PDA

View Full Version : Al Gore’s 35 Inconvenient Truths



sdowney717
11-20-2007, 10:01 AM
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

Still think the majority cant be wrong, mistaken and in mass hysteria?

http://newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html

Keith Wilson
11-20-2007, 10:09 AM
How did it go? The arguments are so predictable.

1. Climate change isn't real.
2. If it's real, it isn't caused by human activity.
3. If it is caused by us, we can't do anything about it.
4. If we can do something about it, it would be too difficult, expensive, and disruptive.
5. I we can do something without too much trouble, the guy suggesting it is a lying cheating hypocritical unpatriotic S.O.B.

Start here: the straight stuff:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm
You will not be able to read it in five minutes. You will have to learn some new science. It will be complicated. You will not be entertained. There are no zingers or clever phrasing. It will not make you feel good.

Tristan
11-20-2007, 10:11 AM
I think Dubbya once said, "If it gets warmer we'll just get used to it." See, problem solved!

Phillip Allen
11-20-2007, 01:16 PM
Global warming isn't a religion (for me anyway) so I don't believe in it or not...I suppose the earth will experience ice ages and warming again...as humans, we will do nothing effective except to fund a lot of professors who would be better off digging ditches and drinking Ripple wind instead of the expencive stuff.

ljb5
11-20-2007, 02:54 PM
Did anyone read this list?


Gore says that ice-melt allows the Sun to heat the Arctic Ocean, and a diagram shows the Sun’s rays heating it directly. It does not. The ocean emits radiant energy at the moment of absorption, and would freeze if there were no atmosphere. It is the atmosphere, not the Sun that warms the ocean.

What??? Oh, nevermind.


I like this part:


the North-West Passage was free of ice in 2007, and said that this was for the first time since records began: but the records, taken by satellites, had only begun 29 years previously. The North-West Passage had also been open for shipping in 1945, and, in 1903, the great Norwegian explorer Amundsen had passed through it in a sailing ship.

What this guy didn't mention (or did not know) is that it took Amundsen more than two and a half years.... and he had to trek long distances over land because there was too much ice to sail the whole way.

Oh well. :rolleyes:

The rest of it is mostly a bunch of gibberish. I wonder if Al Gore actually said half the things that this guy claims. I wouldn't be surprised to find that most of these are exaggerations, mischaracterizations or outright fabrications.

Moreover, I point out (again) that Al Gore is not global warming. Lots of people like to argue against Al Gore, but fail to realize that this does not overthrow the entire scientific field.

BrianW
11-20-2007, 07:40 PM
Oh I believe the earth is warming. Humans are probably contributing to the trend too.

But since the earth has done this trick many times over, I can't get as excited as some. I'd like to see all air pollution emissions reduced, if for nothing else than the fresh air and better views.

In the past, my stance was against the Kyoto Accord, and I stand by that stance.

pipefitter
11-20-2007, 08:23 PM
A healthier outlook on the subject, without getting into the normal political piddling contest, would be to really take a look at what is perpetuating the debate. There is miles of evidence that at the very least should be considered within the infancy of computer climatic modeling.
This from a widely,scientifically credited expert of many phases of global climate research.

Richard S. Linsden
"Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?"

And like in here when the discussion arises, the debate is sidetracked by arrogance. Some would like to compile a discussion of "all " of the facts both for and against but the political posturing that occurs here well into the above decks between left and right. Many of the arguments here fall into a scenario much like what is presented in the below statement.

"Lindzen wrote that

As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger -- that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this."

This is where the room for debate lies. The public has no time or desire to become even basically versed in the science perpetuating the reports. Through study and discussion, there might be room for healthy observation to at least understand what is being said. This trendy posturing to become combative over these issues does nothing for the validity of the facts. To think that one's basis for the argument can be summarized by one report, with political attachment being it's fuel or because a single report says so is just bad science. Even grade school science teaches our children to be more thorough than what has been put forth as the broad consensus.

ljb5
11-20-2007, 09:53 PM
Lindzen makes some good points about how we need to persue this subject with objectivity and intellectual rigor.... but I'm not sure he realizes that these blows strike harder against science deniers than science advocates.

I really like his jelly bean metaphor.


The notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine – if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?"

This perfectly describes one of the most common debating tactics used by anti-scientists. They often like to point out those things which we don't yet know, or may be unsure about --- or even mistakes that were made decades or even centuries ago.

They loudly proclaim, "Well, if you don't know this, then obviously, you don't know that, and therefore you're wrong about everything!"

If you show them a data set that goes back 10,000 years, they complain it doesn't go back 12,000 years. If you show them 12,000 years, they demand 20,000. If there is any anomoly in that data set (a volcanic eruption, for example) they claim it invalidates everything. Lord help us all if there's any unexplained blip in the data, for they'll hound on it forever as if it proves them right.

If a hurricane turns out to be weaker than expected, or a single group of polar bears manages to live longer than predicted, they act like they've won a major victory.

Next thing you know, we're all eating jelly beans.

What Lindzen fails to point out is the proper response when someone tries to prescribe jelly beans for cancer. Certainly he's right when he advises not to blindly accept them.... but neither should you say, "No thanks, I'll drink hemlock instead."

The proper thing to do is to look for the best available answer. When you've found that, look for a better one. After that, look for one even better. Figure out what it is that makes one better than the previous and anticipate what that means for the next.

Instead of blindly accepting or refusing the jelly beans, the medicine or the hemlock, a scientist would ask the questions, seek out the information and perform the resarch needed to determine which is best.


"Lindzen wrote that

As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report.

Well, he's right about that.... but it's not a mistake I made. Nor, I suspect did the authors of the report.


The public has no time or desire to become even basically versed in the science perpetuating the reports.

Very true. Fortunately, not everyone is part of this generic, ignorant, apathetic "public."

Believe it or not, there is a real community of people who do have the time and desire to study the science .... many have dedicated years or decades to meticulous research.

Many times, I have encouraged members of this forum to join that community --- to share their knowledge and seek out new knowledge and present their findings at research conferences and publish them in academic journals.

So far, no one has taken me up on the challenge.

WX
11-20-2007, 10:16 PM
I think Dubbya once said, "If it gets warmer we'll just get used to it."
Little Johnny said the same thing a while back.

brad9798
11-20-2007, 10:24 PM
I'm just, if not more concerned, at this point with over fishing and depleting our oceans ...

ljb5
11-20-2007, 10:27 PM
How did it go? The arguments are so predictable.

1. Climate change isn't real.
2. If it's real, it isn't caused by human activity.
3. If it is caused by us, we can't do anything about it.
4. If we can do something about it, it would be too difficult, expensive, and disruptive.
5. I we can do something without too much trouble, the guy suggesting it is a lying cheating hypocritical unpatriotic S.O.B.

6. If all else fails, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.


I'm just, if not more concerned, at this point with over fishing and depleting our oceans ...

L.W. Baxter
11-20-2007, 11:01 PM
I think we also need a list of the progression for anthropocentric global climate change's footsoldiers:

1) There are too many of us

2) We've misused the earth and all the little critters

3) We feel really bad about it

4) Not bad enough to do without the benefits of modern, developed civilization but...

5) Bad enough to continue to deny those benefits to the poor, scarey masses in the developing world

6) who might make things worse

7) by flooding my condo or using the gasoline I need so

8)greenhouse theory gives us a tool we can use

9) to pry that fuel out of your bony yellow and brown hands

10) so we can put it in our new "super efficient" hybrid vehicles and drive down to the beach on the weekends.

11) where the sea level must remain stable so as to not flood my condo

12) and greenhouse theory must accurately describe reality

12) because that is most convenient for us

ljb5
11-20-2007, 11:19 PM
Lee, seriously, that was one of the most dishonest and disingenuous mischaracterizations that has ever been posted on this subject. You ought to be ashamed. It's one thing if you don't happen to know enough about the science to comprehend it --- but to ascribe ugly motives and attitudes towards those people who do is just plain nasty.

Moreover, the evidence gets more convincing on a daily basis. I don't need no progression of fallback positions because the motion is clearly in my direction. You may have missed it, but the IPCC came out with another report a couple of days ago.

My position has always been what my mom taught me: "Don't make a mess. Don't make problems for other people. Try not to damage stuff. Take responsibility for your own actions and their consequences. Don't assume you have a god-given right to have everything you want, all the time without sacrafice and consequences. If you break something, fix it. If you see a problem, solve it. Don't assume it's going to be easy. Suck it up and get to work."

I don't own a condo on the beach. I don't own a car. I don't put my problems on other people and I only use theories which accurately describe reality. I don't buy no snake oil and I don't practice no hocus pocus and I don't think your "right" to drive a truck is any more important than my grandkids' right to a healthy planet.

I don't think the U.S. economy will collapse if you turn the thermostat down two degrees in the winter or walk three blocks to the grocery store.

Michael s/v Sannyasin
11-20-2007, 11:31 PM
Here's the thing

I work with computers. One area I've spent a lot of time on is called 'adaptive learning algorithms', in particular, I enjoy working with Genetic Algorithms. These are modeled on how genes change their structure so that they are more fit to "survive" into future generations.

When the fitness function is static, the algorithm can pretty quickly zero in on an optimal solution, or genetic make-up. Adaptation really works!

But, in real life, we see that what might have been optimal for survival, say, 100 years ago, is not the same today. So, in your computer model, if you can dynamically change your fitness function, then the genetic algorithm can automatically adjust to match it.

What I hear in this global warming debate are people arguing that we need to change the world so that it doesn't change. Bullocks. You could say that we're changing the world in ways, or at a speed that it won't be able to adjust to... Bollocks. All these assumptions are based on a "fitness" function that supposes that humans should remain the dominant species on the planet. That isn't necessarily what the planet has in mind!

The fitness function for the planet is going to change as it will... people will either be able to adapt or not. If not... tough f'n sh*&%

ljb5
11-20-2007, 11:45 PM
The fitness function for the planet is going to change as it will... people will either be able to adapt or not. If not... tough f'n sh*&%

The boat is either going to hit the rocks or not. You're at the helm. You think it doesn't make a difference?

Those rocks are getting real close... better figure out how that tiller works. Better figure out where those rocks are. Better figure out where the current is flowing and where the waves are breaking.

No competent sailor would say, "it's either going to happen or it's not." A real sailor would figure out the desired outcome and work like hell to acheive it.

Yeah, it does make a difference.

No, it probably won't be easy. You may not be able to do it while drunk and there's no guarantee that it'll be cheap and enjoyable. That's reality, sorry.

No sense in making it harder than it needs to be. Just because the boat might crash doesn't mean you should set the sails on fire. Leave yourself enough room to manoeuver.

pipefitter
11-21-2007, 12:00 AM
Actually, I picked Lindzen's quotes as an aside. Therein lies a problem with Lindzen's rebuttals because of his having been on the oil industries payroll. But, he does make some valid arguments, which in the very least, have a basis in the research that was not included in the IPCC report as it was originally presented. For instance and as Lindzen has pointed out, the full text stated that 20 years was too short of a period for estimating long-term trends but it wasn't included within the summary for the policymakers. With the seriousness of the consequences associated with GW, that alone should prompt the need for a more unanimous consensus within the whole scientific community.

He also makes example of:

"From the body of evidence since IPCC (1996), we conclude that there has been a discernible human influence on global climate. Studies are beginning to separate the contributions to observed climate change attributable to individual external influences, both anthropogenic and natural. This work suggests that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a substantial contributor to the observed warming, especially over the past 30 years. However, the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forcing."

The IPCC's version from Shanghai:

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

And as what should be at the very least considered creatively "censored", due to the recent like allegations that the White House censored CDC Director Julie Gerberding's written testimony on climate change, even though she denied it and if you read both versions of her report, the same conclusions can be reached. I don't see why such flexibility is allowed with the IPCC report. Especially when claiming that it is settled.

There is also Lindzen's testimony before the EPWC which has some good points.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf

L.W. Baxter
11-21-2007, 12:03 AM
I don't think the U.S. economy will collapse if you turn the thermostat down two degrees in the winter or walk three blocks to the grocery store.

Well you are certainly correct. What is your point? That we can stop the global climate from changing by doing those things?

And, by the way, do you presume to know what the temperature is, right now, inside my house, and what that temperature says about my character, and what my (assuredly low) character means for the future viability of life on earth?

BrianW
11-21-2007, 12:17 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BrianW/stuff/princessmayontherocks.jpg

ljb5
11-21-2007, 01:13 AM
And, by the way, do you presume to know what the temperature is, right now, inside my house, and what that temperature says about my character, and what my (assuredly low) character means for the future viability of life on earth?

Oh gad, Lee! Doesn't the stench of your own fake moral indignation make you sick?

Go back and read your own post #15 and then ask yourself if you're really fit to lecture others about presumptions of character.

:rolleyes:

How is it that you feel free to make accusations of racism and low moral character against others, yet respond with such maudlin crocodile tears when you feel slighted by the mention of prudent energy management?

What a crybaby!

pipefitter
11-21-2007, 01:49 AM
I have yet to read the 4th Assessment but this is more like it.

From the AR4 Synthesis report:

"The Synthesis Report goes one step further [than the first three Climate Change 2007 Working Group Reports]: it is the decisive effort to integrate and compact this wealth of information into a readable and concise document explicitly targeted to the policymakers.

The Synthesis Report also brings in relevant parts some material [sic] contained in the full Working Group Reports over and above what is included in the Summary for Policymakers in these three Reports. It is designed to be a powerful, scientifically authoritative document of high policy relevance, which will be a major contribution to the discussions at the 13th Conference of the Parties in Bali during December 2007. In fact, this Conference was postponed to December to allow the IPCC Synthesis Report to come out first."

If not for the initial and ongoing criticisms of the first 3 reports, I don't feel this would have been addressed. As with all discussions concerning topics of such magnitude, This can be looked at as at least a start to clean things up a bit.

And. . .
"Climate change and its impacts in the near and long term under different scenarios (WGs 1-3)."

brad9798
11-21-2007, 07:14 AM
ljb5- there you go again, trying to make enemies when we agree ...

I have clearly stated that there is global warming ... and that it is a serious concern.

Why be a smart a$$ about my post?

I find it surprising that you DO NOT consider what is happening to our oceans. (I know you are concerned, but I responded to you in the manner in which you responded to me.)

Ocean die-out will kill us before global warming does ... plain and simple.

Thus, a two-pronged approach is needed and should be addressed.

Global warming still runs the table, though ... it is still sexier than over fishing, etc.

I did not change the subject, it is part of the same, overall, problem.

Should I dig up that obtuse word again? Nah, not just yet!

:D

Phillip Allen
11-21-2007, 07:19 AM
:) .

Paul Pless
11-21-2007, 08:25 AM
The boat is either going to hit the rocks or not. You're at the helm. You think it doesn't make a difference?

Those rocks are getting real close... better figure out how that tiller works. Better figure out where those rocks are. Better figure out where the current is flowing and where the waves are breaking.Wow!!! algae's first ever boat related post!!!

ljb5
11-21-2007, 08:26 AM
ljb5- there you go again, trying to make enemies when we agree ...

I have clearly stated that there is global warming ... and that it is a serious concern.

I thought you might say that. Truth is, I calls it like I sees it.

You tried to change the subject. That's what actually happened.

Yes, I'm also concerned about over-fishing, and myriad other social, economic, political and ecological trends. Start another thread if you're so concerned.

ljb5
11-21-2007, 08:35 AM
Wow!!! algae's first ever boat related post!!!

Wow!!!!

Peepee's second post on this thread and they're both about me. :rolleyes:

What's the matter, Peepee, don't you have anything to say about the topic of the thread??

martin schulz
11-21-2007, 08:41 AM
My position has always been what my mom taught me: "Don't make a mess. Don't make problems for other people. Try not to damage stuff. Take responsibility for your own actions and their consequences. Don't assume you have a god-given right to have everything you want, all the time without sacrafice and consequences. If you break something, fix it.

Where did you say you were born and where do you live?

ljb5
11-21-2007, 09:24 AM
If not for the initial and ongoing criticisms of the first 3 reports, I don't feel this would have been addressed.

This doesn't make much sense.

Of course the fourth report contains information that was not in the third report. Duh.

Of course the full report contains information that was not in the summary. Duh.

You have now been provided with additional information which further discredits your already untenable position.

You should not try to interpret this as validation of your previous position.

As far as I can see, the IPCC delivered on their responsibility to provide the fourth report in the series, as they had always intended.

I see nothing to indicate that the report was altered to accomodate the concerns of a bunch of flat-earth anti-scientists who spend their nights trolling the internet for scientific reports which they don't read and can't understand.

Paul Pless
11-21-2007, 09:27 AM
topic of the threadI hadn't intended to post any legitimate thoughts on this topic. Its kinda like debating abortion or gun control; nobody ever changes their mind and it always digresses.

But since you asked.;)

I am unconvinced that global warming, to the extent that it is described by Al Gore and others of his ilk, is actually largely a result of greenhouse gas emissions generated by man. I'm of the opinion that there are many other natural phenomenon that probably contribute more to the cyclical warming and cooling of the earth than anything that man has done in the last 100 years.

Having said that, I'd like to also say that I'm a conservationist and I abhor the pollution and what I perceive as the current mismanagement of the earth's natural resources and the effect that such practices are having on our world and on mankind's future. I very much want to see much better energy policies put in place, here and abroad; and I'm not talking stopgap measures like ethanol. And, this might come as a surprise to you, but I've come to believe that the private markets are functioning too slow for my pleasure on this issue, and I'd like to see our government take the initiative - to reverse the inertia of investment into 'non-clean' energy infrastructure will take many many decades without it becoming a social issue. Which means I'll probably be voting for whichever candidates do the best job of convincing me that clean energy is one of their highest priorities.

yours,

peepee


p.s. the global warming koolaide drinkers might do well to remember that just because some people don't believe your theories doesn't mean that we're not green.

erster
11-21-2007, 09:38 AM
Whats the use to worry about it. Just read the reports and listen to the movie stars telling us that its tooooo late. The earth is going to fry. Today is a prime example of what they have been talking about. The fish stocks will all die and we will not even need a single barrell of oil to run those evil SUVs since we will all starve to death. So why not enjoy yourselves, polutting the planet, and catching the last fish in our oceans, even going to the extreme of cutting down all the trees on the planet and build as fast as possible, guys instead of talking about it on the internet. If we listen to the experts, you know and believe them, plus I have never seen a thread on the WBF that has cooled this planet in the seven years of reading the WBF. Talk about a waste of energy, both in some form of fuel to produce the energy for your own computers and people's waste of their own, I have debunked that theory too.:D:D:rolleyes:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/Bateau1/DSC03466.jpg

brad9798
11-21-2007, 09:40 AM
No ljb5- your comprehension is deteriorating just like your grammar on this thread.

In your words, I thought you would respond that way ... rather than take a step back and show some maturity, you simply deflect like you are the only person that is smart enough to deal with such complicated WBF topics! :rolleyes:

I did not change the subject ... did you forget how to read too?

Saying I am just as, if not more concerned about the oceans is not changing the subject.

It IS acknowledging the facts of global warming and adding to it.

Your pride and arrogance will be your downfall ... you really ought to grow up ... but just like most young, bleeding heart, waaaay left wingers, you are just as content to alienate folks that agree with you as your are degrading those that disagree.

You see, in all your glory, you failed to comprehend that I am VERY concerned about global warming, just like you.

Oh, and I didn't realize you had grandchildren!

:D

P.s. I walk to the store everyday ... and to the library, and to shops and restaurants. I work out of the home, so I spend about 20 bucks a month on gas.

My thermostat is set at 67.

I collect rain water to use for watering my plants and lawn and for washing my cars.

Oh, and I have a nice hybrid bicycle ... but I don't ride it much anymore as most bikers are arrogant pricks that ignore traffic rules and regulations ... I do not wish to be associated with those folks.

______

You have some good ideas, you are obviously intelligent, but your MO is about on the level of my soon-to-be six year-old: He won't ever admit imperfections either ... he just talks louder and louder until he 'thinks' he's won.
But we all know he loses ... still, we let him blow hot air and attempt to bully his opinion, as it is VERY entertaining!

____________

pipefitter
11-21-2007, 11:05 AM
______

You have some good ideas, you are obviously intelligent, but your MO is about on the level of my soon-to-be six year-old: He won't ever admit imperfections either ... he just talks louder and louder until he 'thinks' he's won.
But we all know he loses ... still, we let him blow hot air and attempt to bully his opinion, as it is VERY entertaining!

____________

He has some good ideas? He is obviously intelligent? All he does on just about every post is show how narrow minded and obnoxious he is. He would not survive a day in the real world without getting a noogey right in the middle of his forehead. He obviously missed out on some well deserved spankings when he was growing up. Walking proof that time outs don't work. Now go tell your mother to finish the job,ljb5. . . it's not fair for the rest of us to finish raising her spoiled brat.

brad9798
11-21-2007, 11:37 AM
I do agree with most of what you say, pipefitter.

Those ivory tower guys are typically in that tower because thay can't use their degree(s) in the real world! That's a blanket statement, but in this case, it may be true!

He is intelligent ... and has some good ideas. I will stand by that.

But his mother should have finished the job!

Thank goodness my boy is only five ... I still have 15 +/- years to use my anti-ljb5 parenting techniques!

Timouts- ROTFLMAO! THAT is funny!

:D

ljb5
11-21-2007, 12:53 PM
I hadn't intended to post any legitimate thoughts on this topic. Its kinda like debating abortion or gun control; nobody ever changes their mind and it always digresses.

That's rich, Paul.... you decided to divert the thread because you came to the conclusion that the thread would be diverted.

:eek::eek:


I am unconvinced that global warming, to the extent that it is described by Al Gore and others of his ilk, is actually largely a result of greenhouse gas emissions generated by man. I'm of the opinion that there are many other natural phenomenon that probably contribute more to the cyclical warming and cooling of the earth than anything that man has done in the last 100 years.

It's nice that you have some thoughts on the issue -- and I appreciate that you've offered them. Naturally, this gives rise to some obvious questions:

How did you come to these conclusions? What is the basis for this belief? Why do your conclusions differ from those of scientists who have studied the subject intently? What are these "many other natural phenomenon" of which you speak? Have they been studied? Have they been measured? What is the true magnitude of their effect? What is the magnitude of the effect of man-made causes? What evidence could you gather to support your opinon? What evidence might exist which would disprove your opinion? How much of this evidence have you looked at?

You see, Paul, if you're going to act like a scientist, you're going to get treated like a scientist.

You suggseted a hypothesis: ("There are many other natural phenomenon that probably contribute more to the cyclical warming and cooling of the earth than anything that man has done in the last 100 years.")

A hypothesis is a good start, but now, it's time to offer some evidence.

If you have any convincing evidence, I strongly encourage you to publish your findings in a research journal and submit an abstract to a scientific conference.

If you don't have any convincing evidence, I strongly encourage you to get on board with those who do.

That's how a scientist would act.

Paul Pless
11-21-2007, 01:27 PM
If you have any convincing evidence, I strongly encourage you to publish your findings in a research journal and submit an abstract to a scientific conference.You know that's an attractive idea; could you point out some of your own published work on the subject so that I may have a model of how its supposed to be done?

ljb5
11-21-2007, 01:48 PM
You know that's an attractive idea; could you point out some of your own published work on the subject so that I may have a model of how its supposed to be done?

As I have pointed out before, Paul, I have no need to publish my own research, because I have reviewed much of the existing research and find myself to be in agreement with it.

(I have published extensively on other scientific subjects, but I will not be providing you with those references either.)

I also haven't published anything on the theory of gravity --- yet I don't going around telling people that I've formed my own opinion about it which contradicts everyone else!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're really interested in publishing in a research journal, you can check out the Journal Climate Change (http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/).

Currently in it's 85 volume it has, several hundred issues, several thousand studies, ten of thousands of pages or research available to you.

Paul Pless
11-21-2007, 01:58 PM
Well of course ljb5, I'm not gonna go out and publish anything in a scientific journal regarding climate change.* Its an asinine suggestion on your part and is its one of those dirty little debate tactics of yours that we all too often are forced to call you out on.

But as for for request:
You suggseted a hypothesis: ("There are many other natural phenomenon that probably contribute more to the cyclical warming and cooling of the earth than anything that man has done in the last 100 years.")

A hypothesis is a good start, but now, it's time to offer some evidence.For starters, the earth is what? 4.5 Billion years old, and how many ice ages and interglacial periods have there been in that time? Cyclically, they occur on average about every 45,000 give or take a few. Just guessing here, not hypothesizing... but I kinda doubt that man had anything to do with previous 100,000 or so global warming cycles.





* actually on second thought, is there any money to be made promoting global warming theories???

ljb5
11-21-2007, 02:48 PM
But as for for request:For starters, the earth is what? 4.5 Billion years old, and how many ice ages and interglacial periods have there been in that time? Cyclically, they occur on average about every 45,000 give or take a few. Just guessing here, not hypothesizing... but I kinda doubt that man had anything to do with previous 100,000 or so global warming cycles.

Good start, Paul, you're actually thinking about some of what has actually happened, and some things which can actually be observed and verified.

Acknowledging reality is the first step towards understanding it.

Do you honestly think you are the only person who has ever thought about this?

Do you honestly believe that all those scientist who have spent decades meticulously collecting and analyzing data somehow overlooked the rather obvious point you just made?

Surely, you must realize that they have already thought about this?

A real scientist would not just say, "In my opinion...." or "I kinda doubt..." A real scientist would go out and find the data that either supports or disproves his hypothesis.

I know you say you're just guessing.... but it sounds like your hypothesis could be stated thusly: "The current global warming event is caused by similar, non-manmade factors which caused previous global warming events."

The next step is to test the hypothesis --- can you present the evidence which supports your theory? Is there any evidence which contradicts it? How could you gather additional evidence?

That's what a scientist would do.

Keith Wilson
11-21-2007, 03:11 PM
Paul, you really, really ought to read the IPCC report. You raise reasonable questions. Many of them have have occurred to other people, and there's enough evidence to answer some of them pretty conclusively. The current state of climate science - at least the part that's known beyond much doubt - is in that report.

Here's a good place to start.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

This is not propaganda. It isn't easy reading. It's not quick, not simple, not at all entertianing. Parts are ambiguous, parts are unclear, but these are clearly identified.

High C
11-21-2007, 03:35 PM
Keith, your total faith in the IPCC is misplaced.

It is a political body. There is no "horse's mouth".

And why do some of you guys waste so much time arguing with an unemployed "scientist" who probably delivers pizzas to get by? He's an obvious fraud, not to mention a socially retarded little prick.

Stop feeding him, fer crying out loud! :rolleyes:

Paul Pless
11-21-2007, 03:38 PM
Stop feeding him, fer crying out loud! :rolleyes:good advice I seem to continually forget.:o

ljb5
11-21-2007, 03:41 PM
Keith, your total faith in the IPCC is misplaced.

It is a political body. There is no "horse's mouth".

High C, if you don't like the IPCC report, you are welcome to read any of thousands of scientific reports on the study.

I just posted a link to a well respected journal which includes tens of thousands of pages research. There are many others. Feel free to read as many as you like. (You can be certain that others have.)


And why do some of you guys waste so much time arguing with an unemployed "scientist" who probably delivers pizzas to get by?

Oh, wow! The things you don't know! The things you think you know! :rolleyes:

Keith Wilson
11-21-2007, 03:57 PM
Keith, your total faith in the IPCC is misplaced.

It is a political body. There is no "horse's mouth". High C, I have "total faith" in nothing, certainly not the IPCC. OTOH, it's not a political body. They try honestly, as far as I can tell, to combine and summarize the scientific data that is currently known. They are very clear about areas of uncertainty and gaps in knowledge, and also very clear about what's firm knowledge and what's conjecture, even when it's based on good evidence. I'm sure that they get some things wrong, and that some of their conclusions will later need to be revise. However, when people here raise very basic questions about, say, changes in solar radiation, or natural climate cycles, questions that have been pretty exhaustively studied, the IPCC report is a good place to start.

When people try to discuss the subject without at least the level of knowledge obtained by reading their summary, it's just hot air. I don't know of any better source for someone to get up to speed on the current science.

High C
11-21-2007, 04:18 PM
High C, I have "total faith" in nothing, certainly not the IPCC. OTOH, it's not a political body.....

Not political!?! An institution of the United Nations?

They behave likes politicians as well. Just ask the dissenting climatologists whose names were included in support of the IPCC's most recent report despite their wish to NOT be included. That's quite a blow to credibility in my book, and quintessentially political.

I'm not saying that their work is without value, but that it is by no means the honest, unbiased source we wish we had. It is but one of many sources whose contradictions betray a great deal of uncertainty, despite plentiful bluster to the contrary.

Even the IPCC's most recent report is LESS fatalistic than their previous report of some seven years ago. Yet the common impression is just the opposite.

Which IPCC is it that you have such confidence in? The one that is moderating its forecasts, or the one that is being misused by alarmists out to make a fast buck?

ljb5
11-21-2007, 04:25 PM
I'm not saying that their work is without value, but that it is by no means the honest, unbiased source we wish we had.

Feel free to read any of the tens of thousands of other peer-reviewed reports on the subject.

Feel free to do any research on your own too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Has it never occurred to you that there might be some political motives on your side of the fence?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
11-21-2007, 04:33 PM
Yessiree, the jury is still out on Global warming. The jury includes the doormouse, and Bill the lizard. The Mad hatter is one of the dissenting experts.

Keith Wilson
11-21-2007, 04:33 PM
The CDC not political?!? The patent office not political?!? An institution of the US federal government?? Sorry, guilt by association isn't a valid argument.

The IPCC is not responsible for the misuse others may make of its work. Again, it isn't perfect, but its the closest thing to an unbiased comprehensive source we have. That's why I recommend that people start by reading the report.

And the contention that those who think global climate change is a problem are "out to make a fast buck" is astounding. How much money is at stake in the continuation of business as usual in the current fossil-fuel-based economy? How much money can be made off global warming alarmism? If the two amounts are within a factor of 10,000, I'll eat my proverbial hat. Is money at stake an indication of the likelihood of untruth?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
11-21-2007, 04:44 PM
Alice looked at the jury-box, and saw that, in her haste, she had put the Lizard in head downwards, and the poor little thing was waving its tail about in a melancholy way, being quite unable to move. She soon got it out again, and put it right; `not that it signifies much,' she said to herself; `I should think it would be quite as much use in the trial one way up as the other.'
As soon as the jury had a little recovered from the shock of being upset, and their slates and pencils had been found and handed back to them, they set to work very diligently to write out a history of the accident, all except the Lizard, who seemed too much overcome to do anything but sit with its mouth open, gazing up into the roof of the court.
`What do you know about this business?' the King said to Alice.
`Nothing,' said Alice.
`Nothing whatever?' persisted the King. `Nothing whatever,' said Alice.

ljb5
11-21-2007, 05:35 PM
Serious question for High C and Paul:

Have you ever considered that here might be some political / financial motives on your side of the fence?

L.W. Baxter
11-21-2007, 06:16 PM
As long as everyone is going to repeat their positions over and over here, I might as well say again: Global climate change is the wrong reason to do the right thing.

When you tie your arguments for conservation to a specific cause/effect relationship, your argument stands or falls with the ongoing evidence of that relationship. Regarldess of the validity of the greenhouse gas effect theory, if temperatures should spike downward over the next ten years, all of the sound and fury over global warming will only serve to undermine the basic goals of conserving resources and reducing pollution. Credibility of the media, political bodies, and even scientific groups who are leading the current campaign will be eroded. The nobel prize will have all the cachet of a new artist Grammy award.

Remember Milli Vanilli? That could be Al Gore in ten years.

I saw a news article the other day, "Dead trees from Hurricane Katrina contribute to Global Warming". I thought to myself, geez, did ljb write that article? Willfull ignoramus that I am, I didn't bother reading, but I imagine it went something like "leading researchers say that if enough trees die in Louisiana, the oceans will come to a boil in 150,000 years."

By the way, my first post to this thread was a parody of Keith's straw man list. I thought mine was just as true, and funnier.

ljb5
11-21-2007, 07:07 PM
When you tie your arguments for conservation to a specific cause/effect relationship, your argument stands or falls with the ongoing evidence of that relationship. Regarldess of the validity of the greenhouse gas effect theory, if temperatures should spike downward over the next ten years, all of the sound and fury over global warming will only serve to undermine the basic goals of conserving resources and reducing pollution. Credibility of the media, political bodies, and even scientific groups who are leading the current campaign will be eroded. The nobel prize will have all the cachet of a new artist Grammy award.

Remember Milli Vanilli? That could be Al Gore in ten years.

That doesn't make much sense.

Obviously, if global warming is proven wrong, we'll all learn a valuable lesson and some people will be very embarrassed.

But what if it's proven right?

That outcome is at least as likely -- and the consequences much more serious.

A lot of highly intelligent people are saying that outcome is much more likely.

Considering that either outcome is possible, the intelligent person asks themselves which outcome is most likely. They study the issue, collect the data, analyze it, discuss it in the scientific community and come to a consensus.

Do not assume global warming will be disproven --- do the research to find out.

When people actually do the research, they conclude that global warming is real. And the more research they do, the less likely they are to confuse Al Gore with Milli Vanilli.

I do not subscribe to the idea that we should ignore the best available evidence on the off chance that it might be wrong --- even as the mountains of evidence pile up indicating that it is not wrong.

Five years ago, we could have said, "Al Gore might end up looking like Milli Vanilli --- or he might win a Nobel Prize."

Which one actually happened?

pipefitter
11-21-2007, 07:19 PM
That doesn't make much sense.

Obviously, if global warming is proven wrong, we'll all learn a valuable lesson and some people will be very embarrassed.

But what if it's proven right?

That outcome is at least as likely -- and the consequences much more serious.

Considering that either outcome is possible, the intelligent person asks themselves which outcome is most likely. They study the issue, collect the data, analyze it, discuss it in the scientific community and come to a consensus.

Do not assume global warming will be disproven --- do the research to find out.

When people actually do the research, they conclude that global warming is real. And the more research they do, the less likely they are to confuse Al Gore with Milli Vanilli.

I do not subscribe to the idea that we should ignore the best available evidence on the off chance that it might be wrong --- even as the mountains of evidence pile up indicating that it is not wrong.

Five years ago, we could have said, "Al Gore might end up looking like Milli Vanilli --- or he might win a Nobel Prize."

Which one actually happened?

It makes sense if you include
"As long as everyone is going to repeat their positions over and over here, I might as well say again: Global climate change is the wrong reason to do the right thing."
within your perception of the statement. I doubt you are old enough to realize that many of us have been going down this road for a long time and are wondering what happened to the billions we have already paid on cleaning up the environment and that by now, excess CO2 emissions should be a non issue by default.

ljb5
11-21-2007, 07:47 PM
...many of us have been going down this road for a long time and are wondering what happened to the billions we have already paid on cleaning up the environment and that by now, excess CO2 emissions should be a non issue by default.

Wow, that really doesn't make sense.

At first, you were saying that global warming wasn't an issue. Then you said it was, but you were going to argue against it anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by "excess CO2 emissions should be a non issue by default."

I hate to break it to you, but issues do not go away just because you get tired of dealing with them.

Issues only go away when they have been resolved --- or when people have lost all interest in resolving them. Neither of those things has happened yet, therefore global warming remains an important issue that needs to be addressed, whether or not it's convenient and easy for you.

Sorry if that doesn't fit into your schedule.

Do you think cancer or AIDS or terrorism should be "non issues by default" just because you kinda got bored with trying to deal with them and feel like moving on to something else?

JimD
11-21-2007, 08:17 PM
... "leading researchers say that if enough trees die in Louisiana, the oceans will come to a boil in 150,000 years."
...

And since hurricanes gain their energy from warmer water Louisiana would also be looking at mega hurricanes.

Keith Wilson
11-21-2007, 08:34 PM
I doubt you are old enough to realize that many of us have been going down this road for a long time and are wondering what happened to the billions we have already paid on cleaning up the environment and that by now, excess CO2 emissions should be a non issue by default.Almost all of what we've done so far has been aimed at specific toxic pollutants, with which we've done a pretty good job, at least in the richer countries. Smog isn't what it used to be. The air in Pittsburgh or London or even Tokyo rarely kills anyone anymore. Lead poisoning is getting rarer and rarer. The Cuyahoga river hasn't caught fire for long time. There are fish in Lake Erie; you might even be able to eat them. There are lots more hawks and ospreys. Bald Eagles aren't endangered any more. Previous measures weren't designed to reduce CO2 emissions, because we didn't know it was a problem.

L.W. Baxter
11-21-2007, 08:55 PM
That doesn't make much sense.

Really? It's a simple, logical argument without any complications, should be right up your alley.

This is how the argument over Global Climate Change is currently framed:

1) The global average mean temperature is rising.

2) A rise in the global average mean temperature is bad for human beings and for the environment as a whole.

3) The global rise in temperatures is caused by the greenhouse gas effect.

4) The greenhouse gas effect is driven principally by human beings burning of fossil fuels.

5) Continued use of fossil fuels at current or accelerated rates will cause global mean temperatures to rise in the future.

6)By reducing the rate of fossil fuel consumption, human beings can mitigate the rise in temperature caused by greenhouse gasses.

