More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[NCclimber 0]

Global warming is caused by Daylight Savings Time.

That extra hour of sunlight is what's causing it.

If we want to cool down, we should end DLS.

Why is this so hard for people to figure out?

Peer review, schmeer review... what a bunch of non-sense.

Turn yer clocks back... YA MO-RONS!!!

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

Here is another documentary that pokes big hole into the alarmist GW theory:

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&q=Global+Warming+-+Doomsday+Called+Off

Interesting for those of us who keep an open mind.

Documentaries, like editorials, are proof of nothing except the message the producers want to deliver.

The effect (or lack of effect) of man made CO2 will be elucidated by scientists and reported in peer reviewed journals.

So what about this?

Take Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian, of the School of Geographic Sciences of Nanjing Normal University:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/703/2007/00000095/F0020001/00000199?crawler=true

Quote

It has been noticed that whether on century-scale or 60-year scales, the global temperature tends to descend in the coming 20 years.... Signs also show a drop in temperature in China on century scale in the next 20 years. .. Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated.
It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes.

or this:


In a study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, H.B. Hammel of the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., and G.W. Lockwood of Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Ariz., found that Neptune’s brightness appears to correlate with temperature changes on Earth. They also noted that Neptune’s temperature warmed from 1980 to 2004.

Since there are no humans on Neptune to cause anthropogenic warming — the crime that Gore and the Greenshirts have accused mankind of committing — another explanation is needed. Hammell and Lockwood believe the changes might well be solar-driven.

Quote

“If changing brightnesses and temperatures of two different planets are correlated, then some planetary climate changes may be due to variations in the solar system environment,”

they write in their abstract.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml


Czech president Vaclav Klaus puts it beautifully:

Quote

The - so called - climate change and especially man-made climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world.

My ambition is not to bring additional arguments to the scientific climatological debate about this phenomenon. I am convinced, however, that up to now this scientific debate has not been deep and serious enough and has not provided sufficient basis for the policymakers’ reaction. What I am really concerned about is the way the environmental topics have been misused by certain political pressure groups to attack fundamental principles underlying free society. It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom.

As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism. This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection - similarly to the old Marxists - wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world.

The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making. To use the words of Friedrich Hayek, they try to stop free, spontaneous human action and replace it by their own, very doubtful human design.

The environmentalist paradigm of thinking is absolutely static. They neglect the fact that both nature and human society are in a process of permanent change, that there is and has been no ideal state of the world as regards natural conditions, climate, distribution of species on earth, etc. They neglect the fact that the climate has been changing fundamentally throughout the existence of our planet and that there are proofs of substantial climate fluctuations even in known and documented history. Their reasoning is based on historically short and incomplete observations and data series which cannot justify the catastrophic conclusions they draw. They neglect the complexity of factors that determine the evolution of the climate and blame contemporary mankind and the whole industrial civilization for being the decisive factors responsible for climate change and other environmental risks.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[billvon 3,114]

>Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the
> patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all
>in falling.

No they're not. Look at any graph of temperatures over the past century.

>Since there are no humans on Neptune to cause anthropogenic
>warming — the crime that Gore and the Greenshirts have accused mankind
>of committing — another explanation is needed.

Yet the poles of Jupiter are cooling. How do the deniers explain that? I expect they hope it gets overlooked by people who prefer sensationalist press to science. Science is, after all, rather boring.

>Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.

Wow! Exciting! Ambitious environmentalism is as dangerous as communism was! That certainly sounds scary. Leave the boring science to the eggheads - we want to hear about the threats to our very way of life! That's sure to make headlines.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

>Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the
> patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all
>in falling.

No they're not. Look at any graph of temperatures over the past century.

>Since there are no humans on Neptune to cause anthropogenic
>warming — the crime that Gore and the Greenshirts have accused mankind
>of committing — another explanation is needed.

Yet the poles of Jupiter are cooling. How do the deniers explain that? I expect they hope it gets overlooked by people who prefer sensationalist press to science. Science is, after all, rather boring.

>Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.

