post enough, eventually you'll post something intelligent by accident.


----------



## Chris (Feb 14, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



You are describing yourself.


----------



## del (Feb 14, 2009)

Chris said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



keep swinging.


----------



## Chris (Feb 14, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



No problem.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 14, 2009)

The problem is not whether or not an individual human could survive in the Cambrian, probably not, but rather whether or not our present society, with 7 billion people, can survive and adrupt climate change.

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises


----------



## Meister (Feb 14, 2009)

old rocks said:


> the problem is not whether or not an individual human could survive in the cambrian, probably not, but rather whether or not our present society, with 7 billion people, can survive and adrupt climate change.
> 
> abrupt climate change: Inevitable surprises



the sky is falling.....the sky is falling


----------



## del (Feb 14, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> The problem is not whether or not an individual human could survive in the Cambrian, probably not, but rather whether or not our present society, with 7 billion people, can survive and adrupt climate change.
> 
> Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises



oh, the horror, the horror!!


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> (CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
> 
> A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.
> 
> ...





Further proof of the massive worldwide conspiracy of graduate students and former graduate students to take over the world.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> 600,000 years is not a long time?
> 
> This is how lame the deniers are.
> 
> ...



I was not referring to the issue of having a "representative" sample when I made the statement of 600,000 years.  I was pointing out that, taken in context of beliefs about the age of the planet and the tenure of life on it, 600,000 years is not a long time in relative terms.  It's believed that life started on this planet about 3.5 billion years ago.  600,000 years is about 0.019 percent of that interval.  600,000 years to 3.5 billion years is as about 1.6 hours is to a year.  

However, since you mentioned the issue:  Whether or not a sample is "representative" in terms of allowing for an unbiased estimate of a population parameter like an average has absolutely nothing to do with sample size.  If I collect a true random sample of a population that consists of two elements that is a "representative" sample in those terms.  If I collect a million elements without any kind of strategy for making it a probability sample that is _not_ "representative" in those terms.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> JohnStOnge said:
> 
> 
> > I feel compelled to once again note that there is no way to get an estimate of what CO2 levels were globally 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 600,000 years ago from ice cores.   I think that people really need to make the distinction between what investigators _believe_ based on informed assessment of what's in ice cores and what is _known_ to be fact.
> ...



Compared to more than 6 billion ... it is really just a fraction of data required to make accurate assessments of climate shifts. That is only .01% of the time we know the earth must have existed ... and then we think it may have been around even longer.


----------



## JohnStOnge (Feb 15, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> There is very little variation of CO2 content in the atmosphere. .



Ok, I took some time to look into it and I guess that depends on subjective opinion about what "very little" is.  I went and looked at some CO2 levels  I used 2006 because it was a year in which there were data from two continuous monitoring stations I wanted to use available.  I found an instance in which a "continuous" CO2 measuring statement near the South Pole registered a daily average of 377.70 ppb while one in Hungary registered a daily average of 427.80 ppb on the same date (2/3/2006).  That's a difference of about 50 ppb on that day.  I was going to do a simple thing to see what kind of prediction interval you'd get trying to predict CO2 in Hungary from CO2 in Antartica but when I did a correlation it was very low (0.027).  Basically, that means that knowing what the CO2 was at the Pole station during 2006 would've been of no value in predicting what CO2 was on the same day at the Hungary station within the context of that one year period.

Using the day by day differences you could say that you could be 95 percent confident that on any given day the Hungary station concentration would be between 3 ppb lower and about 36 ppb higher than the Antarctic station concentration.  Also, you can see that the CO2 concentrations at the Hungary station are higher in winter (Nov-April average 398) than in summer (May - October average 384) while there's almost no difference between seasons at the Antarctic station so you'd know the difference on any given day during May - October is likely to be smaller.  But the magnitude of CO2 concentration at the Pole station does not, per say, provide benefit within the context of an annual period in knowing what the concentration in Hungary will be.