7) If human beings mitigate the rise in temperature caused by greenhouse gasses, the global climate will be stabilized at the current average mean temperature, which is optimum.

8) Therefore, human beings should make a global, concerted effort to burn less fossil fuels.

Okay, do you see all the steps before #8? The problem is, if any of the steps 1 through 7 is "proven" incorrect by unforeseen circumstances, misunderstood natural mechanisms, or by the simple passage of time without global cataclysm, your proposition #8 loses creedence along with the entire argument. Look carefully at all 7 (and I'm sure there are others that could be added) of those steps in the logic. Any one of those could be "disproven", if only in the court of popular opinion, regardless of the validity of the greenhouse gas theory of global warming.

Here is how I would frame the argument, if anyone asked me:

1) The end of easily recovered petroleum is drawing near.

2) Human beings should make a global, concerted effort to burn less fossil fuels.

My argument for conserving fossil fuels is unassailable...unless we discover vast amounts of untapped, easily recovered petroleum. In which case, I'm gonna build me a bigger boat.

Keith Wilson
11-21-2007, 08:58 PM
The end of easily recovered petroleum is drawing near.
But there's plenty of coal right here in the US, and converting it to liquid fuel is economical at oil prices above about $60/gallon, IIRC. If CO2 emissions weren't a problem, then we could go on buring fossil fuel for a couple of centuries yet. In fact, I would be quite pleased if any of those steps were proved incorrect; it would be a lot less hassle for everybody.

L.W. Baxter
11-21-2007, 09:06 PM
True that! I'm thinking a 50' sportfisherman with triple Cats...

Naw, just kidding.

But really, Keith, there are good reasons for economizing our use of that coal as well, wouldn't you say? And there may be plenty for the moment, but the recovery will be anything but pleasant for the environment. And the day of reckoning will only be delayed, anyway. That's another argument to be made.

But global warming theory doesn't have to be a part of the argument. I don't think it belongs in the discussion, because it can destroy the entire position if it fails to predict the future.

Have you never seen science try to predict the future and fail, Keith?

Edit to add: I should have said "1) fossil fuels are a finite resource." That would be "unassailable." I think.

pipefitter
11-22-2007, 02:13 AM
Wow, that really doesn't make sense.

At first, you were saying that global warming wasn't an issue. Then you said it was, but you were going to argue against it anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by "excess CO2 emissions should be a non issue by default."

I hate to break it to you, but issues do not go away just because you get tired of dealing with them.

Issues only go away when they have been resolved --- or when people have lost all interest in resolving them. Neither of those things has happened yet, therefore global warming remains an important issue that needs to be addressed, whether or not it's convenient and easy for you.

Sorry if that doesn't fit into your schedule.

Do you think cancer or AIDS or terrorism should be "non issues by default" just because you kinda got bored with trying to deal with them and feel like moving on to something else?

I never said global warming wasn't an issue. Amazing it has to keep being said just because you have created your own paranoid mental block of the issue because someone dared speak out against one of your political saviors. I was arguing about the science being settled. About the censoring of the IPCC report. If it was so settled, then why did they have to creatively sell the report in such a way initially? You,as many others on your side just assume that constantly as soon as someone dares to ask why other expert and published scientific evidence isn't considered. Your answers are along the lines of " I'm an IPCC groupie". If that's so, then just move along. We know where you stand and you have nothing further to discuss other than what's mainstream. Even if I was in entire agreement with the report, there is still more happening outside of it that might offer a more unanimously credible and even interesting picture without the political spin attached and just for the hell of it. It's healthy science to keep your eye on what anyone may be working on or discoveries and may indeed lead to a viable solution to it in the short term or at least in which way we may live with it. As it is, you are nothing more than another liberal political advocate on the subject while holding on to the pud of your Al Gore shrine.

pipefitter
11-22-2007, 02:25 AM
Almost all of what we've done so far has been aimed at specific toxic pollutants, with which we've done a pretty good job, at least in the richer countries. Smog isn't what it used to be. The air in Pittsburgh or London or even Tokyo rarely kills anyone anymore. Lead poisoning is getting rarer and rarer. The Cuyahoga river hasn't caught fire for long time. There are fish in Lake Erie; you might even be able to eat them. There are lots more hawks and ospreys. Bald Eagles aren't endangered any more. Previous measures weren't designed to reduce CO2 emissions, because we didn't know it was a problem.

Oh alright. I have to agree.

ljb5
11-22-2007, 08:18 AM
Even if I was in entire agreement with the report, there is still more happening outside of it that might offer a more unanimously credible and even interesting picture without the political spin attached.

Yes, there is lots going on outside of the IPCC report.... but you haven't read that stuff either.

I have.

Yes, it does offer a more unanimous, credible and interesting picture. But you have to be able to understand it.

It's not quite as simple as saying, "one population of polar bears is doing okay, therefore global warming is not happening."

I think the IPCC report would be a good place for you to start because you need a broad, basic overview of the subject.

I am certainly not an "IPCC Groupie." I have been reading the stuff outside the IPCC report for a long time.... and I have posted tons of information from outside the IPCC report and encouraged you to read it.... but you haven't

If anything, it seems that you are the one who can't get past the IPCC report. You keep trying to criticize it (although you haven't read it), you refuse to look at anything else besides it.... and the only information you post are critiques of the IPCC report...

...and not even scientific critiques.... you've accused the IPCC of several types of procedural or political errors.

It seems you're determined to avoide any discussion of the science and focus only on the political.

I'm focused on the science.

ljb5
11-22-2007, 08:43 AM
I was arguing about the science being settled. About the censoring of the IPCC report. If it was so settled, then why did they have to creatively sell the report in such a way initially?

What "censorship" are you talking about?

What "creative selling" are you talking about?

I'd still love to know what you meant by, "excess CO2 emissions should be a non-issue by default."

crawdaddyjim50
11-22-2007, 08:50 AM
This is about scaring people into giving power to people that shouldn't have it.

Just like the patriot act, gun control, political correctness, hellfire and damnation, the G-8, The U.N., etc......

Just enough truth and plausibility to make those with overactive imaginations go running willy nilly into the street screaming the sky is falling, the terrists are a comin, my mama has a boil on er azz!

ljb5
11-22-2007, 09:40 AM
This is about scaring people into giving power to people that shouldn't have it.

An interesting hypothesis. What is your evidence to support this claim?

brad9798
11-22-2007, 10:02 AM
Have you ever considered that here might be some political / financial motives on your side of the fence?

But of course there are no political/financial motives in support of global warming, right? :rolleyes:

Green is an industry in and of itself ... many, many folks will continue to/will get rich/richer from the movement.

But I guess you don't understand that.

By the way, I am all for folks getting rich off the green movement! It's a win-win-- helps the environment AND the economy.

Now, have a good Thanksgiving ... and try not to burn too many fossil fuels directly or indirectly while eating too much today!! :D

ljb5
11-22-2007, 10:15 AM
You didn't answer the question, Brad. :)

Let's see.... on the one side, we have the oil, gas and coal companies --- including the second, third, fourth, seventh, ninth and tenth largest companies in the world. (Fortune Global 500 2007 rankings: Exxon-Mobil, RD Shell, BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips and Total.)

Don't forget the auto industries, including the fifth, sixth and eight largest companies in the world. (GM, Toyota, Daimler Chrysler.)

Of the ten largest companies in the world, nine are directly responsible for either pumping and selling oil or making cars and SUVs to burn it.

Don't forget the president and vice-president of world's only superpower both worked in the oil and gas industry --- and have extenisve business relationships with corrupt governments of the middle east.

You're damn fool if you can't recognize the financial and politcal motives behind those who would say and do anything to discredit global warming.

On the other side, what do we have? The Sierra Club and Greenpeace? The powerful bicycle industry? The guys who convert old cars to run on biodiesel in their garages? The ex-politician who isn't running for office?

You're a damn fool if you think that's comparable.

I know you're not a fool, Brad, but you're trying hard to act like one.

Just to be clear.... Exxon-Mobil made $39 BILLION in profit last year...... Greenpeace is non-profit.

Do you see the difference?

LeeG
11-22-2007, 10:34 AM
This is when reasonably bright people chose to be stupid trying to say that since there's people being paid for for two sides then the arguments are equivalent. Even if that was the basis for determining a bias there's no way you could ignore the trillion dollar petrochemical industry compared to one segment of academia about earth sciences/climatology.

Good thing there's only two sides to an issue.

Paul Pless
11-22-2007, 10:37 AM
...compared to one segment of academia about earth sciences/climatology.
just you wait till Halliburton figures out there's money to be made being green.:eek::eek:

ljb5
11-22-2007, 10:53 AM
just you wait till Halliburton figures out there's money to be made being green.:eek::eek:

God, I hope so! If that happened, they'd change positions so fast, Greenpeace would not be able to keep up with them.

(actually, we'd have to get to the point where there's more money to be made by being green than not.)

Half the members on this forum would change their postions too. (The other half of us wouldn't need to change, because we're already there.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wouldn't it be cool if there were some type of motivation besides pure greed?

Paul Pless
11-22-2007, 11:29 AM
Wouldn't it be cool if there were some type of motivation besides pure greed?Well yeah, but you and I both know that's not how the real world works... tragedy of the commons, and economic freeriders and all that...:(:mad:

You know lj, our views on personal and communal responsibility for our environment aren't all that different, and the means to the ends that we both want are often similarly aligned, even if we disagree on the causes of global warming...

In the spirit of goodwill I apologize for my initial comments on this thread.

ljb5
11-22-2007, 12:03 PM
You know lj, our views on personal and communal responsibility for our environment aren't all that different, and the means to the ends that we both want are often similarly aligned, even if we disagree the causes of global warming...

In the spirit of goodwill I apologize for my initial comments on this thread.

I appreciate that, Paul. :)

Honestly, Paul, I'm a little confused about your positon and Pipefitter's and several other members.

A lot of people seem to be violently opposed to anyone who presents the theory of global warming.... but then insist that they aren't really opposed to the science or the environmental movement.

The problem is, you don't really get to pick and choose your spokesman. Right now, we have Al Gore because he took the lead. We have the IPCC because they took the lead.

I suppose a lot more people would be drawn to the movement if Elvis Presley were leading it, but he doesn't seem to be available right now. Dick Cheney doesn't seem interested either.

I simply don't understand these people who claim to support the cause and claim to agree with the science (mostly) -- and yet attack anyone who speaks up to support the cause and agree with the science.

What are you arguing about?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really don't like to argue (although I will, if pressed). I like to get the facts out, so everyone can see them --- and then there's no need to argue because everyone agrees.

Some people really like to argue. They like it so much, that they actually argue against stuff that they later say they support. If they agree with 10,000 facts in a report, they'll argue about 35.

crawdaddyjim50
11-22-2007, 06:21 PM
An interesting hypothesis. What is your evidence to support this claim?


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken


"Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple."
- Kary Mullis, Winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry


"'Protecting the Environment' is a ruse. The goal is the political and economic subjugation of most men by the few, under the guise of preserving nature."
- J. H. Robbins


"The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming."
- Professor Kirill Kondratyev, Russian Academy of Sciences


"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."
- Richard Benedict, State Dept. employee working on assignment from the Conservation Foundation


"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister


“In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the hockey stick, the famous plot, published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium…
“But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick…”
Global Warming Bombshell, by Richard Muller (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/)


“And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis said:

1. "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
2. "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ...man-made causes." The article continues: “Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world - bar none. Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the environment.
“Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's wealth. They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of Adolph Hitler and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.”

The American Policy Center


"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
- Chris Landsea, on resigning from the IPCC


"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970


"There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere or disruption of the Earth's climate."
- Oregon Petition, from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, signed by over 17,000 international scientists including more than 2000 of the world's leading climatologists, meteorologists and planetary / atmospheric scientists

Yep that says 17,000 not 17 and more than 2,000 people directly involved in the subject.

http://lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Evansninefacts.html

brad9798
11-22-2007, 07:25 PM
I hope that my children never have such a closed-minded fool like you as a 'teacher.'

by my post, it is clearly implied for anyone with a triple-digit IQ that there are political/financial reasons on the Rip side ... what kind of an
idiot thinks there is nothing to be gained on the green side.

Was I not clear when I said I am all for the green industry. Did you miss that ... or, yet again, just pick and choose things to fuel your assinine, bull-headed personal save the world stance?

Let's get some things straight:

When did I mention that I didn't realize that most companies are systematically destroying the earth. Memo to you: If I am for the green movement, and am very concerned with global warming, how on earth can you twist that into the "Brad is trying to be an idiot and is for nine out of ten big companies?"