Wow! Exciting! Ambitious environmentalism is as dangerous as communism was! That certainly sounds scary. Leave the boring science to the eggheads - we want to hear about the threats to our very way of life! That's sure to make headlines.

Hmm.. these are scientific studies published in scientific papers... but you just stamp them as untrue. Typical for the AGW religion.

BTW it is not just Neptun that is warming, Mars is too - but great to see you can "raise" me the poles of Jupites.... lol

I have shown a number of sources in this thread where scientists are disagreeing with the view that the debate on mand made GW is settled and is not challenged. The only thing that has happened is that posters try to discredit them. The sceptics are NOT saying that there is no climate change, they are saying that there is a lot of the uncertainty what causes it and what is going to happen next and that we always had ongoing climate change - both cooling and warming.

Talking about temperatures - let me mention the famous "hockey stick" which was used for years to "proof" the claims of catastrophic man made GW. The hockey stick has been clearly discredited and is no longer used by the IPCC in its latest report.

The same IPCC who has downgraded a) the human influence on GW by 25% and b) the projected sea level rises to 17 - 56 cm. The same IPCC that contains scientists who publicly disagreed with the findings of the majority of the IPCC.

Yes science is rather boring taht is pobably the reason that the church of man made global warming has used unproven claims and scare campaigns.

So how is it that the science on GW is so settled that we can make political decisions that will have huge cost and changes to our lives? This is what the Czech president is saying and the fact that mande made GW alaramists at the same time are against nuclear power which is free of CO2 shows what he is talking about.

But no - the "deniers" (funny term used trying to link scpetics to holocaust deniers) are unqualified but Al Gore is the messiah and everything he told us is "true". The "deniers" are not denieing there is climate change - they rightfully claim that the science is uncertain and more and more recent data is pointing towards that GW is not just about CO2.

Lets see what a senior climatologist - Bob Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, - thinks. He had enough of Al Gore. He lists just some of the Gore scares that have got him heated.

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

Quote

We know that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapor, but we don’t know what the effects of higher temperatures will have on the absorption of long-wave radiation from earth. Air samples from ice cores removed from glaciers have shown that higher temperatures preceded increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by hundreds of years. There is also uncertainty about the effect that higher CO2 amounts will have on temperature. We just don’t know! And, there is no consensus on what we do know – in spite of what Al Gore tells the world.

Quote

One of the prime exhibits of the effects of global warming used by Gore’s acolytes is the photo of Mount Kilimanjaro that shows the melting of the ice and snow on its slopes. Gore and company attribute this to global warming. If they had said climate change, they would have been right. About 1880 the humidity over that part of Africa decreased and fewer clouds resulted in more intense radiation and less precipitation. Why this happened is unclear. A number of glaciologists from Africa, Europe, and the United States who have studied the snows of Kilimanjaro published their findings in the International Journal of Climatology in 2004. Gore’s apostles should stop using this example. They also should become more conversant with scientific terminology before they go out on the lecture circuit. The loss of water from glaciers is due principally to melting and ablation where the water in ice becomes a gas without ever liquefying. One of the principal arguments used by the alarmists is the story about mountain glaciers disappearing all over the world. When recognizes the fact that most of these glaciers formed or were enlarged during the Little Ice Age, one can understand why they are now melting.

Quote

Most of the claims about recent decades being the hottest in history emanate from the “Hockey Stick” diagram prepared by Michael Mann for the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Mann used tree ring evidence from the bristlecone pines of the American Southwest to reconstruct the temperature record for the period before instruments were available to record temperatures. In 1959 a colleague of mine, a botanist, spent some time in the White Mountains of California studying the growth patterns of the bristlecone pines. Our conclusion then was that the growth patterns were influenced mostly by soil conditions which in turn affected the retention of moisture in the soil. We concluded that the trees might give an insight into precipitation patterns but not of temperature. Thus, in addition to statistical problems, Mann had a problem with his choice of a proxy to estimate temperatures in the period before the instrumental record. Most unbiased climatologists believe that the Medieval Warm Period had higher temperatures than recent times. Another uncertainty!!

