Global warming... again.

[PLAYER57832]

EVERYTHING to do with nature is complicated. That is not a "fictional creation" or "cop out" it is reality. Sadly, it is a reality that far too many folks with serious global business agendas
(and yep.. they are very identifiable and not even hard to figure out, though you have to do a little digging to get proof) use to claim there is nothing really known, when there actually is.

The problem is that you refuse too see this on the other side. Since you refuse to see this we can't even get to reasonable discussion.

Try again.. what I ACTUALLY said is to go read the old CC thread, because it contained some very complete arguments and data very relevant to the discussion, THEN I would be happy to discuss it should you have questions. The proof that your statements and ideas are false involves a lot of documents, references and at the time, getting ready for a trip, I did not have time.

The REAL bottom line is that I have never found any credible evidence showing that global climate change is incorrect... and plenty of supporting data. If you have other data, then feel free to present it.

Except.. all you do is claim it exists and make reference to imagined conspiracies.

[PLAYER57832]

Now.. seeing that you have proven too lazy to even read an old CC thread, never mind post any actual references to your claims... well, the one NOT showing any willingness to even consider other opinions is not I.

I have never argued to do nothing. I didn't buy a Prius in 2001 because I was a tech nerd (as I didn't buy an Andriod phone until this year). But the steps have to be reasonable and proven to get the most economic bang for the economic buck.

LOL... yep, buying a Prius and recycling a few things shows you definitely understand world ecological problems....

Case in MY point, in fact that you would even mention such a thing as if it were truly important.

But hey, since you won't go to the old CC thread, here are some new links:

*** This is one of the best, scientifically based explanations. It answers a lot of the things you have (incorrectly) mentioned as things NOT taken into account by climate scientists. ( like methane, long-term trends versus human impacts, etc.)
http://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/bas ... te-science

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Note that all claims are REFERENCED with studies. If you wish to challenge, the go back to the original sources and see what there is to challenge. Feel free to bring up funding sources, but what matters are the procedures and data.

http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/20 ... eal-or-not
Posting this link because, while it agrees with what I have said, it is completely unreferenced AND makes a rather uninformed conclusion -- that recent droughts show that the climate is changing. In fact, to nail any specific event, be they more hurricanes and more droughts or any other event, while fully consistent with the models of what would happen if the climate were changing, are not enough to, themselves, demonstrate much of anything. This is important to understand, because this type of article is what is most often used by those claiming scientific conspiracies and the like. In other words, while I agree with most of what is said (not the last conclusion, though), it is not a scientific paper and not anything to which I would point to show that Global warming is happening.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html


Just skimmed this one, claims to address skeptics. I need to review it more, but from what I saw, it framed the debate, but did not really address the concerns in a scientific way.
http://www.skepticalscience.com

One of the shorter articles:
http://www.ghgonline.org/evidence.htm

nothing really new in this one, but it appeared in a business journal and does cite science studies.
http://www.businessinsider.com/climate- ... nce-2011-8

This in wikki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change

warming.[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions. There are also groups of individuals outside national or international organizations that have expressed their dissenting opinions and counterarguments in venues such as public petitions.

http://www.livescience.com/1693-global- ... wrong.html

Note that the above organization has a vested interest in promoting petroleum....
will try to find the original articles to post.

[PLAYER57832]

Still researching, but wanted to seperate analysis of the skeptic articles:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/ ... rming.html

#1 this did NOT appear in a science journal of any type.
#2 content:

CLASSIC misinformation. Mixing just enough truth to make it seem credible, but really going well out on a limb:

Everyone "knows" that global warming is true. The public has no idea of the number of scientists -- precisely one thousand at last count of a congressional committee -- who believe that global warming is benign and natural, and that it ended in 1998.

Not even close to true. That might (??) have been true in 1998, but not today.

We have not been informed of the costs to our economy of discouraging fossil fuel development and promoting alternatives.

We have also not been truly informed of the costs of continued dependence on fossil fuels, but we have been given some pretty decent estimates. The real truth is that we already have very strong evidence of extreme harm should we continue to exploit our fossil fuels, support and enhance the petroleum industry and continue to only give pittance/token support of alternatives. See. that is the ulitimate lie by ommission here... the amount of money currently devoted to all alternative energy sources and research by the US pales in comparison to the tax breaks, genearl supports given the petroleum industry (its even considered a military concern to protect petroleum, after all).

What is never discussed is this: the theory of global warming has catastrophic implications for our economy and national security. Case in point: Obama's recent decision to block the Keystone pipeline in order to placate global warming advocates. Key Democrat supporters fear the use of oil more than they care about losing jobs or our dangerous dependence on the Mideast for oil. The president delayed the pipeline by fiat, and the general public has had no say. (For the impact on our economy, see my article, "The Whole Country Can Be Rich.")

LOL Nice twisting of facts, there.
#1. There are multiple catestrophic predictions of what would happen should the Earth warm. These impacts are so very catestrophic that even if they are not absolutely certain, it certainly behooves us to pay attention and create plans. HOWEVER, evidence is not shrinking that these impacts are real, evidence is growing... and that many changes will happen sooner than predicted, not later.

#2. The MAJOR argument against the Pipeline has almost nothing to do with Global Climate change, it has a LOT to do with the BP disaster, lack of concern by the industry as a whole and the fact that the pipeline was, until very recently, set to go through some extremely sensitive protected lands. Now that it is moved, the impact to people around the pipeline is still a big issue. As a part of this, remember that the tar sands giving this oil are not offering "nice, sweet crude" (as the industry describes the best kind of petroleum), but nasty stuff full of pollutants, requiring much heavier processing and expense.

#3 In addition to that, well, not developing these resources actually means more for the future, not less. Rather a disengenuous argument to claim that we need this so much... we need to make sure the future has even LESS!

President Obama has spoken out passionately on the danger of developing oil and gas because of man-made global warming. "What we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe."

hmmm... seems like I remember this statement when he was proposing support of alternative energy, not opposing the pipeline. In fact, the opposition to the pipeline is from many sources other than Obama.

Obama calls for the debate to end. He cites hurricanes as proof: "dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real -- it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster."

Sorry, but the reference is to PATTERNS, not just a single hurricane. No single hurricane or year of weather proves much of anything. Nor was it cited as "proof", but rather as something that ought to give us pause and make us really look into the data more.

Happily, our president is wrong. The worst hurricanes were in 1926, the second-worst in 1900. The world's top hurricane experts say that there is no evidence that global warming affects storms. There is no such thing as a man-made hurricane. Storm cycles and long patterns of bad weather are entirely natural. Yet this good news is suppressed by our politicized media. We hear only one side.

LOL without reference, its pretty hard to know what is even being said here. What measure are they even using? Loss of life, intensity, other factor? The intensity of the 1900 Galveston storm is, for example, not known. It is, I believe, still cited as having the highest death toll, but that was because warnings were basically non-existant, the folks of Galveston live on a low island, etc.... So, to claim this means global warming did not happen is, well... not scientifically based.

ALSO, the bigger issue is not when the "biggest" storm happened, its, again, the overall pattern. We have seen MORE hurricanes in the past few years and the truly damaging ones have been coming with greater frequency.

Basically, its a common problem with "disputer evidence". What they say is essentially true... but it just does not matter in the debate. Its like saying that we had a big snowstorm in Washington... therefore global warming is not real. Well, sorry folks, but in fact, increased snow happens when the overall temperature is greater, not less. (roughly because more heat means more moisture in the air from evaporation -- though you can review some science explanations for the full and complete explanation).

I tend to think of this as "lying with the truth". Just because you have a few facts correct does not mean your argument is valid.

More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation. They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO2, and rising temperatures. They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998.

It takes a lot of courage. Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.

Here is how it has worked. The theory that entirely natural sun cycles best explain warming patterns emerged years ago, but the Danish scientists "soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials." Physicists at Europe's most prestigious CERN laboratory tried to test the solar theory in 1996, and they, too, found their project blocked. This fall, the top scientific journal Nature published the first experimental proof -- by a team of 63 scientists at CERN -- that the largest factor in global warming is the sun, not humans. But the director of CERN forbade the implications of the experiment to be explained to the public: "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate."

As more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the enforced consensus is ending. The Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific institution -- whose previous president declared that "the debate on climate change is over" -- "is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures. ... The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause." Most of the rebels were retired, as one of them explained, "One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labeled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective."

Nice story. Would be even nicer if there were real evidence to back this up, instead of just a bunch of insinuations.

In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society's policy statement: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring." Dr. Giaver:

Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this "warming" period.

In 2008, Prof. Giaever endorsed Barack Obama's candidacy, but he has since joined 100 scientists who wrote an open letter to Obama, declaring: "We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

Do a Google search: you will find this letter reported in Britain and even India, but not in America.

Anyone in the UK or India (perhaps another nation besides the US) willing to take up the challenge?

WELL... I can answer for the US side, anyway... not sure about THAT letter (still researching), but I did find reports of a letter he posted in the NY times.

And this:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exc ... al-Warming

Anyway, the first thing I noted was that his area of expertise was superconductors, not climate science. I have no idea why he feels that makes him an expert in climate science, but anyway.

From this link: http://www.desmogblog.com/ivar-giaever

According to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the University of Oslo, and Google Scholar, Ivar Giaever has not published any work in the area of climate science. Giaever's climate science resume is limited to serving on a climate change discussion panel at the 51st convention of Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine. At the convention, Giaever stated he is skeptical of the importance of the issue of global warming.

