Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

1005 posts / 0 new
Last post
affert's picture
affert
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2008
Posts: 100
Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

I would like to challenge the claim that there is very little consensus about Global Climate Change. 

A very complete, thoughtful look at the issue is available from the "How It All Ends" video series  (available on youtube). The series was put together after the author had his first video attacked by many climate change doubters.  The series covers every argument against climate change I'd ever heard before, and many that I'd not heard.  (

is the initial video).  The whole series is over 6 hours long, but is organized for people with certain types of objections can watch certain videos to hear their objections answered.  http://www.manpollo.org/education/objections/objections.html is a link that points individual objections to peices of the video series that address specific objections.I would recommend watching the first movie, then (if you don't think you have time to watch the whole thing) jump to those objections you have heard.

Please, Chris (and others) take a look at the evidence presented there.  We can't allow selfish or irrational people to distort or side-track the discussion about global climate change.This issue is essential.

Solgundy's picture
Solgundy
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 1
Global Cooling...?
NASA Science News for September 30, 2008 Astronomers who count sunspots have announced that 2008 has become the "blankest year" of the Space Age. Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low, signifying a deep minimum in the 11-year cycle of solar activity. FULL STORY at http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm?list986485 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SDF Number 274 Issued at 2200Z on 30 Sep 2008 Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 29/2100Z to 30/2100Z: Solar activity was at very low levels. Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to remain at very low levels. updated daily: http://www.solarcycle24.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Global warming hype could be masking a more immediate climate problem. A problem that could have a larger impact on our lives than global warming over the next 20 years. Solar scientists have predicted the return of the Dalton Minimum, which was the result of two low intensity sunspot cycles lasting over 28 years. During the early 1800s the average temperatures in the Mid West were 2-4 degrees cooler than the 20th Century average. In many areas it was much dryer than average, especially along the California coast. We have already started to see some ocean cooling as we leave sunspot cycle 23 and enter sunspot cycle 24, the first of the two predicted minimum cycles. http://sesfoundation.org/dalton_minimum.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1400-1520 ? cold (Sporer minimum) 1520-1640 107 warm 1640-1700 61 cold (Maunder minimum) 1700-1805 114 warm 1805-1925 95 cold (Dalton minimum) 1925-2010 138 warm 2010-2110 ? cold? 200 yr sun spot cycle http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/some200.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peak Oil??...........then this.....omg
its only money's picture
its only money
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 24 2008
Posts: 1
less spots on the sun
gees solgundy,i'm getting a mite stressed here,for starters the economy appears to be slowing and on a personel level my shares in lehman aren't doing well,there's a war going on somewhere and thats not good and those pesky terrorists are still up to miscief.double gees,don't you read the newspapers.less spots on the sun,dear o me,the sun is a long way away and can't possibly affect you or me so shrug it off .sorry to be so harsh on you man but don't distract us,the serious thinkers,from the main game.the news on the economy is not looking good,i'd even say its a long way from good,worry about that instead.on a brighter note when peak oil gets here and production reaches a zenith there'll be so much and so cheap that the increased carbon emissions will offset your concerns about global cooling.hope this helps.
affert's picture
affert
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2008
Posts: 100
""There is also the matter

""There is also the matter of solar irradiance," adds Pesnell. "Researchers are now seeing the dimmest sun in their records. The change is small, just a fraction of a percent, but significant. Questions about effects on climate are natural if the sun continues to dim." ~Quote from first article.  

I don't claim to know a lot about sun spots, but if this is true (that global temperatures are being pushed down by low levels of solar activity) that is disturbing.  Here's why: a number of effects mask the upward pressure that CO2 is putting on global temperatures.  Solar dimming is one (which is air pollution reflecting some of the sun's energy back into space).   If the solar dimming effect is further helped by a low in sunspot activity, that means the effect of greenhouse gases are even larger than we've already measured.  

So if a lull in solar activity is happening right now, it will keep temperatures lower now than they would be (good in the short run), but once the sun returns to a normal level of activity, the temperature will jump up.   

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

As a research
physicist who has spent the past 30 years of my career in atmospheric
science, I am surprised that government agencies, politicians, and much
of the public have been manipulated by a political agenda with no
scientific basis, which is the best way to describe the "non-link"
between CO2 and global warming. There is virtually NO physical science
to support any role of man's generation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in
climate change. All of this pseudo-science is driven by poorly
conceived computer modeling and represents a political agenda that uses
science and the public as pawns.

Carbon Dioxide is critical for
plant life and therefore to animal life and to regulate it as a
pollutant is a total misunderstanding of its role in life and the role
that man plays in the environment. Rather than restating all of the
scientific arguments I suggest that you contact Senator James Inhofe's
EPW Committee staff member, Marc Morano, who has done an excellent job
of collecting an overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed science (see:
here) that clearly demonstrates that there is no basis for the EPA to
regulate Carbon Dioxide.

Since Carbon Dioxide is such a minor
greenhouse gas compared to water vapor it would make much more
scientific sense for the EPA to regulate HUMIDITY! To regulate Carbon
Dioxide empowers the creation of a carbon trading scheme that is, in
essence, the trading of hot air. In fact, carbon trading makes even
less sense than the trading of derivatives by Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac.

As global temperatures continue to drop I would think that
the last thing that the EPA would want to do is to be responsible for
another trillion dollar economic disaster. From my perspective, there
appear to be many more top scientists who do NOT believe in AGW and CO2
as a critical element in climate change and see that the SUN is the
active determinant for climate.


Comments
sent to EPA by research physicist John W. Brosnahan of Vanderpool,
Texas, who develops remote-sensing instruments for atmospheric science
for such clients as NOAA and NASA and who has published much
peer-reviewed research. Brosnahan has given permission for public
release of his statement

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries
in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear
of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the
scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.”
The
latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling
of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted
dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a
host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global
warming fears.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...3a-b35d0842fed8

RubberRims's picture
RubberRims
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 22 2008
Posts: 145
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

 

stocks321 where have you been hiding? God I thought I was alone trying to tell people about the truth.

Keep your presence on this site, we are going to need your direct knowledge in order to dispel the Global Worming mith witch has been sold to people like a cheap suit. If it fits wear it.

Thanks nice thread

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Solar science forum poll -- Is global cooling on the way?

Yes -- 76 votes
No -- 7 votes

We
can thus almost be sure that the cycle 23 has ended, but despite the
fact that the cycle 24 has clearly started, the rise has been so slow,
that we can be pretty sure that the cycle will be very low, which in
the past always has meant a colder climate.

http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/in...ad=7&page=3

Very cool solar science website:

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

AlanPage's picture
AlanPage
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 4 2008
Posts: 11
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

We have an interesting collection of view points here!

Little will be accomplished by trying to debate the source of problems on this site where we have limited access to factual material except through the links that we add ourselves. I would like to see a portion of the site to be at least a list of links to important technical material that relates to each chapter of the CC.

Since Chris started by basing the CC on his beliefs, I am going to add a few here

1) Whether CO2 is antropomorphic or not its atmospheric concentration is out of control as evidenced by the exponential curve of CO2 concentration measured by Charles Keeling and others.

2) Whether CO2 is antropomorphic or not its oceanic concentration is beyond the marine buffer capacity to hold the pH of seawater at a constant level. Researchers are documenting an order of magnitude change in pH with devastating results to coral, shell fish, and marine microorganisms.

3) Arctic research (recently severly cut back by our administration) has reported rapidly increasing Arctic sea ice melting to the extent that the Arctic Ocean may be free of ice with in less than ten years.

4) The same research vessels are witnessing high (100x normal) methane concentrations along the continental shelf area and inland over permafrost that is now melting. Infrastructure in northern regions is collapsing where the permafrost is melting.

5) In past climate change situations CO3 was not a driver but the result of other change vectors. Today we are adding forcing agents to the system that may show up eventually in surprising ways.

These major tipping point situations may already be placing unrecognized forcing in the pipeline as affert noted.

I suggest that these situations are worthy of our consideration in light of the many other "J" or "reverse J" shaped exponential factors that are going to influence our ability to support the variety of life that brought us to this point. We have no right to purposefully destroy the oceans as a place for corals and clams and mussels etc to live and filter that water. We have a responsibility to safe guard the ability of the planet to support our progeny. We have the responsibility to repair the easy picking that Chris has described in his discussions of nonrenewable resources.

We have an interesting opportunity to repair the possibility of local sustainablle communities again being able to support their local populations without reliance on imports from outside the region. I suggest that you search: "SWAT Team" in the search box above and read the comments. If this the way the rich and powerful aare going to approach this period of change that Chris advocates our embracing we are in for a HELL of a fight! And the enviroment will be the battleground that dies first.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: ""There is also the matter

affert wrote:
""There
is also the matter of solar irradiance," adds Pesnell.
"Researchers are now seeing the dimmest sun in their
records. The change is small, just a fraction of a percent,
but significant. Questions about effects on climate are natural
if the sun continues to dim." ~
Quote from first article.

The sun is dimming.  But the last time I saw figures on this (and I submerge myself in this stuff) it was by some utterly measly figure like 0.1%....  I will try and find out the article/link 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: less spots on the sun

its only money wrote:
gees solgundy,i'm getting a mite stressed here,for starters the economy appears to be slowing and on a personel level my shares in lehman aren't doing well,there's a war going on somewhere and thats not good and those pesky terrorists are still up to miscief.double gees,don't you read the newspapers.less spots on the sun,dear o me,the sun is a long way away and can't possibly affect you or me so shrug it off .sorry to be so harsh on you man but don't distract us,the serious thinkers,from the main game.the news on the economy is not looking good,i'd even say its a long way from good,worry about that instead.on a brighter note when peak oil gets here and production reaches a zenith there'll be so much and so cheap that the increased carbon emissions will offset your concerns about global cooling.hope this helps.

It's only money...  hey? Well I think you're worrying about all the wrong things, forget your money and investaments, worry about this:

Recession, Depression and Shortages as Opportunities

Along
with the terms recession and depression, have you noticed that the word
"shortage" has  been popping up in the headlines more frequently? I
have and it ranges from winter tire stortages in Quebec to propane
shortages and crop spoilage in North Dakota. One blog even predicts regional food shortages  in the USA in 2009

Google the word "shortage" and you get 31,854 hits; "shortages" turn up  19,767 hits

Anticipating future changes, resulting consequences and potential shortages can provide opportunities for opportunity-savvy  and anticipatory-thinking entrepreneurs. 

