Global Warning is Very Real [Archive] - House of Politics

SW85

08-28-2007, 05:43 AM

I've never heard a convincing argument for global warming, period, much less man-made global warming.

CO2 harms the earths greehouse thats supposed to keep the suns radiation rays from entering the earth.

Oy vay! CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Thats why why not pass the big bucks to em? Make em pay! not you or me the little people.

You know we tax the rich already, right? I swear, you people are stuck in some kind of time warp where the rich have walrus whiskers and monocles and use phrases like "now you're on the trolley."

When we tax the rich, they pass the difference off to little people, anyway. You think businesses eat the cost of the sales tax? No, they just charge consumers.

And if you want to be strict about it, rich nations are actually producing far less greenhouse gases than poor ones, like India and China, which dump and emit not only CO2 but actual toxic poisons like sulfur. Because hey, it turns out capitalist countries reliably produce more environmental protection than non-capitalist ones.

They can raise their prices but we can choose not to buy from them. So we buy products thats Made in Japan or from China. So who loses? THEY DO!!

Followed by all the "little people" they employ in America. :lol:

Aren't you the one always complaining about the outsourcing you're now apparently advocating?

Ever wonder why some states are suffering with Floods and Dangerous storms? Cause GOD is cursing us cause we lost our moral values. Like GOD sent a hurricane to New Orleans to destruct that city. America has saluted and approved Gay Marriages and liberals say that "GAY IS OK." Hes gonna continue this pattern until we sign a amendment to make Gay Marriages illegal.

Well, if this is true, then it's not global warming, is it?

And hey, you know what, I'm going to go out on a limb and say something real controversial:

Provided we stop the idiotic policy of overdeveloping the coastlines (which is a bad policy whether the earth is getting hotter or cooler), global warming will actually work to mankind's benefit.

Why? Because there is considerable evidence that the rise in heat-related deaths will be more than off-set by the decrease in cold-related deaths. Cold snaps reliably kill far more people than heat waves and floods and the like.

palerider

08-28-2007, 07:34 AM

I'm sure you're pale, but what do you ride? A horse named Ad Hominem?

So you are going to follow me around, nipping at my heels and sniping from the sidelines now in retaliation for getting your ass handed to you every time you face me head on in a debate?

If you were familiar with steve's posts, you would know that he is very troubled because he isn't one of the nasty rich.

Also, if you had a clue, you would not have even suggested that I had engaged in an ad hominem attack since I did not. An ad hominem attack is an attack on one's opponent in lieu of an argument. As you can see, my jab at steve was incorporated in an agrument and is perfectly acceptable even in a formal debate.

palerider

08-28-2007, 07:40 AM

I've never heard a convincing argument for global warming, period, much less man-made global warming.

The history of the earth's temeprature cycles is a quite convincing argument for warming since for most of the earth's history, it has been so warm that no ice existed at all at one or both of the poles. You are right however in suggesting that there is no convincing evidence to suggest that we have anything to do with the warming cycle that began some 15,000 years ago and continues today.

steveox

08-28-2007, 10:45 AM

So you are going to follow me around, nipping at my heels and sniping from the sidelines now in retaliation for getting your ass handed to you every time you face me head on in a debate?

If you were familiar with steve's posts, you would know that he is very troubled because he isn't one of the nasty rich.

Also, if you had a clue, you would not have even suggested that I had engaged in an ad hominem attack since I did not. An ad hominem attack is an attack on one's opponent in lieu of an argument. As you can see, my jab at steve was incorporated in an agrument and is perfectly acceptable even in a formal debate.

YUP!!! I CANT WIN THE DAMN LOTTO!!! I Didnt win that 312 Million :mad:

SW85

08-28-2007, 11:19 AM

The history of the earth's temeprature cycles is a quite convincing argument for warming since for most of the earth's history, it has been so warm that no ice existed at all at one or both of the poles. You are right however in suggesting that there is no convincing evidence to suggest that we have anything to do with the warming cycle that began some 15,000 years ago and continues today.

Well, allow me to rephrase:

I've never heard a convincing argument for abnormal global warming.

jb_1430

09-16-2007, 10:58 AM

A NEW RECORD FOR ANTARCTIC ICE EXTENT?

While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. ...
This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. We will have recap on this hard winter shortly.

Since 1979, the trend has been up over the satellite record for the total Antarctic ice extent.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/A_NEW_RECORD_FOR_ANTARCTIC_ICE_EXTENT.doc

USMC the Almighty

09-16-2007, 12:17 PM

That's obviously caused by global warming. At least that's what they said about record colds in Flordia and California last year.

9sublime

09-16-2007, 10:53 PM

We had the rainiest summer on record, and it wasn't hot either.

jpn of Seattle

12-26-2007, 12:25 PM

Isolated phemomena, such as a rainy summer or a cold winter, lots of tornedos or the lack of them in a single season, mean nothing.

Here's what's important:

The greenhouse theory (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/03.htm) is robust and solid. It helps explain, for instance, why Venus is so much hotter than even its relative nearness to the Sun accounts for.
It says that certain gases in the atmosphere trap infared radiation, raising temperatures.

Those certain gases, as a percentage of the atmosphere, have increased dramatically during the industrial revolution.

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/7.jpg

Now global temperature are increasing, as the greenhouse theory predicts.

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Warming.jpg

It's really pretty simple.

jpn of Seattle

12-26-2007, 12:28 PM

Based on what science?

Let's start with, say, NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/climatechange_nobel.html

Assuming you're genuinely interested, here's a tutorial (with pictures!):

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2.html

palerider

12-30-2007, 08:10 AM

The greenhouse theory (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/03.htm) is robust and solid. It helps explain, for instance, why Venus is so much hotter than even its relative nearness to the Sun accounts for.
It says that certain gases in the atmosphere trap infared radiation, raising temperatures.

The greenhouse theory is bogus. It defies the second law of thermodynamics and has nothing at all to do with venus. Venus is hotter than the earth first and foremost because it is closer to the sun. Second, the atmosphere on venus is about 90 times more dense than the atmosphere of the earth.

Here is a small experiment that you can do yourself to see for yourself that the greenhouse effect with regard to atmosphere is just so much "hot air". If you have a greenhouse great, if you don't use your car. The experiment won't hurt anything. Get yourself a tank of CO2 or any other gas you care to try alone or in combiniation with any other gas.

On a bright sunny day, with either your greenhouse or your car completely closed, take a temperature reading inside. Then using a hose, pump the gas of your choice into the car until you have whatever percentage you choose upto and including 100%. Wait a while and then take another temperature reading. You will see that it hasn't chaged as a result of the nature of the atmosphere. The second law of thermodynamics predicts this.

Now, if you were able to pressurize the interior of your greenhouse considerably above the normal 14 psi, you would see an increase in temperature regardless of what gas or combination of gasses you had in your car. The second law of thermodynamics also predicts this.

The greenhouse effect as described by proponents of anthropogenic global warming is nothing more and nothing less than fear mongering based on grossly misinterpreted science.

jpn of Seattle

12-30-2007, 09:03 AM

Palerider. Wow. You apparently think you know more than NASA. Impressive. I take it you have an Ph.D. in atmospheric science, yes? What institution granted you that degree, just out of curiosity? Should we call you Doctor Palerider? Or Professor Palerider?
Have you written a scientific paper explaining why the widely-accepted theory about the surface temperature of Venus is wrong, and why you are right? I assume you have a Ph.D. in planetary physics too?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_60AR.html

As for your experiment, it is a little flawed. Here's why:

The greenhouse effect holds that greenhouse gases reflect infared radiation back towards the Earth, trapping it in rather than letting it escape back into space. The effect is simulated in an actual greenhouse or in a closed automobile because infared radiation passes through the glass into the enclosure, but doesn't escape as readily.
The mix of gasses that the enclosure is filled with, regular atmosphere, pure CO2, etc., is immaterial. That's because it's the glass in the greenhouse or auto that simulates the effect that the atmosphere has on the infared radiation. Your experiment tweaks the wrong element and ignores the critical one.