Quote

One of the most contentious parts of the Gore Groups presentations is the portrayal of the effects of a 20 foot rise in sea level. No scientist has portrayed this as a probable outcome of the melting of the Greenland or Antarctic glaciers. What they have done is to calculate the volume of water in these glaciers and have suggested that if all the ice over Greenland melted that it would cause a rise of 20 feet in the world’s oceans. This is alarmism at its worst. Recent studies have shown that the rise in sea level in the recent past has been relatively the same each year although the first part of the 20th century had greater rises each year than the second half of the century when the CO2 content of the atmosphere increased more rapidly. Since the continental glaciers associated with the Ice Age melted much of the increase in sea level has been attributed to thermal expansion of the oceans and to runoff from mountain glaciers. Melting of ice in the Arctic Ocean has contributed little to global sea level rise; in fact a recent study has shown a decrease in the level of the Arctic Ocean. Measurement of sea level is another of sciences big challenges because the continents also rise and fall. Coastlines are regions of constant change.

Quote

The alarmists are always blaming current weather conditions on global warming ignoring the fact that worse drought and fire conditions prevailed in earlier periods of time. They tend to forget about the dust bowl of the 30’s and tend to ignore the findings of the Tree Ring Laboratory of the University of Arizona about the megadroughts in the Colorado River Basin during the Medieval Warm Period which the experts with the United Nations refuse to admit existed.

Summary: These are only a few of the ways in which Gore and his followers are attempting to frighten the American people into adopting legislation to limit the output of carbon dioxide. How successful his efforts will be remains to be seen. According to Professor Hulme of the Tyndall Climate Centre of the UK, alarmist messages about global warming are counter-productive seeming to generate apathy. Not only is this not a good way of presenting climate science, it is self-defeating. Reports of catastrophes and the “hollywoodisation” of weather and climate are creating confusion in the minds of the public and have led to the politicization of the science.

Bob Durrenberger, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
May 25, 2007

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[rushmc 23]

Now you went and done it! You have proven yourself to be an un-educated nut


(dam, I think he proved I am an un-educated nut too)

Anyway , your a nut


Nice post by the way.

"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 3,114]

>Hmm.. these are scientific studies published in scientific papers . . .

No, scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals deal with science, things like quantifying temperature changes in the southern pacific or determining the impact of changing ocean acidity on marine animals. Papers that contain comments like "communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism" are political commentary.

>let me mention the famous "hockey stick" which was used for years to
> "proof" the claims of catastrophic man made GW. The hockey stick has
> been clearly discredited and is no longer used by the IPCC in its latest
> report.

See the graph below for several other studies and their relationship to the hockey stick. I would abandon this avenue if I were you - it's a Type I denial ("the planet isn't warming up!") and no one believes it any more. It's too easy to look out your window and know it's false.

>So how is it that the science on GW is so settled that we can make political
>decisions that will have huge cost and changes to our lives?

The science is settled; the solutions are not. Indeed, one political decision might be "we don't really care what happens in the future; we'll all be dead by 2100." I assume that decision would please most deniers, even if it were based on the same science as mitigation-based approach. That's why there is a difference between politics (deciding what to make people do) and science (observing the world around us and figuring out how it works.) Deniers would have us believe that science and politics are one and the same; that if you put up enough propaganda and have a great marketing campaign you can change what the science says. Doesn't work that way, unfortunately. The planet will keep warming and make fools of those who try to deny it.

>This is what the Czech president is saying and the fact that mande
>made GW alaramists at the same time are against nuclear power which
>is free of CO2 shows what he is talking about.

Can't quite parse that sentence. I'm all for nuclear power, provided we use good designs and they are operated well.

>One of the most contentious parts of the Gore Groups presentations is
> the portrayal of the effects of a 20 foot rise in sea level. No scientist
>has portrayed this as a probable outcome of the melting of the
>Greenland or Antarctic glaciers.

A lie; it is provable mathematically, which he admits:

>What they have done is to calculate the volume of water in these
>glaciers and have suggested that if all the ice over Greenland melted
>that it would cause a rise of 20 feet in the world’s oceans.

That is correct. Doesn't mean it will happen, and Gore does not say it WILL happen.

>Reports of catastrophes and the “hollywoodisation” of weather
>and climate are creating confusion in the minds of the public and have
>led to the politicization of the science.

Unfortunately for deniers, observations of what is actually happening are making news nowadays. People place more reliance on what they see happening around them than on Michael Crichton novels.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

The science is settled;

What specifically has been settled?

There's no debate on the net impact of man-made pollution on global temperatures? All climate researchers are in agreement?

[billvon 3,114]

>What specifically has been settled?

1) Man is increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

3) The IPCC predicted temperature rises due to this increase in 1995; these have come to pass.

4) The planet is indeed warming up.

>There's no debate on the net impact of man-made pollution on global temperatures?

There is certainly debate; there is a lot of debate in science circles over the potential positive and negative feedback mechanisms that may kick in above certain temperatures. There is also a great deal of debate in political circles by deniers, politicians, oil companies and other people with a vested interest in not believing the science. They are, in my opinion, looking at this thing all wrong. The science itself is not scary or evil; we don't need to be worshiping it or burning scientists at the stake for doing their jobs. The primary problem lies with politicians on both sides who are trying to use basic science to win themselves votes and power.

[Royd 0]

>There's no debate on the net impact of man-made pollution on global temperatures?

Quote

There is certainly debate; there is a lot of debate in science circles over the potential positive and negative feedback mechanisms that may kick in above certain temperatures. There is also a great deal of debate in political circles by deniers, politicians, oil companies and other people with a vested interest in not believing the science. They are, in my opinion, looking at this thing all wrong. The science itself is not scary or evil; we don't need to be worshiping it or burning scientists at the stake for doing their jobs. The primary problem lies with politicians on both sides who are trying to use basic science to win themselves votes and power.

So why should anyone give Al Gore an iota of credibility?

[billvon 3,114]

>So why should anyone give Al Gore an iota of credibility?

Same reason people give Bush, Gonzales, Schwarzenegger, Clinton, Limbaugh, Franken etc credibility I suppose.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>What specifically has been settled?

1) Man is increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

3) The IPCC predicted temperature rises due to this increase in 1995; these have come to pass.

4) The planet is indeed warming up.

Don't most of the skeptics of AGW agree with these conclussions.

Seems kind of like a bait and switch to say "The science has been settled" and offer uncontroversial conclusions as proof.]

[billvon 3,114]

>Don't most of the skeptics of AGW agree with these conclussions.

I don't think so. Certainly many of the critics who post here do not.

>Seems kind of like a bait and switch to say "The science has been
>settled" and offer uncontroversial conclusions as proof.

Seems to me that that's the center of the current controversy. The planet is warming; man's emissions of CO2 are the primary driver of this. (Which is just restating the above four points.) There is certainly a lot of other science to be settled, like the positive/negative feedback effects I mentioned earlier.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

The planet is warming; man's emissions of CO2 are the primary driver of this. (Which is just restating the above four points.)

Which of those four points shows that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of recent warming?

Which of those four points is challenged by skeptics?

Just to make something clear, I think most skeptics of the whole AGW leaning, believe:

- Manmade CO2 output has consistently increased.

- CO2 is a greenhouse gas

- The IPCC predicted temperature rises in 1995 that have come to pass.

- The planet is indeed warming up.

To infer the skeptics refute these points seems a bit dishonest.

[billvon 3,114]

>Which of those four points shows that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of recent warming?

"The IPCC predicted temperature rises due to this increase (in CO2) in 1995; these have come to pass."

>To infer the skeptics refute these points seems a bit dishonest.

The deniers do, at least. They do not believe that the increase in CO2 has resulted in the increase in temperatures we have seen over the past century.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Which of those four points shows that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of recent warming?

"The IPCC predicted temperature rises due to this increase (in CO2) in 1995; these have come to pass."

Has the IPCC shown that manmade CO2 was in fact the cause of recent increases?

Quote

>To infer the skeptics refute these points seems a bit dishonest.