  • Food shortages> gene-altered crops
  • Doctor shortages> telemedicine, remote robotics via telemedicine etc
  • Road salt shortages>beet juice, other natural alternatives
  • Cash shortages> pawn brokers, Loan sharking (Illegal)
  • Personnel shortages in startups> glut of laidoff employees
  • Price-increase triggered shortages (ie cement, conventional
    building technology) > smart technology substitutes (smart cement or
    contour crafting)
  • Power shortages in 3d world countries India, China> energy alternatives
  • Parking shortages>smart meters

Over  a dozen different tactics can address shortage scenarios
(substitution, leap-frogging, reduction, elimination, co-production,
brokering/ matchmaking, bring in from abroad, dealing with counterfeit
products knocksoffs, vacume circumstances & opportunties, left
behind scenarios, natural triggers, triggering trigger events  etc)
and entrepreneurs should explore these to see if each is viable for
them. ( see Opportunity Recognition Master Class and Do you know how to spot business opportunities? and Smart Technology Opportunities from my talk at VTT in Finland.

Walter Derzko, Smart Economy, Toronto

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

stocks321 wrote:
Solar science forum poll -- Is global cooling on the way?

Yes -- 76 votes
No -- 7 votes

So then explain why all the world's glaciers and polar caps are melting....?  At rates never seen before? 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Too late...?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-copenhagen-global-warming-targets-climate-change

As ministers and officials gather in Poznan one year ahead of the
Copenhagen summit on global warming, the second part of a major series
looks at the crucial issue of targets

At a high-level academic conference on global warming at Exeter
University this summer, climate scientist Kevin Anderson stood before his
expert audience and contemplated a strange feeling. He wanted to be wrong.
Many of those in the room who knew what he was about to say felt the same.
His conclusions had already caused a stir in scientific and political
circles. Even committed green campaigners said the implications left them
terrified.

Anderson, an expert at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at
Manchester University, was about to send the gloomiest dispatch yet from
the frontline of the war against climate change.

Despite the political rhetoric, the scientific warnings, the media
headlines and the corporate promises, he would say, carbon emissions were
soaring way out of control - far above even the bleak scenarios considered
by last year's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and the Stern review. The battle against dangerous climate change
had been lost, and the world needed to prepare for things to get very, very
bad.

"As an academic I wanted to be told that it was a very good piece of work
and that the conclusions were sound," Anderson said. "But as a human being
I desperately wanted someone to point out a mistake, and to tell me we had
got it completely wrong."

Nobody did. The cream of the UK climate science community sat in stunned
silence as Anderson pointed out that carbon emissions since 2000 have
risen much faster than anyone thought possible, driven mainly by the
coal-fuelled economic boom in the developing world. So much extra
pollution is being pumped out, he said, that most of the climate targets
debated by politicians and campaigners are fanciful at best, and
"dangerously misguided" at worst.
In the jargon used to count the steady accumulation of carbon dioxide in
the Earth's thin layer of atmosphere, he said it was "improbable" that
levels could now be restricted to 650 parts per million (ppm).

The CO2 level is currently over 380ppm, up from 280ppm at the time of the
industrial revolution, and it rises by more than 2ppm each year. The
government's official position is that the world should aim to cap this
rise at 450ppm.

The science is fuzzy, but experts say that could offer an even-money
chance of limiting the eventual temperature rise above pre-industrial
times to 2C, which the EU defines as dangerous. (We have had 0.7C of that
already and an estimated extra 0.5C is guaranteed because of emissions to
date.)

The graphs on the large screens behind Anderson's head at Exeter told a
different story. Line after line, representing the fumes that belch from
chimneys, exhausts and jet engines, that should have bent in a rapid curve
towards the ground, were heading for the ceiling instead.

At 650ppm, the same fuzzy science says the world would face a
catastrophic 4C average rise. And even that bleak future, Anderson said,
could only be achieved if rich countries adopted "draconian emission
reductions within a decade". Only an unprecedented "planned economic
recession" might be enough. The current financial woes would not come
close. Lost cause

Anderson is not the only expert to voice concerns that current targets
are hopelessly optimistic. Many scientists, politicians and campaigners
privately admit that 2C is a lost cause. Ask for projections around the
dinner table after a few bottles of wine and more vote for 650ppm than
450ppm as the more likely outcome.

Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Environment Department and a former
head of the IPCC, warned this year that the world needed to prepare for a
4C rise, which would wipe out hundreds of species, bring extreme food and
water shortages in vulnerable countries and cause floods that would
displace hundreds of millions of people. Warming would be much more severe
towards the poles, which could accelerate melting of the Greenland and West
Antarctic ice sheets.

Watson said: "We must alert everybody that at the moment we're at the
very top end of the worst case [emissions] scenario. I think we should be
striving for 450 [ppm] but I think we should be prepared that 550 [ppm] is
a more likely outcome." Hitting the 450ppm target, he said, would be
"unbelievably difficult".

A report for the Australian government this autumn suggested that the
450ppm goal is so ambitious that it could wreck attempts to agree a new
global deal on global warming at Copenhagen next year. The report, from
economist Ross Garnaut and dubbed the Australian Stern review, says
nations must accept that a greater amount of warming is inevitable, or risk
a failure to agree that "would haunt humanity until the end of time".

It says developed nations including Britain, the US and Australia, would
have to slash carbon dioxide emissions by 5% each year over the next
decade to hit the 450ppm target. Britain's Climate Change Act 2008, the
most ambitious legislation of its kind in the world, calls for reductions
of about 3% each year to 2050.

Garnaut, a professorial fellow in economics at Melbourne University,
said: "Achieving the objective of 450ppm would require tighter constraints
on emissions than now seem likely in the period to 2020 ... The only
alternative would be to impose even tighter constraints on developing
countries from 2013, and that does not appear to be realistic at this
time."

The report adds: "The awful arithmetic means that exclusively focusing on
a 450ppm outcome, at this moment, could end up providing another reason
for not reaching an international agreement to reduce emissions. In the
meantime, the cost of excessive focus on an unlikely goal could consign to
history any opportunity to lock in an agreement for stabilising at 550ppm
- a more modest, but still difficult, international outcome. An effective
agreement around 550ppm would be vastly superior to continuation of
business as usual."

Henry Derwent, former head of the UK's international climate negotiating
team and now president of the International Emissions Trading Association,
said a new climate treaty was unlikely to include a stabilisation goal -
either 450ppm or 550ppm.

"You've got to avoid talking and thinking in those terms because
otherwise the politics reaches a dead end," he said. Many small island
states are predicted to be swamped by rising seas with global warming
triggered by carbon levels as low as 400ppm. "It's really difficult for
countries to sign up to something that loses them half their territory.
It's not going to work."

A new agreement in Copenhagen should concentrate instead on shorter term
targets, such as firm emission reductions by 2020, he said. Worst time

The escalating scale of human emissions could not have come at a worst
time, as scientists have discovered that the Earth's forests and oceans
could be losing their ability to soak up carbon pollution. Most climate
projections assume that about half of all carbon emissions are reabsorbed
in these natural sinks.

Computer models predict that this effect will weaken as the world warms,
and a string of recent studies suggests this is happening already.

The Southern Ocean's ability to absorb carbon dioxide has weakened by
about 15% a decade since 1981, while in the North Atlantic, scientists at
the University of East Anglia also found a dramatic decline in the CO2
sink between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s.

A separate study published this year showed the ability of forests to
soak up anthropogenic carbon dioxide - that caused by human activity - was
weakening, because the changing length of the seasons alters the time when
trees switch from being a sink of carbon to a source.

Soils could also be giving up their carbon stores: evidence emerged in
2005 that a vast expanse of western Siberia was undergoing an
unprecedented thaw.

The region, the largest frozen peat bog in the world, had begun to melt
for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago. Scientists believe
the bog could begin to release billions of tonnes of methane locked up in
the soils, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. The
World Meteorological Organisation recently reported the largest annual
rise of methane levels in the atmosphere for a decade.

Some experts argue that the grave nature of recent studies, combined with
the unexpected boom in carbon emissions, demands an urgent reassessment of
the situation. In an article published this month in the journal Climatic
Change, Peter Sheehan, an economist at Victoria University, Australia,
says the scale of recent emissions means the carbon cuts suggested by the
IPCC to stabilise levels in the atmosphere "cannot be taken as a reliable
guide for immediate policy determination". The cuts, he says, will need to
be bigger and in more places.

Earlier this year, Jim Hansen, senior climate scientist with Nasa,
published a paper that said the world's carbon targets needed to be
urgently revised because of the risk of feedbacks in the climate system.
He used reconstructions of the Earth's past climate to show that a target
of 350ppm, significantly below where we are today, is needed to "preserve a
planet similar to that on which civilisation developed and to which life
on Earth is adapted". Hansen has suggested a joint review by Britain's
Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences of all research
findings since the IPCC report.

Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC, argues that suggestions the IPCC
report is out of date is "not a valid position at all".

He said: "What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature,
but 30 or 40 years of literature. We're not dealing with short-term
weather changes, we're talking about major changes in our climate system.
I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the
long-term projections the IPCC has come up with."

At Defra, Watson said: "Even without the new information there was enough
to make most policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely
essential. The new information only strengthens that and pushes it even
harder. It was already very urgent to start with. It's now become very,
very urgent."

switters's picture
switters
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 19 2008
Posts: 744
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

affert wrote:

I would like to challenge the claim that there is very little consensus about Global Climate Change. 

A very complete, thoughtful look at the issue is available from the "How It All Ends" video series  (available on youtube). The series was put together after the author had his first video attacked by many climate change doubters.  The series covers every argument against climate change I'd ever heard before, and many that I'd not heard.  (

is the initial video).  The whole series is over 6 hours long, but is organized for people with certain types of objections can watch certain videos to hear their objections answered.  http://www.manpollo.org/education/objections/objections.html is a link that points individual objections to peices of the video series that address specific objections.I would recommend watching the first movie, then (if you don't think you have time to watch the whole thing) jump to those objections you have heard.

I know some people on this site that should watch those videos.  But they won't.  Too bad.

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.   

“Since I
am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any
funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.”
-
 Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology  and
formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been
called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”  

Warming
fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come
to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and
scientists.”
- UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.  