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/greenhouse-effect_012907_085209.gif

Let me see...Palerider or NASA? Palerider or the National Academy of Sciences?

Not exactly a tough call (for me, anyway, but then I'm just a liberal).

jpn of Seattle

12-30-2007, 09:30 AM

Here's a slide presentation from an Astrophysics course from the University of Florida. Slide 6 shows what the temperatures of Venus, Earth, and Mars are, and what they'd be without greenhouse warming.

http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~skane/teaching/ast2037/A2037_Lect16.pdf

Venus would actually be much colder since its dense atmosphere would reflect so much of the solar radiation back into space.
Earth would be colder--an average minus 17 degrees Celcius instead of our 15degrees.
Mars would be a little colder but not much because its atmosphere is so thin.

palerider

12-30-2007, 10:59 AM

Here's a slide presentation from an Astrophysics course from the University of Florida. Slide 6 shows what the temperatures of Venus, Earth, and Mars are, and what they'd be without greenhouse warming.

No thanks. If you are interested in why the greenhouse effect with regard to the atmosphere is bogus here is some information for you.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

If you want to discuss any specific item here that you believe is in error, lets talk.

jpn of Seattle

12-30-2007, 12:54 PM

How cute. A single, solitary physics paper is making all the right-wing rounds because it questions the greenhouse theory.

What standing in the field of atmospheric science does this paper have? Is it considered whacky? Does it make a defensible argument in the field? Are the authors taken seriously? Are they paid by the oil industry? I'd have to be a physicist myself to know, and I'm not.

The conclusion of this paper seems to be utterly at odds with institutions such as the National Academy of Science and NASA. Why would anyone automatically assume it's correct and these other institutions are wrong? Would it be because the paper agrees with their pre-existing ideology?

Science is always questioning itself--that's one of its strengths. If this paper makes sense and defensible arguments, it will overturn fundamental conclusions regarding how planets' atmospheres work. It will render unexplicable the temperatures measured on the surfaces of planets.

I tend to be skeptical about such scientific revolutions. I'm too conservative to jump on the bandwagon at the issuance of a single paper, especially when it regards such a politically wraught issue.

p.s. Palerider, as for your offer of "let's talk", since you don't even understand how a greenhouse works, I'm sure that would be a waste of time.

palerider

12-30-2007, 03:44 PM

How cute. A single, solitary physics paper is making all the right-wing rounds because it questions the greenhouse theory.

Maybe you could find a paper from the field of physics that promotes the greenhouse theory. I have looked, and I can't find any because the greenhouse effect as described by the global warming crowd is in direct opposition to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

p.s. Palerider, as for your offer of "let's talk", since you don't even understand how a greenhouse works, I'm sure that would be a waste of time.

What specifically do you find incorrect with regard to the paper. Where is his understanding of the science "unsound"?

By the way, the ad homeim attack on me was less than impotent.

jpn of Seattle

12-30-2007, 07:21 PM

Maybe you could find a paper from the field of physics that promotes the greenhouse theory. I have looked, and I can't find any because the greenhouse effect as described by the global warming crowd is in direct opposition to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Oh, no doubt NASA and the National Acadamy of Science and the University of Florida (links I've posted in this thread) agree but they just haven't gotten around to updating all their websites.

As for asking me what I agree or disagree with in a paper about atmospheric physics is like asking me what I think about a paper on...atmospheric physics. I'm not a physicist. So I'm not going to presume that I can critique such a paper.
Where does that leave me? It leaves me dependent upon my common sense and non-scientist's viewpoint of where science is today regarding scientific issues. This viewpoint is not authoritative, of course, but that doesn't mean that it's uninformed.
For example, if I see solid institutions like NASA using the greenhouse effect in order to explain global warming, I'm going to weigh that far more heavily than some random paper floating around the right-wing blogosphere.

If such a fundamental natural mechanism, the theory of which has been in place since the 1890s, is actually utterly flawed, and therefore our explanations of planetary tempertures must be tossed out the window, I'm sure I would have been made aware of it by now.
It would have made the Science section of the NYT, or Science Magazine, or Discover Magazine, or any number of web sites I routinely browse.

But I haven't heard a peep. Why is that? So, my suspicions are raised. I asked a number of questions regarding this paper in my last post, which would help allay those suspicions. It seems like a responsible reaction to such a revolutionary position. And yet you ignored my questions. Why?

As for the ad hominum charge, I imagine you refer to my pointing out (9:03 a.m.) that your post at 8:10 this morning demonstrated that you don't understand the greenhouse effect enough to design a simple experiment regarding it. Well. I'll try to keep your delicate sensibilities in mind in the future.

palerider

12-31-2007, 08:50 AM

As for asking me what I agree or disagree with in a paper about atmospheric physics is like asking me what I think about a paper on...atmospheric physics. I'm not a physicist. So I'm not going to presume that I can critique such a paper.

So you don't have a clue and are nothing more than a parrott for the side that you agree with? And I must assume that your agreement is based on politics as you have admitted that you don't have the background in science needed to make an informed decision.

Where does that leave me? It leaves me dependent upon my common sense and non-scientist's viewpoint of where science is today regarding scientific issues.

And since you have no scientific background, you have no idea of where the science is today. You only know what you are told and have no way of knowing whether what you are being told is based on actual science or an agenda aimed at gaining political power.

This viewpoint is not authoritative, of course, but that doesn't mean that it's uninformed.
For example, if I see solid institutions like NASA using the greenhouse effect in order to explain global warming, I'm going to weigh that far more heavily than some random paper floating around the right-wing blogosphere.

While I am not a climatologist, I do posess two degrees in hard sciences. I have gone over that paper and can find no flaw in the man's case and have made a thorough search looking for papers from the field of physics in support of the greenhouse gas theory. I can find none.

If such a fundamental natural mechanism, the theory of which has been in place for several generations, is actually utterly flawed, and therefore our explanations of planetary tempertures must be tossed out the window, I'm sure I would have been made aware of it by now.
It would have made the Science section of the NYT, or Science Magazine, or Discover Magazine, or any number of web sites I routinely browse.

Why would the NYT have told you about the problem with the greenouse gas theory? They are admittedly pro anthropogenic global warming theory. Ditto for science magazine and discover magazine. And it is clear that the sites you regularly brouse are also pro AGW theory because this is just one of hundreds of pieces of real science that put the lie to AGW theory.

But I haven't heard a peep. Why is that? So, my suspicions are raised. I asked a number of questions regarding this paper in my last post, which would help allay those suspicions. It seems like a responsible reaction to such a revolutionary position. And yet you ignored my questions. Why?

I didn't answer because they are nothing more than a circumstantial ad homenim attack. Where data comes from is as irrelavent as who presents it or who funded it. It is either accurate or it is not. Since you have not pointed out any inaccuracy, you must have dismissed it as an article of faith and I am really not interested in your faith.

jpn of Seattle

12-31-2007, 11:00 AM

palerider

01-01-2008, 09:52 AM

Yeah, I expected this kind of bluster. I assumed you would ignore the fact that current explanations from sources such as NASA continue to employ the greenhouse effect, clear evidence that papers such as the one you linked to have made no impression on real science.

There are billions upon billions of dollars available in grant money available to anyone who is willing to jump on the AGW train. There are jeers from the "consensus" and literal threats to do damage to the career of those who buck the trend.

There is a reason that you can't find any papers from the field of physics promoting the greenhouse effect. And don't suppose that because nasa says a thing, that it must be true. We just learned that nasa can't even get basic temperature measurements right. That being the case, how do you justify trusting them on the big items?

Wow. You have undergraduate degrees in science. How impressive. That sure makes you an expert on any scientific subject under the sun. Funny how despite those undergraduate degrees in science you presented an experiment regarding the greenhouse effect that only displayed your utter ignorance in the subject.

So exactly which post graduate degrees in science do you have? Or for that matter, which undergraduate degrees in hard science do you have? Attacking me does nothing to disprove the information that I have provided that puts the lie to the greenhouse theory. So far, nothing you have said has diminished its value in any way.