Get the F over you arrogant self.

When did I say that each side was equitable ... that their arguments were EQUAL? What the heck is the matter with you lately ... are you on dope?

Just because they are not equal, and I agree that they are NOT equal ... actually, you agree with me on that fact ... does not mean there is not political/financial gain to be made on the green side.

Only and idiot would claim the opposite.

you are purposely obtuse, arrogant, holier-than-thou, high-and-mighty, and generally a pompous a$$ in your blathering of all things just and injust.

Not sure what Exxon profit ... versus Greenpeace making "0" has to do with what I posted.

AGAIN- your immature, hair-trigger, knee-jerk reactions, due to some crazy chip on your shoulder, have isolated you from mainstream folks (LIKE ME) that actually agree with you ... although your tactics are pathetic.

Do you think you can actually re-read my previous post, re-read your jerky response, and actually show some comprehension?

OR- will you yet again deflect, cherry pick phrases and/or quotes to prop your holiness up again?

Oh, BTW- I LOVE when you don't respond to things because you are not sure how to react when someone agrees with you, in principal, even though you think they (me, in this case) are against you ...

This ring a bell ... neary a response ... but I am sure I will get an ear full now ... so you can save face!

Go ahead, start deflecting like I am evil, stupid, and against saving the environment ...



No ljb5- your comprehension is deteriorating just like your grammar on this thread.

In your words, I thought you would respond that way ... rather than take a step back and show some maturity, you simply deflect like you are the only person that is smart enough to deal with such complicated WBF topics!

I did not change the subject ... did you forget how to read too?

Saying I am just as, if not more concerned about the oceans is not changing the subject.

It IS acknowledging the facts of global warming and adding to it.

Your pride and arrogance will be your downfall ... you really ought to grow up ... but just like most young, bleeding heart, waaaay left wingers, you are just as content to alienate folks that agree with you as your are degrading those that disagree.

You see, in all your glory, you failed to comprehend that I am VERY concerned about global warming, just like you.

Oh, and I didn't realize you had grandchildren!



P.s. I walk to the store everyday ... and to the library, and to shops and restaurants. I work out of the home, so I spend about 20 bucks a month on gas.

My thermostat is set at 67.

I collect rain water to use for watering my plants and lawn and for washing my cars.

Oh, and I have a nice hybrid bicycle ... but I don't ride it much anymore as most bikers are arrogant pricks that ignore traffic rules and regulations ... I do not wish to be associated with those folks.

______

You have some good ideas, you are obviously intelligent, but your MO is about on the level of my soon-to-be six year-old: He won't ever admit imperfections either ... he just talks louder and louder until he 'thinks' he's won.
But we all know he loses ... still, we let him blow hot air and attempt to bully his opinion, as it is VERY entertaining!

ljb5
11-22-2007, 08:18 PM
crawdaddyjim50, posting quotes from other people --- some of them idiots and crackpots --- is not "presenting evidence."

H. L. Mencken had a way with words, but his opinions are not "evidence."

How much do you know about this "Richard Benedict"? Where did that quote come from? What was the context? Half the conspiracy theorists who have posted that quote can't even agree on how to spell his name. Nice research, dude. :rolleyes:

And for god sakes, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine????

You've been had, dude! It's a hoax.

ljb5
11-22-2007, 08:34 PM
by my post, it is clearly implied for anyone with a triple-digit IQ that there are political/financial reasons on the Rip side.

Yes, but how much? And to what extent have they influenced you and others? It's a question of evaluating the relative strength of the influence from each side. It's not enough to simply recognize that both sides have financial components --- it's a matter of recognizing that hundreds of billions of annual revenue has a greater influence on one side than the other.


Was I not clear when I said I am all for the green industry?

Good, we agree. Stop arguing. :)


Get the F over you arrogant self.

You first. :)


you are purposely obtuse, arrogant, holier-than-thou, high-and-mighty, and generally a pompous a$$ in your blathering of all things just and injust.

And yet, you insist you agree with me. :) And you're the one ranting and calling names. :rolleyes:

brad9798
11-22-2007, 10:20 PM
Well, I am glad you came 'round, ljb5 ... ;)

In all reality, although for some reason you think me so much different ... there is not MUCH difference at all.

That is the point, across which I have been trying to get for months/years/whatever!!!!

:D

pipefitter
11-23-2007, 12:13 AM
Yes, there is lots going on outside of the IPCC report.... but you haven't read that stuff either.

I have.

Yes, it does offer a more unanimous, credible and interesting picture. But you have to be able to understand it.

It's not quite as simple as saying, "one population of polar bears is doing okay, therefore global warming is not happening."

I think the IPCC report would be a good place for you to start because you need a broad, basic overview of the subject.

I am certainly not an "IPCC Groupie." I have been reading the stuff outside the IPCC report for a long time.... and I have posted tons of information from outside the IPCC report and encouraged you to read it.... but you haven't

If anything, it seems that you are the one who can't get past the IPCC report. You keep trying to criticize it (although you haven't read it), you refuse to look at anything else besides it.... and the only information you post are critiques of the IPCC report...

...and not even scientific critiques.... you've accused the IPCC of several types of procedural or political errors.

It seems you're determined to avoide any discussion of the science and focus only on the political.

I'm focused on the science.

I have read it. It's the only reason why I question it. I showed you the significant difference with just one example as stated from Shanghai to the policy makers. And then. . . "years" later in the "4th" assessment, it has been specifically outlined right near where you can find the criticisms that they intend to word it more accurately for the policy makers. In the "body" of the report which is the part YOU didn't read it states "30" years. The Shanghai version says 50! Do the math and find out what the global temps were at the mid century mark.

" The version that emerged from Shanghai concludes instead:

In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House severely edited congressional testimony given Tuesday by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the impact of climate change on health, removing specific scientific references to potential health risks, according to two sources familiar with the documents.

How the EWPC could jump to such conclusions about the CDC report, which even in it's edited version is quite understandable and obvious and I would have thought that the EWPC should have been much more versed in this by now, which is in step with the politically biased BS mucking up the science of the whole subject and let it go within the report they claim we are supposed to swallow as "settled". How can such a fact monger as yourself be ok with this? Even if it was an overlooked technicality or misplaced formality it still doesn't conform to the accuracies you claim to hold so dear.

"Editorial note: The "30 years" period begins at 1970, near the start of the warming trend. The IPCC Shanghai version's "50 years" period of "observed warming" begins in the midst of the 1945-1975 cooling period before the warming trend."

Again, If someone hadn't pointed out that the satellite temperature readings of the troposphere were conflicting with those on the surface, nobody would have bothered that the readings from the satellites needed to be calibrated. Now it has been fixed so that argument is gone. Why do you have a problem with people asking questions? You go on and on about all of the Republican injustices and how keen you were to it all along. I don't have reason to trust either side where politics are concerned and I intend to question all of the evidence on all sides. You basically just keep saying read the IPCC report. Well duh. What is so wrong with bringing up points to the contrary even if for discussion. You should have known why if you were so well versed. That's why I brought it up. Your only answers center around that you have all the evidence you need and I say your full of poo. I want to know why there is multiple sides of the argument within the evidence and beyond what is politically correct.

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

"At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report."

10-30% of .6 degrees is a lot for consideration. It is highly possible, even from a common sense point that the sun could be contributing, especially when temperatures in other planets of our solar system also appear to be rising. Even if it's just a theory, it's also "possible" that rising CO2 could follow warming with this considered. Now agreed the earth does fine and well without man's contributions but it still leaves room for consideration and indeed shows that the science is NOT settled.

ljb5
11-23-2007, 01:05 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House severely edited congressional testimony given Tuesday by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the impact of climate change on health, removing specific scientific references to potential health risks, according to two sources familiar with the documents.


...which is in step with the politically biased BS mucking up the science of the whole subject...

It's not really clear if you're aware of this, pipefitter, but the White House is a political body. :rolleyes:

When they edit a scientific report, they are the ones who are doing "politically biased BS" -- not the other way around.

ljb5
11-23-2007, 01:10 AM
"At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report."

Okay, so 70 to 90% of global warming measured during the past two decades is due to human causes?

Yes, that is consistent with my position. Thanks for pointing that out. :D

You left out this part from the article:


they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases.

I'm okay with that.

(By the way, I got an "A" in physics at Duke.)


It is highly possible, even from a common sense point that the sun could be contributing, especially when temperatures in other planets of our solar system also appear to be rising.

Duh. I would say it's pretty fuckking obvious that changes in solar intensity could be contributing --- and has been obvious to pretty much everyone for fifty years or more. (Do you seriously think no one thought of this except you?) This is why we do research -- and it is this research which leads to conclusions.

The scientists have done their research -- and concluded that 70 to 90% of recent global warming is anthropogenic.

If you had read the IPCC report, you would be aware that they also considered the affect of radiative forcing from increased solar intensity. They used data going back to 1750.

----------------------------------------------------

I don't have a problem with you asking questions or looking at the data and many additional studies.... I just wish you could understand what you are reading.

You keep acting like you've won something, or disproven something or discovered something that no one else has thought of yet. But you're way behind the times. Everyone already knows this stuff. They've already done the research (and continue to do it) and it's already been published and read and discussed and incorporated into the body of knowledge.

This is why I keep encouraging you to read real scientific reports. Instead, you just spend your time trolling the internet (and watching 20/20), desperately searching for critiques of scientific reports you'll never read.

You keep bitching about the IPCC report -- and then posting information which not only confirms it, but which has already been incorporated into it. Cripes, if you had just read the thing, you would know this already!

pipefitter
11-23-2007, 02:30 AM
Okay, so 70 to 90% of global warming measured during the past two decades is due to human causes?

Yes, that is consistent with my position. Thanks for pointing that out. :D

You left out this part from the article:



I'm okay with that.

(By the way, I got an "A" in physics at Duke.)



Duh. I would say it's pretty fuckking obvious that changes in solar intensity could be contributing --- and has been obvious to pretty much everyone for fifty years or more. (Do you seriously think no one thought of this except you?) This is why we do research -- and it is this research which leads to conclusions.

The scientists have done their research -- and concluded that 70 to 90% of recent global warming is anthropogenic.

If you had read the IPCC report, you would be aware that they also considered the affect of radiative forcing from increased solar intensity. They used data going back to 1750.

----------------------------------------------------

I don't have a problem with you asking questions or looking at the data and many additional studies.... I just wish you could understand what you are reading.

You keep acting like you've won something, or disproven something or discovered something that no one else has thought of yet. But you're way behind the times. Everyone already knows this stuff. They've already done the research (and continue to do it) and it's already been published and read and discussed and incorporated into the body of knowledge.

This is why I keep encouraging you to read real scientific reports. Instead, you just spend your time trolling the internet (and watching 20/20), desperately searching for critiques of scientific reports you'll never read.

You keep bitching about the IPCC report -- and then posting information which not only confirms it, but which has already been incorporated into it. Cripes, if you had just read the thing, you would know this already!

I didn't have to win anything. I win every day IRL. I'm not angry like you are and I have nothing to prove. As far as I know, you are just some software perpetuated enigma of the internet designed to be contrary.
It's entertaining. You make me laugh. I got my nickel's worth as far as I'm concerned. Be happy. You get to vent your hatreds without getting noogied in the forehead.

You got an A in physics? Enter the 30% variable into your computer model which means you now have to predict what the sun is going to do in long term and hope that stays constant. Settled means 100%. ;)

Paul G.
11-23-2007, 03:37 AM
First let me start with personal insult, Ljb5 you are a dork

Thats better, now I can give my unbiased opinion on this subject.

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

Thats all folks

tattooed john
11-23-2007, 04:22 AM
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

http://www.woodenboatvb.com/vbulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=72336


$20.00!!!!!

ljb5
11-23-2007, 11:00 AM
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

The 2007 Fortune Global 500:

Wal Mart - United States (Retail) ExxonMobil Corporation - United States (Oil/Retail) Royal Dutch Shell - Netherlands/United Kingdom (oil) BP - United Kingdom (oil) General Motors - United States (automobiles) Toyota Motor - Japan (automobiles) Chevron - United States (oil) DaimlerChrysler - Germany/United States (automobiles) ConocoPhillips - United States (oil) Total - France (oil)

Nine out of the ten largest companies in the world are directly involved with either pumping oil or making cars which burn it.

THAT'S ALL FOLKS!

ljb5
11-23-2007, 11:16 AM
Enter the 30% variable into your computer model which means you now have to predict what the sun is going to do in long term and hope that stays constant.

What a brilliant friggin' idea!!! You mean scientists shoud actually incorporate the results of scientific research into their own studies????! Gee, why didn't anyone ever think of this before????!

Gee, Pipefitter, you're a friggin' genius!. I sure hope you get nominated for the Nobel Prize for your brilliant idea. The scientific world owes you a great debt for your ground breaking idea of basing models on established parameters.

Up until now, we'll just been guessing and using random numbers.... but now, for the first time ever, we're going to try calculating stuff first! Thanks a lot, genius. :rolleyes:


Settled means 100%. ;)

No, it doesn't. :rolleyes:

Imagine you go to the ATM and get $100. In the grocery store you spend $30. Then, you get mugged and the thief takes $70.

You file a police report and say, "I got mugged."

The police officer says, "How much did they get?"

You say, "$70."

The police officer says, "But this ATM slip says you had $100."

You say, "I spent $30 on other stuff."

The police officer says, "So you only got 70% mugged?"

You say, "No, I definitely got mugged."

He says, "But if you got mugged, how come he didn't get it all?"

You say, "Because I also spent some."

He says, "So you're only 70% sure that you got mugged?"

You say, "Nope, I'm damn sure I got mugged."

The police officer says, "If you were damn sure, it would be 100%."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is: just because a secondary cause has been identified which also contributes, does not mean that there is uncertainty about the primary cause.

The researchers have said:

Global warming is definitely happenning 10% - 30% is caused by solar forcing 70% - 90% is caused by man-made changes to the atmosphere.

pipefitter
11-23-2007, 12:28 PM
This is you he's talking about, isn't it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GcVnhNjWV0

ljb5
11-23-2007, 12:41 PM
Ha, that's funny -- but you're the one who's having a hard time dealing with reality, not me.

Serious question:

Why did you assume that the computer models needed to be adjusted to account for changes in solar radiative forcing?

Why did you assume this had not already been taken into account?

After all, the IPCC report already has a section on changes in solar forcing -- (and other non-manmade causes of global warming.)

It should be obvious to anyone (who had read the report :rolleyes:) that this was already taken into account.

crawdaddyjim50
11-23-2007, 11:38 PM
crawdaddyjim50, posting quotes from other people --- some of them idiots and crackpots --- is not "presenting evidence."

H. L. Mencken had a way with words, but his opinions are not "evidence."

How much do you know about this "Richard Benedict"? Where did that quote come from? What was the context? Half the conspiracy theorists who have posted that quote can't even agree on how to spell his name. Nice research, dude. :rolleyes:

And for god sakes, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine????

You've been had, dude! It's a hoax.

This is the response I expected. Please excuse me for assailing your religion.

So you have seen the raw data on climate change and run the numbers yourself? You have spent the better part of 20 yrs. studying the question and its underlying cause? I don't think so.

Nice try at deflection. Refute each quote with cites for resources. These people quoted are not joe schmoes. They are learned and lettered people. Or they just lied because Big Oil paid them too?

PeterSibley
11-23-2007, 11:38 PM
:" “Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world - bar none. Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the environment.
“Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's wealth. They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of Adolph Hitler and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club. The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.”

The American Policy Center"

Comedy ( I hope ) from the people who brought you that wonderful success ....the Americanisation of Iraq :D:D:D Jesus wept .

crawdaddyjim50
11-24-2007, 12:17 AM
Global Warming Myth Costs The Earth

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence"
(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)
This statement sums up the approach of many of those attending the Earth Junket, who believe in man-made global warming as a matter of faith, and hoped to see this matter higher on the agenda. Benedict was right in one respect, there is no scientific evidence for warming of the atmosphere through emissions of carbon dioxide or any other gas, as required for man-made global warming to be true.

* while computer climate models predict steady heating of the lower atmosphere, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, actual temperature readings from satellites and radiosonde balloons confirm that the atmosphere has cooled during the last 25 years

* there is however convincing evidence that the current minuscule global surface temperature rise of 0.053 degrees C per decade is fully explainable through changes in the output of the Sun - this trend would produce a warming of half a degree by 2100, 12 times less than a hysterical IPCC prediction and due to entirely natural processes beyond mankind's influence.

In the Earth's past, temperature changes of up to 10 degrees C have happened naturally in timescales of a decade. Perhaps it is as well that Mr Meacher has no chance whatsoever of influencing the extremely modest rises in surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide occurring at present, since neither fuel duty nor the climate change levy do anything except increase the financial burden on citizens and businesses. Our carbon dioxide level, even at the present lowly 0.037% by volume, helps the growth of crops and hence food production, while each mild winter in the UK saves 20,000 lives compared to a severe one. Extreme weather elsewhere represents normal variation, and is in any case associated more with global cooling.

The ABD will also point out how climate models, increasingly used in preference to actual temperature data as the basis for international policymaking, are in disrepute.


"There were always extreme, irrational and mystical elements within our movement, but they tended to be kept in their place during the early years. Then in the mid-Eighties the ultraleftists and extremists took over. After Greenham Common closed and the Berlin Wall came down these extremists were searching for a new cause and found it in environmentalism. The old agendas of class struggle and anti-corporatism are still there but now they are dressed up in environmental terminology."
(Dr Patrick Moore, co-founder member of Greenpeace, May 2000)


Must be a real guy if Dr. Moore is using the quote in a letter. Or the letter is a forgery?

crawdaddyjim50
11-24-2007, 12:17 AM
Dr. Bellamy is a crackpot?


Global Warming? What a load of poppycock!

http://www.junkscience.com/july04/GW_David_Bellamy.JPG_1_small.jpeg (http://www.junkscience.com/july04/GW_David_Bellamy.JPG_1.jpeg)by Professor David Bellamy
Daily Mail, July 9, 2004

Whatever the experts say about the howling gales, thunder and lightning we've had over the past two days, of one thing we can be certain. Someone, somewhere - and there is every chance it will be a politician or an environmentalist - will blame the weather on global warming.
But they will be 100 per cent wrong. Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not.
Instead, they have an unshakeable in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.
They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.
As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and roubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic.
Dreaded

To explain why I believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon that has been with us for 13,000 years and probably isn't causing us any harm anyway, we need to take heed of some basic facts of botanical science.
For a start, carbon dioxide is not the dreaded killer greenhouse gas that the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol five years later cracked it up to be. It is, in fact, the most important airborne fertiliser in the world, and without it there would be no green plants at all.
That is because, as any schoolchild will tell you, plants take in carbon dioxide and water and, with the help of a little sunshine, convert them into complex carbon compounds - that we either eat, build with or just admire - and oxygen, which just happens to keep the rest of the planet alive.
Increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, double it even, and this would produce a rise in plant productivity. Call me a biased old plant lover but that doesn't sound like much of a killer gas to me. Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of my fellow scientists.
Let me quote from a petition produced by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has been signed by over 18,000 scientists who are totally opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, which committed the world's leading industrial nations to cut their production of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels.
They say: 'Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to experimental knowledge.'
You couldn't get much plainer than that. And yet we still have public figures such as Sir David King, scientific adviser to Her Majesty's Government, making preposterous statements such as 'by the end of this century, the only continent we will be able to live on is Antarctica.'
At the same time, he's joined the bandwagon that blames just about everything on global warming, regardless of the scientific evidence. For example, take the alarm about rising sea levels around the south coast of England and subsequent flooding along the region's rivers. According to Sir David, global warming is largely to blame.
But it isn't at all - it's down to bad management of water catchments, building on flood plains and the incontestable fact that the south of England is gradually sinking below the waves.
And that sinking is nothing to do with rising sea levels caused by ice-caps melting. Instead, it is purely related to an entirely natural warping of the Earth's crust, which could only be reversed by sticking one of the enormously heavy ice-caps from past ice ages back on top of Scotland.
Ah, ice ages... those absolutely massive changes in global climate that environmentalists don't like to talk about because they provide such strong evidence that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon.
It was round about the end of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago, that a global warming process did undoubtedly begin.
Not because of all those Stone age folk roasting mammoth meat on fossil fuel camp fires but because of something called the 'Milankovitch Cycles,' an entirely natural fact of planetary life that depends on the tilt of the Earth's axis and its orbit around the sun.
Melted

The glaciers melted, the ice cap retreated and Stone Age man could begin hunting again. But a couple of millennia later, it got very cold again and everyone headed south. Then it warmed up so much that water from melted ice filled the English Channel and we became an island.
The truth is that the climate has been yo-yo-ing up and down ever since. Whereas it was warm enough for Romans to produce good wine in York, on the other hand, King Canute had to dig up peat to warm his people. And then it started getting warm again.
Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof they are not still doing exactly the same thing now. In other words, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.
In fact, a recent scientific paper, rather unenticingly titled 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial Termination,' proved it.
It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.
Ignored

But this sort of evidence is ignored, either by those who believe the Kyoto Protocol is environmental gospel or by those who know 25 years of hard work went into securing the agreement and simply can't admit that the science it is based on is wrong.
The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperature - is water vapour, 99 per cent of which is entirely natural.
If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But, remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 per cent.
Although we wouldn't be around, because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us to eat.
It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be £76trillion. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.
If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist - money that could be used in umpteen better ways: fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.
The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact.

Copyright © 2004 Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/dailymail/home.html?in_page_id=1766) -- All Rights Reserved geovisit();http://visit.geocities.com/visit.gif?&r=http%3A//www.google.com/search%3Fq%3DProfessor+David+Bellamy%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial%26client%3Dfirefox-a&b=Netscape%205.0%20%28Windows%3B%20en-US%29&s=1440x900&o=Win32&c=32&j=true&v=1.2 http://visit.webhosting.yahoo.com/visit.gif?us1195884329
chrome://piclens/content/launch.png

crawdaddyjim50
11-24-2007, 12:50 AM
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, argues that ambitious environmentalism is the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/klaus_freedom_endangered.pdf

And just because you like Mr. Mencken so much.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken


"... There is no such thing in America as an independent press ... We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes ... Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
John Swinton, former New York Times Chief of Staff

crawdaddyjim50
11-24-2007, 01:08 AM
A power point presentation for you. Easy to understand and backs up the theory of sun induced warming.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/NRPresentation/NRPresentation.html

I don't see where the OISM is a crackpot org. I see accredited scientists and scholars. Even a Noble prize winner R. Bruce Merrifield

ljb5
11-24-2007, 10:11 AM
I don't see where the OISM is a crackpot org. I see accredited scientists and scholars. Even a Noble prize winner R. Bruce Merrifield

Dude, the OISM is a single researcher and his home-schooled kids working out of a converted barn on an isolated dirt road in rural Oregon.

They have virtually no equipment, no funding, no published research, no peer review.

They make most of their money by selling information to paranoid home-schoolers who believe that all forms of public education is a socialist plot --- and to crackpot survivalists who are worried about surviving a nuclear holocaust.

I know you think that Dr. Merrifield was part of the OISM, but this claim cannot be verified. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/20/nyregion/20merrifield.html?_r=1&n=Top/News/Science/Topics/Nobel%20Prizes&oref=slogin)

If Merrifield was involved, he somehow forgot to mention it in his autobiography or his official biography and it was not mentioned in any of his obituaries.

Merrifield published extensively on protein synthesis, but never on global warming or the greenhouse effect.

I suppose, if you were curious, you might wonder what a Nobel Prize in protein synthesis has to do with a global warming. :rolleyes:

You might also ask yourself why an "Institute of Medicine" has no doctors on staff. :rolleyes:

You might also note that there has also been a Nobel Prize awarded in support of global warming too.

The OISM is a hoax -- and you fell for it.

Try a little harder next time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously, Jim.... push back from the keyboard for one minute. Take a deep breath and calmly ask yourself this question:

"The OISM or the AAAS?"

Even if the OISM were not obviously a hoax, could you possibly put it on the same level as all the other scientists and scientific organizations working on the subject?

Even if the OISM were a small group of dedicated researchers (instead of isolated crackpots), their work is on protein analysis -- not climate change, not atmosphere science, not ecology nor environmentology, nor even physics.

paul oman
11-24-2007, 10:31 AM
google "global warming mars ice cap" and you'll discover planetary warming is not limited to Earth.

ljb5
11-24-2007, 10:58 AM
Why would you be willing to accept random information you find by googling, but you wouldn't be willing to accept information from a thousand other legitimate sources?


google "global warming mars ice cap" and you'll discover planetary warming is not limited to Earth.

True.... and so I'll ask you the same question I ask everyone:

"Do you think you are the only one who knows this?"

Do you think that you have just discovered something completely unknown to the entire scientific community?

Do you think your discovery has just over thrown the entire field of research?

Or.... do you suppose it's possible that this is already well know, thoroughly studied --- and that the scientists have learned from this and incorporated these findings into the study?

A real scientist does not simply assume that warming on Earth is the same as warming on Mars.

A real scientist asks these questions:

Why is Mars warming? How much is it warming? Over what time period? In what ways? What is causing this? How is Mars similar to Earth? In what ways are the two planets different? How is this the same as what's happening on Earth? How is this different? What can it teach us about Earth? What additional data could we gather to understand the relationship better?

Never, ever, ever assume that you have just found something which overthrows the entire scientific community. You can be certain they knew about it before you, they understand it better than you and they've already thought it through much further than you can or will.

pipefitter
11-24-2007, 12:14 PM
Christopher Landsea isn't a quack. Funny he saw it fit to resign (as one of the authors of the IPCC 4th assessment which you now feel has settled everything progressively) after realizing that his input was ignored. Funny, well before Landsea resigned, many of us here who are directly affected by hurricanes were seeing disturbing fallacies within climate models that had predicted the hurricane seasons to be come progressively worse post Katrina. One doomsday scenario(because the severity of Charlie and Katrina,Ivan etc were related to global warming after all) had Florida's Atlantic and Gulf coasts being decimated successively worse each year. One scenario model showed 3 major storms within a 3 week period the following season post Katrina. A triple play so to speak. NOAA, having to reduce the predicted #(by 3 mid season) of named storms this past season, which should be more accurate by now, because their models predictions were greatly flawed. Not only to the # of named storms, but their origins and expected paths.

"Dear colleagues,

"After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."

Now that's a way to gain public awareness and confidence. While some experts claim the IPCC report underestimates the severity of GW induced climate change and yet others claim it overestimates, does this mean that the IPCC report has settled for an average of both claims? Sure, this is somewhat old news but you should be able to see why the 4th assessment does nothing over the previous to settle anything or to gain public confidence of those who actually read the body of the report.
The sensationalism by the media is unwarranted because if you read how we are subject to the mainstream take on this, you should be left with the probability that a very small (1-2%??) percentage of the media reporting this have not read the body of the report. Same could be said for school teachers pushing this such as depicted by the scared elementary age school children interviewed on 20/20, which is really why I referred to that.
The IPCC is a weird deal scientifically speaking. The evidence being supplied by scientists and yet the summaries of the reports having to be agreed upon between the scientists and government representatives.

Ljb5, the IPCC report does not include the "entire" scientific community.

ljb5
11-24-2007, 02:50 PM
Christopher Landsea isn't a quack.

Christopher Landsea isn't a quack.

I don't think there are any quacks associated with the IPCC. (Do you?)

Frankly, I agree with Landsea's point which is that global warming is happening, but it's very difficult to make a precise connection between global warmig and specific hurricane activities.

Here's a couple of things you need to know about Landsea:

His expertise is in the field of hurricanes. His criticism about the IPCC was related only to specific comments about hurricanes. Actually, his criticism isn't even about the IPCC -- it is about some comments made at an unrelated press conference. He has not criticized nor contradicted the broader theory of global warming. He acknowledges that global warming is happening and is being caused by human activities.


"We certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity"


The IPCC is a weird deal scientifically speaking. The evidence being supplied by scientists and yet the summaries of the reports having to be agreed upon between the scientists and government representatives.

Yes, the IPCC is a weird deal. It was set up this way deliberately (mostly by Reagan) to allow political interference with science.

Frankly, it would be better if we relied only on pure scientific research. For some reason, you keep presenting your arguments about the IPCC. I have encouraged you many, many, many times to look past the IPCC and read all relevant studies. There are thousands upon thousands available to you.

You don't seem willing to do this. Your loss, not mine.

Landsea has become a darling of the anti-IPCC right because they wrongly believe his comments about hurricanes apply to all of global warming theory. For some reason, people like you are willing to ignore 99% of what he has said --- and 100% of everything said by every other researcher. That's not good research.

pipefitter
11-24-2007, 06:25 PM
No, ljb5, I have been researching evidence both for global warming and contrary study and of how the evidence is being processed and presented. You were the one who was holding the IPCC report as your darling. You said it was all you needed. That's all fine and well. If you had been following this all along, outside of when you became interested due to the need to defend the left that you adhere to, it was obvious where your interest was/is.

"It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current sc ientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy."

I have been looking at all of the studies outside of the IPCC. You were the one who was using it as your argument. Whenever I asked questions regarding science that is evident,to which I can't help if it goes for or against the popular,media driven consensus, you treated the discussion much like you do left/right political discussions. It is finally great to see you say, look outside of the IPCC! That wasn't so hard, was it?

Again from Landsea's resignation letter and has been pretty much my stance all along:

"It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science"

L.W. Baxter
11-24-2007, 06:43 PM
There seems to be alot of frustration that so many Americans are skeptical of "scientific consensus".

I think this skepticism has it's roots in science as activism. Over time, the scientific community, and academia as a whole, have become less about theory and observation, and more about deriving "ought" from "is". People who are not scientists or academics are correct to resent this. What we "ought" to do is as much the provence of the simple carpenter as it is of the climatologist. The climatologist should present the facts objectively, and should not overreach with his theory for the purpose of grabbing a headline in support of an agenda.

And it is precisely the well-warranted skepticism of agenda-based science that makes me warn against using the phenomena of "global warming" as the linchpin of the entire conservation effort. Any person who is paying attention can see how this has become true. The headline I quoted the other day, "Dead trees from Hurricane Katrina contribute to global warming", while hilarious, was all too real, and indicative of a mania that is seriously eroding the credibility of both research science and the media which reports it.

The hypothesis that global warming causes more and stronger hurricanes is a case in point. A few climate scientists, for whatever reason, posited very publicly that increasing global temperatures will create more and stronger hurricanes. This supposition has taken on the character of scientific consensus, despite the fact that only a few researchers have been actively working on the problem. As it turns out, their primary means of predicting the future is computer models, using finite variables in an infinitely complex system. That they fail to predict any actual events is hardly surprising. The unfortunate end result, for better or for worse, is that the public at large assumes that science is fallible. While I believe the public is right to think that way, too much skepticism of science (the rational force balanced against superstition) is a Very Bad Thing.

It doesn't matter if there is good science behind the modeling. It has failed and will continue to fail to predict the weather, and as global warming science is currently being touted as the environmental "theory of everything", minor failures in the predictive power of this amalgam become serious strikes against the entire global warming paradigm. And as activists and politicians couch every aspect of environmental concern in terms of global climate change, they risk the entire agenda on how the climate performs over the next decade.

I can see Al Gore at the 2012 Democratic convention, singing:

"Blame it on the rain
that was fallin' fallin'
blame it on the stars
that didn't shine that night

Whatever you do
don't put the blame on you..."

pipefitter
11-24-2007, 07:06 PM
The hurricane science, even though being a small part of the GW study and presented as it was post Katrina, would have made the long term effects of global warming a moot point for everyone living on the coasts of the Southern and Eastern United states. Many people relocated to elsewhere in the country because of those predictions. I had considered doing so myself. It may seem a small part of the entire GW theory, but it was sure to have a large and more immediate impact both economically(storm insurance rates??) and socially in the short term. Because it directly concerns me, I should be able to cite it's relevance. I found it more compelling to follow the science with cause and short term provable effect, at least for the time being.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
11-24-2007, 07:08 PM
Is this draft of the WBF report on Global warming ready to present to the world? Damn I sure hope so.

paul oman
11-24-2007, 11:13 PM
Al Gore didn't seem to know about global warming on Mars - or at least he decided it wasn't worth mentioning!

There is also this recent article----- (quote)

Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.

The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

(note that Russians are not under the Al Gore spell - you probably cannot sell co2 credits in Moscow!)

The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures.

(note most mainstream scientists are not space/solar experts and know almost nothing about solar physics)

end of article
--------------
For what little it's worth, I have a degree in Oceanography, I'm a certified petroleum geologist (not too many are certified) with a masters in physical science plus an MBA (lots of letters after my name).

I certainly fall into to group of Al Gore "scientists", and I agree that the planet (and planets like mars) have been warming for the past few decades. But I also see 30-40 year cycles of warming and cooling since 1900 and, like the Russians above, think the current warming cycle has perhaps peaked.

The big mistake is thinking that what has happened in the past 20 years or so will continue for the next 20, 50 or 100 years, especially when we know that climate change swings back and forth.

Did man cause it? Note that the warmest year on record is now confirmed to be 1938 (or so) and that also was the time of the great American Dust Bowl - and years before the increase in man made co2. Those that overstate the issue as being largely contributed to by man never address the issue of the Dust Bowl or the famous heat waves of the 1930s.

The global warming shock numbers only work if you start after about 1975 or 1980. Show me an Al Gore graph that starts in 1900 or 1925 or 1950. They don't exist! With real science you can start the data set at more than one point.

You'll see a picture of an ice sheet taken in 1990 and the same shot taken in 2005, but no one every shows that some ice sheet picture taken in 1940 (yes, they had cameras, scientists and tourists photos back then!).

If you look just look at the data for the past 30 years the planet has been warming up. If you look at the data for the past 70 years it hasn't changed (well, actually it cooled down and then warmed back up to the same level - almost!).

I like the videos of the glaciers breaking into the ocean that are always shown on the Al Gore clips. Problem is, such shots illustrate growing, not retreating, glaciers..... And polar bear populations are growing, not shrinking.

--- Google Robert Gray - the U of Colo climate pro and perhaps the most famous hurricane expert on the planet. Call me an over educated idiot (you'll probably have to get in line and take a number) but explain why Dr. Gray - who is too old to seek grant money - is at odds with old Al. Why did Al ignore the views of a weather hero like Dr. Gray? Is Gray, the Russian scientific community (and your's truely) all outside the official 'consensus' ?



paul

PS - if scientists were always 'right' there would be no such thing as divorce in the scientific community! Talk about a 180 degree shift in your thinking .... (take my wife, please!). The more scientists I know, the lower my opinion of them becomes. For those who find college easier than working in the real world, one day you wake up and the world thinks you're a scientist. Most are too naive to know better.


paul

ljb5
11-24-2007, 11:43 PM
Many people relocated to elsewhere in the country because of those predictions. I had considered doing so myself.

I find it amusing that you were almost so foolish as to follow advice not given to you. But since I didn't give you the advice, and such advice would be far outside the mainstream of scientific consensus, I take no responsibility for it.

You kinda remind me of this guy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2297471.stm) who foolishly became so concerned about the Y2k bug that he turned himself blue by drinking colloidal silver

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38297000/jpg/_38297733_blue_300_ap.jpg

That was dumb, dumb, dumb --- but his stupidity not mine.

Likewise, if you had moved out of Florida simply out of fear of immediate effects of global warming, that would have been your decision, not mine.

Seriously, what's your point? You were almost dumb enough to drastically over-react -- and somehow this is my fault?!!

:rolleyes:

ljb5
11-24-2007, 11:48 PM
Al Gore didn't seem to know about global warming on Mars - or at least he decided it wasn't worth mentioning!

The warming of Mars is (of course) well known in mainstream science --- mostly because it was discovered by scientists. (Who else would do it?)

It is often not mentioned in discussions of terrestrial global warming because it has already been studied and found to be of little direct relevance to the subject.

It is, of course, an interesting side note. By comparing the differences and similarities between the two planets we can learn a lot about what is going on on this plant.

You are aware (I hope) that Mars is vastly different than Earth? It would be quite foolish of you to conclude that the two planets are experiencing the same phenomenon.

pipefitter
11-25-2007, 03:02 AM
I find it amusing that you were almost so foolish as to follow advice not given to you. But since I didn't give you the advice, and such advice would be far outside the mainstream of scientific consensus, I take no responsibility for it.

You kinda remind me of this guy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2297471.stm) who foolishly became so concerned about the Y2k bug that he turned himself blue by drinking colloidal silver

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38297000/jpg/_38297733_blue_300_ap.jpg

That was dumb, dumb, dumb --- but his stupidity not mine.

Likewise, if you had moved out of Florida simply out of fear of immediate effects of global warming, that would have been your decision, not mine.

Seriously, what's your point? You were almost dumb enough to drastically over-react -- and somehow this is my fault?!!

:rolleyes:

Nice try Beavis. You would have had to sit through a few of them to totally understand outside of your generic existence and understanding on the subject. I nearly moved because I wasn't sure how lucrative it was going to be where these predictions in part, allowed the insurance companies to jack the prices of homeowners insurance to where it equaled or surpassed mrtg payments. It's been more cleverly outlined now the why's, but at the time, one of the reasons was because it was likely/probable that we were to see more frequent and severe storms. Now how much is a house worth and try to imagine what that does to the cost of living in one fell swoop? It doesn't take a rocket scientist as yourself to see that it wouldn't take long for the cost to outweigh the investment. As far as the storms? My "boat" is right side up. I'd be the guy on the evening news shown plucking you out of the drink telling you it is ok to drop the swim noodles now.

If I had believed what the climate models were predicting as immediately and progressively increasing hurricane frequency and intensity, I would have been a fool to stay here. Instead, I opted to believe that the models were likely flawed due to the infancy of the science and the variability of the statistics.

Paul G.
11-25-2007, 03:58 AM
I hear a noise in the background...why its the world famous scientist Ljb5 wringing his hands again and listening to the sound of his own sweet voice again.

Did I say again twice? how repetitive of me

crawdaddyjim50
11-25-2007, 06:37 AM
"I suppose, if you were curious, you might wonder what a Nobel Prize in protein synthesis has to do with a global warming. :rolleyes:"

As much as a v.p. from Tennessee.....

ljb5
11-25-2007, 09:22 AM
"I suppose, if you were curious, you might wonder what a Nobel Prize in protein synthesis has to do with a global warming. :rolleyes:"

As much as a v.p. from Tennessee.....


That's why I don't rely on the former V.P. from Tennessee for my scientific information.

And I have encouraged everyone else to look past the spokesman and investigate the science for themselves.

ljb5
11-25-2007, 09:28 AM
You'll see a picture of an ice sheet taken in 1990 and the same shot taken in 2005, but no one every shows that some ice sheet picture taken in 1940 (yes, they had cameras, scientists and tourists photos back then!).

Paul, this statement is so obviously wrong that, for a moment there, I was holding out hope that one of your compatriots might leap forward to correct you. In theory, at least, they're are unbiased, honest servants of the truth -- and they claim to know so much about the subject, I figured there was a chance they might put you on the right path.

Alas, they didn't.

In a matter of seconds, I was able to find photos of ice coverage from long before 1940 --- the very first one I found went back as far as 1859.

So what's the problem, Paul? Are you stupid, or are you a liar?

pipefitter
11-25-2007, 06:40 PM
Paul, this statement is so obviously wrong that, for a moment there, I was holding out hope that one of your compatriots might leap forward to correct you. In theory, at least, they're are unbiased, honest servants of the truth -- and they claim to know so much about the subject, I figured there was a chance they might put you on the right path.

Alas, they didn't.

In a matter of seconds, I was able to find photos of ice coverage from long before 1940 --- the very first one I found went back as far as 1859.

So what's the problem, Paul? Are you stupid, or are you a liar?

Have you ever heard of early and ongoing glacial theory? This kind of seems to be instep with recent happenings in what we may be seeing.

"Most scientists now concur that much of the topography of North America can be attributed to the most recent Ice Age, which ended about 10,000 years ago. At the height of the Ice Age, a sheet of ice covered the vast preponderance of North America, consisting of enough water to lower the sea level by 75 meters (Matsch, 1976). The Earth has been subject to numerous Ice Ages, usually occurring every 150 million years, and lasting several mllion years (ISM). Although their existence is accepted almost universally, the cause of their propagation, and remission, is still a subject of great speculation. Perhaps it will be the subject of the next "Great Glacier Controversy."

Now I wonder what they mean by "most" scientists? Surely it can't consist of the 2500 cited with the theory of man made global warming.

ljb5
11-25-2007, 06:55 PM
Don't try to change the subject, Pipefitter.

Paul said the data currently offered doesn't go back beyond 1990 or 1975.

Clearly, this is wrong. There is tons of data and it can be easily found.

He said there are no pictures of ice sheets before 1940 --- but, in fact, there are. Either he didn't know this, or he lied.

Please don't bore me with any of your new theories. If you've made a scientific discovery, write it up and submit it for peer review. :rolleyes:

pipefitter
11-25-2007, 08:14 PM
Don't try to change the subject, Pipefitter.

Paul said the data currently offered doesn't go back beyond 1990 or 1975.

Clearly, this is wrong. There is tons of data and it can be easily found.

He said there are no pictures of ice sheets before 1940 --- but, in fact, there are. Either he didn't know this, or he lied.

Please don't bore me with any of your new theories. If you've made a scientific discovery, write it up and submit it for peer review. :rolleyes:

I thought perhaps you could reflect on some of your own scientific discoveries or convenient adaptations of others. Actually, the statement above is way outdated and at the time, was being debated in much the same way as man made global warming is today. I was just amused of the statement of "most scientists".

One thing is for certain. If all of this goes as you believe, I will still always be a stupid weldor. If it happens to play out that you were wrong, with your "A" score in physics, you will have to admit that you were served by a stupid weldor. This tickles me immensely. You should really think about these things before you run your mouth and before you argue with someone that has nothing to lose. ;)

ljb5
11-25-2007, 08:27 PM
Must be a real guy if Dr. Moore is using the quote in a letter. Or the letter is a forgery?

Damn, jim, you are stoooopid! First the OISM, then an unverifiable quote --- and now a fake letter? Don't you ever get tired of losing?

The letter isn't a forgery -- but it wasn't written by Patrick Moore.

The letter appears on the ABD webpage (http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/338.htm) and was written by the ABD.

The very last paragraph is a quote (out of context, of course) from Mr. Moore -- but the letter itself was not written by him.

The ABD is a funny group of course -- self-styled consumer advocates for the British auto driver. Not exactly the AAA, to say the least. Certainly not a research institute. Very political. Not unbiased at all.

Patrick Moore is an interesting character. The "Dr." is honorary, not earned. He's not really a founding member of Greenpeace -- and he now works for the logging, mining and chemical industry.

I still can't find any verification of the Benedict quote.

Can you?

Why can't you just post simple, verifiable quotes from mainstream sources? And how come you never admit when you're wrong?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Next time, do your own damn research before you post -- it'll stop you from looking like such an idiot.

ljb5
11-25-2007, 08:59 PM
If it happens to play out that you were wrong, with your "A" score in physics, you will have to admit that you were served by a stupid weldor.

Yeah, and if you manage to run a marathon in less than two hours, you'll get the world record --- but that's a rather big "IF"!

Think about it for a second --- I've got about 99% of the world's scientists on my side --- including your hero Christopher Landsea. I've got Harvard and Yale and NASA and NOAA and the APS and the AAAS....

You've got what? Crawdaddyjim and two researchers from Irkutsk who no one has ever heard of? A non-existent research institute in a converted barn in central Oregon led by a paranoid-delusional crackpot?

Yeah, I'll take my chances, thanks. :D

pipefitter
11-25-2007, 09:35 PM
Nice try again. The Landsea statements were to point out about the politics vs. the science, which never would have needed to be said and about how this issue was being presented to the media and then reported to the public as such. Also included in the Landsea resignation letter, which I clarified yet again about my stance in a nutshell and about the "science" being settled . . .



"It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science"

The IPCC report and Al Gore's movie don't leave any room for "robust" debate. The debates have to take place outside of that. Now why did Landsea resign again? If the science was settled, he would have been fine and well just to reside within the panel and let it take it's course. There is a lot going outside of Al Gore and the IPCC to keep the science of global warming or even paleoclimatology at the very least, compelling.

ljb5
11-25-2007, 10:00 PM
There is a lot going outside of Al Gore and the IPCC to keep the science of global warming or even paleoclimatology at the very least, compelling.


No $hit, dude... which is why I encourage you (again), to get off your lazy ass and start reading some of the real research.

(Or, since you think your ideas are valid, you could even do some of the research yourself. :D :rolleyes:)

For some strange reason, you keep talking about the IPCC and Al Gore as if that is all there is --- and as if you could disprove all of science simply by complaining about Al Gore.

Like I said a million times: Al Gore is just the spokesman, not the core, not the messiah. You can't disprove global warming by arguing against Al Gore. The IPCC is not the be-all, end-all -- it's just the foremost authority. (Something which your side doesn't have. :rolleyes:)

Perhaps, you'd be more willing to accept the science if Dick Cheney was the spokesman ---- but for some strange reason, Dick Cheney didn't step to the front of the line.

Heck, I don't need Al Gore to prove my point. I don't need the IPCC . I could prove my point with any dickhead as a spokesman.

I doesn't matter to me if Al Gore is political or if the IPCC is poltical --- the facts are the facts are the facts, and that doesn't change.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

It would be refreshing if you could clearly state your objections to global warming theory without talking about anything irrelevant, such as Al Gore, or Landsea's personal feelings about the IPCC, or the fact that Bush censored the CDC report or anything relating to your decisions about real estate in Florida.

Nothing but facts and science, would be nice. :)

pipefitter
11-25-2007, 11:24 PM
You're so full of crap. You were the one who boldly stated you had all you needed contained within the IPCC report. Now all of a sudden you have evolved your stance to say to include all of the science? Where have we heard this before? Talk about liars. A long time ago I even clarified for the sake of speculation and brought up some studies by credited climatologists to the contrary. I even said that's all fine and well if what you believe within the IPCC report is good enough for you. You are so used to taking a combative stance here on all issues you partake here in the bilge you can't remove your bias. Then to try to save face, you drop f-bombs and call names which would get other members banned. Just like your extreme and politically twisted view on everything as a whole, just proves my point further about this topic. It's unfortunate you are so disabled due to your current dislikes of the current administration that fuels every spite filled hatred towards others and lack communication or social skills in which to make a point. You really need to rise above that if you expect anyone to take you seriously. I gave you facts about climate modeling. I chose something that has been claimed and disclaimed in the short term. You twisted it to something irrelevant and had no facts of your own. Again, Landsea's resignation may have been personal but his facts on the study of hurricanes stands as facts and as the underlying and credible reason to his resignation.
I had once used the satellite readings of the troposphere discrepancies as an argument and asked why. At the time, there was no answer as to why. It has since been resolved and they more closely match the temps of the surface. I found out why all by myself, ljb. This is why I am still learning because the BS associated with the report has compelled me to look at the whole picture.

"It would be refreshing if you could clearly state your objections to global warming theory without talking about anything irrelevant, such as Al Gore, or Landsea's personal feelings about the IPCC, or the fact that Bush censored the CDC report or anything relating to your decisions about real estate in Florida."
Quit twisting my words. I have no objections to global warming "theory". How is "theory" the same as saying the "science is settled" to which I do have an objection to? Do you know what theory means? Here, I am going to drop this now and let you have the last word. This is really what it's all about,isn't it?

WX
11-26-2007, 01:42 AM
I've read some rubbish before but some of this really takes the cake.
1. The Planet is warming.
2. All the major glaciers across the Planet are melting at accelerating rates. They are not simply calving into the ocean as they have been doing for the last umpteen years...They are retreating...FACT.
3. Yes the Planet has warmed before, for example around 800 AD. It also did a big warm about 12,000 years ago...ocean levels increased by over 50 metres!
4. If you don't believe the Planet is getting warmer, talk the vege gardeners in Greenland...it's a well known fact that Lettuce doesn't like frost. It seems to be growing very well in Greenland and in the open.
5. More on 3. The Earth warms and cools naturally, the big difference here is the level of CO2. It is considerably higher than in previous GW events. So where is it coming from? Well have you considered the billions and billions of tonnes Humans have been happily pumping into the atmosphere.
6. Polar Bears eat seals, which they hunt on the pack ice but there is not a lot of pack ice about. So Polar Bears are having to swim out to the icefloes in the hope of finding seals there...up to sixty miles out.Not many seals about though unfortunately. Polar bears need to eat so now more and more are hanging around Human settlements.
This is not rocket science, the effects are observable.

ljb5
11-26-2007, 08:15 AM
You're so full of crap. You were the one who boldly stated you had all you needed contained within the IPCC report. Now all of a sudden you have evolved your stance to say to include all of the science?

Well, yes... The IPCC report contains pretty much all of the relevant data. Also, the reports outside of the IPCC report also contain pretty much all of the relevant data. It should not surprise you to learn that they both agree with each other -- and with me.

I really don't care if you use the IPCC report or all other reports. Pretty much all the facts are on my side. :D

I said the IPCC report would be a good place for you to start so you could get a basic overview of the theory and the evidence.

Most of the objections you raise have already been addressed in the IPCC report. (The issue of solar forcing, for example. You acted like you had discovered some new phenomenon, but (of course), this was already well known to the scientific community.)

There's no reason for you to try to confront the really complex stuff since you can't even figure out the really basic stuff.


Landsea's resignation may have been personal but his facts on the study of hurricanes stands as facts...

I'm glad you agree.


"We certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming"

--Christopher Landsea