The deniers do, at least. They do not believe that the increase in CO2 has resulted in the increase in temperatures we have seen over the past century.

I must have missed where you made this point in those four points.

Bait and switch.

[billvon 3,114]

>Has the IPCC shown that manmade CO2 was in fact the cause of recent increases?

Well, the IPCC predicted that the temperature would in fact increase due to increasing CO2 levels. This was denied by skeptics, who at that point were mostly type I. Temperatures did, in fact, increase. The skeptics now claim that something else caused the temperature rise.

However, the scientific method involves proposing hypotheses, testing them, coming up with predictions based on those hypotheses, and seeing if they come to pass. Had the IPCC predicted temperature increases and they had not come to pass, then that would have indicated a problem with their hypothesis. However, it did come to pass, and has thus validated the IPCC's approach.

If a weatherman sees the pressure drop, and sees a front approaching on radar, and predicts that the storm will soon hit his area, you may or may not take him seriously. I am sure there would be a denier somewhere who would claim that "it's all a bunch of hooey; the UN just wants you to buy umbrellas!"

However, if it does in fact rain the next day, the denier isn't going to be taken all that seriously in the future - even if he claims "well, something else made it rain; the weatherman wasn't actually correct."

>I must have missed where you made this point in those four points.

I did not. I was explaining the denier's views. I do not hold such views.

[mnealtx 0]

>>However, it did come to pass, and has thus validated the IPCC's approach.

Doesn't the close coupling of solar output to temperature throw some doubt into the situation, however?

Is the refusal of the 'concensus' to consider the solar output data as a possible driving force to the temperature increase not also a forma of denial?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Has the IPCC shown that manmade CO2 was in fact the cause of recent increases?

Well, the IPCC predicted that the temperature would in fact increase due to increasing CO2 levels. This was denied by skeptics

The skeptics denied the IPCC predicted that the temperature would in fact increase due to increasing CO2 levels?

[billvon 3,114]

>The skeptics denied the IPCC predicted that the temperature would in
>fact increase due to increasing CO2 levels?

No, they denied that the temperature was going to increase. "They were predicting an ice age in 1970. We're supposed to believe that it's going to get warmer and warmer now" - sound familiar?

[mikkey 0]

Quote

No, scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals deal with science, things like quantifying temperature changes in the southern pacific or determining the impact of changing ocean acidity on marine animals. Papers that contain comments like "communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism" are political commentary.

I must say I am quite disappointed that you either don’t read my posts or misrepresent them. I think I make it quite clear that the first two articles linked are from scientific journals and the op-ed by the Czech President is just that – but that I like his point of view. So your last sentence above is highly misleading. That comment was not in the papers.

I am also disappointed that you continually use the term “deniers”, which is clearly wrong and a term used to assign sceptics an “evil” label (references to holocaust deniers). No one denies there is climate change and that we are in a warming period. What is questioned are the factors influencing it and the previous fluctuations which can not have anything to do with human activity.

One thing that I have found in my search for opinions on the subject is that “global temperature” is a problematic issue. Where do we measure it? Are the measure points representative? Going back a hundred years or more where is the historic comparison data from around the globe? I have seen data that shows that temperature fluctuations are NOT consistent around the globe.

BTW I read an article that established that temperatures in urban areas are higher then in rural areas, due to buildings, roads etc. How does this influence the data? As mentioned by Durrenberger there is so much uncertainty in this area.

Quote

See the graph below for several other studies and their relationship to the hockey stick. I would abandon this avenue if I were you - it's a Type I denial ("the planet isn't warming up!") and no one believes it any more. It's too easy to look out your window and know it's false.

“Several”? You post the hockey stick which has been discredited and is no longer used by the IPCC and one more graph without any source. As Durrenberger wrote there are many climatologists who believe that the Medieval Warm Period had higher temperatures than recent times. The problem is that it is not easy to reconstruct exact "global" temperatures going back hundreds of years.
There are alternative “graphs” – which show the Medieval Warm Period had higher temperatures than recent times. So how is this settled? And who says that the planet is not warming? This is piss weak buddy.