So you'll forgive me if I have trouble trusting your dispassionate, non-biased, objective and informed review of a single paper circulating amongst the far-right fever swamps.

Nothing to forgive. Parrotts don't really know what they are saying, so the blame for what they say lies with those who taught them the words.

As I said before, NASA? Or Palerider? Easy choice.

I can take an accurate set of temperatures. I have been doing it daily at the lab for years. Since nasa has demonstrated that they can't, your trust might just be misplaced.

And still, the paper I provided remains unrebutted. Since you are unable to even raise any valid questions with regard to its contents, nothing you have said so far has any meaning at all. The information still stands.

jpn of Seattle

01-01-2008, 05:15 PM

I can take an accurate set of temperatures. I have been doing it daily at the lab for years.

If your supervisors are smart, that's all they'll let you do. As you've proved (your post above, 12/30/2007 at 8:03 a.m.), you certainly can't be trusted to design experiments.

As for the paper itself, here are some comments I've found regarding it:

"It’s garbage. A ragbag of irrelevant physics strung together incoherently. For instance, apparently energy balance diagrams are wrong because they don’t look like Feynman diagrams and GCMs are wrong because they don’t solve Maxwell’s equations. Not even the most hardened contrarians are pushing this one."

"The planetary albedo is apparently a mystery to the authors, as is the ratio of Earth’s disc to it’s surface area, and they take exception to energy balance diagrams ‘because they do not fit in the Feynman diagrams in quantum field theory”. This is bunkum of a high order."

But that's not all. Here's a more lengthy and more damning citicism:
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/

Here's some more discussion by people who, unlike you or me, actually seem to know what they are talking about, and find absurd errors in this paper: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/10/loons-take-flight-as-halloween-nears.html

You refused to answer the questions I posed earlier which would give us some clue as to the scientific standing of both the paper you linked to and its authors. Your refusal to take this simple and responsible step leaves the paper wide open to criticism. If we are to believe the sources I found, this would explain the fact that the paper is not taken seriously in the scientific community, at least not beyond a few bloggers who, fortunately, have taken time from more productive endevors to point out how silly it is.

So where does all this leave us? At the beginning. You can believe that the global scientific community, including such august instititions as the National Academy of Sciences and NASA are ignorant, or misguided, or just lying to us in order to get funding, or, you can believe that they are giving us their best projections of what's going on with regard to the climate. Which would make you wrong and all those liberal environmental whackos you hate so much, right.

And you can't stand that, can you?

(I'm assuming you're a knee-jerk anti-environmentalist, but I don't know that. I infer it from your behavior--quickly jumping on the bandwagon of this paper while dismissing about a century of settled science on the greenhouse effect. You could invalidate my conclusion by rejecting the paper in question, and acknowledge that the greenhouse effect is not seriously being questioned by serious scientists.)

palerider

01-02-2008, 08:42 AM

jb_1430

01-02-2008, 04:33 PM

JP, you are on the bus. We are standing on the side of the road.
I always think of Stephen Scneider, one of the first scientist to begin preaching the pitfalls of climatic change. I think his approach to science has been embraced by the global warming advocates. They just present "scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have".

1971
However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °C. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

1989
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996

vyo476

01-02-2008, 06:52 PM

There are jeers from the "consensus" and literal threats to do damage to the career of those who buck the trend.

I'd be curious to read these, if you have links.

jpn of Seattle

01-02-2008, 08:57 PM

blogs? You offer blogs? Enuf said.

By the way, since none of the projections of either nasa or national academy of sciences has even come close to happening, by what logic do you continue to believe that they are offering you thier best projections instead of considering the obvious money motive for promoting AGW theory?

None of the projections have even come close? Really? Citation, please. Please provide a projection they've made in the last five years. Ten years. Then we'll see if it came true or if it comes true.

Do you think there's no money to be had for denying global climate change? You think the oil companies aren't standing by to spend huge bucks to get some prominent scientists to say what they want them to say? Who has deeper pockets, the Sierra Club or Shell Oil?

As for the criticisms I found regarding the paper you found in your right-wing web sites, I was pretty sure that you wouldn't actually respond. I can only assume the reason you gave up is because you're out of your depth. That's okay. After that "little experiment" you proposed, it's obvious that you don't know much about the subject. Neither do I, but at least I admitted as much from the very start.

Oh well. Back to reading temperatures in that lab you work in...

jpn of Seattle

01-02-2008, 09:01 PM

1971

1989

I find the second quote especially interesting. As for the first quote, we've learned a bit since then. Every year, more and more scientists who previously were bystanders are "getting on the bus."

The stakes are high. Hope people don't wait too long.

jpn of Seattle

01-02-2008, 10:01 PM

I'd be curious to read these, if you have links.

Don't hold your breath.

palerider

01-03-2008, 02:55 AM

None of the projections have even come close? Really? Citation, please. Please provide a projection they've made in the last five years. Ten years. Then we'll see if it came true or if it comes true.

Here are 32 separate predictions, 27 of which failed completely, 1 was accurate enough to claim as a win for the people who programmed the senario but it is entirely unclear whether human beings are responsible or whether it was just a lucky guess, and since this list was published, the trend that arctic ice has taken has been the opposite of their prediction anyway so it didn't hold, and the results of 4 were so ambiguous so as to be intederminable.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Do you think there's no money to be had for denying global climate change? You think the oil companies aren't standing by to spend huge bucks to get some prominent scientists to say what they want them to say? Who has deeper pockets, the Sierra Club or Shell Oil?

Contrary to what your handlers tell you, the grant money available from oil companies is a very tiny percentage of the money available from organizations looking for political power via AGW theory. You mention the sierra club as if it were a monolithic organization and the only one offering grant money.

The owner of virgin records, for example has offered up 3 billion dollars in grant money for scientists who will look for a solution to "global warming". He is particularly interested in problems created by commercial aircraft and is seeking, via his research money, government mandates for cleaner jet fuels. Oddly enough, he also owns one of the only companies in the world that makes a clean burning jet fuel. One mandated change in jet fuel would make him 10 times the 3 billion dollar investement he put up in "grant" money. This sort of thing is rife within the AGW community.

The oil companies have little need to pull the sort of crap the owner of virgin records is pulling because oil is going to continue to be needed for a very long time. A mandate from the government, for example, for clean buring fuel doesn't hurt the oil companies. Clean burning fuel takes more oil to make so such a mandate boosts their profits so why would they be interested in countering it?

As for the criticisms I found regarding the paper you found in your right-wing web sites, I was pretty sure that you wouldn't actually respond. I can only assume the reason you gave up is because you're out of your depth. That's okay. After that "little experiment" you proposed, it's obvious that you don't know much about the subject. Neither do I, but at least I admitted as much from the very start.

I didn't give up. It is clear that you are out of your depth and unable to actually discuss the issue. At best, you can cut and paste information from other sites that you admittedly don't understand any more than the initial information I provided. So what is the point?

By the way, the experiment is valid. Sorry you don't grasp it.

palerider

01-03-2008, 03:45 AM

I'd be curious to read these, if you have links.

Sure, I will get you some links. For obvious reasons, such stories don't make the big news, but I will dig some up for you. In the meantime, here is an interview conducted with Professor Pat Michaels, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Sherwood Idso, Professor Tom Wigley, and Professor Reginald Newell on the topic of funding.

This is not just a group of skeptics. They are well respected. Professor Michaels, for example is one of the most popular speakers in the world on the topic of global warming. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama and he has been Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. He also recieved NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement. Dr. Idso is the President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Professor Newell was a professor of meterology at MIT and Professor Wigley is a senior scientist in the National Center for for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division, has been named a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) for his major contributions to climate and carbon-cycle modeling and to climate data analysis.

"THE WEATHER MACHINE" (BBC 1, November 1974): There's the ever-present threat of a big freeze. Will a new ice age claim our lands and bury our northern cities? It's buried Manhattan Island before when great glaciers half a mile thick filled the valley of New York's Hudson River.

