Despite a broad scientific consensus that human-caused global warming is under way, deniers continue to question the basic science — and even call warming scientists "fanatics" and "jihadists," as Cal Thomas did in his Wednesday column.
Who’s being extreme here?
Far from "circling the wagons," as Cal claimed, climate scientists have issued clear, reasonable rebuttals to most anti-warming arguments, I point out in my Friday column. Those explanations aren’t hard to find for those who care to look. But the same denial arguments persist — as I’m learning anew in the responses to my column.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- writerdog on Let immigrants run
- Regular on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
380 Comments
Dear Randy,
You should keep this as a standing daily topic, like Open Thread or Community Thread. After all, it’s a daily argument on one or more threads here anyway.
(And I’m only half kidding here!)
Gee, because the “consensus” isn’t? Except among journalists who don’t comprehend the major holes in the hypothesis?
I just read Cal T’s article. He seemed long on blah blah blah and short on anything to refute the science behind global climate change.Oh, I guess he did say that NASA was wrong and the warmest year was 1934, not 1988. That does not refute that the global climate is changing with an upward trend in overall temperature.
I am open minded on global warming. I do not think humans have that much impact on global climate change. I do not think we humans can prevent global climate change. I have seen facts and made my own observations that global climate change is occuring.
I have not seen any facts to show that the overall climate of the earth is staying stable and not increasing.
Anyone care to provide those?
From the Cal Thomas report:
“Many global warming fanatics have pointed to NASA as proof that their concerns about a warming planet are justified. They have repeatedly cited the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose director, James Hansen, has asserted that nine of the 10 warmest years in history have occurred since 1995, with 1998 the warmest. When NASA was confronted with evidence provided by Climate Audit, a blog run by Stephen McIntyre devoted to auditing the statistical methods and data used in historical reconstructions of past climate data, it reversed itself. Without the fanfare used to hype the global warming fanaticism it had earlier supported, NASA now says four of the top 10 years of high temperatures are from the 1930s. Several previously selected “warm” years — 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 — fell behind 1900.
The institute now says its previous claim that 1998 was the warmest year in American history is no longer valid. The warmest year was 1934.”
Just to give cosmos something to refute while I do my physical therapy exercises and other things.
Interesting,
No real proof that climate chage is being effected by man. The models have no idea how to contend with the effects of cloud cover.
Consensus. Now that’t something real scientific for you!
Hank
“I have not seen any facts to show that the overall climate of the earth is staying stable and not increasing.”
Er, climate increasing? Care to rephrase?
The earth’s climate is not stable. It’s changed many times over the course of the planet’s existence. It was doing so long before there were humans.
The “global warming” hypothesis is that humans are primarily responsible for the current mild upward temperature trend. It remains unproven, and the more evidence that comes in, the less likely it seems to be.
Given that global climate changes anyway regardless of our wishes and actions, what would seem more the relevant question is, what should we do to adapt to that? Because we lack the ability to stop the natural variability of global climate.
Are people really so STUPID that they cannot understand that the U.S. is NOT the entire EARTH???
‘Must read from Hansen: Stop the madness about the tiny revision in NASA’s temperature data!’http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/16/must-read-from-hansen-stop-the-madness-about-the-tiny-revision-in-nasas-temperature-data/
(From Dr. Hansen’s ‘The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla’)http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf
“The deceit behind the attempts to discredit evidence of climate change reveals matters of importance. This deceit has a clear purpose: to confuse the public about the status of knowledge of global climate change, thus delaying effective action to mitigate climate change.
The danger is that delay will cause tipping points to be passed, such that large climate impacts become inevitable, including the loss of all Arctic sea ice, destabilization of the West Antarctic ice sheet with disastrous sea level rise later this century, and extermination of a large fraction of animal and plant species….”
More at link.
Also see Figure 2, maps of GLOBAL temperature anomalies, for 1934 and 1998, in Hansen’s ‘The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla’
Usufruct is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person, as long as the property is not damaged.
“Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.” Henrik Tikkanen
“The “global warming” hypothesis is that humans are primarily responsible for the current mild upward temperature trend. It remains unproven, and the more evidence that comes in, the less likely it seems to be. ”
Oh, God, we’ve got another one. . .
Hey, snark, you’re likely to find yourself out-snarked here. But, to be serious about it–where are you gettting your information?
It sure as hell isn’t from the scientific community.
“Given that global climate changes anyway regardless of our wishes and actions, what would seem more the relevant question is, what should we do to adapt to that? Because we lack the ability to stop the natural variability of global climate.
Posted by: snarky | August 24, 2007 at 01:00 PM”
This is what the focus should be. Climate changes.We need to learn how to deal with it.
Yeah, I’ve got no problem with that.
Randy mentioned http://www.realclimate.org
Two other sites that debunk the denialist’s deceptions,
‘Climate change: A guide for the perplexed’http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462“… here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.”
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/guides-by-category.html
Heh, well the reason I dont buy into it, at this juncture, is because most of what is happening is related to weather patterns.
The weather service has records that date before mass mechanization and before most pollution. And these weather patterns happened then.
I need more proof before I will buy into global warming. Yes we need to do something about pollution and better gas milage and all of that. But I need hard evidence that this isn’t just a weather pattern.
People deny global warming because they wanna drive them big ol’ trucks.
Probably because there are just as many scientist with other takes on the issue.
And “consensus” is nonsense in scientific inquiry. That concept is only applicable at the State Dept.
And once the issue has devolved into a “religious experience” for the Greenpeacers, it loses much validity with others. Some countries are looking to label the entire concept of “environmentalist” as a Religion, being more based on Beliefs rather than Facts.
Let them be doctors and lawyers and such! ;-)
“Climate Progress is dedicated to providing the progressive perspective on climate science, climate solutions, and climate politics.”
More like Commie Progress.
Why do people still question global warming? Here’s why.
“Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say.
—Michael Schirber, LiveScience, 29 June 2005
The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says.
—Catherine Brahic, New Scientist, 23 August 2007″
Y’know something, “Fleettwood,” –
Not everything that makes you cranky is the product of “Commies.”
As soon as you and the other Right Wingnuts trot out the ol’ “Commie” and “socialist” crap, you announce to the world you have nothing, and know nothing about what you’re talking about.
Like the old adage, “When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail,” you fringe cases embrace abusurdity every time you post to fora such as WEBlog.
Keep it up!
You’re silly, but entertaining.
I need more proof before I will buy into global warming. … But I need hard evidence that this isn’t just a weather pattern.
Posted by: Erik | August 24, 2007 at 01:24 PM
Erik, you might start by learning the difference between “weather” and “climate”.http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/basics/weather_vs_climate.html
Then read the FAQ and Summary for Policymakers here,http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Note: The IPCC reports are conservative, and a few years out-of-date.
Global warming is a FRAUD desugned to scare the sheeple making it easier to control them. It also provide a new cause for celebrities and morons who can’t think for themselves.
fleettwood,
Try to make some intelligent comments about Figures 1, 2, and 3 at,
‘The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla’http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf
So, “Jonus Outram,” –
Think for yourself! Conduct your own experiment on atmospheric change caused by burning fossil fuels.
As a model for the earth’s atmosphere pick an enclosed space; a closed garage, for example. As a model for 200 years of industrialization burning fossil fuels pick a fossil-fuel burning machine; your car, for example.
Sit in your car and start it up. Come back when you’re through with the experiment and share your discoveries with us.
Why do people still question global warming? See below.
“As a model for 200 years of industrialization burning fossil fuels pick a fossil-fuel burning machine; your car, for example.”
Question: Why is it only the Right Winger that have no concerns about Global Climate change?
And give an honest answer, not the usual “sheeple” commentary.
“Global warming is a FRAUD desugned to scare the sheeple making it easier to control them. It also provide a new cause for celebrities and morons who can’t think for themselves.
Posted by: Jonas Outram | August 24, 2007 at 01:45 PM
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm“1859Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.
1896Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.”
A “moron”???http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
People who believe in “global warming” are the same types who believe in so-called “peak oil” and other foolishness.
Why do people keep questioning it?
BECAUSE ITS A FREE COUNTRY RANDY.
WE CAN QUESTION THINGS IF WE WANT TO YOU DOUCHEBAG.
ITS ALWAYS LIBERALS LIKE YOU THAT SCREAM FREEDOM OF SPEECH WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE IT BUT SCREAM DOWN SPEECH WHEN YOU DON’T LIKE IT.
JOKES.
WTG Cosmos, took the words right off of my keyboard… i get so sick and tired of all of the AGW wingnuts trying to compare Weather patterns, with Climate issues…
SECOND, When are we ever going to get it through to people that the way Science is done, is by CONCENSUS…..
One scientist puts forth a hypothesis… He conducts experiments, and records results… He publishes his findings…
THEN, other scientists repeat the same experiments, to see if they come up with the same findings… And still others do the same… THAT is concensus…
If you go to your Dr. and he/she says you need surgery, but you want a second opinion… You have just operated on concensus… And thats the way Science is done… And yes, Medicine is still a science….
Ummm…. The Planet VENUS >> Global Warming on Steroids!! It’s about the CLIMATE — not the Weather patterns!!
I think Chas that such critics don’t grasp the difference between political consensus and scientific consensus.
Yes, and up-or-down vote on personal opinions, with no discussion–would be worthless, even among the most distinguished scientists on the planet.
Consensus emerges AFTER the heated arguments, when most of the skeptics have changed their minds.
And there’s nothing wrong with a few “hold-outs” like RIchard Lindzen. But at the point the burden of proof is on THEM. The evidence is in. That’s the price you pay for being in the minority, i.e., going against the consensus.
How many of you remember the horrid days of SMOG in major industrial areas???
SMOG is man made… IF we put enough SMOG into the atmosphere, we block out sun’s rays, and all kinds of things… Enough SMOG in the atmosphere makes conditions right for Global Warming… Strip the atmosphere of everything (nuclear cataclysmic event) and we get global cooling… nuclear winter…
AGAIN, Global Warming isnt about weather patterns in NYC, or ATLANTA, or NO, or Wichita… That’s why they call it GLOBAL
You are absolutely right, Rage… Now, how can we get that through to people who seem to act as if they dont have a CLUE???
Rage and cosmos,
Indeed. The profound refusal to understand scientific method, and the willingness to play games, characterizes the Global Warming Denial Movement. As well as its attempt to redefine scientific inquiry and consensus downward into a religious sort of relativism.
Yet another version of the well-funded, “Who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?” Right-Wing assault on reason. But when you’ve got oil companies on your side, speaking power to truth can be as effective as it is profitable.
Why do people still question global warming? Take a look at all the far left wing bloggers who embrace it.Global Warming = Anti-Capitalist Crap
H. L. Mencken tells a story from his college years… One summer he had thought about becoming a psychiatrist… So, he took a summer job working in a mental institution… While there, he encountered a patient who believed he was “dead” — and told that to as many people daily as he could….
Mencken decided that this patient was his target patient for the summer… He argued with the man every day, to get him to see that he was not, in fact, dead…
One day, he asked the patient: Hey if you are dead, Do dead people bleed???
The patient laughed at him, and said, Of course not… Dead people dont bleed!!
Mencken then jabbed the patients hand with a needle… and his hand started to bleed…
The patient looked at Mencken, and without missing a beat, said: Well, What do you know??? Dead people DO bleed!!!
Yep… they walk among us… and they vote!!
Jeez, Fleetwood, that was a well thought out response – I’m again it cuz somebody I don’t like is fer it.
Congrats.
Fleet… That is one of the great errors of this whole thing… This isnt about Left Vs. Right… It isnt about Republican Vs. Democrat…. It’s about survival…
What I find so utterly amazing, is how many CONSERVATIVE people are so against CONSERVATION!! ROFL!!
Jeez, Fleetwood, that was a well thought out response – I’m again it cuz somebody I don’t like is fer it.
Congrats.
Posted by: WSClark | August 24, 2007 at 02:19 PM
Heh, it’s well-known that Bill Clinton was in favor of breathing.
Knock yerself out, fleet (literally!).
Good point, “WSClark” –
The Wingnuts hate it that Al Gore is a respected high-profile spokesperson for recognizing the dangers of pollution.
If Hillary could pass through a crowd and, by laying on of hands, cure all cancers, the Limbaugh-tomized Masses would accuse her of trying to put Memorial-Sloan-Kettering out of business.
“and even call warming scientists “fanatics” and “jihadists,” as Cal Thomas did in his Wednesday column.”
Right.
And The Eagle has to print this trash, why?
I guess they are referring to the Wingnuts at NOAA and the Max-Planct institute in Germany as well.
========================The average global surface temperature of 58.6 degrees Fahrenheit was the highest since recordkeeping began in 1880.
58F average…phew! I’m sweating already!==========================Alaska experienced slightly cooler-than-average temperatures (about half a degree) during the January-to-June 2006 period.
Oops! I bet those polar bears are enjoying that!
==========================Globally in 2006, parts of Eastern Europe and Russia experienced cooler-than-average temperatures.
Maybe that permafrost isn’t turning into peat bogs after all. :)==========================
NOAA scientists report that the average temperature in 2005 for the contiguous United States for December (based on preliminary data) was 33.5°F (0.8°C), identical to the 1895-2004 mean.
Identical to the 1895-2004 mean? Identical? The same? No difference? Not any change? No Climate Change detected?==========================
Hmmm, graphics… http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003375/
It appears that there has been a climate change since 1880 when the first accurate temperature recordings were kept.
Has mother nature started one of her Climate Change eras?
Or has all those flatulent cows and horses back in the 1880s started something we can’t reverse!
I recommend euthansia on all farm animals and let’s all become Vegans.
=============================Oops! can’t become Vegans because…
LONDON: German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.
The culprits are plants.
They produce about 10 to 30 per cent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.
Keppler and his colleagues discovered that living plants emit 10 to 100 times more methane than dead plants.
Oh, btw…the Max-Planck Institute also helps write the mathematical models for the IPCC climate change man-made Computer Models.
I do believe the Max-Planck Institute know what they are talking about.
People who believe in “global warming” are the same types who believe in so-called “peak oil” and other foolishness.
Posted by: Jonas Outram
And people who go by the name of “Jonas Outram” believe in nazi fascism and other foolishness.
Michael Savage calls Global Warming supporters: Communists…
They let him on KNSS every nite…
Please, sheeple, read the following:
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist SaysKate Raviliousfor National Geographic News
February 28, 2007Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: “Global Warming Fast Facts”.)
Enlarge Photo
Email to a Friend
RELATEDClimate Change Predictions Not Exaggerated, Analysis Says (February 1, 2007)New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery “Aquifers” (February 16, 2007)Photo Gallery: Global Warming
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
“The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.
Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
“Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov said.
By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
Abdussamatov’s work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.
Continued on Next Page >>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
“Why do people still question global warming?”
Because fossil-energy interests and right-wingers have funded disinformation campaigns to confuse the gullible, and lazy public.
A list of some of them,http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
Come on Kansas “Eastern Europe and Russia experienced cooler-than-average temperatures” is a weather pattern… and its not exactly GLOBAL…
“…according to one scientist’s controversial theory.”
Oh gee, a whole LOT of concensus in that one… ONE scientist’s (watch for the key word) CONTROVERSIAL theory….
When I have seen a photo of the North Pole with a small lake and photos of glaciers disappearing, yeah I would say that is something different and something is happening.There is way too much evidence happening in such a short period of time.Things do not change that fast in just one century and if it did it would have been record in history as to having done so.Is global warming real?YES it is!It does not matter whether it is man-made or not, the question is how do we prepare for it?What can be expected?How do we live thru this?Are we as a species are going to become extinct?Are these signs of the earth’s own evolution?By all means we should never forget that we are invited guests here on this earth by happenstance and we can be removed by the same means.
Chas,
There was once ONE MAN who bucked pc group think and consensus. His name was Gallileo, remember him?
Did Jonas Outram read “page 2″?
‘Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says’http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html
” “His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion,” said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England’s Oxford University.
“And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report.” (Related: “Global Warming ‘Very Likely’ Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say” [February 2, 2007].)
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that “the idea just isn’t supported by the theory or by the observations.”
Planets’ WobblesThe conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet’s orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.” “
Keppler and his colleagues discovered that living plants emit 10 to 100 times more methane than dead plants.
Colleagues = plural
according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.
researchers = plural=============Alaska coolingRussia Cooling
Same latitudes indicate something is happening globally not locally.
Alas, so many fools and so little time:
These myopic morons get their head stuck up in a dark place on a hot button “fluff” issue and they will not stop with the blatantly false assertions and statements of fake facts that have no basis in reality, no basis in science. It is all emotion-driven hype that is the equivalent of the boy who cried wolf or the Chicken Little types wailing that the sky is falling.
If they have no scientific facts, and cannot add, subtract, multiply or divide, and are totally challenged on algebra and higher math, their message is in all probably emotionalism and not a fact one to support it. Listeners need to consider that before they join or finance these movements. I have watched closely and most of these movements were founded and run by complete idiots and share a common delusion that they are going to save the world and make billions with their pet “ist” or “ism”.
If you watched the Oscar awards, Al Gore has set another benchmark in his lackluster career by winning Best {fictional} Documentary Film. It ranks right up there with his (non) invention of the Internet and his false story that the movie Love Story was all about Al and Tipper Gore. Gag! He cannot open his mouth without putting his own foot in it. He needs no help, just give him a place to stand and he does it on cue or something akin to a nervous tic.
The “Inconvenient Truth” is simply that Al Gore does not have a damned clue what he is talking about and he keeps leaving out some devastating scientific facts that would expose the fallacy of his agenda.
The Sir Richard Branson – Al Gore – Bill Clinton GHG scam is actually a scam on the commodity markets and insiders digging into the public coffers to line their pockets. If you dig deep enough one can find campaign finance trails coming out of this hyped version of how to create money for DNC candidates from fake causes. Gore and Global Crossing did it in 2000; it was in the book I wrote.
Even the trial lawyers are lining up for the next big scam like sharks come to chum and blood dumped in the ocean waters. It will drive up the price of all crops that can be converted into ethanol or alternative fuels while at the same time reducing food production. It is already happening. It is a scam and a device to get people not focusing on what the real problems are, like government and corporate corruption, greed, pollution that is ruining the environment and health of many living things and are not connected to temperature, CO2 or Global Warming at all.
In fact, if you compare what is really wrong to what they say is wrong it is not an exercise of apples versus oranges. It is more like trying to compare a Pet Rock to pet cat.
Check out Virgin Fuels http://www.virgin.com/subsites/virginfuels/ and their push to build ethanol plants in the US of all places. Especially the State of Tennessee where Al Gore is from and that folks is an agenda and lining just the right pockets. Of course they are seeking all sorts of state and federal grant money to help pay for their Really Grand Scam Scheme.
Can I track a rat, or can I track a rat?
Dig, dig and dig and you will find money trails out of this scam right into the political war chests of certain presidential candidates that will support this lunacy to the maximum.
By the way folks, that $25,000,000 Branson claims they will award for earth changing technologies appears to be a photo op, not a real effort to find such technology breakthroughs. Virgin has Clinton and Gore out pimping for ethanol plants and grant money to do them. Virgin and Clinton in the same sentence ought to be your clue that something is amiss.
What is one to do when a complete fraud calls others a fraud?http://home.att.net/~south.tower/KarlSchwarzJuly2007x.htm
“Same latitudes indicate something is happening globally not locally.”
“Globally” = all latitudes and, all longitudes.
Dr. Hansen (Father of Man-Made Climate Change) tells the Climate Change Alarmists to cool it with their rhetoric.
“NASA scientist James Hansen warned that environmental activists and the media better be more cautious with their rhetoric regarding “global warming.” In addition, a CBS News “60 Minutes” reporter recently compared skeptics of “global warming” to Holocaust deniers.
Hansen, who was responding to a question about the increased media coverage of “global warming” in recent months, issued the warning during a teleconference with a top Democratic congressional staff member, liberal environmental groups and journalists.
“I am a little concerned about this, in the sense that we are still at a point where the natural fluctuations of climate are still large — at least, the natural fluctuations of weather compared to long-term climate change,” Hansen, director of the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told the participants in the April 13 teleconference.”
