Skip to main content

* JULY 3, 2009

In Political Ads, Christian Left Mounts Sermonic Campaigns



By STEPHANIE SIMON

Randy Brinson, a conservative political consultant in Alabama, has been fielding anxious calls for weeks from business interests across the South.

Their concern is massive ad blitz on Christian and country-music stations across 10 states. The ads, funded by a left-leaning coalition, urge support for congressional legislation to curb greenhouse-gas emissions -- by framing the issue as an urgent matter of Biblical morality.

"As our seas rise, crops wither and rivers run dry, God's creation cries out for relief," begins one ad, narrated by an evangelical megachurch pastor. Another opens with a reference to the Gospel of John, slams energy interests for fighting the bill, and concludes: "Please join the faithful in speaking out against the powerful."

Dr. Brinson tells his clients they are right to be worried. Such an aggressive political campaign by the religious left is unexpected, he says, and could prove powerful. "This is the first time I've seen a moderate group of evangelicals come together and do a coordinated campaign," said Dr. Brinson. He is warning clients: "You're going to hear a lot more of this."

Emboldened by what they see as a kindred spirit in the White House, progressive and liberal Christians are stepping up their political activism in a big way.

A religious coalition called the American Values Network spent nearly $200,000 placing the global warming ads. Some political analysts credit the campaign with boosting support for the Waxman-Markey climate bill, which narrowly passed the House last week.

The coalition plans to spend an additional $150,000 in the coming months to enlist pastors in Nevada, Arizona and Colorado to rally support in the pews as climate-change legislation moves through the Senate.

Another left-leaning religious coalition will begin airing scripture-citing radio ads in key congressional districts this weekend, calling for legislation to make health insurance more affordable. The coalition -- which includes Faith in Public Life, Sojourners and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good -- also is distributing an eight-page guide, full of Biblical quotes and health-care statistics, to encourage pastors to raise the issue in sermons.

Democratic lawmakers representing conservative districts say such efforts help them make the case to skeptical constituents that they aren't simply toeing the party line -- or turning into bleeding-heart liberals -- when they support President Barack Obama's calls for health-care and climate-change legislation.

"It's important for people to see that it's not just [Democrats] saying this is important, but people who are coming at it from a moral background," said Rep. Tom Perriello, a freshman Democrat who has come under fire in his rural Virginia district for supporting the climate bill.

The religious right and secular conservatives are taking notice. In recent weeks, key religious-right groups such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council have heavily promoted the work of a group called the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. The Cornwall Alliance dismisses global-warming alarms as hype and argues that forceful action to cut greenhouse-gas emissions could cripple the economy and harm the poor. It is organizing conservative pastors to carry this message to the pews.

The religious left has a long tradition of activism on social issues, including the civil-rights movement. But for the past quarter century, faith-based politicking has been dominated by the religious right, which built a powerful army of activists -- and a formidable fund-raising machine -- on the strength of leaders such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority and radio host James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

The religious left's re-emergence as a strong voice -- with the financial backing to make aggressive media buys -- is a "seismic shift," said D. Michael Lindsay, a sociologist at Rice University who studies evangelical politics.

"The religious left is experiencing today what the religious right had in 1981," Mr. Lindsay said. "They've finally found a White House that's not just tolerating but welcoming, affirming, of their involvement."

Left-leaning Christian groups also have started to attract funding from secular donors who share their political goals -- and who see Biblical appeals as a promising way to broaden public support.

Oxfam America has worked with churches for years, but on relatively non-controversial campaigns such as staging fasts to call attention to world hunger. Now, the group is teaming up with the religious left to push for congressional action to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

E. Calvin Beisner, a spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance, says the right has to respond forcefully to the well-funded campaigns from the religious left, because "they're certainly not being silent."
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Of course, since global warming ended in 1998


That is simply not true and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the factual data.

Yes, the globe is getting warmer. Yes, it has been cooling a little since 1998 or so. Yes, the data indicates that it will cycle back to the warming trend and ratchet higher and higher until something tips the scale back the other way.

Global warming is an amazingly complex and often contradictory theory but there is no denying the factual data.

Image source NASA Link

Attachments

Images (1)
  • temp
Let's ignore global warming for a minute. Take a look around you, even in the big cities. Do we honestly think the amount of CO being released from vehicles has no effect on the environment? Look at our rivers. 30 years ago I would gladly eat any fish from the Tennessee River. Now I wouldn't. We should be good stewards of what we have been given.

Now let's reopen the global warming question. Does the results make a difference? The Earth will eventually purge itself or mutate to accept its existence. The rock may be here.

The good news: I doubt I will be around when the results hit home hard enough to concern the general population. For now we will continue to debate what will happen. Nothing . . . warming . . . cooling . . . natural . . . unnatural, we do know it will change.

The better news: Some crazy nut will probably nuke us off the map or we will grow some crazy virus before any environmental catastrophe. We just may be lucky enough to be part of the culling of the population.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Of course, since global warming ended in 1998


That is simply not true and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the factual data.

Yes, the globe is getting warmer. Yes, it has been cooling a little since 1998 or so. Yes, the data indicates that it will cycle back to the warming trend and ratchet higher and higher until something tips the scale back the other way.

Global warming is an amazingly complex and often contradictory theory but there is no denying the factual data.

Image source NASA Link



Yep temps been going up since the last Ice Age, they'll cool down before the next ice age, life is full of cycles.
quote:
Originally posted by AlabamaSon:
Let's ignore global warming for a minute. Take a look around you, even in the big cities. Do we honestly think the amount of CO being released from vehicles has no effect on the environment? Look at our rivers. 30 years ago I would gladly eat any fish from the Tennessee River. Now I wouldn't. We should be good stewards of what we have been given.

Now let's reopen the global warming question. Does the results make a difference? The Earth will eventually purge itself or mutate to accept its existence. The rock may be here.

The good news: I doubt I will be around when the results hit home hard enough to concern the general population. For now we will continue to debate what will happen. Nothing . . . warming . . . cooling . . . natural . . . unnatural, we do know it will change.

The better news: Some crazy nut will probably nuke us off the map or we will grow some crazy virus before any environmental catastrophe. We just may be lucky enough to be part of the culling of the population.


Our rivers are cleaner now than 30 years ago. About 40 years ago, one of Cleveland, Ohio's rivers caught on fire due to pollution.
The hottest year recorded in the US was in 1934, around the time of the dust bowl. 1998 was second, third was 1921.

Link

Link

If the planet has been warming since 1998, then we should have at least broken the record set in 1921. We haven't. Not only have we not broken it, the past few years haven't even come close. For global warming to exist, the temperatures have to actually increase. If they're not, then there is no warming.

Link
Must be all those drivers and coal plants on Mars.
LOL.


Cow Flatulence it’s not.

National Geographic is reporting that Global Warming may have a different cause than Cow Flatulence and all the hot air Al Gore is releasing. Appearantly, the polar ice caps on Mars (yes, that Mars) have been melting significantly over the last three summers.

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.

Wow. Scientists actually suggesting that it isn’t caused by what Al would like us to believe? Bet that doesn’t get embraced in the same way as they seem to have embraced Darwin. Of course, that would be because it doesn’t fit their political agenda. Sun Cycles don’t make very good social platforms.

Welcome to the lemming parade…


Link
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
The hottest year recorded in the US was in 1934, around the time of the dust bowl. 1998 was second, third was 1921.

Link

Link

If the planet has been warming since 1998, then we should have at least broken the record set in 1921. We haven't. Not only have we not broken it, the past few years haven't even come close. For global warming to exist, the temperatures have to actually increase. If they're not, then there is no warming.

Link


Gore has that covered already Nash. It's called "climate change". Can't be wrong with a name like that.
"That is simply not true and demonstrates a profound ignorance of the factual data.

Yes, the globe is getting warmer. Yes, it has been cooling a little since 1998 or so. Yes, the data indicates that it will cycle back to the warming trend and ratchet higher and higher until something tips the scale back the other way."

No! Do you not see the contradiction of your own statement? No warming in the last eleven years. The same pattern happening on Mars (and Pluto) as on Earth. Yet, CO2 is blamed for the changes on Earth. Such a statement defies scientific principles.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
And, instrumentation vastly improved in the last decade.


Nope. Mercury thermometers today and just as accurate as mercury thermometers 100 years ago. That kind of technology doesn't "advance."

But besides that, there are many other ways to measure temperature.

Folks, there is absolutely no denying the global warming effect yet here we have a representative group of people who are ding just that. You may as well put your fingers in your ears and yell "nah nah nah!"

Personally, I'm not too terribly concenred. I'm not convinced that GW is necessairily a bad thing but there almost certainly will be changes in our climate over the next 100 years that will have an effect. I do beleive it is best to keep a wary eye out for ways we may mitigate this change or manage it to our advantage but there is no denying that your grandchildren will have to deal with this - whether its a good thing or not.

Here is some data from NOAH -you know, a member of the vast conspiracy to send everyone in into a panic?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv.

There is no debate on the relationship between CO2 levels and rising temperatures, folks.

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995.

Remember, folks, this is called "global" warming. Yes, it's cooler here in the south but there is no debate that the global average is increasing. No debate, people.

There is a wealth of data on the subject in very easy-to-understand language. You evangelical GW-deniers can deny reality all you wish. It matters not to me. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real, is probably man-made and will result in climate change for the better or worse.

Link

(And, yes, Mars goes through cycles just like all the other planets. Mars' warming happens to coincide with our warming at the moment but that is utterly meaningless to this conversation. Mars' C02 levels are quite stable.)
Cookie, read the last link I posted. It was written by a man who has spent his life researching, learning, and reporting the weather. He's not a politician who stands to make tons of money off carbon credits.

Link

The Japaneese are calling BS on it.

Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth.”

Link

Europeans are starting to see that it's BS.

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".

Link

The Canadians are figuring out that CO2 isn't a pollutant, but a natural and necessary part of nature that is vital for plant growth.

What is your carbon footprint? That is the wrong question to ask. A more meaningful question is--How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the wheat required to produce a loaf of bread? Or--How much carbon dioxide does it take to grow the corn for the chicken feed required to produce a dozen eggs? Far from being a pollutant, man along with every animal on land, fish in the sea, and bird in the air is totally dependent on atmospheric carbon dioxide for his food supply.


Link

The Australians don't believe it either.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?" She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Link

As for a consensus? There is none, there are plenty of scientists who are rejecting the theory.

Link

Link

Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.

There is no global warming. The one simple fact proves it, we haven't come close to the record set in 1921, the third hottest year. There are plenty of other facts that also prove it, but that one is the biggest.

Your statements that there is no debate about global warming is a political tactic used to silence opposition. There is a very big debate about it because inflation is about to take a huge jump upward based on a faulty theory.

To say that there is a scientific consensus when clearly there is not is untrue. There are plenty of scientists all over the world who are calling BS on global warming.

It's not happening. We had a brief period with increased sun activity, now it's died down and we're cooling off. It's happened all throughout history. The warm period during medieval times followed by the little ice age. No cars or Al Gore back then, but there was climate change.

It's a BS theory, you can choose to believe it if you want, but we're all about to be paying through the nose for political based science when the cap and trade crap passes. When you're paying $5 per gallon in gas, you can thank yourself for it.
The technology improvements would be in the data aquisition systems. Previously, data collection relied on human beings eyeballing the thermometers and recording it by hand. I can see there being a lot of error with the old method due to human error and laziness.

Another answer for ground level temp. increases would be the urban island heating effect. As we build up and populate geographical areas, the ground level temps increase. This has nothing to do with CO2 and this data is averaged in with all the other temps, which skews the overall result.

Cookies responses have been all boilerplate liberal media/politician fodder. There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming. I believe many of the scientist who agree with global warming, or climate change, do so only because they will lose grant money if they speak the truth. The only consensus over global warming is Hollywood, liberal politicians, and liberal media, none of which comprise the scientific community.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
It's a BS theory, you can choose to believe it if you want,


I find it interesting that there certainly seems to be a correlation between "true believers" and the denial of the facts of global warming. I think perhaps there is some tendency for believers to disregard facts that get in the way of their beliefs.

Me? I willing to be persuaded. I personally am wholly undecided on whether or not GW is good or bad but I'm undecided because the scientific community is undecided.

But the vast, overwhelming majority of the scientific community soundly asserts that global warming is real and is probably man made.

Here is another link to a socialist, anti-god, communistic schemer in the vast global warming conspiracy that has some interesting things to say about the issue, the National Geographic: Link
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming.


Well, other than the American Association for the Advancement of Science,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Joint National Academies and American Meteorological Society and every single legitimate, non-biased scientific society in the world. Yes, there have been many organizations specifically formed in order to deny the evidence. Side with them if you want.

You, Hoob, are an excellent example of my assertion that there is a direct correlation between fundamentalism and denial of the facts of global warming. Really, Hoob, your anti-science stance on every topic makes you about as qualified as my dog to comment on the GW topic.

Here is a article concerning a meta study of scientific papers on global warming. A meta study is a study of studies used to gain insight into complicated issues like GW.

It has this to say:
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

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

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming.


Well, other than the American Association for the Advancement of Science,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Joint National Academies and American Meteorological Society and every single legitimate, non-biased scientific society in the world. Yes, there have been many organizations specifically formed in order to deny the evidence. Side with them if you want.

You, Hoob, are an excellent example of my assertion that there is a direct correlation between fundamentalism and denial of the facts of global warming. Really, Hoob, your anti-science stance on every topic makes you about as qualified as my dog to comment on the GW topic.

Here is a article concerning a meta study of scientific papers on global warming. A meta study is a study of studies used to gain insight into complicated issues like GW.

It has this to say:
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

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

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.



So we are the cause of temps rising on mars too. The argument is how much is man made. Right now we are in a cooling period, why do you think the loons of the left renamed Global warming to Climate Change?

Why do the loons cheer on Gore's Climate change tour while he is creating more CO2 by himself than a neighborhood of regular folks. Ah the hypocrisy if it. Gore loves this talk to the tune of a 100 million so far, keep paying his way, he loves you for it.

Everything thing in this world cycles or did man cause cycles too?
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
It's a BS theory, you can choose to believe it if you want,


I find it interesting that there certainly seems to be a correlation between "true believers" and the denial of the facts of global warming. I think perhaps there is some tendency for believers to disregard facts that get in the way of their beliefs.

Me? I willing to be persuaded. I personally am wholly undecided on whether or not GW is good or bad but I'm undecided because the scientific community is undecided.

But the vast, overwhelming majority of the scientific community soundly asserts that global warming is real and is probably man made.

Here is another link to a socialist, anti-god, communistic schemer in the vast global warming conspiracy that has some interesting things to say about the issue, the National Geographic: Link


I provided plenty of evidence against global warming. If you are really willing to be persuaded, check it out.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
The technology improvements would be in the data aquisition systems. Previously, data collection relied on human beings eyeballing the thermometers and recording it by hand. I can see there being a lot of error with the old method due to human error and laziness.

Another answer for ground level temp. increases would be the urban island heating effect. As we build up and populate geographical areas, the ground level temps increase. This has nothing to do with CO2 and this data is averaged in with all the other temps, which skews the overall result.

Cookies responses have been all boilerplate liberal media/politician fodder. There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming. I believe many of the scientist who agree with global warming, or climate change, do so only because they will lose grant money if they speak the truth. The only consensus over global warming is Hollywood, liberal politicians, and liberal media, none of which comprise the scientific community.


You hit the nail on the head, excellent post.
And, yes, Mars goes through cycles just like all the other planets. Mars' warming happens to coincide with our warming at the moment but that is utterly meaningless to this conversation. Mars' C02 levels are quite stable.)

Utterly meaningless? Really? Isn't that the trick of ignoring what doesn't agree with your point of view?
There is NO CONSENSUS of the scientific community,and Obama is wasting tons of money and hurting the economy more because he wants to have a global cause. Let him be the poster child to eradicate global idiocy, starting with himself.
quote:
Really, Hoob, your anti-science stance on every topic makes you about as qualified as my dog to comment on the GW topic.


For a couple of decades I worked around scientific folks who did exhibit one dog-like attribute: the tendency to form packs. I honestly don't know if man-made global warming is real or not, but I do know how human that researchers are and that sometimes these people are capable of selective data presentation to bolster their position and ignoring data that is against their theory. It is an fact that Man's global study of the climate and atmosphere by direct measurement is but a couple of centuries old. We also know that from the past history that the climate has gone through cycles such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that was a mere 150 years ago. To study the past history of atmospheric gases, ice cores are sampled and it boils down to whose core sample's analyzes one wishes to quote.

quote:
Ice Core Data Unreliable
The ice core data from various polar sites are not consistent
with each another, and there is a discrepancy between these
data and geological climatic evidence.12 One such example is
the discrepancy between the classic Antarctic Byrd and Vostok
ice cores, where an important decrease in the CO2 content in
the air bubbles occurred at the same depth of about 500 meters,
but at which the ice age differed by about 16,000 years.
In an approximately 14,000-year-old part of the Byrd core, a
drop in the CO2 concentration of 50 ppmv was observed, but
in similarly old ice from the Vostok core, an increase of 60
ppmv was found. In about ~6,000-year-old ice from Camp
Century, Greenland, the CO2 concentration in air bubbles was
420 ppmv, but it was 270 ppmv in similarly old ice from Byrd,
Antarctica.
Link
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:
There is absolutely no scientific consensus on the cause of global warming.


Well, other than the American Association for the Advancement of Science,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Joint National Academies and American Meteorological Society and every single legitimate, non-biased scientific society in the world. Yes, there have been many organizations specifically formed in order to deny the evidence. Side with them if you want.

You, Hoob, are an excellent example of my assertion that there is a direct correlation between fundamentalism and denial of the facts of global warming. Really, Hoob, your anti-science stance on every topic makes you about as qualified as my dog to comment on the GW topic.

Here is a article concerning a meta study of scientific papers on global warming. A meta study is a study of studies used to gain insight into complicated issues like GW.

It has this to say:
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

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

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.


Science has nothing to do with this issue, it is strictly political. You are the typical liberal alarmist who only relies on what you're told through the liberal media and bought and paid for politicians.

This is the same junk you alarmists have been spouting for decades, only back then it was global cooling. Remember the big nitrogen scare back in the 70's?

Keep on drinking that cool-aid, cookey.
quote:
New Danish research shows that large parts of Greenland were covered by forest. This was discovered by analysing fossil DNA which had been preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap. The DNA-traces are likely close to 450,000 years old, and that means that Greenland was also covered in a large ice sheet 125,000 years ago during the earth's last warm period, Eem. This was while the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in.
Link

Those cavemen must have driven humongous SUV's and the mastodons must have really been gassy.
Global warming has two parts:

(1) Is the average temperature of the earth increasing?

(2) Are humans the cause of it?

What the politicians have done is taken spotty science and come to the conclusion that these two questions are joined at the hip. I maintain that the truth is irrelevant as long as their conclusion furthers their political agenda.

Yes, Cookie, the mercury thermometer is unchanged from the 19th century. However, the orbital sensing systems are much better. The ability to develop atmospheric models is unsurpassed. However, the models can't even accurately determine PAST temperatures. The models don't match empirical data.

It has been shown that temperature sensing stations are located at areas at which the local ambient temperature is higher...with large asphalt parking areas, in cities, and other locally hot areas. Less than 1% of the earth's surface is served by these sensing stations.

There are 11 year solar cycles that will contribute to warming. Point of fact, the global weather system likely is such a pseudo-random process that will defy the ability of scientists to model it.

Making more efficient cars, saving energy, independence from foreign oil...these are all laudable goals. But I maintain they are nothing to people like Al Gore. He simply wants to be relevant.
“Originally posted by interventor1:
And, instrumentation vastly improved in the last decade.

Nope. Mercury thermometers today and just as accurate as mercury thermometers 100 years ago. That kind of technology doesn't "advance."
Measurements taken by digital instruments have greatly improved from the mercury thermometers of the last two centuries.

“(And, yes, Mars goes through cycles just like all the other planets. Mars' warming happens to coincide with our warming at the moment but that is utterly meaningless to this conversation. Mars' C02 levels are quite stable.)”

Exactly, two planets are experiencing the same phenomenon, but the suspected cause is stabile on one ad not on the other. Simple scientific principles conclude the hypothesized cause (increased CO2) would not be the cause.
“You evangelical GW-deniers can deny reality all you wish. It matters not to me.”

First, I’m not an evangelical. Second, the use of GW denier is a rather nasty, but obvious attempt to equate those who do not accept GW as th equivalent of holocaust deniers. It’s contemptible!
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
There is NO CONSENSUS of the scientific community,and Obama is wasting tons of money and hurting the economy


Yes, there is consensus.

And I agree about Obama's (or anyone else's) short term plan. I happen to side with many others that there's probably not a **** thing we can do about the very real fact that the globe is getting warmer. Every solution offered up so far has been akin to pissing in the ocean.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Global warming has two parts:

(1) Is the average temperature of the earth increasing?

(2) Are humans the cause of it?


And the answers are Yes and probably. Wink

quote:
Yes, Cookie, the mercury thermometer is unchanged from the 19th century. However, the orbital sensing systems are much better.


True, too.

But thermometers aren't the only way we have measured temperature. There are ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments and glacier melts and a dozen other ways of measuring temperature. They all seem to indicate a long term warming trend.

IN fact, all the measurements indicate that the earth is the warmest it has been in 12,000 years. Link

We are currently in the midst of the largest extinction ever known due to climate change. Link

Just in my adult lifetime, I have had to make adjustments over what plants I can and cannot plant in my zone. I now have a oleander bush that would not live in my zone just a decade ago. I've got a palm tree by my pool. In NORTH ALABAMA! Link

Can anyone in North Alabama remember the last appreciable snowfall? Anyone? There was the big Ice Storm of '94 but prior to that, not much. When I was a kid, I was always envious of North Alabama for getting snow when I didn't (I live in another state).

I tell you what: Can someone here give me a legitimate link to a single comprehensive study or chart or graph that is contrary to the overwhelming data showing a warmer earth?

Can anyone show me a graphs showing a decrease in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Really, the effects of CO2 are widely known. There is absolutely no dissent from the fact that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in TWO MILLION YEARS, folks. Link

Again, I'm not calling for a panic. I'm NOT convinced that a warmer earth is a bad thing for humanity. But climate change is happening, folks. Your denial of it doesn't change the facts.
The answers are no and no.

If the average temperature was rising, then the 88 year old record for third hottest year would have been broken since 1998. It still stands.

Link

In the 70's there was a "consensus" that we were heading for a new ice age. Now it's the opposite problem.

This fictitious problem has become a platform for the government to raise taxes, which is about to happen. There is the motive for the scam. Also keep in mind that NASA is federally funded.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Global warming has two parts:

(1) Is the average temperature of the earth increasing?

(2) Are humans the cause of it?


And the answers are Yes and probably. Wink

quote:
Yes, Cookie, the mercury thermometer is unchanged from the 19th century. However, the orbital sensing systems are much better.


True, too.

But thermometers aren't the only way we have measured temperature. There are ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments and glacier melts and a dozen other ways of measuring temperature. They all seem to indicate a long term warming trend.

IN fact, all the measurements indicate that the earth is the warmest it has been in 12,000 years. Link

We are currently in the midst of the largest extinction ever known due to climate change. Link

Just in my adult lifetime, I have had to make adjustments over what plants I can and cannot plant in my zone. I now have a oleander bush that would not live in my zone just a decade ago. I've got a palm tree by my pool. In NORTH ALABAMA! Link

Can anyone in North Alabama remember the last appreciable snowfall? Anyone? There was the big Ice Storm of '94 but prior to that, not much. When I was a kid, I was always envious of North Alabama for getting snow when I didn't (I live in another state).

I tell you what: Can someone here give me a legitimate link to a single comprehensive study or chart or graph that is contrary to the overwhelming data showing a warmer earth?

Can anyone show me a graphs showing a decrease in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Really, the effects of CO2 are widely known. There is absolutely no dissent from the fact that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in TWO MILLION YEARS, folks. Link

Again, I'm not calling for a panic. I'm NOT convinced that a warmer earth is a bad thing for humanity. But climate change is happening, folks. Your denial of it doesn't change the facts.




The real question is; what are we going to do about Mars? It's heating up and we need to stop it, what say you as to how?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
The answers are no and no.

If the average temperature was rising, then the 88 year old record for third hottest year would have been broken since 1998. It still stands.


Once again showing your utter ignorance of both statistics and the GW issue.

The globe has only warmed a few tenths of a degree in the past 150 years, Nash. It is a phenomenon that is not predicted to have profound effect until a hundred or more years from now. The most we will see in our lifetimes is a few extra hurricanes, a few more droughts in some dry areas. A few more inches of rain in wet areas. Maybe. I don't think anyone knows for sure. The only thing we do know is that the globe is getting warmer despite the ignorance of a few.

I note that you conveniently ignored my requests to produce some scientific data from a legitimate source that shows the globe either remaining the same temperature or cooling over a long trend.

I challenge you to find a single legitimate source that has factual data to support that CO2 levels are stable to lowering.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

Link


this is from Glenn Beck, Nash, not a scientist. This is the same Glenn Beck who, for the last few months, has been warning us to take cover, horde food and water and cower until the world finishes crumbling during the worst economic disaster in recorded history. On top of all that, he is a Creationist.

Whatever he has to say is interesting but unworthy of scientific merit.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
The answers are no and no.

If the average temperature was rising, then the 88 year old record for third hottest year would have been broken since 1998. It still stands.


Once again showing your utter ignorance of both statistics and the GW issue.

The globe has only warmed a few tenths of a degree in the past 150 years, Nash. It is a phenomenon that is not predicted to have profound effect until a hundred or more years from now. The most we will see in our lifetimes is a few extra hurricanes, a few more droughts in some dry areas. A few more inches of rain in wet areas. Maybe. I don't think anyone knows for sure. The only thing we do know is that the globe is getting warmer despite the ignorance of a few.

I note that you conveniently ignored my requests to produce some scientific data from a legitimate source that shows the globe either remaining the same temperature or cooling over a long trend.

I challenge you to find a single legitimate source that has factual data to support that CO2 levels are stable to lowering.


Actually Cookie, I've already provided evidence. You have to actually click on the links and read them. I know I posted quite a few, but there is just so much out there that proves GW to be junk science.

We haven't seen an increase in hurricanes. We've actually seen less. What we have seen is snow in places that rarely sees any. We have not seen an influx in global temperature. As I've shown in the links you haven't read, we're actually cooling a bit.

When politicians who stand to get rich of a theory that scientists sign petitions saying it's bunk, why should I believe the politician?
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:

Link


this is from Glenn Beck, Nash, not a scientist. This is the same Glenn Beck who, for the last few months, has been warning us to take cover, horde food and water and cower until the world finishes crumbling during the worst economic disaster in recorded history. On top of all that, he is a Creationist.

Whatever he has to say is interesting but unworthy of scientific merit.


Did any scientists appear in the video?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
I provided plenty of evidence against global warming. If you are really willing to be persuaded, check it out.


No, you provided some links to global warming deniers.

Not a single one of them contains a temperature chart that disagrees with the consensus data (and the chart that I initially displayes from NOAA) showing a long-term decrease in global temperatures.

We are nearing the end of a solar minimum, Nash. The 11 year cycle is about ro ramp up again. When it does, temps will increase by a couple of tenths of a degree. It's a "ratcheting" effect, not a steady increase as many of you seem to insist upon in your attempts at denying the facts.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I challenge you to find a single legitimate source that has factual data to support that CO2 levels are stable to lowering.


Actually Cookie, I've already provided evidence.


I looked at your "evidence" from fellow GW deniers, Nash. Not a single source you cites was a legitimate scientific source. All of them were either news reports support your stance or blogs from fellow GW deniers.\

Not a single one of them showed a chart or posited factual data that whoed a decrease on the long term temperature or CO2 levels. Go ahead, prove me wrong if you can, Nash. A simple cut-and-paste will solve this issue right now.

I'll make the request for the third time to all of you: Produce some scientific data from a legitimate source that shows the globe either remaining the same temperature or cooling over a long trend. Not just a decade, but long term.

I challenge you to find a single legitimate source that has factual data to support that CO2 levels are stable or lowering.

Prove me wrong, friends. Show me your FACTS.
quote:
Not a single one of them contains a temperature chart that disagrees with the consensus data (and the chart that I initially displayes from NOAA) showing a long-term decrease in global temperatures.


You've got to be kidding me.

This is the first link I gave you.

Link

You're telling me that there isn't a single temperature chart contained in that document? There isn't any scientific data contained in that pdf? Are you going to stand by that statement that the pdf I provided contains no charts or data?

You need some more evidence to ignore? Here you go.

Link

Do you want more? I've got plenty. You also did not answer my question. Yes, the video I provided is from Glenn Beck's show. I don't always agree with his views. However, did any scientists appear in that video?
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I don't think anyone knows for sure.



ding ding ding ding, we have a winner



Absolutely.

I am willing to state emphatically that I am not qualified to evaluate all the seemingly contradictory data on this vast theory. I will proudly states "I don't know!" from the highest mountain.

That is contrasted with the GW deniers who "know" that this is a scam perpetrated by some vast network on conspirators with a motive of destroying modern civilization (at least according to the GW deniers)

No, I am not qualified. Nor are you. Neither is anyone here on this forum. the only rational position is to side with the overwhelming consensus that GW is real and is probably man-made and perhaps/maybe/sorta/kinda begin to ask ourselves if anything can or even should be done about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I don't think anyone knows for sure.



ding ding ding ding, we have a winner



Absolutely.

I am willing to state emphatically that I am not qualified to evaluate all the seemingly contradictory data on this vast theory. I will proudly states "I don't know!" from the highest mountain.

That is contrasted with the GW deniers who "know" that this is a scam perpetrated by some vast network on conspirators with a motive of destroying modern civilization (at least according to the GW deniers)

No, I am not qualified. Nor are you. Neither is anyone here on this forum. the only rational position is to side with the overwhelming consensus that GW is real and is probably man-made and perhaps/maybe/sorta/kinda begin to ask ourselves if anything can or even should be done about it.


Two things. Do you still stand behind your statement that I did not provide you any charts or scientific data that challenges GW?

Were there any scientists in the video I posted?

There is no consensus on global warming. The following link not only provides a number of links with tons of data challenging the "theory", but it also gives a lengthy list of names of scientists who are skeptical of global warming.

Link

Are every one of those people on that list wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Not a single one of them contains a temperature chart that disagrees with the consensus data (and the chart that I initially displayes from NOAA) showing a long-term decrease in global temperatures.


You've got to be kidding me.

This is the first link I gave you.

Link


I read it. It's from some guy. A TV weatherman. So what? He has some interesting data showing his side of the story but you failed miserably in providing data that shows a long-term cooling trend.

quote:


You need some more evidence to ignore? Here you go.

Link


That's a little better, Nash. ScienceDaily is a pretty well respected online magazine. But the article doesn't address the issue. It makes a case that (in a nutshell) measuring global average temperature is impossible. He doesn't refute the existing body of evidence and he doesn't say that we are actually experience global cooling instead.

It is a legitimate critique. If temperature alone were the indicator, I might even side with him. But his assertions do not rule out the evident fact that CO2 levels are dramatically higher than they have been in millions of years, Nash. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is very well understood.

So, again, I request: Show me a chart from a legitimate scientific establishment that shows a long-term cooling, Nash. You've got the whole internet. It shouldn't take you but a minute. Why the resistance? My guess: You can't find it.

quote:
Do you want more? I've got plenty.


Sure!

I especially want that chart that shows a long-term decrease in global temps and CO2 levels -- especially the CO2 levels.

quote:
You also did not answer my question. Yes, the video I provided is from Glenn Beck's show. I don't always agree with his views. However, did any scientists appear in that video?


I can give you a link to hundreds of "scientists" who adhere to Creationism, Nash. I can even give you a list of thousands of names of scientists who deny evolution. A dozen, hundred or thousand scientists do not change the consensus of the vast majority of scientists and independent organizations.

Hell, I'll even admit that you might be right: That all this is all a scam perpetrated by some evildoers.

But until the vast majority of scientists and their respective organizations change their positions statements, I will side with the overwhelming consensus. It's the only rational stance.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I don't think anyone knows for sure.



ding ding ding ding, we have a winner



Absolutely.

I am willing to state emphatically that I am not qualified to evaluate all the seemingly contradictory data on this vast theory. I will proudly states "I don't know!" from the highest mountain.

That is contrasted with the GW deniers who "know" that this is a scam perpetrated by some vast network on conspirators with a motive of destroying modern civilization (at least according to the GW deniers)

No, I am not qualified. Nor are you. Neither is anyone here on this forum. the only rational position is to side with the overwhelming consensus that GW is real and is probably man-made and perhaps/maybe/sorta/kinda begin to ask ourselves if anything can or even should be done about it.



Ask yourself ONE question


if Al Gore was so concerned with climate change, why has does he have so much profit wrapped up into his idea?


100 million dollars worth and laughing all the way to the bank

He is such the lier, living in a massive power draining house while jet setting his way around the world. there's a word the demothugs like to use, can you remember that word

his carbon footprint is 20 times the average person yet we are to buy carbon credits from his company

can you not see the truth here, it is so blatantly in front of you
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
[QUOTE]Not a single one of them contains a temperature chart that disagrees with the consensus data (and the chart that I initially displayes from NOAA) showing a long-term decrease in global temperatures.


You've got to be kidding me.

This is the first link I gave you.

Link

I read it. It's from some guy. A TV weatherman. So what? He has some interesting data showing his side of the story but you failed miserably in providing data that shows a long-term cooling trend.

quote:


You need some more evidence to ignore? Here you go.

Link


That's a little better, Nash. ScienceDaily is a pretty well respected online magazine. But the article doesn't address the issue. It makes a case that (in a nutshell) measuring global average temperature is impossible. He doesn't refute the existing body of evidence and he doesn't say that we are actually experience global cooling instead.

It is a legitimate critique. If temperature alone were the indicator, I might even side with him. But his assertions do not rule out the evident fact that CO2 levels are dramatically higher than they have been in millions of years, Nash. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is very well understood.

So, again, I request: Show me a chart from a legitimate scientific establishment that shows a long-term cooling, Nash. You've got the whole internet. It shouldn't take you but a minute. Why the resistance? My guess: You can't find it.

quote:
Do you want more? I've got plenty.


Sure!

I especially want that chart that shows a long-term decrease in global temps and CO2 levels -- especially the CO2 levels.

quote:
You also did not answer my question. Yes, the video I provided is from Glenn Beck's show. I don't always agree with his views. However, did any scientists appear in that video?


I can give you a link to hundreds of "scientists" who adhere to Creationism, Nash. I can even give you a list of thousands of names of scientists who deny evolution. A dozen, hundred or thousand scientists do not change the consensus of the vast majority of scientists and independent organizations.

Hell, I'll even admit that you might be right: That all this is all a scam perpetrated by some evildoers.

But until the vast majority of scientists and their respective organizations change their positions statements, I will side with the overwhelming consensus. It's the only rational stance.



sheeple comes to mind
quote:
I especially want that chart that shows a long-term decrease in global temps and CO2 levels -- especially the CO2 levels.


Here's some more. It only works if you click the link.

Link

You also skipped my question. Do you stand by your statement that I did not provide any source that contained temperature charts or data? Just because he is on TV doesn't automatically discredit his data.


If the scientists in Beck's video are incorrect, what evidence do you have that proves them wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Two things. Do you still stand behind your statement that I did not provide you any charts or scientific data that challenges GW?


I stand by my assertion that you have provided no data from legitimate scientist organizations that refute the GW theory. You cites plenty of individuals just as I can cite a lot of scientific creationists.

Shall I cite a flat earth scientist for you, too? Does his opinion change the fact that the world is a sphere?

Let me make this easy: Please provide refutive data from NOAA or the National Meteorological Society or any other mainstream scientific organization. That means something more than "some guy" on the internet, Nash.

Heck, I'll settle from a source we both agree on: ScienceDaily.com.

quote:
There is no consensus on global warming.


Realty denier: Link
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
if Al Gore was so concerned with climate change, why has does he have so much profit wrapped up into his idea?


Al Gore is a nutcase in general and especially on this issue (for the record, I am a registered Republican and an ardent support of "W."). Gore represents the extreme opposite of what you represent.

Gore dealt the whole issue a serious blow with his hyperbole and misrepresentation of facts and talks of doom and gloom for all of us unless we go back to horse and buggies.

It was a stupid, irrational rant undeserving of the honors his presentation brought to him. It tarnished the Nobel Prize for years to come.

Fair 'nuff?

But none of that changes the fact that global warming is real and is probably man-made. so sayeth the consensus.
quote:
I stand by my assertion that you have provided no data from legitimate scientist organizations that refute the GW theory. You cites plenty of individuals just as I can cite a lot of scientific creationists.


You're twisting your statements, you commonly do this when cornered. You said that I provided no temperature charts or data. Was that statement true?

quote:
Let me make this easy: Please provide refutive data from NOAA or the National Meteorological Society or any other mainstream scientific organization. That means something more than "some guy" on the internet, Nash.


See the video I provided. Here it is again.

Link
You couldn't have watched all of those videos or read all of those articles I've linked in such a short ammount of time.

You're avoiding the evidence I provide then claim I'm not providing any. That's completly irrational.

Either go through those articles I've linked, read them from start to finish, watch the videos from start to finish (they're only 10 min each), then respond. You're spending more time trying to dodge evidence than trying to actually learn something.
Skep, did you not see this from Flatus? Greenland had FORESTS 450,000 years ago. Duh, talk about picking and choosing data.



Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Suggests Earth Was Warmer
July 5th, 2007 Reconstruction of Ancient Greenland

New Danish research shows that large parts of Greenland were covered by forest. This was discovered by analysing fossil DNA which had been preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap. The DNA-traces are likely close to 450,000 years old, and that means that Greenland was also covered in a large ice sheet 125,000 years ago during the earth's last warm period, Eem. This was while the climate was 5 degrees warmer than the interglacial period we currently live in.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
[QUOTE]I stand by my assertion that you have provided no data from legitimate (scientific) organizations that refute the GW theory. You cites plenty of individuals just as I can cite a lot of scientific creationists.


You're twisting your statements, you commonly do this when cornered. You said that I provided no temperature charts or data. Was that statement true?

Nash, you are the one who is twisting the data, I asked for temperature data from a legitimate scientific source. You keep claiming that this random guy on the internet has some data. I read it but it DOES NOT contain data that those the globe is actually cooling. It DOES NOT have a chart showing a decrease in CO2 levels.

So, yes, I still stand by my assertion.

It would eb really easy to refute me right now Nash. Simply post a link to a NOAA or other legitimate source of news on climate. Again, not just "some guy" but a legitimate source. You know how to post a chart, Nash. Post it. A big-ass picture that I cannot deny. Be done with it. Be sure you cite your source.



quote:

See the video I provided. Here it is again.
Link


It is, again, "some guy" on the internet, Nash. Your Youtube video is not a legitimate source of factual data. The producer clearly a video with an agenda of denying GW. Hardly a source for unbiased data.

And that is NOT how science works. In science, you must refute using factual data from reliable sources.

I'm sure you'll note my restraint in not pulling the moron card yet. Please, Nash, remember this phrase: "Legitimate source of factual data." That means NOT some random GW denier.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Skep, did you not see this from Flatus? Greenland had FORESTS 450,000 years ago. Duh, talk about picking and choosing data.


Antarctica was once a lush tropical continent, too. Yes, this earth has seen many periods of warmth followed by ice ages. This current GW threat is just one single volcanic eruption away from a swing in the opposite direction.

That does not change the fact that, right now, the consensus is that the globe is warming, will continue to do so and the cause is likely man-made.

I've not once stated that GW is a "bad" thing precisely because of this kind of data.

I'm not sure what your point in posting this is, bud.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
if Al Gore was so concerned with climate change, why has does he have so much profit wrapped up into his idea?


Al Gore is a nutcase in general and especially on this issue (for the record, I am a registered Republican and an ardent support of "W."). Gore represents the extreme opposite of what you represent.

Gore dealt the whole issue a serious blow with his hyperbole and misrepresentation of facts and talks of doom and gloom for all of us unless we go back to horse and buggies.

It was a stupid, irrational rant undeserving of the honors his presentation brought to him. It tarnished the Nobel Prize for years to come.

Fair 'nuff?

But none of that changes the fact that global warming is real and is probably man-made. so sayeth the consensus.



What exactly was MAN doing when Iceland was lush and green?

those dang camp fires really put out the CO2 or was it dinosaur poots?


If all these policies WORKED that you are so fond of, let's once again look towards California.
They have the highest requirements for pollution control, yet they are KNOWN for smog.

OK I'm just average we'll say, that tells me nothing you do is going to help!

Link


Carbon for forests will help Aceh recover from war, tsunami
mongabay.com
September 18, 2007


Aceh Governor Irwandi Jusuf, a former rebel who was one of only 40 survivors after the December 2004 tsunami struck the prison where he was incarcerated, is now one of Indonesia's leading supporters of forest conservation funded through carbon credits.
Last edited by Chow
Link


Indonesia could more than double its tax revenue by protecting forests and selling the resulting carbon emission credits instead of timber and palm oil, a University of Michigan researcher told Bloomberg.

Gabriel Thoumi, a consultant and fellow at the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, estimates that carbon credits would generate $515 million a year in tax revenue starting in 2013 for the Indonesian government. By comparison, tax revenue from logging and palm oil is presently around $258 million a year.

Thoumi's calculations are based on the assumption that Indonesia could sell 750 million metric tons of credits annually at a price of $8 per ton. United Nations-certified emission reduction credits for delivery in 2008 currently trade at nearly $21 per ton.


The $8.6 billion in annual revenue from carbon offsets would come in addition to the $5.4 billion in timber exports and the $4.4 billion in palm oil exports Indonesia presently earns.

Carbon offsets through avoided deforestation are seen as an promising mechanism to offset greenhouse gas emissions. In 2006 deforestation and other land-use change accounted for 1.5 billion tons of carbon emissions, or around 15 percent of total anthropogenic emissions, according to a study published last week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Scientists and environmentalists say that avoided deforestation will delivery ancillary benefits beyond carbon sequestration, including watershed conservation and biodiversity preservation. Some argue that avoided deforestation could be a sustainable way to improve the lives of rural poor.

To date more than a dozen tropical countries have expressed interest in a $200 million forestry fund launched by the World Bank earlier this month. The fund will launch in December at the UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia.
Follow the money



Link

This past June, World Bank published a report warning that climate change presents serious risks to Indonesia, including the possibility of losing 2,000 islands as sea levels rise. While this scenario is dire, proposed mechanisms for addressing climate change, notably carbon credits through avoided deforestation, offer a unique opportunity for Indonesia to strengthen its economy while demonstrating worldwide innovative political and environmental leadership.

In a July 29th editorial we argued that in some cases, preserving ecosystems for carbon credits could be more valuable than conversion for oil palm plantations (known as sawit kelapa in Indonesia), providing higher tax revenue for the Indonesian treasury while at the same time offering attractive economic returns for investors.


Forest cover versus palm oil production in Indonesia. To review, avoided deforestation is the process by which owners, be them governments, communities, or landholders, sell the carbon rights to a given area to private investors. The private investor then sells the carbon credits on international markets to companies looking to offset their emissions. Avoided deforestation is currently only recognized as a voluntary emission reduction (VER) scheme, but it is expected that the concept will be embraced at the December U.N. climate (COP-13) meetings in Bali, especially if proof-of-concept projects are showing signs of success.

Indonesia, thanks to its nearly 20 million hectares of peatland swamps, is well-positioned to capitalize on the growth of carbon credit mechanisms in the future. In fact, conversion, draining, and burning of these peatlands (often for the establishment of sawit kelapa) is presently estimated by Wetlands International, a Dutch NGO, to release some 2 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. This equates to 8 percent of human global carbon emissions and is why Indonesia is the world's third largest emitter of carbon after China and the US. While conventional wisdom says that converting these peatlands for sawit kelapa is the best economic use of the land, our analysis shows that carbon credits could prove a better long-term investment for Indonesian businesses and the government. In fact, not only would slowing deforestation and protecting carbon-rich ecosystems allow Indonesia to potentially earn billions of dollars a year from carbon markets, it would also reduce national exposure to price fluctuations of sawit kelapa, as well as the potential risk of European backlash against sawit kelapa as a biofuel.

Here we will take a closer look at these possibilities, using a specific example from the peatlands of Central Kalimantan.

Central Kalimantan

Few places are more suitable for carbon finance projects than Central Kalimantan, which has 3 million hectares of peatlands that store 6.3 gigatons carbon. To illustrate the economic potential of carbon credits versus oil-palm, we compared the net present value (NPV) of a standard 1,000-hectare sawit kelapa plantation to a 1,000-hectare peat swamp preserved for its carbon value.

Sawit kelapa plantation assumptions:
$2,700 per hectare cost for new plantation development, financed at 10% (published figures)
Average yield of 4.8 tons of sawit per ha over 25 years (IOPRI/ICRAF)
Sawit price of $750 per metric ton (current price)
Net income of 30% (published figures)
7% tax rate, discount rate of 16%
Peatland preserved for carbon credits assumptions:
10% management cost
Avoided carbon emissions relative to sawit kelapa: 100 tons per ha for initial forest clearing; 27 tons per year thereafter
Carbon credits, based on real-world market values averaged for 2006:
EU ETS Trading Scheme ($22.12)
Secondary Clean Development Mechanism ($17.76)
The State of the Voluntary Markets report released last month by Ecosystem Marketplace and New Carbon Finance ($14.00)
7% tax rate
Results for business

Our results show that preserving land for its carbon value is worth more than sawit kelapa at present prices for carbon in legally binding markets: $9.99 million for the EU ETS Trading Scheme, $8.02 million for the Secondary Clean Development Mechanism, and $6.32 million for State of the Voluntary Markets report. This compares with $6.58 million in net income over a 25-year period for sawit kelapa plantations. Even if sawit prices were to go to $1,000 per metric ton, net income would still be less than current ETS prices.

Results for government

Carbon credits could also provide the Indonesian treasury with greater tax revenues than sawit kelapa, especially given the recent report that 90% of the country's plantations had underpaid their taxes (Jakarta Post 14 Aug). At a 7 percent tax rate for carbon, the present value of tax revenue for the Indonesian government ranges from $476,000 to $752,000, whereas the oil palm plantation generates $495,000. In fact, the model suggests that at some carbon prices the Indonesian government could actually charge a slightly higher tax rate for carbon credits than sawit kelapa, and still leave Indonesian businesses better off financially than if they were to rely on sawit kelapa.



Net present value (NPV) of 1000-ha (2500-acre) peat swamp vs oil palm plantation. Chart shows the effect of palm oil at various prices and various carbon trading schemes. Assumptions: 15% discount/10% interest rate; Year 1: 100 tons of C/ha, 27 tons of C/ha (=100 tCO2e/ha) in years thereafter; medium average palm oil yield of 5.3 tons per hectare per year over the 25 year period.

Calculations and charts by Rhett A. Butler.



These results show that carbon credits offer a great deal of economic potential for central Kalimantan at a low investment cost. Furthermore, carbon offsets are applicable to virtually any part of Indonesia that has intact forests and peatlands. Such a development could make conservation profitable in Indonesia, an important step to protecting the environment and biodiversity.

Given the immense possibility for carbon markets in the future land owners should give serious consideration to carbon values in making land use decisions. While sawit kelapa can and will continue to play an important role in the economy, carbon offsets offer a mechanism to bolster and diversify Indonesia's financial exposure while at the same time minimizing their negative environmental footprint.
I've given you plenty of scientific charts, graphs, and data that refutes global warming. I've given you an extensive list of scientists that are skeptical about it.

The first link may have been written by a television meteorologist, but he gave extensive citations on where he got his data. He didn't pull those facts out of his butt, they are proven scientifically.

Don't ask for evidence if you don't have the balls to accept the fact you are wrong. When it comes to this bogus scam, you are. This isn't a religious debate where I respect your opinion to believe or disbelieve in whatever you want. This is a serious political and scientific hoax and it has serious consequences for falling for it.

With our government about to pass the cap and trade fiasco, we're going to be paying a lot more at the pump, a lot more for our utilities, and a lot more at the grocery store. All of that for a non existent problem that many scientists are trying to say is a scam, but too many people are gullible enough to think we're all going to die unless we allow the politicians to save us.

You're too stubborn to open your eyes and look at what's been given to you, you are too afraid of looking bad and being proved wrong so you ignore all the data and whine about no one having any evidence. You've been given ample amounts of data that shows man made global warming is false. Your stubborn ego overrides any logic you may claim to have and it's obvious to everyone but you.

When you're paying $100 to fill up your car, don't whine about it, blame yourself. You're the one who bought a politician's lies instead of using your mind to see past them.

Rant over, I feel better now.
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
If all these policies WORKED that you are so fond of,


Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm have not stated my opinion of any policy that addresses the GW issue. In fact, I'd generally be in NON-favor of draconian measures to halt the production of CO2 as is generally bandied about by the left.

My ONLY beef with you folks is your assertion that this whole thing is a manufactured scam. That is ludicrous and on the same level as Hillary's "Vast right wing Conspiracy." It's crazy talk, friends.

My ONLY assertions are:

1. There IS a scientific concensus on this issue.

2. None of us are qualified to weigh all the contradictory evidence

3. Siding with the consensus view is the only rational stance until contrary evidence sways major organizations to change their position statements.

Unlike you guys, I am claiming that I am NOT qualified to weigh in on this matter. I am qualified to research the consensus, though.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
I've given you plenty of scientific charts, graphs, and data that refutes global warming. I've given you an extensive list of scientists that are skeptical about it.


Nope. You've posted the opinions of global warming deniers.

You spent, what, a half hour writing deatils of why you refuse to post a legitimate refutation. Why not simply post a graph from a legitimate scientific organization (not "some guy") like this Nash?

Below is an interesting one from Link

It shows the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. What is not really known with 100% certainty is if CO2 levels cause temp increase or of temp increase causes higher CO2 levels (thus my hesitancy of supporting Obama's meddling).

All that is known (with great historical certainty) is that CO2 levels and temperature are very closely related.

You can clearly see that for the past 450,000 years, the CO2 level has not exceeded 340 or so parts per million (ppm). What is not shown here is the fact that the current level is off the chart at nearly 400ppm. Link Again, it's at a level not seen in 2 MILLION years.

That is a sobering fact, Nash. Or it should be to anyone that can grasp the meaning.

Again, Nash, give me a link to a legitimate source of info that contradicts that CO2 levels are lower than they ever have been.

Post the graph right here so I cannot deny seeing it. I think this makes the 4th request?

Attachments

Images (1)
  • co2_temp
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
If all these policies WORKED that you are so fond of,


Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm have not stated my opinion of any policy that addresses the GW issue. In fact, I'd generally be in NON-favor of draconian measures to halt the production of CO2 as is generally bandied about by the left.

My ONLY beef with you folks is your assertion that this whole thing is a manufactured scam. That is ludicrous and on the same level as Hillary's "Vast right wing Conspiracy." It's crazy talk, friends.

My ONLY assertions are:

1. There IS a scientific concensus on this issue.

2. None of us are qualified to weigh all the contradictory evidence

3. Siding with the consensus view is the only rational stance until contrary evidence sways major organizations to change their position statements.

Unlike you guys, I am claiming that I am NOT qualified to weigh in on this matter. I am qualified to research the consensus, though.



you keep pushing and pushing so what should one believe?

I keep showing the money connection, there is a tremendous amount of money at stake. Remove that and you might convince me a little easier but I doubt it.

california is the only proof I need, so far they have proved the socialist pacifist approach will drain the state financially. The Cap n trade approach has also failed, otherwise California would be admired for their clean air.

They are proving that by raising taxes on the wealthy will not work.
quote:
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."
Link

I heard Christy speak a decade or so ago and I believe he has no agenda. The link is from a wikipedia article listing other scientists who don't buy into the global warming cult.
Cookey, you haven't read any of the links. I've provided tons of evidence from many educated scientists who say it's all BS. If you would take the time to actually look at what I link instead of pretending it's not there, you would see that.

Since you won't do it on your own, I'll do it for you. Here is a list of organizations who question global warming.