INTERVIEWER: You do accept that 10-15 years ago people were talking about global cooling, not warming?

DR STEPHEN SCHNEIDER: Not everybody - I was one who was not sure.

INTERVIEWER: You say you didn't believe in global cooling but in your first book you said, 'I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in, perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age. Well, that was just fourteen years ago.

DR STEPHEN SCHNEIDER: I said that because at the time it was true. But you've got to be honest, you've got to tell things the way they are. I don't mind people quoting what I said in the 1970s.

INTERVIEWER: Doesn't all of that add up to saying that you're asking governments to spend billions of dollars on a view which is different from one you held a decade ago?

DR STEPHEN SCHNEIDER: I don't see any problem in saying that people learn. I'm not embarrassed about a view I held a decade ago.

PROF. PAT MICHAELS: You should remember, when I was going to graduate school, it was gospel that the ice age was about to start. I had trouble warming up to that one too. This is not the first climatic apocalypse, but it' s certainly the loudest.

There may be many reasons why we might want to believe in a apocalypse but for the scientists involved it's very straightforward.

DR ROY SPENCER: It's easier to get funding if you can show some evidence for impending climate disasters. In the late 1970s it was the coming ice age and now it's the coming global warming. Who knows what it will be ten years from now. Sure, science benefits from scary scenarios.

DR SHERWOOD IDSO: A lot of people are getting very famous and very well funded as a result of promoting the disastrous scenario of greenhouse warming.

PROF. REGINALD NEWELL: My suspicion is that if you have a crisis like this it' s easier to gain funds for the profession as a whole.

PROF. TOMWIGLEY: I don't think funding directly influences the nature of the research or the approach. .

INTERVIEWER: But indirectly?

PROF.TOMWIGLEY. Using my organisation as an example, we have only one permanently-funded university scientist that's me. I have a dozen research workers with Ph.D.s who are working in the climatic research unit and they are all funded on so-called soft money. Their existence requires me, or us jointly, to get external support.

Funding may have encouraged support of the greenhouse theory, but if you oppose the theory, life can get difficult.

PROF. REGINALD NEWELL: I was warned when I wrote my first paper which discussed the difference between the climate models and some figures I was looking at for the tropics that it would be very difficult and my funding would probably be cut. In fact it has been cut.

INTERVIEWER: Did you believe that at the time?

PROF. REGINALD NEWELL: No, I thought that the system was so straightforward and honest - that bringing in a new perspective to the whole thing which I thought I did in 1979 would be considered to be a positive thing: people could hear both sides of the argument and then have a debate.

INTERVIEWER: Perhaps the greenhouse theory has been successful in terms of raising funds : by saying there' s a crisis around the corner, people are talking about putting in more funds.

PROF. REGINALD NEWELL: Perhaps it has worked; perhaps I was wrong but I think it's going to backfire.

DR ROY SPENCER: Richard Lindzen has recently said that this whole area has become a new McCarthyism. If you don't jump on the environmental bandwagon to stop the inevitable warming of the Earth, then you will be ostracised from the scientific community and from everybody else's community , because it's not fashionable to disagree with the environmentalists these days.

PROF. PAT MICHAELS : People who have a point of view which may not be politically acceptable are going to have problems. That's not surprising. I have had experiences with editors of more than one journal who have said that my papers have been rejected because they are held to a higher standard of review than others. I believe this is because what they say is not popular. That's OK: I'm a big boy. I know I would have been more successful if I had said the world is coming to an end, but I can't bring myself to do that.

Of course it's not only been the scientists. The media also benefits from a good disaster story.

'THE BIG HEAT' (Panorama, May 1990): Storms, cyclones, drought, high winds and floods: a foretaste of global warming, a change in global climate caused by man's pollution of the planet.

To say that the climate is OK does not usually make the headlines. And the best prophets of doom are the ones filmed most. (Shot of Stephen Schneider being interviewed in front of the cameras).

jpn of Seattle

01-03-2008, 07:31 PM

Here are 32 separate predictions, 27 of which failed completely, 1 was accurate enough to claim as a win for the people who programmed the senario but it is entirely unclear whether human beings are responsible or whether it was just a lucky guess, and since this list was published, the trend that arctic ice has taken has been the opposite of their prediction anyway so it didn't hold, and the results of 4 were so ambiguous so as to be intederminable.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

I looked at the very first analysis. The source used to refute it is Richard S. Lindzen: Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [3]

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout.[/I][/B] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

So he won't bet with his money straight up, but he'll gladly toss the dice with our future.

The list you linked to is from a web site by Warwick Hughes, a "free lance earth scientist from Australia." I wonder if that means that he has--be still my beating heart--an undergraduate degree in science!!!!!
At the top of his web site is the very unscientific boast: "Exposing situations where unsound science is used to prop up fashionable and expensive policy notions, usually policy coloured a shade of Green."

Doesn't exactly sound like an open-minded scientist to me.

jpn of Seattle

01-03-2008, 07:37 PM

Here are 32 separate predictions, 27 of which failed Contrary to what your handlers tell you, the grant money available from oil companies is a very tiny percentage of the money available from organizations looking for political power via AGW theory.

So you assert.

January 3, 2007
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

=======================================

Oil industry targets EU climate policy
· US lobby seeks to derail Kyoto measures
· Documents show plan to sway post-2012 agenda
David Adam in Montreal The Guardian, Thursday December 8 2005
Lobbyists funded by the US oil industry have launched a campaign in Europe aimed at derailing efforts to tackle greenhouse gas pollution and climate change.

Documents obtained by Greenpeace and seen by the Guardian reveal a systematic plan to persuade European business, politicians and the media that the EU should abandon its commitments under the Kyoto protocol, the international agreement that aims to reduce emissions that lead to global warming. The disclosure comes as United Nations climate change talks in Montreal on the future of Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012, enter a critical phase. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/dec/08/greenpolitics.europeanunion

=========================================

Foes of global warming theory have energy ties

By JEFF NESMITH
COX NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- Non-profit organizations with ties to energy interests are promoting a controversial new study as proof that prevailing views of global warming are wrong.

The research was underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute, the trade association of the world's largest oil companies. Two of the five authors are scientists who have been linked to the coal industry and have received support from the ExxonMobil Foundation. Two others, who are affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, also have the title of "senior scientists" with a Washington-based organization supported by ExxonMobil Corp. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/124642_warming02.html

jpn of Seattle

01-03-2008, 07:56 PM

I didn't give up. It is clear that you are out of your depth and unable to actually discuss the issue. At best, you can cut and paste information from other sites that you admittedly don't understand any more than the initial information I provided. So what is the point?

By the way, the experiment is valid. Sorry you don't grasp it.

You don't have a clue. Your experiment called for changing the atmosphere inside a greenhouse or car from a normal mix of gasses to all CO2 and then measure the temperature. You boldly predicted that there would be no measurable difference between the two gas mixtures. According to you, this would prove that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't really affect global temperatures. Here's exactly what you wrote, pasted from page 3:

Here is a small experiment that you can do yourself to see for yourself that the greenhouse effect with regard to atmosphere is just so much "hot air". If you have a greenhouse great, if you don't use your car. The experiment won't hurt anything. Get yourself a tank of CO2 or any other gas you care to try alone or in combiniation with any other gas.

On a bright sunny day, with either your greenhouse or your car completely closed, take a temperature reading inside. Then using a hose, pump the gas of your choice into the car until you have whatever percentage you choose upto and including 100%. Wait a while and then take another temperature reading. You will see that it hasn't chaged as a result of the nature of the atmosphere. The second law of thermodynamics predicts this.

Now, if you were able to pressurize the interior of your greenhouse considerably above the normal 14 psi, you would see an increase in temperature regardless of what gas or combination of gasses you had in your car. The second law of thermodynamics also predicts this.

Hey, genius.

Yo, Einstein.

