Honesty of Global Warming movement???

[Zipp0 1]

You need to be tied up with toothpicks holding your eyelids open like in a cartoon with the Al Gore movie paying over and over and over and over......

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 3,116]

>Of those 928 papers only 13 abstracts (less than 2%) explicitly endorsed
> what the author called the 'consensus view', regarding anthropogenic
>causes.

Not quite. Peiser claims than an article that discusses how much forcing the extra CO2 is causing (measurable in watts) is NOT endorsing the 'consensus view' since it doesn't come out and say that "humanity is causing the planet to warm." That's intellectually dishonest, because CO2 forcing is at the very heart of climate change. It's like claiming that smoking is not dangerous because no autopsies list "smoking" as a cause of death.

(BTW Peiser is now backpedaling away from many of his claims in the article you read.)

[billvon 3,116]

>Hey Ankle-biter.

Your one warning.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

You need to be tied up with toothpicks holding your eyelids open like in a cartoon with the Al Gore movie paying over and over and over and over......

Yeah.... your objective posts always make compelling, irrefutable points.

[quade 4]

Quote

Yeah.... your objective posts always make compelling, irrefutable points.

If Speakers Corner has taught me anything over the years, it's that NO point is irrefutable.

As soon as I say something is black . . . SOMEBODY is gonna say it's white.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Zipp0 1]

Something is aquamarine.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

We've missed your petty pedantic sniping.

Must have been a long and difficult 5 minutes for you.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I learn as much - if not more - from being wrong and corrected than from being right.

Excellent reply -- not many can this tactfully take the wind from the sails of such an obvious personal insult.

. . =(_8^(1)

[jarrodh 0]

Often many people who are not willing to "buy in" to the global warming theory, that is widely recognized to be true by a vast majority of scientists, will cite the hysteria to be caused not by scientific fact but by politicians.

All I can recognize is that this movement aims to abolish global warming, this in turn will reduce greenhouse gas emissions which will hopefully eliminate the climate change. Some side effects of the movement may be more fuel efficient automobiles and power plants as well as it will hopefully decrease our dependence on foriegn oil.

I pose this question to the doubters and non-doubters alike. What is there to be gained politically from this Global Warming movement?

(This is a legitimate question. Unlike some of my previous posts this question is by not intended to stir anyone up. I hope to learn a thing or two from the answers)

2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!!

[jarrodh 0]

Quote

Quote

I learn as much - if not more - from being wrong and corrected than from being right.

Excellent reply -- not many can this tactfully take the wind from the sails of such an obvious personal insult.

Dont forget that hes a lawyer.

2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Dont forget that hes a lawyer.

. . =(_8^(1)

[shropshire 0]

<>


(1) Millions and Millions of £/$/Euros etc... in research funding, for a start.
(2) The holding back of emerging nations (Africa etc..) so that existing markets maintain their supremacy


So, not much then
.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[speedy 0]

Quote

What is there to be gained politically from this Global Warming movement?

The political aspect started when Margaret Thatcher had trouble with the coal miners in the U.K. She did not trust foreign oil, so she used the AGW issue as an excuse to use nuclear power. As communism started to fail the anti-industrialists needed a new area in which to gain support for bringing down the industialized west. So they hopped onto the enviro-don't burn oil or coal bandwagon. Politicians will do anything to get a vote. Look at how the political partys in the U.K now are scrambling to show their green credentials. For the politicians its all about votes at the moment.
On a wider scale, obviously the US will benefit if they can hold back the development of China and Africa. The US certainly does not want them competing to sell goods in the world market. So, the US invests billions in climate change research to show why China should not burn their coal resources and Africans should use solar cells, while back home they ignore the findings and power their industry with oil and coal.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Often many people who are not willing to "buy in" to the global warming theory, that is widely recognized to be true by a vast majority of scientists, will cite the hysteria to be caused not by scientific fact but by politicians.

All I can recognize is that this movement aims to abolish global warming, this in turn will reduce greenhouse gas emissions which will hopefully eliminate the climate change. Some side effects of the movement may be more fuel efficient automobiles and power plants as well as it will hopefully decrease our dependence on foriegn oil.

I pose this question to the doubters and non-doubters alike. What is there to be gained politically from this Global Warming movement?

(This is a legitimate question. Unlike some of my previous posts this question is by not intended to stir anyone up. I hope to learn a thing or two from the answers)

First, follow the money,
Second, besides the money this is the "next" tactic for the enviornmentalists to tell everyone how they are supposed to live.

Huffington and Gore come to mind to both of these points.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Royd 0]

Quote

I pose this question to the doubters and non-doubters alike. What is there to be gained politically from this Global Warming movement?

(This is a legitimate question. Unlike some of my previous posts this question is by not intended to stir anyone up. I hope to learn a thing or two from the answers)

The same thing that someone who decides to get a govt. grant to study the secret sex life of the mud fish.

They want to get paid for doing as little as possible.

At the end of the day, if there is not an actual product that improves the situation, such as a perpetual motion machine, the people are just putting the money in their pockets.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

... such an obvious personal insult.

You're being over-sensitive.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

... such an obvious personal insult.

You're being over-sensitive.

Another personal insult?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

You're being over-sensitive.

Another personal insult?

And you're being EXTREMELY over-sensitive.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

Quote

Quote

... such an obvious personal insult.

You're being over-sensitive.

Another personal insult?

And what was "Ankle biter"?

Just friendly joking around?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

... such an obvious personal insult.

You're being over-sensitive.

Another personal insult?

And what was "Ankle biter"?

A fitting label?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

... such an obvious personal insult.

You're being over-sensitive.

Another personal insult?

And what was "Ankle biter"?

A fitting label?

Judging from Post #53, it was a personal attack meriting a warning from a moderator.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

... such an obvious personal insult.

You're being over-sensitive.

Another personal insult?

And what was "Ankle biter"?

A fitting label?

Judging from Post #53, it was a personal attack meriting a warning from a moderator.

I know. I was mortified... humiliated... shamed to no end. I just wanted to cry.

Oddly enough, I think that if I had described his posts as ankle-biting, it would have passed unnoticed.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

I know.

Then you don't think your last few posts have been just the tiniest bit hypocritical?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[NCclimber 0]

This article seems pretty honest:

Quote

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”...

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Kevin Vranes, a climatologist at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said he sensed a growing backlash against exaggeration. While praising Mr. Gore for “getting the message out,” Dr. Vranes questioned whether his presentations were “overselling our certainty about knowing the future.”...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ei=5090&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ex=1331438400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

[1969912 0]

And more:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258342,00.html

---------------------------
Scientists Debate Sun's Role in Global Warming

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

By Ker Than

AP

Feb. 2: Birds take flight as the sun sets at the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge in Gustine, Calif.

Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun's activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, such as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.

While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.

Wobbly Mars

Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output.

Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth's current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. "The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."

But Abdussamatov's critics say the Red Planet's recent thawing is more likely due to natural variations in the planet's orbit and tilt.

On Earth, these wobbles, known as Milankovitch cycles, are thought to contribute to the onset and disappearance of ice ages.

"It's believed that what drives climate change on Mars are orbital variations," said Jeffrey Plaut, a project scientist for NASA's Mars Odyssey mission. "The Earth also goes through orbital variations similar to that of Mars."

As for Abdussamatov's claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth's current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.

"That's nuts," Long said in a telephone interview. "It doesn't make physical sense that that's the case."

In 2005, Long's team published a study in the journal Science showing that Earth experienced a period of "solar global dimming" from 1960 to 1990, during which time solar radiation hitting our planet's surface decreased.

Then from the mid-1990's onward, the trend reversed and Earth experienced a "solar brightening."

These changes were not likely driven by fluctuations in the output of the Sun, Long explained, but rather increases in atmospheric clouds or aerosols that reflected solar radiation back into space.

Other warming worlds

Others have pointed out anomalous warming on other worlds in our solar system.

Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who monitors studies and news reports of asteroids, global warming and other potentially apocalyptic topics, recently quoted in his daily electronic newsletter the following from a blog called Strata-Sphere:

"Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?"

Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.

"I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system," Peiser said in an e-mail interview. "Perhaps this is just a fluke."

In fact, scientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.

The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun's heat.

Researchers credited Pluto's warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.

And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant's interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.

Sun does vary

The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent — not substantial enough to affect Earth's climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet's current warming trend, scientists say.

"The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and, if you do the calculations, not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record," said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.

The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming, Mann told LiveScience.

"Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians," Mann said. "People who don't accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity."

The Maunder Minimum

This is not to say that solar fluctuations never influence Earth's climate in substantial ways.

During a 75-year period beginning in 1645, astronomers detected almost no sunspot activity on the Sun.

Called the "Maunder Minimum," this event coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a 350-year cold spell that gripped much of Europe and North America.

Recent studies have cast doubt on this relationship, however. New estimates of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum suggest it was only fractions of a percent, and perhaps not enough to create the global cooling commonly attributed to it.

"The situation is pretty ambiguous," said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.

Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.

This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

LiveScience staff writer Andrea Thompson contributed to this article.

Copyright © 2006 Imaginova Corp. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

---------------------------------

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG