# Weather Channel Owner Suing Al Gore For Fraud....



## BrianH (Mar 15, 2008)

...I've been waiting for this to happen...I'm not a global warming believer...I do believe that the globe may be warming, but I don't think we've spread up the process as much as people suggest that we do.  Natural Climate Cycle.  
--One volcano eruption puts more dangerous gases into the atmospher then humans ever thought about doing.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 15, 2008)

BrianH said:


> ...I've been waiting for this to happen...I'm not a global warming believer...I do believe that the globe may be warming, but I don't think we've spread up the process as much as people suggest that we do.  Natural Climate Cycle.
> --One volcano eruption puts more dangerous gases into the atmospher then humans ever thought about doing.



Got a link to the story?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 15, 2008)

Yeah Gunny,  here it is. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

It may be biased, but you'll still get the point.


----------



## Larkinn (Mar 16, 2008)

Actually he is only suggesting other people sue Gore.   I can think of two reasons for this.

1)  He doesn't want to waste his own money on an obviously frivolous case.

2)  He can't find a lawyer to take it either because of the obvious lack of financial incentives or they are all worried about being rule 11'ed for moronic lawsuits.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 16, 2008)

I would have the thought the Weather Channel would be whooping it up over global climate change...think of the footage!!


----------



## Annie (Mar 16, 2008)

If there was a class action suit by those harmed by all the hoopla of just Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," they may well win. One place it's already been found at least wanting is in the British court:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3719791&page=1


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 16, 2008)

Nope Kathianne, that decision can't be generalised.

And global warming marches on.


----------



## jillian (Mar 16, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Actually he is only suggesting other people sue Gore.   I can think of two reasons for this.
> 
> 1)  He doesn't want to waste his own money on an obviously frivolous case.
> 
> 2)  He can't find a lawyer to take it either because of the obvious lack of financial incentives or they are all worried about being rule 11'ed for moronic lawsuits.



So you mean, could it be.... the OP is a lie?    

What it should really say is:

Weather Channel Owner Should Be Sued By Al Gore for encouragment of frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 16, 2008)

I think he is encouraging people to sue different types of global warming advocates.  The weather channel owner wants to sue Gore himself. From what I gathered from the article, the owner had attempted to arrange debates with Gore but was unable to get Gore to debate them.   So if a civil suit was filed, they would be forced to "debate" in the court of law.  

Here's a quote from the article that I'm referring to.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,"


----------



## jillian (Mar 16, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I think he is encouraging people to sue different types of global warming advocates.  The weather channel owner wants to sue Gore himself. From what I gathered from the article, the owner had attempted to arrange debates with Gore but was unable to get Gore to debate them.   So if a civil suit was filed, they would be forced to "debate" in the court of law.
> 
> Here's a quote from the article that I'm referring to.
> 
> "Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,"



That isn't what the OP said, though, was it?

As for "debate". What debate? The fact that all the reliable, peer reviewed science supports climate change?

The problem for the confused folk on the right who, for some reason unbeknownst to me, think they should protect oil companies instead of the planet they're leaving their children, is that someone called it global "warming" instead of "climate change". This seems to give the right some type of satisfaction everytime something is cold.

Fact: The planet is warming.
Fact: This results in bizarre weather patterns (like Tornadoes in Brooklyn, NY)
Fact: We contribute (note: I didn't say "cause", I said "contribute") by use of carbon based energy sources.
Fact: It's good policy both environmentally and anti-terrorist, to wean off of oil.

Fact: Your OP wasn't true. He didn't bring a suit himself. He wants the "little people" to do it for him so he can harass people out of telling the truth since the right has failed every other way.

Cheers.


----------



## Gunny (Mar 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> That isn't what the OP said, though, was it?
> 
> As for "debate". What debate? The fact that all the reliable, peer reviewed science supports climate change?
> 
> ...



Problem with your theory is the Weather Channel is a big cheerleader for the global warming clique.  There was an article posted within the past 6 months detailing how Her Highness, Dr Heidi Cullen was harrassing and got fired any of the meteorologists who refused to get on board the man-made global warming theory.

Yes, it makes perfectly good sense for man to try and control the amount of pollution he contributes to the environment but it is not a proven fact that global warming would not occur without man's contribution.  It IS however a proben fact that the Earth has gone through cyclical climate changes WITHOUT man's contribution.

Al Gore is selling speculative theory as fact.  He probably should be sued for the sensationalist sham he's perpetrating.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> That isn't what the OP said, though, was it?
> 
> As for "debate". What debate? The fact that all the reliable, peer reviewed science supports climate change?
> 
> ...



Jillian, what part of the direct quote do you not understand?

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,"

This quote is directly from the owner himself.  It sounds like you're a bit confused yourself.  

In response to your little FACT list...check my OP, i said that the globe may be warming.  I just don't think people contribute as much as Gore suggests. It's natural and cyclical climate change.  Are you telling me that this is the only time in history that the globe has "warmed" and it's because of humans?  Could it possible be because at one point in time, the earth was all water to begin with?  Then it became a ball of Ice in something we historians call the Ice Age.  And maybe, possibly, the ice caps that we know today were not hear originally, but are still effects of the ice age. (don't quote me on that, ice caps may have always existed-who knows) Global warming, caused by humans, is a fallacy. 

As far as your statement goes about oil companies, doesn't have anything to do with what was posted.

As far as pollution is concerned, it's not a bad thing to regulate pollution...but someone should sue Gore, for duping people and winning the Nobel Peace Prize.  He's the Barry Bonds of the Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore flew to Norway in his private jet, burning hundreds of gallons of fuel.  Some pollution activist.


----------



## Larkinn (Mar 16, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I think he is encouraging people to sue different types of global warming advocates.  The weather channel owner wants to sue Gore himself. From what I gathered from the article, the owner had attempted to arrange debates with Gore but was unable to get Gore to debate them.   So if a civil suit was filed, they would be forced to "debate" in the court of law.



Probably not actually.   He could try, but I doubt the case would go anywhere.   By the way...where again is Republican outrage over this frivolous lawsuit?   He doesn't even expect to win...he is just using the courtrooms as a surrogate debating forum.   



> As far as pollution is concerned, it's not a bad thing to regulate pollution...but someone should sue Gore, for duping people and winning the Nobel Peace Prize. He's the Barry Bonds of the Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore flew to Norway in his private jet, burning hundreds of gallons of fuel. Some pollution activist.



Yes...lets start suing people because we think they lied.   Free speech?   Whats that?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 16, 2008)

I agree that the case will never go anywhere, but my main point in posting this thread is that the weather channel owner wants to sue to "force" a debate on Al Gore.  He wants his scientists against their scientists.  If I'm not mistaken, I think he mentioned his position on carbon dioxide.  It's very interesting really.  

The weather channel actually believes in global warming, they just don't believe that CO2 emissions are causing this unbelievable warming of the climate. 

Suing for fraud is a real thing in this country, it will be interesting to see if the courts put this type of "fraud" in that category.

I think what their trying to get at is that if someone profits from medically helping people, and their not doctors, then that's illegal.  Now does the same apply if people are profiting from stuff that's never been proven?  I don't know, but it will all be interesting in the same.  That was the main purpose of my post.


----------



## Larkinn (Mar 16, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I agree that the case will never go anywhere, but my main point in posting this thread is that the weather channel owner wants to sue to "force" a debate on Al Gore.  He wants his scientists against their scientists.  If I'm not mistaken, I think he mentioned his position on carbon dioxide.  It's very interesting really.



The point is not just that he will lose the case, but that he won't even get to argue the case on the merits.   Its a ridiculous case and won't even get that far.   



> Suing for fraud is a real thing in this country, it will be interesting to see if the courts put this type of "fraud" in that category.



Yes, I'm aware that one can sue for fraud.   This isn't fraud.   Nor would he be allowed to represent a class action, since he obviously isn't representative of the class.   



> I think what their trying to get at is that if someone profits from medically helping people, and their not doctors, then that's illegal.
> Now does the same apply if people are profiting from stuff that's never been proven?  I don't know, but it will all be interesting in the same.  That was the main purpose of my post.



There is a licensing requirement to becoming a doctor.   No such requirement exists when talking, advocating, or making money from global warming.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 16, 2008)

Fair enough...I just thought it was an interesting issue, and I knew it was a matter of time for something like this to happen, that's all.  You can microscopically analyze my post all you'd like.  I'm just saying that it's interesting and that if it does come to pass, it will interesting to see what happens.


----------



## trobinett (Mar 16, 2008)

I'm sure Jillian, and most other Lawyers love you guy's.

Sue who ever you want, won't make a hoot of a difference.

The BEST thing that could come of this, no one pays ANY fucking attention to it.

Tell me the LAST time that a law suit fixed, OR change ANYTHING, please?


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 16, 2008)

trobinett said:


> I'm sure Jillian, and most other Lawyers love you guy's.
> 
> Sue who ever you want, won't make a hoot of a difference.
> 
> ...



Um - Nader and the Pinto?


----------



## trobinett (Mar 16, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Um - Nader and the Pinto?



Only in the minds of the liberal media, and those that believe the crap they spew.

You don't REALLY believe that ANYTHING was made better, safer, or caused the consumer to be better protected by all that smoke and mirrors do you?


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 16, 2008)

trobinett said:


> Only in the minds of the liberal media, and those that believe the crap they spew.
> 
> You don't REALLY believe that ANYTHING was made better, safer, or caused the consumer to be better protected by all that smoke and mirrors do you?



What I believe isn't relevant.  The facts speak for themselves.  If you bother to check the full story on the corporate culture that tried to defend against Nader in the Pinto issue then you'll understand why Nader was successful in more than consumer protection in that matter.

Anyway, you issued a challenge, I answered it without raising a sweat.

Try again.


----------



## trobinett (Mar 16, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> What I believe isn't relevant.



I agree.



> The facts speak for themselves.



Generally, but no FACTS have been presented.



> If you bother to check the full story on the corporate culture that tried to defend against Nader in the Pinto issue then you'll understand why Nader was successful in more than consumer protection in that matter.



So, its up to ME to provide the FACTS?

Nice move Diuretic, but thats not the way it works amigo.





> Anyway, you issued a challenge, I answered it without raising a sweat.
> 
> Try again.



Why?

Your fucking lame.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 16, 2008)

Don't let the frustration get to you.  The best thing is to address the issues and focus on understanding them and contesting them.  It's a lot more enjoyable.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 16, 2008)

Wow, this thread took an interesting turn.  The OP never mentioned anything about anyone "Gaining" anything from a lawsuit.    It was about using a lawsuit to get a debate...since Gore will not debate this guy.  But feel free to debate what you have..it's interesting too. 

Question: (not sarcastic)--Will the lawsuit ever even amount to a debate?

We know even if it does, it won't solve anything because people will still believe what the want to believe.  But it's interesting to see what kind of "evidence" will be brought forth for each's side.


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 16, 2008)

The gain may not be immediately noticeable....


----------



## Diuretic (Mar 16, 2008)

And it reminds me of this film - 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sued_God


----------



## jillian (Mar 16, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Wow, this thread took an interesting turn.  The OP never mentioned anything about anyone "Gaining" anything from a lawsuit.    It was about using a lawsuit to get a debate...since Gore will not debate this guy.  But feel free to debate what you have..it's interesting too.
> 
> Question: (not sarcastic)--Will the lawsuit ever even amount to a debate?
> 
> We know even if it does, it won't solve anything because people will still believe what the want to believe.  But it's interesting to see what kind of "evidence" will be brought forth for each's side.



What do you THINK the purpose of not a lawsuit... but telling millions of people TO SUE someone is? You think it was for his health? For some altruistic "debate"?

There IS no debate. The reliable science isn't on your side. The "law suits" are purely intended to harass....


----------



## jreeves (Mar 16, 2008)

jillian said:


> What do you THINK the purpose of not a lawsuit... but telling millions of people TO SUE someone is? You think it was for his health? For some altruistic "debate"?
> 
> There IS no debate. The reliable science isn't on your side. The "law suits" are purely intended to harass....



I have to agree with you on this one, this is the definition of a frivilous lawsuit.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 16, 2008)

Jillian, your statement still doesn't address what I'm talking about.  If I did believe in humans causing global warming, my post would be the same.  

Let me post the quote directly from the owner of the weather channel again:


"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,"


This is straight from the horses mouth.

You're right about the lawsuits though they are intended to harass...but you're not telling me anything I don't know.  The harassment is in the form of an attempt to make them debate, the guy doing the suing says so.  I don't see how you can gather any other conclusion from this quote.  

The whole purpose of the post, was that it was only a matter of time before this happened, and....it's interesting to see what the main advocate of global warming and the weather channel have in their arsenals to debate with one of other.  You're analyzing my post way too much.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Mar 22, 2008)

If we are causing global warming, it will be too late to sue when there is proof.  We will all be dead. 

Do you really think that humans have no negative affect on the planet, or are you just denying global warming is being hastened by our actions?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 23, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> If we are causing global warming, it will be too late to sue when there is proof.  We will all be dead.
> 
> Do you really think that humans have no negative affect on the planet, or are you just denying global warming is being hastened by our actions?



Here's a quote from an earlier post of mine (incinuating that I'm sure we contribute)
"I just don't think people contribute as much as Gore suggests"

I do believe that we contribute to pollution, but I do no think that humans are causing global warming.  If that were the case, then there would have been fossil-fuels burned by humans as soon as the ice-age ended and the ice began melting.  Because that's when the globe started warming.


----------



## mattskramer (Mar 23, 2008)

I don&#8217;t get it.  What did Gore do?  Isn&#8217;t he just a man giving his opinion?  While I think that &#8220;An Inconvenient Truth&#8221; is &#8220;full of hot air&#8221; (pardon the pun), doesn&#8217;t this fall under the category of &#8220;buyer beware&#8221;?    Is Gore forcing people to do things on the issue of global warming?

What if I tell someone I think that he is causing too much pollution and needs to recycle?  He follows my request but then decides that he was not causing too much pollution.   He can&#8217;t sue me, can he?  I must be missing a key point because as I see it, individuals are ultimately responsible for the decisions that they make.  It might be different if legislation was enacted based on &#8220;global warming&#8221; but then would the defendant be the US government?

Help me out here.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 23, 2008)

LOL...I'm not quite sure what the thread is about anymore either.  My OP was that it would be interesting to see what came out of this...The owner stated in the article that since he couldn't get a debate, he wanted to sue so that the debate could be forced to take place...in a civil court. I agree that it'll never go anywhere, and that suing for money is rediculous because it is a "buyer beware" situation.  I just stated that it would be interesting to see what happens if a debate were to happen (you know, what kind of "evidence" would be brought forth by both sides)...but some seemed to have taken it a bit too seriously and started debated global warming--which I included myself with.


----------



## BruceWayne (Mar 29, 2008)

BrianH said:


> ...I've been waiting for this to happen...I'm not a global warming believer...I do believe that the globe may be warming, but I don't think we've spread up the process as much as people suggest that we do.  Natural Climate Cycle.
> --One volcano eruption puts more dangerous gases into the atmospher then humans ever thought about doing.



You're actually quite far from the truth there.
hxxp://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
hxxp://clipmarks.com/clipmark/2D72819F-F8A3-46BB-BB55-82504DEF65BA/
(sorry, can't post links yet, just turn those x's into t's)
_"Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes"_
That's all volcanoes combined, not just one volcanic eruption.

I'm curious, but does that change your mind in the slightest, about the impact of humans on the globe?


----------



## nibor (Mar 30, 2008)

THE COWS FARTING DID IT.............................


----------



## BrianH (Mar 30, 2008)

BruceWayne said:


> You're actually quite far from the truth there.
> hxxp://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
> hxxp://clipmarks.com/clipmark/2D72819F-F8A3-46BB-BB55-82504DEF65BA/
> (sorry, can't post links yet, just turn those x's into t's)
> ...



That's pretty interesting. I may have been wrong about that then...
however, I still do not believe that humans have contributed as much as people say.  I do believe that humans have contributed...but history shows that the earth has a history of climate change before the large-scale burning of fossil-fuels.  The earth was a ball of ice (ice age) at one time, then the ice started melting.  Was it humans causing the ice to melt? No, it was climate change.  The Ice caps at our poles maybe be the last reminence of the ice age IMO.  My father-in-law lives about 20 miles inland from the Gulf-of Mexico and farms cotton and milo.  When he plows his fields, he digs up oyster shells in the middle of a dirt field, 20 miles inland.  Many other farmers experienec this also.  This make me assume that at one time, the place where he lives was once covered by the ocean, which means that the water level was like this befoer the ice age.  I just feel that the extreme warming is caused by natural climate change.  (Sure we contribute, but we're not causing it by far)


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 4, 2008)

Global warming is fake?

What?


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Apr 4, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Global warming is fake?
> 
> What?



prove it isn't.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 4, 2008)

No one is saying that Global Warming is fake...

The earth was a ball of ice at one time (FACT).
It's obvious that the ice had melted and the earth is no longer one big ball of ice. (FACT).
What caused it?
Were humans burning fossil fuels at the end of the ice age? No
The Ice began to melt naturally due to cyclical climate change.  
IMO, the earth is still (on a larger scale) warming since the end of the Ice Age.

This is just my opinion.  But based on factual information.

I'm sure that humans are contributing to Global Warming, there's no doubt about that....but I don't think we started it by any means, and so far, no one has come out with an actual reason for global warming.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

onthefence said:


> prove it isn't.




The *onus is on you* to disprove the conclusions of over 2000 independent lines of evidence saying human emissions are the sole cause.

That's the way it works. 

Political rhetoric does not work on this issue, though you may try. The science wins out every time.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> No one is saying that Global Warming is fake...
> 
> The earth was a ball of ice at one time (FACT).
> It's obvious that the ice had melted and the earth is no longer one big ball of ice. (FACT).
> ...



I think you're confused as to the claims of the credible scientific community. They have never - ever - argued the Earth has not warmed before. Please be clear on that.

The claim is that the *the rate* of warming is unprecented due to the rapid increase in CO2 from human emissions.

There are three claims the credible climate science community has proposed. The first, is that the Earth is warming. The second is that humans are the cause. And the third is that fossil fuel combusiton/ human emissons is the reason.

 Over 2000 lines of independent lines of evidence found in peer-reviewed scientific academic journals have made this conclusion.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I think you're confused as to the claims of the credible scientific community. They have never - ever - argued the Earth has not warmed before. Please be clear on that.
> 
> The claim is that the *the rate* of warming is unprecented due to the rapid increase in CO2 from human emissions.



