# Latest on the "Global Warming" hoax



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

...

https://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

*Edited by jcusey. Do not post entire articles here when you don't hold the copyright. Quote from them, link to them, but copying the entire thing is not acceptable.*


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

The following article at Wikipedia gives a more thorough and far better sourced view of the current consensus and its dissenters.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Beresford said:


> In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.


Who could question that this is a good thing to do? I would severly question the intentions of anyone that would not back a public review of the research being done on climate change. To my mind, anyone with a strong stance on this subject, that is unwilling to back a meta-analysis and public review, feels their position is not factually sound.

Warmest regards


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Of all the countries Australia seemed to be the worst at trying to do anything to stop Global Warming, even worse the the US (and we are bad enough).

The chinese it seems have set up some very high ommission standards for cars, but the US won't allow chinese cars to be sold here and the Chinese will not allow US cars in because of the emmissions the produce. Go figure, China a leader in trying to keep the planet safe and the US one of the worst proponants of destroying our planet.

If you disbelieve that global warming is indeed upon us that is part of the problem.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

guitone said:


> If you disbelieve that global warming is indeed upon us that is part of the problem.


Ahhh yes, to question in any way is heretical and one shall be branded "apostate". Off with their heads! Is this fundie islam or are we seeking scientific truth? Not just reality, i.e. what is the case, but causation, are questions we need to fully answer. What if there is indeed global warming but man has nothing to do with it? Stop questioning something as multi-factorial and as important as this, and you have just bought into dogma as good as any religion's.

Could I have some sources on those Chinese cars please Guit? China has never struck me as being overly enviro conscious, to wit, destroying panda habitat.

Warmest regards


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

*China*



guitone said:


> Go figure, China a leader in trying to keep the planet safe and the US one of the worst proponants of destroying our planet.


Is this the same China that covered up a massive benzine spill into a river that fed a city of 3.8 million for over a week? The same China that has 9 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world? (And, belive me, most of the pollution isn't from cars.)



> If you disbelieve that global warming is indeed upon us that is part of the problem.


The earth is warming, the only evidence that it is being driven by man is circumstantial at best. There is no proven causality.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Two different Chinas.*



guitone said:


> Go figure, China a leader in trying to keep the planet safe and the US one of the worst proponants of destroying our planet.


I think we might have two different views on China. As I stated in my previous post, my impression had always been China was not enviro-friendly. It seems I was not alone.



> A rice farmer complains of itchy legs from the paddies, and his wife needs a new kettle each month because the water corrodes metal. "Put a duck in this water and it would die in two days," declares Mr He.
> Poisons from the mines are also killing the village's economy, which depends on clean water to irrigate its crops, says Mr He.


https://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3104453



> China now boasts five of the ten most polluted cities in the world; 70% of the water that flows through China's urban areas is unfit for drinking or fishing; and severely degraded land or desert, which now claims 1⁄4 of China's land, is advancing at a rate of 1300 sq. miles per year.





> China's pollution tab: $200 billion a year
> Situation 'grave,' senior environment official says


https://msnbc.msn.com/id/13150745/



> One of China's lesser-known exports is a dangerous brew of soot, toxic chemicals and climate-changing gases from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants.


https://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13709

The value of questioning.

Warmest regards


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

It will be interesting to see how the Summer Olympics go in Beijing. Will they be able to eliminate the pollution smog and dust storms for the event? Will they just shut down all industry and vehicles for a few weeks and start it up again after the Western athletes and journalists go home?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Guitone,

Just a brief point. The Chinese government has announced an ambitious enviromental strategy, whether it gets put into practice is another story. China has a terrible enviromental record and both urban and rural China have terrible pollution problems. Chinese emissions standards are nowhere near US standards and just for the record, GM (mostly Buicks made locally - go figure) has the largest market share of the Chinese auto market. In previous posts you seem deeply suspicious of the Bush administration (and on many things I share your suspicions) please harbor at least the same level of skepticism towards the world's largest dictatorship regarding their green policies.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The potential for disaster is a universal theme for humanity. It's no small irony the sparks of human genius were fanned in the shadow of the european glaciers that came very close to wiping out the perilously small bands of reindeer hunters ( now ironically represented by the Qu'ichim of ANWAR and the Saami of northern Scandinavia.) From the biblical flood to the Black Death and Y2K we have faced END OF THE WORLD doom and gloom prophecies.Some are obviously 'woo woo' pipedreams like the Harmonic convergence of the planets predicted to rip California in half down the San Andreas fault or the vague lines of Nostradamous. That there have been both longterm and very rapid climate changes is fact. But that this time a new factor, a runaway human population that likes to burn things from australian aborigines around a campfire to the Space Shuttle punching a hole in the ozone should be obvious. That we 'can't see the forest for the trees' or in this case our individual culpability in an ever more crowded planet of peer group morality is no excuse. We can continue the party like the dissolute heir to a carefully built family fortune with a few more years of trust payments. Or, we can sober up long enough to take stock of our future.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Guitone,
> 
> Just a brief point. The Chinese government has announced an ambitious enviromental strategy, whether it gets put into practice is another story. China has a terrible enviromental record and both urban and rural China have terrible pollution problems. Chinese emissions standards are nowhere near US standards and just for the record, GM (mostly Buicks made locally - go figure) has the largest market share of the Chinese auto market. In previous posts you seem deeply suspicious of the Bush administration (and on many things I share your suspicions) please harbor at least the same level of skepticism towards the world's largest dictatorship regarding their green policies.
> 
> Karl


Karl,

Thanks....I guess maybe I was very willing to believe what Gore was saying in his movie...a little research is in order. Thank you for pointing this out. BTW, I know the Chinese are no poster boys, it did surprise me a bit, seems like Gore was talking about the future, but failed to say so, or I failed to listen properly.

Joel


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Thanks Kav, a great comment. Very true.

People should note that it is not just Gore's movie that is coming out now, there are contemporaneous books, journal articles, documentaries, etc that continue to discuss the truth of global warming (even the Bush administration has admitted it is happening!).

I think that the title of Gore's movie says it all (and no I have not yet seen the movie). A lot of people do not want to admit or allow themselves to see the truth. This reminds me of why teenagers do not see anything wrong with starting smoking: "See, I am smoking, it isn't hurting me, I'll quit before I get cancer, my grandparents smoked until they died very old at 65....". The same people won't put their hands on a hot stove because there are immediate consequences and pain. When we get older and realize we are not immortal and actions have long term consequences it changes the way se think. You do not see many 40 year olds start smoking for the first time. 

As a scientist, I agree that peer review and questioning new (or old established) theories is imperative and should be welcomed when done in a scientific manner. That said, there can always be questions. You have to know when questions can become bogus asked to serve another agenda. Remember the well known and well qualified "Scientists" who questioned whether or not smoking was hazardous to health up until just several years ago? Some of the people fighting the idea of global warming remind me of those "Scientists".

As to the anthropogenic causality, while there may not be a 100% irrefutable proof, I still say, if it walks like a duck, has duck feathers, has duck DNA, has a duck bill, lays duck eggs, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, looks like a duck, etc, it probably is a duck. The empirical evidence is really very strong for anthropogenic causality (overwhelming actually).

For those who say it is only a theory, so is gravity only a theory, but if I drop a 25 pound weight on my bare toe its still going to hurt, theory or not.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> As a scientist, I agree....
> For those who say it is only a theory, so is gravity only a theory, but if I drop a 25 pound weight on my bare toe its still going to hurt, theory or not.


Can I just ask what area of science you are in? The reason I ask this is your comment on gravity only being a theory, basically the proof we have for gravity is equal to the proof we have for man's activities being the cause of global warming. I really do not think any good "scientist" would make such a faulty analogy. I could be wrong, and if I am, please excuse me, however, if it walks like a duck.....

Warmest regards


----------



## tck13 (Nov 4, 2005)

Just found more rediculous info.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Why do they hate our freedoms?

Can't we send these scientists to Pakistan or someplace, where their malicious sorcery might disable the enemy?



tck13 said:


> Just found more rediculous info.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

tck13 said:


> Just found more rediculous info.


Yes, I saw that earlier today. So my question is, if the earth is hotter now than any time since around the year 6 AD, what made it get so hot back then? All the exhaust fumes and greenhouse gases that the Roman Empire generated?

And if the warm temperatures were not due to Roman activity, maybe it was an entirely natural cycle that's repeating itself now?


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

So what kind of proof do you actually want?


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

rojo said:


> Yes, I saw that earlier today. So my question is, if the earth is hotter now than any time since around the year 6 AD, what made it get so hot back then? All the exhaust fumes and greenhouse gases that the Roman Empire generated?
> 
> And if the warm temperatures were not due to Roman activity, maybe it was an entirely natural cycle that's repeating itself now?


Actually from my years of study in dungology the warmth of the Earth during the Roman Empire was directly attributable to the horse population, which at the time was 14x the amount which exists today. The toxic fumes emanating from the dung caused almost catastrophic warming. I'm 5% certain of this and have the predictive models and dung traces to prove it.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Can I just ask what area of science you are in? The reason I ask this is your comment on gravity only being a theory, basically the proof we have for gravity is equal to the proof we have for man's activities being the cause of global warming.
> Warmest regards


Really? Have there been repeatable experiments proving a particular causality of global warming? When you drop an object, it falls to the earth 100% of the time, since people first started dropping things. Has an increase in carbon dioxide ALWAYS resulted in an increase in atmospheric temperature? (Hint, the answer is no.)

Please point to a verified, repeatable experiment proving that humans are directly causing the whole Earth's atmospheric temperature to rise, and you'll just begin to have as much evidence as gravity.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Can I just ask what area of science you are in? The reason I ask this is your comment on gravity only being a theory, basically the proof we have for gravity is equal to the proof we have for man's activities being the cause of global warming.
> Warmest regards





jbmcb said:


> Really? Have there been repeatable experiments proving a particular causality of global warming? When you drop an object, it falls to the earth 100% of the time, since people first started dropping things. Has an increase in carbon dioxide ALWAYS resulted in an increase in atmospheric temperature? (Hint, the answer is no.)
> 
> Please point to a verified, repeatable experiment proving that humans are directly causing the whole Earth's atmospheric temperature to rise, and you'll just begin to have as much evidence as gravity.


Can I respectfully ask you to back off and go re-read the post I was answering to and then my post? You might see where I stated it was FAULTY to compare the two (man caused global warming and gravity) as the levels of proof ARE NOT equal. The little part of my post you left out is:



Wayfarer said:


> I really do not think any good "scientist" would make such a faulty analogy.


Warmest regards


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

The White Sox from the Windy City won the World Series last year.The Heat won the NBA Finals. The Hurricanes won the Stanley Cup. Coincidence or is global warming now influencing our sporting events? Where was this in Al Gore's movie??????

Karl


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Can I just ask what area of science you are in? The reason I ask this is your comment on gravity only being a theory, basically the proof we have for gravity is equal to the proof we have for man's activities being the cause of global warming. I really do not think any good "scientist" would make such a faulty analogy. I could be wrong, and if I am, please excuse me, however, if it walks like a duck.....
> 
> Warmest regards


Yes, I will be glad to explain what area of science I am in. While I am a hydrogeologist specializing in research on characterization and remediation of dense non-aqueous phase liquids and other recalcitrant substances, my scientific background includes MS degrees in both hydrogeology and climatology. I have been working in hydrogeology for over 20 years and in this field for the past 10. I have authored and co-authored articles in a number of refereed publications and presented at national and international conferences. Yes I do know at least a little about the scientific method and what a "good" scientist is. (And no, I do not want to present references here as I do not want my contact info that generally available/open but can give you references in private email if you like)

My knowledge of climatology is limited to the essentials and I am not doing/have not done any research in the area of global warming (my climatology research was on plant usage of vadose zone soil moisture related to climatic stress with the emphasis on modeling for irrigation in humid regions). I am not up on the present research except for what I read in the journals for fun on my own time.

As to my analogy, the empirical evidence we have for anthropogenic influences on global warming IS as strong as the empirical evidence we have for the rock hitting my foot when I drop it. At least as I and many others see/read it. The mathematical evidence is also there too. If you look at the models, they clearly and very strongly imply causality, and as they become more sophisticated with experience, continue to show/imply causality. I still say that there is good and very strong (convincing) scientific evidence for global warming and anthropogenic causality. I also say that many of the people arguing against it strongly appear to have other motives. I have my suspicions as to why.

I have not seen any really good scientific arguments against this "theory" (global warming, etc) and have seen very many in many areas supporting it.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

jbmcb said:


> Really? Have there been repeatable experiments proving a particular causality of global warming? When you drop an object, it falls to the earth 100% of the time, since people first started dropping things. Has an increase in carbon dioxide ALWAYS resulted in an increase in atmospheric temperature? (Hint, the answer is no.)
> 
> Please point to a verified, repeatable experiment proving that humans are directly causing the whole Earth's atmospheric temperature to rise, and you'll just begin to have as much evidence as gravity.


I should just shut up, but wanted to respond to this too:

I would say the last 100-150 years have been the repeatable experiment you are asking about. (While yes there have been very repeatable experiments showing that increases on carbon dioxide causes warming in small closed chambers, it is not possible to do a repeatable experiment on the scale of the whole earth. I can not spend the time to find the references right now but they are there).

The "repeatable" experiments are really the mathematical models that get more and more sophisticated as time goes on. Yes there are always many questions about any model, and you can always find flaws, but as the models change/grow and our skill increases and we become more accurate, the models still overwhelmingly show global warming and anthropogenic causality. Considering the complexity of the natural system, we will never see a 100% accurate model of the earth (unless you believe the model/ultimate computer in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but we do not have millions of years like they did).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Most impressive! However, let us examine a few things.



MichaelS said:


> Yes I do know at least a little about the scientific method and what a "good" scientist is. (And no, I do not want to present references here as I do not want my contact info that generally available/open but can give you references in private email if you like)


While I will not ask for references, could you please elaborate on the repeatable experiments you have conducted in climate change, as this is usually considered part of scientific method, no? Modelling is just that also, not real world experience.



MichaelS said:


> As to my analogy, the empirical evidence we have for anthropogenic influences on global warming IS as strong as the empirical evidence we have for the rock hitting my foot when I drop it. *At least as I and many others see/read it.* The mathematical evidence is also there too. If you look at the models, they clearly and very strongly imply causality, and as they become more sophisticated with experience, continue to show/imply causality. I still say that there is good and very strong (convincing) scientific evidence for global warming and anthropogenic causality. I also say that many of the people arguing against it strongly appear to have other motives. I have my suspicions as to why.


Note: I added the bold face, that is the sentence this passage turns on.

Oh please, do you really believe the proof for man caused climate change reaches the level of that for gravity? Mathematical evidence? Your forebrethren Lorenz would probably tend to disprove that thought with the sensitive dependence upon initial conditions, even the best modelling has doubt and is subject to huge errors based on beginning variables. While there may be very strong evidence there is global warming, and a different set of data regarding causality, it is purely specious to equate the proof available equals that of the one for gravity.

It is one thing to believe it appears Earth is in a warming phase. (I believe that) It is another thing to believe man is the major cause. (I do not rule that out) It is akin to fundie islam to state that man caused global warming has the same level of proof that gravity does!

