# GLOBAL WARMING IS HERE!!!



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

https://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx...MPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Are you being sarcastic? Because in fact, unseasonable snow is a symptom of global warming. Haven't you seen _The Day After Tomorrow_?


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Are you being sarcastic? Because in fact, unseasonable snow is a symptom of global warming. Haven't you seen _The Day After Tomorrow_?


 Of course I did. You didn't actually buy in, did you? I've always thot you were pretty darned sharp JLP, despite our political differences. 20 years ago the battle cry was "global cooling"... then it was "global warming"... then when none of it panned out, they came up with "global climate change" just to make sure their bases were covered!! I find it humorous, at best. I would think that you would as well!


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

From the article: "March is typically the snowiest month of the year in Colorado." But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of trying to discredit science.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I was being a little (intentionally) ironical using a blockbuster film as a reference citation, especially one with so many scientific inaccuracies as that one. However, do you seriously think that global warming is a myth?


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Hmm. Well, yeah, pretty much. At the very least, I think that the notion that it is a man-made phenomenon is utterly unprovable. (Is that a word? Sorry. Too much cabernet this eve.) There have been cycles of weather throughout the history of the earth. Unfortunately, it hasn't been measured for too terribly long. But there are just as many legimate, credible scientist/climatologists who state that it is just as likely another clyclical phenomenon as it is anything else. Everyone knows that one little afternoon hiccup by Mt. Pinatubo does more damage (1000x) to the ozone by way of CFCs that all the damage manufactured by all the evil corporations in the history of the earth. Volcanoes have been doing this for 4 billion years. We still have a healthy ozone layer!? OK, perhaps there has been a temporary depletion in the 6%ish range. But to blame it on humans is just arrogant. I only WISH we were that powerful.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> From the article: "March is typically the snowiest month of the year in Colorado." But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of trying to discredit science.


Yes, as a Coloradan I can confirm this. I've seen my share of March blizzards.

Thunderstorms are also common late on summer afternoons.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> Yes, as a Coloradan I can confirm this. I've seen my share of March blizzards.
> 
> Thunderstorms are also common late on summer afternoons.


VS:

As an Iowan I've seen those thunderstorms as well: golf ball sized hail, waterspouts out on the lake, and one where the pressure dropped so fast that plate glass shop windows buckled and broke. They're absolutely amazing.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Ultimately it doesn't matter what the skeptics think, since the arctic ice sheets and glaciers everywhere have been proven to be melting at a very high rate, and once all that frozen water is back to being liquid water, then we are all truly screwed.

DocD


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

All very good points, see also:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Trees cause smog, wolves are wiping out our domesticated ( read stupid) and game animals, Pelicans, sea otters, pinnepeds are destroying the fisheries and the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs is natural. But hey, why worry? just join Bush and his endtimes religous fanatics and oil buddies in a chorus of 'God loves me but he can't stand you' by the Austin Lounge Lizards. I just hope this medium somehow proves more permanent than DVDs, VHS tapes, vinal LPs, Brownie cameras, pictographs, pectographs and intaglios. Our children and grandchildren are going to inherit a world of wounds and empty holes. Please, if you think we can continue to live life in the fast lane in a big fin Cadillac of consumerism and economic growth based on the philosophy of the cancer cell LEAVE THEM A RECORD of your altruistic, Alfred E. Newman 'What me Worry' hubris. Me? I can only reference a tome titled A FIELD GUIDE TO MONKEYWRENCHING 3rd Edition. EARTH FIRST!


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

If anyone really wants to talk intelligently about the subject instead of just spouting rhetoric and toeing the party lines, there are several points that should be made.

First, proof and absolutes very seldom exist outside of mathematics. In scientific analysis of complex systems, they are virtually non-existent. Too many of the scientists who espouse man as the primary culprit in "global warming" talk about these things as if they are facts. The "proof" that they invariably use is based on computer models which are vastly simplified when you take into account the almost infinite amounts of variables that exist in the global climate systems. These models are also programmed by people with agendas, and computer models are more susceptible to human bias than is physical testing. Garbage in Garbage out.

Secondly, the climate records used by these scientists are incredibly speculative and in most cases based on extrapolations from very limited data. A lot of leading climatologists question whether we are capable of getting accurate global temperature readings today much less over the last 100 years. Imagine how complete the temperature records are for sub-saharan Africa in the 40s and 50s. Not to mention that virtually all of the temperature readings through the early part of the 20th century are from land temperature readings. Since 70% of the earth is covered in water, land temperatures can hardly give us an accurate GLOBAL reading. As another example, you will find that the IPCC uses the Mann temperature estimates almost exclusively and these estimates are almost entirely based on NORTH AMERICAN tree ring data. In his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist", Bjorn Lomburg questions whether this could even provide an accurate hemispherical estimate much less a global one.

In addition, none of the global warming scientists seem to be able to provide a reason for the drop in the early 40s that is followed by very stable temperatures until the 80s (Mann Estimates). There was certainly plenty of man-made CO2 being released into the air at that time.

RE: the Ice sheets

Though there are obviously some places on the ice sheet that have receded recently, this does not necesarily meann that ocean levels will rise. The Earth's climate is pretty good at self regulation. Precipitation has actually increased over the ice caps and this has caused *thickening* of large parts of the West Antarctic ice caps over the last 30 years. Despite all the press about the Larson ice shelf, the truth of the matter is that sea ice has actually expanded around the southernmost continent since 1980 (Source: Dr. John R Cristy, State Climatologist of Alabama and lead Author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

In general, don't believe the hype. If you really feel that global warming is real and is mostly caused by man's development, I would suggest you research the methodology of those who claim it as fact. You will find it sorely lacking and reeking of hubris. No scientist has the means or the knowledge necessary to assign causal relationships in what may or may not be a warming period in the Earth's climate. Ocean levels rise and fall as do temperatures and all without the help of man.

Lastly, the "end times" scenarios put forth by the eco-scientists always assume horrible outcomes. The Earth has in the past had much warmer global climate than we have now. Looking at the fossil records of these times, one can reasonably expect that this warming will bring longer growing seasons and larger areas of land on which life can flourish, not death and destruction and the end to life as we know it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

A little info about who thinks that "Global Warming" lacks credible evidence.

_First, does this statement really say much? How much warming are humans responsible for? 1 degree? 3 degrees? 10 degrees? Second, media reports said the White House took out a reference to a graph showing the 20th century as the warmest on record. This graph, called the hockey stick, provides the scientific basis for the Kyoto Protocol and international climate negotiations. Is it credible? Does it command consensus?

Just ask the 4,000 scientists from 106 countries who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which includes 72 Nobel Prize winners. The appeal warns industrialized nations that no compelling scientific consensus exists to justify mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts.
What about the Oregon Petition (https://www.oism.org/pproject/), sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, former past president of the National Academy of Sciences? It has over 17,000 independently verified signatures from scientists. It reads, in part:

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

Or, what about the 46 climate scientists who sent a letter, printed in the June 3 edition of Canada's National Post, to a Canadian member of Parliament, questioning the theory that mankind is responsible for global warming? According to the signatories, the Kyoto Protocol "lacks credible science." Moreover, "Many climate science experts from Canada and around the world, while still strongly supporting environmental protection, equally strongly disagree with the scientific rationale for the Kyoto Accord."

What do state climatologists say? According to a survey of state climatologists by Citizens for a Sound Economy, 58 percent surveyed said they disagreed with the claim that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real" and with the statement that "there is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the global climate." Only 36 percent of the climatologists agreed with the assertion.