Get it? Let me repeat that from those who don’t pay attention…
“…we are still at a point where the natural fluctuations of climate are still large — at least, the natural fluctuations of weather compared to long-term climate change,”
Natural fluctuations of climate are still large…
======================Let me repeat what the father of man-made Climate Change has said.
“Natural fluctuations of climate are still large…”
One more time for the mental non-absorbers…
“Natural fluctuations of climate are still large…”
“People who believe in “global warming” are the same types who believe in so-called “peak oil” and other foolishness.”
Yes, imagine the foolishness of believing there is a limited amount of oil in the ground. It is much less foolish to act as if there is an infinite amount of oil in the ground.
What’s next? Some wacky idea that pollution affects the environment?
Let’s repeat that statement from Hansen.
“NASA scientist James Hansen warned that environmental activists and the media better be more cautious with their rhetoric regarding “global warming.” In addition, a CBS News “60 Minutes” reporter recently compared skeptics of “global warming” to Holocaust deniers.”
Randy,
(If you actually read this)
You are the one being extreme too. You may not realize it, but by labeling us deniers of “basic science” in your post you are being both insulting and disingenuous in your question.
This was just an opportunity for you to be insulting and condescending towards those who disagree with the conclusions made about Global warming by this concensus.
I will be back on later and post more specifics…
There are interesting reasons why people refute global warming.
1. They’d actually have to admit there is a problem in order to want to do something different, and you KNOW how Americans don’t like change.
2. The scientists who believe in global warming believe in evolution and are usually liberal, so they can’t be trusted on anything.
3. Global warming costs big business money.
4. God will lift everyone who will live into the air anyway. The rest of us can suffer. I guess it’s kindof like holy roller policy on Israel, they support them because God will convert the Jews or they’ll die. So they’re just trying to hurry along the rapture so God will have to save them from the planet when it becomes unliveable.
The troll Kansas omitted the ending part of Dr. Hansen’s remark.
“So we don’t want the public to hang their hat on a recent storm, recent hurricanes for example, because those will fluctuate from year to year.”
Hansen was obviously only saying what other climate scientists say — you can’t blame any one “weather” event on climate change.
Also, there’s more global warming in the “pipeline”, even if we stabilize greenhouse gases at todays levels.
Okay, let’s take global warming COMPLETELY out of the picture.
Is it STILL okie-dokie to burn fossil fuels till we exhaust them and kill ourselves with the emissions?
Bunch of friggin idiot wingers seem to think it’s good for the world.
Political Mom,
You have this tendency to constantly misrepresent and distort the views of those whom you disagree with.
Why?
Let’s repeat that warning statement by Hansen for the Alarmists.
Let’s repeat that statement from Hansen.
“NASA scientist James Hansen warned that environmental activists and the media better be more cautious with their rhetoric regarding “global warming.” In addition, a CBS News “60 Minutes” reporter recently compared skeptics of “global warming” to Holocaust deniers.”
The troll Kansas omitted the ending part of Dr. Hansen’s remark.
“So we don’t want the public to hang their hat on a recent storm, recent hurricanes for example, because those will fluctuate from year to year.”
Hansen was obviously only saying what other climate scientists say — you can’t blame any one “weather” event on climate change.
Also, there’s more global warming in the “pipeline”, even if we stabilize greenhouse gases at todays levels.
Sick from Smog,
You are guilty of using local conditions for a local problem.
There is no smog problem in most of the U.S.
You are confusing local environmental conditions with Global Conditions.
Kansas, can you answer her question: Can we pollute as much as we want with no consequence?
Kansas, can you answer her question: Can we pollute as much as we want with no consequence?Posted by: leftcoaster | August 24, 2007 at 03:27 PM
Of course not silly.
Pollution gases do not equate to the sum of all contributing factors in Climate Change.
Perhaps there is something you do not understand in factors contributing to Climate Change.
Ask cosmos, he has the answer to everything on Climate Change, even though he is not a scientist.
He can supply you with the largest man-made contributing factors for global warming
Now with the natural factors for global warming that has occurred over since earth was earth, cosmos comes up a dollar short on why natural climate change is not like Dr. Hansen said, “we are still at a point where the natural fluctuations of climate are still large.”
Imagine that leftcoaster, Dr. Hansen, the father of Man-made Climate change says that the NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS of climate are still large.”
That’s NATURAL, not man-made.
But cosmos knows everything, even more than Dr. Hansen, so you better defer your question to him, the non-scientist, instead of Dr. Hansen, the father of man-made Climate Change. :)
The troll Kansas omitted the ending part of Dr. Hansen’s remark.
After “at least, the natural fluctuations of weather compared to long-term climate change,”
was”So we don’t want the public to hang their hat on a recent storm, recent hurricanes for example, because those will fluctuate from year to year.”
Hansen was obviously only saying what other climate scientists say — you can’t blame any one “weather” event on climate change.
Also, there’s more global warming in the “pipeline”, even if we stabilize greenhouse gases at todays levels.
“I will be back on later and post more specifics…”
Posted by: Nathan | August 24, 2007 at 03:12 PM
How about first proving your (false) claims that Gore’s documentary is “disinformation”?http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/if-gore-were-a-.html#comment-80426015
Dear Randy,
In addition to keeping this as a daily topic, perhaps you could rename it:
“Cosmos and Khan Bash Each Other Daily”
Thanks in advance,
Tom
Oh and cosmos the non-scientist is now interpreting for Dr. Hansen, the scientist.
My bad, I need to elevate cosmos higher on the GORACLE measurement scale, let’s say to 6.5 out of 10.
You get a GORACLE rating of 10 when no matter what you say cannot be dispute lest you be attacked by thousands of GORITES.
Nathan, because that’s how I see it.
Political Mom,
You continue to distort and mischaracterize the views of those whom you disagree with even after you are told and shown otherwise.
That is no longer just how you see it.
It is choosing to live in ignorance so you can make snide comments.
“The Wingnuts hate it that Al Gore is a respected high-profile spokesperson for recognizing the dangers of pollution.”
Posted by: Long Time Poster, First Time Lurker | August 24, 2007 at 02:27 PM
Very true, Al Gore is #1 hated, and attacked.
Dr. Jim Hansen is #2. See the troll Kansas’ out-of-context posts above, and Cal Thomas’ deceptions re NASA’s minor data correction.
So far, the only Right Winger that has been honest with his answer as to why only Right Wingers deny man-made Global Climate Change is Fleetwood.
And his answer was “cuz liberals believe it.”
In other words, he doesn’t believe it because people he hates DO believe it.
So, I’ll ask again – why is it that only Right Wingers deny Global Warming is largely man-made?
Easy question, right?
Remember, no “sheeple” answers.
WS Clark,
I think it is a big overstatment to say ONLY any group believes something.
Of course, don’t let me stop you from making sweeping generalizations based on nothing.
Remember, no “sheeple” answers.
Posted by: WSClark | August 24, 2007 at 03:49 PM
Correction, there are no simple answers.
Climatologists research has been boiled down into the Alarmists condensed Media issue and re-interpreted by bureaucrats who claim man-made warming is the cause of ALL climate change.
This is not only incorrect, it is not even factual.
Any Climatologist making such a statement would be laughed out of his/her profession.
There is more to Climate Change than SUV’s and Cement plants.
“Oh and cosmos the non-scientist is now interpreting for Dr. Hansen, the scientist.”
The troll Kansas resorts to personal attacks.
And NO “interpreting” is needed.
Dr. Hansen: “… at least, the natural fluctuations of weather compared to long-term climate change … So we don’t want the public to hang their hat on a recent storm, recent hurricanes for example, because those will fluctuate from year to year.”
Dr. Hansen: “… at least, the natural fluctuations of weather compared to long-term climate change … So we don’t want the public to hang their hat on a recent storm, recent hurricanes for example, because those will fluctuate from year to year.”
Posted by: cosmos | August 24, 2007 at 03:55 PM
That’s why one of the leading Hurricane Experts in the World was disgusted with the IPCC from using his data incorrectly and extremely disappointed that the IPCC would put out a report that increasing Hurricane activity was the result of man-made Global Warming.
Oh and cosmos, thanks for pointing that out – that almost escaped me about the hurricanes and how the IPCC and their Alarmist crews of GORITES were using Hurricanes as one of the signs of man-made Global Warming.
You see, all those level 1 GORITES don’t have a clue what they are talking about because the IPCC misled them in the first place when they misrepresented the data by the one of the world’s foremost experts on Hurricanes. :)
“Why do people still question global warming? Take a look at all the far left wing bloggers who embrace it.Global Warming = Anti-Capitalist Crap”
Once again, clark has been too simple, but what would one expect.
I would throw it right back at you.”why is it that only Left Wingers embrace Global Warming as largely man-made?”
I have already provided the answer.
“Global Warming = Anti-Capitalist Crap”
That’s why.
“I think it is a big overstatment to say ONLY any group believes something.”
Okay, Nathan, name a liberal, or a Democrat or a Left Winger that DOES NOT believe that GW is largely man-made.
Easy, right?
“why is it that only Left Wingers embrace Global Warming as largely man-made?”
The scientific community by consensus believe that GW is largely man-made, therefore the Left Wing and other responsible citizens believe them.
It’s not just the Left, Fleetwood, even your president believes it.
Nice try, anyway.
Maybe your president is a Commie.
“even your president believes it.”
No, he doesn’t. He’s just trying to shut you people up.
Global Warming Is.
Thou shall not question why!
Some used to think the world was flat too. No one should have ever questioned that.
And the sun used to evolve around the earth too. Darn those guys who questioned that.
“even your president believes it.”
No, he doesn’t. He’s just trying to shut you people up.
Posted by: fleettwood | August 24, 2007 at 04:05 PM
So Bush is lying, huh?
The world is flat, just look at the NOAA website and all those maps they use.
Stretched out like a hide on fence. :)
More people will die from fanatical “global warming” legislation, if the liberals have their way, than will die from actual “global warming” —
The “CURE” is worse than the disease.
The SUN is the primary source of ALL warmth on Earth. Variations in heat and climate are due to solar flairs, radiation and sun spots.
Randy, you are a simplton, you present scant evidence for maybe one or two of the following, logical conclusions, and then you say that your side has WON the entire argument and it is time to turn over our entire way of life to KYOTO type controls?
1.) Is “global warming” really happening.2.) Did man “cause” any actual warming? (Or was it the sun?)3.) Can man stop any such warming?4.) Is the cost of any “global warming” prevention worth the cost?5.) Can the United States, alone, make any difference?6.) Will a decline in US demand for carbon based fuels actually DECREASE the International price for carbon based fuels, causing NO NET CHANGE in actual fuel use?7.) Should American smoke-stack factory workers suffer unemployment, should America pay higher costs, shoud we suffer economic ruin simply so that India and China can burn all the coal that they want to burn?8.) Since any international solution will be based on the United Nations and International Treaties, are we willing to GO TO WAR to defend those treaties?9.) If NOT, what good are they?
Well Nathan, I don’t remember saying “Nathan believes this”. I said it generally. If it’s not you, why you so offended?
unless….
Did I hit a nerve?
Sit in your car and start it up. Come back when you’re through with the experiment and share your discoveries with us.
Posted by: Long Time Poster, First Time Lurker | August 24, 2007 at 01:51 PM
Okay, that was very dark, and it gave me a good laugh. Hopefully he’s smart enough to not try this experiment, but if so, then he can maybe win the Darwin award.
“So Bush is lying, huh?”
That would be yes.
So what else is Bush lying about?
“… the IPCC would put out a report that increasing Hurricane activity was the result of man-made Global Warming.
Posted by: Kansas | August 24, 2007 at 04:00 PM
The troll is misquoting, again. IPCC’s statement was re FUTURE tropical cyclones, not recent (”WAS”).
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.htmlSummary for Policymakers, Page 15 of 18″Based on a range of models, it is LIKELY that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures.”
“Likely” = greater than 66%.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming
WSPROVE your statement that a majority of scientists beleive that the “MAJORITY” of any warming is caused by man?
The studies are full of variables and hedges.
You are OVERSTATING your case, exactly the thing that HANSEN, the FATHER of Global Warming, warned you not to do!
Paul, the statement I made was that the GW deniers were exclusively Right Wingers.
I asked for an answer as to why that was.
Other than – “I hate anything Left Wingers believe” Fleetwood, no one has answered.
So answer the question – why is it that those that do not believe that GW is man-made are exclusively Right Wingers?
Easy question, right?
Chas,
There was once ONE MAN who bucked pc group think and consensus. His name was Gallileo, remember him?
Posted by: Jonas Outram | August 24, 2007 at 02:41 PM
======================
you bet i do… and the group he was up against was the CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK GROUP of his day — the Vatican — they were the neocons of his time — and ther were proven WRONG — but who knows how many they had silenced by their stupidity?? How many died, being labeled as heretics who believed Galileo??
your point was what now??
“PROVE your statement that a majority of scientists beleive that the “MAJORITY” of any warming is caused by man?”
Posted by: Econ101 | August 24, 2007 at 04:34 PM
Read this,’Climate MYTHS: Many leading scientists question climate change’http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654
Note that solar is much less than GHG’s,’Factors altering the climate (Image IPCC 2007)http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-1_767.jpg
WSBecause Liberals hate profit and love government control, and “Global Warming” is a perfect way to scare everyone into handing our lives over to liberals — (At least in your wet/warm dreams)
— Conservatives are SMARTER than you are, maybe? Its just a thought.After all, WHAT do you propose we DO? Even if you are right, the supposed “CURE” for global warming will cause great pain, and DEATH WS.Economic downturns KILL people.The Economy feeds people, heats people in the winter, cools people in the summer, transports food, feeds people, transports people to hospitals, pays for health care.
Leftists HATE capitalism. (YES, that is a generality, but please scroll upwards to see all the genearalities and attacks hurled against conservatives.)
As a general rule, liberals will support anything that transfers economic power from the individual to the state.
Liberals will ALWAYS support any action that transfers power from corporations to the state.
The validity of the cause does not matter. It is the good intentions of the Gore-ons that matters to the left.
There is NO proposal out there that will STOP Global Warming, if it is really happening.
The Kyoto plan would only destroy the United States. It would not stop much of the World from doing whatever they want.
America is the target. The world wants a competitive advantage against America.
On top of litigation costs, regulations and high taxes, liberals want to outsource more of our jobs.
That is what Global Warming legislation will do. It will eliminate US manaufacturing jobs.
They will go to China and India. China builds a new Coal Fired electric plant every week. Electricity is cheap there.
Democrats need poverty to stay in power.
Global warming legislation will force many people into poverty.
Republicans would love it if everyone was rich.
We like rich customers, clients, patients, etc.
It is the Democrats that don’t like economic growth, because economic growth fights poverty.
And Global Warming legislation will KILL economic growth!
Asked and answered!
WSThis is what you said:
The scientific community by consensus believe that GW is largely man-made, therefore the Left Wing and other responsible citizens believe them.
It’s not just the Left, Fleetwood, even your president believes it.
Nice try, anyway.
Maybe your president is a Commie.
Posted by: WSClark | August 24, 2007 at=——–
Anyway, as I asked you, previously, please show a global warming expert’s study supporting your contention that a “consensus” supports the idea that a “majority” of warming is man made?
You can’t!
You made it up.
Damn, there’sno paranoia in Econ’s family… He has a lock on all of it!! Why are you guys sooo paranoid?? How does saving the Earth have anything to do with controlling anybody??? Except for the safety of ALL… not just some….
And WS is right… it really does seem to be JUST right wingers who are afraid of Global Warming…
NOBODY is saying GW is caused ONLY by human beings… only that we humans contribute to it by our pollution…. And we can END much of our pollution, thus helping slow GW….
Even if GW is a cyclical matter, and it could be, we can still do our part to not contribute to this particular cycle!!
When we pollute the atmosphere, we encourage the warming effects…
IF we were to undertake some kind of assinine nucular attack somewhere, we would strip things OUT of the atmosphere, and thus create the now well known “nuclear winter” effect…
I just hope we can all get on the same page on this thing before the elections, cause this is sure a stupid thing to argue about in the election for President!!
http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp
I collected a list of climate change position papers put out by the major governmental scientific institutes of the world that deal with the atmosphere, ocean, and climate. All of these organizations (at least that I could find) agree that significant human-caused climate change is occurring:
United Nations IPCCAmerican Meteorological SocietyNOAAU.S. National Academy of SciencesNASAEPAAmerican Geophysical UnionNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchRoyal Society of the United KingdomCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK)
Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK)
If anyone can find examples of governmental scientific organizations that deny the consensus position, I’d be happy to make a second list of links. “
“”I hate anything Left Wingers believe” Fleetwood, no one has answered.”
Once again, clark is telling stories.
The Left is taking this GW crap and running with it to further their agenda. Period. That is why “people still question global warming”.
BenWhile I obviously disagree with you, you have, at least, used more defensible language than WS:Ben,”All of these organizations (at least that I could find) agree that significant human-caused climate change is occurring:”
To say that all of those groups, you listed, state that man “contributes” to warming is far, far different than what WS claimed: that man was the PRIMARY cause and that this was the scientific consensus.
You can prove that I am paranoid.
That still does not prove that I am wrong!
This proves that econ101 is wrong,
‘Climate MYTHS: Many leading scientists question climate change’http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654
Note that solar is much less than GHG’s,’Factors altering the climate (Image IPCC 2007)http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-1_767.jpg
On a different note, have you noticed the evolution of the left’s use of the word “denier”. It began being applied to those wackos who deny the holocaust. Holcaust deniers. OK so far.
But now instead of global warming “critics”, it’s global warming “deniers”. The same with evolution. An obvious attempt to tar those that reasonably disagree with them, with the stench of holocaust deniers. That knucklehead Scholfield did it above.
Just an observation. It isn’t going unnoticed, you lefty Islamic jihad deniers.
“If anyone can find examples of governmental scientific organizations that deny the consensus position, I’d be happy to make a second list of links.”
Posted by Ben.
The second list = ” ” (blank).
But here’s a database of “60 leading scientists” who claim that humans are not causing climate change.
This one is impressive… NOT!’Nils Axel-MornerWater dowsing expert’http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1560 “Research and Background… in other words the study of historical earthquake activity.”
Silence is agreement.
NONE of you have argued against my statement that there is NO policy we could undertake that would STOP any global warming that is taking place.
There isn’t even a policy we could take that would force a decrease in carbon dioxide.
It is not, politically, possible.
People will die if the economy does not grow.
China and India know that. They will choose growth over Gore.
One other thing:
“Wetlands” or swamps, produce Methane.Methane is far more important, as a “greenhouse gas” than man-made CO2.
So, when the liberals cry about “wetlands” arent they advocating for MORE Methane?
More “swamp gas”??
Econ101,
Your long rants above are so irrational and false, I didn’t see the point in wasting my time refuting them.
Higher energy efficiency and reducing GHG’s is actually profitable.
Cosmos
It it is “profitable” to do what you want, we will all do what you want.
Stay the hell out of our decisions, would you?
“Stay the hell out of our decisions, would you?”
So, if I decide to save on trash fees by simply throwing it all out my car window “butt out!”
Paul – vastly larger amounts more methane is being released by warming permafrost than by wetlands. Also, drying wetlands releases massive amounts of both methan and CO2.
We call them global warming deniers because their main position seems to be that we can’t possibly know anything about how climate works or how our industry might affect it. And even if we did we couldn’t do anything about it.
None of those are positive statements, or proposed solutions, or even assertions of facts. They are pure denials. Denial of knowledge, denial of ability, denial of action.
Thus the term, global warming deniers.
“Long term atmospheric measurements of methane by NOAA show that the build up of methane has slowed dramatically over the last decade, after nearly tripling since pre-industrial times [16]. It is thought that this reduction is due to reduced industrial emissions and drought in wetland areas.”
“…records of permafrost are limited, recent years (1999 and 2001) have seen record thawing of permafrost in Alaska and Siberia.”
Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, is a form of water ice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure. Extremely large deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of the Earth. The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits in a runaway greenhouse effect could be a cause of past and future climate changes. The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this might increase the global temperature by an additional 5°C in itself, as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (despite its atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, it has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 23 over 100 years). The theory also predicts this will greatly affect available oxygen content of the atmosphere.