If I'd use a long enough period I'd get a "significant" correlation because there has been a trend over multiple years at both stations towards higher levels.  But it would still be a weak correlation and knowing the CO2 concentration at the Antarctic station would still be of limited value in knowing the concentration at the Hungarian station.

It's possible climatologists and/or meteorologists could improve things by knowing planetary circulation patterns, etc., and/or considering additional variables.  But I think that their knowledge of what was going on 600,000 years ago is in no way comparable to their knowledge of what's going on now.  I think there is defintely some error associated with trying to make a statement about the entire planet hundreds of thousands of years ago with a CO2 estimate based on an ice core.

On the other hand I doubt that the error in and of itself would be close to large enough to compromise the statement that the concentrations are higher now than they were 600,000 years ago.  But I don't think it's the only source of error.  It's just one component.

There is no way they can validate their assumptions, as reasonable as those assumptions might appear, about how gases trapped around 600,000 years ago will behave over that time frame.  You can do a google search on "sources of error in ice core data" and see that they must do things like correct for gas exchange in snow, etc.  What they're doing is modeling a scenario that occured 600,000 years ago. There's no way they can possibily see how concentrations of gasses in a local atmosphere as measured at a given time will compare to concentrations measured 600,000 years later in a bubble of that atmosphere that was trapped in ice.

Like everybody else, I tend to go ahead and believe what people who study the distant past have to say about it.  Most of the time it doesn't matter anyway.  It's just interesting.  But I think that when it becomes important we all should realize that the beliefs they have are not backed by the same level of certainty one would have with situations in which things can be directly supported by controled experimentation or even one in which things can be subject to comprehensive observation.


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2009)

John, it really doesn't matter what happened in the past. The only thing that matters is what is happening now.

And what is happening now is that we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> John, it really doesn't matter what happened in the past. The only thing that matters is what is happening now.
> 
> And what is happening now is that we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.



Okay .. first you tried to use the past to justify the fear, now you are saying that it doesn't matter ... and you wonder why so many are seeing through this idiotic fear now.


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > John, it really doesn't matter what happened in the past. The only thing that matters is what is happening now.
> ...



Attacking me will not change the facts.

Nice try, however.


----------



## del (Feb 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> John, it really doesn't matter what happened in the past. The only thing that matters is what is happening now.
> 
> And what is happening now is that we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.



such a buffoon. old rocks is gonna cry himself to sleep now.


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > John, it really doesn't matter what happened in the past. The only thing that matters is what is happening now.
> ...



Hey Morton, how's it going?


----------



## del (Feb 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



sober up and come back later, kirky.


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



I call you Morton because you are an old salt.


----------



## Mission-Reality (Feb 15, 2009)

Look at how much money is being dumped into global warming. No facts, no proof, and certainly no logical ideas for a way out. The same people that believe the world goes from ice age to heat wave, back to ice age. Believes that now humans are the cause of the planet going into a heat wave. None of it makes sense. This is for a reason. When you scare the public into believing they need the government to protect them, especially from extinction. The public ultimately forfeits it's rights and it's pocket book! Just look at all the rights we gave up after 9/11, but hey it was all for the means of our own protection, right?


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2009)

Mission-Reality said:


> Look at how much money is being dumped into global warming. No facts, no proof, and certainly no logical ideas for a way out. The same people that believe the world goes from ice age to heat wave, back to ice age. Believes that now humans are the cause of the planet going into a heat wave. None of it makes sense. This is for a reason. When you scare the public into believing they need the government to protect them, especially from extinction. The public ultimately forfeits it's rights and it's pocket book! Just look at all the rights we gave up after 9/11, but hey it was all for the means of our own protection, right?



There are plenty of facts.

Melting glaciers, melting ice caps, rising temperatures, and rising CO2....


----------



## Meister (Feb 15, 2009)

chris said:


> mission-reality said:
> 
> 
> > look at how much money is being dumped into global warming. No facts, no proof, and certainly no logical ideas for a way out. The same people that believe the world goes from ice age to heat wave, back to ice age. Believes that now humans are the cause of the planet going into a heat wave. None of it makes sense. This is for a reason. When you scare the public into believing they need the government to protect them, especially from extinction. The public ultimately forfeits it's rights and it's pocket book! Just look at all the rights we gave up after 9/11, but hey it was all for the means of our own protection, right?
> ...


 the sky is falling!!!  The sky is falling!!!


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2009)

Meister said:


> chris said:
> 
> 
> > mission-reality said:
> ...



That's all you have left is silliness.

How sad.


----------



## Meister (Feb 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > chris said:
> ...


Chris, you and your damn Man made global warming is nothing less than just silly.  Your riduculous, and you haven't a clue.  Now that's silly


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 15, 2009)

The very title of this thread of misleading. The title leads the reader to believe that 97% of Scientist believe GW is 100% man made, when of course they do not. The real debate is over how much Man contributes to it, not if they do or not, and certainly not that we do it all.


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> The very title of this thread of misleading. The title leads the reader to believe that 97% of Scientist believe GW is 100% man made, when of course they do not. The real debate is over how much Man contributes to it, not if they do or not, and certainly not that we do it all.



The consensus opinion of most scientists is that GW is 75% man made, 25% solar forcing.

The problem is that we keep increasing the level of CO2, so man's influence on the climate is increasing every second of every day.


----------



## Charles_Main (Feb 15, 2009)

Chris said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > The very title of this thread of misleading. The title leads the reader to believe that 97% of Scientist believe GW is 100% man made, when of course they do not. The real debate is over how much Man contributes to it, not if they do or not, and certainly not that we do it all.
> ...




I am not disputing your numbers, but they seem a tad simplistic to me. I am sure the Scientist are aware there are more than only 2 factors to GW. I am sure they know there are factors they do not even know about. So I find it questionable that they all agree it is only 2 reasons. 

However isn't this all mute. Isn't true that if the USA and EU both ended carbon Emissions completely that the Developing world would replace our out put in a matter of months?

Seems kinda pointless to me. Seems instead of spending time and money on fighting it, we should spend time and money on learning to live with it.


----------



## Chris (Feb 15, 2009)

Charles_Main said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



I tend to agree with you. 

I think we are fucked.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 15, 2009)

Mission-Reality said:


> Look at how much money is being dumped into global warming. No facts, no proof, and certainly no logical ideas for a way out. The same people that believe the world goes from ice age to heat wave, back to ice age. Believes that now humans are the cause of the planet going into a heat wave. None of it makes sense. This is for a reason. When you scare the public into believing they need the government to protect them, especially from extinction. The public ultimately forfeits it's rights and it's pocket book! Just look at all the rights we gave up after 9/11, but hey it was all for the means of our own protection, right?



The worse part of it all, this environmental spending (wasting money) hasn't changed anything at all. We've been wasting tax money on t for what, 15 years or more? Where is the benefit? I still keep reading and hearing that it keeps getting worse instead of better, after a few billion dollars waste (probably more) shouldn't there already be at least a small improvement?

I am all for investing in the future of our species ... but only if it's sound, based on hard science, and has some sort of benefit. Otherwise, it's just a waste and someone is cashing in on that *cough*Al Gore*cough*.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 17, 2009)

> I am sure the Scientist are aware there are more than only 2 factors to GW. I am sure they know there are factors they do not even know about. So I find it questionable that they all agree it is only 2 reasons.




???? You would find their claims more credible if they weren't aware of things that might discredit it? ?????


> However isn't this all mute. Isn't true that if the USA and EU both ended carbon Emissions completely that the Developing world would replace our out put in a matter of months?


No.


> Seems kinda pointless to me. Seems instead of spending time and money on fighting it, we should spend time and money on learning to live with it.


I don't think you understand


----------



## Meister (Feb 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > The very title of this thread of misleading. The title leads the reader to believe that 97% of Scientist believe GW is 100% man made, when of course they do not. The real debate is over how much Man contributes to it, not if they do or not, and certainly not that we do it all.
> ...



According to you, and rockhead.  Along with the bought and paid for studies.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 17, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...






It does cost money to do research, you are correct.

Net anthropogenic forcing is about 1.5 W/m^2
net solar forcing is about 0.12 W/m^2

So actually anthropogenic factors account for more than 90% of GW


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 17, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



The difference:

Normally scientists are given money for "pet projects" and their findings will always lean toward those who signed the funding checks (in this case it's Gore) so they can receive more funding from said signer. Those who are not funded by this system do NOT agree with those who are. The scientists who have private funding from non-invested parties say it's all wrong, and who should you really believe, the ones who have their checks signed by a person who is making billions off the fears of the envirnuts, or those who are just studying to study it and find solid answers? If you choose the ones that support the insanity that is environmentalism then you are choosing wrong, because they have threats that are real, and Climate Change isn't one we can do something about. All that money wasted on environnazis could be spent instead looking for solutions to real threats, like ... oh I don't know ... AIDs, Cancer, Diabetes, etc ....


----------



## Chris (Feb 17, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Once again, melting glaciers, melting ice caps, and rising temperatures have NOTHING to do with who funds scientific studies.


----------



## Meister (Feb 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


Your are quite right, Chris.  But, it has everything to do with what causes it.   Do you comprehend that???????


----------



## Chris (Feb 17, 2009)

CO2 increased by 40% and rising. 

The effect of CO2 is getting stronger every day.


----------



## Chris (Feb 17, 2009)




----------



## Meister (Feb 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> CO2 increased by 40% and rising.
> 
> The effect of CO2 is getting stronger every day.


Chris, you and rockhead are morons.  You don't get it at all.  You still go to those biased sites, and regurgitate the same old message.  it's old, it's flawed.  But, knock yourself out...you are a moron.


----------



## Chris (Feb 17, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 increased by 40% and rising.
> ...



No, you don't get it.

The data from Mauna Loa is not biased.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 17, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 increased by 40% and rising.
> ...



OK, you keep flapping your yap. Show us some real articles where scientists are stating that the data is flawed. And then show us why other people in other sites are getting the same data.


----------



## del (Feb 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



gee, what could possibly cause them all to get the same data?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 17, 2009)

del said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



The fact that the atmosphere is well mixed? Or is that complicated of a concept for you?


----------



## del (Feb 17, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



yeah, i'm baffled.


----------



## Modbert (Feb 17, 2009)

Really all? I just took a look at how long this has been going on for.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 17, 2009)

Robert_Santurri said:


> Really all? I just took a look at how long this has been going on for.
> 
> View attachment 6884


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 18, 2009)

Okay ... here's a challenge and if the environuts succeed then I shall leave them alone ... on here at least.

Show more evidence, all of it, not just a few easily altered graphs or articles regurgitating the same catch phrases and quotes. Show CO2, CO, and O2 levels, temperatures from each major landmass in the world, combine with natural factors like earthquakes and volcanoes in those same areas, then solar activity for those areas laid over top that. Also don't forget to show the differences in forest areas, include the O2 production from oceanic algae, factor in the cycles from up to at least a million years ago to prove it's not just bound to happen anyway.

So far you have been basing this entire doomsday prophecy on two pieces of data and only looking at the last 50 years (once I think you went back as far as 150) which is just a very tiny portion of data. Then also show that all scientific research facilities funded by government or one of Gores companies who agree (Gore has international companies so make sure you do your homework first). THEN you will have proof, until then it's all junk science ...


----------



## Chris (Feb 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Okay ... here's a challenge and if the environuts succeed then I shall leave them alone ... on here at least.
> 
> Show more evidence, all of it, not just a few easily altered graphs or articles regurgitating the same catch phrases and quotes. Show CO2, CO, and O2 levels, temperatures from each major landmass in the world, combine with natural factors like earthquakes and volcanoes in those same areas, then solar activity for those areas laid over top that. Also don't forget to show the differences in forest areas, include the O2 production from oceanic algae, factor in the cycles from up to at least a million years ago to prove it's not just bound to happen anyway.
> 
> So far you have been basing this entire doomsday prophecy on two pieces of data and only looking at the last 50 years (once I think you went back as far as 150) which is just a very tiny portion of data. Then also show that all scientific research facilities funded by government or one of Gores companies who agree (Gore has international companies so make sure you do your homework first). THEN you will have proof, until then it's all junk science ...



The Antarctic ice core record of atmospheric CO2 goes back 600,000 years.

The problem is you are so biased in your beliefs that no evidence will be enough. Not melting glaciers, not melting ice caps, not 600,00 years of CO2 data, not a 40% increase in CO2 levels, nothing will suffice for you. I really think you need to take a long, hard, look at yourself and your beliefs.


----------



## del (Feb 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Okay ... here's a challenge and if the environuts succeed then I shall leave them alone ... on here at least.
> ...


 
 

priceless


----------



## Chris (Feb 18, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



I am still waiting for the first del post that is not an insult.

When will that occur?


----------



## del (Feb 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



immediately after the first non-asinine kirky post and possibly not even then.
fortunately, the odds of you posting something intelligent are right up there with me getting struck by a meteor.

i don't suffer fools gladly, but i'm more than willing to insult them, fool.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Okay ... here's a challenge and if the environuts succeed then I shall leave them alone ... on here at least.
> ...



So you admit that those are the only few facts you have ... no actual connections, no biological science, not even any nuclear science data ... hmm ... of course it's not enough. Without other sciences it can be interpreted to mean anything. Like: It's the second coming of some christ ... the heat is from his halo!


----------



## Chris (Feb 18, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



I didn't say the first post to me that wasn't an insult.

I said the first post to anyone on this board that wasn't an insult.

You never post facts or even arguments, you just insult. It is really pathetic.


----------



## Chris (Feb 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



There is over 100 years of science. 

Do you only read right wing blogs?

The Rise of CO2 & Warming

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Global Warming -- Research Issues

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News Fall 2007


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No, but I don't read left wing one either ...


----------



## del (Feb 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



i'll get back to you when i find someone who cares; the two of you can have a nice cry together.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 18, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Sorry Del (well not really sorry because it's just who you are) but this is one (probably the only) time Chris is correct. Worse is that you don't really contribute to the discussions, perhaps you have just grown tired of it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's all you have done lately.


----------



## del (Feb 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



get in touch with chris and bring a hanky.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 18, 2009)

del said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



So, do you support the topic of the thread like Chris or agree with me and say it's all a bunch of hogwosh?


----------



## Chris (Feb 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Scientists are not left wing.

How sad that you cannot accept 100 years of scientific work and the consensus of every major scientific society on the earth in every country on the earth.


----------



## Chris (Feb 18, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Thanks for proving my point. 

My guess would be that you have no friends either.


----------



## Meister (Feb 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



The ones that you read about are, Chris


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Again, from only a couple of sources, this is not even close to '97%'. The data is being interpreted by someone with a stake in getting money, all of those you just posted have a financial reason to misinterpret the data.


----------



## Chris (Feb 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Not really.

But if you believe that every major scientific society on the earth is in cahoots, then so be it. It really is a right wing paranoid delusion. 

And by the way....CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. NO ONE denies that. And we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.


----------



## Meister (Feb 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You can't prove that Man is the cause of it, Chris.  CO2 could be a lagging indicator, and it can't be disproved.  So if it's not difinitive, you can't say what you have been saying.


----------



## Chris (Feb 18, 2009)

Meister said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and since the Antarctic ice core record shows no variation of over 22 ppm over 600,000 years., it has to be us. 

But ignore the evidence if you like.


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Ten years ago it was CO .. now CO2 ... what's next O2?

The global warming fear is the paranoia, on the coat tails of them finding out CFC was bad for the ozone layer (which was completely true) so they outlawed it and rightfully so. Gore saw the histeria which resulted in it and cashed in by doctoring the first claim completely (the original document has a LOT of black marker on it because of this) then started funding most of the major scientific groups on the subject from his profits as a result. A few of the scientists in such institute came forward after they had left and admitted the truth, so then he got them all to sign non-disclosure agreements seeing that this could happen more and more, thus hurting his profits. It's his companies that fund these research facilities now, and the government was easily conned into allowing it because of the paranoia caused by the original document. Really, follow the money sometime, ignoring who said what, just follow the money.


----------



## Meister (Feb 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


No, it doesn't have to be us, Chris.  There are a lot of variables to this complex problem.  The warmer the atmosphere the more that ice shelves melt.  The more the ice shelves melt, the more CO2 gets into the atmosphere that has been stored in the ice.  If the Sun warms the atmosphere this can occur.  Hence, the CO2 is a lagging idicator, not Man made.  Other planets were warming at the same time, Chris...not just ours.


----------



## del (Feb 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



neither.

 i agree that the climate is changing but i don't agree that increased CO2 is the causative agent, nor that any effort we make other than intelligent conservation/stewardship of the planet is called for. i think that an industry has sprouted up around the hysteria that chris and his ilk have espoused and that it is every bit as repugnant as any other flimflam job.

i believe that most of the "science" that chris and his pals attempt to bring to the table is for the most part junk science or at best the kind of "publish or perish" crap that our modern higher education system has enshrined as part of academia.

intelligent allocation of resources and weaning ourselves from fossil fuels is something we should be doing, but it is my belief that the effect those efforts wil have on the climate will be negligible. we should be taking those actions because they make sense, not because they're some kind of silver bullet that will magically stop climate change.

oh, and al gore is as full of shit as a christmas goose, or if a christmas analogy offends you-chris.


----------



## del (Feb 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



you're every bit as right about my friends as you are about any other subject you spout off about, kirky.


----------



## Chris (Feb 18, 2009)

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Thanks for confirming my belief.


----------



## del (Feb 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...





yeah, there's a real challenge.....


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 19, 2009)

del said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Okay, good post, now why poke for trolls instead of posting more like this? Or are you now the troll mod? If so then excuse my pushing for this, if not, then pointing out the actual flaws in anothers thinking is more of an insult than ... well ... plain old insults which, if you hadn't noticed, do not work so well.


----------



## elvis (Feb 19, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



can't we do both?  point out the flaws and THEN call chrissy a douchebag?


----------



## KittenKoder (Feb 19, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



LOL ... of course, but I was just pointing out how little simple insults accomplish other than completely derailing a thread.

Almost forgot: "Case in point here."


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 19, 2009)

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Apocalypse Now? Highly Unlikely

*Apocalypse Now? Highly Unlikely
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- A corollary of Murphy's Law ("If something can go wrong, it will") is: "Things are worse than they can possibly be." Energy Secretary Steven Chu, an atomic physicist, seems to embrace that corollary but ignores Gregg Easterbrook's "Law of Doomsaying": Predict catastrophe no sooner than five years hence but no later than 10 years away, soon enough to terrify but distant enough that people will forget if you are wrong.

Chu recently told the Los Angeles Times that global warming might melt 90 percent of California's snowpack, which stores much of the water needed for agriculture. This, Chu said, would mean "no more agriculture in California," the nation's leading food producer. Chu added: "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going."

No more lettuce for Los Angeles? Chu likes predictions, so here is another: Nine decades hence, our great-great-grandchildren will add the disappearance of California artichokes to the list of predicted planetary calamities that did not happen. Global cooling recently joined that lengthening list.

In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950" (The New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the "cooling trend" could result in "a return to another ice age" (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The "continued rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery" (International Wildlife, July 1975). "The world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of "ominous signs" that "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," meteorologists were "almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century," perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, "The Cooling World," April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from central European forests, the North Atlantic was "cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool," glaciers had "begun to advance" and "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).

Speaking of experts, in 1980 Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford scientist and environmental Cassandra who predicted calamitous food shortages by 1990, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon. When Ehrlich predicted the imminent exhaustion of many nonrenewable natural resources, Simon challenged him: Pick a "basket" of any five such commodities, and I will wager that in a decade the price of the basket will decline, indicating decreased scarcity. Ehrlich picked five metals -- chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten -- that he predicted would become more expensive. Not only did the price of the basket decline, the price of all five declined.

An expert Ehrlich consulted in picking the five was John Holdren, who today is President Obama's science adviser. Credentialed intellectuals, too -- actually, especially -- illustrate Montaigne's axiom: "Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."

As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

An unstated premise of eco-pessimism is that environmental conditions are, or recently were, optimal. The proclaimed faith of eco-pessimists is weirdly optimistic: These optimal conditions must and can be preserved or restored if government will make us minimize our carbon footprints, and if government will "remake" the economy.

Because of today's economy, another law -- call it the Law of Clarifying Calamities -- is being (redundantly) confirmed. On graphs tracking public opinion, two lines are moving in tandem and inversely: The sharply rising line charts public concern about the economy, the plunging line follows concern about the environment. A recent Pew Research Center poll asked which of 20 issues should be the government's top priorities. Climate change ranked 20th.

Real calamities take our minds off hypothetical ones. Besides, according to the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade, or one-third of the span since the global cooling scare.
georgewill@washpost.com

Copyright 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
*


----------



## del (Feb 19, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Okay, good post, now why poke for trolls instead of posting more like this? Or are you now the troll mod? If so then excuse my pushing for this, if not, then pointing out the actual flaws in anothers thinking is more of an insult than ... well ... plain old insults which, if you hadn't noticed, do not work so well.



thanks for your input


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 19, 2009)

Dang. Will is pretty good at politics, but an ignoramous concerning science. There was not a major scientific concern about a cooling planet in the '70s. That was a media generated myth concerning a National Academy of Science paper published in 1975 that said just the opposite.

What 1970s science said about global cooling


----------



## del (Feb 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dang. Will is pretty good at politics, but an ignoramous concerning science. There was not a major scientific concern about a cooling planet in the '70s. That was *a media generated myth* concerning a National Academy of Science paper published in 1975 that said just the opposite.
> 
> What 1970s science said about global cooling



gee, why does that sound familiar?


----------



## elvis (Feb 19, 2009)

del said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dang. Will is pretty good at politics, but an ignoramous concerning science. There was not a major scientific concern about a cooling planet in the '70s. That was *a media generated myth* concerning a National Academy of Science paper published in 1975 that said just the opposite.
> ...



Nah, Al Whore approves, so it must be true.


----------



## del (Feb 19, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



ah, i've got to learn to be more aware of the nuances.


----------



## Chris (Feb 19, 2009)

No, every major scientific group in every country on the earth says it.

But it's all a conspiracy, even the Chinese communists are involved.....

China: Global warming melting glaciers - World environment- msnbc.com


----------



## Meister (Feb 19, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dang. Will is pretty good at politics, but an ignoramous concerning science. There was not a major scientific concern about a cooling planet in the '70s. That was a media generated myth concerning a National Academy of Science paper published in 1975 that said just the opposite.
> 
> What 1970s science said about global cooling[/QUOTE
> rockhead doesn't see the irony of his statement.


----------