Warmest (green house gases) regards

Edit: Michael, you must have been typing your second reply as I was rebutting you. Thanks for the second reply, it further supports my rebuttal nicely! Just admit your hyperbole and move on, we could all respect that. I for one am not arguing with the premise per se, merely your almost fundamentalist dogmatic approach.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> I should just shut up, but wanted to respond to this too:


LOL!



> > I would say the last 100-150 years have been the repeatable experiment you are asking about.
> 
> 
> Again, observation is NOT experimentation. Where is the control? The weather is a continuous and dynamic system, you can't compare one historical period with another without taking into account every variable that could affect the system, which are an unknown before about twenty years ago (the event of satellite infra-red temperature measurements.)
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

cufflink44 said:


> Thank you , Michael. When it comes to matters of science, it's refreshing to hear the views of a real scientist.


By "real" do you mean one that agrees with your world view?

Where have you been cufflink44? I have not heard from you since this:



cufflink44 said:


> It's interesting that Wayfarer presents as "food for thought" one scientist, whose name he can't remember, who claims that global warming has stopped. Let's assume the mysterious Dr. X does indeed believe this. What does it prove? You can also find a couple of scientists with Ph.D.'s after their names who believe that HIV isn't the cause of AIDS. What's a bit more germane is the fact that the overwhelming majority of researchers think that HIV is in fact the cause.


where you clearly dismiss any dissent in complete lieu of facts. I then dig up who I remember hearing and then you say in a later post in that thread:



cufflink44 said:


> Obviously you wouldn't attack the man's ideas without actually listening to them.


Proof, as always, that liberals do not hold themselves to the same standards as they hold others.

So tell me, after all this time away, what triggered you to finally post again?

Warmest regards


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Anyone care to guess what the greatest pollution problem facing 19th century cities was? Horse manure. In sheer volume it taxed the system as much as our local air quality boards dealing with vehicle emmisions today. I know, My own horse's prolific output of waste nitrogen, and it's potential to ultimately pollute the coastal mountain streams and ultimately the ocean shore is a ethical responsibility. My point, is that a radical technological change both solves and creates problems. It also does something nobody here has thought much about. IT MAKES SOME PEOPLE VERY,VERY RICH. I'll repeat that for those of you not paying attention because poor pill pickled Rush is on or Hillary said something inane again ( and equal time to anyone listening to Pacifica Radio.) IT MAKES SOME PEOPLE VERY,VERY RICH. Your all peeing in your Bill's khakis because you may have to give something up, a pesticide soaked golf course, the Trad Mercedes vomiting deisal fumes , a spinach salad without insect bites. Anyone ponder what we can GAIN? Henry Ford and Daimler were the Jobs and Gates of their time. You all need 12 lashes with a buggywhip ( I own several, now a custom item of great cost) for being denser than a stop sign on Rodeo Drive. If we don't take the lead, we will become a faded nation like Those who kick started the age of exploration and then faltered. If nothing else, think of all the Bespoke suits a new invention, or merely different way of dealing with horse manure can buy.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Most impressive! However, let us examine a few things.
> 
> While I will not ask for references, could you please elaborate on the repeatable experiments you have conducted in climate change, as this is usually considered part of scientific method, no? Modelling is just that also, not real world experience.


AS I said above, I have not conducted any repeatable experiments on climatic change. Please read what I wrote! Again, given the complexity and size of the natural system, the 100% proof you seem to be demanding does not exist. I would argue that this type of proof does not really exist for almost any theory. Someone can always find hole in any theory.

Please tell me what sort of repeatable experiment can be conducted on climatic warming other than the small scale controlled experiments that have been done in labs. In the same venue, please tell me how you woud conduct a repeatable experiment of tectonics, ie continental drift. We can measure it just like the climate, we can do little/micro scale experimetns just like with climatic warming, but we can not do any of the full scale scientific experimetns you seem to be saying need to be done.

I do not mean to be antagonistic, but I am not sure you really understand science. Science is subjective, not objective. Engineering is objective, but it is not science. We are not looking at an engineering problem when looking at global warming.

Read the book "Theory and Structure of Scientific Revolutions" to get a bit more insight into this. (If you have read this, you will know that it could work both ways, for and against my argument, but that in itself should support the contention that science is not "fact", but a subjective view that is changed as new information becomes available and is tested, just as is occurring with continuing studies on climatic change.

As to modeling, of course they are "just" models. But the mathematics behind the models are based in reality and is conitunually being tested and improved.



Oh please said:


> .[/QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> > I probably do have an idea about what both good and bad models are and how to control model outputs having spent thousands of hours at computers conducting finite difference models, finite element models, and statistical models. There is a lot of work being done to correct errors when they are found as the science grows and gets better. (Yes I know all about initial and boundary condtions and how models can be biased/twisted/controlled, etc. When modelling is used incorrectly, it is usually evident to people who do a lot of modelling and with the people reviewing the models, we would have seen more of wht you sem to claim about models being no good).
> ...


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Proof said:


> What the HECK does the reference to "liberals" have to do with anything?
> 
> There are both right wing and left wing scientists who agree on global warming. The dogma is coming from the non-scientist from the far right (and left as well) who have made up their minds based of who knpws what, but not science!
> 
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

To be brief Michael:

1) The liberal thing was not a shot at you, please re-read and you'll see it was directed elsewhere. That whole post was not addressed to you nor was it you I was quoting.

2) Me dogmatic? You must not be reading my entire posts, you'll see I state it seems global warming is happening (while I think it is occurring, I am also open to contrary evidence), and that I am open to it being caused by man's activities (I am neutral, neither side has me convinced, but again, I am open minded).

I deem you dogmatic as you are continuing to insist your hyperbole is correct and we can all see it is not. The evidence and proofs for gravity are simply much stronger than those for man caused global warming. There's really no need to debate further.

Warmest regards


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> AS I said above, I have not conducted any repeatable experiments on climatic change. Please read what I wrote! Again, given the complexity and size of the natural system, the 100% proof you seem to be demanding does not exist. I would argue that this type of proof does not really exist for almost any theory. Someone can always find hole in any theory.
> 
> Please tell me what sort of repeatable experiment can be conducted on climatic warming other than the small scale controlled experiments that have been done in labs. In the same venue, please tell me how you woud conduct a repeatable experiment of tectonics, ie continental drift. We can measure it just like the climate, we can do little/micro scale experimetns just like with climatic warming, but we can not do any of the full scale scientific experimetns you seem to be saying need to be done.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but the conglomerated media just have no credibility. This is the same bunch who espoused global cooling just thirty years ago (not a blip on the ecological time scale). Any information denying the existence of "global warming" has been completely ignored. Witness ABC's project to get ordinary folk to come up with anecdotal data on how "global warming" has affected them.

Many of the people espousing global warming do so with the zeal of religious fanatics. Their worship is comparable to the Druids. So the comparison to fundamentalist Islam is not without merit. Fundamentalist Islam stopped any scientific research in the Middle Ages, as did strict Catholicism, so religion is part of the mix, and the problem.

All computer models use extrapolations. You can model over and over, but each model is merely an extrapolation of someone's best guess, and it uses the discrimination of the programmer's brain as either the variable or fixed data part of the program or simulation. That is not empirical data, no matter how many times it is re-run, or the variables changed.

Weather forecasting is more accurate five days out now, than it used to be five hours out. However, winds, rain, snow and other phenomena do change within minutes. Tornadoes and hurricanes to make unexpected turns. Increased forecasting accuracy does not beget definitive trends.

How does one explain the increase in the ice packs on the east side of Anarctica, while maintaining that decreased amounts on the west side are proof of global warming? Why are there remains of tropical plants found in core samples taken in the Arctic Ocean? For years, scientists believed that the last dinosaurs were killed off 65 million years ago. Now there is proof in the layers of the earth, that this probably was not the sole, or even primary factor.

Is there "global warming"? May be, maybe not. But I'm not going to be driven into a panic by the same bunch that used the press to incite us into going to war with Spain. And neither should anyone else.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

> As to modeling, of course they are "just" models. But the mathematics behind the models are based in reality and is conitunually being tested and improved.


This is inane.

I think you meant to say data instead of mathematics but nevertheless the data set that is reliable under the best circumstances is limited to 60 to 80 years. Given that the world is 4,550,000,000 years old and our historical data set past 80 years ago consists of wood samples and a list of other low degree of confidence analysis I think its a bit premature to make any bible truths with regards to global warming, its long term effects and the changes we have to take in order to protect ourselves. Additionally, it is still uncertain to what effect human activity plays a role.

I work in modeling everyday as well, financial modeling. From a data perspective what scientists today are claiming about global warming as the truth and nothing but the truth would be akin to a financial model based on one day of sales of McDonalds in 1987 to forecast the next 200 years of performance. Its picking stocks for the next twenty years based upon one page of the Wall Street Journal. Its shoddy and careless, no wonder people are not throwing money at the 'problem'.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

whnay. said:


> This is inane.
> 
> I think you meant to say data instead of mathematics but nevertheless the data set that is reliable under the best circumstances is limited to 60 to 80 years. Given that the world is 4,550,000,000 years old and our historical data set past 80 years ago consists of wood samples and a list of other low degree of confidence analysis I think its a bit premature to make any bible truths with regards to global warming, its long term effects and the changes we have to take in order to protect ourselves. Additionally, it is still uncertain to what effect human activity plays a role.
> 
> I work in modeling everyday as well, financial modeling. From a data perspective what scientists today are claiming about global warming as the truth and nothing but the truth would be akin to a financial model based on one day of sales of McDonalds in 1987 to forecast the next 200 years of performance. Its picking stocks for the next twenty years based upon one page of the Wall Street Journal. Its shoddy and careless, no wonder people are not throwing money at the 'problem'.


A couple more things and then I will shut up as this discussion is going nowhere and becoming potentially less than polite shall we say.

First, financial modeling aint the same. From what little I know (and that is VERY little) its basis is much more theoretical than scientific modeling because (from what VERY little I know) the mechanisms controling the whole process are not really well understood (if you really why financial trends etc work, please tell me what to invest in and we will then b richer than Bill Gates) While we do not know all of the mechanisms cotrolling the climate, I would hazard that they are simpler and possibly better understood than finacial trends, etc. (Are a lot of financial models based on complicated statistics?).

That said, I do not believe I ever said models were 100 percent correct. Models can be predictive but because of the complexity of the real world (and the lack of enough data too) we will never have a perfect model. I was probably not clear enough (or responded too quickly without thinking it through).

I do not say that the climatic models are perfect. I do however say that as much as possible, they are based on casality as we know/understand it. I also say (and said) that as our knowledge increases and the models become more sophisticated, they CONTINUE to strongly indicating that yes the global warming our empirical evidence show is occurring and veery likely caused or at least VERY heavily influenced by our activities.

We are also seeing a variety of scientific fields looking independently at this from different perspectives and coming up with the same trend that the climate is warming and people have a pretty big impact.

"our historical data set past 80 years ago consists of wood samples and a list of other low degree of confidence analysis"

The data are not limited to this. There are a lot more data available l than old wood samples.

Spend some time reading up on geology and you can see some of the science behind some ofthe predictions.

" I think its a bit premature to make any bible truths with regards to global warming, its long term effects and the changes we have to take in order to protect ourselves."

You may be corect about "bible truths" but at what point do we decide it is the bible truth? When the effects are irreversible and our economy and lifestyle is destroyed fom some of the effects? As a geoscientist, I never knowanything 100 percent, but if I do not act on what we do kno, there can be serious problems. If I waited to know everything, I would never be able to clean up pollution (we are always willing to change our conceptual model as we gain more information and see where we were wrong to begin with, but sometimeswe just got to act!). Before I went to graduate school and got into the environmental field I wasjst a simple oil field geologist and drilled quite a number of gas (and a few oil) wells based on incomplete data. If we waited to know all, oil in the mideast wouldnot be the political issue it is now because we would still be trying to use whale oil and coal cas to light our houses!

"Additionally, it is still uncertain to what effect human activity plays a role."

I agree, but many, many things point to a huge role. At what point do we decide we have to do somehing?

Thats enough on thistopic from me. Sorry if I have treaded on anyones toes or personal feelings.

Anyone want to discuss the various merits of Islay versus Speyside Single malts? (We can also get into a huge argument on how plants use soil moisture if you would like!)

Michael


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I looked again at this thread's title. Calling Global Warming a 'Hoax' implies a premeditated effort to give validity to an untruth for financial, political or other gain. Please, somebody tell me who is behind this ; The Lizard People, The Protocols of Zion, The liberal media, Monica Lewinsky? Every environmental catastrophy has been ignored as some 'abnormallity' that will soon self correct, or some evil third party's doing. Farley Mowat's SEA OF SLAUGHTER is an excellent example of this pandering to self interests with no regard for the future or other people, and dare I say it, fellow travellers on this planet. Don't like Global Warming? Hey, I've got a Pandora's Box of evils; the relentless wastfull erosion of world topsoil that took centuries to create, the destruction of the world's aquifers ( forget oil, the smart/ callous people are investing in water rights) The destruction of both tropical and temperate rainforests that act as massive carbon sinks, loss of genetic diversity in our world crops to a handfull of fragile monocultures, the ocean toxicity that now makes eating whales and large fish akin to swallowing pure mercury and has surpassed all other materials with our filth ( mostly plastics) comprising the dominant % of particulate matter, the overall genetic weakening of the human gene pool with failing antibiotics and increased illness from our own chemical poisoning coupled with new strains of critters who haven't heard we are the pre eminent species, and on and on ad nauseum down to the Snail Darter. Hoaxes? I've got THOUSANDS of them, and it may only take a handfull to push us into the same oblivion we prematurely with hubris AND in violation of our covenant with the Almighty condemned more species than at any other time and at a faster rate in all of pre and history. KOYANNISQUATSI Amigos.


----------



## jhcam8 (Aug 26, 2008)

A day or two ago an article decsribed how the sea lions (I believe) were forced on to land because of melted ice.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Kav said:


> I looked again at this thread's title. *Calling Global Warming a 'Hoax' implies a premeditated effort to give validity to an untruth for financial, political or other gain.* Please, somebody tell me who is behind this ; The Lizard People, The Protocols of Zion, The liberal media, Monica Lewinsky?


With several years past since this post, we now know that it wasn't too difficult to figure out.

1) General Electric

2) BP (Beyond Petroleum)

3) Wall Street~They need a new worthless derivitive to trade. Carbon Credits.

4) Al Gore!!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

WouldaShoulda said:


> With several years past since this post, we now know that it wasn't too difficult to figure out.
> 
> 1) General Electric
> 
> ...


Should we include Obama?


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

I think the certainty that certain political groups assign to global warming is far overstated. OTOH, that cuts both ways. If we don't have a control, and only imperfect models, etc. then there's no way to say global warming is NOT happening either.

The whole thing is a bit of a red herring to me. It's rather stupid to require scientific certainty before enacting policy. The field is stacked towards requiring CONVINCING proof within a 95% confidence level before being considered useful.

Most macro-economic models are even LESS proven and policy makers rely on them every day. Policy is much more akin to investment than science. No one would make very much money if they only invested in things which were 95% likely to generate a profit. If you want to maximize your ROI, you simply look whether the potential benefit and likelihood of payout outweighs the cost. It's perfectly reasonable to invest in something with only a 30% chance of working out if the payout is 500% of your investment.

The average voter should be more willing to look at this from that standpoint. Not "is global warming happening" but rather "how much (if any) should we invest to mitigate the potential damage?" This is especially true when the average person barely has a grasp of basic Earth science or physics and still believes toilets flush a different way in Australia. Their idea of "scientific theory" in this matter consist of media fed ideas that they agree with, while blaming the other side for mass media fed ideas they disagree with. So there's precious little "science" on either side when it comes to the general debate. There are real scientists working on the issue who have come to different conclusions, but very few in the general public have read their works or knows who they are, and I doubt they could understand the papers if they read them.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Look at it this way: If you urinate in a pool for too long, eventually you'll be swimming in your own piss. There's no way around it. Plus, this supposed "hoax" is getting some jobs, so I'm not sure why the conservatives are complaining about it.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Look at it this way: If you urinate in a pool for too long, eventually you'll be swimming in your own piss. There's no way around it. Plus, this supposed "hoax" is getting some jobs, so I'm not sure why the conservatives are complaining about it.


because that's all conservatives know how to do, they complain about the present and want to change things to be like they were (you know when people knew their place), liberals complain about the present and want to change things to make the future more accessible to more people (you know everyone has a place at the table)


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

^^^ That was quite good. I like you. And I'm sure what Jean Paul said was probably quite good too, but it was long and I have to slap myself to stay awake during peeing so I wasn't quite up to it right now. Later maybe.This thread fascinates on many levels. One of which is to see the names and writings of long departed posters. The other level is that someone would reopen this 4-year dead thread solely to mention sea lions, arf, arf.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Most macro-economic models are even LESS proven and policy makers rely on them every day. Policy is much more akin to investment than science. No one would make very much money if they only invested in things which were 95% likely to generate a profit. If you want to maximize your ROI, you simply look whether the potential benefit and likelihood of payout outweighs the cost. It's perfectly reasonable to invest in something with only a 30% chance of working out if the payout is 500% of your investment.
> 
> The average voter should be more willing to look at this from that standpoint. Not "is global warming happening" but rather "how much (if any) should we invest to mitigate the potential damage?"


I'm willing to do that.

But I am more fearful that Big Government is picking the winners, not the marketplace.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

young guy said:


> ...liberals complain about the present and want to change things to make the future more accessible to more people (you know everyone has a place at the table)


The road to poverty and dependency is paved with the good intentions of Liberal policymaking.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Look at it this way: If you urinate in a pool for too long, eventually you'll be swimming in your own piss. There's no way around it. Plus, this supposed "hoax" is getting some jobs, so I'm not sure why the conservatives are complaining about it.


You will get no argument from me over environmental policy that makes sense.

But your analogy fails; CO2 is not piss!!

Got a link for the "jobs" claim??


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The road to poverty and dependency is paved with the good intentions of Liberal policymaking.


And the road to your house is paved with clichés


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> And the road to your house is paved with clichés


Don't know about Woulda's house, but one Daniel Patrick Moynihan could have claimed that cliche. Although widely regarded (and probably self-regarded) as a liberal, he nonethless certainly agreed with it.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm willing to do that.
> 
> But I am more fearful that Big Government is picking the winners, not the marketplace.


Fair point. But if you want the marketplace to decide the winner, we'd have to get rid of all the oil subsidies and let automakers fail. Our failure to do that stacks the odds heavily in favor of over-consumption.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Fair point. But if you want the marketplace to decide the winner, we'd have to get rid of all the oil subsidies and let automakers fail. Our failure to do that stacks the odds heavily in favor of over-consumption.


Don't forget Big Agriculture!!

Ethanol is the best example of Green failure in the US thus far!!


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> I think the certainty that certain political groups assign to global warming is far overstated. OTOH, that cuts both ways. If we don't have a control, and only imperfect models, etc. then there's no way to say global warming is NOT happening either.


Playing devil's advocate (because I think global warming is a huge joke).

Technically speaking... Since the last ice, Mother Earth has been in a constant state of "global warming"


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

So how do people decide what to believe? Plato gave us a brief dialog 2,500 years ago. Socrates asked how one tells a good physician from a quack. He said that since a physician is supposedly an expert on matters of health and disease, one must test him on these matters. But how can one do that unless one is also an expert on such matters himself? It would seem that in order to tell whather one is a physician or a quack, one must be an expert physician oneself. So how does one who has no expertise on climatology (i.e., most of us) determine who to believe on such issues?

(1) take the unanimous opinion of those who have such expertise. But there is never a unanimous opinion on anything. There are always lunatic-fringe people, even ones with degrees, who hold bizarre opinions (e.g., the earth is flat, the moon landings were faked, etc.)

(2) take the majority opinion of "experts". On that basis, human-induced global climate change is a done deal.

(3) take the majority opinion of "experts", provided they have no particular incentive to lie. On this basis, the one would expect that the ones who have the strongest incentive to lie are those with a financial interest on one side or the other. For example, one of the major sources of global warming denial is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for whom a major contributor is Exxon-Mobile. 

(4) Decide what you want to believe first based on your own personal interests, then find people who agree with you (and according to (1), there is almost always some "expert" who agrees with you). 

(4) is the most likely, since positions on one side or the other seem to have evolved around the conservative-liberal axis. Since human political opinion isn't likely to affect the actual climate, there is obviously something more than simple science involved here.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

JerseyJohn said:


> So how do people decide what to believe? Plato gave us a brief dialog 2,500 years ago. Socrates asked how one tells a good physician from a quack. He said that since a physician is supposedly an expert on matters of health and disease, one must test him on these matters. But how can one do that unless one is also an expert on such matters himself? It would seem that in order to tell whather one is a physician or a quack, one must be an expert physician oneself. So how does one who has no expertise on climatology (i.e., most of us) determine who to believe on such issues?
> 
> (1) take the unanimous opinion of those who have such expertise. But there is never a unanimous opinion on anything. There are always lunatic-fringe people, even ones with degrees, who hold bizarre opinions (e.g., the earth is flat, the moon landings were faked, etc.)
> 
> ...


Well structured statement.

Keeping in mind that I tend to sway towards the "anti global warming" realm, I merely point this out.

Assuming the planet has been around for around 4.5 billion years, and humans have been here for 10,000 years. Humans have only been able to manipulate our environment on a "global" scale for the last couple hundred, and honestly, I don't think we've been able to do that more than 100 or so (Chemical Weapons leading to Nuclear).

I'm not saying we couldn't affect our environment sizably. I'm saying we don't intentionally, immediately, *statistically.*

The global warming crowd can't *separate* those three pieces to provide enough evidence to sway me or even a sizable portion of the populace. Statistically.. I point out that the Farmer's Almanac has been spot on regarding weather predictions... even accounting for supposed global warming.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

It depends I guess on what we are talking about.

There have been some instrument flaws or human error, but I think there is good scientific PROOF that the Earth is warming, and the warming has accelerated. I do not think people are manipulating thermometers or messing with satellites.

I think there is reasonable proof that the Earth warming could be a very bad thing. Maybe not "wipe us out", but at least "drown/kill a lot of people, set us back,and make life very unpleasant" bad. Yes, the Earth has a tendency to regulate itself, otherwise we would have frozen or burnt up long ago. But there are limits.

So, the people who flat out deny that anything is happening at all... I kind of think they are idiots.

Now, the part about how hot the Earth is going to get and whether this is related to anthropomorphic activity. That I don't think anyone really has much of an idea about. There are strong reasons to suggest the two are related, but it is far from what anyone would consider scientific proof. If I were in a jury voting on mankind's guilt under a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, I would vote innocent without question.

What concerns me most is the laziness and proud ignorance on both sides of the debate. Yes, the global warming scientists get funded and get big reputations by making the big pronouncements. No one is going to fund your research that everything is normal. At the same time, the skeptics operate under the same possible conflicts-of-interest.

The thing is, science has an answer for that. It's called _reading the actual papers_. That is how science is supposed to work. You read the paper and see if the methods and findings make sense. You test them out for yourself, or you come up with an alternative hypothesis and test that out. If you can't follow the science, you can at least attend a conference and see for yourself whether people seem to be acting like zombies or if there is open dialog. It's far short of actual scientific review, but at least it's something.

It's disturbing to me how many people are convinced that manmade global warming is or isn't happening, and meanwhile they have no opinion on say, string theory. And they know just as little about either one.

I don't mind people being skeptics. Skepticism is what drives science. I mind people being _lazy_ skeptics.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> It depends I guess on what we are talking about.
> 
> There have been some instrument flaws or human error, but I think there is good scientific PROOF that the Earth is warming, and the warming has accelerated. I do not think people are manipulating thermometers or messing with satellites.
> 
> ...


See..That's the trick. Linkage.

I agree Global warming is happening (It's been happening since the Ice age!). I have doubts about whether humans are the direct cause of said rise in temperature (or whether said rises are temporary or permanent).

I disagree that science is the answer though. People won't listen to science. People have never listened to science. Just ask Mr. Darwin. Science is the enemy of opinion, and everyone has an opinion.


----------



## wiredroach (Sep 14, 2008)

Apatheticviews said:


> Assuming the planet has been around for around 4.5 billion years, and humans have been here for 10,000 years....


If you think humans have only been around for 10,000 years, skepticism about global warming is the least of your problems regarding scientific theories.


----------



## Enron (Feb 16, 2010)

young guy said:


> because that's all conservatives know how to do, they complain about the present and want to change things to be like they were (you know when people knew their place), liberals complain about the present and want to change things to make the future more accessible to more people (you know everyone has a place at the table)


Oh please. Shut up.

This is what is wrong with American politics - conservatives are all stupid/racists/religious whackos while liberals are shining white knights/jesus

or

Conservatives are all god-fearing, moral, friendly, champions of individual rights while liberals are all communist thugs that want to control everything.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

wiredroach said:


> If you think humans have only been around for 10,000 years, skepticism about global warming is the least of your problems regarding scientific theories.


Whoops, missed a 0. 50-200,000 years depending on your yardstick. Meant to say 100,000 (not 10,000).

However... We still haven't been able to manipulate our environment on a "global" scale for more than the last couple hundred "statistically."


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Enron said:


> Oh please. Shut up.
> 
> This is what is wrong with American politics - _*conservatives are all stupid/racists/religious whackos*while liberals are shining white knights/jesus _
> 
> ...


Why can't both sides be right?


----------