They call it the "greenhouse effect" because a greenhouse makes a good model of how the atmosphere warms the Earth. Greenhouse gasses emit infared radiation, but then trap some of it. This makes the Earth warmer than it otherwise would be.
When they use a greenhouse as a model, IT'S THE GLASS that plays the role of the atmosphere. Changing the mix of gases within the greenhouse is beside the point.

Get it?

Here, let me try it this way. If you want to run your "little experiment," but this time in a way that actually models the greenhouse effect, take a temperature of a greenhouse with some windows open. Then close windows while taking temperatures. As more and more windows close, the temperature increases. Closing the windows mimics the process of pumping more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

Geeze. You've had half a week to think about this, and still stubbornly persist with your bizarre "little experiment."

Wow. The power of ideology...

vyo476

01-03-2008, 07:58 PM

Sure, I will get you some links.

Thanks. I'm doing some looking myself, too.

jpn of Seattle

01-03-2008, 08:02 PM

Sure, I will get you some links. For obvious reasons, such stories don't make the big news, but I will dig some up for you. In the meantime, here is an interview conducted with Professor Pat Michaels, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Sherwood Idso, Professor Tom Wigley, and Professor Reginald Newell on the topic of funding.

This is not just a group of skeptics. They are well respected.

Yes indeed. Among the global warming deniers, that is.

Heck, let's just take the first one, Pat Michaels:

"Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels."

"Michaels has written papers claiming that satellite temperature data shows no global warming trend. But he got this result by cutting the data off after 1996. (Every year after 1996 the satellite measurement showed warming.) Another paper made the bizarre claim that the temperature increases were meaningless because they correlated closely to GDP, without explaining how the GDP caused the increase warming. (A more likely explanation is that high-GDP countries tend to be at higher lattitudes, where global warming has the most impact).

"Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, said "Pat Michaels is not one of the nation's leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence." [7]

"Michaels responded by threatening to sue. (Michaels had gotten another scientist to withdraw similar remarks.)[8] But Gleick stood by his statement and others have joined him.

"Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of US climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science." [9]

"Dr. Tom Wigley, lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the world's leading climate scientists, was quoted in the book "The Heat is On" (Gelbspan, 1998, Perseus Publishing): "Michaels' statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels' testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading.""
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pat_Michaels

vyo476

01-03-2008, 08:13 PM

Still, JPN, you have to respect what Newell had to say, especially from a purely scientific point of view. He seemed to me to be a bewildered researcher who was doing his job and got hamstrung for doing it right.

And in case you're wondering about his credentials...

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/newell.html

I'd be very interested to read anything else he's written on the subject. I checked on Amazon.com but it doesn't appear as though he has any major published works. I've logged his name though and I'll go looking for more later.

I suppose my biggest problem with the scientific side of the debate on global warming is that I've never seen both sides talk about it at once. Most of what I've seen (granted, very little - it isn't a topic I've researched in much depth) is extremely one-sided. It would be illuminating to find a debate/discussion/meeting of the minds between the "naysayers" and the "alarmists" - preferably the more moderate ones from both sides to avoid useless discourse. Does anyone know if anything like that exists out there?

ilikeboobs

01-04-2008, 12:54 PM

http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

Here's some science. And it refutes the stupid argument that our country will be underwater. The DEBATE IS OVER!!!!

Now we've got scientists saying that global warming will actually be good for the planet - something al gore insists is a fallacy. I hate mexicans.

palerider

01-04-2008, 03:04 PM

So you assert.

Yeah, are you number challenged?

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

Wow!! A whole 16 million? Compare that to the 3 billion put up by the president of virgin records. Which do you believe would buy more dishonesty?

palerider

01-04-2008, 03:13 PM

They call it the "greenhouse effect" because a greenhouse makes a good model of how the atmosphere warms the Earth. Greenhouse gasses emit infared radiation, but then trap some of it. This makes the Earth warmer than it otherwise would be.

Sorry guy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says it just aint so. And I would be interested in hearing about how CO2 or any other greenhouse gas "emits" anything.

When they use a greenhouse as a model, IT'S THE GLASS that plays the role of the atmosphere. Changing the mix of gases within the greenhouse is beside the point.

That is the point. It is the glass that is responsible for the green house effect, not the gas. Unless you believe that there is a giant pane of glass surrounding the earth, the greenhouse effect isn't what it is claimed to be.

Get it?

Yeah, I get it. You are an individual who admits to having no science background that has bought some bogus information and feels the need to rail against anything, or anyone who contradicts it.

Popeye

01-04-2008, 07:38 PM

Yeah, are you number challenged?

Wow!! A whole 16 million? Compare that to the 3 billion put up by the president of virgin records. Which do you believe would buy more dishonesty?
Organizations associated with, or funded by Exxon Mobil. I think it goes without saying, that anything that comes from these organizations has to be taken with a grain of salt. Almost all of these groups dispute mans influence on global warming, some of them blatantly, in one way or another. In fact, it's virtually impossible to find an individual or organization, skeptical of climate change, without ties to the fossil fuel industry. What a coincidence.

60/Sixty Plus Association
Accuracy in Academia
Accuracy in Media
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
Africa Fighting Malaria
Air Quality Standards Coalition
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Alliance for Climate Strategies
American Coal Foundation
American Conservative Union Foundation
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research
American Council on Science and Health
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies
American Friends of the Institute for Economic Affairs
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Petroleum Institute
American Policy Center
American Recreation Coalition
American Spectator Foundation
Americans for Tax Reform
Arizona State University Office of Cimatology
Aspen Institute
Association of Concerned Taxpayers
Atlantic Legal Foundation
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Blue Ribbon Coalition
Capital Legal Foundation
Capital Research Center and Greenwatch
Cato Institute
Center for American and International Law
Center for Environmental Education Research
Center for Security Policy
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
Center for the New West
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Centre for the New Europe
Chemical Education Foundation
Citizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational Foundation
Citizens for the Environment and CFE Action Fund
Clean Water Industry Coalition
Climate Research Journal
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Communications Institute
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Congress of Racial Equality
Consumer Alert
Cooler Heads Coalition
Council for Solid Waste Solutions
DCI Group
Defenders of Property Rights
Earthwatch Institute
ECO or Environmental Conservation Organization
European Enterprise Institute
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
Fraser Institute
Free Enterprise Action Institute
Free Enterprise Education Institute
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation
George C. Marshall Institute
George Mason University, Law and Economics Center
Global Climate Coalition
Great Plains Legal Foundation
Greening Earth Society
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
Heartland Institute
Heritage Foundation
Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University
Hudson Institute
Illinois Policy Institute
Independent Commission on Environmental Education
Independent Institute
Institute for Biospheric Research
Institute for Energy Research
Institute for Regulatory Science
Institute for Senior Studies
Institute for the Study of Earth and Man
Institute of Humane Studies, George Mason University
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
International Council for Capital Formation
International Policy Network - North America
International Republican Institute
James Madison Institute
Junkscience.com
Landmark Legal Foundation
Lexington Institute
Lindenwood University
Mackinac Center
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
Media Institute
Media Research Center
Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Mountain States Legal Foundation
National Association of Neighborhoods
National Black Chamber of Commerce
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Center for Public Policy Research
National Council for Environmental Balance
National Environmental Policy Institute
National Legal Center for the Public Interest
National Mining Association
National Policy Forum
National Wetlands Coalition
National Wilderness Institute
New England Legal Foundation
Pacific Legal Foundation
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
Peabody Energy
Property and Environment Research Center, formerly Political Economy Research Center
Public Interest Watch
Reason Foundation
Reason Public Policy Institute
Science and Environmental Policy Project
Seniors Coalition
Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP
Small Business Survival Committee
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Statistical Assessment Service (STATS)
Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
Texas Public Policy Foundation
The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc.
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
The Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation)
The Locke Institute
United for Jobs
University of Oklahoma Foundation, Inc.
US Russia Business Council
Virginia Institute for Public Policy
Washington Legal Foundation
Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy
Western Fuels
World Affairs Councils of America
World Climate Report

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

jpn of Seattle

01-04-2008, 07:53 PM

Sorry guy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says it just aint so. And I would be interested in hearing about how CO2 or any other greenhouse gas "emits" anything.

Wrong word. It permits infared radiation to pass through it, but then traps it. See? When you're wrong, it's possible to admit it. Try it sometime. I've given you ample opportunities to admit to your mistakes, including your absurd "little experiment."

That is the point. It is the glass that is responsible for the green house effect, not the gas. Unless you believe that there is a giant pane of glass surrounding the earth, the greenhouse effect isn't what it is claimed to be.

Oh! So that's why you changed gases inside the greenhouse. To prove that the glass is the key factor. How original! Tell me, do you always choose irrelevant variables to change in your "little experiments" while keeping the key factors unchanged? How original!

Yeah, I get it. You are an individual who admits to having no science background that has bought some bogus information and feels the need to rail against anything, or anyone who contradicts it.

Many would say that undergraduate degrees are actually quite similar to "having no science background" when discussing highly complex issues such as this. That's why I don't pretend to know more than I do, unlike you. Embarrassingly, you demonstrated the problem of putting on airs by proposing a ridiculously flawed "little experiment" not worthy of a high school student. Oops!

I bought "some bogus information"? Well, one of us did. :D And I'm very comfortable with having the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and others on my side while you scrounge your right-wing web sites for something to back the rantings of the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

jpn of Seattle

01-04-2008, 08:12 PM

It would be illuminating to find a debate/discussion/meeting of the minds between the "naysayers" and the "alarmists" - preferably the more moderate ones from both sides to avoid useless discourse. Does anyone know if anything like that exists out there?

Your opportunity for such a forum is probably past. Twenty years ago there may have been sufficient disagreement within the general scientific community to have a good debate among honest and informed scientists.

But every day the science becomes more and more solid regarding global warming. There is really very little serious doubt concerning the basics of global warming, the protestations of the right wing fever swamp notwithstanding.
There is plenty of interesting work to be done--indeed, these scientists are simply too busy to waste time on foolishness.

palerider

01-05-2008, 05:29 AM

Wrong word. It permits infared radiation to pass through it, but then traps it. See? When you're wrong, it's possible to admit it. Try it sometime. I've given you ample opportunities to admit to your mistakes, including your absurd "little experiment."

What are you talking about? You are the one who said that CO2 "emits" radiation. And it doesn't trap it. Familiarize yourself with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Oh! So that's why you changed gases inside the greenhouse. To prove that the glass is the key factor. How original! Tell me, do you always choose irrelevant variables to change in your "little experiments" while keeping the key factors unchanged? How original!

Pointless to talk to you. It is clear that you don't have even the smallest grasp of the subject.

Many would say that undergraduate degrees are actually quite similar to "having no science background" when discussing highly complex issues such as this. That's why I don't pretend to know more than I do, unlike you. Embarrassingly, you demonstrated the problem of putting on airs by proposing a ridiculously flawed "little experiment" not worthy of a high school student. Oops!

Who would those "many" be? Perhaps those whith no degree in the hard sciences at all? And the "greenhouse effect" isn't a highly complex issue. It is quite simple and straight forward. As is much of the AGW debate. The attempt to make it highly complex is no more than a smoke screen created by the AGW proponents to disguise the bad science they are trying to terrify people like you.

By the way, that "high school" experiment is all that is needed to show that you are wrong. Sorry it was so easy, but then you really didn't have a chance. You are just a parrott.

I bought "some bogus information"? Well, one of us did. :D And I'm very comfortable with having the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and others on my side while you scrounge your right-wing web sites for something to back the rantings of the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Maybe you should review the track record of the national academy of sciences, and nasa. Their record on the matter of AGW doesn't warrant much trust. How often can an organization be wrong, in your opinion, and still deserve blind trust?

And your circumstantial ad homenim with regard to the source of material instead of any attempt to rebutt the material itself highlights the weakness of your position. Of course, how strong can a parrott's position be?

palerider

01-05-2008, 06:37 AM

Organizations associated with, or funded by Exxon Mobil. I think it goes without saying, that anything that comes from these organizations has to be taken with a grain of salt. Almost all of these groups dispute mans influence on global warming, some of them blatantly, in one way or another. In fact, it's virtually impossible to find an individual or organization, skeptical of climate change, without ties to the fossil fuel industry. What a coincidence.

You would be funny if you weren't so tragic. Exxon Mobile has put up about 19 million over the past decade funding "skeptics" according to newsweek magazine. 19 million over the past decade while in the same time, proponents of manmade global warming have forked over 50 BILLION dollars.

If money is an issue, then whose word should be taken with a BLOCK OF SALT?

palerider

01-05-2008, 07:10 AM

Your opportunity for such a forum is probably past. Twenty years ago there may have been sufficient disagreement within the general scientific community to have a good debate among honest and informed scientists.

Well, you get partial credit. Back when climate scientists lived in lower middle class neighborhoods and drove 3 year old chevys, you might could have gotten a reasonably honest debate because they really didn't have much to loose. Today, however, those same climate scientists are living at upscale addresses, driving new BMWs and sporting wives with brand new boob jobs. They have a great deal to loose now if the fears of AGW go away.

But every day the science becomes more and more solid regarding global warming. There is really very little serious doubt concerning the basics of global warming, the protestations of the right wing fever swamp notwithstanding.

So says the parrott. Pull your head out of whoever's a$$ you presently have it imbedded in and attempt to learn something. The "consensus" you seem to believe so strongly in doesn't, and never has existed. In fact, you would have a hard time finding a scientist who supports AGW theory who doesn't depend upon grant money for his daily bread and those who depend upon grant money for their living are in the very tiny minority. The "consensus" is a fabrication created by, supported by, and sustained by the media.

An ever increasing number of once, hard core AGW supporters and names often quoted by the AGW crowd are jumping off the bandwagon. Here are a few recent examples:

Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “

Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”

Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence.

Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical.”

Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "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.”

Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.”

Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.”

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.”

(continued)

palerider

01-05-2008, 07:14 AM

(continuation)

Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’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.’”

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics.

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming.

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations."

Some further reading if you are at all interested in learning something:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

clip:
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.”

Other scientists are echoing Wilson’s analysis. Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl said the new study has reduced proponents of man-made climate fears to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=E1BEFFF7-802A-23AD-4794-179EB41CF348

clip:
In fact, a prominent UN scientist questioned the reliability of such climate models. In a recent candid statement, IPCC scientist Dr. Jim Renwick—a lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report—publicly admitted that the computer models that predict a coming catastrophe may not be so reliable after all. Renwick stated, "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7

clip:
the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION and some change for skeptics – Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION - see below )

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=04373015-802a-23ad-4bf9-c3f02278f4cf&Issue_id=

clip:
“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e&Region_id=&Issue_id=

clip:
a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=138FBE22-802A-23AD-426E-52D8A2729A10

There is plenty of interesting work to be done--indeed, these scientists are simply too busy to waste time on foolishness.

What they are interested in is keeping the grant money flowing. 50 BILLION dollars buys a lot of BMWs and boob jobs.

jpn of Seattle

01-05-2008, 08:18 AM

And the "greenhouse effect" isn't a highly complex issue. It is quite simple and straight forward.

At last, something we agree on. The only difference is that you believe you have special insight into the second law of thermodynamics--an insight that eludes thousands of actual scientists who do actual science, and has eluded them for decades. My, how, um, bold of you...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/greenhouse_effect-v1.jpg
(Image from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which according to Palerider doesn't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics--but he does.)
The atmosphere is essentially transparent to incoming solar radiation. After striking the Earth's surface, the wavelength of this radiation increases as it loses energy. The gases we discussed are opaque to this lower energy radiation, and therefore trap it as heat, thereby increasing the atmospheric temperature. As these gases increase, due to natural causes and human activity, they enhance the greenhouse effect, and may raise temperatures even more.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2.html

And your circumstantial ad homenim with regard to the source of material instead of any attempt to rebutt the material itself highlights the weakness of your position. Of course, how strong can a parrott's position be?

