Very interesting 80~minute film on the science and politics of climate change. It decidedly puts forward the sceptical case, that global warming is a real phenomenon but has nothing to do with human activity and CO2, that the Sun is actually responsible for it, that there's a ~conspiracy~ to keep developing countries shitty and dependent and all sorts of other exciting things... I am currently watching part 6 of 8.
Youtube Link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related&search=
It was shown on (I think) Channel 4 (UK) last week, and is being shown again on More4 at 22:00, tonight.
I think the panic over this matter is generated by the fact that over the last 50 years, temperatures have spiked dramatically. Usually they don't do that, not so high, not so fast, natural fluctuation is more subtle and prolonged. Now, if the temperatures spike down again over the next 30 years and level off, we will feel like complete idiots for falling for the alarmists, but why should we believe this mounting spike will fall?
It's a frightening time. Especially since reducing emissions probably won't have any noticeable effect on temperature, at least not for many many decades, so even in a century we may not be able to know how much of the heating was caused by anthropogenic gases, if any, and how much of it might have been caused by the sun.
I think the panic over this matter is generated more by the fact that alarmists are insisting that temperatures have spiked dramatically over the last 50 years, not that it's actually happened. Remember that before this, we had the Big ol' Giant Ice Age caused by too much industrially generated particulate matter in the air cooling everything down to sweater temps scare too. Many of the people behind that scare are behind this one too.
Look, come back when you have some actual peer-reviewed science to present and not random web pages or arXiv garbage.
Dude, I just LOVE that open mind of yours!
BTW, could you find a peer-reviewed, clear exposition of exactly how 2xCO2 leads to 2.5 deg C? That'd be great.
> that alarmists are insisting that temperatures have spiked dramatically over the last 50 years
Strawman.
> before this, we had the Big ol' Giant Ice Age caused by too much industrially generated particulate matter in the air cooling everything down to sweater temps scare too
First time I've heard of this.
I'm still waiting for the second coming of Christ, myself.
>>275
This address your claims.
http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html
>>268
Sorry about the technical terms.
realclimate.org is run and funded through various lobbying/non-profit groups aligned with Democratic Party interests. I can barely untangle these complex money chutes that political cash flows through, but you can look it up yourself by searching for "whois" and using those tools to discover a website's registrant and from that information, discover it's affiliates. Running web searches on names/organizations helps, as well as reading Financial Statements (if you're really dedicated).
All purely political sites and blogs are automatically biased due to human cognitive dissonance, so don't bother looking those up.
It's true that weather balloon data supports the anthropogenic theory pretty solidly. If it was just solar heating the troposphere wouldn't be heating the way it is. It's definitely in the atmosphere. Just how much it will heat/cool local weather or what that will be like? I think that's up to more questions.
> First time I've heard of this.
There's this stuff that went on before you were born called "history." You should take a look at it sometime.
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 9/21/2007
Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.
On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.
The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.
Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."
Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.
So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren't they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?
"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere," the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.
Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.
This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times' John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory "court jesters." We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?
People can change their positions based on new information or by taking a closer or more open-minded look at what is already known. There's nothing wrong with a reversal or modification of views as long as it is arrived at honestly.
But what about political hypocrisy? It's clear that Hansen is as much a political animal as he is a scientist. Did he switch from one approaching cataclysm to another because he thought it would be easier to sell to the public? Was it a career advancement move or an honest change of heart on science, based on empirical evidence?
If Hansen wants to change positions again, the time is now. With NASA having recently revised historical temperature data that Hansen himself compiled, the door has been opened for him to embrace the ice age projections of the early 1970s.
Could be he's feeling a little chill in the air again.
> INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Would you stop linking this kind of garbage already? Look up your browser window. What does it say in that URL? Science.
Now post some fucking science, fool.
Why don't you ever argue about the information contained in those posts? You always attack the source, and thereby neatly sidestep the content. I suspect that if I posted iron-clad scientific proof, with all the data, formulas and historical records to prove that global warming was a fiction, you'd complain because it didn't come from Al Gore or something.
The problem is that it's hard to find skeptic information about global warming from the scientific community, the only people willing to host those views are conservative papers.
Here's something I could find, a criticism of Gore's film from the NY Times, a liberal paper.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
> Why don't you ever argue about the information contained in those posts?
First post something worth arguing over.
Once again: respected peer-reviewed articles or it didn't happen.
>>269 is getting somewhere; there's some meat to it, although it doesn't look like it was peer-reviewed or published. It'll be interesting to see the response.
How would you know if a post is worth arguing over if you never read them?
>>283
Because I don't have the time to waste on dubious claims. If it doesn't fulfill the aforementioned criteria, it's not worth my time.
I don't listen to street bums for business advice either.
Then why do you spend so much time here?
> global warming alarmist in chief,
tl;dr
Ugh.
Now that we're done with the stupid irrelevant questions, back to /science/:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
refs:
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
> Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
Hey, now we're getting somewhere!
So lets not go around echoing that CO2 is the only thing that has been claimed to affect a system as complex as global climate, k?
So, plain and simple, how does one prove that most of the warming over the last fifty years is caused by anthropogenic gases? Because almost everyone seems very confident about that. It seems like I might be missing that one little piece of evidence that would make the greenhouse theory click for me as an imminent man-made problem.
So, plain and simple, prove prove to me that this one little piece of evidence would actually convince you, and your not just going find a reason to dismiss it. Otherwise, why should we waste our time?
> how does one prove that most of the warming over the last fifty years is caused by anthropogenic gases?
Prove, in the scientific sense? With current data it can't be done. We'd need at least two planet earths and a century.
Even so, there'd be a number of confounding variables. Our society is quite dependent on gasoline.
From CO2 Science:
Then Again? Rethinking Climate Change Reference
Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R., Lacis, A. and Oinas, V. 2000. Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Early Edition. Online at: http://tinyurl.com/yvcghk
What was done
The authors provide their best estimates of radiative climate forcings since 1850 and discuss their implications for past and future climate change.
What was learned
The radiative forcing of the atmospheric CO2 increase experienced between 1850 and 2000, according to the authors, was 1.4 W/m2, which is equivalent to that of all other (non-CO2) greenhouse gases (GHGs). Also of the same magnitude, but of opposite sign, was the radiative climate forcing attributable to atmospheric aerosols.
What it means
Since fossil fuel use is the main source of both CO2 and aerosols, the authors state that "it follows that the net global climate forcing due to processes that produced CO2 in the past century probably is much less than 1.4 W/m2." Indeed it is. Their own estimates, in fact, suggest it would be zero. "A corollary," as they put it, "is that climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs is nearly equal to the net value of all known forcings for the period 1850-2000." Put more bluntly, their conclusion is that essentially all of the radiative climate forcing of the past 150 years was provided by things other than fossil fuel usage.
Assuming this conclusion is correct - and we believe it must be very close to reality - what does that say about the Kyoto Protocol? Simply that it is absolutely and undeniably unnecessary. It is, in fact, ludicrous in the extreme to attempt to ameliorate future climate change by regulating activities that have had absolutely nothing to do with the climate change of the entire industrial era.
>> how does one prove that most of the warming over the last fifty years is caused by anthropogenic gases?
> Prove, in the scientific sense? With current data it can't be done.
And yet this site, linked to a few posts, insists that it's a fact:
http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html
I meant to say "a few posts above".
Mornings suck.
> Why don't you ever argue about the information contained in those posts? You always attack the source, and thereby neatly sidestep the content.
I have, again and again, argued with the content. And you ignore it every single time. After a while, it gets a little bit boring to make an argument and have it ignored, and just have a new "HERE READ THIS ARTICLE FROM COTTAGE CHEESE EATERS MONTHLY" shoved in my face. At that point, you kind of start to request some actually reliable sources so you don't have to go to the effort to read the garbage, type key phrases into Google, and find out where it was refuted again and again.
You know, you could do that yourself. If you were actually a skeptic, you would be applying as much questioning to the sources you agree with as the ones you disagree with. But you don't, you just find the next article in the big mountain of garbage and demand everybody answer to that one. And when they do, you pick the next one.