Wicked Pedia quote. :)
Hmmm, appears to be all natural releases of Methane.
In fact, Scientists think the ‘clathrate gun hypothesis’ may have been a major contributor to the Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) extinction event. That is, the release of frozen methane hydrate from the ocean beds to cause a greenhouse effect.
Oooh! Bad dinosaurs! Using a greenhouse effect that wasn’t man-made to cause a significant climate change!
:)
Even should man NOT be the cause of global warming, the fact it is happening is undeniable. The cause, should one not wish to jump to conclusions, really needs to be studied scientifically without politics being the driving force, as it is now.
Whatever the cause, (man, cows, methane, aliens or bad politicians), the more we know about it, the greater chance we have of plotting the future. Without that knowledge, there may be no future.
Why do people not believe that man is creating global warming?
Moose flatulence….
Info about desmogblog people.The agenda for the GW people seems to be more than just GW.
“Why do people still question global warming?”People deny the deity of Jesus. Should we put them in a “denier database”?
“The website also contains a “deniers database” [3], listing individual scientists who are sceptical about the impact mankind has on the climate. DeSmogBlog investigates these individuals to ascertain whether their views and opinions are fueled by connections to Oil and Gas corporations”
the Popes of Science?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/klaus081607.htm
This is what several of us (myself included) have been saying all along, that the basis for data collection by the IPCC is VERY, VERY questionable…
That is why these GW scientists have attacked people like me, since they don’t care to bother checking these things out and just want us to “leave them alone” and never question any practices or data collection.
Since when did Global Warming scientists become the Popes of Science?
Nature’s own Global Warming — Recently there have been articles and reviews on the melting Arctic ice and the warming temperatures. While we may blame humans for “global warming,” Nature itself has provide a much greater source of greenhouse gases in the form of “Burning Ice” (Methane Hydrates) that in the geological past have outgassed in massive amounts periodically into the atmosphere. I will review the megatons of burning ice later on, but first there is a technical scientific issue to resolve.
The issue of “global warming” brings up the need for good mathematics in analyzing the various data sources to determine the true causes-and-effects (”inputs” and “outputs”) and to filter out those causes that either do not affect the output, or in minor ways, or in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct. As I have spent time in R&D and also getting my series of degrees, I have found that very few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects. Too many times statistical regression methods are used that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real. Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books I know of that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, “Statistics for Experimenters,” by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.
When it comes to global warming, there are more causes than most scientists have considered. For example, the increase in the number and intensity of solar eruptions has a much higher statistical correlation than the other causes/inputs. There are not many web pages that show these in good ways, but here are two articles for present the correlations rather easily.
http://www.qualitydigest.com/mar98/html/spctool.htmlhttp://www.qualitydigest.com/april98/html/spctool.html
Although these graphs are from the late 1990s, the use of this type of statistical tool, SPC charting, has hardly ever been used by scientific researchers and investigators. Most of them have used other mathematical methods that assume a direct correlation between greenhouse gases and Global warming, as directed and determined by the process modeler. This traditional “assumption” may not be correct, and in some cases may potentially mislead scientists and modelers. These other tools can allow a scientist to purposely minimize the effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources.
Some researchers say that they know all the effects that the increased solar flux has on the atmosphere and have included this in their models, and stated that there are no real effects from the solar flux. But then there are other scientists with different theories on the effects of increased flux that present different scenarios for atmospheric reactions, such as the geomagnetic fields and changes, volcanics and their outgassings, etc. You do not hear much in the news about these other scientists and their results.
People should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming “effect” is due solely to “greenhouse” gases. Also, it should be noted that recent satellite data has shown that upper atmosphere is actually cooling:
http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/121699text.htmlhttp://ees5-www.lanl.gov/IGPP/Debate2.html(some of these links may not be working due to computer changes since 9-11)
Some researchers say that their theory and modeling shows that this cooling should occur, while others show differing effects. We see that there is still not complete agreements on the causes and especially the effects of global warming. Then there are some researchers who have purposely manipulated their models, formulas, and analyses to purposely disregard all other inputs and only tie the temperatures to greenhouse gases.
There is the other issue of how some scientists and researchers can purposely change the structure of the formulas used in their models, the mathematical terms used in the formulas, the parameters and scaling factors in the formulas, and the values of any exponentials so as to obtain predetermined results that the scientists wanted to get anyway. This allows the scientist to minimize effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources. This is “tampering” with the formulas so as to get the predetermined results that someone might want to get, no matter what the real processes are.
In my experiences in the scientific / R&D cultures, I have seen this happen several times, even with Peer Reviews. Peer Reviews are “supposed” to catch incorrect things, inconsistencies, and errors. But this does not always occur. In some cases, the scientific peers involved in those Peer Reviews also wanted “certain” results to come out of the modeling and designs that they were reviewing. In other cases, the peers were not paying attention to critical items and issues.
Also the issue of temperature collection has not been properly resolved. Temperatures are taken in cities that have the heat island effect. I have seen several different approached to handling and correcting these heat effects, but these approaches vary and also give various results. Then there is the issue of thermometer calibration. I have observed where some thermometers for city temperatures were not calibrated properly at the required intervals, and some times not calibrated at all. How can we trust the temperature data if there are these variations in the instruments?
When it comes to Nature’s greenhouse generators through the Burning Ice (Methane Hydrates), we soon realize that our gases are very small when compared to the megatons of methane hydrates that are held within our oceans in a manner similar to a bathtub ring. Also the Earth has had major accumulations and releases in its geological past over the eons, some of which scientists now believe may have lead to some great temperature increases in the Earth’s past, long before humans were ever around.
Let me give you some web sites that describe the characteristics and issues with the Earth’s Burning Ice and the natural abundance of methane greenhouse gases:
General information on chemistry and biology of Methane Hydrates:–> http://www.at-sea.org/missions/extremes/preview.html
–> http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/Quarterdeck/QD5.3/sassen.html
–> http://ench1.ench.ucalgary.ca/~hydrates/
–> http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/
–> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/
–> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/geochem/gas_hydrates.htm
–> http://www.mbari.org/volcanism/Margin/Marg-Hydrates.htm
–> http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/NaturalGas/hydrates/index.html
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) fact sheets:–> http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/hydrates/
–> http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
–> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs021-01/
–> http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/
Germany’s research:–> http://www.mpi-bremen.de/deutsch/biogeo/mumm2.html
–> http://www.gashydrate.de/
In the geological records and how dramatically and even violently the climate has changed, long before modern man came around. There is very strong geological and scientific evidence that the massive Extinction in the Permian Era many millions of years ago in the Earth’s geological past was caused both by massive volcanism and by Methane Hydrates.http://www.terradaily.com/news/deepimpact-05r.html
Study breaks ice on ancient Arctic thaw:http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Study_Breaks_Ice_On_Ancient_Arctic_Thaw_999.html(previous periods of global warming)
And then there is the aspect of climate change from meteors:http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzo.html
Outgassing of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from volcanoes:http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-96/
Inaccuracies in measurements of climates:http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Antarctic_Snow_Inaccurate_Temperature_Archive.html
Ancient Climate Studies Suggest Earth On Fast Track To Global Warminghttp://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ancient_Climate_Studies_Suggest_Earth_On_Fast_Track_To_Global_Warming.html
Green plants also cause Global Warming:http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22944/http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/publications/week/2006/060113/e-list.html#Wi1http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Forgotten_Methane_Source.htmlhttp://www.terradaily.com/news/Could_Forests_Worsen_Global_Warming.htmlhttp://www.terradaily.com/news/Extinctions_Linked_To_Climate_Change.html
Farming Provides Wildlife Habitat And Reduces Global Warminghttp://www.terradaily.com/reports/Farming_Provides_Wildlife_Habitat_And_Reduces_Global_Warming.html
Prehistoric warming helped preserve fossils:http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzi.html
Ancient tropical warming and nature’s greenhouse gaseshttp://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzj.html
Volcanic impacts on ocean levels:http://www.terradaily.com/news/oceans-05y.html
Climate change and massive flooding:http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Role_Of_Massive_Floods_In_Climate_Change.html
Late Pleistocene Americans Faced Chaotic Climate Change Environments:http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Late_Pleistocene_Americans_Faced_Chaotic_Climate_Change_Environments.html
Global Warming evidence from 55 million years ago:http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzzb.html
Tropical ice cores shows two abrupt Global Climate shifts:http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tropical_Ice_Cores_Shows_Two_Abrupt_Global_Climate_Shifts_999.html
How continental splits resulted in global cooling:http://www.terradaily.com/news/antarctic-05q.html
Earth’s burping from wobbling also affects climate:http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzt.html
Geomagnetism as one factor in rain / weather:http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Magnets_Help_Explain_Rain_Patterns.html
None of the environmentalists or businesses involved in reducing carbon emissions can go and blame massive climate changes in the past on power plants and vehicles!
It is not wise to make international policies on theories that are not agreed upon by the scientists who have been studying these causes and effects. Other scientists have published their works dealing with other causes, but have not been given the publicity such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has received.
But if the Solar Sun is the major, primary cause and we are just a minor contributor, then our Governments are imposing on us a major compliance issue that will NOT solve the problem. Control of carbon emissions does NOT equal Control of the Solar Sun and its flux intensities on us. Several environmental groups have told us and openly admitted at other times that they want to use the idea of human sources in order to shut down industrial activities — their words, not ours.
Scientific Fraud, even for GW scientists
I have worked with a lot of scientists for quite some time, including GW scientists. So people think that all Scientists (global warming included) are pure, untainted, and never have any hidden problems, issues, or agendas?
Misinterpretations of biological data:http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040712/03/
Plagiarism in the Scientific World:http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040922/02
Scientific Misbehavior Is Common / Scientific Fraud cases:http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/28863.html
Other articles on bad ethics and practices among Scientists:http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdfplus/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43
Removing scientific Peer Reviews?http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/50084.html
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20051017/01/
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20050304/01/
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20050617/01/
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20051213/01
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22927/
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/22990/
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15409/
http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/2/1/24/1/
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/daily/23520/
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/daily/23624/
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/daily/23568/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060110/ap_on_sc/skorea_stem_cell_16
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15409/
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23061/
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23073/
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/39805/
J M Walker,
Climate change HAS been “studied scientifically without politics being the driving force”, since the 1800’s. Some milestones,http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
The causes of global warming, ‘Factors altering the climate (Image IPCC 2007)http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-1_767.jpg
Is it impossible for someone who has connections to the oil and gas industry to have an honest opinion against the global warming hype?
I happen to think that College Professors are under more pressure to support their own liberal views than are the execs and scientists at major oil companies.
Again, NOTHING can be done about this. Nothing that has been proposed will make a dent, even if the GW scare is real.
In order for man to cut CO2 in any, noticable way, we will have to starve millions of people.
When all those dead people decompose, will that create more greenhouse gas?
Show me a plan that cuts CO2 by any REAL amount, that will not require the heavy hand of government and will not destroy the economy!
Yes, I am all in favor of market-based “solutions” — if there really are “alternatives” to carbon fuels, they should be developed and used.
I just dont want government telling me I can’t smoke my turkey in my Brinkman smoker or BBQ my ribs over my charcoal grill.
And I sure as HELL don’t want the UN telling me what to do!
It seems that fleettwood believes that this person is an expert on climate science???
Richard S. CourtneyCoal Union SpokespersonClassification: Not a climate scientisthttp://www.desmogblog.com/node/1095
“It seems that fleettwood believes that this person is an expert on climate science???”
‘Sup with that? I don’t even know/quote/refer to this person you say I believe to be the expert.
Joined the skool of clark?
Is it impossible for someone who has connections to the oil and gas industry to have an honest opinion against the global warming hype?
Posted by: Econ101 | August 24, 2007 at 06:48 PM
The QUESTION is whether they can support their “opinion” with credible science.
“Info about desmogblog people.The agenda for the GW people seems to be more than just GW.”
Posted by: fleettwood | August 24, 2007 at 06:28 PM
CosmosWhere is the credible science that says that we can cut back on CO2, in amounts big enough to affect climate, without killing anyone?
Actually, there are real scientists that work for Oil companies, unlike cosmos the non-scientist.
Thanks again Catherine for the many hyperlinks and your efforts. :)
“The QUESTION is whether they can support their “opinion” with credible science.”
Is this the same science that missed the planet with the Lander by not converting meters into feet?
Warmers say that they don’t need to track cloud cover and precipitation in their models because they don’t matter to global temperatures….
Lets see, aside from the sun itself, nothing has a greater impact on surface temperatures than cloudcover and precipitation events….
hmmmm. That must mean that surface temperatures mean nothing to global temperature.
Just following their statements to a logical conclusion folks.
The Sun has enough power to make the human activity nothing more than pikers. It’s all fine. You may go back to your regularly scheduled program of embracing the doom and gloom in other areas.
Econ101,
Cutting back on GHG emissions is not a “science” question.
It involves technology, engineering, government policy, etc issues. Higher mpg cars, biofuels, H2, better home/building efficiency, renewable energy, etc..
How the Man-Made Global Warming got started – With a Lie by so-called peer reviewed Scientists and the Infamous Hockey Stick Chart.
The graph was made excluding data using sophisticated algorthms which left out specific data that would alter the true temperature readings over a time range.
The GORACLE himself includes this in his book and passed this lie on many times calling it irrefutable and unquestioned peer-reviewed science.
When in fact, it was one big lie.
The details below.
In the field of Climate Science, the peer review process has not produced similar success. In 2001, The United Nations IPCC released a study on the state of the Earth’s climate. The study claimed with a high degree of certainty that the Earth was warming at a rate that was significantly greater than the previous historical trends. This study was bolstered by a paper written by Climatologist Michael Mann. This paper contained a graph that was described as “The Hockey Stick Curve.” Relying heavily on Dr. Mann’s work, the IPCC made the public pronouncement “that the 1990s has been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium”
Mann’s work underwent peer review by eight different climate scientists. The IPCC stood by it as genuine and honest work. However, the veracity of the so-called “Hockey Stick Curve” came under assault from a number of people.
David Deming preceded Dr. Mann as a proponent of using physical proxies as a methodology to pursue estimates of previous climate history. He authored a study that tracked the most recent 150 years of North American climate that attracted the attention of the climate modeling community. He then received the following in an email.
A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
In other words, this was a leading climate modeler claiming that the data, as it stood, had to be altered substantially to make the case that global warming was actually happening the way its believers wanted to tell the story. This was raw advocacy, not science.
In a 1989 Discover magazine article, Schneider discussed the dilemma facing scientists who wanted to draw attention to climate change while remaining true to current scientific knowledge of the subject. “We need to capture the public’s imagination, ”he noted. “That entails getting loads of media coverage, so we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified and dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”
This works well in sales and public relations, but doesn’t work so well in the pursuit of actual truth. Mann was severely debunked. It was discovered that feeding randomly generated data sets into Mann’s algorithms would produce the same hockey stick curve that Mann got with his Bristlecone Pine data. Primary debunkers McKitrick and McIntyre describe the mathematical process Mann used to microwave his data.
A conventional PC algorithm centers the data by subtracting the column means of the underlying series. For the AD1400 step highlighted here, this would be the full 1400-1980 interval. Instead, MBH98 Fortran code (ftp://holocene.evsc.edu/pub/MBH98/TREE/ITRDB/NOAMER/pca-noamer) contains an unusual data transformation prior to PC calculation that has never been reported in print.
Each 4 tree ring series was transformed by subtracting the 1902-1980 mean, then dividing by the 1902-1980 standard deviation and dividing again by the standard deviation of the residuals from fitting a linear trend in the 1902-1980 period. The PCs were then computed using singular value decomposition on the transformed data. (The effects reported here would have been partly mitigated if PCs had been calculated using the covariance or correlation matrix.)
Quite literally, when it became time to fit the temperature curve, 502 years of data got made to disappear. Amazingly, eight different reviewers, all of whom have earned PhDs in mathematically dense subject matters, failed to note the modification of the traditionally accepted axis transformation in Mann’s algorithmic methodology. Even if Mann did something benign and acceptable under the norms of statistical practice, he still should have been required to vouch for its methodological validity and demonstrate its absence of bias.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1885450/posts
“Why do people still question global warming?”
The same crowd who believe in GW is the same crowd who believe that eating a steak is cruel/barbaric etc. The same crowd who stopped the nuke generators and the wind farms and the “clean” coal plants. In other words, the kook fringe.
“Why do people still question global warming?”
Give me something more difficult.Next!
No soup for you!
“Catherine”,
Thank you very much for the canadafreepress link at,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80543035It says: “In fact, Al Gore, the Lenny Riefenstahl of global warming hysteria, predicts that ocean levels around the world will rise by as much as 20 to 30 feet over the next few decades.”
But Gore only said that “if” the ice melted, with NO time-frame.
The fact that rely on such an inaccurate source shows that you don’t have much credibilty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Free_Press“Canada Free Press is a Canadian website, which publishes conservative news stories, features, and editorials.”
Catherine – we scientists also study past climate fluctuations – caused by ALL the things you cite and more – in order to understand how climate works. this includes the increase in solar output – about 20-40% over about 5 BILLION years. ALL of these are considered when we now look at anthropogenic climate change now effecting the earth.
When I look at climate change I tend to focus on the recent past (about a million years or so). This way things like continent location (within a few miles) and solar output (about 0.005% or less) are constant. When I go far back then these factors become important; Antarctica at the equater will be very different from Antarctica at the S Pole.
The glacial-interglacial cycles are Milankovitch – they have been studied exhaustively. A very important point is that CO2 actually LAGGED Temperature in those cycles. Temperatures varied between ‘mild’ (what we know) and ‘cold’ (ice age) as CO2 varied between ‘normal’ (interglacial pre-industrial) and ‘low’ (during a glacial episode). Various feedbacks connect CO2 and T.
Todays excursion is FAR outside the envelope of those cycles. CO2 has moved BEFORE T; CO2 levels today are as much higher than ‘normal’ as ‘normal’ is higher than ‘low.’ That is why climate scientists refer to what we are in now as a ’super-interglacial’. The concern is that as feedback loops take hold we will see a runaway; in some ways not dis-similar to the ‘catastrophic’ breakdown of the continental glaciers at the end of the ice ages. CO2 drives warming drives CO2 etc (and similar for methane).
WS Broecker put it well in 1990:
“The inhabitants o planet earth are quietly conducting a gigantic environmental experiment. So vast and so sweeping will be the impacts of this experiment that, were it brought before any responsible council for approval, it would be firmly rejected as having potentially dangerous consequences. Yet, the experiment goes on … “
cosmos
So, “Scientists” can advocate that we all starve, ruin our economy, and let the rest of the world take over heavy industry, while we try to cut back on US carbon emissions.Yet Scientists DONT have an obligation to show us, or model for us, how much “good” their “cure” will actually produce?If they can’t tell us the BENEFITS of change — with scientific precisions —
I am NOT changing.
Neither will most of the world!
Afterall, if you can’t project the affect of your proposals, maybe you can’t project what happens if we do nothing at all?
Once again, the question is real simple – I am not asking for a debate on the issue, I am merely asking why the GW deniers are exclusively Right Wingers.
I am not asking IF you think GW is man-made, just why are those that dispute GW are Right wing.
Easy question.
SOMEONE try to answer it.
Actually Econ – those projections have been made.
Kyoto is flawed; I have said so repeatedly. But it should be looked upon only as a start. Chine, India, etc must be on board. But, as the leading technologicl powerhouse of the world, the US must lead.
WSC I think it is very similar to the tobacco-health deniers.
Thank you troll Kansas,
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1885450/posts“Primary debunkers McKitrick and McIntyre describe the mathematical process Mann used to microwave his data.”
McKitrick and McIntyre ??? ROFL!,
“Moving Goalposts’Category: McKitrickhttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/02/moving_goalposts.php
Kyoto was only meant to be a “start” — it expires soon.
microwave data?
I microwave coffee, but DATA?
What is he smoking?
WSYour question has a premise.Your premise is WRONG.Therefore, it can’t be answered, accurately, by anyone.
Lots of union types do not support GW legislation.
How many United Coal Miners Union members are “right wingers” ???
You are simplistic in your political analysis.