Now, now, no need to resort to name-calling. Someone who employs the "ad homenim" defense as quickly as you really should set a higher standard for one's self.

jpn of Seattle

01-05-2008, 08:30 AM

I see Palerider found far-right Republican Senator Inhofe's Senate website.

He rather infamously called global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Senator is a deeply ignorant and embarrassing public figure. He's one of those politicians who make the United States look like it's a Midieval backwater.

Inhofe held hearings in which he rounded up people to spin their tales about how global warming isn't really happening, or, if it is, then it's not due to humans, or, if it is, there's nothing we can do about it anyway.

I'd look for PaleRider to appear as a witness any day now, since that's about the quality of witnesses Inhofe routinely uses, and such sceptics are becoming more and more scarce every day.

Here's something we have to thank Senator Inhofe and his fellow paleoconservatives for:
The U.S. Senate dealt a losing hand to all those who believe in solar power as a vital component of our energy future.
By a vote of 59-40, just one vote short of the number needed to cut off debate, the Senate failed to include a tax title in the 2007 energy bill that would have provided investment and production tax credits for renewable energies. http://www.hydrogencommerce.com/index5.htm

jpn of Seattle

01-05-2008, 08:36 AM

It's interesting how this problem will effect national security matters and international diplomacy:

The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change
Synopsis:
In August 2007, a Russian adventurer descended 4,300 meters under the thinning ice of th North Pole to plant a titanium flag, claiming some 1.2 million square kilometers of the Arctic for mother Russia. Not to be outdone, the Prime Minister of Canada stated his intention to boost his nation’s military presence in the Arctic, with the stakes raised by the recent discovery that the icy Northwest Passage has become navigable for the first time in recorded history. Across the globe, the spreading desertification in the Darfur region has been compounding the tensions between nomadic herders and agrarian farmers, providing the environmental backdrop for genocide. In Bangladesh, one of the most densely populated countries in the world, the risk of coastal flooding is growing and could leave some 30 million people searching for higher ground in a nation already plagued by political violence and a growing trend toward Islamist extremism. Neighboring India is already building a wall along its border with Bangladesh. More hopefully, the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to Vice President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a clear recognition that global warming poses not only environmental hazards but profound risks to planetary peace and stability as well.
http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,4154/type,1/

Popeye

01-05-2008, 10:23 AM

I see Palerider found far-right Republican Senator Inhofe's Senate website.

He rather infamously called global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Senator is a deeply ignorant and embarrassing public figure. He's one of those politicians who make the United States look like it's a Midieval backwater.

Inhofe held hearings in which he rounded up people to spin their tales about how global warming isn't really happening, or, if it is, then it's not due to humans, or, if it is, there's nothing we can do about it anyway.

I'd look for PaleRider to appear as a witness any day now, since that's about the quality of witnesses Inhofe routinely uses, and such sceptics are becoming more and more scarce every day.

Here's something we have to thank Senator Inhofe and his fellow paleoconservatives for:
http://www.hydrogencommerce.com/index5.htm

Lets take a good look at the loony Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon)

Inhofe has compared Al Gore's movie, 'An Inconvenient truth', to Hitler"s 'Mien Kampf"

He referred to the Red Cross as a "bleeding heart."

Inhofe compared the EPA to the Gestapo.

In a Senate speech, Inhofe said that America should base its Israel policy on the text of the Bible.

Inhofe said the Weather Channel is behind the alleged global warming hoax, so as to attract viewers.

In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, Inhofe compared environmentalists to Nazis.

Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2002 election cycle. The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.

9sublime

01-05-2008, 03:47 PM

Just from someone outside of this argument palerider, it seems your on the losing side here. You are baiscally saying that the scientific community has got the second law of thermodynamics wrong, and that some experiement you did yourself is far more reliable and destroys all evidence for global warming put foward by thousands of scientists.

palerider

01-05-2008, 05:49 PM

(Image from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which according to Palerider doesn't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics--but he does.)

Still waiting for you to actually rebutt the information I provided in reference to the greenhouse effect.

Is any actual rebuttal forthcoming?

palerider

01-05-2008, 05:52 PM

I see Palerider found far-right Republican Senator Inhofe's Senate website.

I don't think I posted anything said by the senator. What's your point?

He rather infamously called global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Senator is a deeply ignorant and embarrassing public figure. He's one of those politicians who make the United States look like it's a Midieval backwater.

I can't help but note, that you are ignoring what all those scientists said and instead are attacking a man who I did not even quote.

Inhofe held hearings in which he rounded up people to spin their tales about how global warming isn't really happening, or, if it is, then it's not due to humans, or, if it is, there's nothing we can do about it anyway.

Still not rebutting the scientists.

I'd look for PaleRider to appear as a witness any day now, since that's about the quality of witnesses Inhofe routinely uses, and such sceptics are becoming more and more scarce every day.

Still waiting for a rebuttal.

palerider

01-05-2008, 05:54 PM

palerider

01-05-2008, 05:55 PM

Lets take a good look at the loony Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon)

Inhofe has compared Al Gore's movie, 'An Inconvenient truth', to Hitler"s 'Mien Kampf"

He referred to the Red Cross as a "bleeding heart."

Inhofe compared the EPA to the Gestapo.

In a Senate speech, Inhofe said that America should base its Israel policy on the text of the Bible.

Inhofe said the Weather Channel is behind the alleged global warming hoax, so as to attract viewers.

In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, Inhofe compared environmentalists to Nazis.

Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2002 election cycle. The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars.

I guess you haven't worked on that reading comprehension problem. I didn't quote anything from the senator. How about you address all those who once believed in AGW until they actually dug into the science and saw it for the load of hooie that it is.

palerider

01-05-2008, 05:57 PM

Popeye

01-05-2008, 07:04 PM

I guess you haven't worked on that reading comprehension problem. I didn't quote anything from the senator. How about you address all those who once believed in AGW until they actually dug into the science and saw it for the load of hooie that it is.

You provided quotes from, and access to, his site. Therefore, his competency, plus his longtime association with the fossil fuel industry, is obviously relevant. Inhofe is not known as the senator from Exxon for nothing.

jpn of Seattle

01-05-2008, 11:51 PM

Perhaps you are unaware that the arctic ice is getting thicker.

Perhaps you mean the Antarctic ice, since the Arctic ice dramatically thinned this last summer.
Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts
The Arctic ice cap shrank so much this summer that waves briefly lapped along two long-imagined Arctic shipping routes, the Northwest Passage over Canada and the Northern Sea Route over Russia.

McKenzie Funk
Arctic Study Researchers haul a buoy across the Arctic sea ice in August, led by two Coast Guard crew whose job was to ward off polar bears or rescue anyone who slipped into the sea.
Over all, the floating ice dwindled to an extent unparalleled in a century or more, by several estimates. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html

Palerider, you're just not doing much for your credibility. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the Antarctic, not the Arctic. As it turns out, claiming that the Antarctic ice thickened, if true, is not really saying much, either.

Perhaps you don't know that there's an important difference between the two poles. You see, Antarctica is a continent, unlike the Arctic, which is just ice sitting on the ocean.
A prediction of global warming is that in some areas of the globe there will be more precipitation, including snow. So increases in ice thickness should be expected in Antarctica if it's getting more snowfall due to global warming. So in your confusion, are you actually unwittingly supporting global warming?

Davis and Ferguson note that the strongly negative trends of the coastal glacier outlets "suggest that the basin results are due to dynamic changes in glacier flow," and that recent observations "indicate strong basal melting, caused by ocean temperature increases, is occurring at the grounding lines of these outlet glaciers." Hence, they conclude "there is good evidence that the strongly negative trends at these outlet glaciers, the mass balance of the corresponding drainage basins, and the overall mass balance of the west Antarctic ice sheet may be related to increased basal melting caused by ocean temperature increases." Nevertheless, driven by the significantly positive trend of the much larger east Antarctic ice sheet, the ice volume of the entire continent grew ever larger over the last five years of the 20th century, the majority of which increase, according to Davis and Ferguson, was due to increased snowfall. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N21/C1.jsp

You're sinking Palerider. Sinking fast.

As for your challenge about my directly arguing with the science in your silly paper. I have directly answered you before about this. Maybe you forgot.
Since neither of us are climate scientists, it would be absurd to have that conversation. Hell, you have already proved that you don't understand such basics as the greenhouse effect and maybe don't understand the difference between Earth's two poles. And you want to directly debate fine points of atmospheric science?

Arrogant much? Maybe a little? Out of touch with reality a bit, are we?

I appealed to the broad scientific establishment for my proof. I also supplied several links which discussed the paper you pasted. The links directly refuted your paper in a number of ways. The links accused the authors of the paper of being absurdly wrong on different points. Here are the links again, although I am confident that the reason you ignored them the first time is that you can't follow the arguments:
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/10/loons-take-flight-as-halloween-nears.html
I can't follow the arguments either. But I'm willing to admit it. That makes us different, doesn't it?

Let me guess: you don't care to respond to these scathing criticisms because they appear on blogs. So it's the source of the arguments that you object to, not their substance. In fact, you won't even deign to consider their substance, due to their source.

That's as good an excuse as any, I guess. I mean, if you need an excuse. ;)

palerider

01-06-2008, 04:43 AM

You provided quotes from, and access to, his site. Therefore, his competency, plus his longtime association with the fossil fuel industry, is obviously relevant. Inhofe is not known as the senator from Exxon for nothing.

Sorry guy. Where information comes from is completely irrelavent. Suggesting that information is not correct based on nothing more than the source constitutes one of the more pitiful logical fallacies known as a circumstantial ad homenim. It is one of those fallacies that highlights the fact that you don't have any defense for your postion at all.

The information on the scientists and their words are not from the senator and it is pretty clear that you aren't going to learn about either the scientists or their change of mind in the main stream media. That fact alone brings the material one gets from the mainstream media into question. It is clear that they are not simply reporting what is happening, but are engaging in a very real attempt to create the illusion that all scientists are in lock step on this issue and that the skeptics are only far out wackos. The names I brought here as an example is evidence that such is simply not the case.

And with regard to "the senator from exxon" comment. Over the past decade, exxon has put up about 10 million dollars compared to over 50 BILLION, that is BILLION with a capital B that has come rolling in from special interest groups that support the AGW theory.

ONCE AGAIN FOR THE LEARNING IMPAIRED, if money is the means by which you determine who is telling the truth and who is lying, then the story being told by the AGW supporters is about 2600 times more suspect than that of the skeptics as they have recieved about 2600 times more money from special interest groups.

Get yourself a real argument and address the issues rather than whining like a baby over where the information comes from.

palerider

01-06-2008, 05:37 AM

Perhaps you mean the Antarctic ice, since the Arctic ice dramatically thinned this last summer.

Nope, I mean the arctic ice.

A report in the July issue " Journal of Climate" shows that errors in an earlier study created the misimpression that Arctic ice was thinning.

An abstract from the Journal of Climate reads: "Reports based on submarine sonar data have suggested Arctic sea ice has thinned nearly by half in recent decades. Such rapid thinning is a concern for detection of global change and for Arctic regional impacts. Including atmospheric time series, ocean currents and river runoff into an ocean–ice–snow model show that the inferred rapid thinning was unlikely.

The problem stems from under sampling. Varying winds that readily redistribute Arctic ice create a recurring pattern whereby ice shifts between the central Arctic and peripheral regions, especially in the Canadian sector. Timing and tracks of the submarine surveys missed this dominant mode of variability. Although model-derived overall thinning from the 1960s to the 1990s was less than hitherto supposed, there is also indication of accelerated thinning during the early–mid-1990s"

In the authors words, "the volume estimated in 2000 is close to the volume estimated in 1950."

Though the earlier flawed study received wide coverage by the media this latest study has been largely ignored.

The fact is that your handlers are pulling a scam on you. The measurements you have been fooled by were taken during the summer when the sun is shining on it 24/7. That is one of the inconvenient truths that algore has yet to address with regard to his fraudulent movie.

[QUOTE=jpn of Seattle;28860]Palerider, you're just not doing much for your credibility. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant the Antarctic, not the Arctic. As it turns out, claiming that the Antarctic ice thickened, if true, is not really saying much, either.

I should be worried about a parrott's assessment of my credibility?

As for your challenge about my directly arguing with the science in your silly paper. I have directly answered you before about this. Maybe you forgot.

You provided a blog. Hardly an answer.

Since neither of us are climate scientists, it would be absurd to have that conversation. Hell, you have already proved that you don't understand such basics as the greenhouse effect and maybe don't understand the difference between Earth's two poles. And you want to directly debate fine points of atmospheric science?

Funny. I am still waiting for you to address the paper directly. Oh, sorry, you did. You admitted that you didn't understand it and provided me with a link to a blog which by your own admission, you didn't understand either.

I appealed to the broad scientific establishment for my proof. I also supplied several links which discussed the paper you pasted. The links directly refuted your paper in a number of ways. The links accused the authors of the paper of being absurdly wrong on different points. Here are the links again, although I am confident that the reason you ignored them the first time is that you can't follow the arguments:
http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/10/loons-take-flight-as-halloween-nears.html
I can't follow the arguments either. But I'm willing to admit it. That makes us different, doesn't it?

Still with the blogs? We have established that you don't understand the original paper and therefore can not possibly understand the blogs. Enough said. You can't refute the paper so you can stop your whining and move on to other topics.

jpn of Seattle

01-06-2008, 08:02 AM

Sorry guy. Where information comes from is completely irrelavent. Suggesting that information is not correct based on nothing more than the source constitutes one of the more pitiful logical fallacies known as a circumstantial ad homenim. It is one of those fallacies that highlights the fact that you don't have any defense for your postion at all.

Palerider the flip-flopper. Notice how, when it concerns his posts, the sourcing is irrelevant. Actually, what Palerider says is that the source is "completely irrelavent" (sic).

But when it comes to other people's sources, suddenly the source is all-important: You provided a blog. Hardly an answer.

He dodges, he weaves. Watch Palerider twist and turn as he pulls out all the stops to avoid answering direct challenges to his absurd position.

jpn of Seattle

01-06-2008, 08:46 AM

Nope, I mean the arctic ice.

A report in the July issue " Journal of Climate" shows that errors in an earlier study created the misimpression that Arctic ice was thinning.

An abstract from the Journal of Climate reads: "Reports based on submarine sonar data have suggested Arctic sea ice has thinned nearly by half in recent decades. Such rapid thinning is a concern for detection of global change and for Arctic regional impacts. Including atmospheric time series, ocean currents and river runoff into an ocean–ice–snow model show that the inferred rapid thinning was unlikely.

The problem stems from under sampling. Varying winds that readily redistribute Arctic ice create a recurring pattern whereby ice shifts between the central Arctic and peripheral regions, especially in the Canadian sector. Timing and tracks of the submarine surveys missed this dominant mode of variability. Although model-derived overall thinning from the 1960s to the 1990s was less than hitherto supposed, there is also indication of accelerated thinning during the early–mid-1990s"

In the authors words, "the volume estimated in 2000 is close to the volume estimated in 1950."

Though the earlier flawed study received wide coverage by the media this latest study has been largely ignored.

This article was written in July of 2007? I ask that because you didn't bother to provide a link. From what it says, it sounds more as though it was written in 2000 or 2001. Which is perhaps why it sounds so jarringly at odds with current reality. Maybe you found it on another of your right-wing denier web sites and no context was provided, so you just assumed it was current. Just for future reference, you may want to consider that providing the link helps clarify little issues like this. Could it be that you're embarrassed where the link is from?

I guess you don't follow this issue much, because you seem to be completely unaware of recent developments in the Arctic. Let me get you up to speed:

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/NSIDC0