And BTW I have yet to see a convincing argument from your side why the ice core research clearly shows that increase in CO2 has followed and not predated earlier rises in temperature by several hundred years.

Quote

The science is settled; the solutions are not. Indeed, one political decision might be "we don't really care what happens in the future; we'll all be dead by 2100." I assume that decision would please most deniers, even if it were based on the same science as mitigation-based approach. That's why there is a difference between politics (deciding what to make people do) and science (observing the world around us and figuring out how it works.) Deniers would have us believe that science and politics are one and the same; that if you put up enough propaganda and have a great marketing campaign you can change what the science says. Doesn't work that way, unfortunately. The planet will keep warming and make fools of those who try to deny it.

The science is NOT settled – that is the whole problem. Your side of the argument is consistently making this false claim. Everybody agrees that we are going through climate change. But it is NOT settled by how much human activity has caused it. There is a current majority view - but it is not settled. In the links and sources I have provided there are many scientists - including climatologists - who do not agree. Again - everybody agrees that we have global warming - but not everybody agrees that CO2 from human activity is the key and deciding factor.

Quote

Can't quite parse that sentence. I'm all for nuclear power, provided we use good designs and they are operated well.

You might, but most campaigners on your side of the argument (for example here in Australia) are vehemently against nuclear power.

Quote

>One of the most contentious parts of the Gore Groups presentations is
> the portrayal of the effects of a 20 foot rise in sea level. No scientist
>has portrayed this as a probable outcome of the melting of the
>Greenland or Antarctic glaciers.

A lie; it is provable mathematically, which he admits:

>What they have done is to calculate the volume of water in these
>glaciers and have suggested that if all the ice over Greenland melted
>that it would cause a rise of 20 feet in the world’s oceans.

That is correct. Doesn't mean it will happen, and Gore does not say it WILL happen.

Now this is cow manure buddy. The rise of seas levels is one of the most popular scares by the church of AGW and eaten raw by the media. There is clear scientific evidence that sea levels do not rise and fall consistently around the planet – for example it has been proven that the sea level at the Maldives (which has been used as one of the areas which will disappear) actually has fallen over the last 50 years. The IPCC itself predicts a maximum of 56 cm in sea rise by the end of the century.

Also, because the temperatures in Antarctica (which holds 80% of all Ice on the planet) and parts of the Arctic are so low, a rise by several degrees in temperatures will actually increase the ice layer (while melting at the edges). Why? Because a rise in temperature will increase precipitation and as the temperature is so low to start with it actually will increase the ice layer. While glaciers at the coast of Greenland are melting, the ice cap in central Greenland has actually increased according to recent studies.

As Durrenbergers says:

Quote

The earth’s atmosphere is a chaotic system consisting of many variable parts – one of which is carbon dioxide. To attribute all of climate change to one of the variables signifies a lack of understanding of how the system works. Anyone who has spent time as a weather forecaster knows that there are a large number of elements that can cause the forecast to go wrong. The models used to predict the future of our climate are derived from the models used to predict our weather and are as likely to be wrong as are the forecasts of next week’s weather.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[mikkey 0]

One more point. The reason that I have changed my mind in regard to AGW is that I am always concerned when one side of the argument thinks it needs to use scare tactics and highly questionable conclusions.

One is the above issue of sea level rises based on thgat all the ice will melt (which is bollocks) and the other is that every bad thing that happens is linked to global warming.

Here is an example: Lately it has been claimed that global warming will spark epidemics. Here is a scientific article that debunks this:

Quote

Predictions that global warming will spark epidemics have little basis, say infectious-disease specialists. They say climate change has had little to do with recent outbreaks of cholera, dengue, and malaria, and argue that public health measures will inevitably outweigh the effects of future climate change. While many of the researchers behind the dire predictions concede that the scenarios are speculative, they say their projections play a role in consciousness raising.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/278/5340/1004

Why does the church of catastropic man made global warming constantly need to use scare tactics?

I believe that this tactic will backfire.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

One more point. The reason that I have changed my mind in regard to AGW is that I am always concerned when one side of the argument thinks it needs to use scare tactics and highly questionable conclusions.