Or the intelligent design deniers. Or the Iraq solution deniers. Or the fetal human life deniers. Or the gun rights deniers. Or the Kyoto is a stupid treaty deniers. Like that?
Just like many tobacco producers denied smoking-health.
Rossell, I do not know of anyone or any organization on the Left that denies GW.
So I will ask again, why are the GW deniers exclusively Right Wing?
Answer the question.
McKitrick and McIntyre ??? ROFL!,
“Moving Goalposts’Category: McKitrickhttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/02/moving_goalposts.php
You don’t get it do you cosmos?
McKitrick and McIntyre were correct about the finds of non-normalized data and that this data was peer-reviewed and did not catch the errors.
You claim perfection in the Man-Made Climate Alarmists world, yet when someone points out an error you immediately go to discredit the people making the report.
Their findings was confirmed by an independent scientist and NASA set a team confirming the error and have set out a new project to get more accurate and reliable data over the past 1000 years
instead of the flawed so-called “Peer Reviewed” data by Mann.
NASA knows the data and methods used by Mann was flawed and it is the reason they are setting forth to do new data.
But leave it to cosmos to laugh his way through his Scientists lied about their data as being peer-reviewed, when it was just rubber-stamped through the process.
Your Alarmist Scientists lied cosmos and got caught at it.
But Gore only said that “if” the ice melted, with NO time-frame.
The fact that rely on such an inaccurate source shows that you don’t have much credibilty.Posted by: cosmos | August 24, 2007 at 07:29 PM
There goes cosmos again with his personal attacks telling people they have no credibility.
The only one on this blog that has zero credibility is cosmos, the non-scientist telling people what they should think.
1/3 of the Arctic Ice cap gone:
“Sea ice in the Arctic continues its record decline, thanks to unusually cloud-free conditions and above-average temperatures. For August 21, the National Snow and Ice Data Center estimated that fully one third of the Arctic ice cap was missing, compared to the average levels observed on that date from 1979-2000. Sea ice extent was 4.92 million square kilometers on August 21, and the 1979-2000 average for the date was about 7.3 million square kilometers. Arctic sea ice has fallen below the record low absolute minimum of 4.92 million square kilometers set in 2005 by about 8%, with another 3-5 weeks of the melting season still remaining. Reliable records of sea ice coverage go back to 1979.”
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=764&tstamp=200708
Note: other, less precise, information exists for pre-1979 that confirms the ice-bound state of much more of the Arctic than today.
Melting of the floating ice in the arctic will not have a very significant effect on sea levels – at least not directly. However, removal of the sea ice at the foot of glaciers will accellerate their decline; that WILL effect sea levels. Also, warming around Greenland will accellerate its melt. That will be the major northern hemisphere factor on sea level.
In 2000, Glen MacDonald and several coauthors published an eye–opening perspective on the climate history of the Eurasian arctic in the highly respected journal Quaternary Research (”quaternary” is the era of recent ice ages, beginning about 1.8 million years ago) in which they examined radiocarbon dates of old trees deposited in the tundra, far north of today’s northernmost trees. In that region, the tree line is generally over 100 miles south of the Arctic Ocean. But for much of the era from 3,000 to 9,000 years ago, the forest extended right to the sea.
Summer temperatures — the same ones that melt Greenland’s ice — are what determine the Northern treeline. MacDonald had to conclude that “Over much of northern Eurasia [during that period], summers may have been 4.5 to 12.6°F warmer than today.”
Moreover, they wrote that the only way this could occur was if there was a massive incursion of warm (Gulf Stream) water into the Arctic Ocean. How does such water get there? By passing between Greenland and Europe. It’s the only way.
So Greenland had to have been much warmer than it is now for six millennia. Again, where are the records of unprecedented rises in sea level? There aren’t any, because there wasn’t any. Sea levels rose to roughly where they are today.
Troll Kansas,
I see you’re back to your false personal attacks again.
Why would someone rely on the obviously biased and error-filled canadafreepress???
I haven’t claimed “perfection”.
And you don’t get it. What’s LOL funny about M&M is that they tried multiple times to discredit the ‘hockey stick’, but always failed.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/02/moving_goalposts.phpNext, MM argued that the hockey stick was the result of incorrect normalization of the data. However, Hans van Storch, a strong critic of the hockey stick, concluded that “the glitch [McIntyre] detected in Mann’s paper is correct, but it doesn’t matter, it’s a minor thing.”
AND McKitrick has made errors.’McKitrick screws up yet again’http://timlambert.org/2004/08/mckitrick6/
So I will ask again, why are the GW deniers exclusively Right Wing?
Answer the question.
Posted by: WSClark | August 24, 2007 at 07:46 PM
It’s because people who tend to be Republican are skeptical and don’t buy into things right away without carefully studying the problem.
People of the left tend grab the latest conspiracy theory and turn it into a cult. They could care less if they know anything about the science or not. They will follow blindly any leftist leader whatever words they say.
Those are the facts.
“And Global Warming legislation will KILL economic growth!”
WRONG! They said that about basic emission controls on cars. About minimal safety standards in cars and in the workplace. The Luddites constantly claim that “you will KILL economic growth”; then they are constantly proved WRONG.
Those are the facts.
All crows are black.
cosmos,
It doesn’t matter if it is “minor.”
You have claimed the the science is irrefutable and it has been refuted and proven incorrect.
Your Climate Science is flawed even after it has been rubber-stamped peer-reviewed.
It’s like keeping books. Sorry boss, it was a 90 dollar shortage on the books, it won’t happen again. Next month it is another 90 dollar shortage and this continues for 20 years. If the boss didn’t catch the error, the book keeping thievery would have gotten away with more than a small error.
Small errors add up and the people are holding your Alarmists up to scrutiny.
Your scientists lied cosmos, when they claimed their science can’t be refuted. The science has been refuted and will continue to be refuted until the facts are deemed accurate.
They are no where close to being accurate now.
Those are the facts.
All crows are black.
(Except for white crows found in Australia.)
So much for blanket statement ‘facts’.
“…it would be firmly rejected as having potentially dangerous consequences. Yet, the experiment goes on … “”
Everybody else sees the “potentially” dangerous consequences??
I think that is called “going off half cocked”. Hmmmmm
“Those are the facts.”
This is hard to believe, but Fleetwood’s explanation was far more credible and thought out than that statement.
Although it is ridiculous, it makes more sense (for those intellectually challenged) to disagree with the facts because of the party presenting the facts than it does to attempt to label all those on the Left as being mindless sheeple.
Christ, Fleetwood has surpassed Kansas/Republank/Replulikhan/etc and now the Blank One has claimed the mantle as the BDP.
Amazing.
It’s because people who tend to be Republican are skeptical and don’t buy into things right away without carefully studying the problem.
Kansas
That’s worked really well for ‘conservative’ Republicans with the Iraq fiasco.
One problem with people reading scientific writing is that we are trained to put words like “potentially” in our conclusions. Thus you see a health scientist saying that HIV infection is “potentially” a bad thing. That is what the tobacco industry siezed upon back in the 60s.
By the way, Broecker said that way back in 1990. Since then the evidence has become much more overwheming.
People of the left tend grab the latest conspiracy theory and turn it into a cult. They could care less if they know anything about the science or not. They will follow blindly any leftist leader whatever words they say.
Kansas
That seems pretty paranoid of you Kansas to think something like that. If you really believe that then you have been drinking too much Hannity Kool-Aid.
Troll Kansas,
What happened “from 3,000 to 9,000 years ago” isn’t really relevant to todays climate.
And when you copy/paste from denier Patrick Michaels, you should credit him.http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/425247,CST-NWS-contro13.article
The fact is, Global Warming is real, but no one really knows what direction it is specifically going in or how long the process will take. If we use up the earths resources at a parasitic rate, then it will eventually catch up with the human race, and the earth will most definitely throw us some repercussions, like environmental changes that will kill millions of people. A lot of people want to discredit global warming and the environmental movement because it would mean enormous amounts of lost profits, for the oil industries, the automotive industries, the Utility companies, and half of the parasitic infrastructure we have in place to make enormous profits off of people at the expense of the environment. We have had the technology for 50 years to live in an environmentally friendly society, but that would have economic impacts for the people in the energy and transportation industries, it because of these greedy ass bastards, that we are not evolving as a society, while other countries move ahead in a progressive direction. I don’t know what the big deal is, I would gladly pay the same price for providing my own electricity, if it means no more outages from storms, provide my own water and still pay companies for the technology needed, pay to charge up a car, whatever, consumers will pay for more environmentally and consumer friendly energy. We as citizens, need to let people know, that the old way, is just that old. If we have the technology for my house to produce its own electricity, I would still gladly pay for that technology, and for the maintenance, if it means no more F^%#^&ing power outages, and waiting for the F’n electric company to turn the electricity back on two days later when all the food in my fridge is spoiling. Theres betters ways, but certain people are holding progress back, for the sake of continual consumer cash flow. No one has the balls to make the switches from the old ways to the new ways.
Anytime a society questions the ability of anyone to question the status quo – that should send up warning flags for all rational human beings.
The Eagle, is now taking the high and mighty stance of the rest of main streem media.
How DARE you question anything!
By God there’s global warming and we will kill you if you don’t believe it!
What’s the next mantra of the proletariat?
Thou Shalt no longer driver automobiles!
Or, though shall no longer BLOG!
Yes Max, its all a big conspiracy just like Kansas said!
“By God there’s global warming and we will kill you if you don’t believe it!”
Max, feeling a bit paranoid today?
Has anyone tried to kill you lately?
Christ.
From the BBC
“Carbon offsetting was “an unbelievably inefficient way of reducing emissions,” she argued, and its effects were impossible to verify.
In addition, “More than half” of the money given to companies selling carbon offsets went on research and administration costs, “benefiting not the climate but the burgeoning consultancy industry”.
It is very hard to convey to people that when they are buying an offset they are not actually neutralising their impact on the global environment
Contrary to hype, they are actually reinforcing the reliance on fossil fuels in those countries rather than trying to bridge away from that.”
Buying carbon offsets is the equivalent of buying absolution if we sin in a carbon sense. It does nothing to reduce the amount of carbon. It’s a feel good scheme and makes very few people rich.
The Dag Hammarskjold Foundation did an excellent analysis of carbon trading in its September 2006 Development Dialogue magazine. “With a bit of judicious accounting,” the report found, “a company investing in foreign ‘carbon-saving’ projects can increase fossil emissions both at home and abroad while claiming to make reductions in both locations.”
=======================
Ex-Sierra Club Member: Global Warming Regulations Kill
Paul Driessen, a senior fellow with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, reveals the lethal side of the regulations the global warming swindlers would impose on those least able to cope with them.
A former member of the Sierra Club and Zero Population Growth, he abandoned their cause when he recognized that the environmental movement had become intolerant in its views, inflexible in its demands, unwilling to recognize our tremendous strides in protecting the environment, and insensitive to the needs of billions of people who lack the food, electricity, safe water, health care, and other basic necessities that we take for granted.
In the case of DDT it was taking away a powerful anti-malaria chemical . . . there’s nothing more powerful, more long-lasting, or safe, especially the way it’s used today: spraying the walls of houses.
You can prevent 50 to 75 percent of malaria just by spraying the walls of these homes and keeping 90 percent of the mosquitoes out — they ignored all of that.
There was an opportunity to cut in half the number of malaria cases and deaths [with DDT] a million people a year in over a 30 year period could have been saved — that’s 25 to 30 million lives that they sacrificed on the altar of environmental ideology and purity.
Now in the case of climate control, you’ve got a major effort to deny people access to affordable reliable abundant electricity. They don’t want fossil-fuel-generating plants. Because of global warming they attack hydroelectric plants because [plants] damn up rivers. They attack nuclear power because they say it’s risky. So essentially they’re saying all you people of the Third World can’t have electricity and that’s unconscionable when, there again, you have a couple of million people dying every year because they don’t have electricity.”
Nice to see you attended an Anger Management class Clark.
Kettle calling itself black I see.
Have a nice day Clark.
You haven’t “proven” tomorrow’s weather forecast Clark, you gonna prove global warming now?
“You haven’t “proven” tomorrow’s weather forecast Clark, you gonna prove global warming now?”
I didn’t attempt to prove anything, dumbass, I asked why the GW deniers were exclusively Right Wingers.
Read much, chump?
Yes! It’s a conspiracy just like Kansas said!
All of the scientists, at all of these different locations, conspired to fake a slow rise in CO2 amounts!! /sarcasm OFF
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
And when you copy/paste from denier Patrick Michaels, you should credit him.http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/425247,CST-NWS-contro13.article
Posted by: cosmos | August 24, 2007 at 08:48 PM
cosmos lied when he said I got my copy/paste from the Chicago Sun times. I did not.
I got it from the other sources referenced here on this topic.
cosmos continues to lie about other posters.
I didn’t attempt to prove anything, dumbass, I asked why the GW deniers were exclusively Right Wingers.
Read much, chump?
Posted by: WSClark | August 24, 2007 at 09:06 PM
Clark, only the RW know how to think. The rest of you just follow the party line.
Chump? Funny Clark. Is that the best name you can come up with?
You really need to take that Anger Management class you know. It would help you deal with those insecurities and pent up frustrations you have.
Have a nice hot globally warmed day!
What happened “from 3,000 to 9,000 years ago” isn’t really relevant to todays climate. Posted by: cosmos | August 24, 2007 at 08:48 PM
The Alarmist conspiracy driven cosmos thinks that climatology studies from the past have nothing to do with how Climate is formed by the earth.
I suppose all those clamates and geo-syncline events, along with massive methane and co2 releases didn’t form the basic understanding of Climate Science as it is known today.
It is truly inconvenient for cosmos when an event of Climate Change happened thousands of years ago with the intervention or interdiction of man’s presence. Climate Change would have happened if man were here or not.
And that is exactly the point.
Climate change is going to occur whether man is here on earth or not here on earth. Always has been and always will be.
Kansas, it’s ridiculous to factor in those climate fluctuations of the past 500,000 years.
Only the last 100 years are relevent in forecasting global climate on this 3 billion year old planet you know.
Besides, those previous fluctuations were caused by dinosaur farts and caveman fires, dontcha know.
“Clark, only the RW know how to think. The rest of you just follow the party line.”
Amazing, now we have a tie for the BDP – Max and Republank – or is it Kansas and Blank or Republikhan and Eagle Beak or Fred and Wilma…..
Whatever, they are all just posting bullshit.
“cosmos lied when he said I got my copy/paste from the Chicago Sun times. I did not.”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
Learn to read — I only said you should credit Michaels, and gave the the link as proof he wrote it.
co2 is released more than by man. Methane is a much better predicter of climate change as I evidenced in my previous post. CO2 is a politically convenient way to get money from people for scientists and their cronies to line their pocket books.
Don’t believe me? Take a look at Gore’s financial portfolio where he has significant interest in Carbon Offset management firms. The GORACLE wants to line his pockets with your money.
Its also called cause and effect. Every action has an equal an opposite reaction.
I still can’t believe that people can’t comprehend, that there is so many people on this earth, and the population is exponentially growing, and that we as humans, use more resources on this earth than all other living creatures combined, it will have an equal and opposite reaction on us. If Armageddon comes, it will spur from natural disasters, then people will go to war, killing over food, and basic resources. Then only the strongest and luckiest will survive, and the human population will dwindle down to earths sustainability, the earth will put us in check, and if mass wars and natural disaster happen, its surely what we deserve for being parasitic trash, for the sake of putting money, and wealth top priority over all living things and the environment which is the biggest living creature.
Of course, scientist are hard at work of finding ways that we can control the environment, so maybe we can deter all of this. Then the world will become over populated in a century or so, if we don’t send people to live on Mars, then worlds governments will start select genocide (more wars) for population control.
this is all just extreme speculation though, I’ll be long dead before all this crap happens, so who cares, lets keep things the way they are now, no need to improve the future for later generations.
Like I said, I’m just creative writing here, no need to get all pissy and tell me I’m nuts.
Thank GOD we have CLARK to monitor this blog and present awards.
What would we do without his precious judgements?
And his commentary, is just priceless.
This blog would immediately disintegrate without Clark!
PS Clark, consider that Anger Mangement class. Or maybe you just need to go to AA.
Clark has conclusively proven here today that there is global warming.
And to solve the problem, he has agreed to close his mouth, and stop his huffing and puffing.
Have a nice hot day Clark!
Max/Republank, please go down to your local department story and buy a life for yourself….
I hear that Wal-Mart has a sale going on new lives fresh from China, lead-free.
Dumbasses.
Let’s test your knowledge on GW, WSClark.
So far you’ve added absolutely nothing but partisan rhetoric.
Or does science make your head hurt WSClark?
Go do some cut an paste and show everyone how clueless you are when it comes to discussing real Climate Change, not the artificially GORACLE-sperm donated-carbon-0ffsetpick-pocketing pseudo-science that you have been spewing.
It seems that the troll Kansas, Max and others BELIEVE that PAST NATURAL climate changes PREVENT HUMAN-caused climate changes.
They will now explain how humans could have a massive, world-wide nuclear war, and the HUGE dust clouds will have ZERO impact on Earths climate.
Dear Randy,
You should keep this as a standing daily topic, like Open Thread or Community Thread. After all, it’s a daily argument on one or more threads here anyway.
(And I’m only half kidding here!)
Posted by: Tom | August 24, 2007 at 12:33 PM
It would at least keep Kansas and Max pretty busy!
“not the artificially GORACLE-sperm donated-carbon-0ffsetpick-pocketing pseudo-science that you have been spewing.”
Posted by: Kansas the troll | August 24, 2007 at 09:22 PM
Thank you for proving that this post is accurate.
“The Wingnuts hate it that Al Gore is a respected high-profile spokesperson for recognizing the dangers of pollution.”
Posted by: Long Time Poster, First Time Lurker | August 24, 2007 at 02:27 PM
cosmos is now creating straw men with noobish scenarios because he cannot defend his global alarmists theories.
cosmos is also making up things now because he states “Kansas, Max and others BELIEVE that PAST NATURAL climate changes PREVENT HUMAN-caused climate changes.”
No one has stated that here but cosmos. cosmos is lieing so he can get a foot up on his losing position. It doesn’t work.
All one has to do is look at my posts and I have defended each and everyone successfully.
I also have shown that past climate events are very good indicators how natural climate changes occurs even without the presence of humans.
cosmos is desperate. He’s going to start calling names and accuse people of lying even more than he has in his previous posts.
Simply because cosmos is pushing an incomplete science that makes conclusions without all the facts and ignores the past lessons of science then creates it’s own with artificial model formulas so their latest fad science can fill their coffers up with honest people’s hard earned money.
“Let’s test your knowledge on GW, WSClark.”
I asked a simple question Blank, why are the GW deniers exclusively Right Wingers?
How about a SERIOUS answer?
I never claimed expertise on the subject – I leave that to people I respect like Dr. Huie – but I would like SOMEONE to answer the question without making a stupid comment.
How about it?
“not the artificially GORACLE-sperm donated-carbon-0ffsetpick-pocketing pseudo-science that you have been spewing.”
Posted by: Kansas the troll | August 24, 2007 at 09:22 PM
Thank you for proving that this post is accurate.Posted by: cosmos | August 24, 2007 at 09:29 PM
Yes, cosmos, it is an accurate statement. Calling your fad science a pseudo science is accurate indeed.
The GORACLE donated his diseased cult sperm to the pseudo-scientists and non-scientists dark cheerleaders like your self, so you could be born again into the Apocalyptic world of Alarmism.
Ah crap Kansas, you can’t add knowledge to those without brain cells.
So how ya doing? Hope your ok and all.
Time to go fishing?
Hey Kansas, you hear what the Democratic majority Congress did for us today?
Me neither.
Even in time of war, they go on vacation.
“Hope your ok and all.”
That should be “you’re” – that would be a contraction of “you are.”
What was that about brain cells?
Careful Kansas, the man is a paranoid conspiracy freak!
I gave you an answer WSClark and it is an extremely accurate answer.
People on the political left tend to believe in conspiracy and follow blindly the words of leaders they admire without question.
Not once, has anyone from the Left on this blog stopped for a moment to actually analyze what is going on with Global Warming Science.