Yeah I know...but where's the proof that CO2 is increasingly warming the earth?  It's just speculation, they have no proof.  CO2 is naturally in the environment.    Every human, mammal on earth releases CO2 when they exhale....it's natural.  They have not shown proof that it is CO2 that's causing it.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Yeah I know...but where's the proof that CO2 is increasingly warming the earth?  It's just speculation, they have no proof.  CO2 is naturally in the environment.    Every human, mammal on earth releases CO2 when they exhale....it's natural.  They have not shown proof that it is CO2 that's causing it.




No it is not speculation, not even close sir. The conclusions are derived from  from over* 2000 lines of independent evidence* found in peer-reviewed scientific academic journals.

I have an intimate knowledge of this issue.  I am up for providing the resources or explaining to you as best as I can any questions you may have regarding Co2 emissions/global warming and the empirical evidence to back it up.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

First claim: The Earth is warming: "How do we know the earth is warming?"

The answer is because Global warming is a conclusion based on observations of many global indicators.

The most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/), and CRU direct surface temperature analysis(http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/).

Both trends are definitely and significantly up.

In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the claim that the earth is currently undergoing. The following empirical observations lead to the same conclusion - that the earth is warming: *Satellite data, radiosondes, borehole analysis, glacial melt observations, sea ice melt, sea level rise, proxy reconstructions and permafrost melt.*


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Yeah I know...but where's the proof that CO2 is increasingly warming the earth?  It's just speculation, they have no proof.  CO2 is naturally in the environment.    Every human, mammal on earth releases CO2 when they exhale....it's natural.  *They have not shown proof that it is CO2 that's causing it*.



Yes, there has been "proof."

First, remember that there is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence._ Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in._

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of *observation and data*, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can *successfully reproduce* the climate's behavior over the last century.

Given the lack of any extra planet Earths and a few really large time machines, it is simply impossible to do any better than this.


Here's a question directed to all the skeptics...what observations or evidence would  you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 5, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Yes, there has been "proof."
> 
> First, remember that there is no "proof" in science -- that is a property of mathematics. In science, what matters is the balance of evidence, and theories that can explain that evidence._ Where possible, scientists make predictions and design experiments to confirm, modify, or contradict their theories, and must modify these theories as new information comes in._
> 
> ...



THat's my problem with global warming....because it cannot be proven...I cannot buy it.  I believe the globe is warming...but since scintists have not tracked the warming of the earth until recently, how are they sure that the globe didn't once warm at a rapid race like today??  THey don't have records that can even indicate the rate of warming in the old days or in prehistory.  This is why I'm skeptical...sure, the globe is warming, and I'm sure humans are contributing to it, but I cannot be convinced that we have sped it up.


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 5, 2008)

> Global temperatures 'to decrease'
> 
> By Roger Harrabin
> BBC News environment analyst
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7329799.stm


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> THat's my problem with global warming....because it cannot be proven...I cannot buy it.  I believe the globe is warming...but since scintists have not tracked the warming of the earth until recently, how are they sure that the globe didn't once warm at a rapid race like today??  THey don't have records that can even indicate the rate of warming in the old days or in prehistory.  This is why I'm skeptical...sure, the globe is warming, and I'm sure humans are contributing to it, but I cannot be convinced that we have sped it up.



I'm not going to let you off the hook. I asked a very serious question. I would appreciate you answer it. Here is it again...

What observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 6, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I'm not going to let you off the hook. I asked a very serious question. I would appreciate you answer it. Here is it again...
> 
> What observations or evidence would you consider "proof" that global warming is caused by rising CO2 levels?



I don't think there's any amount of proof that I could see, that would PROVE to me, that humans have rapidly increased global warming....

because nothing is FACT...

The FACT that scientist were not around or kept record of the rate of heating or cooling the earth did before scientists were around keeps me from accepting it.  

I have questions that stem from this belief...

What caused the earth to come out of the Ice Age?  (did humans burning fossil fuels melt all of the ice?
What caused the Ice Age?
How come I live 20 miles inland from the ocean, and my father-in-law digs up oyster-shells in the middle of a field? (Maybe because it was once under water?).  
Were the ice caps here before the Ice Age of after? (Cause if they weren't, then maybe there were none before the Ice Age.)
Maybe the earth did not have Ice on it at all before the beginng of the Ice Age...  Scientists claim that in the beginings of earth (before life), that the earth was one GIANT BALL OF ICE....what melted that? 

If the ICE AGE (climate change) can kill the dinosaurs, it can kill us too.  


I've lost faith in the "humans rapidly speeding up global warming."  IT's a theory.

Every year we hear..."Hurricane season is going to be bad because of global warming...."  I call BS.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/REMARKS+OF+JOHN+COLEMAN+FINAL6c.pdf


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 6, 2008)

BrianH said:


> *I don't think there's any amount of proof that I could see, that would PROVE to me, that humans have rapidly increased global warming....
> *





Why you would even assume your claim that _"...scientists were not around or kept record of the rate of heating or cooling the earth,"_ would have any bearing on the validity and reliability of the mountains of evidence that exist *( which include ice *_*core samples, NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis, CRU direct surface temperature analysis, Satellite Data,Radiosondes,  Sea level rise, Borehole analysis,Proxy Reconstructions,Glacial melt observations, Sea ice melt,  Permafrost melt*_*)* pointing to human emissions of climate change is elementary at best, pathological at worst.

Clearly, you are not a serious person with a serious argument. You're questions are completely idiotic and irrelevant. Your claim that "_...scientists were not around or kept record of the rate of heating or cooling the earth,"_  is even more absurd. 

I've never seen or heard of a peer-reviewed article in a scientific scholarly journal argue that position. Not even the most hardened global climate skeptic would dare offer that claim. I think they would be embarrassed to.

Lastly, I think you are a bizarre person who prides himself on exhibiting a ghastly propensity to boast about approaching a debate with a closed mind. 

These are your words _"I don't think there's any amount of proof that I could see, that would PROVE to me, that humans have rapidly increased global warming...."_ Then why are you here Brian? If your mind is already made up, and you admit no amount evidence or proof will ever convince you otherwise, I ask why the hell are you here posting in this thread?


----------



## marsanges (Apr 7, 2008)

I'd like to defend him. 

His questions arent illegitimate. In them is the nucleus of scientific enquiry, the old geologists who laid the groundwork of all palaeoclimatology set out with just such kinds of questions. How come there are oysters in my field, and such. 

The crux seems to me to be in the willingness to reserve (i. e. withhold) judgement for the time being, and look at such questions and follw the evidence wherever it may lead as far as one can do with observations and deduction. 

To say " I don't think there's any amount of proof ... that would PROVE to me .. " is of course strictly a statement of faith. Excluding an outcome right before any proof (evidence) has actually been looked at. Thats end of legitmiate discussion about science. 

Still, to wonder about such seeming simple things seems quite innocent to me. As long as people are in  principle willing to concede that there might actually be good evidence behind the global warming issue then it isnt a futile discussion.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Why you would even assume your claim that _"...scientists were not around or kept record of the rate of heating or cooling the earth,"_ would have any bearing on the validity and reliability of the mountains of evidence that exist *( which include ice *_*core samples, NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis, CRU direct surface temperature analysis, Satellite Data,Radiosondes,  Sea level rise, Borehole analysis,Proxy Reconstructions,Glacial melt observations, Sea ice melt,  Permafrost melt*_*)* pointing to human emissions of climate change is elementary at best, pathological at worst.
> 
> Clearly, you are not a serious person with a serious argument. You're questions are completely idiotic and irrelevant. Your claim that "_...scientists were not around or kept record of the rate of heating or cooling the earth,"_  is even more absurd.
> 
> ...



 "[/B]*core samples, NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis, CRU direct surface temperature analysis, Satellite Data,Radiosondes,  Sea level rise, Borehole analysis,Proxy Reconstructions,Glacial melt observations, Sea ice melt,  Permafrost melt[/I])[/"

Like I said, until you can provide me all of these items that were collected 1,000,000 years ago... then you don't have PROOF.  You have speculation based on information.  
Did NASA take the direct surface temerature analysis 1,000,000 years ago?
Did they use Radiosondes 1,000,000 years ago?
How do they know what the sea-level was at 1,000,000 years ago?
Scientists also know that at one point in the earth's history, glaciers did not exist....  And at another point glaciers covered the earth....

All of your scientific obervation and speculation is great.  It has merit to it and I'm sure the globe is warming...  But considering that scientists DO NOT HAVE RECORD OF THE RATE OF THE WARMING OF THE EARTH PRIOR TO HISTORY, HOW CAN THEY BE &#37;100 POSITIVE THAT THE RATE OF HEATING NOW IS SO ABNORMAL?

Do they know how fast the ice was melting at the end of the Ice Age?  Exactly how fast it melted per year?

Clearly, you are a 19 year-old who thinks he has the answer to everything based on his research.  You've spent you're time researching why global warming is and developed your opinion without reading why global warming isn't.  

And as far as the thread goes, last I checked, you responded to a thread posted by me....Sorry to break it to you, but the world isn't all peaches and buttercups filled with nice little discussions that all end in happiness.  Some of us don't believe everything we hear or read.  Some of us have to be convinced by more.  And considering that humans speeding up the process of global warming is a theory, it's going to take absolute proof.  


"The most relevant change is in the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There is evidence that greenhouse gas levels fell at the start of ice ages and rose during the retreat of the ice sheets, but it is difficult to establish cause and effect (see the notes above on the role of weathering). Greenhouse gas levels may also have been affected by other factors which have been proposed as causes of ice ages, such as the movement of continents and vulcanism.

The Snowball Earth hypothesis maintains that the severe freezing in the late Proterozoic was ended by an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and some supporters of Snowball Earth argue that it was caused by a reduction in atmospheric CO2. The hypothesis also warns of future Snowball Earths."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

A future snowball earth???? How could this be?  The globe is warming!!!????

So what caused the rise in CO2 gases at the end of the Ice Age?  Humans burning fossil fuels?  Like I said, I believe that humans are contributing to global warming,  I know levels of CO2 do affect the earth and infact do cause warming/cooling trends, and I don't think that global warming is fake, but I do believe that the majority of global warming is coming from natural climate change.  The CO2 levels have fallen enough to create an Ice Age, and have risen enough to melt one without human help or interference. 

My questions are only absurd to you because you cannot answer them.  I'll give it to you that I'm obviously not as fluent as you are in the scientific mumbo-jumbo that you read, or your rhetoric, but I obviously have quite a bit more common sense than you have as well as an ability to think for myself.  Believe it or not, libraries are filled with biased sources of information, all trying to make their own point.  The fact is, we disagree, get over it. You've yet to provide proof, and I've yet to buy your BS.*


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

marsanges said:


> I'd like to defend him.
> 
> His questions arent illegitimate. In them is the nucleus of scientific enquiry, the old geologists who laid the groundwork of all palaeoclimatology set out with just such kinds of questions. How come there are oysters in my field, and such.
> 
> ...



Oddly enough...I agree  .  

I'll admit that I can be close-minded sometimes.  I'm really open if someone does have proof, but my definition of proof may be a little more strict than others.

I also believe that my questions are quite legitimate.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> "[/B]But considering that *scientists DO NOT HAVE RECORD OF THE RATE OF THE WARMING OF THE EARTH *PRIOR TO HISTORY, HOW CAN THEY BE &#37;100 POSITIVE THAT THE RATE OF HEATING NOW IS SO ABNORMAL?.



First of all, ask yourself if the claim that "scientists DO NOT HAVE RECORD OF THE RATE OF THE WARMING OF THE EARTH" is even true. _(here's a hint genius, it is not true. We *do* have a record of the rate of warming) _

It's almost as if you just made this up in your head and decided to run with it. What the hell do you think, among many other lines of evidence, ice core samples and borehole analysis are? They are a record of warming dating back millions and millions of years.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> First of all, ask yourself if this claim is even true. Did you just make this up in your head?
> 
> Then explain why this claim would even matter.



First of all, are you willing to debate the fact that scientists/using today's techonology *were* around 1,000,000 years ago?  If you're claiming that i have to provide fact/evidence for this statement, you've got a long education ahead of you.  

Therfore, if scientist were not around to track the rate of the warming of the earth...anything else is pure speculation based on information.  I have more questions.

Why was last year a significantly colder year than most?
If the suns orbit around the galaxy as well as plate tectonics can affect how the globe-warms....why is it CO2 that is receiving all of the attention?  Is the sun not orbiting the galaxy anymore?  Are the plates no longer shifting?

Scientists have speculation about the rate of warming of the earth.  Imagine if scientists had been around to track it at the ending of the ICE AGE...would they have been shittin their pants over CO2?


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> First of all, are you willing to debate the fact that scientists/using today's techonology *were* around 1,000,000 years ago?  If you're claiming that i have to provide fact/evidence for this statement, you've got a long education ahead of you.



This is getting ridiculous and you are getting more desperate. You have already been told numerous times the answers to your questions by me in this thread. 

Among many other lines of evidence, ice core samples and borehole analysis *are* a record of warming dating back millions and millions of years.

What the hell don't you understand about that?

Do you even know what an ice core sample is? It is obvious you do not.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Why was last year a significantly colder year than most?
> If the suns orbit around the galaxy as well as plate tectonics can affect how the globe-warms....why is it CO2 that is receiving all of the attention?  Is the sun not orbiting the galaxy anymore?  Are the plates no longer shifting?
> 
> Scientists have speculation about the rate of warming of the earth.  Imagine if scientists had been around to track it at the ending of the ICE AGE...would they have been shittin their pants over CO2?



1. Last year *was not* colder than most. Where are you getting this obviously inaccurate information from?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> This is getting ridiculous. You have already been told. Among many other lines of evidence, ice core samples and borehole analysis are a record of warming dating back millions and millions of years.



Oh yeah...I've been told a 19 year-old supreme knower of all things.   

It's funny how advocates of global warming are lining their pockets as we speak.  Google Al Gore, and those that sell carbon credits and see what you get.  The plot thickens....They say, "Hmmm...they globes warming...let's make some money off of it.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
The earth is warming, but so are the other planets....Frickin ET needs to quit burning greenhouse gases or he'll have a global warming crisis on his hands.


So you can prove...without a reasonable doubt.  That CO2 emissions have extremely impacted the globe, and sped up global warming?

I'm all ears sunshine...


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Oh yeah...I've been told a 19 year-old supreme knower of all things.
> 
> It's funny how advocates of global warming are lining their pockets as we speak.  Google Al Gore, and those that sell carbon credits and see what you get.  The plot thickens....They say, "Hmmm...they globes warming...let's make some money off of it.
> 
> ...



At least, I hope, you finally realize what ice core samples, borehole analysis are - empirical evidence of paleo climate _(a record of climate dating back millions and millions of years)_ etc. I sincerely hope that issue has been put to rest.

And to properly explain some of your questions requires a first step. Do you know the difference between climate and weather? And if so, explain, in your own words, the difference in one sentence. I want to see exactly what you do and do not know.


As for Al Gore, I do not care about Al Gore, nor do I care about carbon credits or "people lining their pockets." That is a political issue irrelevant to my concern and having nothing to do with the science of climate science.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> At least you finally realize what ice core samples, borehole analysis are - empirical evidence of paleo climate etc.
> 
> And to explain this to you requires a small baby step. Do you know the difference between climate and weather? And what is it?



First off, you can attempt to belittle me by asking these questions...It shows you for the ignorant 19-year-old that you are.  To assume that you are more intelligent than someone else based on your knowledge of a *theory*.   Your doing about as crappy in this debate as you are in the "Who supports a Draft" thread.  

Second, I'll answer your childish questions by saying the climate is the pattern and variation of weather in a region of a long period of time. Weather is phenomena occuring in the atmosphere for a short period of time. Ice Core Samples are samples of snow and ice that have re-crystallized entrapping air bubbles from different time periods.  

I'm certified in Geography smart-ass so I can pick-up anything you lay-down bud.  I just don't choose to believe a theory that's not basd on Scientific fact, but observation and speculation.   The same observation and speculation that have revealed that all of the planets in our solar system are experiencing warming at the global level.   Like I said, the martians better cut that burning of fossil fuels.  It'll lead to a global crisis.  Did you know that Pluto is warming as well?  

We can all see that you're a smartass, that's good, because you'll have to be to stay alive in these forums.  Before you go around accusing people of ignorance, search yourself.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> 1. Last year *was not* colder than most. Where are you getting this obviously inaccurate information from?



http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

Here's one source for starters....

DId you know it snowed over 12 inches on the coast of Texas a few years ago??? Hadn't done that in a hundred years.  That is fact my friend.  

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/02/last-years-reality-global-cooling.html

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Second, I'll answer your childish questions by saying *the climate is the pattern and variation of weather in a region of a long period of time. Weather is phenomena occuring in the atmosphere for a short period of time*.
> 
> I'm certified in Geography



That's about right. What makes it obvious you are a geographer and not in the field of climate science is the assumptions you make. A perfect example of your lack of knowledge on the issue is your tendency to post links about cold temperatures in Canada, or snow in wherever. As if you think that proves climate science claims wrong, or destroys the credibility of climate science methodology. Well, it does not.

A big, and I think rather embarrassing assumption you make is that you think it is hard or as difficult to predict climate as it is to predict weather. It is, in fact, extremely EASY to predict climate as opposed to weather.

To put it in laymen's terms. Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get. 

Dice _(for this example, one dice only)_ is a good way to think about it. If you throw the dice ten times, which number is most often thrown? What is the mean of the scores?

Now if you start throwing the dice more, the closer the mean _(average)_ gets to 3.5, because there is an equal opportunity of throwing any 6 of the numbers on the next throw. While it is very hard to predict what the next thrown number will be, _*it's incredibly easy to predict*_ that the mean will still be 3.5.

Now, associate weather types rather than numbers with the sides of the dice. We'll mark the sides of our 'weather dice' in terms of cloud cover. We'll have 0 per cent cloud cover, 20 per cent, 40 per cent, 60 per cent, 80 per cent and 100 percent.

Is it possible for BrianH to predict what the weather will be on the next throw? Just like with the numbers on the dice, there is an equal chance of each amount of cloud cover. It is severly difficult for BrianH to predict what the weather will be on the next throw.

However, we know climate is the average of the weather over a long period of time.

Which brings Brian to the next question. Can Brian predict _the climate?_ We know Brian probably could not make a weather forecast. But Brian could make a climate prediction. He could say 50 per cent cloud cover with confidence.

The climate is the long term average. A single throw of our 'weather sided' dice won't affect the climate very much. In the exact same way we can have a very hot summer one year and a cold one the next without the climate (the weather we expect) changing.

The point is, you have a lot of homework to do on the subject of climate science. If you know weather is what we get and climate is what we expect. You would not be foolish enough to claim, if I can use the dice analogy, that one individual roll of the dice is a good way of measuring the long term average.

Climate is easier to predict than the weather. Had you been more qualified to speak on the matter, you would have already known climate prediction is far, far easier to predict than weather.  

Every time you offer claims based "on one roll of the dice", you expose a great ignorance on the subject of climate science and clearly indicate to me you are certainly not in the climate science field nor a serious academic in Geography.
	
	



```

```


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> That's about right. What makes it obvious you are a geographer and not in the field of climate science is that assumptions you make. A perfect example of your lack of knowledge on the issue is the tendency to post links about cold temperatures in Canada, or snow in wherever. Its almost as if you think that proves something. Well, it does not.
> 
> *First off, you didn't believe that last year was a colder than most, so when I called you on it, you ignore it and dismiss it.  I gave you proof that last year was a cold year, and you dismissed it as if I didn't prove you wrong.  I also did not claim that I was proving that global warming did not exist...find that and I'll give you a dollar.*
> 
> ...



You've also failed to address the other planets in our solar system that are warming.  You seem to enjoy cherry-picking information and posting non-sense as a response to them, while completely leaving out the things that baffle you or maybe don't make sense to you. (big suprise...)

You've obviously got more research than you have brains.  Wait til you finish college and let your brain catch-up.  Brian may not be able to predict the weather tonight, but Brian can predict a dismal failure by The Good Shephard to make and prove his case about humans severely impacting the globe with CO2 emissions.  Get your sheep together before posting on another thread.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 7, 2008)

> First off, you didn't believe that last year was a colder than most, so when I called you on it, you ignore it and dismiss it. I gave you proof that last year was a cold year, and you dismissed it as if I didn't prove you wrong. I also did not claim that I was proving that global warming did not exist...find that and I'll give you a dollar.



The Earth *was not* colder than normal last year and you did not prove anything other than you did not read the article you linked the group to.  You failed to comprehend the very same link you posted. I thought it was too obvious to call you on it.

Your own link _never _makes the claim that the Earth in 2007 was colder than most.

You are seeing words that _do not_ exist.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
(check out what the main factor of the climate is)

http://rwor.org/a/030/hurricanes-climate-change-global-warming-2.htm


http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57949

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57895
(check out the conclusion for the melting of the ice at the end of the Ice Age)

http://nov55.com/gbwm.html
Check out what increased water vapor in the air does...

So in your eyes, what makes your sources more credible?  Oh that's right...your own personal bias.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 7, 2008)

I'm going to bed....do try and post something interesting for me to read in the morning.  If that's not too much to ask.  

Goodnight.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 7, 2008)

BrianH said:


> So your eyes, what makes your sources more credible?  Oh that's right...your own personal bias.



That is an unbelievably easy question to answer. A perfect example of this is the source you used "Oleg Sorokhtin" in a pathetic attempt to accuse me of bias.

I looked up Dr. Oleg Dr. Sorokhtin in an honest attempt to see what he has published in a peer-reviewed academic scientific journal lately, if ever. I have found nothing, and I suspect I never will.

Then I looked up his notions about solar activity. Once again, it is not backed up by any original published research on his part. In fact, solar activity claims have been flatly contradicted by several recent studies published in peer reviewed journals.

It's very simple really. You cite wacko's who _do not_ publish studies in peer-reviewed academic journals. I base my conclusions from the world's leading climate science academics _who currently_ publish peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals.


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 8, 2008)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDi_u0dcig[/ame]


----------



## BrianH (Apr 8, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> That is an unbelievably easy question to answer. A perfect example of this is the source you used "Oleg Sorokhtin" in a pathetic attempt to accuse me of bias.
> 
> I looked up Dr. Oleg Dr. Sorokhtin in an honest attempt to see what he has published in a peer-reviewed academic scientific journal lately, if ever. I have found nothing, and I suspect I never will.
> 
> ...




Ok turd stain,  Let me list just few of my "wacko" resources.

-Habibullo Abdussamotov-head of Space Research at St. Petersburg Pulkobo Astronomical Observatory.
(Yeah, the Russians don't know anything about space... )
-Michael Mann- Penn State Meteorologist

-Eugenio Hackbart- Chief Meteorologist at MetSul Weather Center-Brazil

-Oleg Sorokhtin-  Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

-Dr. Sami Solanki- Director of Max Planck Institute for the Solar System Research-Gottingen, Germany (Where Swiss and German scientists (not wackos) study the solar system.)

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-131
I guess Nasa doesn't know what they're talking about either.  Those wackos over at NASA don't have any credible research.    

These are just a few sources that I've posted.  It's funny how you cherry-picked that one man out of all of the sources I've posted.  The main cause behind global warming is the Sun.  Sure, their are other factors....but does it make you wonder, the fact that a 1&#37; change in watervapor does more than the doubling of CO2 in the air?  Water vapor is one hundred times as much of a greenhouse gas than CO2.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114085128.htm
(Once again, NASA doesn't know what they're talking about...


----------



## BrianH (Apr 8, 2008)

Ask yourself one question....why is it that top officials, that are harping on CO2 and global warming....are all lining thier pockets with money?  Al Gore one the Nobel Peace Prize and then flew to Norway on his private jet, releasing "deadly CO2" into the atmosphere and rapidly speeding up our demise...  Some conservative.  He could have just caught a flight that was already going and saved some greenhouse gases.

Whether you like it, or agree with it.  There are many bigger factors to global warming and climate change than CO2 being released from humans.  Sun, orbit, plate tectonics, water currents, winds, pressure. etc...CO2 does play a part, and it is considered a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.  But that's all it does, contributes.   It is not severely speeding up the process.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 8, 2008)

Just tell me when you've had enough....

Water holds 2/3 of heat trapped by greenhouse gasses (Water vapor is a green-house gas --in case you're wondering)  So I ask you again...since study shows the CO2 did not cause the end of the Ice Age (link on previous posts), what did?  Was it humans burning fossil fuels?  Where the animals breathing too much?   Did man accidently light the world on fire while discovering it?  I know what happened, the damn invention of the automobile and the internal combustion engine...!!  

All it takes for global warming to start, is a few good, hot years, to evaporate an abnormally high amount of water, the water vapor then traps heat from the sun.

Like I've said before, CO2 emissions are not a good substance to put into the air.  I'm all for going green and getting rid of the crappy energy system we have, but CO2 is not the main cause of global warming, nor is it what is rapidly speeding up the process.  Contributing to the inrease of global warming, probably, but by far not the cause or severity thereof.  

You ever watch a video on the news, or read a newspaper article about global warming and they show some plant with a huge "smoke-stack"?  And white smoke is just coming out of it like there's no tomorrow.  9 times out of 10, they're showing you the release of watervapor that is used to cool turbines and generators.  If you had any knowledge about plants, you'd know that.  


http://www.beckermn.org/info/sherco.html

Here's a link about smoke-stacks at a coal plant.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 8, 2008)

BrianH said:


> These are just a few sources that I've posted.  It's funny how you cherry-picked that one man out of all of the sources I've posted.  The main cause behind global warming is the Sun.  Sure, their are other factors....but does it make you wonder, the fact that a 1&#37; change in watervapor does more than the doubling of CO2 in the air?  Water vapor is one hundred times as much of a greenhouse gas than CO2.



You do not, I repeat, do not even read the links you post. The NASA article you provided does not comment or discredit anthropogenic global warming. In fact, you are so uninformed you do not even realize NASA has already endoresed the official consensus on global warming.

And once again, none of the names you have shared have written a peer-reviewed paper published in a scientific journal dealing with climate science in a long time or maybe even never.

You have a _serious_ ignorance of climate science. Case in point, water vapour.  Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect.  It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however,* not considered* a *climate "forcing,"* because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

Water vapour is a FEEDBACK.

Your ignorance is appalling. How you can sit there and claim to know climate science but not even recognize water vapour is a feedback and not a forcing is beyond comprehension.

If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-3.htm) or at NASA's page about forcings in its GCM (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/), you won't find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, *any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate.*

You are not a serious person. You do not bring serious discussion to the table.

The following claims have been endorsed by the climate science commmunity. a) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, b)Current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability and, c) Sea levels have risen over the last century.

If you want to be detailed about it, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change includes the following.

1. The climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;

2. The major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;

3. The rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;

4. If CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and

5. A climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

Where did I get this information from? Easy, go here. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

In the climate science community, it was called the TAR report. Endorsed by the UN but written - and this is important - by independent scientists from all over the globe.

There 's even more. The conlclusions of the TAR reports have been endorsed by the following organizations:

Academia Brasiliera de Ci&#234;ncias (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academi&#233; des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
*Russian Academy of Sciences*
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences


Wait...there's more...the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
*
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)*
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)


Please stop posting on this issue, I tire of exposing your lack of knowledge and schoolboy ignorance on the subject.


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 8, 2008)

If you have all the proof that's it's man's fault... Why don't you put in for the $150,000...


http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/


----------



## BrianH (Apr 8, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You do not, I repeat, do not even read the links you post. The NASA article you provided does not comment or discredit anthropogenic global warming. In fact, you are so uninformed you do not even realize NASA has already endoresed the official consensus on global warming.
> 
> *You do not, I repeat, do not have rational brain in your skull.  I never said the humans don't affect global warming, I said that humans did not effect global warming, nor are rapidly increasing the process more so that it would normall be warming.  Why don't you stick to the "Who Supports a Draft Thread, you're not making quite an ass of yourself over there.*
> 
> ...



 

wah wah wah wah wah..."Stop posting on my thread." Boodie frickin hoo.

Like I said, before. water vapor and the sun are the culprits of global warming.  LIke I've also said a thousand times, CO2 is contributing, but it's not causing it and it's not severely speeding it up.  It may be contributing and adding fuel to the fire, but it's not the primary cause of global warming. 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html
--straight from the horses mouth...water vapor the key component, aided by other green-house gases, some human made.  So like I said, CO2 assists, but is not causing. The main thing that speeds up global warming is water vapor.

You still fail to answer my questions about the ice age and the history of the Earth's climate change. What caused the Ice Age to begin ending?  Was it human emmissions of  CO2 or other greenhouse gases?  NO.  Was the Earth always a ball of Ice, No.  So the earth had never ever ever changed climate rapidly?? What brought on the Ice Age?  That was a pretty rapid change in climate.  It was also a pretty rapid change out of the Ice Age.  Considering the most recent Ice Age ended about 11,000 years ago.  Some would even argue that the ice caps we see today are remanence of the ice age.  OH, and by the way, in order for their to be ice at the poles, there had to be water their first.  So if we are messing it up, we're basically returning it back to the way it was.  

If you want to go with the whole CO2 "THEORY'.  Then you could assume that because there was less CO2 in the atmosphere,  the earth did not hold heat and became a ball of ice, killing much of the wildlife on earth.  So if humans are keeping the earth from returning into a ball of ice, because of their CO2 emissions, we're actually doing a good thing.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 8, 2008)

Larkinn said:


> Probably not actually.   He could try, but I doubt the case would go anywhere.   By the way...where again is Republican outrage over this frivolous lawsuit?   He doesn't even expect to win...he is just using the courtrooms as a surrogate debating forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...lets start suing people because we think they lied.   Free speech?   Whats that?



Free speech only goes as far as we can take it without trespassing upon the rights of others, or seeking to do harm to others.

"Fraud" is not an example of free speech, or it wouldn't be a crime.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 8, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Like I said, before. water vapor... culprits of global warming.
> 
> The main thing that speeds up global warming is water vapor.
> 
> ...





You've been told twice already. Water vapour is a feedback and not a forcing. There is no "disagreeing." This is *a fact*, much like one plus one equals two.  This is not a political conversation, however hard you try to make it into one. You have an opinion and it is an ignorant one, it is also wrong and emblematic of a person with no serious knowledge of the issue.

As for your links, once again you failed to understand them. You are either a twit who cannot comprehend what he is reading, or you are purposefully being deceptive. I'll choose the latter option since it has become a pattern by you to submit links that do not solidify, strengthen much less discredit current climate science claims.

I'm not going to discuss any further the issues of climate science with someone who does not know the difference between a feedback and a forcing.

And to claim I have not provided any evidence - even though I have provided a list of the credible scientific organizations agreeing with the consensus of the TAR report - is an outright lie.

I do not think you had any knowledge of the TAR report - a study every credible climate scientist has knowledge of - before I mentioned it.

I do not, and will not waste my time trading words with a liar.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 8, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You've been told twice already. Water vapour is a feedback and not a forcing. There is no "disagreeing." This is *a fact*, much like one plus one equals two.  This is not a political conversation, however hard you try to make it into one. You have an opinion and it is an ignorant one, it is also wrong and emblematic of a person with no serious knowledge of the issue.
> 
> As for your links, once again you failed to understand them. You are either a twit who cannot comprehend what he is reading, or you are purposefully being deceptive. I'll choose the latter option since it has become a pattern by you to submit links that do not solidify, strengthen much less discredit current climate science claims.
> 
> ...



First off, calling me a liar would be based on the premise that you are telling the truth.  And considering that you cannot prove without a reasonable doubt that you are right, who knows what the truth is.  I know one thing that is fact....the climate of earth had been changing for millions of years without the assistance of man made emissions.  


TAR was a report issued in 2001 in Geneva numnuts.  It was issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Don't flatter yourself.  

Notice that it's the Intergovernmental Panel on "CLIMATE CHANGE."  I don't see the "Intergovernmental Panel on Human Induced Climate Change.  

The fact is, the climate is changing and is going to change whether we want it to or not, and at whatever rate it wants to.  If you want to waste your time studying a fallacy instead of being educated by me on this forum, be my guest.  If you want to spend the rest of your days "acting" smarter than everyone else, you go right ahead.  

I really enjoy how you've deflected the whole Ice Age issue.  Tell me, what melted all of the ice?  What caused it?  If water was here first, that would mean that there, originally, was no ice.  What caused the original heating that began melting the ice at the end of the Ice Age.  
We are contributing, but we are not the sole factors of the climate.  It will change on it's own.  And if for a second, I believed that humans were causing or speeding up global warming, I would sooner say that our emissions is more likely to bring on an miniature Ice Age than cause the Earth to explode in a ball of fire.

Humans cannot control this climate any more than they can control the weather....considering the climate is an accumulation of weather patterns in a region over a long period of time.  

Not only am I more intelligent than you, You are significantly dumber than I.
If you're having such a problem, feel free to quit posting.  Though I'm rather enjoying your stupidity and "colleg-boy/nerd" attitude.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 8, 2008)

Here's the truth behind your madness.






Your Hero


----------



## BrianH (Apr 8, 2008)

Would Gore have any better at speaking?

"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur." 
-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/22/97

""The Holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history. I mean in this century's history. But we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century." 
-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/15/95 

"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." 
-- Vice President Al Gore 
*Shows how much your hero actually knows about the environment*

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change." 
-- Vice President Al Gore, 5/22/98

"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future." 
-- Vice President Al Gore 

"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."
-- Vice President Al Gore, 9/21/97

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made." 
-- Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93

*Your hero doing what he does best, talking nonsense.*


----------



## BrianH (Apr 8, 2008)

Anyway, back to the topic.  You can't prove it. You can only assume.


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 8, 2008)

Hehehehe...those are great!


----------



## BruceWayne (Apr 8, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Anyway, back to the topic.  You can't prove it. You can only assume.



There are lots of things we can't prove, but that doesn't mean we should ignore or dismiss them.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 9, 2008)

BruceWayne said:


> There are lots of things we can't prove, but that doesn't mean we should ignore or dismiss them.



I haven't dismissed anything.  I haven't dismissed the fact that the globe is warming.  I haven't dismissed the fact that CO2 plays a part.  But since it cannot be proven that CO2 is the main cause of global warming (Hence my example of the Ice Age ending--what melted it?--not CO2 emissions) I will not believe it.  There are too many other factors in this universe that dictate how this globe acts.  All of the other planets in our solar system including Pluto ( I know, not a planet anymore) are warming.  CO2 has become "the devil" to some people.  I have no problem with "going green" or cleaning up emissions from humans, but the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do.  We can't stop climate change anymore than we can plug up all of our springs and stop rivers from flowing.  Haven't dismissed CO2 as a contributing source, but it's not the cause.  Water vapor may not be a forcing greenhouse gas, but it holds more heat/radiation from the sun's UV rays than any other greenhouse gas.


----------



## TopGunna (Apr 9, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I haven't dismissed anything.  I haven't dismissed the fact that the globe is warming.  I haven't dismissed the fact that CO2 plays a part.  But since it cannot be proven that CO2 is the main cause of global warming (Hence my example of the Ice Age ending--what melted it?--not CO2 emissions) I will not believe it.  There are too many other factors in this universe that dictate how this globe acts.  All of the other planets in our solar system including Pluto ( I know, not a planet anymore) are warming.  CO2 has become "the devil" to some people.  I have no problem with "going green" or cleaning up emissions from humans, but the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do.  We can't stop climate change anymore than we can plug up all of our springs and stop rivers from flowing.  Haven't dismissed CO2 as a contributing source, but it's not the cause.  Water vapor may not be a forcing greenhouse gas, but it holds more heat/radiation from the sun's UV rays than any other greenhouse gas.



Exactly.  CO2 by itself cannot cause runaway warming - in fact both sides of the climate debate agree that total potential warming from infinite CO2 concentrations is around 1.6C.  There is a diminishing return relationship between increased CO2 concentrations and temperature increase, and it actually asymptotes around 1.6C.

All the catastrophic scenarios of runaway warming theory rely heavily on positive feedbacks.  Namely, that CO2 increasing temperatures slightly will trigger water evaporation and ice melting that will amplify the warming effect.  Of course, negative feedbacks will be triggered as well - increased cloud cover, plant growth, etc.

So which of these effects dominates the other?  Well, there is NO (zippy, zilch) empirical evidence to go from.  But AGW alarmists argue that the net effect is a large net POSITIVE feedback.  That's a giant leap of faith - again, there is NO PROOF.  That doesn't sound like good science to me.

In what we CAN prove, the physical world is actually dominated by NEGATIVE feedbacks!  Which makes a lot of sense, because systems dominated by positive feedbacks are extremely unstable and not sustainable over time.  However, a system kept in balance by negative feedbacks can fluctuate (into ice ages, or warm periods, for example).  You know, like when people migrated over the Bering Strait, or when the Vikings landed on an island they called Greenland.  The negative feedbacks keep temperatures in that natural range of variation.

So why believe in a net positive feedback effect with absolutely no proof, and based on very questionable assumptions?  AGW theory is closer to a religion than it is to science.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 9, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> Exactly.  CO2 by itself cannot cause runaway warming - in fact both sides of the climate debate agree that total potential warming from infinite CO2 concentrations is around 1.6C.  There is a diminishing return relationship between increased CO2 concentrations and temperature increase, and it actually asymptotes around 1.6C.
> 
> All the catastrophic scenarios of runaway warming theory rely heavily on positive feedbacks.  Namely, that CO2 increasing temperatures slightly will trigger water evaporation and ice melting that will amplify the warming effect.  Of course, negative feedbacks will be triggered as well - increased cloud cover, plant growth, etc.
> 
> ...



   Nicely put.  

I believe that the globe is warming at this particular point in time, and that CO2 does effect it to a degree.  But trying to convince Galileo (The Good Shephard) that CO2 is not the sole force in climate change is like trying to eat a turd flavored popsicle---hard to do and it stinks while your doing it.

You should PM TGS your post, cause I don't think he's posting here anymore.  I made him mad I guess, and he called me a liar.


----------



## cbi0090 (Apr 9, 2008)

I don't think the rub is whether the earth is warming up or not.  It's obvious, based on a lot of scientific evidence, that it is and that it "may" be accelerating.  Unfortunately, we don't really have a lot of data to fall back on except geological evidence.  It shows that have gone through several cycles of warming and cooling and that it was the separation of the two main oceans that seem to be the primary cause.  But, as with any natural process, rate of change generally do increase with time.  Practically nothing behaves in a straight line.  
So there is evidence that we are warming and that the rate of that change may be accelerating, but we can't really pin that rate increase on man as opposed to nature.  
It makes some sense that our activities would have some effect and I don't think it is entirely wrong to theorize this possibility and make attempts to get to the bottom of it quickly.  But what has happened is that the issue has been removed from hands of those scientists and researchers who would normally have looked at the issue without prejudice.  Instead, every politician and nut looking for attention, money or both have jumped on this bandwagon and are riding it for all it's worth making unfounded claims that they know will sell.  Of course, the media and it's "stars" are more than happy to jump on to anything that sounds like the end of the world because that always sells well.  
If we could possibly divert our attention away long enough for the carpet baggers and media hounds to lose interest, maybe some serious science could get done and we could really find out what is happening.


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 9, 2008)

I don't think we are any more. In fact this last year was amazingly cold. 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/02/11/minnesota.cold.ap/index.html

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

How about their predictions of hurricanes getting worse. And they have yet to say that. I personally thing they are making it up as they go along.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 9, 2008)

Angel Heart said:


> I don't think we are any more. In fact this last year was amazingly cold.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/02/11/minnesota.cold.ap/index.html
> 
> ...



There is evidence the warming stopped around 1998. Every supposed warming since then as not been base numbers but " adjusted" temperatures. When one demands the base numbers they find no warming in fact occurred. The problem is not all points that measure the temp will release the base figures. I wonder why?

Nor will the powers that be explain how they came up with their "adjusted" temperatures.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 10, 2008)

cbi0090 said:


> So there is evidence that we are warming and that the rate of that change may be accelerating, but *we can't really pin that rate increase on man as opposed to nature.  *



The last sentence of the first statement is absolutely false. Climate scientists do have a culprit and - through overwhelming evidence - have firmly proven their claims. One, the earth is warming, two the cause is humans, three the reason is human emissions. 

Tremendous amounts of evidence appearing in over 2000 lines of independent peer-reviewed studies report these conclusions.


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 10, 2008)

Then why hasn't anyone clamed the $150,000 being offered up to prove it?

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 10, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> Exactly.  *CO2 by itself cannot cause runaway warming - *in *fact both sides of the climate debate*
> 
> 
> So why believe in a net positive feedback effect with absolutely no proof, and based on very questionable assumptions?  AGW theory is closer to a religion than it is to science.



Another contrarian enters the arena. I have some issues with your post. Especially the above.

Here's a clue. There is no "both sides" of the debate because there is only one side. There exists a consensus among working climate scientists.

Every major institute that deals with climate-related science is saying anthropogenic global warming is here and real and dangerous, even though they will not remove the "very likely" and "strongly indicated" qualifiers. The translation of what the science is saying into the language of the public is this: Global warming is definitely happening and it is definitely because of human activities and it will definitely continue as long as CO2 keeps rising in the atmosphere.

The rest of the issue -- how high will the temperature go, how fast will it get there, and how bad will this be -- is much less certain.

You haven't the foggiest of the inner workings of the climate science community. Had you done your homework, you would have realized no peer-reviewed studies found in academic journals argue a different position on anthropogenic global warming.

There are no "both sides" of the debate. It exists only in your head, nowhere else.

In fact, a study studying the studies was done with 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change".

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&#37; 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.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. *However, none of these papers argued that point.*


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 10, 2008)

Angel Heart said:


> Then why hasn't anyone clamed the $150,000 being offered up to prove it?
> 
> http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/



Very easy question to answer. Because the author of the website, Steven Milloy, is an established liar. 

Never mind his past as a paid advocate of the Tobacco lobby. Never mind he  once claimed smoking does not cancer or that DDT was safe for schoolchildren and public areas. He's showing you the money and that must be good, right?

Milloy has been a liar all his life.

So, get real.  Do yourself a favour and research the sources you post. I take it as a reflection of one's character.


----------



## trobinett (Apr 10, 2008)

I find it curious, that the Global warming crowd do little to subtract from this threatening event.

They get on Jets to fly to these meetings, that they seem to have all around the world.

They are carried from the airports in cars.

Ever stop to think what they do personally?  My common sense meter tells me they do very little, and in fact their carbon foot print is probably about the same size as Al Gore's, enormous.

I've grown weary of those that preach the old, "do as I say, don't do as I do" line.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

He's back!!!  I knew you couldn't stay gone snuckems.

You know, you gripe and complain about others not bringing what you would call "serious" discussion to the table.  Yet you constantly belittle posters by saying they are misinformed, unintelligent, that they have no intelligence or knowledge of the subject.  It's one thing joking around and and making fun, but you have a very condescending attitude toward anyone who doesn't agree with you.  You want to post pictures of an ape and call me one, that would be fine, but you need to learn to have a discussion with people without sounding like the dumbest smart person in the world.   

We've asked you to prove that CO2 is the culprit behind global warming, and you respond by talking about how other (scientists) think it is because of certain studies.  Then you dismiss the scientists that others bring up because you simply disagree with them and are biased.  

Now as far as global warming is concerned....Humans are causing the earth to warm (in your opinion).  Since you've avoided this question every time....Did humans (emissions) cause the earth to warm at the end of the Ice Age?  Did he lack of human (emissions) cause the Ice Age to begin?  Why is every planet in the solar system warming also, including Pluto?  
You have failed to address these questions (even though you claim to have extensive knowledge of the subject).


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

trobinett said:


> I find it curious, that the Global warming crowd do little to subtract from this threatening event.
> 
> They get on Jets to fly to these meetings, that they seem to have all around the world.
> 
> ...





Yeah, I agree 100%.  Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, hops in his private jet to Norway to pick accept it.  What a conservationist... Money is driving this car and the politicians have the money to steer the "study" which ever way they want.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Very easy question to answer. Because the author of the website, Steven Milloy, is an established liar.
> 
> Never mind his past as a paid advocate of the Tobacco lobby. Never mind he  once claimed smoking does not cancer or that DDT was safe for schoolchildren and public areas. He's showing you the money and that must be good, right?
> 
> ...



What does it matter if this guy is a liar?  He's not trying to disprove global warming.  He's offering for others to prove that it is caused by humans.  It has nothing to do with whether he is liar or not.  The fact that you can't prove it is caused by humans, but claim it is really is a reflection of your character.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Another contrarian enters the arena. I have some issues with your post. Especially the above.
> 
> Here's a clue. *There is no "both sides" of the debate because there is only one side*. There exists a consensus among working climate scientists.
> 
> ...



*That's because none of the papers were about natural climate change smartness. They were about human induced global warming.  When you right a research paper on human induced global warming, you don't start explaining all of the aspects of natural climate change and try to convince people that it's natural.  That's like going to Burger King and ordering a Big Mac.*


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 10, 2008)

BrianH said:


> *That's because none of the papers were about natural climate change smartness. They were about human induced global warming.  When you right a research paper on human induced global warming, you don't start explaining all of the aspects of natural climate change and try to convince people that it's natural.  That's like going to Burger King and ordering a Big Mac.*



Wrong as usual.

No papers - I repeat - no peer-reviewed papers published in scientific academic journals arguing against Anthropogenic global warming exist. I challenge you at least post one _(not that one would matter or discredit over 2000 lines of evidence.)_

What you are is an idealogue offering political theories based on fraudulent science conducted by paid scientists on the behalf of a non-academic lobby. What you cannot do is offer even one peer-reviewed study supporting your side of the debate.

You cannot offer such a paper, because such a paper does not exist except in the minds of the contrarians.

And your claim that no "No peer-reviewed studies have yet to prove your assumption, " is yet another silly lie. Over 2000 lines of independent evidence support anthropogenic global warming. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that *the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities*: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... _Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations_".  The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, *all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements.*

You, are a liar and a bad one at that. The next time you try to claim no peer-reviewed studies arguing the consensus concerning anthropogenic global warming exist, make sure you actually realize there exists over 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. The papers are listed in the ISI database. Check the database. It is in the public record for all to see.

You're lying is getting absurd. You have no knowledge. No credentials and no experience.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 10, 2008)

BrianH said:


> We've asked you to prove that CO2 is the culprit behind global warming, and you respond by talking about how other (scientists) think it is because of certain studies.  Then you dismiss the scientists that others bring up because you simply disagree with them and are biased.
> 
> Now as far as global warming is concerned....Humans are causing the earth to warm (in your opinion).  Since you've avoided this question every time....Did humans (emissions) cause the earth to warm at the end of the Ice Age?  Did he lack of human (emissions) cause the Ice Age to begin?  Why is every planet in the solar system warming also, including Pluto?
> You have failed to address these questions (even though you claim to have extensive knowledge of the subject).



You are a waste of time. And I will not do homework for a lying internet personality who says he will not stray from his beliefs no matter the overwhelming evidence.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Wrong as usual.
> 
> No papers - I repeat - no peer-reviewed papers published in scientific academic journals arguing against Anthropogenic global warming exist. I challenge you at least post one _(not that one would matter or discredit over 2000 lines of evidence.)_
> 
> ...




You are still not providing anything that hasn't been said before while still dismission the Ice Age FACT.  Let me quote a statement you embolded.

*"the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities"*

No one here is claiming that humans do not affect the globe or global warming.  You should read the posts before going off on a biased rant of which you have no credentials of either.  You're a 19 year-old who's in love with Al Gore and his fallacy.

Second quote of yours:

*"What you are is an idealogue offering political theories based on fraudulent science conducted by paid scientists on the behalf of a non-academic lobby"*

Are you frickin kidding me.  Politicians are paying scientists to advocate global warming numnuts...they're not going to make any money of of paying science to disprove global warming.  You're fresh...and it makes me laugh.  

Since you're such a peer-reviewed study nut...here are just a few that go the other way.  Dude, you make it too easy.  And make yourself look like more of a liar than I will ever be.  Liar Liar pants on fire.   

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?d87f58c3-be16-4959-88e2-906b7c291fd6

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/200...ntific-studies-defy-global-warming-consensus/


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

Excerpt from one peer-reviewed scientific study-
"Brussels: CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. *The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth. "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it"*, climate scientist Luc Debontridder said.* "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it." *said Debontridder. "*Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2*," he added. (LINK) 

Another Excerpt from a differetn PRSJ
The study found that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note. Authors: Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung: Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A. Source: Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) paper 10.1029/2007GL030207, 2007 


Another:
*At least 80 percent of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds*, and those are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we understand how precipitation systems change with warming,* I don't believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade.* Without that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of certainty," Spencer added. The paper was co-authored by University of Alabama Huntsville's Dr. John R. Christy and Dr. W. Danny Braswell, and Dr. Justin Hnilo of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA

Another:
According to the findings reviewed in this paper, *the variable output of the sun, the suns gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earths variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earths climate*. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex. 

Another
 A July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics. Excerpt: There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm. 

Another:
Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xians 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, noted that CO2s impact on warming may be excessively exaggerated.* Excerpt: The global climate warming is not solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change, the two scientists concluded. *

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  
There are just as many that refute global warming that advocate it.  This proves that your frickin assertion that there is not "both" sides to the argument.  This also disproves your notion that there are no peer-reviewed studies on how CO2 his not rapidly changing the earth's environment.  Who's turning out to be the liar?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You are a waste of time. And I will not do homework for a lying internet personality who says he will not stray from his beliefs no matter the overwhelming evidence.



lying internet personality?  Well that means I have many talents then.  Dude, I am more educated than you will ever be with your attitude.  Education is not following a movement in which there is not any proof, or spewing large words in a failed attempt to make someone else look stupid.  Being intelligent and educated is being able to think for yourself and not follow the teaches of mad scientists who want your money.  You can call me a liar all you want, but this "liar" is more educated and more intelligent than you.  







LIAR LIAR


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 10, 2008)

BrianH said:


> You are still not providing anything that hasn't been said before while still dismission the Ice Age FACT.  Let me quote a statement you embolded.
> 
> *"the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities"*
> 
> ...



All the links you provided are hoax's or are a result of you not comprehending the studies. They are not - I repeat - not peer-reviewed by working climate scientists. If you consider "peer-reviewed" to mean reviewed by the private political think tank that sponsored the research, than you are a bigger idiot than I thought. Take the first you link provide as an example of your gross stupidity.  "Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age." What that has to do with anthropogenic global warming today, I do not know. 

Your second link makes many false claims. Chief among them is that the study by Shwartz has discredited AGW "in one fell swoop."  Great. One study that debunks over 2000 lines of independent evidence. Not only impossible, but incredibly stupid assumption that one study would destroy hundreds upon hundreds of studies is laughable. 

And here's the kicker. I know Stephen Schwartz. You do not. 

You, like many others, misrepresent his beliefs and conclusions because you, in fact, are liars and simpletons. Schwartz is an anthropogenist who simply performed an analysis based on a rather oversimplified model which concluded that the planet is not as responsive to atmospheric CO2 increases as most other studies have found.

For this reason the skeptics like to claim Schwartz as one of their own - he is not. Schwartz has continued to state that he is concerned about AGW.  A report on Fox News introduced the study by saying, "Skeptics are increasingly certain the [global warming] scare is vastly overblown," and other news sources said Mr. Schwartz's study debunked the notion that global warming is a force with which humanity needs to contend. (http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSun.html)

*This, he said, was not what he was trying to prove at all. *Global warming is a very real reality, he said, and his study spells that out -- though in a different manner than those carried out by other scientists and organizations. 

You are one of the world's biggest idiots Brian. And you prove it everyday. The latest example is you trying to put words in Schwartz's mouth that he did not say. In fact, what happened was that Schwartz was so sick of idiots using his study as an example that AGW was not happening, he had to go on the record to put the issue to rest.

"We want the research to be at hand that says *this greenhouse effect is real*, and that would allow better-informed decision making," he said.

*Indeed, the greenhouse effect is real*, Mr. Schwartz said, and humanity needs to curb their own actions or the children living today could be facing a very dire situation by the time they're seniors.

"People have to realize that decisions being made today will affect their lives, their children's lives and their grandchildren's lives," Mr. Schwartz said. "It's our responsibility to think of these things now to turn things around."

You're a moron, that much is clear. In fact, you are so stupid and so ignorant you use someone else's work as a political launching pad for your beliefs; even though the author of the very same study you source vehemently disagrees with the claims you have made concerning his research. Nice tactic there Brian. You're a real "genius"

You are a joke, a liar and are getting more desperate and more bizarre by the hour.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> All the links you provided are hoax's or are a result of you not comprehending the studies. They are not - I repeat - not peer-reviewed by working climate scientists. If you consider "peer-reviewed" to mean reviewed by the private political think tank that sponsored the research, than you are a bigger idiot than I thought. Take the first you link provide as an example of your gross stupidity.  "Carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age." What that has to do with anthropogenic global warming today, I do not know.
> 
> *Uh...the fact that the earth warmed and melted the ice without human contribution dumbass.  Like I said, the earth has warmed and cooled much longer than man has been around.  Your argument doesn't have too feet to stand on.B]
> 
> ...


*

I may be able to joke better than you, but you are the desperate one...I have come up with counter-angle to everything you have come up with.  The fact remains, you have yet to prove your position.


This argument started over the fact that you claimed CO2 was the culprit behind global warming and that humans were causing global warming.  
Now you're getting your my little pony panties in a wad because you can't prove it.  So you revert to incinuating that we're all arguing about the existance of global warming, which is most certainly not the case. 


THE FACT THAT THE GLOBE HAS WARMED AND COOLED RAPIDLY BEFORE HUMANS EXISTED MEANS THAT YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT HUMAN EMISSIONS ARE CAUSING A WARMING NOW.  THERE ARE BIGGER THINGS THAN CO2 THAT HEAT AND COOL THE EARTH....THE SUN BEING ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT.

YOU HAVE LOST THIS ARGUMENT WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT.  I MAY BE A LIAR IN YOUR EYES, BUT YOU CERTAINLY ARE A DEUSCH AS WELL AS A HARD-HEADED NERD.*


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 10, 2008)

BrianH said:


> *I may be able to joke better than you, but you are the desperate one...I have come up with counter-angle to everything you have come up with.  The fact remains, you have yet to prove your position.*
> 
> 
> This argument started over the fact that you claimed CO2 was the culprit behind global warming and that humans were causing global warming.
> ...



This is not a "game" no matter how hard you try to make it into one. What this is, is an exhibition of the rambling, claims and lies of a ignorant, immature twit who thinks there is something to win or lose via this message board.

Is this the part where you lie again and try to make everyone believe Schwartz agrees with you - even though in his own words Schwartz dismisses the claims you and other idiot skeptics have made regarding his conclusions? 

Or is this the part where you fail to comprehend the conclusions of the studies you link the group to?

Or, better yet, is this the part where your total ignorance concerning the difference a forcing and a feedback is exhibited?

Or maybe this is the part where you lie and say no peer-reviewed studies pointing to human emissions for AGW exist?

Which lie is it going to be this time Brian?

There are three claims supported by overwhelming evidence no credible work has been able to discredit or disprove. One, the earth is warming, two the cause is humans, three the reason is human emissions.

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, there is a theory (first conceived over 100 years ago) based on well-established laws of physics. It is consistent with mountains of observation and data, both contemporary and historical. It is supported by sophisticated, refined global climate models that can successfully reproduce the climate's behavior over the last century. It is in this evidence that scientists know that Co2 is the culprit.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 10, 2008)

> Here you are picking on Schwarts *and not mentioning the other links I posted,* which means that you didn't read them. As far as discrediting things, all it takes is one fell swoop of one study to disprove thousands. That's how history is kept. Thousands of historians believed that mankind only went back so far, but some kept up the search and proved the majority wrong. Things are disproved everyday.



Link bombing is a tactic of the stupid. 

I do not know what you're trying to say.  Posting a bunch of links and expecting me to know what it is you're trying to highlight is usually a sign that you haven't a clue or a grasp of what the hell you're trying to argue.

It's also a sign of laziness.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> This is not a "game" no matter how hard you try to make it into one. What this is, is an exhibition of the rambling, claims and lies of a ignorant, immature twit who thinks there is something to win or lose via this message board.
> 
> *What the hell are you talking about, you're middle brain has taken over and you're talking nonsense.  Wait...you've already been doing that.  No one has mentioned a game or winning anything. *
> 
> ...



*Uh, nobody agreed with the first, and you havn't proven the latter.*


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 10, 2008)

> Or maybe this is the part where you lie and say no peer-reviewed studies pointing to human emissions for AGW exist?
> 
> Um....*WTF??? YOU WERE THE ONE THAT SAID*...wait I'll quote it for youYour words: "No papers - I repeat - no peer-reviewed papers published in scientific academic journals arguing *against* Anthropogenic global warming exist.". This claim is completely abusrd....nice try though.



Wow. You have terrible reading comprehension. Try reading your own post above over again. Here's a hint - "against"

And no, you still do not know the difference between a forcing and a feedback. You're so stupid, you thought water vapour was a forcing.

Get your ass to the library and try not to source out authors who disagree with your claims as evidence for your "claims".


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Wow. You have terrible reading comprehension. Try reading your own post above over again. Here's a hint - "against"
> 
> And no, you still do not know the difference between a forcing and a feedback. You're so stupid, you thought water vapour was a forcing.
> 
> Get your ass to the library.



You posted:
*"No papers - I repeat - no peer-reviewed papers published in scientific academic journals arguing against Anthropogenic global warming exist. I challenge you at least post one (not that one would matter or discredit over 2000 lines of evidence.)"*

I never claimed that PRJ advocating GW didn't exist. And I even met your challenge by posting a something that did exist. What a pus. You posted a make-believe, emotion-based response:

*"Or maybe this is the part where you lie and say no peer-reviewed studies pointing to human emissions for AGW exist?"*

Considering that this was never a claim of mine, nor did I ever mentioned the fact, you seem to be the one that is lying.  

And I'll tell you what...if you can find anywhere in this entire thread, where I mentioned the water vapor was a "Forcing" I'll paypal you a 100 dollars...good luck finding it, cause I never said it.  

Get your ass out of the library and into the world.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

I enjoy this graph.

This one too.






Notice how a majority believe the earth is warming, but only half believe it's human caused. So much for your whole.. "THere is no 'both' sides" theory.

Like I said, come back when you grow a brain. The fact is, I'm just making fun of you for not knowing what you're talking about.  Then you respons by making remarks that have no base or background.  Just emotion-driven statements that don't make any sense.  

"I hate your stinking guts. You make me vomit. You're scum between my toes! Love," BrianH 

(Little Rascals)


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 10, 2008)

BrianH said:


> You posted:
> *"No papers - I repeat - no peer-reviewed papers published in scientific academic journals arguing against Anthropogenic global warming exist. I challenge you at least post one (not that one would matter or discredit over 2000 lines of evidence.)"*



Are you stupid....are you really that stupid?  The one peer-reviewed study that you thought_ 'met my challenge' _was Schwartz's study that you misrepresented and misunderstood.

You have not - I repeat have not - posted a single peer-reviewed article found in a scientific academic journal arguing against anthropogenic warming. You tried, and failed miserably with the Schwartz article.

Does your next step involve using Catholic Church dogma as evidence that God does not exist?

You are a total moron.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 10, 2008)

> Notice how a majority believe the earth is warming, but only half believe it's human caused. So much for your whole..* "THere is no 'both' sides" theory.*
> 
> Like I said, come back when you grow a brain. The fact is, I'm just making fun of you for not knowing what you're talking about. Then you respons by making remarks that have no base or background. Just emotion-driven statements that don't make any sense.



I thought it was too obvious to point out earlier. Clearly I was wrong as I underestimated just how stupid you are.

There is no _'both sides_' of credible scientific debate.

I do not care, nor am I interested in what laymen think, or do not think of global warming. That is a political matter, that I do not find interesting in the least.

There is no great debate in the halls of academia occurring between working climate scientists.There are no two sides. The verdict and evidence is already in. There is a consensus among credible working climate scientists. One, the earth is warming, two the cause is humans, and three, the reason is human emissions.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Are you stupid....are you really that stupid?  The one peer-reviewed study that you thought_ 'met my challenge' _was Schwartz's study that you misrepresented and misunderstood.
> 
> You have not - I repeat have not - posted a single peer-reviewed article found in a scientific academic journal arguing against anthropogenic warming. You tried, and failed miserably with the Schwartz article.
> 
> ...



You are so full of shit your breath stinks.  
I posted several articles about several different peer-review journals that refute CO2-human emissions as the main cause of global warming.

One them included: Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia.(The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia)

You fail to read....you read one article and assume all are the same.  I just found that off the top without looking into the other articles I've posted, that all exceprts from the real journals.

The fact is, you said they didn't exist and challenged me to find one...I found you several and you still dismiss.

This shows you for the hack that you are.  
Like I said, come back when you have all your shit together.  You have still not proven that the earth is warming because of CO2 and human emissions.  If you were half the scientist you thought you were , you would (like the others) at least acknowledge that it cannot be proven.  They're mature enough to know that there is not enough evidence out there to prove it.  

This is why you are unable to win 150,000, because you ahve no proof.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I thought it was too obvious to point out earlier. Clearly I was wrong as I underestimated just how stupid you are.
> 
> There is no _'both sides_' of credible scientific debate.
> 
> ...




Two sides, however you look at it.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 10, 2008)

Here is the fact...if it was PROVEN without a doubt that CO2/Human emissoins cause global warming...there would have been a national statement and most people would have already been told that there is prooof, and the proof would be shown.

Why has this not come to light...? If this is such an emergency, why hasn't the PROOF come out? Why hasn't someone come out on national TV and say: "We have proven without a doubt, that CO2 is causing the earth to warm and it's because of human emissions."?

And AL GORE doesn't count....

Ummmm, the fact that there is no proof, and still speculation.

The fact is, the earth experienced an Ice Age, then a warming trend and then a small ice age....and even something in more recent times that is called the Little Ice Age....which peaked about the time that Washington and his men were at valley forge.  The earth has rapidly cooled and heated before, without an industrialized world, and without human emissions...this is the sole reason why scientists cannot prove that CO2 and human emissions are causing this one now.  By the way,  2006 went to fourth place in the hottest  years on record because of mis-used and mis-printed data by NASA.  just FYI


----------



## TopGunna (Apr 10, 2008)

This has spun a little out of control into more of a name-calling spat than a real debate.

Goodshepherd, there are indeed two sides of the climate change debate, and if you fail to recognize that, then it is _you _who has his head in the ground.  The Mann Hockey stick graph has been thoroughly discredited for its manipulation of data.  The 10,000 year ice core data showing a link between CO2 and temperature increase has been refined, and with improved measurement techniques, we can see that temperature has historically increased BEFORE CO2 levels increase.  But when these incongruencies are found, they magically disappear from the IPCC reports.... hmm... 

The greenhouse effect is real - that aspect of global warming theory is settled science.  What is not settled is the net effect of the feedbacks of increased CO2.  ALL CLIMATE MODELS that forecast temperature runaways ASSUME a strong net positive feedback.  If they all spew out the same catastrophic story, then there's a "consensus" among them, I suppose.  But a consensus means very little when everyone is making the same questionable assumption about feedbacks - this is called a systematic error in statistics.

If such a positive feedback mechanism exists in our climate system, then WHY are temperatures believed to have been so stable in the past 1000 years?  (For starters, the proxy data that implies long-term stable temperatures has in fact DIVERGED from actual measurements since 1990... makes you question the credibility of those proxies).  A stong positive feedback mechanism would predict HUGE temperature volatility in the past - but according to the IPCC, temperatures were incredibly stable.  It's a pretty big catch-22 for climate change alarmists.

Why, oh why have temperatures decreased since 1998?  Remember, we've reached the supposed "tipping point," where strong positive feedbacks mask any natural negative feedbacks and lead to temperature runaway.  Should we be worried that there's a new man-made climate forcing that's pushing temperatures downward?

Or perhaps we're within the regular "noise" of climate variation, and in fact opposing negative feedbacks are allowing temperatures to fluctuate within the normal range of variation.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 10, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> Goodshepherd, there are indeed two sides of the climate change debate, and if you fail to recognize that, then it is _you _who has his head in the ground.
> 
> The Mann Hockey stick graph has been thoroughly discredited for its manipulation of data.
> 
> ...temperatures decreased since 1998?



There is not two  sides of the credible climate debate. There is the science and there internet lunatics. Guess which side you are on.

You make two very serious claims in this post. Both of which are undeniably false. Let's examine the first claim: _"The Mann Hockey stick graph has been thoroughly discredited for its manipulation of data."_

As an objective observer, one must ask is this indeed true?

The first order of business here is to correct the mischaracterization of this single paleoclimate study as the "foundation" of global warming theory.

The "Hockey Stick" graph was featured prominently  in the IPCC TAR  Summary for Policymakers. It has been reviewed time and time again.

It was important in that it cast serious doubt on the notion both of a global Medieval Warm Period warmer than the 20th century and of a global Little Ice Age, both long-time (cautiously) accepted features of the last 1,000 years of climate history. It seems these periods *were regional, not globally synchronized* -- though the LIA seems to have been more widely experienced.

Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth's surface. 

Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called "Detection and Attribution Studies". 

Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases).http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/440.htm


Another thing. False claims of the existence of errors in the Mann reconstruction were traced to spurious allegations made by two Canadian individuals, McIntyre and McKitrick. McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist. It's a good thing they're 'experts' huh?

By the way, the false claims were first made in an article (McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003) published in a non-scientific social science journal named  "Energy and Environment." 

It was rejected by Nature based on negative appraisals by reviewers and editor.

So, the Mann hockey stick was never, has never been debunked. And it certainly was not discredited by a study conducted by a 'miner' and an 'economist' and published in a social science journal.

Furthermore, the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick were totally discredited in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Look it up yourself. The paper was published in the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate" by Rutherford and colleagues (2004)

Try actually knowing what you're talking about before you make outrageous claims based on non-scientific, non-peer reviewed  studies published in social science journals.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 11, 2008)

Yeah, who's the one who can't have a serious discussion? 
Someone else has posted their view, research on the topic, and you shoot it down because you don't agree with it.  What a pus....go craw into bed with your best friend.......AL GORE.











There are two sides to this debate whether you will admit to it or not.  You are not the "knower" of all things whether you think so or not.  
First, you made an attempt to say that peer-review journals (that discredits human caused GW) did not exist.  (YOU WERE WRONG). 
If you want to spend all of your money on carbon credits and donate to a fallacy...go right ahead.  But you have not proven that CO2 and humans have caused GW, no two ways about it.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> *First, you made an attempt to say that peer-review journals (that discredits human caused GW) did not exist.  (YOU WERE WRONG). *



They *do not* exist. You made one serious attempt. The result was the author of the study_ (Schwartz)_ himself distanced himself from the conclusions you and a couple other zealots incorrectly assumed about his work.

You have an embarrassing track record of comprehending the articles you present.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 11, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> They *do not* exist. You made one serious attempt. The result was the author of the study_ (Schwartz)_ himself distanced himself from the conclusions you and a couple other zealots incorrectly assumed about his work.
> 
> You have an embarrassing track record of comprehending the articles you present.



For the last time...why are you stuck on Schwartz?
I posted excerpts from a peer-review journal written by three professors from three different universities....Anyway you cut it, it's a peer-review journal that is debating human caused GW.  Just because you disgree with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  You mind as well say that 2% milk isn't made from milk.  

I have a track record of making you look like a complete dumbass...take a consesus and you'll discover that quickly.  Basic Fact: You deny existence of a peer-review journal that debates human caused GW...I found several...one of which was authored by several university professors...and you deny that I found anything other than the Scwartz one.  

You are compiling a track record for not reading the posts, being biased, not proving your case, being an dumbass, sucking off goats....(ask the Mods what that's all about),  and being an 19 year-old ass to anyone who opposes your warped point-of-view.  Get an education and come back when you have Proof of your fallacy.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I posted excerpts from a peer-review journal written by three professors from three different universities....




What you did was post an article that has been long debunked by credible voices via peer-reviewed studies in the climate science community. 

You did not read the study published by Douglas/Singer. What you did do, was rely on Dr. Fred Singer, man _who hasn't written a peer-reviewed study published in a scientific climate science journal in many years_.

Singer, is a longtime paid tobacco and oil goofball who does not think second-hand smoke causes cancer among his many other 'beliefs'. For example, a memo in which an official from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution solicits $20,000 from the Tobacco Institute for the preparation of a &#8220;research&#8221; paper challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke, and suggesting that Dr. Singer be retained to write the report can be found here...http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html

He is also *not a working climate scientist* by the way. What Singer is, is simple. He is member of a conservative think-tank who spends his time denying second-hand smoke causes cancer while accepting huge monetary gifts from big oil.

In fact his credentials are so weak, climate scientists from NASA, Stanford University and Princeton dismissed Singer and his 'reports' on global warming as 'fabricated nonsense.' 

The goof has also admitted accepting $10,000 from Exxon. 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* It is in the public record for all to see.

Furthermore, resting your entire case on one paper is like relying on a second-quarter interception in a football game as an indicator of the final score.

I find it hilarious that you would even use Singer's work as 'proof' of anything.

On one hand you have the world's most accomplished and reputable scientists - more than 2,000 of whom have submitted research to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - carefully weighing every pronouncement for accuracy and subjecting all of their research to peer-review before announcing it publicly.

On the other hand, you have a huge and expensive public relations campaign denying that scientific consensus. A campaign  largely financed with money from energy companies like ExxonMobil, which is then lightly laundered through "think tanks" like the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution or the _'Competitive Enterprise Institute'_ or through industry front groups like Dr. Singer's own Science & Environmental Policy Project.

Just another case of you exhibiting your profound ignorance of the topic and not knowing your sources or their history.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 11, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> What you did was post an article that has been long debunked by credible voices via peer-reviewed studies in the climate science community.
> 
> You did not read the study published by Douglas/Singer. What you did do, was rely on Dr. Fred Singer, man _who hasn't written a peer-reviewed study published in a scientific climate science journal in many years_.
> 
> ...



What a deusch...once again you have fulfilled your goal of posting by making shit up.  

First off:  Your Quote:  
"I]who hasn't written a peer-reviewed study published in a scientific climate science journal in many years[/I]."   

*Your statement denied an existance of them... So if you want to follow the route that my sources are "bad".  Then we'll still say that you're wrong and they do exist...no matter how much you disagree with them...they exists.  You pompus windbag.*

Second quote:
_"Furthermore, resting your entire case on one paper is like relying on a second-quarter interception in a football game as an indicator of the final score."  _
*
Everytime you adress one of my many sources that I've posted...you refer to it as if it is the only one I have posted.  Another rediculous fallacy that you would like to believe....makin shit up again.  Who's the liar?*

Third Quote:
_"I find it hilarious that you would even use Singer's work as 'proof' of anything."_

*Another example of your misguided discussion "techiniques".

I never claimed to have proof of anything.  You are trying to convince us that human caused GW is real and that you have PROOF of it.  Which in fact, you don't havn't convinced anyone that's posted in this thread.  I wonder why no one's come to your rescue????  Because you can't prove shit.  *

You can't simply spew turds from your mouth and expect people to believe that its ice cream and full of flavorsome goodness.  You my friend are a terrible debater...but most certainly a masterbator.  Come back when you can read the posts correctly without attempting to make up crap and pass it off as if other people said them.  

And as far as sources go...once again, just because you and your fallacy followers don't agree, doesn't mean your right.  You can't prove it's man-made anymore than I can prove that it's not...which is exactly what this is about.  I have not claimed that I have proof for anything...while you on the other hand, have....and failed to produce.  I hope you do a better job of this on your college papers.  Big words don't get you good grades.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> *Your statement denied an existance of them... So if you want to follow the route that my sources are "bad".  Then we'll still say that you're wrong and they do exist...no matter how much you disagree with them...they exists.  You pompus windbag.*
> 
> Second quote:
> _"Furthermore, resting your entire case on one paper is like relying on a second-quarter interception in a football game as an indicator of the final score."  _
> ...



You're the one who used Singer's 'work' as credible research. 

And now you're blaming me, as if I'm somehow responsible for you having to backtrack and distance yourself from Singer and his 'studies'. 

It is not my fault you do not check your sources, it is not my fault you do not do your homework.

It is not my fault you cite a guy who doesn't think smoking causes cancer and has a history of accepting large donations from the Tobacco and oil industry.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 11, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You're the one who used Singer's 'work' as credible research.
> 
> And now you're blaming me, as if I'm somehow responsible for you having to backtrack and distance yourself from Singer and his 'studies'.
> 
> ...



I'll make this short and sweet for you....

I never claimed his source was credible.  You said nothing about finding a credible peer-reviewed journal.  You said they didn't exist period.

I checked the source, found that it was a peer-reviewed journal (which you challenged).  

You are making outlandish assumptions of my claims.  I'll make a list for you:

1. I never claimed to have proof of anything.
2. I never claimed Singers review was credible... as well as the rest...but they were peer-reviewed journals that debated human-caused GW. (something you said didn't exist)
3. You claimed you had proof that GW was human caused.  You haven't proven it.  You've given scientific research that humans may cause it.  Even scientists agree that it can't be proven, but it's speculation/theory based on observation and information.
4. I'm not blaming you for anything except not being able to prove your claim, but claiming you can.  Making shit up that nobody said.  And assume crap that nobody claimed.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I'll make this short and sweet for you....
> 
> *I never claimed his source was credible*.