One is the above issue of sea level rises based on thgat all the ice will melt (which is bollocks) and the other is that every bad thing that happens is linked to global warming.

Here is an example: Lately it has been claimed that global warming will spark epidemics. Here is a scientific article that debunks this:

Quote

Predictions that global warming will spark epidemics have little basis, say infectious-disease specialists. They say climate change has had little to do with recent outbreaks of cholera, dengue, and malaria, and argue that public health measures will inevitably outweigh the effects of future climate change. While many of the researchers behind the dire predictions concede that the scenarios are speculative, they say their projections play a role in consciousness raising.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/278/5340/1004

Why does the church of catastropic man made global warming constantly need to use scare tactics?

I believe that this tactic will backfire.

I wish people would stop confusing editorializing science magazines with peer reviewed science journals.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>What specifically has been settled?

1) Man is increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

3) The IPCC predicted temperature rises due to this increase in 1995; these have come to pass.

4) The planet is indeed warming up.

>There's no debate on the net impact of man-made pollution on global temperatures?YES THERE IT DAMMIT!!

Quote

The correltation crap you list here is less than circumstancial yet you stand on it. Give me a break.

There is certainly debate; there is a lot of debate in science circles over the potential positive and negative feedback mechanisms that may kick in above certain temperatures. There is also a great deal of debate in political circles by deniers, politicians, oil companies and other people with a vested interest in not believing the science. They are, in my opinion, looking at this thing all wrong. The science itself is not scary or evil; we don't need to be worshiping it or burning scientists at the stake for doing their jobs. The primary problem lies with politicians on both sides who are trying to use basic science to win themselves votes and power.

"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

>Which of those four points shows that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of recent warming?

"The IPCC predicted temperature rises due to this increase (in CO2) in 1995; these have come to pass."

>To infer the skeptics refute these points seems a bit dishonest.

The deniers do, at least. They do not believe that the increase in CO2 has resulted in the increase in temperatures we have seen over the past century.

Just how, exactly do you group these so called "deniers"??? You like that word a lot. So, I will claim the "alarmists" are pushing a political "eco morality"

There, I see your one titlle and raise you two.

"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]

Quote

>Has the IPCC shown that manmade CO2 was in fact the cause of recent increases?

Well, the IPCC predicted that the temperature would in fact increase due to increasing CO2 levels. This was denied by skeptics, who at that point were mostly type I. Temperatures did, in fact, increase. The skeptics now claim that something else caused the temperature rise.

However, the scientific method involves proposing hypotheses, testing them,there are to date no tests backing up man is the cause of GWing. coming up with predictions based on those hypotheses, and seeing if they come to pass. Had the IPCC predicted temperature increases and they had not come to pass,as you once said, even a stopped clock is right twice a day then that would have indicated a problem with their hypothesis. However, it did come to pass, and has thus validated the IPCC's approach.

If a weatherman sees the pressure drop, and sees a front approaching on radar, and predicts that the storm will soon hit his area, you may or may not take him seriously. I am sure there would be a denier somewhere who would claim that "it's all a bunch of hooey; the UN just wants you to buy umbrellas!"

However, if it does in fact rain the next day, the denier isn't going to be taken all that seriously in the future - even if he claims "well, something else made it rain; the weatherman wasn't actually correct."

>I must have missed where you made this point in those four points.

I did not. I was explaining the denier's views. I do not hold such views.

This is very frustrating to me that you can make the inferance on the four simple points above.

The planet is in a warming trend, can't argue with that, CO2 levels are rising, OK, CO2 is causuing GWing warming. Here you trip. And unless you need reminding, there is much data (and studies) that suggests temp changes lead CO2 level changes. Many many studies of which you have seen many I believe.

Look, I know you believe this but the links you give are week at best. And when you suggest the science is in I go nuts!!!! sorry Hence the tittle of this thread. I believe time is running out. Much like it did on the ice age crew not too many years ago.

On another note, had any one here heard the G8 position and results?

Don't see this on ABC or any of the other media. Kyoto (sp) got ripped me thinks.

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