You take the word of Gore as being the last word on Climate Change, when in fact it is not.
There are thousands of scientists who disagree that man is not thte sole cause of Global Warming as your side states.
Climate change occurred before man was here and it will occur after man is gone. To deny that Climate Change caused by nature is not the major source is denying the existence of earth and its dynamics itself.
Your Global Warming Alarmist theories are akin to the Creationists who argue that Climate Change only happened in the past 100 years.
I’ll start calling people of your ilk Global Warming Creationists, because that’s exactly how you behave. Ignoring past climate changes and stating that man is the sole source of all of Climate Change problems.
Welcome to your new club WSClark. You are now an official Global Warming Creationist. Be sure and bring your Bible, “The Inconvenient Truth,” written by your messiah, The GORACLE.
Thank you Clark for your spelling correction.
Please note that Clark was right once in 2007.
Have a ncie day Lcark!
The troll Kansas’ post re my post:
“cosmos is also making up things now because he states “Kansas, Max and others BELIEVE that PAST NATURAL climate changes PREVENT HUMAN-caused climate changes.” ”
My post:”It seems that the troll Kansas, Max and others BELIEVE that PAST NATURAL climate changes PREVENT HUMAN-caused climate changes.
I guess he doesn’t think the word “seems” is important?
So Kansas, answer a simple question:
Do past natural climate changes PREVENT humans from changing Earths climate??? Yes? No?
Correction:
Max = conspiracy buff + paranoid + dyslexic.
Powerful combination to take on a fishing trip!
“Welcome to your new club WSClark. You are now an official Global Warming Creationist. Be sure and bring your Bible, “The Inconvenient Truth,” written by your messiah, The GORACLE.
Posted by: Kansas | August 24, 2007 at 09:40 PM ”
You get dumber by the day, Blank One. I never expressed an opinion one way or another regarding GW – I merely asked why the GW deniers were exclusively Right Wingers.
Again, I asked a simple question in all seriousness and expect a reasonable answer.
Try it – you might like it.
Thank you troll Kansas, for proving that THIS post is accurate.
“The Wingnuts hate it that Al Gore is a respected high-profile spokesperson for recognizing the dangers of pollution.”
Posted by: Long Time Poster, First Time Lurker | August 24, 2007 at 02:27 PM
And thank you for proving that you’re a troll, by misquoting other posters, etc.
cosmos once again asks an irrelevant question.
If I answer yes, then cosmos will label me a doomsayer or worse.
If I answer no, cosmos will state that then I must agree with all of his theories on human made climate change.
cosmos, get a clue – science is not that simple and you cannot boil it down to a yes/no question.
Of course cosmos, being a non-scientist, you wouldn’t know that would you?
Kansas, Cosmos is dumb as a rock.
Why do you argue with him?
Cosmos might as well ask if past dinosaur farts prevent future stupid humans from farting.
Do past natural climate changes PREVENT humans from changing Earths climate??? Yes? No?
Posted by: cosmos | August 24, 2007 at 09:42 PM
No thanks WSClark, it has been explained to you.
You only want an answer that coheres to your ideology.
Any blind man can see what your up to.
Now take your medicine WSClark, go to bed and read from your bible and experience the words of your GORACLE as you venture off into blind obedience of the GORACLE’s sacred word.
Or does past homosexual behavior in toads prevent Cosmos from taking care of Capn tonight?
If I answer yes, then cosmos will label me a doomsayer or worse.
If I answer no, cosmos will state that then I must agree with all of his theories on human made climate change.
Kansas
Now who else is being paranoid?
“Cosmos, Max is dumb as a rock.
Why do you argue with him?”
As a scientist I find it frustrating that what should be a serious discussion is reduced to this.
Dang, sorry Capn, I meant
“Or does past homosexual behavior in toads prevent Cosmos from taking care of Clark tonight?
Oh well.
(Cosmos would probably relish either one!)
Any blind man can see what your up to.
Kansas
More paranoia.
That would be the tadpole syndrome Max.
I think I read about it on a Website. It involves webbed toes and slimy skin.
Not something I really want to get into as it makes the stomach churn. :)
Ben PhD LD my ass!
You work at McDonalds or are you on welfare?
Or your just a Clark nick.
Yeah, Clark is a Scientist!
Dime a dozen boy. BFD.
Or does past homosexual behavior in toads prevent Cosmos from taking care of Capn tonight?
Posted by: Max | August 24, 2007 at 09:48 PM
Conspiracy buff + paranoid + dyslexic + closeted homosexual.
Boy! The list just keeps growing!
You are right Dr. Huie.
However, cosmos can’t help himself but to make ad hominem attacks instead of dealing with the science alone.
I posted an article about Greenland and timberlines right after yours which could possibly bring into question the possibility that the warming of Greenland has occurred before and there was no significant rise of the oceans.
No Max, Ben Huie is actually a PhD and is quite well known as a respected scientist and Environmentalist here in Wichita.
That should have read, an Environmental Scientist, not Environmentalist…although he can do both. :)
“No thanks WSClark, it has been explained to you.”
Try answering the question like an adult, not like a Max.
And sorry, Dr. Huie, that some have chosen to ridicule you as being me.
Ok experts, which gas is the dominant “greenhouse” gas?
What is the percentage share of this dominant greenhouse gas as compared to all other greenhouse gases?
I already told you WSClark.
People who have conservative views tend to be skeptical about things in general that have not been proven to them.
In the eyes, minds and hearts of those on the Right, anthropogenic global warming has not been proven to be the cause of anything. The extremely small window of time they are pointing to as man-made climate change is at best serendipity and without basis in fact when compared to the much more dramatic climate changes of the past (ice age, Jurassic and other paleotological significant eras.)
Right now, you can go to any professor of Geology and they will point out much more dramatic climate events occurred before man was even present on earth.
It has been my observance that those on the left when they get an idea spoken by one of their leaders, they will cling to it like a bulldog regardless if the whole truth is known or not.
The whole truth about Climate Change is not known.
There is much more to be learned and the events of past Climate Change that occurred without man being present. This make me highly skeptical of the “one chemical compound [co2] alarmists claims that their theory is the only one to be recognized.
This cannot be as past Climate Changes have occurred without contemporaneous observation or with the interference of man.
Kansas, Man does have the ability as a whole species to negatively impact the environment. The earths climate is receptive, an enormous volcano eruption like Krakatoa had acute environmental effects on the earth for years. What we’re doing now is causing damage at a slower process. So thats why its called global warming, its not called global fire, people aren’t claiming the earth is going to burst into flames, scientists are merely stating that we have been progressively polluting at a massive scale for nearly 150 years now, and that the negative effects will be slow to come, long to last, and slow to dissipate over time, and the longer we keep it up, the more precarious is the situation we will leave future generations to do deal with.The earth has climate cycles, that are susceptible to change, just like any cycle is susceptible to change. If a woman smokes crack while she is pregnant, is the baby not born F’d up.
Ok, Ohcot, stop all the hurricanes.
You can control that can’t you?
I would have expect a better answer than “those on the left when they get an idea spoken by one of their leaders, they will cling to it like a bulldog regardless if the whole truth is known or not.”
Of course, that is absolute bullshit, since there are no “leaders” of the Left and those are the Left are far more skeptical than those on the right.
But, after all, I never really expected an honest answer from the Right Wingers.
As usual.
Actually Obcot, the Krakatoa event is not a Climate Change event. It is more of a weather pattern changer.
It order for it to be classified as Climate Change it needs to transpose decades of weather patterns into a synchronous weather that is predictable by linear change.
Changing a short term weather pattern or even a few years of weather pattern does not equate to Climate Change.
This is also my basic argument with cosmos. He has delivered the message that short term weather patterns such as the events of the 1990s and early decade in 2000 is someone the equivalent of significant Climate Change, when it is no such thing.
The recent changes in weather barely qualifies as a measurable linear weather pattern as the IPCC keeps moving the goal posts on what the final outcome will be.
Hardly science I say.
The “experts” are afraid to admit that WATER VAPOR accounts for 96% of all Greenhouse gases.
Man’s influence then is on <4% of all greenhouse gases.
Okay WSClark, we’re done. I give you my honest answer and you call it B.S.
No more answers for you.
Walk on by.
Some thoughts on Global Warming
by Richard S. Lindzen
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
One can go on at length over the hilarious excesses of the climate issue, but it is particularly important to realize that over twenty years, this issue has evolved into a major industry.
Consider, for example, the consequences of a sudden discovery that global warming is a negligible problem.
1. Science – especially in its official representation – would be disgraced.
2. Climate science would be treated with suspicion for years to come.
3. The artificial field of climate impacts (which constitutes the bulk of what are called climate scientists) would largely disappear.
4. The environmental movement would be discredited and its fund raising ability would collapse.
5. Tens of thousands of bureaucrats and media drum-beaters would be without function.
6. Clever industrial plans to game the proposed systems would come to naught.
7. The UN would be without what it now claims to be its major cause (“The danger posed by war to all of humanity and to our planet is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming” – Ban Ki-moon .)
8. Many alternate energy startups would fail.
9. Numerous speculators would be ruined.
10. Trial lawyers working to make carbon the next tobacco would have to look elsewhere.
11. Even more numerous individuals who have adopted this issue as a matter of personal faith and vindication of their virtue and intelligence would be disillusioned and depressed.
You hit it Nathan.
An honest answer, Blank? Because those on the Left blindly follow “their leaders?”
There are no “leaders” on the Left, dumbass. We think for ourselves.
No Hannity’s No O’Reilly’s. No Limbaugh’s.
We think for ourselves.
Christ.
There are no “leaders” on the Left, dumbass. We think for ourselves.Posted by: WSClark | August 24, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Two words
Al Gore.
Walk on by
“However, cosmos can’t help himself but to make ad hominem attacks instead of dealing with the science alone.”
Posted by: Kansas the troll | August 24, 2007 at 09:54 PM
No, I posted that it “seems” that you believe that past natural climate changes PREVENT human-caused climate changes.
Kansas has refused to answer a very RELEVANT, simple question:
Do past natural climate changes PREVENT humans from changing Earths climate??? Yes? No?
A graph with both natural, and human-caused’Factors altering the climate (Image IPCC 2007)http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-1_767.jpg
Take everything Al Gore has written, made a movie out of and promoted on his jet flying carbon spewing adventures out of the Anthropogenic Climate Change equation and what the Alarmists have left is:
Scientists doing their job without making political statements and attempting to set political policy.
People going on in life making new energy saving products and renewable energy cheaper.
Leave the Al Gore equation in and what you have is Alarmism and “the sky is falling” scenarios.
Max – if you like you can check the KS State Board of Technical Professions for my LG. And no, I don’t work an McDonalds although I do eat there from time to time. (But I prefer Spangles)
No cosmos.
Here’s something for you cosmos. Explain to me then without the interference of humans how these significant climate change events occurred.
Jurassic Period
Ice Age
The Coming out of the Ice Age
Go ahead cosmos, give me your SUV theories and carbon spewing details how all of these Climate Change events that are much more significant in temperature extremes than what is happening today.
Nice try, Blank One, but those of us on the Left do not have a “leader” regardless of what you morons might say. Al Gore is not my “leader.”
Period.
I do find it humorous that you discount the words of YOUR leader, George W Bush, who has stated that man made GW IS an issue.
But, of course, you are full of crap as usual.
Something being an issue is much different than it being based in fact with proven science.
Gay Rights are an issue
Abortion is an issue.
Yeah man made GW is an issue and Bush has stated is an issue.
So
What.
So, Blank, why are you discounting the words of your ’steamed (deliberate) leader?
Are we there yet??
walk on by
the one who lives to inveigh pointless argument without demonstrating any facts or methods to defend his unidentified position on Global Warming other than partisan politics.
outta here…
I am surprised that there is a lack of debate over the Limbaugh Looney Tune notion that there is no concensus in Science, when there absolutely IS… If we could get past that one hurdle, perhaps an intelligent discussion of GW could be undertaken…
Whatever, your probably the same people that smoke, eat fast food, and sit on your lazy ass all day, and watch t.v., then a day will come when you might wonder why you had a heart attack, or developed cancer. Its easier to prevent a disease than treat it. So should we stay on the same path we’re on now, because global warming isn’t fully credible. Is there no reason to reduce pollution, and use energy in a more “CONSERVATIVE” WAY.
Is there No reason that Cancer per capita is higher in big cities than in small towns. Is there no reason Atlanta, and Los Angeles has smog alerts, and asthmatics have to stay indoors to not suffer. Funny, some of the conservatives, are the biggest consumer whores that exist. Very conservative.
WSClarkYou think all GW skeptics are “right wing”
You are Not “right wing”
Therefore, you are NOT a skeptic.
Therefore, you HAVE stated your opinion!
Ah Ohcot you had me fooled all along.
Here I thought you genuine in your attempt to discuss Climate Change and it turns out it was merely a disguise for your political ideology.
But thanks for playing Ohcot.
Therefore WSClark is not a skeptic about GW… Duh… thats a real no-brainer…
Why is it that the Conservatives are so opposed to Conservation???
If we could get to the bottom of that question, perhaps there could be dialogue… Otherwise, it seems pointless…
Why do some people still question global warming? The same reason some people doubt evolution, deny the holocaust, or refuse to believe lunar landings occurred. Some people construct a worldview that cannot accomodate or be reconciled with certain facts, so they undergo any manner of intellectual contortions in order to deny reality and preserve their existing paradigm. For many global warming deniers, they have framed the issue within a political context rather than a scientific context. In order to preserve certain deeply held political/social biases, they dismiss the scientific evidence for global warming in much the same way creationists dismiss evolution in order to insulate their religious views from critical analysis. Though the scientific community is virtually unanimous in its consent that global climate change is occurring, and that this change is in part a product of human activity, global warming deniers use the same canards as creationists to attack scientific evidence. As a society, we should be concerned when a substantial portion of the population remains ignorant of scientific methodology and is incapable or unwilling to examine natural phenomena rationally, and instead denies any reality that does not conform to their predetermined positions. Every major association or union of professional climatologists, meteorologists, chemists, and geophysicists have issued statements indicating that the scientific evidence supports the view of human-impacted climate change. Depsite the opinions of the most highly trained experts in the field, many lay-persons with no experience of expertise insist that their opinion has greater validity than the research-based findings of the experts. This is not only irrational and illogical, it is also extremely dangerous when public policy is shaped by wishful thinking and ignorance rather than scientific realities.
Why is it that several bloggers here would rather mischaracterize people views instead of having a real discussion????
Why is it that several bloggers here would rather ask loaded questions like:
“Why is it that the Conservatives are so opposed to Conservation???”
If we could get past these low ball discussion tactics, then there could be dialogue… Otherwise, it seems pointless…
“Depsite the opinions of the most highly trained experts in the field, many lay-persons with no experience of expertise insist that their opinion has greater validity than the research-based findings of the experts. This is not only irrational and illogical, it is also extremely dangerous when public policy is shaped by wishful thinking and ignorance rather than scientific realities.”
Does this describe you Nathan?
why do they question it?
because they are dumbasses and big corporations would be inconvenienced if repukes admitted it and did something about it then the repukes would lose big donation bucks
The global warming “concensus” is funded like 3000:1 in comparison to the money from corporations or oil companies like many here love to say.
Sorry Nathan, the scientists aren’t funded to support a particular conclusion. That’s what the oil companies do in their quest for propaganda but the actual scientists gather the data and base their conclusions on the data.
“Here’s something for you cosmos. Explain to me then without the interference of humans how these significant climate change events occurred….Go ahead cosmos, give me your SUV theories and carbon spewing details how all of these Climate Change events that are much more significant in temperature extremes than what is happening today.”
Posted by: the troll Kansas | August 24, 2007 at 10:35 PM
You seem to claim to be an expert on climate change. Don’t YOU know about Milankovitch cycles, volcanism, solar variations, and plate tectonics???
Doesn’t Kansas know that a NATURAL DROP in CO2 seems to have triggered an ice age?
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm“The rise of the Appalachian Mountains may have caused a major ice age approximately 450 million years ago, an Ohio State University study has found.
The weathering of the mountains pulled carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, causing the opposite of a greenhouse effect — an “icehouse” effect….It also reinforces the notion that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a major driver of Earth’s climate.”
Go ahead Kansas, and give all of us YOUR theories on WHY if a NATURAL DROP of CO2 caused an “icehouse”, the recent human-caused INCREASE of CO2 would NOT cause global warming.
And then do the same for human-caused global increases of methane and N2O, and human-PRODUCED GHG’s such as CFC’s, and SF6.
Nathan, IF Conservatives are NOT so opposed to Conservation, then why all the rhetoric against the issues related to Global Warming??
So, do you wish you suggest that Conservatives are NOT opposed to Conservation???
Be my guest ……
As for me, I am going to take my liberal butt, and go to bed… and figure out how to be a better conservator of the Earth God gave us to take care of… Nite all!!
God bless, whatever you conceive God to be!!
The sky is falling chicken little!Al Gore is a qwack grasping at straws.You can always get lots of people to follow a nut case.Anyone remember Jim Jones?And whats-his-name Moon?No doubt we are polluting our air and water and need to do a WAY better job of cleaning it.30 years ago the “experts” said an ice age was coming!Can you say natural climate changes?
“I also have shown that past climate events are very good indicators how natural climate changes occurs even without the presence of humans.
cosmos is desperate. He’s going to start calling names and accuse people of lying even more than he has in his previous posts.
Simply because cosmos is pushing an incomplete science that makes conclusions without all the facts and ignores the past lessons of science…”
Posted by: Kansas | August 24, 2007 at 09:30 PMhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80553417
The troll Kansas claims that I “ignore[] the past lessons of science”.
So WHY did I post on March 18, and May 3, 2007, about a “major ice age approximately 450 million years ago”???
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/03/open_thread_17.html#comment-63624316
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/05/open_thread_2.html#comment-68384586
Kansas, aka, Republican, aka, “Republikhan” also posted on those two threads. If he has memory problems, perhaps he should take notes?
“30 years ago the “experts” said an ice age was coming!Can you say natural climate changes?”
Posted by: IXR | August 25, 2007 at 01:59 AM
Can you say confused, misinformed, stupid, or deliberately DECEPTIVE???
‘Climate MYTHS: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s’http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643
Why be skeptical of global warming?
1. All the predictions are just that, predictions.
2. The simulations used are constantly being changed. All of them are unproven models.
3. Climate changes. Kansas used to be at the bottom of the ocean.
4. The best data on hand for evaluation is ‘recent’. To reach claims of catastrophic events is irresponsible. It’s like watching Mad Money for stock market predictions.
5. The people in front promoting catastrophic climate change have a history. They are the types looking for government to fix their lives. It is no surprise that climate change is just another reason used to expand their Government Father.
http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
Okay, since those who poo-poo evidence of global warming insist it’s all a grand conspiracy, and given the international consensus on a signficant degree of anthropenic forcing, the awesome power of this conspiracy must make the Illuminati look like wimps.
Fine.
Let’s see the evidence–REAL evidence: financial ties, damning statements, internal documents, that kind of thing-not just the usual persistent boneheaded innuendo. It will of course–Nathan’s Lindzen quote, incredibly, admits—REQUIRE discrediting the scientific community and scientific process, but, hey, bring it on! Black helicopters ain’t necessary, but would hardly be out of place.
Let ‘er rip!
“anthropogenic forcing”–the other typos I won’t bother with. . .
Rage, no one that I know of is poo pooing evidence of Global Warming.
Rather they are disputing what the basic causes and determiners are.
Climate change has always existed and it has existed in more extremes than it has today.
To legislate a climate like the Alarmist want to do, is beyond silly, it’s futile.
Now, if we want to address our alternative sources of energy and get rid of petroleum usage, I’m all for that.
But let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
“Rage, no one that I know of is poo pooing evidence of Global Warming.”
I guess then you haven’t read most of this thread. . .or even looked a couple inches up (shrug):
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80579687
The “experts” are afraid to admit that WATER VAPOR accounts for 96% of all Greenhouse gases.
Man’s influence then is on <4% of all greenhouse gases.
Posted by: Max | August 24, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Maybe I missed it, but did any of the ‘experts’ dispute this statement of fact?
And so if man’s impact on greenhouse gases is just a portion of the 4% of total greenhouse gases, say 50% of the 4% at most, then what is the impact of a 2% (at most) increase in greenhouse gases?
“Rage, no one that I know of is poo pooing evidence of Global Warming.
Posted by: the troll Kansas | August 25, 2007 at 12:43 PM
“1.) Is “global warming” really happening.”Posted by: Econ101 | August 24, 2007 at 04:15 PM
“Rather they are disputing what the basic causes and determiners are.”
They are LYING, and claiming it’s caused by the sun, and/or other “natural” causes. They make the irrelevant, distracting claim, “climate change has always existed”.
Extensive, solid science shows that it’s mostly human-caused.
‘Factors altering the climate (Image IPCC 2007)http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-1_767.jpg
Kansas: “Climate change has always existed and it has existed in more extremes than it has today.”
But humans have NOT “always existed”!
Consider the dire consequences of humans TODAY living in the climate “extremes” of the past.
Human civilization has adapted to the current climate. A small sea level rise, loss of drinking water from glaciers, more extreme heat waves and storms, loss of farm production, etc. will cause severe problems.
Kansas: “To legislate a climate like the Alarmist want to do, is beyond silly, it’s futile.”
The troll Kansas believes that it’s “beyond silly” to try to avoid the “tipping point”??? It seems that he wants to wait until that Arctic ice is gone, methane is released from thawing permafrost, etc to take action.
And he seems to believe that governments have no role in trying to stop the very serious human-caused GW problem — while denying that humans are causing it.
Max,
CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26% of the greenhouse effect.
(And humans have caused CO2 to rise from about 280 ppm to 380 ppm.)
‘Water vapour: feedback or forcing?’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/“The overlaps complicate things, but it’s clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.”
But humans have NOT “always existed”! Posted by: cosmos | August 25, 2007 at 01:51 PM
True cosmos. Humans haven’t always existed.
The troll Kansas believes that it’s “beyond silly” to try to avoid the “tipping point”??? Posted by: cosmos | August 25, 2007 at 01:51 PM
There is no tipping point in climate change. It’s a gradual and linear progression of natural occurrences.
Tipping point indeed…another catch phrase invented by the alarmist.
There is no such thing as an absolute certain point of change, it is on one side or the other. Heisenberg anyone?================And he seems to believe that governments have no role in trying to stop the very serious human-caused GW problem — while denying that humans are causing it.
Posted by: cosmos | August 25, 2007 at 01:51 PM
cosmos, you need to stop writing what you think I think. You have no clue what I think, stop putting your words in my mouth.
Alternative energy and getting rid of oil usage is the way to go. I don’t believe in your carbon credit scams.
As I wrote before that one company researching carbon credits, found you can buy carbon credits abroad in foreign countries and still emit maximum amount of pollutants and be considered a good guy not doing anything illegal because you buy carbon credits.
That carbon credit scam is pure hypocrisy and does nothing to solve energy problems nor in the realm of lunacy world GW alarmism.
Aw come on Kansas, I can pollute as much as I want, then get complete forgiveness by buying my way out through carbon credits.
I’m gonna light one up right now!
Ya Wahawk, here’s my previous quote from the BBC.
“The Dag Hammarskjold Foundation did an excellent analysis of carbon trading in its September 2006 Development Dialogue magazine. “With a bit of judicious accounting,” the report found, “a company investing in foreign ‘carbon-saving’ projects can increase fossil emissions both at home and abroad while claiming to make reductions in both locations.”
“True cosmos. Humans haven’t always existed.”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
And the humans who did NOT exist did NOT have deal with the climate “extremes”, like changes in sea levels.
“There is no tipping point in climate change. It’s a gradual and linear progression of natural occurrences.”
Kansas believes that Earths climate is linear??? No positive feedbacks, like ice-albedo???
Is that what Kansas learned in his college science classes decades ago?
‘Runaway tipping points of no return’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return
“There are thousands of scientists who disagree that man is not thte sole cause of Global Warming as your side states.”
Posted by: the troll Kansas | August 24, 2007 at 09:40 PM
Yes Kansas, our side states that “man is not [the] sole cause of Global Warming”.
There are thousands of scientists who believe that global warming is caused by BOTH natural and anthropogenic factors — AND that the anthropogenic factors are causing the MAJORITY of the warming.
Read the reports here, at IPCC,http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
“Climate change occurred before man was here and it will occur after man is gone. To deny that Climate Change caused by nature is not the major source is denying the existence of earth and its dynamics itself.”
So Kansas believes the the “major source” of climate change is “caused by nature”, BECAUSE “climate change occurred before man was here and it will occur after man is gone”??
That’s a solid, carefully researched, scientifically based fact. NOT!!! LOL!
Remove all man-made additions and there will still be Climate Change.
That cosmos, you cannot deny.
And Kansas the troll cannot deny that the anthropogenic factors are causing the MAJORITY of the warming.
There may be global warming, but the issue for most people is are we causing it. Core samples from glacial ice prove the earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles many times. There is no certifiable proof that man is causing us to move into another warming trend. Further, there is scientific proof that man is excelerating the change.
But there is proof the earth has cooled and heated many times before which leads anyone to believe it will happen again.
Ho-hum
I have to laugh at all these tree huggers shouting the sky if falling with global warming.
Especially when I see them parking their SUV’s and pick up trucks.
Hypocrits.
Water Vapor Rulesthe Greenhouse System
Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
“Further, there is scientific proof that man is excelerating the change.”
Posted by: hemorrhoid | August 25, 2007 at 04:35 PM
Very true… it’s in the reports from IPCC, and newer science not included there.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark
Sun’s Shifts May Cause Global Warming
Global warming fanatics insist that “the science is settled” regarding this contentious issue and they’re right — two German scientist have settled it once and for all by proving conclusively that there is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” in global climate.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/104929.shtml?s=lh
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf
Max,
Water vapor is NOT 95% of greenhouse effect.
‘Water vapour: feedback or forcing?’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/“The overlaps complicate things, but it’s clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.”
Very good source Max.
These German mathematicians and physicists just blew the entire anthropogenic scheme right out of the water.
They even gave their mathematical formulas, proofs to why radiant forcing is incorrectly used by the Alarmist and dispelled the false statement that man-made CO2 is the major cause of Global Warming.
Of course you know cosmos will try to discredit these scientists, even though cosmos is a non-scientist.
Troll Kansas… what’s my name??
Kansas believes Earth’s climate is “linear”, and has NO “greenhouse” effect??
WHERE’S my winter coat… the temperature outside just dropped about 60 degs F.!!
It seems that they “blew the entire anthropogenic scheme right out of the water” back in 1995. Nobody noticed.
‘Gerhard Gerlich’http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gerhard_Gerlich“He ended his speech “[german]” (The physical fundamentals of the greenhouse effect and fictitious greenhouse effects)[1] in November 1995 with the statement that the CO2-greenhouse effect of the earth atmosphere is pure fiction of people who like to use big computers, without physical fundamentals.”
Maybe they’ll next do a paper proving that the planet Venus has no greenhouse effect?
Kansas,
Don’t know if you read the PDF link I gave, but the Summary on page 93 and 94 is classic!
Not a good format to cut and paste or I would have.
To say this is “settled science” is to confirm their political agenda.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf
Page 94″Evidently, the defenders of the CO2 greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of transparency here, and he also has to complain about the style of the scientific discussion, where advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justified arguments as a discussion of “questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday.”
In exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to be continued ad infinitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available. Regardless of the specific field of studies a minimal basic rule should be fulfilled in natural science, though even if the scientific fields are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology: At least among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clarified in the philosophy of science.
That means that if conclusions out of computer simulations are to be more than simple speculations, then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation of the effects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simplifications of the physical original equations should be critically exposed. Not the critics have to estimate the effects of the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulation.”
Max,
Just because they wrote a paper, or Svensmark claims something, does NOT prove that it’s true.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark[Henrik Svensmark's] studies show that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar activity — which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere — could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet. This, Svensmark contends, could account for most of the warming during the last century.
‘Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42“There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming.”
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm“1824Joseph Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.
1859Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.
1896Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.”
To say this is “settled science” is to confirm their political agenda.Posted by: Max | August 25, 2007 at 05:57 PM
Exactly Max.
Anthropogenic-caused global warming is “settled science” — except for foolish people like Kansas and Max, who falsely believe that non-scientific work (”bunkum of a high order”) is “science”.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/comment 114″The website itself (and its possible ‘inclination’) appears irrelevant as long as the article is submitted by two German physicists, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner…”
[Response: I agree, the website's inclination is immaterial (though indicative), but the paper falls simply because it lousy physics. The planetary albedo is apparently a mystery to the authors, as is the ratio of Earth's disc to it's surface area, and they take exception to energy balance diagrams 'because they do not fit in the Feynman diagrams in quantum field theory”. This is bunkum of a high order. - gavin]
(See also later comments on RC page)
Dr. Gavin Schmidt,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=46
No cosmos, you don’t get away with it that easily.
Explain in your own words how these highly regarded scientist’s work is “bunkum.”
You can’t can you?
Because you don’t have a clue or even know how to do the work they do , do you?
You are not a scientist cosmos.
Stop pretending to be one.
You cannot debunk world class scientists like were in the paper and remain credible.
Leave the science up to real scientists cosmos.
These scientists have put a serious challenge to the very core of GW Alarmism and all you got to add is bunkum?
You know lousy physics at the PhD level how cosmos?
The moon moves 2 feet away from the earth a year. The further the moon is away from the Earth, the more extreme climate change is going to happen on earth.
“These scientists have put a serious challenge to the very core of GW Alarmism and all you got to add is bunkum?”
ROFLMAO! The troll Kansas is not only foolishly CLUELESS about climate science, he can’t even read.
Dr. Gavin Schmidt wrote “This is bunkum of a high order.”
Troll, attack Dr. Schmidt’s work and credentials,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=46
Just because they wrote a paper, or Svensmark claims something, does NOT prove that it’s true.
Posted by: cosmos | August 25, 2007 at 06:07 PM
DITTO Cosmos for EVERY link you have posted.
Look, I’m not disputing the recorded temperature increase on Earth of 1 degree celsious over the last 100 years.
I am NOT conceding that 100% of the scientists say that most of this global warming is caused by man.
For those who are unwilling to consider opposing research to the man-made global warming view, I would say these are not true scientists.
These are ’scientists’ who are hell-bent on their political agenda to affect government policy worldwide on the basis of “maybes” and “probables” in the studies you have cited.
For example, in your article:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/
**Overlapping ranges in the magnatude of 36% – 66% does not give a lot of CONFIDENCE in what they are plugging into their climate models. And ranges that add up to 110% also sends up a red flag.
“The overlaps complicate things, but it’s clear that water vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively. The remainders and uncertainties are associated with the overlaps which could be attributed in various ways that I’m not going to bother with here. Making some allowance (+/-5%) for the crudeness of my calculation, the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect. (Of course, using the same approach, the maximum supportable number for CO2 is 20-30%, and since that adds up to more than 100%, there is a slight problem with such estimates!).”
**”probably getting the broader picture reasonably correct.” This does NOT show a high degree of confidence, certainly not enough to justify drastic global worldwide initiatives at changing the policy of every country on the planet.
“To be sure there are still some lingering uncertainties. Some recent data indicates that tropical upper tropopsheric water vapour does not quite keep up with constant relative humidity (Minschwaner and Dessler, 2004) (though they still found that the feedback was positive). Moist convection schemes in models are constantly being refined, and it’s possible that newer schemes will change things . However, given the Pinatubo results, the models are probably getting the broader picture reasonably correct.”
max the nazi, can’t you do anything other than copy/paste from anti-science, pro-bush sites?
No cosmos, you’re not pulling your sleight of hand trick again.
your statement:
“Anthropogenic-caused global warming is “settled science” — except for foolish people like Kansas and Max, who falsely believe that non-scientific work (”bunkum of a high order”) is “science”.”
The paper Max and later I was referring to was the one done by the German Physicists.
You bring in some other baloney and then try to side step your way out of it using a ploy to distract people because you don’t have the knowledge or the brain power to know anything about that paper that the PDF references.
You are just one big blow hard cosmos, that thinks he has the answer to everything with your cute hyperlinked science.
cosmos, you don’t know squat.
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.”This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn’t make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.So we have a smaller fraction.But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. “These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,” asserts Ball. “Since modelers concede computer outputs are not “predictions” but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.”We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore’s dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,” says Winterhalter. “In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.”Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.”But Karlen clarifies that the ‘mass balance’ of Antarctica is positive – more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the ‘calving’ of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, “their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year – not much of an effect,” Karl»n concludes.The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.Gore tells us in the film, “Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap.” This is misleading, according to Ball: “The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology.”Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. “For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years,” says Karl»nDr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, “There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001.”Concerning Gore’s beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, “Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance.”Gore’s point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,” he says. “The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual.”Carter does not pull his punches about Gore’s activism, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”In April sixty of the world’s leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what’s at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request.
“DITTO Cosmos for EVERY link you have posted.”
Posted by Max.
Difference is, some of the links I post, like IPCC’s, contain published, peer-reviewed material.
Work like Gerhard Gerlich’s hasn’t been reviewed or published, for obvious reasons, to be polite.
Scientists have a better “high degree of confidence” on other issues, such as forcing caused by human-added greenhouse gases.
Most scientist are not “political” — and they are also big “skeptics” themselves. They try to find the flaws in theories, and the best answers.
The real danger the earth faces is not from global climatic warming caused by man, but by the hot air caused by man:
There is nothing particularly unusual about current weather and climate change – it is generally well within long-term normal patterns. However, the public believes otherwise due to a combination of the way in which people have been taught to view nature, political exploitation of science and the hidden motives of environmental extremists. How did this happen and where are we headed if climate change hysteria continues unchecked?Skewed View of NatureWestern education automatically assumes a ‘uniformitarian’ view of the World, a concept that change is gradual over long periods of time. As a consequence, sudden or extreme changes are considered abnormal by most of society. Yet even a cursory examination of climate records reveals variations in centuries past that are far faster and more severe than anything we are experiencing today.Humans are naturally selective in what we notice. For instance, selectivity occurs when, after being introduced to someone, you seem to meet them frequently. They were always there, but just not part of your “noticing.” Similarly, the media and the public have started to “notice” extreme weather, glacier melting, sea level rise, etc. more because alarmists tell us that an increase in such events is a precursor to the coming ‘climate crisis’. Since people are on the lookout for such trends they seem to be accelerating even though recent quantitative studies demonstrate they are not (NRSP ‘allied scientist’ Dr. Madhav Khandekar has shown this clearly in his studies for the Alberta government, for example).Phenomena such as severe weather events are now often presented as unusual or unique: it was the highest or lowest temperature, rainfall, etc., ‘ever.’ What is referred to is the barely century-old instrumental data-based official weather record, an inadequate sample of the Earth’s five billion year history. Long term geologic records indicate much greater and more rapid changes occurred long before civilizations started.Besides the public’s lack of awareness of our planet’s dynamic climate history, a difficulty in comprehending long time frames has made them susceptible to the propaganda of Al Gore and David Suzuki. Echoing Suzuki’s myth of nature’s “gentle rhythms”, then Canadian environment minister Stéphane Dion told the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on October 4, 2005, “Climate change is a new phenomenon, a very worrying one, but a new phenomenon.” Dion’s total ignorance of the issue is revealed by simply noting one historical fact – half of North America was under a vast ice sheet just 22,000 years ago.Political Exploitation of ScienceThe exploitation of climate science for purely political goals is occurring throughout the developed world. For example, politicians inCanada have started to ban inexpensive and convenient technologies such as light bulbs, coal fired electricity generation and used oil heating to “stop climate change.” They can’t show how the alternatives being promoted will actually help the environment – we are expected to simply believe that such sacrifices for the climate will benefit us all, even if real pollution levels rise, food prices increase as agricultural land is converted to biofuels production and millions of birds are cut to pieces by wind turbines. ‘Believe’ is the key word here, not ‘think’.Even the United States, previously one of the last bastions of common sense in climate wars, is being swept up in this dangerous movement. Besides the rise of ex-Vice President Al Gore to the status of climate change ’superstar’, rhetoric has reached a fever pitch in the U.S. Senate now that an environmental extremist, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, has taken over as Chair of the powerful Committee on Environment and Public Works. Exposing her extraordinary naiveté Boxer maintains, “The American people have the will to slow, stop, and reverse global warming, and they sent a new cast of characters to Washington, and people are really hopeful that this new Congress will be able to do it.” Claiming Gore as her hero, Boxer has even initiated an “online thank you card to Al Gore… — thanking him for everything he has done to stop global warming!” To date, it has attracted over 77,000 endorsers.Along with Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders and a handful of other Democrats, Boxer is promoting the ludicrously titled “Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act”, also referred to as the” Sanders/Boxer bill, S.309″. The phrase ‘global warming pollution’ is wildly inappropriate but is used repeatedly by Gore, Boxer and others in the hopes that the public will look upon their actions as honest attempts to help the environment by reducing pollution. In reality, the major target of the act, Gore’s crusade and other futile attempts to ’stop climate change’ (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol) is carbon dioxide (CO2), a gas essential to life and in no way a pollutant. Using the sweeping and more threatening sounding term “greenhouse gases” (of which CO2 is only one), environmental alarmists clearly hope the public don’t wake up to the fact that they are really speaking mostly about the benign gas CO2. While many politicians know very well that CO2 emission reduction is pointless and will have little if any impact on climate, some truly don’t know the difference between CO2 and pollution – witness the Boxer-like statement of Canadian Liberal MP Joe Volpe before entering the House of Commons to vote in favour of Canada’s ratification of Kyoto in 2002, “For all intents and purposes, there isn’t anybody that I know that doesn’t want cleaner air and a cleaner environment, so why would you vote no?”Divorcing themselves entirely from science, political opportunists proceed to claim the moral high ground by appealing to our natural instinct to protect children. Combining such sentiments with religiosity and an adolescent ‘we can do anything’ approach, they end up with assertions so removed from the real world as to be laughable, were the consequences not so serious.“Just as we lift our children up to feed them, and we hold them close to comfort them, and to protect them from any manner of harm, just as we would never, ever leave them trapped in a locked car in the hot sun, we must protect them from global warming.” Boxer told an April 14, 2007 National Press Club audience. “The ancient religious writings say, “See to it that you do not destroy my world for there is no one to repair it after you.” Today for us, it should be simple. Working Together we can reverse Global Warming! We must lead on this issue, not follow; its our job. I truly believe when we do our job, our country and our families will be better and stronger and the world will be safer.”Of course we have no chance of “reversing global warming” (and why would we want to? Global cooling is far more dangerous and climate is never constant). Boxer’s rhetoric is simply an appeal to emotion over rational thought. Such an unscientific stance is bad for society and, ultimately, bad for the environment as well, but political spin doctors seem to have concluded that it still attracts many voters. As the public learn more about the issue, this will eventually backfire politically. This is why groups like the Natural Resources Stewardship Project focus so strongly on public education. Once a majority of the public recognize that many of the assertions of Boxer, Gore, Dion and Volpe have no basis in reality, politicians will have little choice but to radically alter their approach – either that or be voted out of office in disgrace.Besides ignorance and political opportunism, what is driving this movement?The principle target in all this is fossil-fueled based energy sources. Boxer summed it up neatly in her introduction to the June 28 Senate committee hearing, “reducing emissions from powerplants is a fundamental part of any solution to global warming.”Besides vote-seeking politicians, who else would want to dismantle our fossil fuel-based economy? Some beneficiaries of such an agenda are obvious – alternative energy providers are already reaping financial windfalls from the scare. Nuclear power companies stand to make significant gains as well, provided they are not shut down entirely by environmentalists who oppose them even more fiercely than they do fossil fuel corporations. Many scientists and engineers who support nuclear power for its real benefits understand how today’s climate scare is largely groundless and so do not boost nuclear power as a means to avert a climate crisis.However, some spokespeople are not so careful. John Ritch, Director General of the London-based World Nuclear Association, uses language even more extreme than Gore and Suzuki. At the October 2006 Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference in Sydney, Australia, Ritch said,“The fact of this planetary crisis should no longer be a matter of psychological or political denial. For our best Earth-system scientists now warn, with ever increasing certainty, that greenhouse gas emissions, if continued at the present massive scale, will yield consequences that are – quite literally – apocalyptic: increasingly radical temperature changes, a worldwide upsurge in violent weather events, widespread drought, flooding, wildfires, famine, species extinction, rising sea levels, mass migration and epidemic disease that will leave no country untouched.If these predictions hold true, the combined effect would be the death of not just millions but of billions of people – and the destruction of much of civilization on all continents.”NRSP scientists immediately sent Ritch solid evidence that his assertions were out of touch with modern climate science and expressed the hope that his “remarks are greatly tuned to a more realistic stance if the topic is brought up again in the future.” NRSP continued, “Nuclear power clearly has important benefits to mankind but “stopping global climate catastrophe” is surely not one of them. [We] fear we undermine the whole effort when such extreme arguments are presented.”Ritch did not respond. Instead NRSP was answered by Jonathan Cobb, the association’s “climate change advisor”, who dismissed our concerns saying, “I can assure you that Mr Ritch pays close attention to the scientific discussion on climate change and he will continue to accurately report the overwhelming scientific consensus.” That a climate change advisor would simply brush aside evidence that his employer had little need of his services is perhaps not surprising. However, that Ritch continues to use precisely the same language as above in his most recent speeches (June 2007) is inexcusable.The specter of industry-caused “climate chaos” – a ridiculous term used by Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May – ultimately leading to the ‘destruction of the planet’ is a perfect vehicle for people who want to radically alter, or even dismantle, western civilization. Chief among these is Canadian Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and until recently, Executive Officer for Reform in the U.N. Secretary General’s office. His comment, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” speaks volumes about what is really going on in the minds of some environmentalists.Industry runs on energy, but you cannot directly attack the energy source because this would alienate the vast majority of the public who benefit from industrialization. The easiest way is to show that the byproducts of industrial activity are causing a planetary collapse. Even though untrue, this claim provides another popular moral high ground for activists. Demanding carbon dioxide reductions provided the vehicle and the United Nations supposedly provided the science for the theory that human addition of CO2 would lead to uncontrolled global warming. The theory quickly became fact, and the scientific method of testing, and accepting or rejecting, was effectively thwarted. Scientists who tried to pursue a normal scientific approach to the issue were quickly branded as pawns of the energy sector.There are negative side-effects of industrialization of course, but eliminating industry also eliminates its exceptionally beneficial impacts on quality of life. Besides ignoring the natural evolution of the human species, in the extreme, today’s climate alarmism is decidedly anti-human. Human progress is seen, not as a natural evolution, but an unnatural aberration.The following quotes illustrate the dangerous anti-human nature of cells within the environmental movement, many of whom have adopted today’s climate crusade as their primary raison d’être:Biologist David Graber (U.S. National Park Service): “They [natural things] have intrinsic value, more value – to me – than another human body, or a billion of them. Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. Somewhere along the line – about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”Philosophy Professor Paul Taylor, City University of New York in “Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics”, p. 115): “Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, not only would the Earth’s community of life continue to exist, but in all probability, its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interests, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty “Good riddance!”Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!: “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”Earth First! Journal editor John Daily: “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”An equally extreme case is Peter Singer, a ‘bioethicist’ at Princeton University. He maintains that the suffering of a crippled ant deserves equal consideration to that of a crippled human child. If we could only save one, he says, we should decide by the flip a coin or else we would be “speciests”.And of course the macabre “ Voluntary Human Extinction Movement ” is apparently alive and well with its “volunteer” class members agreeing that, “All of us should voluntarily refrain from reproducing further, bringing about the eventual extinction of Homo sapiens.” Asserting that “Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health”, the group’s motto is “May we live long and die out.”In the extraordinary book “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” written 150 years ago by Charles Mackay, is written, “Men … think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”Let’s hope that Mackay’s pessimism is no longer quite so applicable in a world where instantaneous and inexpensive mass communications is a fact of life – certainly society cannot afford to continue to sleep at the switch while eco-activists rapidly come to dominate governments. Environmental extremism is the real threat to society, not the miniscule contribution human-emitted carbon dioxide might make to global climate. It will take time for the general public to finally recognize this but, when they do, expect the whole environmental movement, its good aspects included, to be set back at least a generation. That will be the sad legacy of Al Gore, Barbara Boxer and David Suzuki.
Troll Kansas,
So you also do not understand quote marks?? I quoted Dr. Schmidt in my comment to you.
my post upthread—-”Anthropogenic-caused global warming is “settled science” — except for foolish people like Kansas and Max, who falsely believe that non-scientific work (”bunkum of a high order”) is “science”.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/comment 114[Response: ... This is bunkum of a high order. - gavin]
Dr. Gavin Schmidt,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=46—-http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80620213
Forget warming – cooling is comingScientist who warned of coming ice age in the 1970’s is still standing behind global cooling prediction:
‘Thanks to new evidence that Dr. Kukla only recently published, he now knows that global warming always precedes an ice age. That makes the current period of global warming a mere blip that constitutes additional indication of the ice age to come.’
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the “Little Ice Age,” he said in an interview this week. “However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up for a long time,” Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.
Source & full story: The Capital Times
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the “Little Ice Age,” he said in an interview this week. “However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up for a long time,” Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.
Source & full story: The Capital Times
Truth, Justice, and the American Way
Thank you for copy/pasting the canadafreepress column re Bob Carter upthread.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80624123
I’m sure other readers will benefit from learning about Carter’s inaccuracies, and dishonesty.
And who knows… maybe someday you will understand that Carter deceived you.
An analysis of that column,’An embarrassment to Australian science’http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php“[Bob Carter's] propaganda campaign is based on blatant cherry picking and getting scientific “facts” from Fox News.”
More athttp://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/
Once again cosmos has failed to read the PDF by the German Scientists and instead references articles that have nothing to do with the content of the paper written by the German Scientists.
The paper not only challenges Global Warming Alarmism, it demonstrates how scientifically unsound the methods that are being used to describe the so-called man-made Global Warming.
cosmos, won’t give a cogent reply because as a non-scientist he relies solely on hyperlinks for his science.
cosmos is incapable of understanding the science in the paper by the German Scientists, so he defers to some stupid blog link on RealClimate Website to distract and hope it will go away.
It won’t go away cosmos.
The paper clearly states how GW Alarmists have skewed basic science principles to put out their politically based theories.
It’s about basic science cosmos.
Surely cosmos, you can understand when basic science principles are violated, then you know something is afoul.
Or cosmos, do you not understand basic scientific principles?
All you know to do is reference Blog chatter from another Website?
So I will ask again, why are the GW deniers exclusively Right Wing?Answer the question.
Posted by: WSClark | August 24, 2007 at 07:46 PM
It’s because people who tend to be Republican are skeptical and don’t buy into things right away without carefully studying the problem.
People of the left tend grab the latest conspiracy theory and turn it into a cult. They could care less if they know anything about the science or not. They will follow blindly any leftist leader whatever words they say.
Those are the facts.
Posted by: Kansas | August 24, 2007 at 08:34 PM
Kansas is a wacko.
??? is another troll lib poster too cowardly to post his regular name.
You said what you said Kansas (YOUR real name?).
Everyone can decide for themselves what you are.
IMO, you are a wacko for having said such blatant crap.
Troll Kansas,
Your repeated and false personal attacks at me are boring.
Email Dr. Gavin Schmidt, and tell him that he “does not understand basic scientific principles”.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/
Excuse me, I misread ‘regular’ for ‘real’.
I’m not any of the posters you may think I am.
You can try to deflect the argument but what you said yesterday is again here for all to see.
???, I posted that to WSClark and to WSClark alone.
What business is it of yours that you post that information, not once, but twice when it came from another thread topic.
You are spamming the forum just to prove something. What it is know one seems to know but you.
You are being disruptive to the blog and have now stalked me twice in one day by posting the same message from another topic.
You are worse than a lowlife ???
You are a cowardly lowlife.
No cosmos,
You email Gavin Schmidt with the PDF provided and ask his opinion about it in detail.
Tell him his reputation is on the line as well.
Again?
There are only a few people on this blog that are liberal and use those exact words “meltdown.”
Along with the expletive, I think have it narrowed down.
I will confirm with Phillip Brownlee via email that you are one of the regular liberal posters.
You have stooped to lying again Kansas.
Caught with your hand in the cookie jar and crying like a baby about it!
Tell Brownlee about it if you like. He can scroll up to yesterday at 8:34 PM and see your original post on this very thread.
Troll Kansas,
Dr. Schmidt already gave his opinion. If you want more details, ask him yourself.
[Response: I agree, the website's inclination is immaterial (though indicative), but the paper falls simply because it lousy physics. The planetary albedo is apparently a mystery to the authors, as is the ratio of Earth's disc to it's surface area, and they take exception to energy balance diagrams 'because they do not fit in the Feynman diagrams in quantum field theory”. This is bunkum of a high order. - gavin]
Then Gavin Schmidt is a fraudulent scientist, because he only picked on portion of the paper to try and discredit.
He provided no concrete proof or disproof, just rhetoric (bunkum.)
That’s what is called a quack. You can tell him I said that as well.
???
Your use of expletives and stalking posts have been reported, expect to receive action.
“People of the left tend grab the latest conspiracy theory and turn it into a cult. They could care less if they know anything about the science or not. They will follow blindly any leftist leader whatever words they say.
Those are the facts.”
Posted by: Kansas | August 24, 2007 at 08:34 PMhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80549889
Sounds like what the troll Kansas does himself, with “bunkum” climate pseudo-science.
“In April sixty of the world’s leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change,…”
Posted by Truth, Justice, and the American Wayhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80624123
Readers might enjoy reading about “the world’s leading experts”.
A database of the “60 leading scientists,http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1557“RM (Bob) CarterStudies Rock Layers”
It’s called an opinion on a blog cosmos.
It was not meant to be a scientific dissertation.
Of course, you wouldn’t know would you cosmos, since you are not a scientist.
Troll Kansas,
It’s not worth a “scientific dissertation”. It’s barely worth a short opinion post on a blog.
What Michael T, aka cosmos – the know nothing visitor to realclimate blog site forgot to include from Gavin Schmidt.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/[Gavin Schmidt - Response: ????? Of course the models have assumptions built in to them. They are precisely a quantitative exploration of what all our assumptions amount to. But - and this is the key point - we don't alter the assumptions to improve the match to past behaviour. Instead, we alter them based on current observations of important physics and processess. It's the difference between 'in sample' calibration and 'out of sample' testing. We will change the model to better reflect known physics, and from past experience, improving the detail of the physics also improves the match to climatology and past climate change. The latter is a consequence of the former, but the former is not driven by the latter. In any case, the models already do a pretty good job for past climates, mainly because they are driven to a large extent by the forcings (which are not part of the model). Those forcing functions are the best we can find and are largely independent of the model development process.
Finally, climate model projections are only good for a portion of what might happen in the future - the portion that is driven by changes in the forcings. They cannot project the specific path the weather may take and do not take into account the current weather state. Thus they are not the same as weather models. - gavin]”
So now we know Michael T’s aka cosmos secret. He takes questions he has no clue about and runs to the Realclimate blog and tries to convince Scientists to give him answer cosmos wants to hear.
When cosmos doesn’t get the answers he wants to hear, he conveniently cuts and pastes only those words that make him look good.
In shorter words, cosmos is a cut and paste fraud who leaves out a large portion of the truth as told to him by real scientists.
So, Michael T, why didn’t you include the following as your explanation? Hmmm?
“Finally, climate model projections are only good for a portion of what might happen in the future – the portion that is driven by changes in the forcings.”
or this?
“Of course the models have assumptions built in to them. They are precisely a quantitative exploration of what all our assumptions amount to.”
Assumptions cosmos, assumptions are not proven fact, they are what they say they are – assumptions. Science made be used, but they are not accepted as written in stone fact.
You have been lying to every one Michael T. aka cosmos.
For everyone except Cosmos. He refuses to believe anyone can have an opinion other than his on global warming. And all HIS scientists are RIGHT, whereas the others are wrong.
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.”This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn’t make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.So we have a smaller fraction.But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. “These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,” asserts Ball. “Since modelers concede computer outputs are not “predictions” but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.”We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore’s dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,” says Winterhalter. “In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.”Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.”But Karlen clarifies that the ‘mass balance’ of Antarctica is positive – more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the ‘calving’ of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, “their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year – not much of an effect,” Karl»n concludes.The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.Gore tells us in the film, “Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap.” This is misleading, according to Ball: “The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology.”Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. “For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years,” says Karl»nDr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, “There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001.”Concerning Gore’s beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, “Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance.”Gore’s point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,” he says. “The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual.”Carter does not pull his punches about Gore’s activism, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”In April sixty of the world’s leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what’s at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request.
MIT Scientist Wunsch says “Little Proven” About Global WarmingCarl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that the debate about global warming can point out risks, but assertions of impending catastrophe can’t be proven with mathematical certainty.
“Carbon dioxide is part of a very complicated feedback system,” Wunsch said Monday. “Assertions that you can show that carbon dioxide change led, or lagged, temperature change proves that there is, or is not, a human component is absolute nonsense. It’s much more complicated than that.”
Source: CNBC
Top Geoscientist says Global Warming About Politics Not ScienceLeading Australian academic, author and commentator Professor Ian Plimer considers the groundswell of concern about climate change is nothing more than political hot air and that a major earthquake or volcanic eruption are the real threats to the world atmosphere.
Prof Plimer told Mineweb that the current push on climate change was the new version of the Y2K farce where billions of dollars were spent on compliance and regulatory issues in case computer and digital equipment shut down at the turn of the new millennium, only to be proven a pointless exercise.
“Global warming is not a word of science, it’s a word of politics,” he said.
Source: Mineweb
Troll Kansas,
Have you heard of Google??? I used the keywords,
“Gerhard Gerlich” greenhouse realclimate
You can continue the falsely call me Micahel T, if you want to be a bigger liar than you already are.
And the only way you can have a “proven fact” re climate is for it to ACTUALLY occur.
Wow, the WE Blog is so blessed to have our own super duper scientist and weatherman, Cosmos, to stear us clear of the rest of the scientific community.
We should all bow down and pray Cosmos is there for all of mankind.
We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. The claque endorsing what is now dignified as “the mainstream theory” of global warming stretches all the way from radical greens through Al Gore to George W. Bush, who signed on at the end of May. The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism by the weight of the global emergency. Amid the collapse of genuinely radical politics, they have seen it as the alarm clock prompting a new Great New Spiritual Awakening.
Alas for their illusions. Capitalism is ingesting global warming as happily as a python swallowing a piglet. The press, which thrives on fearmongering, promotes the nonexistent threat as vigorously as it did the imminence of Soviet attack during the cold war, in concert with the arms industry. There’s money to be made, and so, as Talleyrand said, “Enrich yourselves!” I just bought two roundtrip British Airways ticket to Spain from Seattle and a BA online passenger advisory promptly instructed me that the CO2 “offset” cost would be $7.90 on each ticket, which I might care to contribute to Climate Care. It won’t be long before utility bills will carry similar, albeit mandatory and much larger charges.
Source: Alexander Cockburn
With people out there like Cosmos looking out for us, we can expect to pay huge extra costs on anything connected with energy. Due to Global Warming, dontchano…
Truth, Justice and the American Way,
Thank you for proving that you are unable to tell the difference between deceptions, and real science.
‘An embarrassment to Australian science’http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php“[Bob Carter's] propaganda campaign is based on blatant cherry picking and getting scientific “facts” from Fox News.”
More athttp://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/
Truth,
That’s all that cosmos has to offer for his GW Alarmist theories -
hyperlinks and more hyperlinks.
He is incapable of refuting anything because he is not a scientist.
You do know that Al Gore has refused to take the $100,000 Climate Change challenge from Steven Milloy of Junk Science.
Gore is afraid he will lose if he tries to debate someone in a moderated forum on Climate Change.
Gore won’t have a Democratic Senator running interference for him as Gore did when he testified before Congress.
The troll Kansas is incapable of refuting the solid science showing that humans are causing global warming — so he instead makes false personal attacks.
Kansas even claims that Dr. Gavin Schmidt is a “fraudulent scientist” and a “quack”.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/
Of course cosmos is incapable of understanding what Dr. Gavin Schmidt is writing so he misrepresents Schmidt’s words when he quotes a cherry-picked statement that basically turns Dr. Schmidt into a liar and makes cosmos look good on this blog.
cosmos ignores this statement made by Dr. Schmidt:
“”Of course the models have assumptions built in to them. They are precisely a quantitative exploration of what all our assumptions amount to.”"
Assumptions cosmos, not proven science.
haha
“You can post a link to someone discrediting what I post, and I can post a link to a scientist disagreeing with yours.”
Posted by: Truth Justice and the American Way
Except some of the “scientists” that YOU post are not climate scientists. Some of those “leading 60 scientists” are retired — and some are not even scientists.
And they are either deliberately being deceptive, or are very clueless.
For example, Bob Carter studies rock layers.
He used mid troposphere (6 kilometers up) satellite data to FALSELY claim the surface of the Earth was not warming.http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/04/bob_carter_claims_its_not_warm.php
6 km. = about 20,000 feet up. WHY would you trust Carter’s opinion on climate issues???
Climate science is very specialized, and rapidly changing. Check their background, before relying on them.
“So Chicken, I mean Henny, you take the word of a very small minority of human beings – who are specialist in only one area, to determine the conduct of the rest of the human race? Naive.”
Posted by: Foxy Loxy | August 26, 2007 at 12:24 AM
The deniers group, mostly fossil-energy and right-wing funded, is MUCH SMALLER than the qualified climate scientists group.
But YOU take the “word” of the much smaller, and biased group of deniers? STUPID!!!
That’s like having a major heart problem, and ignoring multiple heart specialists who all have the same opinion/advice — and instead taking the advice of a grocery store clerk trying to sell supplements.
10,000 Frenchmen can’t be wrong!
The column written by Tom Harris athttp://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
is copy/pasted three times upthread. It seems that the the AGW denier(s) who post here believe that REPETITIONS make falsehoods more accurate.
Posted by: Truth, Justice, and the American Way | August 25, 2007 at 08:46 PMhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80624123
Posted by: Truth, Justice and the American Way | August 25, 2007 at 10:47 PMhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80630073
Posted by: Not mans fault | August 26, 2007 at 12:47 AMhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80634629
WHY was the web site, and author, Tom Harris omitted??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Free_Press“Canada Free Press is a Canadian website, which publishes conservative news stories, features, and editorials.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris_%28Canadian_engineer/technology_specialist%29“In August 2006, Charles Montgomery wrote in The Globe and Mail that Tom Harris was then a senior associate with HPG, which was a “registered lobbyist for the Canadian Electricity Association (web) and the Canadian Gas Association (web).”
‘An embarrassment to Australian science’http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php“Matt Drudge recently linked to a web site claiming that climate experts disagreed with Al Gore about global warming. Hundreds of blogs uncritically swallowed the claim.
One of the few skeptics was Bruce Perens who wrote
We ran a pointer to a global-warming-doubter story this morning. Here’s the link. I decided to pull the story after reviewing the author attribution (he’s from a paid political PR agency), and the venue’s other coverage on this issue. Sorry.
Hey, I’ve got my doubts about global warming too. But it does seem that the “con” side of the argument often comes from people who are paid to have those opinions.
Is Perens correct about the author? It seems so. The author of the article, Tom Harris, works for the High Park Group, a consulting firm that “focuses largely on energy issues” is “retained by the Canadian Electricity Association”. The Canadian Electricity Association appears to oppose Kyoto and has help fund a Canadian anti-Kyoto astroturf group.
Of course, this doesn’t prove that Harris is wrong, but unless you have the time to go through and carefully check his claims, it would be unwise to believe him.
I’ve examined Harris’ claims and he’s wrong. The genuine experts in the field say that Gore, basically, got it right.”
Some thoughts on Global Warming
Richard S. Lindzen
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
One can go on at length over the hilarious excesses of the climate issue, but it is particularly important to realize that over twenty years, this issue has evolved into a major industry.
Consider, for example, the consequences of a sudden discovery that global warming is a negligible problem.
1. Science – especially in its official representation – would be disgraced.
2. Climate science would be treated with suspicion for years to come.
3. The artificial field of climate impacts (which constitutes the bulk of what are called climate scientists) would largely disappear.
4. The environmental movement would be discredited and its fund raising ability would collapse.
5. Tens of thousands of bureaucrats and media drum-beaters would be without function.
6. Clever industrial plans to game the proposed systems would come to naught.
7. The UN would be without what it now claims to be its major cause (“The danger posed by war to all of humanity and to our planet is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming” – Ban Ki-moon .)
8. Many alternate energy startups would fail.
9. Numerous speculators would be ruined.
10. Trial lawyers working to make carbon the next tobacco would have to look elsewhere.
11. Even more numerous individuals who have adopted this issue as a matter of personal faith and vindication of their virtue and intelligence would be disillusioned and depressed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Is there any chance that most of the potential victims of the above would not fight back?
In point of fact, there is ample and relatively clear evidence that the issue is severely exaggerated, but don’t expect that this information will be widely publicized.
Most publicity focuses on the putative catastrophic impacts of global warming. Even warming, itself, depends on a chain of inference, but impacts depend on far longer chains of inference than does warming itself, and any given prediction has almost no chance of being correct. All the catastrophic projections made by the IPCC Impacts Report depend on warming being large, but they depend on much more as well.
The political agenda is what drives the global warming nuts.
It’s a MAD RUSH to judgement with no tolerance at all for opposing scientific reports.
This shove it down your throat with no questions asked approach, is what makes me question it the most.
Liberals just open their mouths, smile, bat their eyelashes, and swallow. Then they even thank you afterwards for feeding them with their daily propoganda.
“All the catastrophic projections made by the IPCC Impacts Report depend on warming being large, but they depend on much more as well.”
Posted by: Nathan | August 26, 2007 at 02:10 AM
Actually Nathan, the IPCC underestimates the future climate problems.
‘Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?Changes in the Final Text of the “Summary for Policy Makers” ‘http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/index.htm
The last section sums up how the bureaucrats weakened the science in the SPM.
‘The Politico-Economic Repression of Climate Science’”It has moved ground to the denial of amplifying feedback, acceleration of climate change, non-linearity in system behaviour and potential feedback-driven instability.”
Nathan… find any credible proof supporting YOUR claim that Al Gore’s documentary was “disinformation”??? No, you haven’t, because it wasn’t.
Cosmos,
Truthfully, I will watch it this week for the first time. I figured I would stop posting about it until I did.
Until then…
“if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request.”
What does this have to do with “believing Gore”?? Do you even grasp what a transparently insane argument that is??
I believe THESE folks:
“United Nations IPCCAmerican Meteorological SocietyNOAAU.S. National Academy of SciencesNASAEPAAmerican Geophysical UnionNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchRoyal Society of the United KingdomCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK)
Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK.”
Posted above by Ben, our resident environmental scientist.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80535761
Name ONE scientific organization that has endorsed the views of Tim Patterson, Richard Lindzen, Boris Winterhalter–or ANY of the dissenters.
If they’re right–fine, let them have to roll up their sleeves and convince THEIR colleagues. Taking potshots at the current model DOESN’T somehow replace it with a new one. Science is not set in stone, but trying to circumvent it with POLITICAL arguments is CHEATING.
You types can keep beating the hell out of that straw-man, and it won’t make a bit of difference. How ever much you blather on and on, sensible people can figure out that this has NOTHING to do with “Al Gore, Barbara Boxer and David Suzuki.”
Conspiracy theorists, if you’re absolutely convinced it was Al Gore in the Grassy Knoll, then once again, I challeng you: please explain HOW these all-powerful environmentalists (must. . keep. . straight. . face) control the majority of climate scientists AND the world’s prestigious scientific societies.
(Sigh. . who am I kidding? The cut-and-paste crap and rants may resume now. . .)
Nathan,
You’ve made two posts on this thread,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80556689http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80637039
that imply that Dr. Lindzen is the author.
“Some thoughts on Global Warming
Richard S. Lindzen
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology”
BUT the writing is VERY different from Dr. Lindzen’s typical op-ed’s, etc..
Do you have a link and/or source for your “Lindzen” posts???
I kinda wondered about that too, cosmos.
Cosmos,
My roommate was at a lecture presented by Professor Lindzen himself.
He was given a copy of that presentation and thus I was given a copy of it as well.
There is much more, firgured I would start with this stuff for now.
“Why do people still question global warming?”
They believe deceptions, and foolish statements.
“Very good source Max.
These German mathematicians and physicists just blew the entire anthropogenic scheme right out of the water.”
Posted by: the troll Kansas | August 25, 2007 at 05:21 PM
A quick look at one reference in the “German mathematicians and physicists” paper,http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf“In his paper “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time” the eminent atmospheric scientist Jaworowski made a well-founded statement.”
The “eminent atmospheric scientist Jaworowski” is one of the most RIDICULOUS deniers around.
‘Hissink, CO2 and conspiracy theories’http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3/“The measurements for 1865, for example, vary from 290 to 550 parts per million.It just isn’t possible for the CO2 concentration to change by that much in one year — the difference corresponds to about 500 billion tons of carbon which is about the same amount of carbon in all plants in the entire world.”
Everyone who believes that is possible, raise your hand. LOL!!!
And the “eminent atmospheric scientist Jaworowski” was published in Lyndon LaRouche’s non-refereed magazine.
Jaworski’s source was E. G. Beck,’More Nonsense about CO2′http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php
And cosmos fails to note that in that pdf the writers thought beck was incorrect.
But like I said, cosmos loves to cherry pick statements because he can’t handle scientific explanations because cosmos is not a scientist.
“And cosmos fails to note that in that pdf the writers thought beck was incorrect.”
Posted by: the troll Kansas
1) Post your proof “the writers thought beck was INCORRECT.”
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf“… the German biologist Ernst-Georg Beck argues that the IPCC reliance of ice core CO2 figures is wrong [17, 18]. Though interesting on its own that even the CO2 data themselves are subject to a discussion it does not influence the rationale of this paper which is to show that CO2 is completely irrelevant….Both authors would like to thank many people for discussions, email exchanges, and support at various stages of this work, in particular StD Dipl.-Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck,…”
Or admit that you are WRONG, Kansas.
2) If Beck was “incorrect”, so was the “eminent atmospheric scientist Jaworowski”.
yes cosmos, Jaworowski was referenced.
Once again you are cherry picking statements totally out of context for other proofs provided in the document.
You have no merit of argument cosmos because of your non-scientific background, you point to the easy fix and fail every time you do so.
Kansas,
If you have not noticed, you can’t even get to a scientific argument or discussion with cosmos.
All he can do is try to discredit your source.
It is a matter of who is more credible, not is man really causing global warming.
Biologist Beck’s sampling was erroneous. He collected samples in the vicinity of power plants and other direct CO2 emitters. Therefore, as wind direction changed the results varied widely.
Consider, for axample, taking air samples directly downwind from Barton solvents during the fire. While those samples would be important in analyzing the local effects of the fire they certainly could not be extrapolated as representing global air composition.
Troll Kansas,
YOU claimed that the writers thought that Beck was “incorrect”.
WHY did they reference 2 of Beck’s paper, and thank him FIRST in the acknowledgements???
You’ll probably respond with your predictable, boring, and false personal attacks on me.
“It is a matter of who is more credible, not is man really causing global warming.”
Posted by: Nathan | August 26, 2007 at 03:07 PM
No, humans ARE causing global warming — and people with zero climate credibilty (Beck, Jaworowski, and similiar ilk) are deceiving and confusing the public.
Ben,
You tried to explain to Republican, aka Kansas, the problems with Beck’s work last April.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/is_there_a_carb.html#comment-66608960
If you have not noticed, you can’t even get to a scientific argument or discussion with cosmos.
All he can do is try to discredit your source.
It is a matter of who is more credible, not is man really causing global warming.
Posted by: Nathan | August 26, 2007 at 03:07 PM
Yes I know Nathan. That is his method.
He’ll also rephrase what you write and start out with
XXXX does understand that
or XXXX lied about….
He has no scientific knowledge of Climate Science so he links a billion hyperlinks which do absolutely nothing to support his non-argument.
cosmos doesn’t know how to have an intelligent discussion, he just piles on ad hominem on top of ad hominem.
On Beck and I already told cosmos this and he refuses to acknowledge this, instead to make another stupid argument out of nothing.
This is the very first footnote in the paper.
“1.In a recent paper on \180 Years accurate CO2 Gas analysis of Air by Chemical Methods” the Germanbiologist Ernst-Georg Beck argues that the IPCC reliance of ice core CO2 gures is wrong [17, 18]. Though interesting on its own that even the CO2 data themselves are subject to a discussion it does not influence therationale of this paper which is to show that CO2 is completely irrelevant.”
Get it cosmos, irrelevant to that paper? cosmos sees Beck and goes for the throat like he actually has something.
That is the dangers of cherry picking things cosmos, you don’t get the whole story.
Again cosmos has been caught presenting false evidence.
btw, if you copy from that pdf be aware that it is done in german based unicode and it will leave out any combination of the letter “f” because it is utilized differently as the double “ss” in German translation.
Cosmos,
I notice you have yet to say anything about the credability of Professor Lindzen.
Is he just a paid off hack who is out to lie and decieve too?
Nathan,
Lindzen seems to believe that humans are causing global warming, but not as much warming as the other scientists.
His “Iris” theory doesn’t fit actual climate observations, and I think he has retracted it.
And he writes (non-peer-reviewed) op-eds, with spins and deceptions.
‘Lindzen: point by point’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/“Daniel Kirk-Davidoff (U. Maryland and one-time Lindzen co-author) provided a more detailed rebuttal of Lindzen’s argument in the comments to our previous post. It deserves to be more widely seen, so here it is again.”
Troll Kansas,
Do you have a reading problem?I ALREADY posted that footnote earlier, when I ASKED you,
“1) Post your proof “the writers thought beck was INCORRECT.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80672045
Instead of answering, you’ve made false personal attacks on me.
WHY did that paper reference two of Beck’s papers, and thank him FIRST in the acknowledgements???
That strongly implies that they respect Beck’s work, and consider it credible.
Ben has posted that Beck’s work is flawed,
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80673061http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/is_there_a_carb.html#comment-66608960http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/04/is_there_a_carb.html#comment-66613160
cosmos,
realclimate.org often posts skeptic views about Global Warming.
Do you want me to go to that Website and cherry pick the statements that agree with my views even if the writer on realclimate.org disagrees with the validity or even acknowledges them as part of their basic thesis?
I don’t think you would like that cosmos.
So stop cherry picking statements out of a 100 plus page article and actually try reading it and comprehending it.
That is, if you capable cosmos.
should read , if you are capable
Troll Kansas,
NO ANSWERS???
1) Post your proof “the writers thought beck was INCORRECT.
WHY did that paper reference two of Beck’s papers, and thank him FIRST in the acknowledgements???
You don’t respect anything that I post.
You called Dr. Gavin Schmidt, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/
a “fraudulent scientist” and a “quack”.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80627631
So ask **** BEN **** to read that idiotic paper,
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf
and ask **** BEN **** provide his opinion.
Kirk-Davidoff used to be Lindzen’s CO-AUTHOR.
‘Lindzen: point by point’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/“Daniel Kirk-Davidoff (U. Maryland and one-time LINDZEN CO-AUTHOR) provided a more detailed rebuttal of Lindzen’s argument in the comments to our previous post.”
cosmos, get off Beck, this is not about Beck.
Get over yourself and read the paper.
I’m guessing that you can’t because you are incapable of understanding it because you are posting one delaying action after the other.
You are losing credibility rapidly cosmos and spiraling down into the abyss of prejudicial mindset.
As if “Kansas” is immune of “prejudicial mindset.” Ha!
Even *if* global warming is independent of 200 years of humans spewing fossil fuel residue into the environment, it’s a given.
The North Pole is liquid, glaciers are dropping off into the sea, and such (how do you guys call it?) leftist, liberal, socialist pinko-Communist outfits such as *General Electric* have accepted the fact that global warming is a disaster in the making.
How do we, mere mortals, deal with the disaster that just might be inevitable? Keep spewing fossil fuel residue into the air as if nothing is gonna happen?
Well, that’s one political position. That’s the “prejudicial mindset” of people such as “Kansas.”
Perhaps there’s another worthwhile approach.
Troll Kansas,
That paper IS about Beck — he HELPED them write it:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf“Both authors would like to thank many people for discussions, email exchanges, and support at various stages of this work, in particular StD Dipl.-Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck,…”"
That paper IS about Jaworowski — they claim he is an “eminent atmospheric scientist”.
“In his paper “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time” the eminent atmospheric scientist Jaworowski made a well-founded statement.”
Some discussion at,http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/08/second_law_of_thermodynamics_v.phphttp://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/
Gerlich’s paper is garbage, and I don’t want to waste time reading it.And you don’t RESPECT anything that I post.
So ask **** BEN **** to read that idiotic paper,
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf
and ask **** BEN **** provide his opinion.
Evidently cosmos is unwilling to read in its entirety a paper he challenges as nonfactual.
This is how the whole GW Alarmist approach the matter of Climate Change.
They are unwillingly to consider the whole picture. They exclude water vapor from their models, they exclude any theory not pay for in blackmail funds raised by IPCC terrorists and use the media as their thug to intimidate anyone that has any view that is not in lockstep with their own.
cosmos is a certified enviro-nazi unwilling to listen to anything but canned theories via hyperlinks, hollywood videos or television hype.
The troll Kansas predictably posts more personal attacks… and demonstrates Godwins’s law.
KANSAS, ask ***** BEN *****,
if Dr. Gavin Schmidt, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/
is a “fraudulent scientist” and a “quack”http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80627631
for what he said about that paper?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast“[Response: I agree, the website's inclination is immaterial (though indicative), but the paper falls simply because it lousy physics. The planetary albedo is apparently a mystery to the authors, as is the ratio of Earth's disc to it's surface area, and they take exception to energy balance diagrams 'because they do not fit in the Feynman diagrams in quantum field theory”. This is bunkum of a high order. - gavin]”
“They exclude water vapor from their models,..”Posted by the troll Kansas.
LIAR! If they DID, the model would quickly project an “ice age”.
cosmos – I finnd it interesting that the skeptics are so good at recycling … they keep recycling previously debunked things like biologist Beck’s bogus CO2 measurements.
Ben,
Maybe it’s easy to keep recycling because some people have a philosophy of?
Fool me once, I don’t care…Fool me twice, I don’t care…Fool me.. etc, … forever.
And this paper(sic) is a hoot… might want to skim it for laughs.http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf
Okay cosmos and Ben, here is a statement from one of authors of the paper in question.
By the way, Professor Gerlich is an internationally highly regarded physicist.
“The authors express their hope that in the schools around the world the fundamentals ofphysics will be taught correctly and not by using award-winning “Al Gore” movies shockingevery straight physicist by confusing absorption/emission with reflection, by confusing thetropopause with the ionosphere, and by confusing microwaves with shortwave.”
Evidently Gavin Schmidt has been caught with his pants down by Professor Gerlich by using incorrect physics in his model formulae determination by using incorrect fundamental physics.
“do not fit in the framework of Feynman diagrams, which represent mathematical expressionsclearly defined in quantum field theory.”
“One square meter of a meadow does not know anything of the rest of the Earth’s surface, which determine the global mean value. Thus, the radiation is locally determined by the local temperature. Neither is there a global radiation balance, nor a global radiation budget, even in the mean-yield limit.
The report pokes holes in the shaky global warming theory: “(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, and (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet.”
The greenhouse effect refers to what happens when sunlight penetrates the glass in a greenhouse and then traps the heat inside. The proponents of the global warming theory claim that the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere plays the same role as the glass in allowing heat to do come through to the earth’s surface and then blocks it from radiating back into space, thus heating the globe.
“According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation,”
Gerlich also addresses albedo, blackbody radiation determination and effects of absorption and scattering of radiation.
Bottom line, Schmidt has an agenda against Gerlich for embarrassing him.
But since cosmos and Ben are stuck on Beck, the possibility of Alarmists using bad physics assumptions is just totally out of the question.
Afterall, Gavin Schmidt is being secretly paid by RealClimate.org to be their mouthpiece and he certainly wouldn’t jeopardize that.
I think the IRS needs to do an audit on Schmidt’s finances.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v2.pdf“However, some authors and filmmakers have argued that the greenhouse effect hypothesis is not based on an error, but clearly is a kind of a scientific fraud. Five examples:…Another movie was shown recently on Channel 4 (UK) entitled “The great global warming swindle” supporting the thesis that the supposed CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming has no scientific basis [122].”
But the ‘Swindle movie is NON-scientific garbage.
Great (and FUNNY) videos of ABC Australia’s Tony Jones debunking Martin Durkin, producer of ‘Swindle’.
Global Warming Swindle Interview Pt1 8:43http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE
Global Warming Swindle Interview Pt2 9:57http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8
also,http://www.desmogblog.com/a-great-global-warming-swindle-library
The last sentence is accurate… and LOL funny
‘Move to block emissions ’swindle’ DVD’http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2064925,00.html“Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office, and Bob May, former president of the Royal Society, are among 37 experts who have called for the DVD to be heavily edited or removed from sale. The film, the Great Global Warming Swindle, was first shown on March 8, and was criticised by scientists as distorted and misleading….Dr Allen said: “What Martin Durkin and Channel 4 don’t understand is the way science works. Science is about the arguments, not the people who make them.”…The letter was coordinated by Bob Ward, a former press officer with the Royal Society. He said: “This isn’t about censorship, it’s a question of quality control.
We have no objection to the DVD being distributed if all the errors are corrected, but if they correct all the errors then the whole premise of the program will fall to pieces.” “
By the way, Professor Gerlich is an internationally highly regarded physicist.
Posted by the troll Kansas.
That does NOT make him a highly-qualified CLIMATE scientist.
Another long and boring hyperlink post cosmos that no one will ever read – what a waste of blog space.
Doesn’t make him a Climate Scientist cosmos, but it makes him an Internationally Highly regarded physicist that knows when other scientists are using basic physics incorrectly.
This incorrect use is what Gerlich identified and it embarrasses the heck out of your climate scientists who refuse to admit their freshman physics errors.
No open minds on this topic Kansas.
Those who try are just pissing in the wind.
Hey, Max.
Did you get to hear Obama speak in Iowa?
I saw him speaking to a crowd, and while he was giving them his message of hope, they were giving him that hard-eyed prairie stare.
IOWA. Where great candidates go to die and get replaced by white-bread “centrists.”
“This incorrect use is what Gerlich identified and it embarrasses the heck out of your climate scientists who refuse to admit their freshman physics errors.”
Posted by the troll Kansas.
If that WAS true, then even “freshman physics” students worldwide would be supporting Gerlich.
But instead, it seems that physicists are IGNORING his paper.
TRY to PROVE me wrong…
Climate scientists are calling it things like “bunkum of a high order”.
And the science(sic) site newsmax pushes it,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80612421
btw, these are FUNNY, not “boring”. Durkin is stammering, and gets the flop sweats.Global Warming Swindle Interview Pt1 8:43http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE
Global Warming Swindle Interview Pt2 9:57http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8
The troll Kansas posted that Dr. Gavin Schmidt, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/
is a “fraudulent scientist” and a “quack” for what he said about Gerlich’s paper.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s.html#comment-80627631
The troll Kansas also posted: “This incorrect use is what Gerlich identified and it embarrasses the heck out of your climate scientists who refuse to admit their freshman physics errors.”
Now, TWO days later… it seems that the “well read and well educated” troll Kansas can’t EVEN find “freshman physics” students who support Gerlich’s paper.
Kansas is an excellent example of troll behavior, and tactics…
And IF the troll Kansas did find a confused, flunking-out, “freshman physics” student who supported Gerlich’s paper — respected physicists worldwide would refute that students claims.
TO COSMOS
Again, it’s how these scientists “tamper” with the data to get the results that they want (as several of us have seen happen).
Catherine,
I trust you turned in these acts of fraud each time you saw them, correct?