The National Academy of Sciences also doesn't see consensus. As it wrote in 2001: "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes in the 20th Century cannot be unequivocally established."_ 
Source:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

So you see kids, global warming will benefit us all: longer growing seasons, more beachfront property, fewer icebergs to sink great ocean liners like the Titanic, not to mention the sea swallowing up that liberal island of the damned, Nantucket. 

All of the scientists Badrabbit cites are pure as the driven snow (soon to be pure as the driven rain) with only the interests of science at heart, while all of the scientists he disagrees with are craven tools of the environmental progaganda machine.

Don't forget your sunscreen!


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

There is plenty of evidence that humans can and do have a significant impact on the natural environment. In some cases these impacts have resulted in negative effects on humans themselves. Easter Island is the best example; Ronald Wright in _A Short History Of Progress_ does a good job of explaining how things went horribly wrong and how the policies pursued by short-sighted humans snowballed their problems and resulted in (basically) mass suicide.

Who cares? Not me really--I don't have any kids. But if I did have kids, I'd be a bit worried. What if global warming really is happening? Do we just say to our kids, in 2050, "Sorry, kids, but that's your problem."

DocD


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Did anyone catch the recent 60 Minutes episode? Somehow scientists tasked with this question by PRESIDENT REAGAN and their highly respected peers 'have agendas.' The countless petrochemical executives, including many appointed to key environmental government positions somehow are the same altruistic friends at the gas pump. What happened to all those technological breakthroughs Bush hinted at in his recent state of the union? Last time I heard of such talk it was german wunder weapons while the russians approached Berlin. This is not, should not be a issue of politics or philosophy. Republican contractors with flagdecals and I HATE HILARY bumperstickers on the SUV they carry building supplies in cannot work on a dead or crippled planet. I work to save this, our one and only home even for them. That nature somehow balances out is a specious argument. Yes, Nature does balance. And if the causes of that imbalance gets in the way she is known to eliminate it. We are still subject to extinction like any other Tyrannosaurus Rex or Cambrian alpha predator burrowing in the primordial ooze..


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> So you see kids, global warming will benefit us all: longer growing seasons, more beachfront property, fewer icebergs to sink great ocean liners like the Titanic, not to mention the sea swallowing up that liberal island of the damned, Nantucket.
> 
> ...


So Bosthist, you ever heard the one about the pot and the kettle?

As for the agendas of the scientists I quoted, Bjorn Lomburg was a Greenpeace member (and an expert in quantitative methods) who decided to put his own beliefs to the test. Dr. John Cristy was well respected enough to be made the lead author on the UN panel and has received a NASA medal for his research. Dr. Frederick Seitz is the former president of the National Academy of Sciences and to the best of my knowledge approached the research on his own and not at the behest of any special interest. The environmental scientists OTOH could certainly not boast anything approaching neutrality as they are mostly funded by environmental groups or they have careers that are completely based on their theories of global warming.

Kav,

Frankly, you sound like one of the proponents of Erlich only this time you are probably covered from the embarassment of being proven wrong since this group of doomsayers has set their prediction far enough in the future that most of their predictions will not be proven wrong until they and their supporters are dead.

If you will read, I never once said that man is not responsible for part of the warming trend (if there is one). I said there was not credible evidence to that effect. I don't speak in absolutes when discussing science unlike your global warming gurus. I understand that statements like "Global Warming is a fact" are ludicrous and greatly overstate the amount of certainty that the evidence is capable of providing. In addition, notice that the scientists I quoted sound like scientists, saying things like "there is no compelling evidence" or "there is not a consensus". This is how good scientists present arguments.

Furthermore, it is immoral to back the Kyoto accord. It purposely retards growth and therefore limits the amount of aid that will go to actual people who are living today instead concentrating efforts on hypothetically saving some people who hypothetically will live in the future. Do you care about saving people in Africa? Are you willing to let them die because you believe in a few computer models?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## tck13 (Nov 4, 2005)

The amount of â€œdamageâ€ (or what some consider damage) done to the environment by mankind since the industrial revolution is well documented and proven. What it will do to the planet (global warming, ice cap meltingâ€¦) are obviously up in the air as no one can predict the future or the effects of our current consumption. It seems ignorant to think that there will be no consequences to mankind (or the planet) if the current rates of consumption of natural resources are upheld.

I donâ€™t see the connection between the not signing the Kyoto Accord and therefore helping people in Africa survive?


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I haven't heard the one about the pot and the kettle. Perhaps you'd like to explain it to me?

As usual, you miss the point completely. What I'm saying is that it is a stupid ****ing argument. It can't be proved one way or the other, but trying to say that global warming is somehow a benefit strikes me as far fetched, which was the sum and substance of my post, other than to note that all of the people you cite aren't exactly disinterested parties. It's the old "my experts can beat up your experts" argument. You yourself show your own biases: Kyoto is "immoral" because it frustrates the workings of the free market.

But don't let that stop you from ascribing a set of beliefs to me: how on earth would you know if I have global warming guru? I sound like a proponent of Ehrlich? How, exactly? Did I say that you said that man isn't responsible for global warming? My post says nothing about the truth or falsity of the claims of global warming and its causes. Still, the personal attacks are to be expected and setting up strawmen so you can further your own views seems to be the typical mode of argument out here on AAAC.

Thank you for your lecture.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's your sarcastic and vacant posts that draw the personal attacks. You choose to attack others positions without stating one of your own so the only reasonable assumption is that you disagree with the original argument. Frankly, if you wish to avoid people lashing out at you, you should probably keep your comments to something substantive instead of throwing arrogant and taunting shots at other posters.

I will give you that somewhere in that last post (starting at the Ehrlich comment) I actually was replying to Kav's comments and not yours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by tck13_
> 
> I donâ€™t see the connection between the not signing the Kyoto Accord and therefore helping people in Africa survive?


Aid to developing countries comes from the richer countries. The Kyoto Accord purposefully retards GDP growth of the developed nations. This reduces the amount of aid that they are capable or willing to give to the developing countries because they have less to spend.

The point is that most people who support the Kyoto Accord also are calling for more aid to Africa. You can't reduce the amount of money that the richer countries have while asking them to give more. It will not happen. The best thing for mankind is to produce more wealth which can fund more technology which in turn will provide the means to eliminate carbon production. In addition, it is new technologies that have enabled poorer countries to feed themselves (e.g. the Green Revolution in India). These technologies require money to succeed. Purposely reducing the wealth of the world reduces the amount of research that can be done and effectively reduces quality of life for everyone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> It's your sarcastic and vacant posts that draw the personal attacks. You choose to attack others positions without stating one of your own so the only reasonable assumption is that you disagree with the original argument. Frankly, if you wish to avoid people lashing out at you, you should probably keep your comments to something substantive instead of throwing arrogant and taunting shots at other posters.
> 
> I will give you that somewhere in that last post (starting at the Erlich comment) I actually was replying to Kav's comments and not yours.


Ah, so my posts are now sarcastic and vacant just because I don't choose to wade into a stupid argument except to note that (1) I am skeptical of the alleged benefits of global warming and (2) wanted to point out that just because you say your scientists are superior doesn't make it so. I think my position is quite clear on those two subjects from my original post.

I said nothing about the cause of global warming or the veracity of the claims that it is happening. In fact, I chose my areas of disagreement very carefully and narrowly, because I have neither the time nor the inclination to become an expert on the subject. I simply think it is far fetched to seriously claim that global warming will be a net benefit while maintaining that it is impossible to measure the harm it might cause.

I don't really care if people lash out at me or not. I simply consider the source and judge accordingly. I'm sorry you feel that I've taunted you by disagreeing with a small part of your argument through the use of sarcasm. I will be more careful in the future.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

As for the evidence to support the benefits of global warming, here it is.

https://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf

But I do want to point out that I said "one could resonably expect". I did not say that this was definite. Again, this is unlike the global warming scientists who insist that they can predict the catastrophes that they say will inevitably happen if something isn't done.