“The IPCC
has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It
doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize
has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who
are not geologists,”
- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D.
Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported
International Year of the Planet.  

“The
models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only
are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios
that do not include, for example, solar activity.”
- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico  

“It is a
blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a
fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
- U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. 

“Even
doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have
little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as
clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”
– . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.”
- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the
statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American
Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an
Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.  

“For how
many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the
planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on
?"
- Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the
2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer
reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.  

“Gore
prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found
myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful
for explaining climate changes after the fact.”
-
Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made
warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC
committee.  

“Many
[scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from
promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers
ruined.”
- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating
an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The
present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a
pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an
ideology, which is concerning.”
- Environmental
Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the
Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2
emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every
scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a
political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing
nations walking barefoot.”
- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”
- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for
Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology
Department at the University of La Plata.  # #

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Content...

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

On September 13th, Time magazine (click) informed their readers that
"Northwest Passage's navigability was dramatically demonstrated".

Two
ships coming from the opposite directions met and astonished Eskimo
cheers from both crews echoed through the rock-bound channel. ;-)

The only problem is that it was not September 13th, 2008 but September 13th,

1937

. :-)

Well, it shouldn't be too shocking because the current Arctic temperature is pretty much what it was in the late 1930s

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/09/time-mag...st-passage.html

Arctic Sea Ice Melt Season Officially Over; ice up over 9% from last year

We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They
say: The melt is over. And we’ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time
last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in
their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite
irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didn’t reach an “ice
free north pole” nor a new record low for sea ice extent.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...from-last-year/

TV Networks Wrong On Warming; Arctic Ice Still There


Wrong again! It must stink being a network global warming alarmist. They just can't seem to get their stories straight.
It's
only been a couple months when the networks were screaming about Arctic
ice disappearing this summer. And, no surprise, they were entirely
wrong. By 1.74 million square miles.

This fits an ongoing pattern of media hype about
climate change where networks no longer report the issue with any sense
of objectivity. A study published by the Business & Media Institute
earlier this year showed how rarely dissenting voices were included in
the climate debate. The study found that global warming proponents
overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average
for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a
slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS's ratio was abysmal
at nearly 38-to-1.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/20...ice-still-there

Astronomical Influences Affect Climate More Than CO2, Say Experts

“It’s
practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global
cooling,” he said. Not something you will read about in the media.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/arti...px?RsrcID=35857

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Emissions are in fact observed to be worse than the worst case scenario..... 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2769
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

I get so tired of the poorly informed and intentional deniers trumpeting the fact that in 2008 the Arctic sea ice extent was greater than it was in 2007, as some kind of evidence that global warming has been disproved.  Yes, it was greater in 2008, making it only the second lowest annual ice extent on record.

Here's the latest evidence from NSIDC.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ 

 

Ice growth slows; Arctic still warmer than usual

 Overview of conditionsAverage Arctic sea ice extent for the month of November was 10.63 million square kilometers (4.10 million square miles).Ice extent for the month of November was 580,000 square kilometers (220,000 square miles) greater than November 2007 but 680,000 square kilometers (260,000 square miles) less than the 1979 to 2000 November average.

Truth is, ice continues to melt all over the globe.

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Today there is a new Golden Fleece hanging on the tree, and
anyone with half a science diploma can become a member of Jason's merry
band of Argonauts. Just make sure that your proposal is directed toward
finding yet another contributor to anthropogenic global warming. From
Cow Farts to Whales Singing Off-Key, the field is wide open as long as
you observe a few simple rules:

1. Your results must support AGW, otherwise your grant won't be renewed.
2. If your data doesn't support your predetermined conclusion, change the data.
3. The one with the shortest date to Armageddon gets the biggest bucks.

The
short-term profits are enormous, and for a while at least, the
incompetent and dishonest "scientists" of the world will be able to
enjoy a reasonably regular paycheck. But in the end, it must all
eventually collapse like the dot-com bubble, with the sad end result
being that anyone wearing the title of scientist will likely be viewed
with the same respect as a junk bond trader
.

Jim Peden

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

WARMISTS CAUGHT IN HOCKEYSTICK FRAUD; ALSO NEVER RELEASE DATA, ONLY CONCLUSIONS

 

It
is scientific laxity, and scientific malfeasance, and scientific
double-dealing. It is deliberate concealment of adverse results. It is
refusal to reveal data. It is abuse of power and betrayal of trust. It
is made-up math. It is Science and Nature and the NSF not enforcing
their own archiving requirements. It is scientific check-kiting.

As
I said above, the silence on these matters from the majority of
scientists of all disciplines has been deafening. The placid acceptance
of this behavior threatens the credibility of science as a whole. Where
are the elders thundering about transparency and replicability being
the foundation of science, and publicly urging these mountebanks to
come clean and archive their data? Where are the scientists with the
backbone to call a spade a blasted digging implement?

The
Hockeystick was deliberate scientific fraud. Mann knew about and
concealed adverse results. He knew the whole thing rested on the
bristlecones. He knew that if you remove the bristlecones the
hockeystick disappears, and he hid that, and published anyway. Now we
have Bishop Hill’s lovely summary of Wahl and Amman and the Jesus
paper. There is scientific crime going on, the perpetrators are
concealing the evidence, and almost everyone is whistling and looking
at the sky,

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...nce-policy-4511

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Paulson is a warming zealot:

"It isn't every day that the Sierra Club finds itself welcoming a
nomination to George W. Bush's Cabinet while ultraconservatives decry
the move," said Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director.