Now, its important to note that its not just he is not published, he has apparently not really done any research on the topic.

Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." Only 26% attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels." APEGGA's executive director Neil Windsor said, "We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."

Again, no citation = impossible to verify

Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world's top weather scientists, expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak "frankly" on global warming and announce that "as a scientist I remain skeptical." She says she remained silent for fear of personal attacks. Dr. Simpson was a pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not yet good enough to predict weather -- we cannot scientifically predict global climate trends.

Here we go, the above is not actually true (quote was taken out of context), even though it was widely reported and is still being quoted:
First this: http://www.desmogblog.com/joanne-simpson
Has several references to the above quote, but the fullest explanation appears here:
link: http://www.desmogblog.com/joanne-simpson

Julie Bishop, deputy leader of the Opposition, [comes back with](http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/the ... 1c5o2.html) the name of Joanne Simpson:

>And comments from legendary atmospheric scientist the late Dr Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA, who authored more than 190 studies and described as one of the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years who said: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organisation nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly . . . As a scientist I remain skeptical . . . The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”

Well unlike some of the other names Bishop lists, Simpson certainly was a reputable climate scientist, but I wonder what was hidden with that ellipsis? Here’s [a fuller quote from Simpson](http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2 ... e-citizen/):

>What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable. But as a scientist I remain skeptical.

And she goes on to talk about how [NASA's Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission](http://trmm.gsfc.nasa.gov/) can provide more complete information by testing the predictions of climate models. Simpson is skeptical, but she’s using the word with its original meaning, not the way that “global warming skeptics” use it. And she’s in Gillard’s camp on the need for action.

Now Bishop didn’t set out to deliberately misrepresent Simpson. Bishop was fooled by Inhofe’s list of scientists that allegedly dispute the consensus. Trouble is, Inhofe includes scientists that don’t dispute the consensus and [won't remove them, even when they ask](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12 ... list_o.php).

In any event, Bishop seems to have forgotten what her party’s policy is — which is to reduce Australia’s emissions by the same amount as Labor. But instead of using a carbon tax or emissions trading, they’re going to use direct action. This is a question of economics not climate science and she should perhaps come with a reputable economist who thinks her party’s scheme will be less costly than Labor’s.

I am going to stop there... will try to find more scientific references disputing global warming. Or, WAIT.. someone else, who actually says they have the information.. how about you bringing it up.

[PLAYER57832]

PS spent about an hour trying to find ANYTHING that would pass for real evidence the above is false, the best I found was a wikki statement that the association of Petroleum geologists had disputed evidence... but now is in favor.

[Phatscotty]

PS spent about an hour trying to find ANYTHING that would pass for real evidence the above is false, the best I found was a wikki statement that the association of Petroleum geologists had disputed evidence... but now is in favor.

Why am I so popular lately?

[PLAYER57832]

PS spent about an hour trying to find ANYTHING that would pass for real evidence the above is false, the best I found was a wikki statement that the association of Petroleum geologists had disputed evidence... but now is in favor.

Why am I so popular lately?

I see, so you think that George Carlin is a scientific expert in Global warming?

Oh, and he did pass away a while ago.

[Funkyterrance]

I suppose there is a chance that global warming has nothing to do with man's contributions but it certainly stands to reason that it does. Its almost like arguing that second-hand smoke is harmless. You can study the effects of greenhouse gasses in a lab as readily as you can study the effects of second-hand smoke on lab rats. Both are quite hard if not impossible to prove in a non-controlled environment (real life) but in the case of the rats, those exposed to second-hand smoke will have a higher incidence of cancer and in the case of the gasses it can be proven that they have the properties that would, if added to our atmosphere in high enough concentrations, cause our planet to rise in overall temperature.
That being said, even if greenhouse gasses are not solely responsible for global warming but they sure aren't helping the problem. They could make the difference between life and death.

[tzor]

I suppose there is a chance that global warming has nothing to do with man's contributions but it certainly stands to reason that it does. Its almost like arguing that second-hand smoke is harmless. You can study the effects of greenhouse gasses in a lab as readily as you can study the effects of second-hand smoke on lab rats.

That's an interesting comparison. The lab and the typical conditions where second hand smoke is harmful tends to be closed environments. (What is the actual danger of second hand smoke from one person on the other side of a wooded area the size of a football field who are both on stands roughly 10 feet above the ground surface? Well it's not the same as that from within the Bingo Hall.) As you add more external variables and counter reacting conditions the situation gets more complicated.

That being said, even if greenhouse gasses are not solely responsible for global warming but they sure aren't helping the problem. They could make the difference between life and death.

But on the other hand when the proposed solutions also result in life and death conditions, then they have to be balanced into cost and effect as well as unintended consequences.

[Funkyterrance]

I have the advantage here of being not wholly dedicated to either side of the argument but I think that the scale of the issue is perhaps being undermined.
If by life and death conditions you mean those caused by financial hits to industry, I don't think this is a fair or quantitatively accurate comparison. Widespread famine due to ecological changes on a grand scale is most certainly a more dangerous scenario than a more or less localized economic decline. Industry is capable of adapting and recovering while complying to more rigid regulations but if emissions are actually responsible for global warming and continue unabated, there is no adapting and no recovering. When you ask yourself what the lesser of the two evils are, considering calculated risk into the equation, one scenario certainly seems to pale in comparison.
As far as the cigarette in the woods analogy... you may want to check your data in regards to concentrations on that one...
And not to nitpick but the earth is a closed environment.

[Nobunaga]

...Best to avoid these religious debates. They can get ugly.

[jay_a2j]

Not again!

[Funkyterrance]

Not again!

Calling people's arguments illegitimate because of their background is a real cop out. Put on the gloves and debate like a man.

[PLAYER57832]

...Best to avoid these religious debates. They can get ugly.

Since when did science become religion?

[jay_a2j]

Not again!

Calling people's arguments illegitimate because of their background is a real cop out. Put on the gloves and debate like a man.

Its already been done. The debate is truly over. They proved it a scam years ago. Its just that some people cling to fantasy. Global warming was nothing more than a way to tax people more. End of debate.

[notyou2]

You're right Jay, the debate is over. Even skeptics have changed their tune.http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2012/08/climate-change-deniers-are-almost-extinct/

[tzor]

But hey, since you won't go to the old CC thread, here are some new links:

I promise I will go through these links. In fact I've gone through several. Unfortunately there are simply too many of them. The probability that in doing all these cut and paste I'm going to hit the wrong button and delete my text buffer (because once I start replying they are no longer links just text) is flat out 100% Guarenteed. In fact it happened once already. Not that it mattes because I know that your position is so entrenched that it is beyond reason to begin to assume you can be reasoned with on this matter.

Long post (deleted once already) short; the links are generally slightly biased in their soruces and are wildly divergent on the real temperature impact. The biggest problem is that they generally agree that CO2 has been on the increase for centuries but warming only since the 70's ... ironically the point in history when major industrial nations cut significantly the release of global cooling pollutants into the atmosphere, a point that somehow is just ignored in the reports.

[tzor]

Since when did science become religion?

Science has always been to some extent a "religion" where some ideas were held as proven and unquestioned. Some elements of "Greek" science was held as sacred in the Middle Ages even though they were absolutely wrong and held us back in a number of ways. But that is another discussion for another time ... I"m off to watch the Yankees.

[Nobunaga]

But hey, since you won't go to the old CC thread, here are some new links:

I promise I will go through these links. In fact I've gone through several. Unfortunately there are simply too many of them. The probability that in doing all these cut and paste I'm going to hit the wrong button and delete my text buffer (because once I start replying they are no longer links just text) is flat out 100% Guarenteed. In fact it happened once already. Not that it mattes because I know that your position is so entrenched that it is beyond reason to begin to assume you can be reasoned with on this matter.

Long post (deleted once already) short; the links are generally slightly biased in their soruces and are wildly divergent on the real temperature impact. The biggest problem is that they generally agree that CO2 has been on the increase for centuries but warming only since the 70's ... ironically the point in history when major industrial nations cut significantly the release of global cooling pollutants into the atmosphere, a point that somehow is just ignored in the reports.

... While you're at it, give this a read. It follows a similar pattern with regard to the religion under discussion here.

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

[notyou2]

Why did the bald eagles comeback if not for the banning of DDT?

[HapSmo19]

Bald eagles were never actually in danger. DDT was banned by the enviro-fascists because it was saving too many lives in third world countries, fool.

http://www.eco-imperialism.com/wrongful ... sts-lives/

[tzor]

Why did the bald eagles comeback if not for the banning of DDT?

Good question. DDT was banned in 1972
In 1973 Telly Savalas started playing a bald detective named "Kojak" proving that bald men were sexy. "Who loves you baby?"

Coincidence? Could the Bald Eagles simply have returned from hiding because their "bald" look was no longer considered ugly?

Yea, the banning of DDT was probably the reason but hey, you never know.

(You know, when I start to have questions in my mind like "wasn't Kojak around the same time as the DDT ban" and it's correct. it's really creepy. It's fun to be an old fart.)

[HapSmo19]

I guess the truth doesn't matter.

[Nobunaga]

I guess the truth doesn't matter.

... Precisely.

[Nobunaga]

Why did the bald eagles comeback if not for the banning of DDT?

... Couldn't tell you. But at the peak of DDT use, Bald Eagle populations had already recovered more than 25% from their lowest population. Maybe people quit shooting them?

[notyou2]

^^^Science deniers^^^^