Global Warning is Very Real

(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....ecord_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....ecord_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....ecord_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....ecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....4373015-802a-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....a-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....ecord_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.
 
Werbung:
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...
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.
 
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
 
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/
 
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.
 
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.
 
(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?
 
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.
 
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/

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


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

Feel free to point out any inaccuracies in this report.
 
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.
 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
Werbung:
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.

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.
 
Back
Top