"But
on issues like global warming, Hank Paulson appears to favor managing
risk rather than cooking the books," Pope said. "It is heartening that
someone of Mr. Paulson's stature in the financial world is willing to
say that immediate action must be taken to combat global warming."

Last
year under Paulson's direction, Goldman Sachs issued an eight-page
position paper on environmental policy, saying it accepts a scientific
consensus, led by United Nations climate experts, that global warming
poses one of the greatest threats this century.

Like Bush, the
Goldman Sachs statement endorsed a market for businesses to buy and
sell rights to emit greenhouse gases, saying it will spur technology
advances by companies "that lead to a less carbon-intensive economy."
But, it added, "Voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate change
problem," a position contrary to the Bush administration's view.

The
Nature Conservancy, under Paulson's direction, likewise supports a
mandatory approach. It supports legislation by Sens. John McCain,
R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., to cap U.S. greenhouse gases at
2000 levels, within five years. The Senate defeated the measure last
year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...60101181_2.html

The banking cartel is using the green agenda to suppress energy production.

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Among the ever-growing mountain of informed criticism of the IPCC's
methods, a detailed study by an Australian analyst John McLean (to find
it, Google "Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings") shows just how
incestuously linked are most of the core group of academics whose
models underpin everything the IPCC wishes us to believe about global
warming.

The significance of the past year is not just that the
vaunted "consensus" on the forces driving our climate has been blown
apart as never before, but that a new "counter-consensus" has been
emerging among thousands of scientists across the world, given
expression in last March's Manhattan Declaration by the so-called
Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.

This wholly
repudiates the IPCC process, showing how its computer models are
hopelessly biased, based on unreliable data and programmed to ignore
many of the genuine drivers of climate change, from variations in solar
activity to those cyclical shifts in ocean currents.

As
it was put by Roger Cohen, a senior US physicist formerly involved with
the IPCC process, who long accepted its orthodoxy: "I was appalled at
how flimsy the case is. I was also appalled at the behaviour of many of
those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who
promote it.

"In particular I am referring to the arrogance, the
activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications;
the mindless defense of bogus science; and the politicisation of the
IPCC process and the science process itself."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...8/31/do3105.xml

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

GLOBAL COOLING HITS BRITAIN 

 Raw Arctic winds have left Britain shivering in its coldest start to winter for three decades. According to the Met Office, the average temperature for the first third of December has been 1.7C (35F), well down on the long-term average for this time of 4.7C (40.5F).

The bitter cold is a rude reminder of what winter used to be like and in stark contrast to the recent run of remarkably mild winters, when trees hung on to their leaves well into December and frogs were seen spawning in ponds. An early taste of winter came with the freakish snows of October, and this month could prove to be the worst month of the year for underpar temperatures.

The last time that the country suffered such an outrageous early winter bout of cold was in December 1976, when the average temperature was a bonechilling 0.8C (33.4F).

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article5333383.ece

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: ""There is also the matter

affert wrote:

""There is also the matter of solar irradiance," adds Pesnell. "Researchers are now seeing the dimmest sun in their records. The change is small, just a fraction of a percent, but significant. Questions about effects on climate are natural if the sun continues to dim." ~Quote from first article.  

I don't claim to know a lot about sun spots, but if this is true (that global temperatures are being pushed down by low levels of solar activity) that is disturbing.  Here's why: a number of effects mask the upward pressure that CO2 is putting on global temperatures.  Solar dimming is one (which is air pollution reflecting some of the sun's energy back into space).   If the solar dimming effect is further helped by a low in sunspot activity, that means the effect of greenhouse gases are even larger than we've already measured.  

So if a lull in solar activity is happening right now, it will keep temperatures lower now than they would be (good in the short run), but once the sun returns to a normal level of activity, the temperature will jump up.   

The top scientists, of the world, take into account the variations (cycles) of solar activity regarding the data collected for the consensus on Global Warming.  They may not take into consideration all (minor) variables, but this one they have...

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

If I put myself, my whole life, into researching, going to every corner of the world and drowning myself into my work, then I'd be pretty pissed if anyone conspired to sabotage my work to further their own agenda.  At this point, I'd be ready to start a personal war with whoever crossed my path, who did not legitimatelyalter my findings.  Now, what major scientist, after all their years living for their life's work, has come forth to retaliate against people who would conspire against these scientists?  I can't think of any top scientist who has gone through this.  I am open to anyone who can find this for me.  Considering the extent to which these scientists must go through to obtain this type of information and has not come forth to claim they've been blackmailed by authorities to alter their findings shows me the probability that there is no conspiracy theory about "Global Warming".  Those who are skeptical might want to find "people of nature" or indigenous peoples who will claim the same things, i.e., that their food is disappearing, their land is slowing receding, their water contains far less species (The Great Barrier Reef and all of it's organisms that contained a necessary symbiotic relationship with other species), and etc.

I'm just saying that if I spent my life, for my work, then I doubt I'd forego anyone's malevolent intentions of undermining my research... realistically speaking.