Keep on backtracking from Singer. I enjoy you pretending to pass of his work as properly 'peer-reviewed' and 'credible' research one minute, and a second later distancing yourself from Singer by claiming _"I never claimed his source was credible."_

You know how I know you're either lying or lazy? Because no rational being would refer another person to an article that they do not know to be discredited or not.

The person who chooses such a course is either lying, lazy or both. 

You thought Singer and his work was credible until the facts - that you did not bother to check - said otherwise.

And now you're rapidly distancing yourself. It's quite pathetic yet apparently obvious what you're doing.

This is even a bigger screwup than the failed attempt by you to paint Schwartz as a global warming denier.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 11, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Keep on backtracking from Singer. I enjoy you pretending to pass of his work as properly 'peer-reviewed' and 'credible' research one minute, and a second later distancing yourself from Singer by claiming _"I never claimed his source was credible."_
> 
> You know how I know you're either lying or lazy? Because no rational being would refer another person to an article that they do not know to be discredited or not.
> 
> ...




I posted those articles strictly for the purpose of making you look stupid. Because you said they didn't exists.  That's all.  If you choose to believe otherwise...that's your own faulty comprehension skills.

I'll tell you what.  I'll paypal you 100 bucks if you can find anywhere in this entire thread, that I directly stated that Singers' or Schwartz' peer-reviewed journals were credible and that they disproved human caused global warming. (A little hint for you...not gonna happen. Cause I never said it.) Your challenge was not to find a "credible" source.  It was that such sources debating global warming did not exist.  Which makes you look like even more of a dumbass.  

It's not called laziness smartass...it's called capitalizing on a dumbass claim that you had that peer-reviewed journals debating human caused GW did not exist. Simple as that.  

I'll tell you what happened in this entire thread.

We all were discussing the owner of the weather channel suing all gore for a fallacy.  Then some of us lightly stated our opinions, and you came barging onto the thread claiming we were all ignorant and had no clue of the subject.  

Then claimed to have proof of human caused GW.  You posted and posted and posted...I gave a chuck-norris delivered round-house kick to your so called "proof".  Then you posted some more.  Then I posted several articles and sites that suggested that GW could be naturally caused and you got all huffy puffy, discredited my sources and started posting more.  When you failed to convice anyone on the thread of your proof, you got mad and started calling me a liar.  Even though I never claimed to have proof of anything.  Amidst your ranting about me being a liar, you claimed that peer-reviewed journals debating human induced GW did not exist, and challenged me to find one.  So I found several and posted them.  Never claimed that they were a credible source or that I followed the "preachings" of these individuals. So you pick one and try to pass of a lie that it was the only one I posted and that I was basing my "position" on that one particular post.    Then you assume that I said the sources were credible without acknowledging that you were wrong, and that peer-reviewed journals debating human caused GW in fact DO EXIST.  Then you start ranting about me being a liar and that I'm lazy and crying like a little baby.  Then you try to save the last ounce of dignity that you have by trying to turn it around and saying that I'm backtracking cause I know I'm stupid.   That's about the extent of of it.  Take from it what you will.  But you are the one that is over the top on this Thread...I'm simply reiterating the fact that you cannot prove your position.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> *I posted those articles strictly for the purpose of making you look stupid*. Because you said they didn't exists.  That's all.  If you choose to believe otherwise...that's your own faulty comprehension skills.
> 
> Then I posted several articles and sites that suggested that GW could be naturally caused and you got all huffy puffy, discredited my sources and started posting more.  When you failed to convice anyone on the thread of your proof, you got mad and started calling me a liar.  Even though I never claimed to have proof of anything.  Amidst your ranting about me being a liar, you claimed that peer-reviewed journals debating human induced GW did not exist, and challenged me to find one.  *So I found several and posted them.*  Never claimed that they were a credible source or that I followed the "preachings" of these individuals. So you pick one and try to pass of a lie that it was the only one I posted and that I was basing my "position" on that one particular post.    Then you assume that I said the sources were credible without acknowledging that you were wrong, and that peer-reviewed journals debating human caused GW in fact DO EXIST.  Then you start ranting about me being a liar and that I'm lazy and crying like a little baby.  Then you try to save the last ounce of dignity that you have by trying to turn it around and saying that I'm backtracking cause I know I'm stupid.   That's about the extent of of it.  Take from it what you will.  But you are the one that is over the top on this Thread...I'm simply reiterating the fact that you cannot prove your position.



What I said did not exist are _credible peer-reviewed articles found in academic scientific journals _arguing against or debunking _"in one fell swoop"_ anthropogenic global warming.

You have not found any credible articles that cement or solidify your claims. Zilch, zero, nada. 

You did, however, manage to 'accomplish' confusing Schwartz as a global warming skeptic; and source out a long debunked article co-authored by a paid tobacco lobbyist _(Fred Singer)_ posing as an objective scientist.  Not to mention, you yourself admitted you don't find the articles credible.

Yea. Great work Brian. Exhibit an obvious ignorance of the issue by confusing the conclusions of the Schwartz study, followed by  sourcing out a stale debunked article co-written by a self-admitted paid tobacco lobbyist. The kicker is that you admitted the study was not 'credible' while at the same time claiming you met the "challenge".

The rest of your post is nonsense suited for animal zoo feed, than serious discussion.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 11, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> What I said did not exist are _credible peer-reviewed articles found in academic scientific journals _arguing against or debunking _"in one fell swoop"_ anthropogenic global warming.
> 
> You have not found any credible articles that cement or solidify your claims. Zilch, zero, nada.
> 
> ...



Animal zoo feed?  LOL...I guess my animal zoo feed turns into the elephant shit that comes out of your mouth.

You despairity shows...you're still harping on two sources that I posted with out admiting that you've been beaten at your own game with your own words.  I tell you what...you go back and and read you're childish "challenge" and find where it says you challenge me to find supposed "credible" sources.  Even when you claimed that peer-reviewed journals debating human caused climate change did not exist...you never said credible either.  I don't even have to bother quoting it because I already have so many times.   

It doesn't matter what I think about my sources, because you won't bother to read them or give them credit simply because you do not agree.  This is the same shit you did in the other thread about the military doing a bad job.  Claiming your evidence proves anything.

You keep talking about a "claim" that I had....what would this be?  Did I ever claim that I had proof of anything? That's a big negative TGS.

You're upset like a 5-year old who's lost his toy. I've Socratic Methodized your ass into oblivion.  

You, however, did have claim that all of the "evidence" you posted was proof that humans are causing global warming.  Well I've got news for you bud...it didn't prove shit, except that your not any smarter on this thread than you are on the other.  

You're a camel...now does that make you a camel?  No....This is your assumption when you post your shit...Humans are causing global warming cause I say it is.  What turd.  I've officially come in contact with the first person who literally has shit in his brains, and brains in his ass.  You've got to do better than that to stay alive on these boards "smart" stuff.  

No matter which way you look at it, you don't have proof. 
And you still suck off goats in my book...of course, I'm sure it wouldn't matter to you because it's not a scientific peer-reviewed journal.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Animal zoo feed?  LOL...I guess my animal zoo feed turns into the elephant shit that comes out of your mouth.
> 
> You despairity shows...you're still harping on two sources that I posted with out admiting that you've been beaten at your own game with your own words.  I tell you what...you go back and and read you're childish "challenge" and find where it says you challenge me to find supposed "credible" sources.  Even when you claimed that peer-reviewed journals debating human caused climate change did not exist...you never said credible either.  I don't even have to bother quoting it because I already have so many times.
> 
> ...




Confusing Schwartz as a global warming skeptic is as unforgivable as presenting a debunked article co-authored by a paid tobacco lobbyist as serious work.

There exists mountains of credible peer-reviewed independent lines evidence listing C02 as the main culprit. Over 2000, in fact. I have posted many of those lines of evidence in this thread which you have ignored.

One, two or five articles written by paid tobacco or oil lobbyists and peer-reviewed by conservative think-tanks will never - I repeat - never negate over 2000 lines of independently peer-reviewed studies from the world's most prestigious academic bodies.

You totally confused one paper and failed to check the sources of the other.

And now you want a pass?

Unreal.


----------



## PpleLOSINGpower (Apr 11, 2008)

BrianH, thought you would like this report. 

http://www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/imprimis_archive/2007/08/2007_08_Imprimis.pdf


----------



## BrianH (Apr 12, 2008)

PpleLOSINGpower said:


> BrianH, thought you would like this report.
> 
> http://www.hillsdale.edu/hctools/imprimis_archive/2007/08/2007_08_Imprimis.pdf




That's pretty good. Thanks.  While I agree with this stand-point.  TGS will dismiss it and discredit the person and say that he doesn't know what he's talking about.  What do you believe PLP?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 12, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Confusing Schwartz as a global warming skeptic is as unforgivable as presenting a debunked article co-authored by a paid tobacco lobbyist as serious work.
> 
> There exists mountains of credible peer-reviewed independent lines evidence listing C02 as the main culprit. Over 2000, in fact. I have posted many of those lines of evidence in this thread which you have ignored.
> 
> ...




Pass? what the hell are you talking about.  I don't need a "pass" from an assinine college-sophomore who thinks he's Galileo.  Galileo said : "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."  Which something you have failed to provide in this thread.  You have not provided proof.  You have provided speculation based on information/observation.   Not Proof.  

You can ignore the fact that your an idiot by "making fun" of sources I post.  But the fact remains the same, you said that they did not exist--and they did.  Which reiterates the fact that you make outlandish assumptions based on jack-shit.  You make claimes like peer reviewed journals debating human caused GW don't exist (and not to mention bolded the DO NOT), when in fact they do exist.  Whether you agree with them or not, is a different story.  

1.You've claimed to have proof-you don't; and haven't posted any yet.
2.You've made up false statements and claimed that I said them.
3.You've discredited sources that you claimed didn't exist in the first place.

Just face the fact that you're a hack and cannot prove your position.  "The first step to solving a problem, is admitting you have one."  ---a couple of your problems are arrogance and a lack of intelligence.  

"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't
 learn something from him."--Galileo


----------



## PpleLOSINGpower (Apr 12, 2008)

"Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor)."


 "Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this."


"Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!"

"To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below".

Mathmatical science from occomplished reputable scientists.


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> You can ignore the fact that your an idiot by "making fun" of sources I post.  But the fact remains the same, *you said that they did not exist*--and they did.
> 
> 1.You've claimed to have proof-you don't; and haven't posted any yet.
> 2.You've made up false statements and claimed that I said them.
> ...



Wrong again, as per usual. I do not _'make fun_' of Fred Singer or his work for its own sake. 

You are taking it personally, because you carry self-esteem issues and bouts of bizarre narcissism into a science discussion. You flat-out refuse to engage in a scientific debate with me. 

Instead, you choose an easy  route that soothes your ego and satisfies your laziness. You link bomb, and in your haste, fail to check or read your sources.

You got caught with your hands in the cookie jar. Wriggling out of it will not work this time. Not with me.

Furthermore, what is ridiculous, what is a joke is the methodology Singer approaches his studies with. Believe me, these claims have nothing to do with you.

Singer is not a climate scientist. He is not an expert in the field and it is obvious. More importantly the study Singer co-authored - which you cited - has been rebutted in full by multiple peer-reviewed scholarly studies published in scientific journals authored by accomplished working climate scientists. 

What you're doing now is akin to googling and hastily citing the first questionable study you come across claiming the Earth is flat, as credible skepticism against a scholarly study arguing that the Earth is round. Then claiming "victory".

I've given my lines of proof. Not the least of which answers your questions regarding C02 being the culprit. You ignorantly responded with "_ No amount of evidence will ever convince me_!" 

Ever since then, you have done anything but stick to the science issues. Link bombing this thread to 'studies' peer-reviewed by think-tanks and authored by paid tobacco or oil industry scientists is what you have done.

Like I said, I provided evidence to your Co2 and your response to it was _"No amount of evidence will ever convince me!" _

Shall I start again? Shall I explain why climate scientists know Co2 is the main bad guy?


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 12, 2008)

PpleLOSINGpower said:


> "Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28&#37; (factoring in water vapor)."
> 
> 
> "Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this."
> ...



LOL...you call this guy accomplished? 

I hope you're not serious about Monte Heib as a credible source. He is not a climate scientist and has no authority to speak scientifically on the matter. He is another fraud.  Posters really need to check their sources. 

By the way, you know what Monte Heib does? He works for the coal mining industry as the health and safety guy. 

Has Heib even published a climate science study in a peer-reviewed academic journal before?

This "study" if you can call it that, also makes a large unforgivable error. I'm surprised one would dare to reference it as a source.

Can you guess what it is?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Wrong again, as per usual. *I do not 'make fun' of Fred Singer or his work for its own sake*.
> 
> You are taking it personally, because you carry self-esteem issues and bouts of bizarre narcissism into a science discussion. You flat-out refuse to engage in a scientific debate with me.
> 
> ...



"I do not _'make fun_' of Fred Singer or his work for its own sake"
"what is a joke is the methodology Singer approaches his studies with"

Well which is it, you're not making fun, or you think his methods are a joke?

The reason, while any amount of evidence will not convince me, is that all of the evidence as of now will not prove without a doubt that GLobal warming is man-made. Until you can provide a smoking gun on the issue, then your "evidence" is no good.  Someone doesn't go to jail just because someone says he's a murderer, they've got to prove it without a doubt....something you have failed to accomplish.

Your head is so big, I'd bet you flip over when you tie your shoes.  Get over yourself.  You assume I'm wriggling out of this discussion when in fact, I'm digging deeper into the pile of bull shit that you've late out on this thread.  
YOU HAVE NO PROOF.  

As far as taking it personally, this is an internet message board.  If you assume that I could take something personally from a 19 year-old dipshit with a retard complex, you're sadly mistaken.  The only reason I stick around on this thread, is because it's fun helping you make yourself look like a dumbass.  You do most of the work I must say.  

You've done more to attack sources than you have disproving them with facts.  You've attacked PLP's source that he posted without attempting to disprove it from your research.  You just automatically discredit his sources...typical behavior from you though.  And you also discredit all of my sources instead of answering questions that I've asked you.

What ended the last ice age?  (Industrialized burning of fossil fuels?)
What ended the big Ice Age? 
What caused the Ice Age?
What casued the little Ice age that peaked in the 1700s?


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> "I do not _'make fun_' of Fred Singer or his work for its own sake"
> "what is a joke is the methodology Singer approaches his studies with"
> 
> Well which is it, you're not making fun, or you think his methods are a joke?
> ...



Like I said, I provided evidence to your Co2 and your response to it was "No amount of evidence will ever convince me!"

*Shall I start again?* Shall I explain why climate scientists know Co2 is the main bad guy?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 13, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Like I said, I provided evidence to your Co2 and your response to it was "No amount of evidence will ever convince me!"
> 
> *Shall I start again?* Shall I explain why climate scientists know Co2 is the main bad guy?



Why on earth would you want to "start" again...you've already posted an enormous amount of bull-shit.  I've read through your "proof", and have not been convinced, among other posters on this thread.  The only evidence that could prove global warming is caused by man does not exist at this day and time.  And because scientist cannot go back in time and measure the rate of the earth's climate change, it cannot be proven that the current warming trend, which ended a few years ago, is man-made.  

Until you can prove that it was CO2 that caused/ended the Ice Age, then you have no case.  If this warming trend was caused by humans, how come the earth has warmed and cooled long before humans existed and/or began burning fossil fuels?  How come all of the planets, including Pluto has warmed over the last decade?  Are our emissions going all of the way to Pluto???  Are their extra-terrestrials burning fossil fuels over there?   CO2 is not the main culprit behind the warming of the globe.  Assisting, yes, but not causing.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Why on earth would you want to "start" again...you've already posted an enormous amount of bull-shit.  I've read through your "proof", and have not been convinced, among other posters on this thread.  The only evidence that could prove global warming is caused by man does not exist at this day and time.  And because scientist cannot go back in time and measure the rate of the earth's climate change, it cannot be proven that the current warming trend, which ended a few years ago, is man-made.
> 
> 1. *Until you can prove that it was CO2 that caused/ended the Ice Age, then you have no case.*
> 
> ...



You do not want to 'start again' because you do not - I repeat - do not want to get into a science debate.

1. You are getting confused as per usual. The short answer to your question is that the Mann hockey stick graph - which has been peer-reviewed in scholarly scientific journals - has debunked this rather absurd and bizarre claim concerning the ice age. 

What the Mann graph did was prove - without any doubt - that what is going on with relation to global warming temperatures is man-made and in fact, out of the natural pattern.

2. Because you are confused regarding the claim the climate science community has presented. Climate scientists have _never ever _once said the Earth has never warmed or cooled before. Not even close. What you are doing, is presenting a strawman argument _(The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position)._

Anthropogenic global warming instead focuses on_ *the rate of heat acceleration*_ of the Earth over a _*very short*_ period of time *outside* the natural occurring cycle of warming and cooling.

3. The answer to your "pluto" question has been answered in full via two peer-reviewed scholarly papers published in prestigious academic jorunals authored by credible working climate scientists. It is a highly technical paper. If you want it, I can provide the link.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You do not want to 'start again' because you do not - I repeat - do not want to get into a science debate.
> 
> *You should quit repeating yourself, it's a sign of OCD.  It doesn't take a scientific debate to understand that CO2 is not the only and main culprit of climate change, or the current warming that was experienced.  CO2 may contribute to global warming, but it is not causing it.  There are too many other factors that go into this.  You're fixed on CO2 while ignoring the other major contributors to global warming. There are too many uncertainties.  All of your data is great, and respected, but you're tunnel-vissioned on CO2.  The earth started warming in the early 1800s, was it caused by industrialization? No.
> 
> ...


*

Provide as many links as you need.  

Still can't prove it without a doubt.  Which is my claim.  Even expert scientists will agree that it can't be proven without a doubt.  *


----------



## TopGunna (Apr 14, 2008)

Brian, most of the text of his posts are cut-and-paste jobs from online journals.  This might be why he's doing a fairly poor job of answering your questions.

Climate scientists do not "know" CO2 is the bad guy.  They DO know that CO2 can force warming slightly in a controled setting.  They DO know that measured temperatures have increased on average over the past 100 years.

They do NOT know, however, how this slight increase in atmospheric CO2 increase resonates in our extremely chaotic climate system.  In the models that project runaway warming, they ASSUME a strong net positive feedback mechanism that accelerates/amplifies the initial CO2 input.  It is these assumptions about feedback that lead to the catastrophic scenarios.

You can prove that CO2 can cause an initial preturbance, but the response of the climate system to that input CANNOT be proven empirically.

The reality is that when scientists encounter an unknown, but longterm stable system, they assume the system is regulated by NEGATIVE FEEDBACK!  Which makes sense of course, since systems dominated by positive feedbacks are not stable over time.  Prior irregular inputs to the climate system have not turned the Earth into a Venus-like inferno, or a Mars-like ice rock.  It seems like a strong positive feedback mechanism is a pretty dim assumption - but don't tell that to AGW alarmists!


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> Brian, most of the text of his posts are cut-and-paste jobs from online journals.  This might be why he's doing a fairly poor job of answering your questions.
> 
> Climate scientists do not "know" CO2 is the bad guy.  They DO know that CO2 can force warming slightly in a controled setting.  They DO know that measured temperatures have increased on average over the past 100 years.
> 
> ...




Yeah I agree, I can tell that he copies and pastes things and then throws in a few things to attempt to make everyone feel ignorant.  

I completely agree with your take on this.  I know CO2 is a contributor to an event such as GW, but I do not believe it to be the main cause, or that it's rapidly increasing the globe's climate.  There are too many undetermined factors about our globe.  The study of AGW is filled with so many loop holes, you could make a tennis-shoe out of it.  It seems as though scientists are criss-crossing data to come up with desired results.
A money making deal if you ask me.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 14, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> Brian, most of the text of his posts are cut-and-paste jobs from online journals.  This might be why he's doing a fairly poor job of answering your questions.
> 
> Climate scientists do not "know" CO2 is the bad guy.  They DO know that CO2 can force warming slightly in a controled setting.  They DO know that measured temperatures have increased on average over the past 100 years.
> 
> ...



The reality is you referenced an article by a Dr. Fred Singer who claims he 'debunked' or discredited the Mann Hockey stick graph. Well, he did not. Not even close.

Stand by your original claim and your source or shut the hell up.

Singer has no climate science credentials and takes money from Tobacco and oil lobby. Yet you claimed the Hockey stick graph was debunked via Singer's _'work.' _

And now you're mad at me because you sourced out garbage.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> The reality is you referenced an article by a Dr. Fred Singer who claims he 'debunked' or discredited the Mann Hockey stick graph. Well, he did not. Not even close.
> 
> Stand by your original claim and your source or shut the hell up.
> 
> ...



The Mann Hockey-Stick graph has been discredited.  Get over it.   Mann simply left out historical climate change periods and was cherry-picking proxy evidence to get desired results.   
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick did find vase inconsistencies in the hockey-stick graph and  were the original disputers.  Prompting an investigation of the graph as well as the methods of it's collection and representation.  The IPCC even dropped it as it's poster child because of it's inconsistencies.  Only leftist-liberal AGW alarmists such as yourself are the ones who support it.  Which means that it's a political agenda.  You're following a fallacy dude, whether you believe it or not.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 14, 2008)

BrianH said:


> The Mann Hockey-Stick graph has been discredited.  Get over it.   Mann simply left out historical climate change periods and was cherry-picking proxy evidence to get desired results.
> 
> *Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick* did find vase inconsistencies in the hockey-stick graph and  were the original disputers.  Prompting an investigation of the graph as well as the methods of it's collection and representation.  The IPCC even dropped it as it's poster child because of it's inconsistencies.  Only leftist-liberal AGW alarmists such as yourself are the ones who support it.  Which means that it's a political agenda.  You're following a fallacy dude, whether you believe it or not.



Wrong you are actually. Those two aren't even climate scientists. One works for the mining industry the other is an economist.

In fact their paper criticizing Mann's hockey stick was thoroughly and completely discredited by peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals. It was so bad, many peer-reviewed journals wouldn't even publish their 'study' for serious unforgivable mistakes.

In fact, the paper they wrote wasn't even peer-reviewed and didn't even appear in a scientific scholarly journal...it appeared in a 'social science' publication funded by the oil and gas industry.

Once again, you get caught in a lie and using fraudulent sources.


----------



## TopGunna (Apr 14, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> The reality is you referenced an article by a Dr. Fred Singer who claims he 'debunked' or discredited the Mann Hockey stick graph. Well, he did not. Not even close.
> 
> Stand by your original claim and your source or shut the hell up.
> 
> ...



You must be confused (shocker!) but I don't know Singer's work.  The massive statistical errors (as pointed out by McIntyre and McKitrick) are plenty damning to the Mann Hockey stick graph.

From MIT's Technology Review: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/?a=f

"But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records. 

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken. 

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!"

I guess that might be why Mann was so reluctant to release his statistical method details... sorry, that's a pretty big no-no when you're talking about publicly funded science.

I actually thought about taking an environmental science class during my "undecided" days at UVA... some sort of benign force must have helped steer me clear.  Must have been a man-made causing, that's for sure!


----------



## TopGunna (Apr 14, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> Wrong you are actually. Those two aren't even climate scientists. One works for the mining industry the other is an economist.
> 
> In fact their paper criticizing Mann's hockey stick was thoroughly and completely discredited by peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals. It was so bad, many peer-reviewed journals wouldn't even publish for serious unforgivable mistakes.
> 
> ...



Interestingly enough, the IPCC found the flaws in Mann's work significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.

Also, you don't need to be a "climate scientist" studying tree rings to identify statistical errors.  An inflection point that occurs when two seperate data sets are grafted together can be identified by an lay statistician.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 14, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> Interestingly enough, the IPCC found the flaws in Mann's work significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.
> 
> Also, you don't need to be a "climate scientist" studying tree rings to identify statistical errors.  An inflection point that occurs when two seperate data sets are grafted together can be identified by an lay statistician.



The IPCC never, I repeat NEVER dropped the Mann hockey stick graph. In fact, if you had done the research - a simple 60 second seacrh - would have revealed to you that it is still very much in the IPCC report.

What's more is that if you do a case sensitive search on the IPPC report "Mann" you will see that he is referenced* 63 times* in chapter 6 alone. 

A good portion of those are referencing Mann's 1999 hockey stick. And if you do a search on "hockey stick" you will get a hit on* page 34* in the middle of a series of paragraphs *dedicated solely to defending the Mann's hockey stick.* 

The hockey stick  has also been defended by the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the American Meteorological Society.

You are a bold faced liar. 

Take back your claim the hockey stick was dropped from the IPCC. It is unforgivable to make such a distorted, outrageous and false claim.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> The IPCC never, I repeat NEVER dropped the Mann hockey stick graph. In fact, if you had done the research - a simple 60 second seacrh - would have revealed to you that it is still very much in the IPCC report.
> 
> What's more is that if you do a case sensitive search on the IPPC report "Mann" you will see that he is referenced* 63 times* in chapter 6 alone.
> 
> ...



"Wha wha wha..... take it back! take it back!"  What a wus.
I'm done debating your sorry ass on this issue.  You're obviously more of an ignorant Gore follower than I had once thought.  Here's some advice...stay a way from the bull shit, you might get Gored.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 14, 2008)

BrianH said:


> "Wha wha wha..... take it back! take it back!"  What a wus.
> I'm done debating your sorry ass on this issue.  You're obviously more of an ignorant Gore follower than I had once thought.  Here's some advice...stay a way from the bull shit, you might get Gored.



I'd be done debating if I was exposed as a liar as well.


----------



## TopGunna (Apr 14, 2008)

I'm not a liar, I think you're still confused though, Turbo!

I'm talking about the IPCC's 4TH ASSESSMENT FROM 2007.  On this document, page 34 is blank!  Chapter 6 is 2 pages long!

Take back your claim that I'm a liar. It is unforgivable to make such a distorted, outrageous and false claim.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2008)

I'll tell you what, you keep posting on this thread.  And as soon as you post absolute proof of your position.  I'll chime in that I agree and that you are right.  Not very likely you'll post proof, but get to posting, you're bound to come across something slightly significant. maybe....the only liar here is the one who claims he can prove that GW is man-made and has yet to do so.  And of course the pictures of Gore.  Keep up the crappy work.  I'll chime in when you've proven your claim.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 14, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I'll tell you what, you keep posting on this thread.  And as soon as you post absolute proof of your position.  I'll chime in that I agree and that you are right.  Not very likely you'll post proof, but get to posting, you're bound to come across something slightly significant. maybe....the only liar here is the one who claims he can prove that GW is man-made and has yet to do so.  And of course the pictures of Gore.  Keep up the crappy work.  I'll chime in when you've proven your claim.




I got a better idea, why don't you lie and claim the Mann hockey stick was debunked and removed from the IPCC report again.

That was one of your best moments.

Liar.


----------



## TopGunna (Apr 14, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I got a better idea, why don't you lie and claim the Mann hockey stick was debunked and removed from the IPCC report again.
> 
> That was one of your best moments.
> 
> Liar.



Idiot.  It is no where to be found in the 2007 report.  I don't know what report YOU are talking about.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 14, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> Idiot. * It is no where to be found in the 2007 report.  I don't know what report YOU are talking about*.



HAHA!!

Good one.

More lies. 

I found it easily and I also found the symbol for the graph and the graph itself just as easily "MBH 1999"

I also did a case reference check on it...it was referenced numerous times.

You are a liar and a bad one at that.

I do not know where you came up with the claim that Mann  and the hockey stick graph was somehow dropped from the fourth assessment of the IPCC.


----------



## TopGunna (Apr 14, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> HAHA!!
> 
> Good one.
> 
> ...



Here's the link I'm using: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

There's zippy mention of the hockey stick graph in the linked report and I will stand by that.

Do you have another link for the report you're referencing?  I'll be happy to check it out.  Or you could just call me a liar again


----------



## BrianH (Apr 14, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I got a better idea, why don't you lie and claim the Mann hockey stick was debunked and removed from the IPCC report again.
> 
> That was one of your best moments.
> 
> Liar.



[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q&feature=related[/ame]

*Check-mate asshole. Who's the liar?  I guess they're all liars as well and didn't really read the report.  They're all followers of the oil-companies.    Watch the whole video*

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/mann's-hockey-stick-climate-graph.htm
http://www.oneclimate.net/2007/12/05/hockey-stick-20th-century-warming/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm


I knew you'd eventually screw the pooch on this one.  And by gosh you've done it.  I'm still waiting for your proof.


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 14, 2008)

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=rkJUJ5-PL-0[/ame]


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 14, 2008)

> the *IPCC found the flaws in Mann's work *significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.



This is the claim that was made by TopGunna.

1st claim: The IPCC found flaws in Mann's work.

2nd claim: It was significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.


You have provided *no evidence* to indicate Mann's work was dropped by the IPCC for serious flaws.

What you have done, what is apparent, is you have taken conjecture written by climate skeptics as gospel.

Show me the _*official report*_ authored by the IPCC outlining the mistakes made by Mann. Then show me that Mann's work and graph - or anything like it - does not appear at all because of the purposeful removal of his work by the IPCC.

I do not know where you came up with the claim that Mann, his work and the hockey stick graph was somehow dropped from the fourth assessment of the IPCC for _"significant flaws"._

Until then what you have done is obvious. Repeated a distorted claim made climate skeptics with no basis on evidence - only conjecture.

There is an obvious way to find a resolution to your claim. Write Dr.Mann and write the IPCC explain who you are and the purpose of your email/letter, and get a definitive answer straight from the horse's mouth.

So again, find me the evidence straight from the IPCC or shut the hell up.


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 15, 2008)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7347638.stm



> China 'now top carbon polluter'
> By Roger Harrabin
> BBC Environment analyst
> 
> ...


----------



## PpleLOSINGpower (Apr 15, 2008)

> First, through our discussion of both the National Research Council report and the Wegman report, we established that the original studies by Mann and his coauthors were flawed, and could not support the related findings of the 2001 IPCC assessment. Dr. Wegman's independent committee found and reported that Dr. Mann and his coauthors incorrectly applied a statistical methodology that would preferentially create hockey stick shapes. Dr. Wegman also found that more recent methodologies used in temperature reconstruction studies may also generate problematic biases when determining temperature histories.



http://energycommerce.house.gov/rep...006hearing2001/The_Honorable_Ed_Whitfield.htm


Hmmm interesting!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BrianH (Apr 15, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> This is the claim that was made by TopGunna.
> 
> 1st claim: The IPCC found flaws in Mann's work.
> 
> ...



 Why don't you look at the IPCC link that PLP provided, the links I provided that also link to the IPCC report,  as well as the vid that Angel Heart provided that states that the Mann- graph is not found in the 2007 4th IPCC report?  You're dancing in cirlces now by claiming that there's not efficient evidence to prove this while your completely ignoring the fact that you were chastizing us for even claiming that it is true.  You were shortly on a crusade to prove that they didn't, but it seems you haven't posted any proof for that claim.  So now your only defense is to desparately attack us "liars."  This discredits your entire argument by proving you fail to acknowledge factual things, and are one many self-proclaimed scientist that "see" evidence for desired results, it also shows you for the hack that you are...


----------



## TopGunna (Apr 15, 2008)

Ugh.  You are either putting words in my mouth, or I wasn't simple enough in my post.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.



TheGoodShepherd said:


> 1st claim: The IPCC found flaws in Mann's work.



I did not mean for you to interpret it this way.  The IPCC did not find the flaws. The flaws were found in an external statistical analysis.  Hope this is clear now.



TheGoodShepherd said:


> 2nd claim: It was significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.



The graph is NOT in the 2007 report!  I provided the link to it.  You're clinging to the fact that it's on page 34 - I would LOVE for you to provide a link to this supposed report, but you haven't!



TheGoodShepherd said:


> You have provided *no evidence* to indicate Mann's work was dropped by the IPCC for serious flaws....Show me the _*official report*_ authored by the IPCC outlining the mistakes made by Mann.



I never meant to imply that the IPCC came out and discredited its own work, nor should any rational person expect them to do that.  "Uh, we made a mistake 6 years ago, but we got it right, so keep believing us!"

More compelling to me is the fact that the hockey stick graph is NO WHERE in the 4th assessment.  It was the centerpiece of the 2001 assessment!  I don't know for sure why it was omitted, but my guess is the IPCC is aware of the criticisms and realizes the study is far from bulletproof.

I hope that helps simpler brains to comprehend my message.  Lastly, please provide a link to the 4th IPCC report that still predominantly features the hockey stick - you know, on page 34.  I'll be looking forward to reading it.


----------



## Canis (Apr 15, 2008)

I just looked at both reports *briefly*. The graph from Mann's paper is on pg. 34 of the Third IPCC report. It's under section Q9 and is Figure SPM-10b - Variations of the Earth's surface temperature: years 1000 - 2100.

However, if you pay attention to the graph and look at the variations in mean temperature from 1850 to 2000 you'll see it go from approx.  -0.5 degrees C in 1850 to approx. 0.4 degrees C in 2000.

Open the Fourth IPCC report and go to the top graph in Fig. 1.1 on page 31. It's a graph of variations in mean surface temperature from 1850 to 2000. Around 1850 it's at approx. -0.5 degrees C and in 2000 it's at approx. 0.5 degrees C.

Although Mann's work may not have been used for the Fourth IPCC Report, it looks like Mann's results were in no way dicredited by the research panel. The top graph of Fgure 1.1 looks like a cut out and enlarged section of the "hockey stick." In fact, they both have the same little hump around 1940.

I'm just comparing two graphs and they both look similar to me. I could be wrong.

Also, Figure 2.3 looks to have several "hockey stick" looking graphs. So, my question is, why is Figure SPM-10b in the Third IPCC Report is considered a "hockey stick" and other J-shaped curves seen elsewhere are not?


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 15, 2008)

Canis said:


> I just looked at both reports *briefly*. The graph from Mann's paper is on pg. 34 of the Third IPCC report. It's under section Q9 and is Figure SPM-10b - Variations of the Earth's surface temperature: years 1000 - 2100.
> 
> However, if you pay attention to the graph and look at the variations in mean temperature from 1850 to 2000 you'll see it go from approx.  -0.5 degrees C in 1850 to approx. 0.4 degrees C in 2000.
> 
> ...



Of course they are the same graphs. In fact, even if one takes Mann's _'hockey stick'_ graph out of the picture, there still remains other independent lines of evidence complete with graphs with the same results.

TopGunna and Brian made the mistake every lazy amateur global warming skeptic does - take the word of a less than credible or non-scientific source as gospel and claim they have discredited over 2000 lines of independent evidence in _"one fell swoop,"_ as Brian put it earlier.

In this case, it was a political editorial printed by the Wall Street Journal over a year ago. 

TopGunna made a very serious charge "_the IPCC found the flaws in Mann's work significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report,"_ which he is now backtracking from as no evidence exists to solidify or strengthen this claim.

They rehash the same old debunked arguments they do not realize have been floating around the net for some time now.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 15, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> Ugh.  You are either putting words in my mouth,
> 
> I did not mean for you to interpret it this way.



I did not put _any words_ in your mouth. You made the claim. I used _your_ words.

I direct you to post #146



> Posted by TopGunna
> the IPCC found the flaws in Mann's work significant enough to drop the graph from their 2007 report.



Those are your words and no one else's.

*You *said the IPCC found flaws in Mann's work "significant enough" to drop the graph from the 2007 report.

Of course, it is totally untrue.

Take back the claim and save yourself a little dignity.


----------



## TopGunna (Apr 15, 2008)

YOU are the one confusing the 2001 report with the 2007 report.  Page 34 - hahahaha!

They (the IPCC) found the flaws (as pointed out by M&M) significant enough that it affected their decision to include the chart in the 2007 report.  The IPCC did not state this verbally - rather, their actions (omitting the graph from the 2007 report, WHICH DID HAPPEN) is what contrues their uncertainty.

I'm not going to battle semantics here.  I know the message I'm trying to convey.  You can dance around and show how it can be interpreted different ways, but any sensible person knows what I meant.

The real irony is that you're pointing to semantics to discredit my overall message, yet you hold that statistical shortcomings in the Mann Hockey stick construction don't discredit his message whatsoever.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 15, 2008)

TopGunna said:


> *They (the IPCC) found the flaws (as pointed out by M&M) significant enough that it affected their decision to include the chart in the 2007 report.*
> 
> The IPCC did not state this verbally - rather, *their actions (omitting the graph from the 2007 report, WHICH DID HAPPEN) is what contrues their uncertainty.
> *
> ...



You have not provided any evidence the IPCC found flaws _'significant enough'_ to remove the chart. What have you done is offer a _reason_ for the graph's _alleged_ omission _(by you)_ that sounds more like personal opinion than a valid argument based on concrete evidence.

Like the other poster _(Canis)_ said, other charts that look exactly like the Mann graph with the same results appear in the fourth assessment.

You are nothing more than a political idealogue trying to force opinion and personal feelings into a scientific debate.

You have made two serious claims which you have only backed up with opinion and conjecture. 

This is not a current issue or a political topic. It remains a scientific topic no matter how hard you try to politicize the issue via editorials from the Wall Street Journal.

By the way, there are no _'statistical shortcomings'_ in the graph. That is another lie. The hockey stick has been defended by the *National Academy of Sciences*, *Nature*, *the National Center for Atmospheric Research*, and the *American Meteorological Society.*

Mann's critics are TopGunna, BrianH and two Canadians _(M&M)_ with no climate science credentials - one who works for the mining industry and other who is an economist. Their criticism of Mann has been debunked by leading professionals in the field. It was sloppy, it was riddled with mistakes and it was exposed as such via a peer-reviewed journal authored by working climate scientists and published in a scientific journal.

Get real and save yourself the embarrassment.


----------



## TopGunna (Apr 15, 2008)

Well, I'm not a mind reader, so obviously I cannot absolutely tell you why it was omitted from the 2007 report.

"Alleged" omission?  Fact = it IS missing from the 2007 report, for whatever reason.  You keep pointing to its inclusion in the OLD document! 

Rather than telling me I'm wrong, why don't you enlighten me and tell me the true reason there are zero references to Mann in the 2007 report.

Or, you could again point to pages in a 2001 publication, and then accuse me of referencing outdated information.

"You are nothing more than a political idealogue trying to force opinion and personal feelings into a scientific debate."

That sounds more like your conjecture/opinion of me, than something you can prove, doesn't it?

Hypocrisy sure is fun!


----------



## BrianH (Apr 15, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You have not provided any evidence the IPCC found flaws _'significant enough'_ to remove the chart. What have you done is offer a _reason_ for the graph's _alleged_ omission _(by you)_ that sounds more like personal opinion than a valid argument based on concrete evidence.
> 
> Like the other poster _(Canis)_ said, other charts that look exactly like the Mann graph with the same results appear in the fourth assessment.
> 
> ...




Homes, you're spent; you mind as well hit the showers.  The only way you're keeping up this debate is by claiming that our claim is false, and not providing any proof that it is so.  TopGunna, myself, and Angel heart have provided links, (as well as the actual IPCC report itself) and proof that it is omitted in the 2007 report.  You fail to see that it's true, which shows your extreme bias on the issue.  The mann-hockey stick graph is not there, nor cited numerous times as you claim.

You have run into a brick-wall, so you're back-tracking and trying to by yourself time until you can find something else to attempt to distract us with.  You are wrong...it is as simple as that.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 15, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You have not provided any evidence the IPCC found flaws _'significant enough'_ to remove the chart. What have you done is offer a _reason_ for the graph's _alleged_ omission _(by you)_ that sounds more like personal opinion than a valid argument based on concrete evidence.
> 
> Like the other poster _(Canis)_ said, other charts that look exactly like the Mann graph with the same results appear in the fourth assessment.
> 
> ...




[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q&feature=related[/ame]

Watch this Artard...  
Former President of the National Academy Sciences resigned and fought to have his name taken off of the report.  He says many other scientists were unable to do so despite their criticism of the report.  Many of their names make up you're 2,000 names.  Watch this....all the way through.  Your bias is rearing it's ugly head.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 16, 2008)

The Good Shephard......here boy....come one....(whistle) .

Where'd you go? 

Oh there you are --------->


----------



## rayboyusmc (Apr 19, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy


----------



## Zoomie1980 (May 3, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy



What global warming?

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm


----------



## Yurt (May 3, 2008)

i bet you gore wishes now he finished more than his 1L year and got that ol' law degree


----------



## marsanges (May 3, 2008)

... looks good. 

about a year ago I came across reports that people had turned to micromodeling i. e. applying the hopefully good medium to long term climate models to the very short range of a few years at most, to generate global trend forecasts that actually could be tested (within a single research grant period). That struck me as clever. Anyway what I understood last summer was that people at the Hadley Center had forecast that there would be a global temperature drop for two years (i. e. 2008 and 2009) and that after that there would be a sharp increase, the phrase that stuck with me was that after that each year - for a several year period - would have about 50% chance to be the hottest year on record (i. e. topping 2007 and laters). So, from your link and its sublinks (and other stuff) I get the impression that the data coming in begin to bear out this shortrange forecast. 

That I would find interesting - actually significant support for having faith in the GC climate models that much of the global warming projection is based upon - they seem to hold up so far. But thats my own personal spin. 

I would have to try and look up the original link to those forecasters, not sure if I can find it back, but the citations in your link and its references - if you take away the spin - seem to say about the same. 

we all will get to see it anyway, that is one of the good things about natural sciences, you (or I) can opine about it as much as we want but that doesnt change reality one bit. Regardless, seems these micromodelers have done good work.


----------



## marsanges (May 3, 2008)

.. that was easier than I thought. 

Unfortunately its in Science which I don't have here. Here's the abstract : 

=======================
Science 10 August 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5839, pp. 796 - 799
DOI: 10.1126/science.1139540
 Prev | Table of Contents | Next  

Reports
Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model
Doug M. Smith,* Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, James M. Murphy 
Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record. 

Met office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Ex1 3PB, UK. 

================

That's what's going on, the current cold spell actually appears nicely in line with Global Warming modeling. At climateprogress.org they have a nice figure out of that article. The system doesnt allow me to post the direct link because it seems to think I might be a troll (this being only my third post here ever). I must excuse to everyone for my html illiteracy. When I was young I painted my graphs with a pen on millimeter paper that was good enough.


----------



## JimH52 (May 4, 2008)

BrianH said:


> ...I've been waiting for this to happen...I'm not a global warming believer...I do believe that the globe may be warming, but I don't think we've spread up the process as much as people suggest that we do.  Natural Climate Cycle.
> --One volcano eruption puts more dangerous gases into the atmospher then humans ever thought about doing.



So the title of the Thread is a Lie.  Therefore, you are a LIAR as defined by administrators on this board.


----------



## BrianH (May 4, 2008)

JimH52 said:


> So the title of the Thread is a Lie.  Therefore, you are a LIAR as defined by administrators on this board.



What are you talking about.  The Thread title wasn't a lie.  It was the title of an article dumbass.  I didn't say I agreed with the motives, but I said it would be interesting to see what evidence arises if the lawsuit ever took hold.  Now, my assumption that a volcano puts more CO2 into the air than humans may have been wrong (which I've admitted to).  Then again, my statement about Volcanoes wasn't the title now was it.  Learn to read Jim.  You're going to have to do better than that.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> .
> --One volcano eruption puts more dangerous gases into the atmospher then humans ever thought about doing.



As far as greenhouse gases, no it doesn't. Sorry, you're just flat out wrong. Don't know where you got that. You probably just made it up.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 11, 2008)

SpidermanTuba said:


> As far as greenhouse gases, no it doesn't. Sorry, you're just flat out wrong. Don't know where you got that. You probably just made it up.



YOU'RE BEHIND IN THE THREAD DUDE........READ ALL OF IT BEFORE YOU POST REPLIES, SOME OF IT IS ALREADY ADDRESSED....such as the VOLCANOES....


----------



## Charles_Main (Jun 30, 2008)

Gore could care less about truth.

You do know he has made about 100 million dollars selling his Alarmist Climate Change lies right?


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Gore could care less about truth.
> 
> You do know he has made about 100 million dollars selling his Alarmist Climate Change lies right?



I wouldn't be suprised.  It's all a scam in my opinon.  I believe the globe may be warming, but I don't think humans have caused it and I'm not convinced that CO2 is the culprit.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but is this a class action suit?  If so, where do I sign up?


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but is this a class action suit?  If so, where do I sign up?



It really is going to go nowhere (the lawsuit).  But I posted this thread because I thought it would be interesting to see what evolved from it.  The owner of the Weather Channel has apparantly attempted to get Al Gore to debate him on CO2.  Supposedly Gore has refused, so the owner of TWC wanted to sue Gore in order to get a "debate" going about it because he thinks Gore is making money off of a fraudulent fairy-tale.  The only thing, is it's kind of a "buyer-beware" market and the lawsuit would achieve nothing.  I just thought it would be interesting to see what "facts" would arise out of it.  That's why it was posting, I had clue it would take the path it has been down...lol


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 30, 2008)

Well any kind of civil suit requires compensation for provable damages or requirement for action to avoid provable damages.  And my post was tongue-in-cheek as I have incurred no verifiable damages.....yet.......due to anything Al Gore has done.  Now if it could be proved that Al Gore did use bogus information that compelled action that did cause damages to me, I might have a case or at least could be party to a class action suit.

I do believe that the whole AGW thing is ill conceived, is likely based on flawed science, and I wish to resist as much as possible having my freedoms and choices eroded and my lifestyle reduced based on what very well is junk science.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 30, 2008)

Will they make him give back his Oscar?


----------



## BrianH (Jun 30, 2008)

Foxfyre said:


> Well any kind of civil suit requires compensation for provable damages or requirement for action to avoid provable damages.  And my post was tongue-in-cheek as I have incurred no verifiable damages.....yet.......due to anything Al Gore has done.  Now if it could be proved that Al Gore did use bogus information that compelled action that did cause damages to me, I might have a case or at least could be party to a class action suit.
> 
> I do believe that the whole AGW thing is ill conceived, is likely based on flawed science, and I wish to resist as much as possible having my freedoms and choices eroded and my lifestyle reduced based on what very well is junk science.



I agree.  I'm the first to admit that I think the earth may be warming, but AGW is a bit extreme.  Especially since science clearly shows that all of the planets in our solar system are warming, as well as other scientific observations and fact that is being conveniently dismissed by AGW activists.


----------



## Meister (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well any kind of civil suit requires compensation for provable damages or requirement for action to avoid provable damages.  And my post was tongue-in-cheek as I have incurred no verifiable damages.....yet.......due to anything Al Gore has done.  Now if it could be proved that Al Gore did use bogus information that compelled action that did cause damages to me, I might have a case or at least could be party to a class action suit.
> ...



There are some good common sense posts on this thread.  I too, agree that the earth is warming...but I am in no way convinced that *Man* is the culprit of it.  The last thing I want to hear is some "green religion" fanatic spouting off that the SKY IS FALLING.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 20, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well any kind of civil suit requires compensation for provable damages or requirement for action to avoid provable damages.  And my post was tongue-in-cheek as I have incurred no verifiable damages.....yet.......due to anything Al Gore has done.  Now if it could be proved that Al Gore did use bogus information that compelled action that did cause damages to me, I might have a case or at least could be party to a class action suit.
> ...



Another crock of shit.

Brightening Neptune, Cooling Uranus « Fermi Paradox


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 20, 2009)

TopGunna said:


> Brian, most of the text of his posts are cut-and-paste jobs from online journals.  This might be why he's doing a fairly poor job of answering your questions.
> 
> Climate scientists do not "know" CO2 is the bad guy.  They DO know that CO2 can force warming slightly in a controled setting.  They DO know that measured temperatures have increased on average over the past 100 years.
> 
> ...



Really, really stupid post. Scientists do know that CO2 is the major GHG. They have known of GHGs since Fourier in 1820. And here is a link that gives the history of the research into CO2.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## jreeves (Feb 21, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> TopGunna said:
> 
> 
> > Brian, most of the text of his posts are cut-and-paste jobs from online journals.  This might be why he's doing a fairly poor job of answering your questions.
> ...



Here's a link showing that CO2 isn't as a major GHG as you would like to claim.....
Global-warming methane spiked in 2007 - environment - 30 October 2008 - New Scientist
Levels of climate-warming methane -* a greenhouse gas 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide* - rose abruptly in Earth's atmosphere last year, and we don't know why.

The concentration of methane, the primary component of natural gas, in the atmosphere has more than doubled since pre-industrial times, but remained largely stable over the last decade or so before rising in 2007, researchers said.

This stability in methane levels had led scientists to believe that emissions of the gas from natural sources like livestock and wetlands, as well as from human activities like coal and gas production, were balanced by the rate of destruction of methane in the atmosphere.

But starting early last year, that balance was upset as millions of tonnes of methane were released into the air.

"The thing that's really surprising is that it's coming after this period of very level emissions," said Matthew Rigby of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The worry is that we just don't understand the methane cycle very well."


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 21, 2009)

Quite on the contrary, CO2 is at present the primary greenhouse gas. CO2 is at 387 ppm, CH4 is at 1780 ppb. The CH4 is about 250 times less than the CO2. However, should the Artic methane release continue, and warm the oceans enough that the continental shelf clathrates would release a major portion of their CH4, then CH4 would be the primary driver of warming, and there would be a major extinction.

Carbon dioxide, methane levels rise sharply in 2007

Another point on CH4, it is far more than 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, for when it oxidizes, it forms CO2 and H20. So the combined effect of CH4, CO2, and H2O is closer to 60 times the total heating of a molecule of CO2.


----------



## BrianH (Feb 21, 2009)

AGW only theorizes why the earth is heating since MAN has begun burning fossil fuels.  It does not explain why the earth has heated and cooled before; or even before man was around.  Scientists have no clue how fast the earth has heated and cooled during Pre-History.  

I have yet to see anyone prove that CO2 and Man are the culprits behind global warming.  That especially includes posters on these threads


----------



## jreeves (Feb 21, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Quite on the contrary, CO2 is at present the primary greenhouse gas. CO2 is at 387 ppm, CH4 is at 1780 ppb. The CH4 is about 250 times less than the CO2. However, should the Artic methane release continue, and warm the oceans enough that the continental shelf clathrates would release a major portion of their CH4, then CH4 would be the primary driver of warming, and there would be a major extinction.
> 
> Carbon dioxide, methane levels rise sharply in 2007
> 
> Another point on CH4, it is far more than 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, for when it oxidizes, it forms CO2 and H20. So the combined effect of CH4, CO2, and H2O is closer to 60 times the total heating of a molecule of CO2.


Global-warming methane spiked in 2007 - environment - 30 October 2008 - New Scientist
Levels of climate-warming *methane* - a greenhouse gas 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide - *rose abruptly in Earth's atmosphere last year, and we don't know why.*

BTW, the major contributor to CO2 emmissions isn't burning fossil fuels in industrialization, its meat production. Want to save the planet from CO2? Stop eating meat or meat byproducts. You alone could save the planet from 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emmissions by dropping meat and going on a vegan diet. But you're not really concerned about that, your only concern is spouting your BS. Hypocrite...


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 21, 2009)

jreeves said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Quite on the contrary, CO2 is at present the primary greenhouse gas. CO2 is at 387 ppm, CH4 is at 1780 ppb. The CH4 is about 250 times less than the CO2. However, should the Artic methane release continue, and warm the oceans enough that the continental shelf clathrates would release a major portion of their CH4, then CH4 would be the primary driver of warming, and there would be a major extinction.
> ...



I am going to assume that you meant CH4, not CO2. For the major contributor of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. And the leveling off of the CH4 was created by the switch to dryland rice farming, not a decrease in ruminents. The sudden present increase is due to the outgassing of the permafrost areas, and Arctic Ocean clathrates. Those are major feedbacks created by the warming that CO2 has caused.

As for the rest of your sillyness, the CH4 levels were not increasing when we had vast herds of buffulo, wildebeast, and caribou. They began increasing when the wetland rice farming increased as Asia's population ballooned.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 22, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


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



If it is solely due to permafrost heating, then why the rise in methane levels in the southern hemisphere? See...
Global-warming methane spiked in 2007 - environment - 30 October 2008 - New Scientist
They say a rise in methane in the northern hemisphere *might* be the result of a year-long warm spell in Siberia, where wetlands harbour methane-producing bacteria, *but they have no immediate answer as to why emissions rose in the southern hemisphere at the same time.*

You seem to state that long term warming in Siberia is matter of factly the cause. Whereas scientists and researchers state it might be the cause of elevated methane levels. Also you offer no reason at all, of the elevated methane levels in the southern hemisphere.

As far as meat production not being the major contributor to CO2 emmissions...
UN&#8217;s Top Climate Scientist Urges People to Combat Climate Change by Eating Less Meat : Planetsave
CIWF&#8217;s ambassador Joyce D&#8217;Silva told the BBC:* &#8220;Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realize that changing what&#8217;s on their plate could have an even bigger effect.&#8221;*
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Shun meat, says UN climate chief
UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 22, 2009)

jreeves said:


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



The last time I looked, there was no fence at the equator to prevent the mixing of gases in the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere. 

Well, yes, the raising of meat puts more CH4 into the atmosphere than transport. We burn CH4 in transport, silly!


----------



## jreeves (Feb 22, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


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



Of course there is no fence, you will see elevated levels of CO2, CH4 or NO2 where the emmissions are taking place. That comment was just plain dumb.

The transporting of meat is only part of the equation, damn your dense.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Shun meat, says UN climate chief
The FAO figure of 18% includes *greenhouse gases released in every part of the meat production cycle - clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in farm vehicles, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep.*

LOL....front and rear end emissions which is CH4....

Stop eating meat you hypocrite or don't come preaching about the need to change transportation CO2 emissions.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 23, 2009)

BrianH said:


> ..
> --One volcano eruption puts more dangerous gases into the atmospher then humans ever thought about doing.



That isn't actually true.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 23, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > ..
> ...



Now Tuba, you know that those damned geologists at the USGS don't know a damned thing, and are just making up the figure of 130 to 150 times more anthropogenic CO2 than volcanic. LOL.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Feb 26, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



You're right. The USMB flat earther's know it all.


----------



## jreeves (Feb 28, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



USMB chicken littles are the biggest hypocrites on the planet earth. I have yet to meet even one who is a vegan?


----------



## Red Dawn (Mar 1, 2009)

BrianH said:


> Yeah Gunny,  here it is.
> 
> FOXNews.com - Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News
> 
> It may be biased, but you'll still get the point.







I can see why you were reluctant to provide a link. 

Your link says nothing about the weather channel suing al gore. 


It says one dude who founded it, and appears to be retired, _suggests_ climate change advocates be sued. 


He sounds like a crackpot and a crank.   Thanks for wasting my time


----------



## BrianH (Mar 1, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah Gunny,  here it is.
> ...



You welcome dumbass.  



Reluctant?  I posted it on my second post in the thread directly after it was asked for.  Why don't you look up the definition of "reluctant."  I also made no comment of how crack-potted or crankish this guy was, but simply stated that I thought it would be interesting to see what unfolded from it.  Let's not forget that I didn't claim the weather channel was suing Al Gore, but the Weather Channel Founder/Owner.  So you wasted your own time with your inability to read.  Good Job


----------