My local weatherman can't even tell me what the weather is going to be like 20 days from now. For anyone to claim that they know for a fact what changes in our atmospheric conditions will cause 50 or 100 years from now is ridiculous.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

I find it amusing that some criticize scientists who find no defninitive correlation between human activity and climate change as "stooges of industry", or some variation thereof.

Consider this scenario. Two scientists are studying global climate change at two different universities, where these scientists seem to like to congregate.

Scientist A finds that climate change is random or is caused by global climate cycles.

Scientist B finds that climage change is probably due to something humans are doing, and if not stopped, will radically alter the climate of the world for the worse.

Guess who gets the next NSF grant for more research?


Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## tck13 (Nov 4, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess I disagree with this point.

Even if vehicles use less fuel, oil companies can charge the same price and still pump less oil and make oil reserves last longer while preserving future land labeled for drilling for oil.
We wouldnâ€™t be taking away $ from other countries. We would have just as much to give.
Why push for more gas guzzling cars? It just adds to pollution plus, efficient usage means more profit in the long run because it reduces current energy costs in addition to more fuel for developing countries and developing different energy sources.
That is where the oil companies miss the point. Shortsightedness (big profit now) is only going to hurt them in the long run.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by tck13_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No proponent of the Kyoto Accord thinks that it is possible to implement without a retardation of GDP in the signing countries. This is not a point to argue because everyone agrees that there will be less money in the richer countries than there would be without the accord (the environmentalists have long suggested that man should intentionally reduce the growth of wealth in order to reduce damage to the environment). These policies do harm growth and thus GDP. Oil and Automakers are not the only ones affected by the terms either. The terms would affect nearly every industry either directly or indirectly though higher prices and reduced profit margins.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## tck13 (Nov 4, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But people have less money now, and will continue to have less to spend as oil prices go higher. I've never heard this argument before. Not trying to start an argument, just never heard of it.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by tck13_
> 
> But people have less money now, and will continue to have less to spend as oil prices go higher. I've never heard this argument before. Not trying to start an argument, just never heard of it.


They would have even less if all industries were regulated more stringently and some industries were actually required to reduce production in order to stay below standards. There would be higher prices on almost all industrial products. The effect of current oil prices would pale in comparison to the inflationary effects of the terms of the accord. Not only would prices of nearly all products rise but there would be less production overall. This would lead to higher unemployment and further drain of government and private resources. The aid to developing nations would certainly be affected as the reduction of foreign aid is the first suggestion of the populace when the domestic economy suffers. Politicians can cut foreign aid without much backlash from the voters and private companies can reduce foreign aid and charitable donations without even a peep from their stockholders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:They *would *have even less if all industries were regulated more stringently and some industries were actually required to reduce production in order to stay below standards. There *would* be higher prices on almost all industrial products. The effect of current oil prices *would pale* in comparison to the inflationary effects of the terms of the accord. Not only *would* prices of nearly all products rise but there *would* be less production overall. This *would* lead to higher unemployment and further drain of government and private resources. The aid to *developing nations *would certainly* be affected as the reduction of foreign aid is the first suggestion of the populace when the domestic economy suffers.


Is this the same Badrabbit who also said:



> quote:First, proof and absolutes very seldom exist outside of mathematics.


and


> quote:In addition, *none* of the global warming scientists seem to be able to provide a reason for the drop in the early 40s that is followed by very stable temperatures until the 80s (Mann Estimates). There was *certainly* plenty of man-made CO2 being released into the air at that time.


 [?]

By the way, what's a 'global warming scientist'? Perhaps you refer to the fellows over at the UK Meteorological Institute who helped create this:

or those who compiled this:

or this:

or those frothing-mouthed extremists over at NOAA (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration):

or the notorious hype-spewers at the NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory:



> quote:Just ask the 4,000 scientists from 106 countries who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which includes 72 Nobel Prize winners. *The appeal warns industrialized nations that no compelling scientific consensus exists to justify mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts.*


This is a common lie issued by global-warming deniers. Let's examine the full text of the Heidelberg Appeal:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*The Heidelberg Appeal*

'*We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.*

We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.

We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse. *We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved.*

But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions.

We stress that many essential human activities are carried out either by manipulating hazardous substances or in their proximity, and that progress and development have always involved increasing control over hostile forces, to the benefit of mankind.

We therefore consider that scientific ecology is no more than extension of this continual progress toward the improved life of
future generations.

*We intend to assert science's responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.*

*We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data.*

*We draw everybody's attention to the absolute necessity of helping poor countries attain a level of sustainable development which matches that of the rest of the planet, protecting them from troubles and dangers stemming from developed nations, and avoiding their entanglement in a web of unrealistic obligations which would compromise both their independence and their dignity.*

The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry, whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by Humanity, by itself and for itself, overcoming major problems like overpopulation, starvation and worldwide diseases.'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hardly a document which attempts to debunk the science of global warming. In fact, many of the signators of the above statement - including 49 of the 71 Nobel Laureates you mention - were ALSO among the 1,700 leading world scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning To Humanity", which says:

'Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, *and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know.* Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.'

and:

'The environment is suffering critical stress...*Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life -- coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change* -- could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand. Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threats.'

and:

'We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated. *We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. *Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to Third World needs -- small-scale and relatively easy to implement.'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Both of these statements were issued the same year (1992), but if you want to really see a consensus of Nobel Laureates, we must fast-forward to December, 1997. Then we find the strongly-worded 'A Call for Action', signed by 110 Nobel Laureates, 60 US National Medal of Science Winners, and overall more than 1,500 distinguished scientists from 63 countries. It says, in part:

'We, the signers of this declaration, urge all government leaders to demonstrate a new commitment to protecting the global environment for future generations. *The important first step is to join in completing a strong and meaningful Climate Treaty at Kyoto. WE ENCOURAGE SCIENTISTS AND CITIZENS AROUND THE WORLD TO HOLD THEIR LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR ADDRESSING THE GLOBAL WARMING THREAT.*'

and:

'Predictions of global climatic change are becoming more confident. *A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now "a discernible human influence on global climate."*

and:

'Climate change is projected to raise sea levels, threatening populations and ecosystems in coastal regions. Warmer temperatures will lead to a more vigorous hydrologic cycle, increasing the prospects for more intense rainfall, floods, or droughts in some regions. Human health may be damaged by greater exposure to heat waves and droughts, and by encroachment of tropical diseases to higher latitudes. The developing world is especially vulnerable to damage from climatic disruption because it is already under great stress and has less capacity to adapt.'

Here are the Nobel Laureates who signed this:

Philip W. Anderson, USA. Physics 1977
* Kenneth J. Arrow, USA. Economics 1972
* Julius Axelrod, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1970
* David Baltimore, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Georg J. Bednorz, Switzerland. Physics 1987
* Baruj Benacerraf, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans A. Bethe, USA. Physics 1967
* J. Michael Bishop, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1989
* James W. Black, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Konrad E. Bloch, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1964
* Nicolaas Bloembergen, USA. Physics 1981
* Thomas R. Cech, USA. Chemistry 1989
* Stanley Cohen, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Elias James Corey, USA. Chemistry 1990
* John W. Cornforth, UK. Chemistry 1975
* James W. Cronin, USA. Physics 1980
* Paul J. Crutzen, Germany. Chemistry 1995
* Jean Dausset, France. Physiology/Medicine 1980
* Hans G. Dehmelt, USA. Physics 1989
* Johann Deisenhofer, USA. Chemistry 1988
* Peter C. Doherty, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1996
* Renato Dulbecco, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1975
* Christian R. de Duve, Belgium. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Manfred Eigen, Germany. Chemistry 1967
* Gertrude B. Elion, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1988
* Richard R. Ernst, Switzerland. Chemistry 1991
* Leo Esaki, Japan. Physics 1973
* Edmond H. Fischer, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Ernst Otto Fischer, Germany. Chemistry 1973
* Val L. Fitch, USA. Physics 1980
* Jerome I. Friedman, USA. Physics 1990
* Donald A. Glaser, USA. Physics 1960
* Sheldon L. Glashow, USA. Physics 1979
* Herbert A. Hauptman, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Dudley Herschbach, USA. Chemistry 1986
* Antony Hewish, UK. Physics 1974
* Roald Hoffmann, USA. Chemistry 1981
* Godfrey Hounsfield, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1979
* David H. Hubel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert Huber, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Jerome Karle, USA. Chemistry 1985
* Henry W. Kendall, USA. Physics 1990
* John Kendrew, UK. Chemistry 1962
* Klaus von Klitzing, Germany. Physics 1985
* Aaron Klug, UK. Chemistry 1982
* Arthur Kornberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1959
* Edwin G. Krebs, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1992
* Harold Kroto, UK. Chemistry 1996
* Leon M. Lederman, USA. Physics 1988
* David M. Lee, USA. Physics 1996
* Yuan T. Lee, Taiwan. Chemistry 1986
* Jean-Marie Lehn, France. Chemistry 1987
* Wassily Leontief, USA. Economics 1973
* Rita Levi-Montalcini, Italy. Physiology/Medicine 1986
* Edward B. Lewis, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* William N. Lipscomb, USA. Chemistry 1976
* Rudolph A. Marcus, USA. Chemistry 1992
* Simon van der Meer, Switzerland. Physics 1984
* R. Bruce Merrifield, USA. Chemistry 1984
* Hartmut Michel, Germany. Chemistry 1988
* Cesar Milstein, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1984
* Mario J. Molina, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Ben Mottelson, Denmark. Physics 1975
* Joseph E. Murray, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Daniel Nathans, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1978
* Louis Neel, France. Physics 1970
* Erwin Neher, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1991
* Marshall W. Nirenberg, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1968
* Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, Germany. Physiology/Medicine 1995
* Douglas D. Osheroff, USA. Physics 1996
* George E. Palade, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1974
* Max F. Perutz, UK. Chemistry 1962
* John Polanyi, Canada. Chemistry 1986
* Ilya Prigogine, Belgium. Chemistry 1977
* Norman F. Ramsey, USA. Physics 1989
* Burton Richter, USA. Physics 1976
* Richard J. Roberts, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1993
* Martin Rodbell, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1994
* Heinrich Rohrer, Switzerland. Physics 1986
* Joseph Rotblat, UK. Peace 1995
* F. Sherwood Rowland, USA. Chemistry 1995
* Bengt Samuelsson, Sweden. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Frederick Sanger, UK. Chemistry 1958, 1980
* Arthur L. Schawlow, USA. Physics 1981
* Glenn T. Seaborg, USA. Chemistry 1951
* Herbert A. Simon, USA. Economics 1978
* Richard E. Smalley, USA. Chemistry 1996
* Michael Smith, Canada. Chemistry 1993
* Jack Steinberger, Switzerland. Physics 1988
* Henry Taube, USA. Chemistry 1983
* Richard E. Taylor, USA. Physics 1990
* E. Donnall Thomas, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1990
* Samuel C. C. Ting, USA. Physics 1976
* James Tobin, USA. Economics 1981
* Susumu Tonegawa, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1987
* Charles H. Townes, USA. Physics 1964
* Desmond Tutu, South Africa. Peace 1984
* John Vane, UK. Physiology/Medicine 1982
* Thomas H. Weller, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1954
* Torsten N. Wiesel, USA. Physiology/Medicine 1981
* Robert W. Wilson, USA. Physics 1978
* Rolf M. Zinkernagel, Switzerland. Physiology/Medicine 1996

and Crafoord Laureates:

* Vladimir I. Arnold, France. Mathematics 1982
* Paul R. Ehrlich, USA. Biosciences 1990
* Daniel H. Janzen, USA. Biosciences 1990
* Eugene P. Odum, USA. Biosciences 1987
* Edward O. Wilson, USA. Biosciences 1990

and leaders of scientific organisations:

* Carlos Aguirre, President, Bolivian Academy of Sciences
* Jorge Eduardo Allende, Former President, Chilean Academy of Sciences
* A. Andreev, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Sir Michael Atiyah, Former President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Francisco J. Ayala, Former President, American Association for the Advancement of Science
* Carl Gustaf Bernhard, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Bert Bolin, Former Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Paulo C. Campos, Former President, Philippines National Academy of Science and Technology
* Carlos Chagas, Former President, Latin American Academy of Sciences
* Satish Dhawan, Former President, Indian Academy of Sciences
* Johanna Dobereiner, Vice-President, Brazilian Academy of Sciences
* Mahdi Elmandjra, Vice-President, African Academy of Sciences
* T. Geoffrey Flynn, Vice-President, Royal Society of Canada
* Fran?ois Gros, Permanent Secretary, French Academy of Sciences
* Lars Gyllensten, Former Chair, The Nobel Foundation
* Mohammed H. A. Hassan, Executive Director, Third World Academy of Sciences
* Robert Heap, Vice-President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Gunnar Hoppe, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Sir John Horlock, Vice-President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Carl-Olof Jacobsen, Former Secretary-General, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Alf Johnels, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Triloki Nath Khoshoo, Former President, Indian National Academy of Sciences
* Sir Aaron Klug, President, The Royal Society (UK)
* Gustavo Kouri, Vice-President, Cuban Academy of Sciences
* Torvard Laurent, Former President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* N. P. Laverov, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Jane Lubchenco, Chair, American Association for the Advancement of Science
* Digby McLaren, Former President, Royal Society of Canada
* Hubert Markl, President, Max Planck Society
* M. G. K. Menon, Former President, International Council of Scientific Unions
* G. A. Mesiatz, Vice-President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Harold A. Mooney, Secretary General, International Council of Scientific Unions
* Lawrence A. Mysak, Former President, Academy of Sciences of the Royal Society of Canada
* Jan S. Nilsson, President, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Erling Norrby, Secretary General, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Thomas Odhiambo, President, African Academy of Sciences
* Gideon Okelo, Secretary General, African Academy of Sciences
* Cyril Agodi Onwumechili, Former President, Nigerian Academy of Sciences
* Yuri S. Osipov, President, Russian Academy of Sciences
* Abed Peeraly, Vice-President, African Academy of Sciences
* Chintamani Rao, Vice-President, Third World Academy of Sciences
* Peter H. Raven, Home Secretary, US National Academy of Sciences
* R. S. Reneman, Chair, Science Division, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Igor Saavedra, Former President, Chilean Academy of Sciences
* Gian Tommaso Scarascia Mugnozza, Chair, Italian National Academy of Sciences
* Arun Kumar Sharma, Founding President, Federation of Asian Scientific Academies and Societies
* Jose Israel Vargas, President, Third World Academy of Sciences
* Henrik Wallgren, President, Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters
* Richard Willems, Vice-President, Estonian Academy of Sciences
* Dongsheng Yan, Senior Adviser, Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Guang-Zhao Zhou, President, Third World Academy of Sciences

As for your 'Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine' (which only has a single paid staff member and is not affiliated with any other organisation), I recommend reading the article at Source Watch:

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

In case you don't want to take the time to click that link, here is the first paragraph:

'The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126).'

[}] Remember your sunscreen! [}]


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

Way to vomit up a bunch of crap from Wikipedia. Hardly a neutral source and I am perfectly capable of doing a wiki search.

As for the rest of the charts, they aren't even labeled well enough to tell what they are measuring (by that I mean where they got the data from) nor do I have any information on the methodology involved. Posting a bunch of visuals without any context is a really big waste of bandwidth and nothing else.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:Way to vomit up a bunch of crap from Wikipedia. Hardly a neutral source.
> 
> As for the rest of the charts, they aren't even labeled well enough to tell what they are measuring (by that I mean where they got the data from) nor do I have any information on the methodology involved. Posting a bunch of visuals without any context is a really big waste of bandwidth and nothing else.


I accept this as a _prima facie_ concession of the argument. It's been a pleasure doing business with you.


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As for the Heidelburg Appeal, one of the things being discussed at the Earth Summit (where the appeal was developed) was global warming and this was one of the issues meant to be addressed by the appeal. They don't mention anything specific but this does not mean that specific issues were not intended to be addressed by it. I also would question whether you really believe that broad consensus is really there in the scientific community when 17000 scientists have signed the Petition Project.

You put up several charts with no information about how they were constucted and think you've made a case. I can not rebut your argument because it is incomplete and certainly falls short of prima facie. You have to be able to show methodology.

I will start with the last one. Since there is evidence I presented from Dr. Cristy that says that the ice caps have expanded since 1980 the assumption about this visual is that it is based on a computer simulation and not actual measurements of the ice caps. I have no way of knowing how they developed this visual. In addition, this only shows the northern ice cap. There have been many periods of time in which one cap has gotten bigger as the other receded. Since the southern cap (the one I referenced) is much larger, I would assume that it is the more important one to look at anyway.

As for the others, I have already covered that there are a great many scientists who doubt that anyone has the ablilty to get accurate global readings without assumptive extrapolation. These charts almost certainly used these techniques to come up with this data. Not knowing the exact methodology (since you didn't provide it) I can only make assumptions myself about how they came up with the data.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women thrive on novelty and are easy meat for the commerce of fashion. Men prefer old pipes and torn jackets. 
Anthony Burgess


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

Badrabbit:

Isn't trying to reason with the unreasonable (or jackasses) tiring? You're to be commended for keeping your cool.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> I accept this as a _prima facie_ concession of the argument. It's been a pleasure doing business with you.


I am not a climatologist (IANAC?) but I know a few things about statistical modelling, and finagaling graphs.

1. Most of the graphs aren't zeroed or have unequal axis, making a 5% shift in value full scale. BAD.

2. The data is unreferenced, and there is no margin of error indicated.

3. The chronolgy used seems arbitrary, with no signifigant points of reference. 1950 vs 2050? Why not 1900 vs 2000, or 1970 vs 2070?

4. If you are going to bring up two different sources, use the same data from either of them to reinforce your hypothesis. In climatology, however, this is notoriously difficult, as most data can vary quite a bit, depending on which models each researcher is using.

Check out the section on graphs here:

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Lets put the physical science aside and look at the alleged culprit, you and me, **** sapiens or 'wise man.' My degree, my avocation and sometime vocation is archaeology. Modern archaeology is nothing more than the anthropology of dead people and dead socieities and cultures. And there are a lot of dead out there. Why? We have this persistent habit of occupying specific niches and exploiting the various resources to full capacity and optimum population density. Then quite often the population will expand just beyond the maximum capacity or a calamity will strike. The result is always social collapse and the demise of that particular model of society. Perhaps the classic example is the Chaco Canyon complex with intricate irrigation systems. A severe drought led to the disastous period of internecine warfare and cannibalism over reduced resources popularly known as the Anasazi cliff dwellers ( think gated communities today.)We are now in a 'Global Economy' consuming resources at an exponential rate far beyond even the present population. It doesn't take a genius to see why water will be the liquid gold in another century, or read about collapsed fish stocks, the vulnerability of monoculture crops such as rice and wheat and corn where once these crops had literally thousands of local adapted strains along with thousands more other crops. Thats just food. Add massive soil erosion, the filth we return ( the greatest particulate matter by % in the world's oceans is now petrochemical trash- plastic) The orgy of clearcutting the tropical and temporate rainforests ( carbon sinks and themselves a major factor in creating a moist climate cycle) are just a few of the compounding crisis the world faces. So dispute global warming gentlemen. Mother Nature is about to sucker punch the human race for a score of grievances we have niether considered, nor taken responsibility for. Like betty davis said, "It's going to be a bumpy ride."


----------



## tck13 (Nov 4, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Badrabbit_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## chorse123 (Apr 14, 2004)

For anyone interested in this topic, I highly recommend the new book by Tim Flannery, called THE WEATHER MAKERS. It's been getting a lot of press in the US and is a bestseller in the UK and Australia. The author's going to be on Fresh Air today. Here's a quote on the book by Duke Energy CEO, Paul Anderson

â€œThe real message of The Weather Makers is not that global warming is real, although he does an outstanding job of explaining the science in a way that any of us can understand. The point that he drives home is that it is an issue that we must address today if we are going to avert cataclysmic changes that could affect us all by 2050. And as he points out in the introduction, 70 per cent of all people alive today will still be alive in 2050, so climate change affects almost every family on this planet. Energy CEOâ€™s and Environmental Scientists are not likely to agree on all aspects of an issue as complex as climate change. But there is one view in which Tim and I are in total agreementâ€”it is time to move from denial to action.â€ â€”Paul Anderson, Chairman and CEO, Duke Energy Corp. and Former Managing Director, BHP Billiton Ltd.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

I am a hydrogeologist, but I am also trained as a climatologist so I do have at least a little bit of knowledge on this issue.

There is absolutely no question that the earth's climate is warming. I try to look at the whole picture as much as possible, and in this case, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it has feathers, webfeet, and a bill like a duck, if it flys south int he winter and north in the spring, if it tastes like a duck, it is probably a duck, not an armadillo. 

In regards to the climate, the empirical data show a global warming climate with the temperature records from all over the world showing steadily increasing temperatures since the start of the industrial age. This trend is repeated in the climatological records that were independently collected in many places around the earth.

The mathematical models (which are not bogus statistical models by the way)also show this trend and also calibrate very well to historical data. Please note that part of the mathematical modeling process involves calibration and sensitivity analyses. This is done to help insure that the results are based on real world with the results beng based on causality in the real world, not just the numbers the modeler wants to see. Also, these models have been peer reviewed many times and are generally shown to be good. 

No reputable modeler will ever say that the model is 100% accurate and no one is saying that here. A big part of modeling is understanding uncertainty and that is also expressed in the more scientific papers published on these models.

It is interesting that when you look at all of the different climatological models, many based on different assumptions and mathematics, they show similar results in regards to the warming climate. Again, independent sources showing the same trends. 

Also, as the models improve (as we understand more of this) the new, improved models continue to show the same warming trends that appear to be associated with greenhouse gasses.

Seems pretty clear to me, and the effects on the earth are clearly occurring (including less maple syrup being produced here in VT and polar bears in teh artic being unable to hunt as well as when there was more ice).

By the way, when someone mentions an increase of snow to refute warming trends, they may not understand how weather works. In a very cold climate like the Antartic, the air is so cold, that it too dense to hold enough water vapor to make much snow. The Antartic is actually a desert. When temperatures warm up, the air is less dense and can hold more water vapor, thus more snow. In VT we usually get our biggest snowstorms early or late in the winter when it is warmer. You don't get a foot of snow when it is 20 below. 

Do we really want to take this chance? The environemntal devestation resulting will cause famine as we can no longer grow crops in areas we do now. While the oceans will not rise to cover the earth as in Noah's flood, an increase in water temperature caused by an increase in global temperature will cause tne water to expand, causing a rise in ocen levels that will very adversly effect places like Bangladesh were much of the country is in a delta that already floods every year and will be unlivable with only a small rise in ocean levels. Where will these people go, who will feed them, and what about wars that will start when mass migrations occurr?

We should take this seriously. Its not just a bunch of tree hugging luddites who are worried about this.

Michael








Michael


----------



## erasmus (Sep 26, 2004)

A couple of related links on global warming:




A certain amount of skepticism regarding data and methodology is healthy but I find the extreme version of it (even hostility) toward global warming to be baffling.

"Ease and grace in everything" - Gracian


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

MichaelS, a question: if the data consistently shows a steady _rise_ in temperature going all the way back to the beginning of the industrial age, why was I taught in 8th grade science class back in the 1970s that the world was gradually getting cooler? The teacher told us that we were in a natural cycle heading toward the next ice age, which accounted for the gradual lowering of temperatures. This was not a foible of my teacher's, either. It was a Newsweek cover story in 1975. Why would they have said this if the temperature data actually said otherwise?


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> MichaelS, a question: if the data consistently shows a steady _rise_ in temperature going all the way back to the beginning of the industrial age, why was I taught in 8th grade science class back in the 1970s that the world was gradually getting cooler? The teacher told us that we were in a natural cycle heading toward the next ice age, which accounted for the gradual lowering of temperatures. This was not a foible of my teacher's, either. It was a Newsweek cover story in 1975. Why would they have said this if the temperature data actually said otherwise?


I was taught this too...in the 1990s.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Eat no salt - no, salt's okay. Less fat - whoops, some fat's actually good. Lowering taxes increases revenues - that's a Laff. Aaaagh. We're all gonna die. If the neurotoxins in my childhood vaccines don't get me I'll drown when Connecticut is submerged or be killed by rampaging gangs of illegal immigrants storming higher ground and blahblahblahblahblah. Plus my boat (if I have one) will be leaky because it was made by Halliburton and I'll be able to sue except my lawyer in New York will be dead because of the greenhouse gases and the...

And what will the Dire Threat of the Month be for April?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> Eat no salt - no, salt's okay. Less fat - whoops, some fat's actually good. Lowering taxes increases revenues - that's a Laff. Aaaagh. We're all gonna die. If the neurotoxins in my childhood vaccines don't get me I'll drown when Connecticut is submerged or be killed by rampaging gangs of illegal immigrants storming higher ground and blahblahblahblahblah. Plus my boat (if I have one) will be leaky because it was made by Halliburton and I'll be able to sue except my lawyer in New York will be dead because of the greenhouse gases and the...
> 
> And what will the Dire Threat of the Month be for April?


 Patrick, did you give Kav your password or something?


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> MichaelS, a question: if the data consistently shows a steady _rise_ in temperature going all the way back to the beginning of the industrial age, why was I taught in 8th grade science class back in the 1970s that the world was gradually getting cooler? The teacher told us that we were in a natural cycle heading toward the next ice age, which accounted for the gradual lowering of temperatures. This was not a foible of my teacher's, either. It was a Newsweek cover story in 1975. Why would they have said this if the temperature data actually said otherwise?


I won't speak for the man, but I suspect he's talking about big trends -- macro level trends -- not minor year-over-year variations.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Doctor Damage_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well yes, certainly. But my middle school science teacher claimed to be talking about longterm, macro level trends too.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Many cultures talk of past or future worldwide disaster; The Great Flood of the old Testament, The twilight of the Gods, Hindu concepts of the eventual destruction of all creation etc. It's part of our deepest psyche. After all, humanity barely hung on in Europe during the Ice Age and for millenia it was touch and go just to survive. We may no longer depend on the sometimes arbitrary migrations of Caribou ( unless your a Guichim in ANWAR) and face possible starvation, but it's still a deep part of our makeup.The silly panic over Y2K ( how DID people EVER communicate or do business before computers?) The harmonic convergence of 9 planets, the dawning of the new millenium sent plenty of people scurrying for cover.Silly? yes, but we as a species are sentient beings who know ( at least those without the hubris of Mankind 'conquering Nature') that entire civilizations can wink out very rapidly and over seemingly stupid reasons. We are now a worldwide society in spite of our ancient penchance for waring on each other. That we are now capable of winking out the entire planet is merely a reflection of our increased capacity to act stupidly on a global instead of regional level.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Kav, that was...really good. As a species we probably _do have_ genetic memories of past disasters and near misses, even if we don't have a living memory of said disasters; we are after all animals and animals utilize senses that we've stopped listening to.

DocD


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by rojo_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well yes, certainly. But my middle school science teacher claimed to be talking about longterm, macro level trends too.
[/quote]

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this but I was out of town. I do remember the 1970â€™s great â€œcool downâ€ (I show my age here as I was in college then).

As stated above, in describing an upwards temp trend, yes I was looking at it in the macro scale. In the 1970â€™s, earth science generally looked more at the detailed, small scale picture. This could give rise to a belief that the climate was cooling. Since then we have learned a lot about the world and now earth science (and climatology) also tries to look at the larger picture (macro scale) and determine how things fit together. We look at the world more as a whole system with each part potentially affecting other parts.

â€œIt was a Newsweek cover story in 1975. Why would they have said this if the temperature data actually said otherwise?â€

Why? Because it was Newsweek and they did not study the science. The people (scientists) looking at the issue back then did not look at what we now consider to be true long term trends. As I say above, the science is changing and how we look at the world has really changed since the 70â€™s.

In general, the 1970â€™s cool down was really a small deflection (or noise) in the overall climate trend. It garnered a lot of attention then, but if you will remember, it did not last very long either. It was something that the news media latched onto, but there was not a lot of real science behind what was said in the magazines etc.

As to the idea of climatic â€œnoiseâ€, If you will look at actual daily temperature graphs compared to long term normals (30 year averages), you will see a lot of noise with daily temps well above and below the normal temp. (The normals are 30 yr. averages and we expect actual temps to vary quite a lot from the normals. There is also speculation among some climatologists that the 30 yr normals are too short of a time frame because of the noise). These graphs are often available on the weather page of your local newspaper.

In order to understand climatic trend, it is important to look at the macro scale. If you look at graphs of 30 yr normals, the warming is clearly evident as the normals get warmer over time. Also, yearly average temps show increasing temps but the graphs are not as smooth as the graphs of changing normals.

It is interesting to note that the Bush administration is finally stating that global warming is occurring. (They also state that we donâ€™t know why, and try to push that it might be a natural change instead of it being caused by anthropogenic activity).

I also really do not see many real climatology scientists state that global warming is not occurring. There are just too much empirical data supporting this â€œtheoryâ€ and the models are too convincing (and getting better every year).

There are a few â€œscientistsâ€ that dispute global warming, but if you look deeper than the surface, there are what appear to be other motives for their statements and often they are not climatologists. I do have to question the integrity of some of these â€œscientistsâ€.

In regards to your middle school teacher, please remember that it was a middle school teacher (probably with a BS degree in school science at most) teaching what he or she read in a national publication. I would guess that most middle school teachers now would teach global warming instead of cooling.

Michael


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

That liberal bastion, BusinessWeek, has joined the chorus praising the science and research on global warming presented in Tim Flannery's _The Weather Makers_.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0...f=pd_bbs_2/103-9611769-6428660?_encoding=UTF8

I suspect we'll live long enough to regret our excesses.

********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

From the Telegraph (UK):

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
(Filed: 09/04/2006)

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?

â€¢ Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion...0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Beresford_
> 
> From the Telegraph (UK):
> 
> ...


Without getting into a long computer debate over this (I type much too slowly, this discussion would be more fun in person over a few drinks), its not the recent 28 year period we should be concerned about, it is more the greater than 100 year trend of warming since the start of the industrial revolution that is truly worrisome. I do not think that this trend can really be de-bunked as it is prevalent in all the climatological records that we have available.

A brief note about paleo-climatology: This is a geological science and like all science, it is very subjective. The older the time period you are looking at gets, the more of a guess this science becomes. While we can get good records of climatological activity in ice cores (although with the ice melting so rapidly in Greenland, this may become difficult), when someone starts trying to explain a few degrees change in temperature trends over millions of years, we need to remember that the science is not accurate enough to actually discern the amount of temperature change in degrees, just relative trends. We really do not have enough fossil or sedimentation data from the last three million years to be accurate. (While three million years is very short in the geological time frame, it is still long enough for much of the sedimentary record to have been disturbed or destroyed therefore limiting us to general indications of temperature).

While I would love to go on and on, I do have to actually get some work done. One last thing though, I would argue that good scientifically justified research can always get published in refereed journals. Most scientists I know want to see well though out differing opinions. This is what makes science work and allows our view of the world to become more accurate. As to censorship, I do not think that scientists are censoring scientific work. I do think however, over the last few years we have been seeing our (the US) government pushing against well thought out and tested scientific theories in favor of saying repeatedly something to the effect: â€œwe just donâ€™t know so it canâ€™t be happeningâ€. Any dissent to this thought process by career scientists within the Government is quickly and soundly quashed.

MichaelS

Michael


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Just saw this sobering broadcast this evening:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

The news seems not good.

********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Lets face it, global warming is a fiction perpetuated by Bill and Hillary Clinton so they can force our industry to its knees, take over the US Government, and force us to submit to a world government dominated by the UN>[8D]

Michael


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Yeah, and Rush will still be saying that even as they strap him into his gamma suit.

Day of reckoning not so far off.



> quote:_Originally posted by MichaelS_
> 
> Lets face it, global warming is a fiction perpetuated by Bill and Hillary Clinton so they can force our industry to its knees, take over the US Government, and force us to submit to a world government dominated by the UN>[8D]
> 
> Michael


********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Full Canvas (Feb 16, 2006)

*More Thoughts On Global Warming*

"There's a simple fact we all ignore, just like we ignore the fact that war is in our genes and that our egos are gene-products. There have been 144 mass extinctions of species on this planet that we can count and probably many, many more that we can't count. There have been periods in which the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was 200 times what it is today. There have been ice ages and periods of flood that have turned the continents into marshes.

In other words, drastic change is nature's way of doing things . . . especially when it comes to weather. So we make a big mistake when we assume that by lowering our insignificant carbon emissions we are going to bring about climatic stability. The climate of this planet has very seldom been stable; it has dived and soared from cold to hot. So our task is to prepare for change. Change is what made us human to begin with. Your ancestors got you here by making it through over 20 ice ages."

*Howard Bloom* - speaking on _Coast to Coast AM_ 5/24/2006
https://www.howardbloom.net/
__________________________________

One other theory for the cause of Global Warming.








__________________________________


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

I find it hard to understand why people who do not have scientific backgrounds have what amounts to scientific opinions. Global warming is real, one can hide and think that it just nature being nature - and one would be right. The flaw in our leaders thoughts (and others of course) is failing to recognize that nature operates on a cause and effect mechanism, we cause the release of CO2 (burning fossil fuels) that has been "buried" for millions of years and throw it into the atmosphere (in what amounts to an insignificant amount of time), while nature does what it does with CO2 - stop the heat exiting (more specifically infrared and other electromagnetic radiation). I can get very technical about this but I doubt anyone is interested. 

Before anyone searches and finds some scientist that says Global Warming is BS, do a search for scientists that think it is real. A huge discrepency will be found in favor of the qualified people who think it is real. If you trust a scientist to come up with a MRI machine, a drug, a fast car (engineers), etc. Why do not trust him on the issue of Global Warming?

This should not be a political issue, unfortunatly it is.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

All past climate change occured because of nature. This episode is being caused by **** sapiens. Our hubris is that somehow we are immune to extinction. Ponder this, Our possible ancestor or close species neanderthal lasted through those periods of glaciation far longer than we have. I am nauseated by people who toss off mass extinctions caused by our activities as somehow natural. I encountered a horsiegirl, who, above the din of an American idol CD tossed out this smug excuse. I replied that horses survived ONLY because we found a use for them. I asked her if horses and not Tigers or snail darters were dying off if she would changer her opinion?


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

I just hope that in 20 years this site is still up and all you old guys are still alive so I can make fun of your Chicken Little acts. Someone's always saying the sky is falling and somehow it never does. Global Warming is a farce. The world may be warming, then again it may be cooling. Any scientist who says he can tell you for sure is lying. We don't have accurate enough data from the last hundred years to even determine if there is a trend much less claim to have understanding of the long term effects of this supposed trend on complex systems. For those of you who keep making statements about this theory as if it is fact, you just sound idiotic. Study the methodology and then tell us that you think that there is adequate proof. There isn't. The data isn't there. Not that it would matter if it was because we can't process that many unknown variables well enough to determine what the effects would be anyway.

Tell me this, do any of you have a weather man who can consistently tell you if it is going to rain 10 days from now? How accurate do you think a bunch of Greenpeace nerds are about what will happen if 50 years? As Flavor Flav says "Don't believe the hype!"


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

GT3 said:


> Before anyone searches and finds some scientist that says Global Warming is BS, do a search for scientists that think it is real. A huge discrepency will be found in favor of the qualified people who think it is real.


Science does not run on consensus. If it did we would still believe that the world is flat.

As for the two groups of scientists you've listed, you missed the ones that are of the greatest number. That is, the ones who say that no one has any idea what the trend is (because data for the last 100 years in not global or accurate and any extrapolations to fill in gaps make too many assumptions) or what the cause is if there is a trend. Many of the so-called detractors of Global Warming do not deny that it could be happening. They just insist that no one has enough information to insist that it is a fact. I personally never trust a scientist who says that any theory is fact. To do so ignores scientific method and is where the true hubris lies. It's the mark of a shoddy scientist.


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

Badrabbit said:


> I just hope that in 20 years this site is still up and all you old guys are still alive so I can make fun of your Chicken Little acts. Someone's always saying the sky is falling and somehow it never does. Global Warming is a farce. The world may be warming, then again it may be cooling. Any scientist who says he can tell you for sure is lying. We don't have accurate enough data from the last hundred years to even determine if there is a trend much less claim to have understanding of the long term effects of this supposed trend on complex systems. For those of you who keep making statements about this theory as if it is fact, you just sound idiotic. Study the methodology and then tell us that you think that there is adequate proof. There isn't. The data isn't there. Not that it would matter if it was because we can't process that many unknown variables well enough to determine what the effects would be anyway.
> 
> Tell me this, do any of you have a weather man who can consistently tell you if it is going to rain 10 days from now? How accurate do you think a bunch of Greenpeace nerds are about what will happen if 50 years? As Flavor Flav says "Don't believe the hype!"


Are you someone who understands climate patterns and ocean currents etc.? If you are how can you ignore the following data that has been compiled on the temperatures of the earth (. This data is real, I got my Ph.D. in chemistry from UCI and at the time when Sherry Rowland won the Nobel Prize for discovering the effects of CFC's on the ozone layer and we had countless lectures and statistical analysis regarding this matter and global warming.

Predicitions about the future can only be assessed in terms of averages. Mathematically this is not that hard to do. The average temperatures will rise and 20 years from now you will be having an even harder time breathing the hot and muggy Alabama air.

Somehow I doubt that you have an understanding of the scientific method and are bringing your conservative viewpoint into this argument (this is not about liberals versus conservatives, hell I am a staunch Republican but I don't believe the right's hype on this issue since NONE of their claims are substantiated scientifically).


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

GT3 said:


> Are you someone who understands climate patterns and ocean currents etc.? If you are how can you ignore the following data that has been compiled on the temperatures of the earth (. This data is real, I got my Ph.D. in chemistry from UCI and at the time when Sherry Rowland won the Nobel Prize for discovering the effects of CFC's on the ozone layer and we had countless lectures and statistical analysis regarding this matter and global warming.
> 
> Predicitions about the future can only be assessed in terms of averages. Mathematically this is not that hard to do. The average temperatures will rise and 20 years from now you will be having an even harder time breathing the hot and muggy Alabama air.
> 
> Somehow I doubt that you have an understanding of the scientific method and are bringing your conservative viewpoint into this argument (this is not about liberals versus conservatives, hell I am a staunch Republican but I don't believe the right's hype on this issue since NONE of their claims are substantiated scientifically).


My wasn't that a rude and insulting post. Question my understanding of the scientific method if you wish but if you really believe the scientists who have declared human caused global warming as fact really have enough information to make that claim, your degree should be revoked.

I have spoken with Dr John Christy about this issue and he agrees with me. I am pretty sure he understands climate patterns and ocean currents, you sanctimonious ass. https://epw.senate.gov/107th/chr_0502.htm

That said, I do have quite extensive experience with quantitative methods and have looked at the data. For one, there is no one on the earth that has a large enough sample of temperatures from the early part of last century to even estimate what the global averages were. Secondly, with millions of different variables affecting climate (and no way to institute controls on a vast enough scale), it is impossible that you can use the spotty data and assign causation. In addition to these problems there is also the effect of "urban heat islands." Their effects are only recently being factored in and the formulas to control for this localized effect are still being developed. There is some debate that not enough adjustment has been made for this phenomenon and that the temperature estimates are actually higher than they should be. This partially explains the huge difference between the slope of the surface temperature trend and the slope of the satellite trend.

If you want some dense data on the issue, I would suggest reading "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomburg. Statistically he proves that the amount of information needed to make statistically relevant assumptions and determinations are lacking in every part of the argument for global warming (both for the supposed trend and the causation of said supposed trend).

Oh and Bird Flu isn't going to kill everyone off either. That's hardly a political one so you can't really blame my ideology for me not getting worked up over that one either.

All these things are just ways for the government to take your liberties away (and your money).

*Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everything and everybody by the agencies of the central government. *
Aldous Huxley


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Given that we only have one planet allready battered by our gross negligence I opt for the 'precautionary principle' also eloquently expressed in the Iroquis Federation's 7 generation creed.Why can't we take a breather for a few generations at least, much like a fallow field on a global scale? Whats the rush to 'develop' the last wild place and extract the last penny from the ground? If anyone is arrogant it's self indulgent fools who think this is a never ending new years party with no tommorow. Personally, I do my talking with a monkeywrench. EARTH FIRST! Anybody have a major malfunction of their fundament over that one can discuss it mano a mano in your dark alley of choice. Talk is cheap, online and off. I prefer to walk my walk.


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

> My wasn't that a rude and insulting post. Question my understanding of the scientific method if you wish but if you really believe the scientists who have declared human caused global warming as fact really have enough information to make that claim, your degree should be revoked.


I really did not mean to be rude or insulting! But I guess as the stereotype goes you southern boys are easily offended. Furthermore no (self respecting) scientist will ever claim anything as fact, and of course neither have I. I merely stated that Global Warming is real, that is the temperatures have increased.



> I have spoken with Dr John Christy about this issue and he agrees with me. I am pretty sure he understands climate patterns and ocean currents, you sanctimonious ass. https://epw.senate.gov/107th/chr_0502.htm


Yeah, I know of Christy. He is well respected in his community, but that does not mean he is right. (A famous physicist never accepted quantum mechanics saying that "God does not play dice," yet most of the microtechnologies that run the very thing you are typing on as well as numerous other machines and devices have come about because of quantum theory - Yes he was none other than Albert Einstein, sorry I did not mean to be sanctimonious).

Even Christy has recently said in a NPR interview - "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn't been increased in the past century."

Greenhouse gases include CO2. And I am glad he agrees with you, I am sure you sleep better at nights.



> That said, I do have quite extensive experience with quantitative methods and have looked at the data. For one, there is no one on the earth that has a large enough sample of temperatures from the early part of last century to even estimate what the global averages were. Secondly, with millions of different variables affecting climate (and no way to institute controls on a vast enough scale), it is impossible that you can use the spotty data and assign causation. In addition to these problems there is also the effect of "urban heat islands." Their effects are only recently being factored in and the formulas to control for this localized effect are still being developed. There is some debate that not enough adjustment has been made for this phenomenon and that the temperature estimates are actually higher than they should be. This partially explains the huge difference between the slope of the surface temperature trend and the slope of the satellite trend.


The only thing that matters is greenhouse gases at this point in time (because that is all we can control). And we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a much higher rate than we can ever recycle it (photosynthesis). Carbon dioxide has a huge specific heat constant for a gas, it will stay and reflect the heat back down to earth (it is like ping pong where the ball is heat). FYI, this is the only data that I consider (it may be too simplistic but it works without all the other variables that are measured inaccurately). It is actually very simple, the more CO2 the warmer the air will be, the warmer that air, the more heat absorbtion by the sea, etc. etc. Before you can apply your quantitative skills on this matter you need a deep knowledge of the basics (which I suspect you don't have, no need to get upset about this). I admit, I don't know enough about climate physics to perform any calculations even though I am mathematically sophisticated.



> Oh and Bird Flu isn't going to kill everyone off either. That's hardly a political one so you can't really blame my ideology for me not getting worked up over that one either.
> 
> All these things are just ways for the government to take your liberties away (and your money).
> 
> ...


Don't bring up new matter, we are talking about Global Warming not birds. I don't like to be controlled nor paying taxes. I guess politics and science do mix, don't they?


----------



## Badrabbit (Nov 18, 2004)

GT3 said:


> Furthermore no (self respecting) scientist will ever claim anything as fact, and of course neither have I. I merely stated that Global Warming is real, that is the temperatures have increased.


Did you read this after you typed it? What pray tell is the difference in claiming something is real and claiming it as fact?

The American Heritage first definition of the word real:

*re·al
adj.

Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence:*


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

Badrabbit said:


> Did you read this after you typed it? What pray tell is the difference in claiming something is real and claiming it as fact?
> 
> The American Heritage first definition of the word real:
> 
> ...





> Furthermore no (self respecting) scientist will ever claim anything as fact, and of course neither have I. I merely stated that Global Warming is real, that is the temperatures have increased.


No I did not read it after I typed it. Somewhere I forgot to place theory in the first sentence. So here is my second crack: Furthermore no (self respecting) scientist will ever claim (cancel: anything) any theory as fact, and of course neither have I. I merely stated that Global Warming is real, that is the temperatures have increased.

Yup Global Warming is real and the temperatures have increased. Your friend Christy will tell you that from his data on temperatures. He will also tell you that measured evidence with a reasonable marigin for error is for the most part considered fact, e.g. increased temperatures of the earth.

Thanks for the dictionary definition of real. I obviously needed it.


----------