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 480
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Doug wrote:

I get so tired of the poorly informed and intentional deniers......

Hmmmm from "Daily digest nov 21

Doug wrote:

Sheesh, I'm sorry I stepped into this subject.  This will be my final post on the subject of AGW.

Yet here you are again, without responding to my analysis of your posted link    Wink

Cheers Hamish

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

No change in troposphere temperature for 20 years

 

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe-m.html

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2769
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?
Quote:
Re: The Daily Digest - Nov 21
Doug wrote:

Quote:

hewittr, gearloose, et al,

Sorry I suggested reading.  I made that mistake because that's what I've done to arrive and my conclusions.  That, and argue with denialists like some of you.  If you truly have an open mind on the subject, try to understand the real science.  Don't take my or anyone else posting on the internet at face value.  Go to the IPCC website and realclimate.org.  They have the most up to date comprehensive science on the subject.  Yes, it involves a lot of heavy reading.  But if you're interested in learning about the subject and not just denying, do yourself a favor.

AGW is not why I come to this blog.  I've gone through the learning process and am moving on.  The subject is, at any rate, peripheral to the focus of this blog.

 

 

Again you have me confused.

One minute you apologize for "suggesting reading" and then you go and suggest we wade through more the same type, but different cluster, of articles. 

The article I looked at earlier in response to your suggested reading happened to cite an article from realclimate.org

That article was hardly "heavy reading", and was far from "comprehensive science".

 

gyrogearloose wrote:

 

Quote:

Before you keep posting more articles with lots of links, might it not be prudent to either

1   prove my contention in (currently ) Post #51 wrong ( viewing options  threaded list -expanded date oldest first )

or

2  Check your citations for objective logical reasoning and accurate data before quoting them.

 

 

Cheers Hamish  

 

Quote:
Yet here you are again, without responding to my analysis of your posted link    Wink

Yes you're right, I did comment again.  My bad.

The truth is that your posts were confused that it wasn't clear to me what point you were trying to make.  Assuming it was the point made by Hewittr about too little CO2 in the atmosphere, but that you took credit for, the following is pretty much the state of the science:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/langswitch_lang/po#more-462

 

Quote:
Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2

The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the 'fast feedbacks' have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the 'slow' feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.). Given that it doesn't matter much which forcing is changing, sensitivity can be assessed from any particular period in the past where the changes in forcing are known and the corresponding equilibrium temperature change can be estimated. As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~7 W/m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars). More formally, you can combine this estimate with others taken from the 20th century, the response to volcanoes, the last millennium, remote sensing etc. to get pretty good constraints on what the number should be. This was done by Annan and Hargreaves (2006), and they come up with, you guessed it, 3ºC.

Bottom line is that, next to water vapor, CO2 is the most powerful ghg in the atmosphere today.  However, there is the possibility that CH4 could increase dramatically with continued warming and consequent melting of permafrost and emergence of vast under sea stores of CH4.  It is a much more volatile ghg, but it's persistence in the atmosphere is not as great as that of CO2. 

 

Nogbad's picture
Nogbad
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 16 2008
Posts: 9
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

I am open minded on AGW, but tend towards the sceptical at the moment. I would however make the following observations:

1. Regardless of the hot air proceeding from the proponents of AGW, and the way most governments in their public pronouncements support the "sky is falling" rhetoric, none of them are acting as if the "crisis" is real.

2. AGW has overtones of a religion, whether or not the science is valid. i.e. we have the hair shirt brigade, talk of heretics and deniers and an activity in "offsetting" and "tradeable emissions" with about the same validity as the selling of indulgences by a medieval Pope.

3. I question the morality that underpins the whole environmental movement. What is sustainability? Why is sustainability important anyway? No one disputes that the Earth and all that is on it is finite on some timescale. Why therefore is it AUTOMATICALLY considered of greater moral value for man to live several millions of years smeared in woad and eating turnips as the (mostly middle class) "raffia mafia" would have it, than to go out in a few thousand years having squandered everything on a massive technological party? Technological partying may even throw up the possibility of infecting the rest of the universe with our insatiable entrepreneurial spirit, and certainly has a better chance in the short term of alleviating real poverty and suffering in the here and now.

 Ok there is obviously a long continuum between the two extremes in 3, but there is seriously no moral problem with either, given that in the long run we are all dead anyway. I think it must stem from a misguided belief in the immortality of the race / species or even the individual. You see the same attitude extant in all the health scares. People don't rationally believe they will be immortal if they don't smoke / drink / eat the wrong diet, but I think subconciously they actually do! Environmentalism is a miserable, puritanical philosophy, and at its heart is a sad lack of self worth. Some of these people even believe that animal life, or any life for that matter is intrinsically worth more than (usually other peoples') human life. Now I'm not advocating cruel exploitation or wanton pollution or anything like that - clearly there is a place for good stewardship and fairness, but I think environmentalism sells humankind well short when there is so much that is both good, altruistic and sustainable.

Since the 1970s rivers are cleaner, the air is cleaner, the amount of energy per unit of GDP has fallen. It is likely we will find a (pseudo) sustainable future - but the future is teamwork and rational thought - Not a new religious Gaia fetish.

EndGamePlayer's picture
EndGamePlayer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 2 2008
Posts: 546
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

All good arguements but my position is -

For every climate chart I see regarding global warming - the end result is sudden global cooling. Though I had some reserevations about how the ice cores are "read" since warm years could melt away data from certain cool years, the end result is a return to cooling.

No one is mentioning the sulfur levels which are another cooling trend. Sulfur is seen in the beautiful red sunrises and sunsets we've been enjoying as of late. Atmospheric sulfur brought on the Dark Ages hence the red skies. The red sunsets are a good indication - colder weather is coming. 

Do I care if GCC is man-made or natural? . . . nope.

Should I follow the logic board and take action? . . . yeap.

Historically, a mini-ice age could last 7 - 50 years and that will take planning on every social level. And, if it doesn't happen - well then we'll just be better off in the long run.

Peace- EndGamePlayer

stocks321's picture
stocks321
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2008
Posts: 91
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Please allow me to pose an important question to you. Why are we going to spend trillions of dollars sequestering CO2 to mitigate global atmospheric warming, while our empirically-tested temperature models (e.g., see “Greenhouse Gases and Greenhouse Effect”, published in the last issue of Environmental Geology, or “Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission”, published this year in Energy Sources Journal) shows that increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere causes cooling rather than warming?

In the dense earth’s troposphere, the heat from the Earth’s surface is mostly transferred by convection, approximately 67%. Radiation accounts for approximately 8%. Why is this important fact ignored by most scientists?

Also, why do peaks in the solar irradiation precede the peaks in the CO2 concentration in atmosphere? The answer is that as the temperature increases, CO2 evaporates from the ocean water, which is a great storehouse of CO2. Is the cause and effect reversed in the mind of many scientists? What is the common cause of “simultaneous” warming on Earth, Mars, Pluto and Jupiter? This is more than coincidence.

Any attempts to mitigate undesirable climate changes using restrictive regulations are doomed to failure because the global forces of nature are at least 4-5 orders of magnitude greater than the available human controls (e.g., see recently published, 2007, book by Elsevier Publishing Co. entitled "Global Warming and Global Cooling. Evolution of Climate on Earth").

This is a critical issue because to misappropriate limited financial resources will create a deeper global economic crisis and pull away sorely needed moneys that currently help underdeveloped nations and the poor around the world.

When Silvio Berlusconi brilliantly stated that fighting global warming is like battling windmills, he was obviously referring to Don Quixote de la Mancha fighting imaginary monsters based on distorted perceptions.

Unfortunately the “Global Warming” issue has become an emotionally-, politically-, and economically-motivated issue that has warped into a form of religious dogma founded on erroneous perceptual beliefs in the face of contradicting facts. Like a religion, it is becoming a sacred cow, impossible to touch.

As far as alternate sources of energy are concerned, do the proponents of this issue realize that all alternate sources of energy put together will satisfy only around 35% of the World demand for energy?

The reality is that in order to survive we will need to take, at the minimum, 2 tracks simultaneously. The first one is to tap all available sources of energy: oil shales, geothermal, gasification and liquefaction of coal, expanding drilling for oil and gas offshore and in Alaska; also adapting cars to run on natural gas and hydrogen. The second one is to explore alternate sources of energy, but not because of combating global warming. Most importantly, clean energy is necessary for health reasons (e.g., respiratory and other health related issues).

Finally, we must also plan to eventually stop burning petroleum in our cars because it is a far more valuable resource than human kind currently appreciates. Petroleum is a critical component for medical and other highly valued applications, in particular plastics. Is it an understatement to state that if we run out of petroleum we will be in great trouble?

As a petroleum engineer and geologist, I can assure you that drilling for oil and gas offshore and in Alaska can be done in an environmentally safe manner.

from Prof. George Chilingar [gchiling@usc.edu], one of the best-known petroleum geologists in the world and the founder of several prestigious journals in the oil and gas industry

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 480
Re: Global Climate Change: is it worth brushing off?

Doug wrote:

The truth is that your posts were confused that it wasn't clear to me what point you were trying to make

The point I was trying to make was that you posted a lot of links without reading them objectively yourself.

gyrogearloose wrote:

Does this mean you want me to read through massive a screed of sites and select for objective articles that support your position ?

Well I think I will look for ones that you cite that lack objectivity...........

In a sort of summary of my post :-
The part of the webpage I selected to examine for objectivity claimed to prove part of " the great global warming swindle" wrong, but it cited another article which actually agreed with the "great global warming swindle" over the point in question.

I suggest that someone cites an article without bothering to check that it supports their position, and yet claim it does, you can hardly be considered to be objective. ( or logical )

Doug wrote:

Assuming it was the point made by Hewittr about too little CO2 in the atmosphere, but that you took credit for, the following is pretty much the state of the science:

If you are talking about the bit I think you are.

I was most certainly not taking credit. I was pointing out that the claim made by Hewittr, without any supporting citations of "Co2 97% natural, 3% man made "
With a bit of math based on stated assumptions, arrived at the conclusion "Without contrary data or analysis the claim of 97% natural 3% man made looks like it has been disproved"

The problem I have with the AGW dabate is that so many of the links posted are good examples of a poor understanding of science or bad logic.......

CheersHamish

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments