Honesty of Global Warming movement???

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I must be getting close to truth seeing how you are now starting the labeling and semi insults.

You keep citing that logic but it's very strange. Do you think exasperation on the other side always validates one's position?

The most wrong-headed idiots in the world get insulted all the time. I've got one of those who lives in a doorway near my home. He's an absolute moron who spouts ridiculous psychotic hyperbole and bullshit to all the passers-by. People say things back to him that aren't flattering. That must prove he's a sage.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[speedy 0]

Quote

I just have actual climactic observations, paleontological support, ice core data, oxygen-isotope levels over time, CO2 vs temperature studies,

The ice core data shows that if you warm the planet up then you will increase the CO2 in the atmosphere. If you cool it down, you can decrease the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Quote

I know you believe that as much as Speedy believes in his 9/11 conspiracies,

What 9/11 conspiracies do I believe in? I think "Loose change" was the biggest load of BS I have ever seen. I haven't seen Al Gores movie yet, but I expect it will be on a par with Loose change.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

I must be getting close to truth seeing how you are now starting the labeling and semi insults.

You keep citing that logic but it's very strange. Do you think exasperation on the other side always validates one's position?

The most wrong-headed idiots in the world get insulted all the time. I've got one of those who lives in a doorway near my home. He's an absolute moron who spouts ridiculous psychotic hyperbole and bullshit to all the passers-by. People say things back to him that aren't flattering. That must prove he's a sage.

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I must be getting close to truth seeing how you are now starting the labeling and semi insults.

You keep citing that logic but it's very strange. Do you think exasperation on the other side always validates one's position?

The most wrong-headed idiots in the world get insulted all the time. I've got one of those who lives in a doorway near my home. He's an absolute moron who spouts ridiculous psychotic hyperbole and bullshit to all the passers-by. People say things back to him that aren't flattering. That must prove he's a sage.

Nice

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

[billvon 3,116]

>Nice

That's better. Although add a little crazy emoticon next time.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Nice

That's better. Although add a little crazy emoticon next time.

Continued attemps on your part to win by concensus.

Oh, and there should be enough thingys above to fill your need for a while

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

[billvon 3,116]

Thank you! Things are back to normal.

>Continued attemps on your part to win by concensus.

Actually I am quite pro-census. Always good to know how many people live here.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Thank you! Things are back to normal.

>Continued attemps on your part to win by concensus.

Actually I am quite pro-census. Always good to know how many people live here.

Ya, and I am the "king" of one liners

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

[Remster 30]

I need a new irony meter... Mine just broke.

Remster

[billvon 3,116]

> 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.

Agreed. Indeed, the "scientific doubt" that some claim exists is often just a construction of politicians, and has no basis in actual science. But since most people read popular news reports based on governmental statements, instead of the research itself, they think that "scientists disagree." From yesterday's NYT:

-------------------------------------------
Material Shows Weakening of Climate Reports

By ANDREW C. REVKIN and MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: March 20, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 19 — A House committee released documents Monday that showed hundreds of instances in which a White House official who was previously an oil industry lobbyist edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming or play down evidence of such a role.

. . .

In a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the official, Philip A. Cooney, who left government in 2005, defended the changes he had made in government reports over several years. Mr. Cooney said the editing was part of the normal White House review process and reflected findings in a climate report written for President Bush by the National Academy of Sciences in 2001.

They were the first public statements on the issue by Mr. Cooney, the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Before joining the White House, he was the “climate team leader” for the American Petroleum Institute, the main industry lobby.

He was hired by Exxon Mobil after resigning in 2005 following reports on the editing in The New York Times. The White House said his resignation was not related to the disclosures.

Mr. Cooney said his past work opposing restrictions on heat-trapping gases for the oil industry had had no bearing on his actions once he joined the White House. “When I came to the White House,” he testified, “my sole loyalties were to the president and his administration.”

Mr. Cooney, who has no scientific background, said he had based his editing and recommendations on what he had seen in good faith as the “most authoritative and current views of the state of scientific knowledge.”

. . .

Democrats focused on fresh details that committee staff members had compiled showing how Mr. Cooney made hundreds of changes to government climate research plans and reports to Congress on climate that raised a sense of uncertainty about the science.

The documents “appear to portray a systematic White House effort to minimize the significance of climate change,” said a memorandum circulated by the Democrats under the committee chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Actually I am quite pro-census. Always good to know how many people will officially admit to live here.

yeah, it's a good thing

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

More and more news agencies, research groups and politions are starting to take a good look at this topic. The closer one looks the weaker the argument gets. One more case in point

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/03/28/global_warming_heresy

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

[rushmc 23]

Yes, time is running out in getting the changes the alarmists want before they can no longer sustain the lame argument of man made global warming

They have got to hurry before it is too late.

Mark Harris: Gore's 'Fever' Dangerously Wrong
Dr. Mark Harris
Monday, April 2, 2007


At the time of the crime, the suspect is nowhere in the vicinity. Why have the greatest increases in global warming been recorded in high latitudes where carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations are lowest?

Because the problem isn't carbon dioxide (CO2).

Most heat absorption in the so-called "CO2 wavelengths" is actually done by water vapor. Compared to CO2, there is 100 times more water vapor in the atmosphere.

So, even if CO2 were an equally effective absorber of heat rays, which it isn't, enormous CO2 increases would produce negligible increases in heat. Plus, over 96% of atmospheric CO2 comes from natural, not "man made" sources.

In fact without water vapor to trap heat, most of the planet would resemble the poles, i.e. buried under thick layers of ice.

Thus on the question of atmospheric temperatures, natural materials and events do, and have always overshadowed man.


Here's an example: in the 1920s my father, and his friends, often wore a jacket in the tropical Caribbean. Why?

In 1908 a scorching visitor (likely a comet) from deep space struck Siberia, and six years before Mount Pelee erupted in the Caribbean... Both threw huge thick dust and ash clouds high into the stratosphere, where they stayed for years, reflecting solar radiation and chilling the Earth for the next 30 years.

Average temperatures fell 5º C between 1902 and 1910, recovering slowly by 1937. Ignore that drop, and Earth's average temperature looks nearly constant over the last 150 years, up to and including 2007. But delete the years preceding 1902, and presto, it looks like warming begins in 1910 (which it didn't, only the recovery)! Especially as that rebound coincides with increasing CO2 levels! This return (no increase) is currently being touted as the "beginning of global warming"!

It gets worse.

Enter, the 1970s. With fossil fuelled CO2 levels still going up, enter Newsweek. The April 28, 1975 issue on page 64 predicted: "The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

The title of the article? "The Cooling World" describing a coming ice-age! So it seems, with the chilly 1970s, another correlation is born: "Whenever the temperature changes, opinions on impending catastrophes move in that same direction". Still, for the proponents of long-term change -

Is equilibrium being maintained, or lost? Where is the hard data?

Global temperatures have never been static. But we have never been frozen or fried out of existence. Like a cork bobbing on the waves above and below an imaginary horizontal line, Earth temperatures respond to natural events. This is called a steady-state equilibrium. But are "man-made" factors presently changing the horizontality of that temperature line from steady-state equilibrium to one which points upward(dynamic equilibrium)?

At worst, the answer is inconclusive. Further, all steady-state systems (including Earth) have recovery tools (like the human body's arsenal for bringing fever/chill conditions back to its set temperature). Regulators of course must be preserved and protected. But as for "man-made CO2", its effect seems dwarfed by the potency and sheer volume of nature's heavyweights - the mighty oceans for example, a powerful heat buffer (damper). Even though temperatures between 1950 and 1980 declined several times, carbon dioxide concentrations continued to rise in that period while temperatures dropped. Remember in 1975 we are on the edge of an ice age.


So, the recent hysteria is, at best, a politically correct ration of nonsense.


Dr. Mark Harris is an educator Environmental Geochemist, Northern Caribbean University , a degreed geographer and geologist and holds a doctorate in Environmental Geochemistry.

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

[shropshire 0]

Unfortunately, the ECO-facists wont or dont want to see that there are other possibilities than their blinkered approach.

We need to open the scientific search not narrow it to CO2 (or water vapour for that matter) alone.

Too many 'experts' appear to be driven by their own agenda(s).

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

[rushmc 23]

Another tidbit that I have started to uncover relates to the the "forcing" data that is used at times. While I understand what is trying to be pointed out I did not understand where this argument came from.

I looks to me that this argument comes from the same flawed computer models I mention in many threads. That in and of itself realy removes any credance to that line of thought.

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

[shropshire 0]

I saw very similar stuff on a T.V prog' that I started a thread about here.

There just not seem to be any common ground with, what appears to be 2 groups of 'experts' that just seem to be heading in seperate directions and not showing any flexability at all.

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

[billvon 3,116]

Morning Marc! I see you have reposted the latest NewsMax climate-change denier story.

>Most heat absorption in the so-called "CO2 wavelengths" is actually done by water vapor.

The absorption spectra of water vapor is different than the absorption spectra of CO2. The author of this article doesn't understand that.

>Global temperatures have never been static. But we have never been
>frozen or fried out of existence.

Nor, apparently, has he ever studied the physical history of the planet we live on. We HAVE been frozen/baked to degrees that would kill off humanity. (That's probably not going to happen here, of course.)

>Further, all steady-state systems (including Earth) have recovery tools
>(like the human body's arsenal for bringing fever/chill conditions back
>to its set temperature).

So - what do you think the planet's "set" temperature is? Didn't he just get done saying the planet HAS no "set" temperature?

This is sort of the spaghetti approach to global warming - list ten things the author doesn't understand, make it sound like no one understands them, throw them against the wall and see what sticks. "The climate isn't changing!" "The climate is changing but something will fix it." "The climate is changing, but it wasn't us." "The climate isn't changing very fast." "There's no evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas." "CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but other gases are worse."

>But as for "man-made CO2", its effect seems dwarfed by the potency and
>sheer volume of nature's heavyweights - the mighty oceans for example,
>a powerful heat buffer (damper).

He is correct. It would take a TREMENDOUS amount of heat to warm the oceans appreciably; you'd have to see signs of that to claim that the climate was warming significantly.

Unfortunately for his political position, the oceans are warming. Thus by his own argument, we're seeing a very significant warming. From NOAA:

----------------
WORLD OCEAN HAS WARMED SIGNIFICANTLY OVER PAST 40 YEARS

The oceans have warmed significantly over the past four decades, providing new evidence that the Earth may be undergoing long-term climate change.
---------------

D'oh!

[billvon 3,116]

> Another tidbit that I have started to uncover relates to the the "forcing"
> data that is used at times. While I understand what is trying to be pointed
> out I did not understand where this argument came from.

>It looks to me that this argument comes from the same flawed computer
>models I mention in many threads.

It doesn't. Some more research is in order. Forcing is a measurable physical process, not a computer prediction. Computer predictions come into play when you try to understand what the forcing will DO.

As an example - the temperature in your refrigerator is a physical quantity, one you can measure. So is the heat that flows into your refrigerator through the insulation, and the heat that is removed by the refrigeration system. You don't need a computer model to figure them out - you can measure them.

What will happen to the temperature in your fridge if it is unplugged, put on a truck, and shipped across town - THAT might require a computer model, complete with assumptions and boundary conditions.

[billvon 3,116]

>There just not seem to be any common ground with, what appears to be
>2 groups of 'experts' that just seem to be heading in seperate directions . . .

Eh, you're hearing the Rush Limbaugh vs Al Franken debates. There are climate change deniers who need desperately to prove it's all a vast conspiracy to get re-elected/support their benefactors, and you have the alarmists who want to grab the headlines with their pronouncements of imminent catastrophe. Once you get beyond the headlines, there's plenty of common ground, and the scientists who actually work on this stuff really aren't at each other's throats. (Primarily because they're not trying to get anyone elected.)

In the peer-reviewed journals, the debates are over what percentage of warming is caused by anthropogenic emissions, what positive/negative reinforcements will come into play, and what the effects will be. Since they have already made predictions based on the data (and seen them come to pass) no one is dumb enough to claim that "it's all a bunch of hooey." These are the people who are doing the science that we will base our actions in the future on, and there's no absence of "common ground" there - because their common ground is science, not politics.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Morning Marc! I see you have reposted the latest NewsMax climate-change denier story.

>Most heat absorption in the so-called "CO2 wavelengths" is actually done by water vapor.

The absorption spectra of water vapor is different than the absorption spectra of CO2. The author of this article doesn't understand that.

no, he is an unqualified dumbass, hell that is known just because of the side of the debate he is on

>Global temperatures have never been static. But we have never been
>frozen or fried out of existence.

Nor, apparently, has he ever studied the physical history of the planet we live on. We HAVE been frozen/baked to degrees that would kill off humanity.

hmm, and all that shit happened BEFORE man created all this CO2?? Interesting.

>Further, all steady-state systems (including Earth) have recovery tools
>(like the human body's arsenal for bringing fever/chill conditions back
>to its set temperature).

So - what do you think the planet's "set" temperature is? Didn't he just get done saying the planet HAS no "set" temperature?

well you must know. What is it??

This is sort of the spaghetti approach to global warming - list ten things the author doesn't understand, make it sound like no one understands them, throw them against the wall and see what sticks. "The climate isn't changing!" "The climate is changing but something will fix it." "The climate is changing, but it wasn't us." "The climate isn't changing very fast." "There's no evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas." "CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but other gases are worse."

>But as for "man-made CO2", its effect seems dwarfed by the potency and
>sheer volume of nature's heavyweights - the mighty oceans for example,
>a powerful heat buffer (damper).

He is correct. It would take a TREMENDOUS amount of heat to warm the oceans appreciably; you'd have to see signs of that to claim that the climate was warming significantly.

Unfortunately for his political position, the oceans are warming. Thus by his own argument, we're seeing a very significant warming. From NOAA:

Oh, his positon is political because he is a "denier" but any GW supporter is not political. Now I understand!!

----------------
WORLD OCEAN HAS WARMED SIGNIFICANTLY OVER PAST 40 YEARS

The oceans have warmed significantly over the past four decades, providing new evidence that the Earth may be undergoing long-term climate change.

And where do they say man is the cause??
---------------

D'oh!

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

[billvon 3,116]

>no, he is an unqualified dumbass

?? Lots of people don't understand absorption spectra; they're not all dumbasses.

>hmm, and all that shit happened BEFORE man created all this CO2?? Interesting.

Why yes! The climate has changed drastically many times before. Often it's triggered by massive volcanism or meteor impacts. One such event, at the K-T boundary, ended the era of dinosaurs and gave us a chance to evolve into human beings.

>well you must know. What is it??

There is none. You seem to agree with this article, though, so what do YOU think it is?

>Oh, his positon is political because he is a "denier" but any GW
>supporter is not political. Now I understand!!

Uh, no, some GW supporters are indeed political.

If you take a political stance ("We have to stop these evil environmentalists!" "The world is going to end TOMORROW unless you elect my candidate!") then you are taking a political position. If you take a stance based on science ("albedo changes will tend to nullify any increase in overall temperature past X degrees in the arctic") then you are taking a scientific position. If you are just writing stuff you don't understand yourself, then it's harder to categorize your position.

>And where do they say man is the cause??

Let's try again.

The author claimed that climate change isn't significant because we have these massive heat sinks (oceans) that you'd have to warm before the climate will change.

NOAA reports the oceans are warming.

Therefore he is arguing that climate change IS significant.

Nothing about "man is the cause" in any of that. I just posted the reason that one part of this NewsMax article was incorrect.

[rushmc 23]

Morning Marc! I see you have reposted the latest NewsMax climate-change denier story.

Quote

Cool, I am glad to see you stick to your attack the source tactic. I would hate to be disapointed.

Oh, and a I thought I would point out to others (as I know you found this out) this is a reprint of the author and not a NewMax Story. But, that is just a small detail........

And just to verify the uneducated lack of understanding politically motivated the SOB author is I thought this should be re-posted

Dr. Mark Harris is an educator Environmental Geochemist, Northern Caribbean University , a degreed geographer and geologist and holds a doctorate in Environmental Geochemistry.

What a dumb bastard he must be

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

• Quote

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>no, he is an unqualified dumbass

?? Lots of people don't understand absorption spectra; they're not all dumbasses.

>hmm, and all that shit happened BEFORE man created all this CO2?? Interesting.

Why yes! The climate has changed drastically many times before. Often it's triggered by massive volcanism or meteor impacts. One such event, at the K-T boundary, ended the era of dinosaurs and gave us a chance to evolve into human beings.

>well you must know. What is it??

There is none. You seem to agree with this article, though, so what do YOU think it is?

>Oh, his positon is political because he is a "denier" but any GW
>supporter is not political. Now I understand!!

Uh, no, some GW supporters are indeed political.

If you take a political stance ("We have to stop these evil environmentalists!" "The world is going to end TOMORROW unless you elect my candidate!") then you are taking a political position. If you take a stance based on science ("albedo changes will tend to nullify any increase in overall temperature past X degrees in the arctic") then you are taking a scientific position. If you are just writing stuff you don't understand yourself, then it's harder to categorize your position.

>And where do they say man is the cause??

Let's try again.

The author claimed that climate change isn't significant because we have these massive heat sinks (oceans) that you'd have to warm before the climate will change.

NOAA reports the oceans are warming.

Therefore he is arguing that climate change IS significant.

Nothing about "man is the cause" in any of that. I just posted the reason that one part of this NewsMax article was incorrect.

But it is your claim that man is causing it!!!
I have posted recently I am not sure (anymore) if there really is a major warming going on. As more opinions come out I am re-evaluating my opinion on this.

Have you or can you re-evaluate your position?

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

[billvon 3,116]

>But it is your claim that man is causing it!!!

Correct.

>Have you or can you re-evaluate your position?

Of course! If someone could prove that CO2 absorption spectra do not change with increasing concentrations, then the anthropogenic model goes right out the window. Of course, they'd have to rewrite a lot of what we understand about physical chemistry; it would be akin to disproving the general theory of gravitation.

But my change in position would be related to the science involved. It would not rest on how many nuts wrote "the world is going to end!" or "global warming is confusing and therefore all a big lie" articles.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

I'm not a climate change denier. In fact I've witnessed quite the shift in my local climate within the last 36 hours. On Saturday I was out and about in shorts and a t-shirt basking in some marvelous spring like weather counting the days until the DZs re-open. But now today I am all bundled up back wearing a winter coat looking at several inches of snow and temperatures well below freezing. Yes I believe in climate change. Only my climate change has gone from warm to cold when one would hope that it would be going the other way.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over