THEREFORE, once again, try posting some actual science. Your refusal to do so just underscores that apparently you can't find any science to back up your claims, so you have to resort to the junk pile.
Yeah, but your arguments with the content did not apparently involve you actually reading any of it. You just complained about it without even giving the content itself a glance.
Sorry if I don't spend all my time using Google for some idiot on the internet who is too sure that he is smarter than everyone else to do it himself.
>>298 Same here.
Besides, the links were provided, what would you need Google for?
We would all be much happier if you would just go use Google for yourself, and read both the arguments for and against whatever it is you're going on about this week, and actually paty attention to both, instead of just assuming that everything that disagrees with you is a lie. You might learn something, and we wouldn't have to listen to your rambling.
I will do my utmost to paty attention to all sides in this issue.
For instance, this article covers both sides, and is (perhaps, unfortunately) biased in favor of science over running around screaming about the sky falling:
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion
A critique of the 26 April 2007 testimony of James E. Hansen made to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the United States House of Representatives entitled "Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate"
Prepared by Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
6 June 2007
PDF here: http://tinyurl.com/3d6jna
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
Majority Press Release
Contact: MARC MORANO (202) 224-5762 (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov), MATT DEMPSEY (202) 224-9797 (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov)
Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics
October 17, 2006
Washington DC - One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics. Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism.
Claude Allegre, a former government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party, wrote an editorial on September 21, 2006 in the French newspaper L'Express titled “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” (For English Translation, click here: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264835 ) detailing his newfound skepticism about manmade global warming. See: http://www.lexpress.fr/idees/tribunes/dossier/allegre/dossier.asp?ida=451670 Allegre wrote that the “cause of climate change remains unknown” and pointed out that Kilimanjaro is not losing snow due to global warming, but to local land use and precipitation changes. Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years and the continent is actually gaining ice.
“Following the month of August experienced by the northern half of France, the prophets of doom of global warming will have a lot on their plate in order to make our fellow countrymen swallow their certitudes,” Allegre wrote. He also accused proponents of manmade catastrophic global warming of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!”
Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” See: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/sciwarn.html
Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States.
Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."
This increase in rhetorical flourish comes at a time when new climate science research continues to unravel the global warming alarmists’ computer model predictions of future climatic doom and vindicate skeptics.
continued...
60 Scientists Debunk Global Warming Fears
Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.
“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605
“It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas,” the 60 scientists concluded.
'Climate Change is Nothing New'
In addition, an October 16, 2006 Washington Post article titled “Climate Change is Nothing New” echoed the sentiments of the 60 scientists as it detailed a new study of the earth’s climate history. The Washington Post article by reporter Christopher Lee noted that Indiana University geologist Simon Brassell found climate change occurred during the age of dinosaurs and quoted Brassell questioning the accuracy of computer climate model predictions.
“If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth’s climatic future even harder than it is,” Brassell said. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/15/AR2006101500672.html
Global Cooling on the Horizon?
In August, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output. See: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html
Sun’s Contribution to Warming
There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming. See: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL027142.shtml
continued...
“Global Warming” Stopped in 1998
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter has noted that there is indeed a problem with global warming – it stopped in 1998. “According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005. “…this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled “There is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998.” See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
“Global?" Warming Misnamed - Southern Hemisphere Not Warming
In addition, new NASA satellite tropospheric temperature data reveals that the Southern Hemisphere has not warmed in the past 25 years contrary to “global warming theory” and modeling. This new Southern Hemisphere data raises the specter that the use of the word “global” in “global warming” may not be accurate. A more apt moniker for the past 25 years may be “Northern Hemisphere” warming. See: http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/09/southern-hemisphere-ignores-global.html
Alaska Cooling
According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was “0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average.” See: http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/jul06/noaa06-065.html
Oceans Cooling
Another bombshell to hit the global warming alarmists and their speculative climate modeling came in a September article in the Geophysical Research Letters which found that over 20% of the heat gained in the oceans since the mid-1950s was lost in just two years. The former climatologist for the state of Colorado, Roger Pielke, Sr., noted that the sudden cooling of the oceans “certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings.“ See: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/09/
Light Hurricane Season & Early Winter
Despite predictions that 2006 would bring numerous tropical storms, 2006’s surprisingly light hurricane season and the record early start of this year’s winter in many parts of the U.S. have further put a damper on the constant doomsaying of the global warming alarmists and their media allies.
Droughts Less Frequent
Other new studies have debunked many of the dubious claims made by the global warming alarmists. For example, the claim that droughts would be more frequent, severe and wide ranging during global warming, has now being exposed as fallacious. A new paper in Geophysical Research Letters authored by Konstantinos Andreadis and Dennis Lettenmaier finds droughts in the U.S. becoming “shorter, less frequent and cover a small portion of the country over the last century.” http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/13/where-are-the-droughts
Global Warming Will Not Lead to Next Ice Age
Furthermore, recent research has shown that fears that global warming could lead to the next ice age, as promoted in the 2004 Hollywood movie “The Day After Tomorrow” are also unsupportable. A 2005 media hyped study “claimed to have found a 30 percent slowdown in the thermohaline circulation, the results are published in the very prestigious Nature magazine, and the story was carried breathlessly by the media in outlets around the world…Less than a year later, two different research teams present convincing evidence [ in Geophysical Research Letters ] that no slowdown is occurring whatsoever,” according to Virginia State Climatologist Patrick Michaels, editor of the website World Climate Report. See: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/10/13/overturning-ocean-hype
‘Hockey Stick’ Broken in 2006
The “Hockey Stick” temperature graph’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was found to be unsupportable by the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts in 2006. See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697
Study Shows Greenland’s Ice Growing
A 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass. See: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N44/C1.jsp Also, according to the International Arctic Research Institute, despite all of the media hype, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than today.
Polar Bears Not Going Extinct
Despite Time Magazine and the rest of the media’s unfounded hype, polar bears are not facing a crisis, according to biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut. “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,” Taylor wrote on May 1, 2006. See: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146433819696&call_pageid=970599119419
continued...
Media Darling James Hansen Hypes Alarmism
As all of this new data debunking climate alarmism mounts, the mainstream media chooses to ignore it and instead focus on the dire predictions of the number-one global warming media darling, NASA’s James Hansen. The increasingly alarmist Hansen is featured frequently in the media to bolster sky-is-falling climate scare reports. His recent claim that the Earth is nearing its hottest point in one million years has been challenged by many scientists. See: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N39/EDITB.jsp Hansen’s increasingly frightening climate predictions follow his 2003 concession that the use of “extreme scenarios” was an appropriate tactic to drive the public’s attention to the urgency of global warming. See: http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html Hansen also received a $250,000 grant form Teresa Heinz’s Foundation and then subsequently endorsed her husband John Kerry for President and worked closely with Al Gore to promote his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” See: http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speechID=6 & http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf
American People Rejecting Global Warming Alarmism
The global warming alarmists may have significantly overplayed their hand in the climate debate. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll this August found that most Americans do not attribute the cause of any recent severe weather events to global warming, and the portion of Americans who believe that climate change is due to natural variability has increased over 50% in the last five years.
Senator Inhofe Chastises Media For Unscientific & Unprincipled Climate Reporting
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, commented last week on the media’s unfounded global warming hype and some of the recent scientific research that is shattering the so-called “consensus” that human greenhouse gas emissions have doomed the planet.
“The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific ‘consensus’ that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a ‘climate emergency’ that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve. It is the publicity and grant seeking global warming alarmists and their advocates in the media who have finally realized that the only “emergency” confronting them is their rapidly crumbling credibility, audience and bottom line. The global warming alarmists know their science is speculative at best and their desperation grows each day as it becomes more and more obvious that many of the nations that ratified the woeful Kyoto Protocol are failing to comply,” Senator Inhofe said last week. See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264616
“The mainstream media needs to follow the money: The further you get from scientists who conduct these alarmist global warming studies, and the further you get from the financial grants and the institutions that they serve the more the climate alarmism fades and the skepticism grows,” Senator Inhofe explained.
continued...
Eco-Doomsayers’ Failed Predictions
In a speech on the Senate floor on September 25, 2006, Senator Inhofe pointed out the abject failure of past predictions of ecological disaster made by environmental alarmists.
“The history of the modern environmental movement is chock-full of predictions of doom that never came true. We have all heard the dire predictions about the threat of overpopulation, resource scarcity, mass starvation, and the projected death of our oceans. None of these predictions came true, yet it never stopped the doomsayers from continuing to predict a dire environmental future. The more the eco-doomsayers’ predictions fail, the more the eco-doomsayers predict,” Senator Inhofe said on September 25th. See: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
Related Links:
For a comprehensive review of the media’s embarrassing 100-year history of alternating between promoting fears of a coming ice age and global warming, see Environment & Public Works Chairman James Inhofe’s September 25, 2006 Senate floor speech debunking the media and climate alarmism. Go to: (epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759)
To read and watch Senator Inhofe on CNN discuss global warming go to: (http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264308 )
To Read all of Senator Inhofe’s Speeches on global warming go to: (http://epw.senate.gov/speeches.cfm?party=rep)
“Inhofe Correct On Global Warming,” by David Deming geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (ocpathink.org), and an associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. (http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264537)
Dear lord... who the fuck is going to read all that shit?
I'll just point out the obvious bias right in the headlines and websites.
> National Post
> senate.gov
> running around screaming about the sky falling:
> Media Darling ... Hypes Alarmism
> Eco-Doomsayers'
TL;DR
You are officially too untrustworthy to debate against if you can't be bothered check the backgrounds of your own sources.
Not that anyone can debate you anyway, since you find so many excuses not to participate.
Waaaaahhhh I don't like the source, Waaaaaaah there's too much to read, Waaaaaaaaah the bias isn't in agreement with my bias, WAAAAAAAAAH
And one more:
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH I don't trust myself to come to my own conclusions after reading something PEER REVIEW OR I'M TO FAGGY TO READ IT WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Not that anyone can debate you anyway, since you find so many excuses to ignore or refute everything.
Waaaaahhhh I don't like the source, Waaaaaaah there's too much to read, Waaaaaaaaah the bias isn't in agreement with my bias, WAAAAAAAAAH
>>303 had real Science in it. You should read that one.
>>314
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Notification of obvious bias: exxonsecrets.org
Notification of even more obvious bias: lol Greenpeace lol
In addition, notification of irrelevancy: What does the source of funds have to do with the science in the article itself?
So by this logic, if I find out somebody is doing wrong, and I dislike this and try to tell the world that he is doing wrong, I can be dismissed because I am biased?
You can if you're Greenpeace. I admired them before they traded environmentalism for Stickin' It To The Nucleo-Industrial Deathglomerate.
>>317
Greenpeace is not unbiased, obviously, and I myself have little respect for what may resort to eco-terrorism and piracy.
But what does greenpeace have to do with financial statements filed by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Exxon-Mobil that anyone can access (although there may be a charge for 'processing')?
There is no bias, spin, or even original research there, just plain facts that come from Exxon-Mobil and it's child organization.. Unless you wish to accuse this information of being fraudulent...
> What does the source of funds have to do with the science in the article itself?
Selective interpretation of the data.
Find your own source if you persist in being childish:
http://www.google.com/search?q=www.co2science.org
Prove it, kid.
Near as I can tell from reading it and everything else, the selective interpretation of the data that you find so obnoxious is all on the OMG Global Warming side. THAT is the side that makes shit up to cover its rather nonsensical premise, accuses people who disagree of being OMG GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS WHO ARE IN THE THRALL OF BIG OIL and who insist that any change from the current climate will result in massive dieoffs and huge floods that are nearly biblical in their proportions. Scary shit, no?
The OMG GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS WHO ARE (disputably) IN THE THRALL OF BIG OIL are the ones that put some effort into fact checking. You may distrust co2science.org and others, but at least they have the propriety to show their work in enough detail that it can be reproduced, and name the studies they draw their inferences from.
> the selective interpretation of the data that you find so obnoxious is all on the OMG Global Warming side.
Prove it, kid.
> OMG GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS WHO ARE IN THE THRALL OF BIG OIL
...
> running around screaming about the sky falling:
> Media Darling ... Hypes Alarmism
> Eco-Doomsayers'
> insist that any change from the current climate will result in massive dieoffs and huge floods that are nearly biblical in their proportions.
Strawman.
> The OMG GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS WHO ARE (disputably) IN THE THRALL OF BIG OIL are the ones that put some effort into fact checking. You may distrust co2science.org and others, but at least they have the propriety to show their work in enough detail that it can be reproduced, and name the studies they draw their inferences from.
So now we're back to calling an entire field of science a sham.
Provide proof that the scientific process has collapsed, please, or shut up.
Provide proof that I'm calling an entire field of science a sham. I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.
I just quoted the passage where you say that the only ones who do "fact checking" are "global warming deniers". Considering that pretty much all climate scientists are most definitely not "global warming deniers", you are therefore saying that no climate scientists do fact checking. Thus, you are apparently not considering peer review to be "fact checking", and thus you are claiming that the entire field of climate science is a sham.
Check out the graph here, generated from the Vostok Ice Core samples:
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
The neat thing is that the last three interglacial warm periods were warmer than the one we're in now, sometimes by over 2 degrees C.
We should check those periods in time to see if there was massive biological damage during the hot times. Then we'll know if we're really in danger now.
If rapid change in temperature were dangerous, everything would die off when summer comes. That change is a hell of a lot stronger than the 2.5C predicted.
Regarding >>327, should I have said "Who the fuck has the time to read all that?" After all, if you can use that argument, it must be a valid one.
Besides, the clear mistake there is the "Considering that pretty much all climate scientists are most definitely not "global warming deniers", you are therefore saying that no climate scientists do fact checking." line. I really don't know why you cling to that lie so fiercely. A little googling will find you plenty of climate scientists who don't buy into the whole global warming scheme.
Also, post >>327 wasn't peer reviewed, so it didn't happen.
And you smell bad.
>>332
Strawman.
> We should check those periods in time to see if there was massive biological damage during the hot times.
There's been mass extinctions in Earth's history all but confirmed as being due to extreme temperature fluctuation.
> It's not temperature that is dangerous, it is rapid change in temperature.
There is no rapid change, it's steady, but can speed up.
This can happen when that half-a-degree increase in average temperature increases energy consumption, fuelling another half-a-degree increase.
Causation.
Why should I argue causation?
Most people don't even understand the consequences of hitting the snooze button.
>>333
No, that's Ad Hominem. Try and keep up.
And then there's Ad Nauseam, which our resident troll is going for.
Wait, which one is the troll? The one with the opposing viewpoint and links to back it up, or the one who refuses to read the links?
> If rapid change in temperature were dangerous, everything would die off when summer comes. That change is a hell of a lot stronger than the 2.5C predicted.
Except, you know, the ecosystem is adapted to the seasons? By this logic, you seem to think that if the entire earth was plunged into eternal winter, everybody would be just fine, because a couple months of winter doesn't kill off the ecosystem. I mean, at least try to think things through before you say them.
> Besides, the clear mistake there is the "Considering that pretty much all climate scientists are most definitely not "global warming deniers", you are therefore saying that no climate scientists do fact checking." line. I really don't know why you cling to that lie so fiercely. A little googling will find you plenty of climate scientists who don't buy into the whole global warming scheme.
And it will find me plenty more who do "buy into" it.
Look, will you agree that at least 50% of climate scientists believe in global warming? This is a ridiculous understatement, but it will serve for this purpose. If you accept that, then you are still saying that the majority of researchers in an entire field of science are lying, and this is an incredibly grave accusation. You have provided zero evidence to back up this huge, world-wide conspiracy of scientific fraud.
I provided plenty. You just refused to read any of it.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/
Here's an article that talks about some of the inaccuracies of some of the IPCC's findings, and another published by a New Zealand Business paper which has some nice information, but I guess is hosted by a more conservative media view point.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429&cid=18&cname=Opinion
Well, everything is politicized now, media, religion, even science and history.
I guess you just have to pick what pleases you. I still wish the mainstream climate science scene could convince me that something as broad, powerful, and natural as global climate change could be so confidently pinned to something as specific and brief as the human co2 emissions of the last century.
From April, 2006
An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:
Dear Prime Minister:
As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.
Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.
While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational
headlines, they are no basis for mature policy
formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
continued...
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.
We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.
CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
Sincerely,
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
and the list continues...
You wanted peer-reviewed, you got it. One compiled bibliography of peer-reviewed climate science papers, critical of the IPCC's politicised version of the science.
Short Version PDF: http://tinyurl.com/29llfd
Long version PDF: http://tinyurl.com/2yy5cs
Now you have no excuse. Read 'em.
Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
By Robert Matthews
Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.
A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.
A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.
The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.
The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.
Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.
advertisement
However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.
Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".
Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.
A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."
Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."
continued...
Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.
As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."
Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."
He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.
As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."
Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming.
In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".
A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."
Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.
"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.
Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.
Another Ice Age (Time): http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
The Cooling World (Newsweek):
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
>>342 One more time for those peer reviewed papers critical of the IPCC's politicizing science:
Short Version PDF: http://tinyurl.com/29llfd
Long version PDF: http://tinyurl.com/2yy5cs
Ok, this time in bold:
I didn't ask for anything to do with the IPCC. The IPCC is not the entire field of climate science. Forget about the IPCC. The vast majority of work has nothing to do with the IPCC. Even if you were to prove that the IPCC is run by coked-up junkies and pathological liars, that would not affect the results of the rest of the field of climate science.
I wanted some proof that the scientists doing the actual work are lying, as you claim.
I never claimed that. If you're going to just rearrange the argument every time you post, there's really no good reason to respond to anything you say.
Okay, this time in bold, just for you:
You keep accusing me of saying that the ENTIRE FIELD OF CLIMATE SCIENCE is LYING about anthropogenic global warming. YOU seem to think that I'm tarring the whole bunch of them at once.
You also seem to be convinced that they are all on the same page regarding AGW, and I've given you huge piles of evidence that they are NOT.
Dumbass.
> Dumbass.
Appeal to authority.
> You also seem to be convinced that they are all on the same page regarding AGW, and I've given you huge piles of evidence that they are NOT.
I've seen no reliable evidence that would support your claim, and lots and lots of evidence - such as statements by many, many actual climate scientists - that they are.
But just to clear this up once and for all: Give me an approximate figure for how many percent of climate scientists you think do believe in AGW.
Or rather, "support", not "believe".
You should try reading the stuff I post first. I don't have time to do a census.
A figure, please. Don't dodge the issue. It doesn't have to be exact or anything. A guess.
Read the stuff I posted. Don't dodge the evidence. I'm not going to guess, as guessing is not applicable to science unless you're Al Gore.
Please answer the question. Just a figure. 1%? 10%? 25%? 50%? 75%? 90%? 99%?
Hell, just answer if you think it's more or less than 50%.
Please read what I posted. It won't take very long.
Please read The Internet:
http://
It wont take very long.
i'm going to link this just for lulz:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/11/94854/280
No, seriously. You say you don't claim that most climate scientists are lying, so now I am sort of confused. Before this discussion can continue, I really want to know what it is you do believe.
So please, once again, just answer the question. Stop ducking it. You must have some kind of opinion on this, why are you so afraid of saying it out loud?
I believe that the people telling us that OMG GLOBAL WARMING is going to lead to catastrophe are full of shit. That's all. It's really not that hard to figure out.
I'll counter that ignorant alarmism with this:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/more_on_the_great_pacific_climate_shift_and_the_relationship_of_oceans_to_t/
And what portion of actual climate scientists do you believe are saying that? Just answer that.
The stupid portion.
And how many are "stupid"? Are the people who peer review their work also "stupid"?
Why are you so fixated on getting a number out of me?
Here's one: 37
Here's another: 291,384,191.
Because I am trying to understand what it is that you actually believe. You say you don't claim that climate scientists are liars, and you claim that only stupid ones believe in global warming, yet the vast majority of climate science papers support it - so how are you explaining this discrepancy? Are you saying that:
I believe what I posted in >>361
So, did you read the stuff I posted?