Abundant Wildlife Society of North America. USA
AccuWeather, USA
Advancement of Sound Science Center, USA
Air Quality Standards Coalition, USA
American Council on Science and Health, USA
American Enterprise Institute, USA
American Land Rights Association, USA
American Policy Center, USA
Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, USA
Australian APEC Study Centre, Australia
Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology (FAEC), Argentina
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology, USA
Association of British Drivers, UK
Cato Institute, USA
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA
Center for Science and Public Policy, USA
Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund, USA
Clean Water Industry Coalition, USA
CO2 Science, USA
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, USA
Committee for Economic Development, USA
Competitive Enterprise Institute, USA
Cooler Heads Coalition, USA
DCI Group, USA
Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), USA
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, USA
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), USA
Fraser Institute, Canada
Free Enterprise Education Institute, USA
Friends of Science, Canada
Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), Canada
Frontiers of Freedom Institute, USA
George C. Marshall Institute, USA
Global Climate Coalition, USA
Greening Earth Society, USA
Heartland Institute, USA
Heritage Foundation, USA
High Park Group, Canada
Hoover Institution, USA
Hudson Institute, USA
Independent Institute, USA
Institute for Canadian Values, Canada
Institute for Energy Research, USA
Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, USA
Institute of Economic Affairs, UK
Institute of Public Affairs, Australia
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, USA
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA
International Policy Network, UK
Lavoisier Group, Australia
Maine Heritage Policy Center, USA
Media Research Center, USA
National Center for Policy Analysis, USA
National Center for Public Policy Research, USA
National Motorists Association, USA
Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Canada
New Hope Environmental Services, USA
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, New Zealand
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Pacific Research Institute, USA
Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), USA
Reason Foundation, USA
Reason Public Policy Institute, USA
Science & Environmental Policy Project, USA
Science & Public Policy Institute, USA
Scientific Alliance, UK
Sustainable Development Network, UK
Thoreau Institute, USA
Tropical Meteorology Project, USA
TSAugust, USA
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy, USA

Not much of a consensus there.

Here are some surveys among the scientific community on global warming.

68% of Alberta Earth Scientists and Engineers Do Not Believe the Science is Settled on Climate Change (Edmonton Journal)
Copenhagen Consensus 2004 (Copenhagen Consensus)
"A panel of economic experts, comprising eight of the world’s most distinguished economists [...] looked at three proposals, including the Kyoto Protocol, for dealing with climate change by reducing emissions of carbon. The expert panel regarded all three proposals as having costs that were likely to exceed the benefits."
First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged 'Consensus' on Global Warming (PR Newswire)
"Sixty-one percent said that there is no such thing as an ideal climate. [...] 20% of those surveyed said that human activity is the principal driver of climate change."
RE: “The scientific consensus on climate change” (Benny Peiser, The letter Science Magazine refused to publish)
"Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question. [...] ...she admitted that there was indeed a serious mistake in her Science essay. According to Oreskes, her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change" [yet her paper is clearly titled: The scientific consensus on "climate change" not "global climate change"] Her use of three keywords instead of two reduced the list of peer reviewed publications by one order of magnitude (on the UK's ISI databank the keyword search "global climate change" comes up with 1247 documents) [...] The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. [...] 34 abstracts reject or doubt the view that human activities are the main drivers of the "the observed warming over the last 50 years". 44 abstracts focus on natural factors of global climate change."

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming (PDF) (The Heartland Institute)
"A survey of 530 climate scientists from 27 different countries determined there is no consensus regarding the causes of the modern warming period, how reliable predictions of future temperatures can be, and whether future global warming would be harmful or beneficial. Assertions that “the debate is over” are certainly not supported by the survey results. Two-thirds of the scientists surveyed (65.9 percent) disagreed rising CO2 is causing climate change and 72.6% did not agree we could predict what the climate will do 100 years from now."
Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory (DailyTech)
"Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. [...] Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."
Survey of State Climate Experts Casts Doubt on Link Between Human Activity and Global Warming (National Center for Policy Analysis)


All of that came from just one link that I've already given you. This one.

Link

If you looked at all of the other information I've posted and all of the videos, it's overwhelming how much evidence there is that completely debunks everything you're saying. To say that you haven't been given any evidence puts you in the same intellectual dishonesty realm as your buddy Bill.
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
you keep pushing and pushing so what should one believe?

I keep showing the money connection, there is a tremendous amount of money at stake.


The policy issue is really beyond my pay grade. I'm a (fiscally) conservative Republican. I side with all y'all on the policy for the most part.

It's the profound denial of valid scientific data that is the burr under my saddle. The CO2 data alone should be enough to persuade anyone with half a brain that there might be something to this whole thing after all.

Again and again and again: Provide some legitimate data showing that the CO2 levels are different from the consensus and I'll give you a cookie.

A COOKIE, Chow. That's big of me man.
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."
Link

I heard Christy speak a decade or so ago and I believe he has no agenda. The link is from a wikipedia article listing other scientists who don't buy into the global warming cult.


That's not exactly a resounding critique of the data, Faatus, and, agian, it's just "some guy."

In his OPINION the scientists rely on the "climate models"? Do you know what that means? He dismisses the computer models. Supercomputer models. You know, the ones he gets his entire forecast from. Wink

He also states "the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time."

Loose similarity? That's kind of like saying there is a loose similarity between Flatulence and smell. There is a profound link between CO2 levels and temperature as the graph I posted clearly reveals.

What is not clear is if CO2 is a cause or a result of temperature change.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Cookey, you haven't read any of the links. I've provided tons of evidence from many educated scientists who say it's all BS. If you would take the time to actually look at what I link instead of pretending it's not there, you would see that.


Nash, it would take less time to post a link to a graph showing global cooling or CO2 decrease.

You have made it abundantly clear that there are plenty of individuals who refute the consensus. That does nothing to refute my chart.

(I'll take a stab or two at your list in a minute)

Attachments

Images (1)
  • co2_temp
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
you keep pushing and pushing so what should one believe?

I keep showing the money connection, there is a tremendous amount of money at stake.


The policy issue is really beyond my pay grade. I'm a (fiscally) conservative Republican. I side with all y'all on the policy for the most part.

It's the profound denial of valid scientific data that is the burr under my saddle. The CO2 data alone should be enough to persuade anyone with half a brain that there might be something to this whole thing after all.

Again and again and again: Provide some legitimate data showing that the CO2 levels are different from the consensus and I'll give you a cookie.

A COOKIE, Chow. That's big of me man.



Volcanos cause more climate change than man

The last little ice age was volcano induced

Volcanos produce more CO2 than man


Man has not made any volcanos except that one time on the brady bunch

no cookies from you, it's the thought that counts
Following are a few of your "legitimate" picks, Nash. I'm picking them out at random.


From Wiki:
The Advancement of Sound Science Center (TASSC), formerly the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, is an industry-funded lobby group which promotes the idea that environmental science on issues including smoking, pesticides and global warming is "junk science", which should be replaced by "sound science". It is operated by Steven Milloy from his home in Potomac, Maryland.

In other words, it's a organization formed to deny GW. BRRRrrrrrrrrrrrraaaap.

The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy in your list is another lobby group formed to attack GW. Exxon recelty donated $183,500 to them. Link Perhaps just a little biased, Nash?

The Greening Earth Society, now defunct, was a public relations organization which promoted the idea that there is considerable scientific doubt about the effects of climate change and increased levels of carbon dioxide. Link

Hey, now this one sounds pretty legitimate: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Link says "The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was launched in May 2006 with the aim of "refuting what it believes are unfounded claims about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.""

Oops. Another front for lobbyists.

Nash, I swear to god, I jsut picked these at random and got 100% hit on de-legitimizing them.

Come on, I dare ya, pick two or three more, find out why they exist. If they are a scientific organization whose "bias" is science, then you get a cookie. If they are formed to give Big Oil a voice, then what dos that tell you?

Come on, Nash. Put on your thinking cap.

I'm still waiting on that graph that shows a decrease in temperatures and CO2 levels, Nash. It sure seems to me that it could easy to psot the pic so I can quite denying I've seen it.

Why haven't you posted it?
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:

Volcanos cause more climate change than man

The last little ice age was volcano induced

Volcanos produce more CO2 than man


Yup.

But we have not have a major eruption in the past 50 years so how do you explain the highest levels of CO2 in two million years?


Mt ST Helens not major? all those that died might argue with you if they could

plenty of volcano activity every day in Hawaii, plenty around the world add it it all together and wallah enough for a major eruption every day.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If you looked at all of the other information I've posted and all of the videos, it's overwhelming how much evidence there is that completely debunks everything you're saying.


Yet you utterly refuse to post a link showing a decrease in global temps or a decrease in CO2?

One simple chart, Nash. I think this makes the 6th time you've ignored this simple plea. Every single item you have posted so far has been from biased GW deniers whose sole purpose is to deny GW. Not a single post from a legitimate scientific source. Not a single one . . . Unless oyu consider Youtube a legitimate souce.

I'll save you the trouble: You won't post a graphs because IT DOES NOT EXIST. I've looked.

Prove me wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Mt Pinatubo in the PI


I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the supervolcanoes that supposedly sent the earth into a global ice ages. Pinatubo was major to us but a minor blip for major eruptions.

In any case, do ya think Pinatubo explains why we have the highest levels of CO2 in two million years?
Pretty little charts at site. BUD! The great skeptical denier.


Link


Don Easterbrook
29 12 2008
Abstracts of American Geophysical Union annual meeting, San Francisco Dec., 2008

Solar Influence on Recurring Global, Decadal, Climate Cycles Recorded by Glacial Fluctuations, Ice Cores, Sea Surface Temperatures, and Historic Measurements Over the Past Millennium

Easterbrook, Don J., Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225,

Global, cyclic, decadal, climate patterns can be traced over the past millennium in glacier fluctuations, oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic observations. The recurring climate cycles clearly show that natural climatic warming and cooling have occurred many times, long before increases in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well known examples of such climate changes, but in addition, at least 23 periods of climatic warming and cooling have occurred in the past 500 years. Each period of warming or cooling lasted about 25-30 years (average 27 years). Two cycles of global warming and two of global cooling have occurred during the past century, and the global cooling that has occurred since 1998 is exactly in phase with the long term pattern. Global cooling occurred from 1880 to ~1915; global warming occurred from ~1915 to ~1945; global cooling occurred from ~1945-1977;, global warming occurred from 1977 to 1998; and global cooling has occurred since 1998. All of these global climate changes show exceptionally good correlation with solar variation since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago.

The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6° C (1° F) by 2011 and 1.2° C (2° F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3-5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3-0.5° C until ~2035. The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode.

Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling, glacial fluctuations, changes in warm/cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and sun spot activity over the past century show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. The announcement by NASA that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and coincides with recent solar variations. The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years, virtually assuring several decades of global cooling. The IPCC predictions of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011, 2° F warmer by 2038, and 10° F by 2100 stand little chance of being correct. “Global warming” (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over!

The real question now is not trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 as a means of stopping global warming, but rather (1) how can we best prepare to cope with the 30 years of global cooling that is coming, (2) how cold will it get, and (3) how can we cope with the cooling during a time of exponential population increase? In 1998 when I first predicted a 30-year cooling trend during the first part of this century, I used a very conservative estimate for the depth of cooling, i.e., the 30-years of global cooling that we experienced from ~1945 to 1977. However, also likely are several other possibilities (1) the much deeper cooling that occurred during the 1880 to ~1915 cool period, (2) the still deeper cooling that took place from about 1790 to 1820 during the Dalton sunspot minimum, and (3) the drastic cooling that occurred from 1650 to 1700 during the Maunder sunspot minimum. Figure 2 shows an estimate of what each of these might look like on a projected global climate curve. The top curve is based on the 1945-1977 cool period and the 1977-1998 warm period. The curve beneath is based on the 1890-1915 cool period and 1915-1945 warm period. The bottom curve is what we might expect from a Dalton or Maunder cool period. Only time will tell where we’re headed, but any of the curves are plausible. The sun’s recent behavior suggests we are likely heading for a deeper global cooling than the 1945-1977 cool period and ought to be looking ahead to cope with it.

The good news is that global warming (i.e., the 1977-1998 warming) is over and atmospheric CO2 is not a vital issue. The bad news is that cold conditions kill more people than warm conditions, so we are in for bigger problems than we might have experienced if global warming had continued. Mortality data from 1979-2002 death certificate records show twice as many deaths directly from extreme cold than for deaths from extreme heat, 8 times as many deaths as those from floods, and 30 times as many as from hurricanes. The number of deaths indirectly related to cold is many times worse.

Link
Atmospheric composition of earth's atmosphere:

Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4%
Argon Ar 0.93%
Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
Ozone O3 0.000004%

Years ago, the ozone layer was being depleted. Now the CO2 level is increasing. Atmospheric CO2 filters UV radiation, so a significant reduction (from 0.0360%!) may result in an increased rate of skin cancer.

Atmospheric CO2 can (theoretically) be reduced by "salting" large areas of the ocean with powdered iron filings, resulting in massive algae blooms. Algae, which are the biggest contributors of oxygen on the planet, rely of CO2. Of course, a massive algae bloom can change the chemical mix of the ocean, with massive fish die-offs.

In short, the atmosphere is a meta-stable mix of gases that have locally larger concentrations. It is not homogeneous by any stretch.

The chart shows the purported CO2 increase over the last 350 years. The lower band is from ice cores; the red band shows levels taken at Mauna Loa, which is currently erupting.

The so-called 35% increase in the last 350 years (allegedly 0.0240% to 0.0360%) is based on widely separated measurements (tropical and polar) taken from different media (ice and atmosphere) and assumed to cause a 1 degree mean temperature increase (without scientific correlation) and is the basis for completely turning our economy on its ear. And the scientific models used? They haven't even been able to predict the temperatures from the past, even when they are known.

But, as Obama's hatchet man says, never let a crisis go to waste. And if you don't have one, manufacture one. Global warming may be real, due to natural solar variations, but man-made global warming is a hideous example of pseudo-science being used to drive political change.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • co2_atmosphere
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If you looked at all of the other information I've posted and all of the videos, it's overwhelming how much evidence there is that completely debunks everything you're saying.


Yet you utterly refuse to post a link showing a decrease in global temps or a decrease in CO2?

One simple chart, Nash. I think this makes the 6th time you've ignored this simple plea. Every single item you have posted so far has been from biased GW deniers whose sole purpose is to deny GW. Not a single post from a legitimate scientific source. Not a single one . . . Unless oyu consider Youtube a legitimate souce.

I'll save you the trouble: You won't post a graphs because IT DOES NOT EXIST. I've looked.

Prove me wrong?


Intensionally saying something that isn't true is a lie. You and I along with everyone else on this thread knows that what you just said is a total lie.

Since you demand to be spoon fed, here are your graphs.

Here are more graphs, animated with voice over explaining for you exactly what they mean. Scientists commentary included.

Link

By the way, every graph I've posted has already been given to you multiple times.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • gw_graph_1
Here is one more simple one for you. It shows exactly what I've been saying all along. Since 1998, we've been cooling. You can see a spike upwards, then a drop back down to around average.

As you've seen in your other pictures, sun activity can dramatically change temperature. The sun was more active in 1998, then went back to normal. It has nothing to do with CO2.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • uah_august2008
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
Mt ST Helens not major? all those that died might argue with you if they could.


Its effect on climate was negligible. On a huma scale is was a Very Big Deal, of course.[/quote]

[/quote]plenty of volcano activity every day in Hawaii, plenty around the world add it it all together and wallah enough for a major eruption every day.[/QUOTE]

I'm not really even sure what y'all are trying to claim with the volcanic references. The data seems to be clear that volcanoes and GW are unrelated in recent history. Long range history certainly has a different tale to tell.

I've already stated that we are, in fact, one single major eruption away from a cataclysmic global cooling making my whole point mute and making you all geniuses.

We simply haven't had one in recorded history. Yet.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If you looked at all of the other information I've posted and all of the videos, it's overwhelming how much evidence there is that completely debunks everything you're saying.


Yet you utterly refuse to post a link showing a decrease in global temps or a decrease in CO2?

One simple chart, Nash. I think this makes the 6th time you've ignored this simple plea. Every single item you have posted so far has been from biased GW deniers whose sole purpose is to deny GW. Not a single post from a legitimate scientific source. Not a single one . . . Unless oyu consider Youtube a legitimate souce.

I'll save you the trouble: You won't post a graphs because IT DOES NOT EXIST. I've looked.

Prove me wrong?


Intensionally saying something that isn't true is a lie.


Nash, your chart is pretty and shows some interesting data but is not referenced and DOES NOT show a decrease in global temps or CO2 levels.
quote:
Nash, your chart is pretty and shows some interesting data but is not referenced and DOES NOT show a decrease in global temps or CO2 levels.


The one above this post does.

By the way, I'm glad you think that data is interesting. Why did I have to give it to you several times before you bothered to even look at it?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
One more.

Do you need any others that prove the sun controls the temperature and not CO2 or do you need colorful pictures?


Yes, Nash, I need you to provide a chart that backs up your assertion that the globe is NOT getting warming. I need a chart that refutes the rising CO2 levels.

This is not a very difficult question and I've asked, what, 8 or 9 times? You are at least delivering the charts charts, they just don't back up your claims that GW doesn't exist.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Last one was too big, let's try this one.

By the way, if you would actually read the links I give you, none of this would be necessary.


No, if you'd read your own chart, you wouldn't post it to begin with.

This "big" chart shows a very short range temperature range that does, in fact, show a tenth or two more degrees HOTTER that in 1979. It does NOT show a overall decrease in global temperatures LONG TERM.

"Long Term" Nash.

How 'bout one on CO2 levels. Got anything there?
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
One more.

Do you need any others that prove the sun controls the temperature and not CO2 or do you need colorful pictures?


Yes, Nash, I need you to provide a chart that backs up your assertion that the globe is NOT getting warming. I need a chart that refutes the rising CO2 levels.

This is not a very difficult question and I've asked, what, 8 or 9 times? You are at least delivering the charts charts, they just don't back up your claims that GW doesn't exist.


Here it is again. Temperature drops from 1998.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • uah_august2008
Sea Ice Lowest in 800 Years




A reconstruction of sea ice reveals the lowest levels in 800 years, according to new research published in the journal Climate Dynamics.

Researchers modeled sea ice levels between Greenland and Svalbard, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean north of Europe, from the 13th century to present using data from a natural climate "archive" and from historic human records.

"We have combined information about the climate found in ice cores from an ice cap on Svalbard and from the annual growth rings of trees in Finland and this gave us a curve of the past climate," Aslak Grinsted said in a press release. Grinsted is a geophysicist with the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. "We see that the sea ice is shrinking to a level which has not been seen in more than 800 years."
Global Warming (source NASA)

May 11, 2007

Over the last five years, 600 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sifted through thousands of studies about global warming published in forums ranging from scientific journals to industry publications and distilled the world’s accumulated knowledge into this conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”



The effects of global warming are already being felt worldwide. The Larsen-B Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula collapsed over 35 days in early 2002, prompted by 3°C of warming since the 1940s. (NASA image by Jesse Allen, based on MODIS data.)
I'm not 100% sure about global warming, tho it seems to me that there is much more data to support it than refute it.

It begs the quality of data and its source credibility.

Most of the data that I've consumed indicates a change in the climate happens naturally(approx 150,000 year cycles), however it isn't clear to me how much of that is man-made and/or if we are speeding up the process.

I'm actually much more concerned with pollution. We (me anyway) can see it and recently having local drinking water tested the results came back pretty scary.
Pop Sci had a pretty good article some months back. One thing in particular that I read a month or so ago was about endocrine disruptors. Nasty stuff they be.

I was lectured at length on xenoestrogens a few years ago too(which got me thinking about the cr@p we ingest). They aren't good for us either.

Something to ponder....

Regards
That same ice shelf gets a lot of news. I agree pollution needs to be cut down, but I'm worrying more about buying blankets than ac's.
Link

Antarctic Ice Increasing
Posted on: April 30th, 2009 by Ed Ring

You wouldn’t think so if you read recent press reports. Just like this time last year, the global press is bombarding the public with alarming reports coming from the bottom of the world. From the Discovery Channel on April 28th, 2009 “Huge Ice Shelf Breaks From Antarctica, Fractures.” From National Geographic News on April 30th, 2009 “Giant Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses.” From Reuters on April 28th, 2009, “New York City-sized Ice Collapses off Antarctica.”

Exactly one year ago, similar stories circulated, and if anything, they were more alarming. On March 25th, 2008, the BBC reported “Antarctic Ice Hangs by a Thread,” a result, they stated, of “unprecedented global warming.” But these reports, both last year and this year, are talking about the same ice shelf - the Wilkins Ice Shelf, an insignificant bit of floating ice that is located on the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Didn’t it break up last year? How many times do we recycle the alarm over the seasonal melting of the same few thousand square miles of floating ice (ice that floats cannot contribute to sea level rise), off a continent that exceeds five million square miles in area?

Apparently over and over. An excellent analysis posted on April 17th, 2009 by Ron de Haan entitled “The Antarctic Wilkins Ice Shelf Collapse: Media recycles photos and storylines from previous years,” documents how the Wilkins Ice Shelf has been reported by the mainstream media to be ominously collapsing every year now since 1999. Haan also provides satellite photography back as far as 1993 showing the end-of-summer thaws and mid-winter maximums for the Wilkins Ice Shelf. Not much has changed over the past 15 years. Thank goodness for the blogosphere to help us accurately assess the cryosphere!

The assumption in all these stories that report on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, and other melting ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, is that global warming is the cause, and that they are representative of a general melt occurring throughout Antarctica. And if this were true, this would be alarming, since 90% of the world’s land based ice is in Antarctica. So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarctica’s overall total mass decreasing?
post resumes below image

GLOBAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY - APRIL 2009
As of April 2009, sea surface temperatures surrounding
Antarctica are mostly colder than average.
(Image: NOAA)

The answer to both of these questions is almost certainly no. As this recent imagery from NOAA indicates, the southern ocean is actually colder than average. Except for a few areas directly south of the Indian Ocean, and in the area south of Patagonia and surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula, the rest of the ocean surrounding Antarctica - virtually all of the South Pacific and South Atlantic - is cooler than average. This data indicates no reason to believe ocean temperatures are causing overall loss of ice mass in the Antarctic; with the exception of the insignificant quantity of ice on the Antarctic Peninsula, they suggest the opposite.
post resumes below image

CURRENT SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEA ICE AREA
As of May 2009, sea ice surrounding Antarctica is
about 1.0 million square kilometers greater than average.
(Image: University of Illinois)

What about the ice mass of Antarctica? Along with land based ice, which can raise sea levels when melted into the ocean, another significant indicator of polar temperature is the extent of floating sea ice. As the above table prepared by researchers at the University of Illinois indicates, the actual sea ice surrounding Antarctica is well above average. The black line represents the last 12 months of sea ice area, based on satellite data. You can see the sea ice reached a peak of 15 million square kilometers around September, during the peak of the southern winter. You can see it dropped to a low of 2 million square kilometers in mid-February, at the height of the southern summer. Currently the sea ice surrounding Antarctica is 7 million square kilometers and rising. The red line, however, is what is significant, because the red line indicates whether or not the sea ice is above or below the historical norm. And as you can see, as of May 2009, Antarctic sea ice is about 1.0 million square kilometers above normal.

Just like last year, to assist in the research for this post I contacted Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist at the University of Colorado whose blog Link is one of the most balanced forums and respected sources of technical information on global climate anywhere. In response to my inquiry, he wrote the following: “The sea ice around the continent is far above average (ref. UIUC). Also, note the colder than average sea surface temperatures around Antarctic (ref. NOAA). If the media is going to discuss the Wilkens Ice Shelf, they should also discuss this other data. The expansion of the sea ice coverage implies a cooling.”
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
Sea Ice Lowest in 800 Years




A reconstruction of sea ice reveals the lowest levels in 800 years, according to new research published in the journal Climate Dynamics.

Researchers modeled sea ice levels between Greenland and Svalbard, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean north of Europe, from the 13th century to present using data from a natural climate "archive" and from historic human records.

"We have combined information about the climate found in ice cores from an ice cap on Svalbard and from the annual growth rings of trees in Finland and this gave us a curve of the past climate," Aslak Grinsted said in a press release. Grinsted is a geophysicist with the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. "We see that the sea ice is shrinking to a level which has not been seen in more than 800 years."



Oh no, Ice road truckers want be on in a few years,



crap


Those crab fisherman had a time with sea ice this last snow crab season
The eastern Antartic shelf is melting -- its one third the size of the western shelf that is increasing.

The ice melting between Greenland and the Artic is sea ice and would lower the level of the ocean, not increase it.

When Antartica and the Artic Islands were warm, the North Pole was southwest of the Hawaiian Islands -- the planet shifted in its axis, later.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
"Antarctic Ice Increasing"

But artic ice is decreasing at alarming rates. How does a non-scientist weigh all this contradictory evidence?


It's not.

Link

I'm not posting any more pictures for you, you actually have to read that one.

The assumption in all these stories that report on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, and other melting ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, is that global warming is the cause, and that they are representative of a general melt occurring throughout Antarctica. And if this were true, this would be alarming, since 90% of the world’s land based ice is in Antarctica. So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarctica’s overall total mass decreasing?

The answer to both of these questions is almost certainly no. As this recent imagery from NOAA indicates, the southern ocean is actually colder than average. Except for a few areas directly south of the Indian Ocean, and in the area south of Patagonia and surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula, the rest of the ocean surrounding Antarctica - virtually all of the South Pacific and South Atlantic - is cooler than average. This data indicates no reason to believe ocean temperatures are causing overall loss of ice mass in the Antarctic; with the exception of the insignificant quantity of ice on the Antarctic Peninsula, they suggest the opposite.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Here it is again. Temperature drops from 1998.


Nahs, I swear man. You aren't stupid,. I know it. You can write a compete sentence and use the Google. I know you read my request a few times so I don't know why I am having to repeat myself but here I go anyway. I asked for LONG TERM temperature data.

Yes, it is believed that temps have actually fallen in the past decade. Any idiot can see that temperature variation occur regularly.

But over the LONG TERM, temperatures have risen, Nash. In case you don't understand it, rising temps are called "Global Warming."

This chart you posted? It shows a net INCREASE in temperatures, dude, from the beginning of the chart to the end. It's a statistically insignificant increase but it IS an increase.

Again I'll request: Show me a chart from a legitimate source that shows a DECREASE in temps over the long haul - generally 50 to 100 or more years. Show me a chart that shows DECREASING levels of CO2.

Then let me know when you give up because they don't exist.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
The ice melting between Greenland and the Artic is sea ice and would lower the level of the ocean, not increase it.


So you accept the data that shows it is melting. Good for you. Now can you tell me why to you not accept the data that shows the globe is warming?

Actually, melting of sea ice would have NO effect on sea levels. But it will have an effect on the sea cutrrents. The Greenland Ice Shelf is melting and is expected to have an effect on sea levle - especially in the northeastern part of the US. I don't know why it would effect just the NE part but that is what is being said.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
"Antarctic Ice Increasing"

But artic ice is decreasing at alarming rates. How does a non-scientist weigh all this contradictory evidence?


It's not.

Link

I'm not posting any more pictures for you, you actually have to read that one.

The assumption in all these stories that report on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, and other melting ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, is that global warming is the cause, and that they are representative of a general melt occurring throughout Antarctica. And if this were true, this would be alarming, since 90% of the world’s land based ice is in Antarctica. So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarctica’s overall total mass decreasing?

The answer to both of these questions is almost certainly no. As this recent imagery from NOAA indicates, the southern ocean is actually colder than average.


Nash,

This is a perfect example of your inability to grasp simple facts.

Read the whole post again. A summary: LMM posted data on the Antarctic Ice Shelf increasing. My reply concerned the ARCTIC ice melting.

Then you disagree with me by posting a story on the ANTARCTIC ice shelf increasing.*

Perhaps you never learned that the Antarctic is the body of land at the southern pole of our planet - below South America.

The ARTtic is the northern pole above North America.

This Antarctic data is also a good example of how average folks like you are wholly unable to grasp the complexity of this issue. The fact is that the increase of Antarctic ice is actually believed to be a result of global warming. Link
Last edited by Cookey
quote:
But over the LONG TERM, temperatures have risen, Nash. In case you don't understand it, rising temps are called "Global Warming."


I've posted links for you explaining that global warming data is flawed, we're not warming. You didn't read any of them.

I posted videos produced by the BBC and ABC complete with graphs, data, and scientists explaining how the global warming theory is political and not scientifically sound. You didn't watch any of them.

I went back through the links you didn't read and pulled the graphs off for you, posted them in here for you to see. It doesn't take a scientist to see the spike in 1998 and the drop right after back to the range before 1998. You completely ignored it.

Logical and rational people examine evidence given and make a decision. You've ignored everything given to you and pretended there is no evidence.

You can believe in global warming if you want to, but you're doing so in spite of a mountain of evidence, data, and the opinion of a long list of scientists that say it's all a hoax.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
But over the LONG TERM, temperatures have risen, Nash. In case you don't understand it, rising temps are called "Global Warming."


It doesn't take a scientist to see the spike in 1998 and the drop right after back to the range before 1998. You completely ignored it.


I "completely ignored" it? I've already explained in detail why it is flawed. Twice.

I can show you data from yesterday compared to today and used that as "proof" that the globe is cooling. Is it valid? Of course not.

I'll address the assertion in a little but more detail, though. 1998 marked the peak of the solar maximum. This is a period of sunspot activity that cycles about every 11 years. Temperatures on earth are effected by these maximums and minimums. We are just about to complete the solar MINIMUM now Nash. Scientists fully expect temps to "ratchet" up again and when it peaks again 11 years from now, the temps will likely be higher than the temps in 1998.

That is why LONG TERM data is important. That is why a ten year period is statistically meaningless. So I'm not just dismissing your data because I disagree with it. I disagree because the science backs me up.

I did look at most (if not all) of the crap you posted from the GW deniers and individuals who disagree. I've already explained why one individual does not refute the vast data suggesting GW as real just a Kent Hovind's stupid stance on young earth creationism is scientifically flawed.

You posted a link to a couple dozen "organizations" that oppose GW. I soundly refuted a sampling of them and showed how they were mostly organizations that were formed for the ole purpose of denying GW and how many of them were funded by Big Oil. Nash, that is not science. It's politics. I note that you completely ignored that post.

I asked you one simple question: Show me one graph that shows a LONG TERM cooling trend. You failed miserably. NONE of your links contained that, Nash. None. Prove me wrong.

I asked you to produce one single chart that shows a decrease in CO2 -- something that refutes the fact that CO2 leaves are the highest they have been in over 2 million years. You failed miserably. Instead, you simply denied that there was any relation to temps and CO2 at all and stupidly asserted your own fabricated reality. You may as well say gravity doesn't exist, Nash. That's how stupid that sounds.
Simply, you cannot assert that the methods of sampling CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the past few centuries is statistically significant. The sampling methodologies in use today cannot determine CO2 levels in anything more than a microscope fraction of the atmosphere. As our atmosphere is not even close to homogeneous one can't make generalizations from them.

Man-made global warming has made Al Gore millions of dollars and is driving the most comprehensive societal and economic change in history, and the objective proof is just not there. Sweeping generalizations are made on the basis of extremely limited sampling methodologies. Again, the models on which the MMGW advocates base their predictions have been demonstrated to be completely wrong. Cookie, I would even state that the scientific evidence supporting manmade global warming is of the same type and order as the scientific evidence supporting biblical creationism.

MMGW is one of those scientific "cash cows" for science. If you request a grant to demonstrate MMGW, it will be approved in short order. Otherwise, no such luck. Same as proving the effects of second-hand smoke and other politically-driven items.

Even so, in the EXTREMELY remote chance there's some validity to the MMGW claims, why put the entire burden on the US? Japan has backed away--I guess they'll have to change it from the Kyoto Protocols. China and Russia are the two biggest polluters in the world. Brazil clear-cuts amazonian forests at an unprecedented rate. Russia and China dump crap into the air; Brazil destroys hectares of green that absorb CO2 and emit oxygen.

If there is a problem, technology may be the only thing that can help us. Destroying the American economy in a futile effort to reduce MMGW is the best way to guarantee doom, in the event it is a real thing.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Simply, you cannot assert that the methods of sampling CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the past few centuries is statistically significant.


Sure ya can, Zip.

If you can believe the scheming liberal scientists, CO2 levels are pretty well documented in ice cores that date back 800,000 years. Link Other measures include ocean sediment absorption and rock cores and, I'm sure a few others, that all point to the same conclusion: CO2 levels are the highest they have been in a staggeringly long time.

Now, except for Nash, no scientist will dispute the correlation between CO2 levels and temps. Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, of course. What is not clearly understood is which is the cause and which is the effect but the stuff I have read seem to indicate that CO2 levels rise first, then the temps lag. Others say differently. Still, there is a clear constellation.

Some theories suggest that the CO2 level will dissipate as temps rise causing that may even result a normalization or even an an ice age. Some suggest that this CO2 is . . . Well, there are lots of theories that I won't bore you with. Suffice it to say that no one is exactly sure what the long term effects of CO2 build-up is. We are seeing warming at the moment (if you believe the conspirators in this vast scheme to liberalize America).

If you wish to insist that GW is a scam, then you are going to have to tear down the foundation of the scam: That CO2 levels are incredibly high. CO2 is the golden key. Prove the data is wrong and you win the Big Cookie.

Other than that, I tend to agree with all your other assertions. I don't think there is a damm thing we can do about it and it has become a political movement instead of a scientific study.

But hiding our heads in the sand pretending that there is no consensus or correlation is nonsensical.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Simply, you cannot assert that the methods of sampling CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the past few centuries is statistically significant.


Sure ya can, Zip.

If you can believe the scheming liberal scientists, CO2 levels are pretty well documented in ice cores that date back 800,000 years. Link Other measures include ocean sediment absorption and rock cores and, I'm sure a few others, that all point to the same conclusion: CO2 levels are the highest they have been in a staggeringly long time.

Now, except for Nash, no scientist will dispute the correlation between CO2 levels and temps. Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, of course. What is not clearly understood is which is the cause and which is the effect but the stuff I have read seem to indicate that CO2 levels rise first, then the temps lag. Others say differently. Still, there is a clear constellation.

Some theories suggest that the CO2 level will dissipate as temps rise causing that may even result a normalization or even an an ice age. Some suggest that this CO2 is . . . Well, there are lots of theories that I won't bore you with. Suffice it to say that no one is exactly sure what the long term effects of CO2 build-up is. We are seeing warming at the moment (if you believe the conspirators in this vast scheme to liberalize America).

If you wish to insist that GW is a scam, then you are going to have to tear down the foundation of the scam: That CO2 levels are incredibly high. CO2 is the golden key. Prove the data is wrong and you win the Big Cookie.

Other than that, I tend to agree with all your other assertions. I don't think there is a damm thing we can do about it and it has become a political movement instead of a scientific study.

But hiding our heads in the sand pretending that there is no consensus or correlation is nonsensical.


CO2 was higher during the dinosaurs, I'm pretty sure it's higher due to your insistence on this issue, I'm also pretty sure it fluctuates but until the REST of the World goes along at the same time the issue is moot.

Why should we kill our economy?

NWO?

One world currency?
Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2):

Link

June 21, 2005

One point apparently causing confusion among our readers is the relative abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere today as compared with Earth's historical levels. Most people seem surprised when we say current levels are relatively low, at least from a long-term perspective - understandable considering the constant media/activist bleat about current levels being allegedly "catastrophically high." Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years.

Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that's a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO2 equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol's irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now?

Adjacent graphic 'Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time' from Climate and the Carboniferous Period (Monte Hieb, with paleomaps by Christopher R. Scotese). Why not drop by and have a look around?
"So you accept the data that shows it is melting. Good for you. Now can you tell me why to you not accept the data that shows the globe is warming?

Actually, melting of sea ice would have NO effect on sea levels. But it will have an effect on the sea cutrrents. The Greenland Ice Shelf is melting and is expected to have an effect on sea levle - especially in the northeastern part of the US. I don't know why it would effect just the NE part but that is what is being said."

The ice is melting because of a phenomena called "summer." As ice contracts as it melts, sea ice would cause the ocean's level to decrease. Only melting land based glacier ice would cause the ocean's level to rise.

Only last summer, we were warned that Artic ice would completely melt. Not only didn't it melt, it was thicker in parts than ever before -- so much for long term predictions.

Global warming and cooling is more dependent on the waxing and waning of the solar winds as they counteract cosmic rays.
do you see who keeps pushing Global warming? Al Gore, he will make millions of dollars from the manufacturing of Solar Panels and he may be involved in wind Turbines, as long as China and India keep putting out pollution like they are it don't matter what we do we can't clean up the air and it eventually spreads over the whole globe.

in May 2008 issue of National Geographic they wrote the whole book about China and the Air is grey with Smoke and everything is polluted, they have what they call Cancer Cities where they send the people that gets Cancer to die so they won't be in the way. there are Smoke Stacks belching Smoke everywhere and no one cares.

last Winter when it got down to 8 degrees Fahrenheit I thought about Global warming and it seemed colder than usual to me.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2):


LMM,

I asked for a long range chart and you certainly provided one. But this is a little too long range.

Your graph is an excellent representation of the complexity of this issue and why the only rational view is to side with the scientific consensus.

Still, you graph does show a loose correlation over extremely long periods between CO2 and temps.

The huge dips you see in the temp line back in the Paleozoic age was likely the result of massive volcanic eruption or asteroid impact that resulted in covering the entire earth in a blanket of ice from pole to pole. CO2 levels didn't have a darn thing to do with this. Cloud cover (or something similar) did.

I've stated a couple of times in this thread that we are only one volcanic eruption away from an ice age.

Long ago, there was ZERO oxygen in the atmosphere. In fact, the whole makeup of the atmosphere was drastically different from what it is now that comparing the current atmosphere to 600 million years ago is . . . Well, there is no comparison.

In order to win this debate, what you and your cohorts must produce is a chart that shows the complete opposite of what this one shows. It really is as simple as that.

Source Link

Summary: "This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events."

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
Why should we kill our economy?

NWO?

One world currency?


I support nothing like that.

I guess I'll have to say it until I'm blue in the face that I do NOT agree with any draconiam measures to reduce CO2 emmissions or give up our lifestyle.

What I claim (and evidentially supported) is that global warming is real and that you people are burying your heads in the sand by ignoring the evidence that I've personally spoon fed to you.

That said, I will step into the political realm and state emphatically that I believe we should all do everything we can to wean ourselves from the teat of Middle Eastern oil.

But that has not a damm thing to do with my stance on the REALITY of global warming that is supported by overwhelming evidence that the world seems to deny.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
Why should we kill our economy?

NWO?

One world currency?


I support nothing like that.

I guess I'll have to say it until I'm blue in the face that I do NOT agree with any draconiam measures to reduce CO2 emmissions or give up our lifestyle.

What I claim (and evidentially supported) is that global warming is real and that you people are burying your heads in the sand by ignoring the evidence that I've personally spoon fed to you.

That said, I will step into the political realm and state emphatically that I believe we should all do everything we can to wean ourselves from the teat of Middle Eastern oil.

But that has not a damm thing to do with my stance on the REALITY of global warming that is supported by overwhelming evidence that the world seems to deny.


You've stated your beliefs, I've stated mine

you don't believe me and I don't believe you so we are when we started and no I have not buried my head in the sand.

I know man has made an impact to some degree and certain areas a pretty large degree, CO2 is not one of them. Even if it was, there is nothing we can do by OURSELVES to slow it down, China, India and Indonesia is producing ten times the pollution we are.

All I see is a group creating chaos and trying to capitalize on it, our current administration says "don't let a crisis go to waste"

that's enough for me to stand against it!
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
you don't believe me and I don't believe you so we are when we started and no I have not buried my head in the sand.


But that is the point. Your "belief" does not change reality. Global Warming is not a religions debate where your "beliefs" are, in fact, reality. This is real stuff. You are burying your head in the sand.

Tell me, do you think the chart I just posted is a complete fabrication by the "scientific establishment"? What specific facts do you base your answer upon?
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
If you are so worried about CO2, plant lots of broad leaf trees!


Me worry about GW? I think not. I may as well worry about the weather.

What I worry about is the propensity for people to deny the evidence despite the overwhelming evidence. You LMM (unlike Nash), are scientifically literate. Yet, still, you seem to insist that your chart that details the entire history of life on earth is relevant to the discussion of rising temperatures in the industrial age.

It is a perplexing, endlessly fascinating phenomenon.
Skep,
If there had not been a global cooling scare in the 70's with all that same technology, I might agree. However, like most things that become political, its 90% BS and 10% fact. You may pick which side of the BS you like.

I see no major consensus to either side. If we could find at least 80% of the scientists agreeing, I could go for it. That ain't happening BUD!

BTW, I have planted several trees on my property. Always makes the air smell better......
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
I guess I'll have to say it until I'm blue in the face that I do NOT agree with any draconiam measures to reduce CO2 emmissions or give up our lifestyle.

Completely agree.

quote:
That said, I will step into the political realm and state emphatically that I believe we should all do everything we can to wean ourselves from the teat of Middle Eastern oil.

Completely agree.

I love finding similarities rather than differences. It gives us a much cleaner starting point.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
you don't believe me and I don't believe you so we are when we started and no I have not buried my head in the sand.


But that is the point. Your "belief" does not change reality. Global Warming is not a religions debate where your "beliefs" are, in fact, reality. This is real stuff. You are burying your head in the sand.

Tell me, do you think the chart I just posted is a complete fabrication by the "scientific establishment"? What specific facts do you base your answer upon?


I'm disagreeing with your data, many do in case you haven't noticed. The EPA had a 30 yr employees paper removed because it disagreed with their agenda.

CO2 comes from many things as already mentioned, maybe the real problem is too many humans?
Back atcha.

quote:
The reality is that folks are catching onto the fact that man-made global warming is a hoax, an inconvenient truth attested to by more and more scientists. Like any good con man, Obama wants to hurry the shakedown before his mark figures out his game. Democrats actually said that “If we do not act now, the climate will soon be out of our control.” This, of course, raises the question: just when was the climate ever under our control? Leave it to Obama to think he can control the weather.

While Cap and Trade is clearly being pushed by Nanny Pelosi and Obama, he has not really talked much on the subject for fear it might fail. In fairness, Obama seems increasingly uncomfortable talking about anything but himself.

After passage by the House of Representatives, the bill goes to the Senate where a compromise might be struck. Instead of making companies pay the government for the privilege of conducting their business, perhaps Congress will take a page from the extortion/protection racket practiced by the Mafia for years and will just let the businesses write their checks directly to the Democratic National Committee.

Obviously, the big winner here is any business not located in the United States. Obama’s policies of empowering unions, making it easy for plaintiffs’ attorneys to sue, increasing regulation, and raising taxes will chase more companies out of the United States to business-friendly countries overseas. It is no accident that more of the big IPOs of companies are now taking place on foreign exchanges.

The myth of man-made global warming was started by the left, fanned by Democratic outcast Al Gore with his “The Sky Is Falling/Chicken-Little” slide show, and perpetuated by attacking anyone who dared to question his dubious science. That is pretty much the MO of the left: begin with a self-righteous premise, repeat it often enough, say things like “The science is conclusive on this,” and then personally attack anyone who disagrees. If Gore cares that much about the earth’s temperature, he could just walk around providing shade for cities.

We have been lulled to sleep by the media’s frivolous entertainment. Our newspapers are slowly dying because they have become cheerleaders and not independent purveyors of the truth, allowing our politicians to get away with egregious conduct and the waste of our national resources.

Obama said that “Global warming is happening much quicker than we thought.” Then one of his handlers reminded him that it is now summer.

Undaunted by the dismal success rate of past scientists’ predictions (Y2K doomsday threats, the hole in the ozone layer scare, the dangers of nuclear power), the Democrats lumber forward. In fact, what was the last dire prediction of leftist scientists that actually came true? If you think of any, let me know.
LOL.

Global warming skeptics often cite contradictory reports from a generation ago warning of global cooling. In 1975 Newsweek wrote of "ominous signs" that temperatures were dipping, and a year later National Geographic suggested the possibility of a worldwide chilling trend. Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University, recalls those stories well. "I was one of the ones who talked about global cooling," he says. "I was also the one who said what was wrong with that idea within three years."

Schneider coauthored a 1971 article in the journal Science about atmospheric aerosols—floating particles of soil dust, volcanic ash, and human-made pollutants. His research suggested that industrial aerosols could block sunlight and reduce global temperatures enough to overcome the effects of greenhouse gases, possibly triggering an ice age. But he soon realized that he had overestimated the amount of aerosols in the air and underestimated the role of greenhouse gases.

"Back then this science was so new, so theoretical, it was really hard to sort it out," he says. He and other early climate researchers say they did not predict a global cooling trend but simply suggested the possibility. Evidence suggests that average worldwide temperatures did decrease between the 1940s and the 1970s. Some climatologists partially attribute the temporary cooling trend to industrial smog, which has since been overcome by the effects of growing greenhouse emissions and, ironically, by clean-air laws that have reduced atmospheric particulates.


quote:
Obama said that “Global warming is happening much quicker than we thought.” Then one of his handlers reminded him that it is now summer.



Hahahahahahaha.
I love it.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Back atcha.

[QUOTE]The reality is that folks are catching onto the fact that man-made global warming is a hoax, an inconvenient truth attested to by more and more scientists.


I think that perhaps I have stumbled onto one of the misunderstandings that y'all might have about this "GW conspiracy."

You guys keep posting contradictory data concerning "man-made global warming." I ask you to laser-in to the "mad made" aspect.

To rehash, my stance is as follows. The consensus is that global warming is real and is probably man-made. That was my stated stance at the beginning of this thread and it remains until the scientific consensus changes (Nash, "scientific consensus" means the consensus from people like NOAH and the National Academy of Science and NOT organizations you listed that have formed for the sole purpose of denying GW).

There is abundant evidence of global warming. I have posted the evidence here for all to see, After repeated requests, not one of you have supplied a chart that contradicts the rising temperatures we have seen since the start of the Industrial Age. Yes, many of you have cited interviews with this guy or that or linked to a blog that claims its all a scam designed to destroy our way of life but, no, none of you have supplied scientific data that contradicts the FACT of a recent trend towards warming.

But I find that perhaps our disagreement isn't as profound as it appears at first glance. I think you all may be denying the "man made" part of the GW debate. I readily admit that there seems to be a raging debate within the scientific community over whether or not it is man made. The general consensus is that it "probably" is but I've seen no statements that state the premise as factual. The most I've seen says "the data seems to suggest" or "we think it likely that the correlation between rising temps and the advent of the industrial age is causal."

All that to say this: The evidence for Industrial Age warming is, in fact, overwhelming. Deny it if you wish but do yourself a favor and try to find unbiased, factual, scientific data that supports your assertion so you won't sound like a loony conspiracy theorist at your next ****tail party.

But the "man made" aspect is fully debatable.

(Attachment: Example of regional variations in surface air temperature for the last 1000 years, estimated from a variety of sources, including temperature-sensitive tree growth indices and written records of various kinds, largely from western Europe and eastern North America. Shown are changes in regional temperature in ° C, from the baseline value for 1900. Compiled by R. S. Bradley and J. A. Eddy based on J. T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vol 5, no 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley

Attachments

Images (1)
  • littleiceage
Now, I'll go along with you. There is probably an increase in the global mean temperature of around a degree celsius. I say "probably" because, first, accurate data from the "medieval warm period" simply does not exist; second, the instrumentation used today is much more accurate and widespread than even that used in the 1920s; and third, even the chart you provided shows global temperature cycles (sort of). One cycle does not a pattern make, but it is compelling.

My gentle reminder to you is that funding for things scientific is ALWAYS political. As there is political pressure towards man-made global warming, public research funding will ALWAYS go in that direction. I speak from direct, personal experience; not GW, but in another realm altogether. Hence the need for organizations formed to "deny" MMGW.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
My gentle reminder to you is that funding for things scientific is ALWAYS political.


I wish that were not the case but I guess I can't deny that. I happen to put some trust in the self-correcting nature of science. A scientists could become rich and famouns by proving the consensus wrong.

For instance, the consensus is that CO2 levels have a profound effect on temperature. TYhat was the case until just two days ago when a study was published that strongly suggests that CO2 levels have only "about half" the effect that was originally considered.

Headline: Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong Link

Summation: "Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM (a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago. "

Scientists are going goo-goo over this study because it may sway the consensus a little. Good stuff.
Sorry, but stating a consensus exists, does not make it so. Many scientists state they believe CO2 is a factor and many do not. I've shown the skeptics.

Consensus is not part of the scientific principle, only part of the political principle.

The planet has undergone numerous warming and cooling periods without man made interference. Portions of the planet were warm and are now frigid.

The present polar regions were once warm, but now frigid because the planet shifted on its axis. The planet inhabits a range in the solar system given to much warmer temperatures, which it once experienced. However, when the Indian subcontinent slammed into Asia creating the Himalayas, the result was a heat sink that siphons much of the heat into the upper atmosphere creating the temperate regions.

Plasma flow on the sun has a much greater effect as it increases or decreases the solar winds and their interaction with cosmic rays.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Consensus is not part of the scientific principle, only part of the political principle..


I agree to a certain extant. But consensus is about the only thing we laymen have in a issue as complicated as this one. Scientific consensus must be based on scientific organizations. I pay attentyion to the NOAAH and National Academies of Science among many others. What about you?

Political consensus must be . . . On second thought, perhaps "political consensus" is an oxymoron or a contradictory phrase so skip that.

So, Interventor and LMM, exactly what is the "consensus" and what do you base that observation on?

Can either of you give me one single nationally recognized, science-biased scientific organization that agrees with your stance?
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
However, when the Indian subcontinent slammed into Asia creating the Himalayas, the result was a heat sink that siphons much of the heat into the upper atmosphere creating the temperate regions.


And also erased the Sargassian Sea and turned northern Africa from a lush jungle to a Saharan dessert. (which ultimately ended up spawning a new species of ape called homo sapiens sapiens but that is another story)

Yes, the earth is constantly going from warm to cold to warm to cold again. Yes, the sun matters. Yes, the earth's movement through the spiral arms of the galaxy every 100,000 years or so matter. Volcanoes matter. But so does CO2 and a thousand others things.

Let's try this, LMM and Int: I think you would both agree that the only thing absolutely certain about our climate is that the earth is either

A.) Warming
B.) Cooling
C.) Remaining the same

"C" is out. The earth's temperature is never static. I think we can both agree on that. So that leaves either warming or cooling. Which is it? What is your evidence?
And good old Dr. Hansen is very tolerant of dissent:

quote:
The "contrarian" Hansen referred to, Dr. John Christy, is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama and a panelist on the National Academy of Science's report on temperature reconstructions. His testimony covered research he has conducted on the effect that land use and urbanization have on temperature change, and the observed "shortcomings" of climate models to reflect these effects.

This un-classy display of intolerance was topped last September when Dr. Hansen reported to the Denver Post that "Some of this noise won't stop until some of these scientists are dead."


...referring to GW "deniers". Also referred to as follows:

quote:
Those who question if that's a fact are no longer simply nay-sayers or skeptics. They are flat-earthers, "known liars," and war criminals.


This approach to honest scientific inquiry is quite fascist.

Link
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Skep, I gave up showing you sites 8 pages back.

Here's one you can look at or not.

Link


Lmm,

This is not a "scientific organization." Globalwarminghysteria.com is a site dedicated to debunking the hysteria. I happen to AGREE that there is a fair amount of hysteria. I've said that a half dozen times already.

But you site proves my point. The very first chart is nearly identical to the charts I posted and clearly shows the earth is warming.

The site blames the GLOBAL WARMING on sun activity, not CO2 as proclaimed by the hysterians. The rest of the site appears to be links to a bunch of other hysterians and I'm just not going to thumb through all of it.

So, LMM, are you saying that you now agree with me that the earth is getting warmer?

If you want unbiased scientific data, try sciencedaily.com or scientificamerican.com. These are legitimate site dedicated to science, not politics.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
NIPCC

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

Link


LMM,

This is not a scientifi organization. It is yet another organization formed for the sole purpose of debinking MMGW.

A very good site for researching these kinds of organization is Sourcewatch. They ahve this to say about the NIPCC:

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change was a conference held at the Marriott New York Marquis Times Square Hotel in New York between March 2-4 . The conference was organised and "sponsored" by the Heartland Institute, a U.S. think tanks that in preceding years received substantial funding from Exxon for its work downplaying the significance of global warming.

Even so, they mostly AGREE with me by saying, "The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change."

Let me highlight that for you: They AGREE that the globe is getting warmer. That is the ONLY position I have taken throughout this whole thread and, as I've stated, the evidence seems to be consensual that the globe is getting warmer.

So do you now dispute their findings?
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
And good old Dr. Hansen is very tolerant of dissent:

quote:
The "contrarian" Hansen referred to, Dr. John Christy, is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama and a panelist on the National Academy of Science's report on temperature reconstructions. His testimony covered research he has conducted on the effect that land use and urbanization have on temperature change, and the observed "shortcomings" of climate models to reflect these effects.

This un-classy display of intolerance was topped last September when Dr. Hansen reported to the Denver Post that "Some of this noise won't stop until some of these scientists are dead."


...referring to GW "deniers". Also referred to as follows:

quote:
Those who question if that's a fact are no longer simply nay-sayers or skeptics. They are flat-earthers, "known liars," and war criminals.


This approach to honest scientific inquiry is quite fascist.

Link


Zippy,

From your article, Climate change is an immensely complex issue. While there is agreement among scientists that warming is occurring and human activity may be partly responsible, how much warming and how much of it is from anthropogenic causes is widely disputed.

I agree with nearly the entire premise of the article but especially with the above statement which is nearly identical to what I ahve been stating here all along.

This is an immensely complex issue. One that no one here is qualified to wrap their heads around. It is wrought with very hotly debated issues at nearly every jhuncture. Until the science is settled, that is how science works and why I cherish it so.

But the sheer complexity is why I believe that the only rational thing we laymen can do is stick to the consensus. The consensus is that GW is real is is probably man made.

This very forum is a microcosm of the debate. There are those here who absolutely will not accept the fact that the globe is warming. They are the "flat earth" people your excellent article referred to. Nash, LMM and Interventor and a couple of others appear to be unwilling to rationally examine the evidence. Despite repeated request to bolster their arguments with facts, they only offer opinion (or, in LMM's case, cite data that agrees with me).
Skep,
I give. If I showed you a site that said the earth was green (with pictures), you would say its a distortion of their machinery.

The earth and ALL OTHER PLANETS go through temperature changes. Up and down, for centuries at a time. CO2 is a LAGGING indicator of warmer temperatures. The sun affects our global weather.
Man made pollutants affect the climate about 1% to 3%.

You buy a bikini, I'm going for a parka for the coming ICE AGE!
Link


Petition Project

Home
Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.



Letter from Frederick Seitz
Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of "global warming," a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

Click here to see the rest of this letter from the past president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

Click here to see this peer reviewed research paper.

Note: The Petition Project has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special financial interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private non-tax deductible donations by interested individuals.

See Dr. Noah Robinson's Video Presentation: Link

Download Dr. Art Robinson's Power Point Presentation: Link
One of the advantages of being older, is I can say I've seen it all before. There is a pathology of the left that the sky is always falling. Therefore, we must cede power to those who can save us all from the terrible bandersnatch.

In the sixties, it was global nuclear war and then nuclear winter. If we did not cede power to the peace movement and surrender to the worse murder machines in history, then history would come to an end.

In the seventies and eighties doomsdays included an ice age and the population bomb. Well, so far no advancing glaciers and the US hasn't collapsed, as predicted, with a population of 280 million, plus.

I suspect we are moving into a cooling period. Of what duration, I do not know. I'm not planning on hunting polar bears in Tennessee. However, I shall keep my old winchester .458 magnum around in hopes of bagging an alaskan brown bear in Kentucky.
Last edited by interventor1
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
The earth and ALL OTHER PLANETS go through temperature changes. Up and down, for centuries at a time. CO2 is a LAGGING indicator of warmer temperatures. The sun affects our global weather.
Man made pollutants affect the climate about 1% to 3%.


So answer my question, please: Is the earth currently trending cooler or warmer?

(And the science isn't settled on whether CO2 levels precede or trails warming. What IS settled is that there is a correlation.)
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Simple! Global warming ceased 11 years ago, a cooling trend developed over the last two years, and the plasma flow on the sun's surface has changed over the last year resulting in significantly decreased solar winds.


Sounds really smart and educated but I asked for your evidence, not for an educated opinion. Yes, I understand some scientists say this, that and the other. My point, again and again, is that the consensus from elading scientific organizations have concluded differently. Unless you are eminently qualified to weight the full body of evidence from all side of this issue, the only ration thing to do is side with the consensus.

The World Meteorological Organization (an international organization formed in 1950 as a clearing house for international weather concerns - not some wacky organization invented by kooks yesterday and funded by Exxon as LMM seems to be find of) has this to say about your theory: (http://www.aussmc.org/Is_the_Earth_Cooling.php)

"There is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was the world’s warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of 1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious."

So how are you qualified to completely dismiss this refutation by an international organization , Int? Me? I admit that I don't know much so I am forced to side with the consensus.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
You neglected to point out that the WMO is entity of the UN. Thru the IPCC, the UN has definite reasons for using global warming to their advantage.


Excellent refutation. I guess I can't deny that (you see this, Nash? This is a gentlemanly debate).

However, I still don't see you citing any evidence that is contrary to the scientific data that clearly shows a cooling as opposed to a warming trend.

It seems that the best you and LMM can do is deny what I present.

Since neither you nor I are qualified to weigh all the data, what non-biased, internationally (or nationally) recognized entity would you recommend as a representative of reason in this debate?
Last edited by Cookey
I do reply on my own judgment to a great extent. My majors in physics and business help, as well, as my training in logistics and experience around the globe.

I've read extensively on the subject and observed those pushing one side or another. The science I see on the warmist side appears to readily refuted at several points, as I've stated. The agendae of those involved are suspect as well. Progressive desire power and control. Others like Gore appear to be exploiters and massive hypocrites. What else can I call a person whose wealth increases from the cap and trade dodge while hawking his cause thru a movie. Then, living a lifestyle with a carbon footprint the size of a yeti's in snowshoes.
Skep, for the last time, there is no consensus.


US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Link


Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
May 15, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:14 PM ET

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )


Link

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report

‘The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry’



Link to Introduction of Report

Link to Full Printable 255-Page PDF Report

Washington, DC: Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.

The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabated in 2009. A March 14, 2009 article in the Australian revealed that Japanese scientists are now at the forefront of rejecting man-made climate fears prompted by the UN IPCC.
Link


Friday, July 10, 2009 9:21 AM
The Year Without A Summer? 1816 vs. 2009

UPDATE: PEI, Canada has had the first July frost in recorded history (thanks Mark).

We took some flack last month for mentioning the term "Year Without A Summer" but this morning there's a tidbit of data that matches that famous season nearly 200 years ago. If you look back in the AccuWeather Almanac, there are a handful of entries from the Summer of 1816, one of which says:

"44 degrees at sunrise in Waltham, Massachusetts (west of Boston) on July 8th."

Well, this morning it was 43 degrees at Taunton, Mass., south of Boston!
Link

Arctic Sea Ice decline in the 21st


— group @ 1:43 pm

Guest Commentary by Cecilia Bitz, University of Washington

Last month a paper I co-authored received considerable media attention. Headlines read “Experts warn North Pole will be ‘ice free’ by 2040″, “The Big Melt: Loss of Sea Ice Snowballs“, and “Arctic Clear for Summer Sailing by 2040: Models Predict Rapid Decline of Sea Ice”. The story also reached NPR, BBC, CBC, the Discovery channel, and Fox News, among others. Dr. Marika Holland, the first author of the paper, was inundated with media attention. About a dozen journalists contacted me too. I was impressed by the questions they posed — questions that probably reflect what the public most wants to know. However, after giving lengthy interviews, I would read the resulting article and see my explanations boiled down to a few lines. In this essay, I’d like to explain the science in the paper and give my answers to the most often asked questions.


In our paper (with co-author Bruno Tremblay), we examined the September Arctic sea ice cover in the 20th and 21st centuries in climate models, and found occasional decades of very rapid retreat. The most extreme case was a decrease from 6 to 2 million square kilometers in a decade (see Fig 1). This is about 4 times faster than the decline that has been observed in the past decade.


Figure 1: (a) Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent in September from one integration of the Community Climate System Model version 3 (CCSM3) with observations from the satellite era shown in red. The light blue line is a 5-yr running mean. The three lower panels show the September ice concentration (ice floes are separated by open water) in three select decades.

It is common practice to run climate models multiple times with slight variations to the initial conditions. Because the system is chaotic, the natural variability in each run is random and uncorrelated from one run to the next. When an ensemble of runs is averaged, the natural variability is reduced in the ensemble mean, and it is easier to detect a significant trend.

An ensemble of runs offers an opportunity to evaluate rare events too, such as extreme sea ice decay. We were in search of evidence for “tipping points“, which several authors have speculated might exist in sea ice. RealClimate places sea ice in the category of systems with “known unknowns” with regard to tipping points. This means we know there are thresholds involving sea ice (e.g., it can cease to exist), but we don’t know when, or if, the climate will arrive at one.

Only one of seven ensemble members had an event as extreme as quoted above, and it resulted in near ice-free conditions for September by 2040 (see Fig 1d). (The sea ice grows back at least for some portion of winter for the duration of the 21st century.) However, every ensemble member had an event 5 years or longer at some time in the 21st century when the sea ice retreat was about 3 times faster than the observed retreat since 2001 (see Fig 2). These ensemble members took about 5–10 years longer to become nearly ice-free in September than the most extreme case.

As illustrated in Fig 1, the sea ice retreat accelerates during the 21st century as the ice decays and more sunlight is absorbed by the ocean (the positive ice-albedo feedback). Increasing ocean heat transport under the sea ice adds to the melt back. The retreat appears abrupt when natural variability in the ocean heat transport into the Arctic Ocean is anomalously high. We did not find clear evidence of a threshold, which can be difficult to identify given the variability and complexity of the climate system. Therefore we can neither verify or rule-out the existence of a tipping point. Regardless, the rapid declines seen in our runs are a serious concern.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Link

Arctic Sea Ice decline in the 21st


Umm, LMM? This is an article that discusses the disappearing north pole ice cap due to GLOBAL WARMING (and placed the blame mostly on emissions).

Thank you. It coincides with the recent data from NASA that I posted earlier that has some shocking data about the thinning of the ice on the poles.
Yes, and if you will look, it admits that they ran seven different scenarios and got seven different answers.
The reason I put it up was that one of the authors was ticked off that the entire report was not looked at, only the part that people wanted to see.

There is no consensus that global warming is any thing more than a cyclic process, controlled by solar rays, that has had temps up and downs for millenniums, without humans and it will continue with or without humans.

The thinning arctic ice is a four year span and you want to bet your future on that?

Obama's carbon credits will run through a company in Chicago, and will rake in millions for all his mafia buddies. Gore will make a bundle as well.

I guess all the scientists bailing OUT of the idiocy did not affect your reasoning.

As I said, you believe what you want to believe until NASA or NOAA gets off Obama's pay roll and actual shows the real data, not skewed numbers.

When you can show me 80% of scientists agreeing, I'll call it a consensus.
God gave us the natural springs, creeks, oceans, clean air, trees, bushes, flowers. When God first created the earth, it was clean and stayed clean for a long time. Then he created Adam and Eve, who could not resist temptation and ate the fruit of knowledge. It's amazing the fruit of knowledge is telling us no such thing as global warming. God also gave us a body and we can either abuse it or take care of it. Most of us choose to destroy it by smoking, abusing drugs and alcohol. But the fruit of knowledge that started from the temptation got us in one hell of a mess.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
When you can show me 80% of scientists agreeing, I'll call it a consensus.


I asked Int and didn't get and answer so I'll ask you: What scientific organizations do you think represent a "consensus" on this issue?

Me? I go with what the National Academies of Science say. They represent sort of a "Supreme Court" of peer reviews journals and their only agenda is good science. THey have issues numerous position statements. I challenge you to find one that does disagrees with the consensus.

You may wish to take a look at the position statements of the American Geophysical Union. They represent about 20,000 members in the US and about 5000 in Europe. No climatologists worth his salt is NOT a member of the AGU. A A significant poll of them indicates 97% agreement:

The survey of 3,146 earth scientists from around the world found overwhelming agreement that in the past 200 years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a "significant contributing factor" in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, an associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appeared Monday in the journal "Eos, Transactions," a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," the researchers conclude.


Another study has this to say,

Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change

STATS survey of experts reveals changing scientific opinion on global warming, extent of pressure to play up or down threat.

Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991. However, the survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change.

The survey, which was conducted for STATS by Harris Interactive®, also found increased concern among climate scientists since the Gallup organization asked them many of the same questions in 1991.


How about Gallup, LMM? They performed a survey of climatologists and found A recent survey of earth scientists found that 97% of climatologists surveyed believe that humans play a role global warming. Link

Honestly, LMM, I cannot find a single legitimate scientific organization whose member do not overwhelmingly (in excess of you "80%" agree that global warming is real and is probably man made.
quote:
Originally posted by Nobluedog:
God gave us the natural springs, creeks, oceans, clean air, trees, bushes, flowers. When God first created the earth, it was clean and stayed clean for a long time. Then he created Adam and Eve, who could not resist temptation and ate the fruit of knowledge.


Thank you for that insightful bit of scientific knowledge.
How Gallop got their numbers.
First, they used the perceived view that it is caused by man then the sample size actually tested is 149-5273. That is a very small size.
They admit over half of the people survey had not even heard of global warming. They also saw a relationship between the richer nations vs the poorer. At best they got about 52% public opinion believing in man caused global warming.

quote:
Whereas the connection between views about global warming and efficiency of GDP production has implications for public policy, the question of causality remains. Any number of factors could be affecting the relationship, ranging from news and policies about global warming to technologies available in each country. A recent survey of earth scientists found that 97% of climatologists surveyed believe that humans play a role global warming. However, policy-makers should be aware that public opinion on the causes of global warming varies widely. Further, such public perceptions may play a role in economic and environmental outcomes.



Results for knowledge of and perceived causes of global warming are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews conducted between 2007 and 2008. Results for perceived causes of global warming have a sample size range of 149 to 5,273. Confidence intervals range from a high of ±8 percentage points in Liberia (n = 149) to a low of ±1 percentage points in China (n = 5,273). In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.


On your STATS survey,

quote:
Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science. A random sample of this size carries a theoretical sampling error of +/- four percentage points. A detailed description of the study’s methodology as well as that of the earlier Gallup survey is available on request.


Again a very small sample size (489) and it was a mail in survey. Who does that? Not to mention, that automatically skewed the results.

Your own AGU may have 25,000 members but only 3,146 earth scientists participated. That's 12% who agreed 97% of the time.
Last edited by LMM
NCAR
Link

Here's a good one for you skippy! no humans needed.

Gore's says a one degree rise (C) will raise ocean levels 20 feet. Well, this show in the past a temp rise of about 12 (C) only caused a 16 foot rise.


New Cause for Past Global Warming Revealed by Massive Modeling Project

July 16, 2009

BOULDER—By simulating 8,000 years of climate with unprecedented detail and accuracy, a team led by scientists from the University of Wisconsin–Madison and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has found a new explanation for the last major period of global warming, which occurred about 14,500 years ago.

In a period called the Bølling-Allerød warming, global sea level rose by 16 feet and temperatures in Greenland soared by up to 27 degrees Fahrenheit over several hundred years. The new study shows how increased carbon dioxide, strengthening ocean currents, and a release of ocean-stored heat could have combined to trigger the warming.

Findings from the experiment appear in the July 17 issue of Science. The study was funded by NCAR's sponsor, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Simulations were conducted on the Community Climate System Model (CCSM), which is a collaborative effort based at NCAR and supported primarily by NSF and DOE.


The study examined the period from 22,000 to 14,000 years ago, as Earth emerged in fits and starts from the extreme cold of the last ice age. Temperatures rose from about 21,000 to 19,000 years ago, then cooled again after glacial meltwater weakened the Atlantic Ocean's warming "conveyor belt," also called the thermohaline circulation.

One mystery the scientists hoped to solve was why global warming resumed so abruptly and strongly during the Bølling-Allerød period, about 14,500 years ago. Previous studies using simpler models had speculated that a sudden shift in the Atlantic Ocean conveyor belt might have caused the Bølling-Allerød warming. However, the new work with the CCSM suggests that three factors each contributed about a third of the warming:

* an increase of about 40 parts per million in atmospheric carbon dioxide
* a strengthening of the Atlantic Ocean's conveyor belt circulation
* the release of heat stored in the ocean over thousands of years

"Once the glacial melt stopped, the enormous subsurface heat that had accumulated for 3,000 years erupted like a volcano and popped out over decades," says Liu. "This huge heat flux melted the sea ice and warmed up Greenland."
One of your own AGU buddies.

Global Dimming and Brightening


HYPERLINK "http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N7/EDIT.jsp" Link


Gerald Stanhill of the Institute of Soil, Water and Environmental Sciences at the Volcani Center in Bet Dagan, Israel, raises some questions of real concern in the 30 January 2007 issue of EOS - the "Newspaper of the Earth and Space Sciences" that is published weekly by the American Geophysical Union - which questions are intended, in his words, "to draw attention to the challenge that recently reported changes in solar radiation at the earth's surface, Eg↓, pose to the consensus explanation of climate change."

Stanhill begins his short treatise by noting there was "a widespread reduction in solar radiation at the earth's surface, often referred to as global dimming," which "lasted from the mid-1950s until the mid-1980s when a recovery, referred to as global brightening, started." This dimming over the land surface of the globe led to a 20 W/m2 reduction in Eg↓, between 1958 and 1992, which negative shortwave forcing, in his words, was "far greater than the 2.4 W/m2 increase in the positive longwave radiative forcing estimated to have occurred since the industrial era as a result of fossil and biofuel combustion," which latter forcing, he notes, is "what provides the consensus explanation of global warming."

Reporting that "the cause of these large changes in Eg↓, is not known," but that they totally dwarf the change in longwave radiative forcing claimed to be responsible for 20th-century global warming, Stanhill goes on to further report that "no reference to these findings has appeared in the three massive IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] assessment reports published during the past 15 years," which glaring omission, in his words, "is surprising in view of the important practical consequences of changes in Eg↓, in addition to their theoretical significance for climate change."

Continuing with this line of reasoning, Stanhill contends that "the omission of reference to changes in Eg↓, in the IPCC assessments brings into question the confidence that can be placed in a top-down, 'consensus' science system that ignores such a major and significant element of climate change," which leads him to suggest that "a separate and more fundamental question is whether scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficient to produce a useful consensus view," as we currently have people "asking questions that can be stated in the language of science but that are currently beyond its ability to answer."

We agree with Stanhill's concerns, and contend that until the two-stage global dimming and brightening phenomenon - which involves much greater changes in earth's surface radiative energy balance than that provided by all anthropogenic-induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations since the start of the Industrial Revolution - can be satisfactorily explained, there is no compelling reason to put any faith whatsoever in what today's climate models imply about the future. And if we have no reason to believe what they suggest, why should we even entertain the foundationless pronouncements of the vast array of politicians who pontificate upon the subject?

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

Reference
Stanhill, G. 2007. A perspective on global warming, dimming, and brightening. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 88: 58.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
How Gallop got their numbers.
First, they used the perceived view that it is caused by man then the sample size actually tested is 149-5273. That is a very small size.
They admit over half of the people survey had not even heard of global warming.


LMM, that was different survey. I was specifically referring to the poll of climatologists that far exceeded your 80% threshold for siding with the consensus.

I've asked you and Int both a few times and neither of you will answer (which is quite telling): What legitimate scientific organization (or polling data) would you trust as an accurate measure of the consensus for this issue?
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
One of your own AGU buddies.

Global Dimming and Brightening
.


Yes, LMM, there is dissent. This is science.

However, I will note that they do agree that the globe has been getting warmer - something you keep denying. These TWO GUYS simply disagree that it will continue to get warmer. They may be right. Who the hell knows? I certainly don't but, unlike you and other deniers, I won't deny the facts simply because I don't like them.

Your article illustrates my point pretty clearly: This is a vastly complex issue that neither you nor I nor anyone else here is qualified to address. When there is such complexity on a scientific issue, the only rational choice is to side with the overwhelming consensus.

As I've stated a half dozen times, I don't really like what the consensus says and disagree with the politicians on how to handle it and I think Gore is a complete moron for overstating the issue.

But that doesn't change the consensus that GW is real and is probably man made.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
For me its when I see such a subject treated as a matter of faith, rather scientific principle,.


That is EXACTLY what you and LMM are doing, Int.

You keep spouting your opinion that you've been hoodwinked before. You cite your past experience with politicians and money yet you have utterly refused to cite any valid, scientific evidence that supports your claims. You refuse to answer very simple questions from me. It is a typical fundamentalist tactic that I would not expect from you.

On the other hand, I have cited link after link of authoritative, representataive consensus views. You refute them as if they don't count simpy beucase you don't like it.

You are denying the facts that don't suit your preconceptions.

You, sir, are being true to your faith.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Am I through with this? YES!


When you can't honestly answer the tough questions without backtracking on your religious stance, I suppose that is the only thing left. It's a common tactic tauht by the "NashBama School of Logic Avoidance." Wink

But if you'd like to come back and answer a very honest question, please tell me what scientific organization you would use for a valid consensus on this issue?
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Am I through with this? YES!


When you can't honestly answer the tough questions without backtracking on your religious stance, I suppose that is the only thing left. It's a common tactic tauht by the "NashBama School of Logic Avoidance." Wink

But if you'd like to come back and answer a very honest question, please tell me what scientific organization you would use for a valid consensus on this issue?


So now scientists have to come to a consensus? In other words, they have a committee decide on on what the definition of "is" is. Hardly the "scientific method" I grew up learning.
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
So now scientists have to come to a consensus?(...)Hardly the "scientific method" I grew up learning.


No, consensus has nothing to do with the scientific method. My point (that I evidently have to repeat in every single post) is that on such a complicated and seemingly contradictory issue as global warming, the only rational stance is to go with the consensus--and there is a very strong consensus.

What we see here are uneducated people siding with individual scientists who share their preconceived notions about the subject. The posters here see this as a liberal/conservative issue, not a scientific one (and there is some truth to that). The GW deniers are overwhelmingly white, conservative bible thumpers who are towing the conservative line rather than looking at the data objectively.
Broke two record lows Saturday night, broke another last night. Maine has it lowest recorded temp in March of this year. GW, yeeeeah!

What does religion have to do with GW, skeptical?
I have never once used anything other than scientific opinions to support my view.

YOU are the one lumping every one who doesn't agree with YOU into a narrow band of uneducated, irrational, Bible thumpers!

YOU are the only one pushing your opinion, which means, statistically, on this forum of 8962 members, YOU represent 0.01% of people who believe in global warming. So 99.99% don't.

Good statistics.

Get the blankets out, another cool night tonight! Razzer
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Broke two record lows Saturday night, broke another last night. Maine has it lowest recorded temp in March of this year. GW, yeeeeah!


Global warming does not mean there will be an end to record high and record low temps, LMM. It means, on average, that the globe will warm, on average, a couple of tenths of a degree every decade so that, 100 years from now, current models predict an average increase of 4 degrees (if my memory serves me right).

We just finished one of the warmest couple of winters we've had in a while. Remember when it used to snow here a lot? In fact, GW predicts that some areas will moderate, some areas will get colder and most will become a little warmer, most desserts will expand and all sorts of other phenomenon. Predictions are that we will see MORE extremes in weather, not less as you seem to insist.

Here is a fascinating map that I consult often that tells me what plants will grow in my landscape. Link

This map reflects reality, LMM. This site was not designed by evil GW proponents looking to steal money from your wallet. North Alabama used to be firmly in zone 7. We are now on the edge of zone 8 (and there seems to be a small pocket of zone 8 centered right over the Shoals). I am now able to grow plants in my yard that used to only grow in south Alabama.

Click "reset" and "play" back and forth. This is reality, LMM. Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Only the future will tell if the VERY REAL prospect of climate change is ultimately a good or bad thing for our race. So far, I gotta tell you that I like a warmer globe.

Would you care to refute this map with a map of your own? Probably not but I'll keep asking, anyway.

quote:
What does religion have to do with GW, skeptical?


Well, that is actually debatable. Here is an interesting chart that summarizes a Pew Forum study: Link

There does appear to be a slight tendency that the more "evangelical" you are, the less likely you are to "believe" in GW but I will admit that the stats are not definitive.

So I retract my statement.

quote:
YOU are the one lumping every one who doesn't agree with YOU into a narrow band of uneducated, irrational, Bible thumpers!

YOU are the only one pushing your opinion,


I am certainly the only one backing their claims with reliable, substantiated scientific data from legitimate scientific sources. You have posted plenty from GW denialist websites that I have proven have a political agenda.

I know there is a tendency for strong believers to believe in a concept or idea despite the contradictory evidence. That is exactly what I am seeing here.

I am the only one will to answer every question presented to me honestly and openly. Your penchant for dodge my questions is transparent, LMM. You can prove me wrong by answering my questions right now if you'd like.

quote:
YOU are the only one pushing your opinion, which means, statistically, on this forum of 8962 members, YOU represent 0.01% of people who believe in global warming. So 99.99% don't.



According to the stats I just posted, I am one of about 80% of the rest of the nation that agrees with the overwhelming consensus that the globe is getting warmer. I think that moots your point that I am on the side of liberal tree huggers and environmentalist wackos (and I most certainly do NOT side with their stance on this issue).
Not, per Rasmussen:

"Monday, January 19, 2009 Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Link
quote:
According to the stats I just posted, I am one of about 80% of the rest of the nation that agrees with the overwhelming consensus that the globe is getting warmer. I think that moots your point that I am on the side of liberal tree huggers and environmentalist wackos (and I most certainly do NOT side with their stance on this issue).


Again, let's be sure we're debating the same topic. There is general consensus that the mean global temperature is increasing about .4 degrees per decade. If this continues for a century it will result in a 4 degree increase in the temperature. It is not certain that it will continue to increase for a century.

What continues to be in contention is the part human civilization plays in this little drama. We all recall the ozone layer thing that happened years ago; the ozone layer was being depleted due to fluorocarbons, freon, spray can propellant, and other such nasties. We removed them from our environment and-what?-no more ozone problems? The ozone layer protects from solar radiation, but ozone is created by the interaction of solar radiation and atmospheric oxygen. It is likely the problem would have been self-correcting, but we managed without a significant economic dislocation. Well, some were affected very significantly.

Now we come to the role of carbon dioxide. We recognize there MAY be a global increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We assume the cause is human civilization, but it could be a variety of other things...vulcanism, deforestation, ocean cooling for a few. We're not even completely convinced if the CO2 levels are causing GW, or are caused by GW. It's still debated.

Okay, assume it is caused by human civilization. How is a significant economic dislocation to the United States going to significantly impact the amount of CO2 going into the GLOBAL atmosphere, when countries of much weaker development and no environmental regulation continue to pour gigatons of crap into the air?

Nuclear power? I'm all for it. I also believe petroleum is too valuable a chemical than to have to burn it for fuel, so electric cars (reserving gasoline for motorcycles and boats!) should be a high national priority. Green spaces should abound in our country. Clean up waterways, and stop dumping crap in the ocean, killing of algae which happens to account for the generation of most of the oxygen on this planet.

Keep the debate straight. Perhaps global warming is real and is caused by other than human agency. If it continues, we'll need technology to save us. Perhaps we should consider the earth is too fragile a basket to keep humanity in. This whole MMGW thing threatens to pull the underpinnings from the only thing that can save us from whatever disaster may come our way. Let's face it, the US has the ONLY economy that can provide what this planet needs in the coming centuries. We should think long and hard before we kill it.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Not, per Rasmussen:

"Monday, January 19, 2009 Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Link


Int,

Once again, that is a poll that asks what the CAUSES of global warming are. I agree the jury is out. As I've stated over and over and over again, the consensus is that it is "probably" man made.

What you and LMM have been debating against the the fact the GW even exists as a real phenomenon - which is absurd in the face of the overwhelming evidence and consensus.
First, you state:

"According to the stats I just posted, I am one of about 80% of the rest of the nation that agrees with the overwhelming consensus that the globe is getting warmer."

Then, I show a poll to the opposite and you reply:

"Once again, that is a poll that asks what the CAUSES of global warming are. I agree the jury is out. As I've stated over and over and over again, the consensus is that it is "probably" man made.

What you and LMM have been debating against the the fact the GW even exists as a real phenomenon - which is absurd in the face of the overwhelming evidence and consensus."

While it is possible to ride two horses at once, trying to ride two sides of an argument is not logical.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Again, let's be sure we're debating the same topic. There is general consensus that the mean global temperature is increasing about .4 degrees per decade. If this continues for a century it will result in a 4 degree increase in the temperature. It is not certain that it will continue to increase for a century.


Thank you, Zip. Sometimes I feel like I'm preaching to a deaf congregation.

For the most part, yes, that is the current consensus as best I can tell. The jury is out on the causes and mitigating factors. It seems that a new theory on "tipping points" and causes and effects come out every day but no one in their right mind declares that the globe is getting warmer - except for our resident deniers. Wink

quote:
What continues to be in contention is the part human civilization plays in this little drama.


Well, not. Not really. Not in this thread. I think the majority consensus is that GW is man made but readily (and frequently) admit that there is abundant evidence for other causes.

quote:
We're not even completely convinced if the CO2 levels are causing GW, or are caused by GW. It's still debated.


Yup. I've stated that a few times here as well. But, as I've stated a few times, there certainly is a correlation between CO2 and temps. CO2 levels are certainly much, much higher than they have been in millions of years. I've also stated that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

But IF CO2 levels DO induce temp increases, then we may have a serious problem. May. Might. Ignoring that the data exists is certainly dangerous.


quote:
Okay, assume it is caused by human civilization. How is a significant economic dislocation to the United States going to significantly impact the amount of CO2 going into the GLOBAL atmosphere, when countries of much weaker development and no environmental regulation continue to pour gigatons of crap into the air?


Beyond my pay grade, Zip. I really, honestly don't have an opinion. I tend to side with the people that say there's not a damm thing we can do about it because the tipping point happened years ago. But I just don't know. I'm a defender of science, not politics - in this issue, anyway.

quote:
Let's face it, the US has the ONLY economy that can provide what this planet needs in the coming centuries. We should think long and hard before we kill it.


We can provide the leadership when it is necessary. The solution, if any is offered, will need to be a global one.

But, again, I'm not convinced this whole GW thing is necessarily a bad thing. To deny that is even exists is at least illogical and perhaps even dangerous.

Agreed again.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Again, let's be sure we're debating the same topic. There is general consensus that the mean global temperature is increasing about .4 degrees per decade. If this continues for a century it will result in a 4 degree increase in the temperature. It is not certain that it will continue to increase for a century.



Thank you, Zip. Sometimes I feel like I'm preaching to a deaf congregation.

For the most part, yes, that is the current consensus as best I can tell. The jury is out on the causes and mitigating factors. It seems that a new theory on "tipping points" and causes and effects come out every day but no one in their right mind declares that the globe is getting warmer - except for our resident deniers. Wink



If this continues for a century it will result in a 4 degree increase in the temperature. It is not certain that it will continue to increase for a century.

And so, I deny it.
LMM, there is some evidence to suggest the world is warming up a bit. Now, before you smack me down, there is a margin of error because the global mean temperatures are based on a statistical model using data from a few thousand points on the surface of the land masses of the earth. A century ago, these were not available. As I wrote to cookey, there's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence to call it manmade.

However, there are some really commonsense things we should do that will save us money in the long run. I'm behind those, but I'm squarely opposed to the cap and trade crap that will give the GoreBot a few hundred million dollars more in his bank account.
I never said it has not been warming, I still stand behind my statement that is runs in cycles. According to what I have read, we are ending a warming phase and starting a cooling one. The statistical models cannot even give us the numbers we have today when numbers from 50 to 100 years ago are plugged in.

As for common sense ideas, sure, recycle, do without when possible, use your own energy by walking, make use of all possible energy sources, but don't break the bank on 'iffy' data.

Link

World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.


This does appear to be a reputable oraganization unlike your other links from sources that are funded by oil and gas companies. Good job, LMM.

However, the entire website is devoted to educating people about the potential dangers of GLOBAL WARMING. From the exact same website we see a statement that reflects the consensus.

Their main page says:
There is indisputable evidence from observations that the Earth is warming. Concentrations of CO2, created largely by the burning of fossil fuels, are now much higher, and increasing at a much faster rate, than at any time in the last 600,000 years. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years.

That statement reflects the general consensus.

Here are some other facts from your site:

Fact 2
Temperatures are continuing to rise.

Fact 3
The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle.

Fact 4
Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone.

Fact 5
If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix.


And finally, LMM there is this one under "myths" that you may find interesting:

Myth 2
Drop in monthly global temperature means global warming has stopped. Link

This link includes the graph that you posted, LMM, then discusses why it is not a legitimate indicator of future predictions.

LMM my friend, really. Nearly every link you have posted thus far actually supports my stance. You are picking the few pieces of data that support your opinion while wholly and transparently ignoring all the contrary data.

A prescription for a subscription to Skeptic Magazine would do you wonders.


I see that you are now claiming that you've not disputed that the globe has been getting warmer (which is the ONLY thing that I have been arguing and the ONLY thing that you have disputed). I guess that is progress but wouldn't it be easier to say, "OK, I was wrong."

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Big_Picture_Fact_1_temperature_change
No skep, I have constantly said it has cycles. The warming phase is ending.

CYCLES, CYCLES, CYCLES, CYCLES, CYCLES.


1850 was the end of the Little Ice Age. I am not going over all this again.

For a review of my comments:
'''Nope, Skep, global warming is a hoax. Makes money and scares people. Just what the dems want. The earth has cycles, and will continue to do so after we are gone.'''

'''And, yes, Mars goes through cycles just like all the other planets. Mars' warming happens to coincide with our warming at the moment but that is utterly meaningless to this conversation. Mars' C02 levels are quite stable.)
Utterly meaningless? Really? Isn't that the trick of ignoring what doesn't agree with your point of view?
There is NO CONSENSUS of the scientific community'''

'''Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Suggests Earth Was Warmer
July 5th, 2007 Reconstruction of Ancient Greenland
New Danish research shows that large parts of Greenland were covered by forest. This was discovered by analysing fossil DNA which had been preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap.'''

'''I see no major consensus to either side. If we could find at least 80% of the scientists agreeing, I could go for it. That ain't happening BUD!'''

'''Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics'''

'''There is no consensus that global warming is any thing more than a cyclic process, controlled by solar rays, that has had temps up and downs for millenniums, without humans and it will continue with or without humans.'''
From the same cite:

The problem is that no real evidence exists for strong positive feedbacks. Worse, they seem contradicted by the paleoclimatic history of the planet, which has never experienced runaway warming even when CO2 levels were ten or more times higher than they are today. Over geologic time, CO2 correlates very poorly with temperature, leading one to conclude that it's a very weak greenhouse gas.

There is other evidence against a high sensitivity. But the real point is this. Whichever side is right, the media (and a few researchers) have forgotten one of the basic rules of science. Until a theory can predict the unexpected, it should always be viewed critically. The ancient Greeks knew the stars moved, and they had a thousand theories to predict why it would keep happening. Until we can explain past climate shifts and successfully predict future trends, global models are educational toys. Not indisputable evidence.

Some pundits are calling 2008 the year global warming was disproven. I prefer to call it the year science triumphed over alarmism.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
No skep, I have constantly said it has cycles. The warming phase is ending.


Well duh. Of course there are cycles.

The ONLY thing I have been arguing this whole time is the fact that the globe has been warming. You have disagreed with that stance from the beginning and is the sole reason we are even debating the issue.

I have addressed the "ratcheting" effect of these cycles a few times. Yes, there are cycles. But the scientific consensus is that the mean temps are increasing and will likely continue to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Creekman62:
Here are a few more reasons for The Global Warming Myth. (Climate Chage)
Check out the pics. A lot of the temp monitoring station used to be in the country, now alot are surrounded by big cities full of asphalt, concrete and AC units. Ever hear of the heat island effect!!. Follow the money and you can find the real hot air.


Wow! This one single blogger has discovered a phenomenon that no other scientist has ever considered. He even includes pictures! Give that blogger a Peace Prize!

On the other hand:
From Link

"Objection: The apparent rise of global average temperatures is actually an illusion due to the urbanization of land around weather stations, the Urban Heat Island effect.

Answer: Urban Heat Island Effect has been examined quite thoroughly (PDF) and found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. Real Climate has a detailed discussion of this here. What's more, NASA GISS takes explicit steps in their analysis to remove any such spurious signal by normalizing urban station data trends to the surrounding rural stations. It is a real phenomenon, but it is one climate scientists are well aware of and have taken any required steps to remove its influence from the raw data."

Yes, this site is also a blog by "some guy" and I hate that. However, it is sufficiently referenced to legitimate scientific sources that back the claim with facts.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×