Global Warming [Archive] - Page 2

Pages : 1 [2] 3

piratemonkey

11-20-2007, 01:56 AM

Mr> Mojo Risen

Take a litt...Oh, nver m,inbd....HoooooBoY!

Okaaay...

You think know what science ISN'T, but do you know what it IS?

How can we provide you with proof (acceptable to you) for Climate Change if you won't tell us what evidence you'd find acceptable?

Tell us what you consider to be "scientific" and I will either a) make fun of you for your definition, or b) give you evidence that fits your definition.

It's easy.

I Like Beer

11-22-2007, 03:11 PM

There arent many conservative scientists and besisides, they want money too. If making 'Global Warming' exist means a higher paycheck because of billions more in funding then heck, if i was a scientist, I'd believe it exists too regardless of whether it does.

Why aren't there conservative scientists? Are they too stupid? Or, is it because, in science, one can't manipulate facts that easily?

If it were as you say, wouldn't scientists want to create the impression that they DON'T know what's happening? Creating uncertainty about what we're facing should be the order of the day, but they're all pretty united about what we're facing.

I see you ignore the Mitt Romney quote. Have no easy answer for that?[hr]
Scientific theory is not proved by consensus!

You libs are getting more and more unhinged lately.
Is it because we have a few more freethinking posters on this forum?
Is your monopoly being threatened?
I know you like to shut down opposing view points and engage in censorship using strong-arm tactics, it is your specialty, but c'mon....I know you are better than this.

Okay, so thousands of scientists, working independently arrive at the same conclusion. That to you is not science? So, what is?

There are also an increasing number of conservatives who think it's time to do something... like the head of BP, George Bush, Mitt Romney - are they unhinged liberals, too? LMAO...

What strong arm tactics are we using? You're the one who's name callling - what are we doing? Oh yeah, we're posting facts while you post your opinion about global conspiracies.

Where are the 'free thinkers' in this thread? I see you and Kevin - both clinging to conspiracy theories as your defense and ignoring posts that threaten your position. So we pit our facts against your opinion that scientists are trying to bring about a socialist state in the US. That's rational.... not!

Your thinking used to frustrate me, but as you're numbers are shrinking, I find it just hilarious. Ooooh, it's a liberal/scientist conspiracy, that has absolutely no precedent in the past .

In fact, when science has raised the alarm bell - ozone, tobacco - it gets it right and has to face entrenched deniers like yourself. You will either face reality or be left behind - your denial will serve the short-term interest of the US and its corporate partners but the long term consequences are bleak.

However, it doesn't really matter, the US is doomed. According to the GAO, the US will be bankrupt in 40 years thanks to big government, big spending neo-conservatives. You may as well live it up now and give the big finger to your grandkids - I hope you leave them a small fortune so they can have a chance at a future.

Kevin67

11-24-2007, 01:03 AM

I Like Beer

11-24-2007, 09:33 PM

No, they're not too stupid, they're actually not dumb because they dont fall to stupid 'theories' for the purpose of money. Of course, they want money also, so instead of being corrupt and misguiding, the majority are not scientists.

What do I care though, I'm arguing with "I Like Beer", some random drunk guy.

LMAO... now THAT'S funny.

Someone will have to interpret that first paragraph for me. I can't really understand it.

And again... I see you fail to answer this question Kevin. What's the matter - hasn't Rush given you your talking points yet?

Orff had a question about the environment: “It’s eighty degrees today. What are we going to do about global warming?” Romney’s response was quick and concise. “We’re going to get ourselves off of foreign oil,” he said. “And to do that it’s going to take nuclear power, clean coal, more efficient vehicles, and then we’re going to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gases.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/...fact_lizza

Why would Mitt say that? I mean, it's not happening, right? Why reduce greenhouse gases when there's no reason to? Or, is there a reason to?

Oh my God, is Mitt a loony liberal? Have they gotten to him?

preservanation

11-24-2007, 11:02 PM

Ilikesuds:
Okay, so thousands of scientists, working independently arrive at the same conclusion. That to you is not science? So, what is?
Introduction
We all know that Christopher Columbus encountered stiff resistance about his idea of sailing off West to try and reach the East Indies. Many of us have laboured under the impression that people were concerned that he would sail off the edge of the Earth which was widely believed to be flat. History is thought to have vindicated Columbus against those filled with the Christian superstition of a flat Earth who held on to old fashioned beliefs. A minority of people are http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

The similarities are hylarious to me and awful embarrassing to you.[hr]

There arent many conservative scientists and besisides, they want money too. If making 'Global Warming' exist means a higher paycheck because of billions more in funding then heck, if i was a scientist, I'd believe it exists too regardless of whether it does.

Why aren't there conservative scientists? Are they too stupid? Or, is it because, in science, one can't manipulate facts that easily?

No, they're not too stupid, they're actually not dumb because they dont fall to stupid 'theories' for the purpose of money. Of course, they want money also, so instead of being corrupt and misguiding, the majority are not scientists.

What do I care though, I'm arguing with "I Like Beer", some random drunk guy.
This is an excellent point, kev!

The libs always accuse the right of chasing the money, when in fact it is them who are chasing confiscatory tax dollars and scamiscatory dollars from these "carbon credit" schemes sponsored by the like of such rich snake oil salesmen as AlGore just to fund his elite lifestyle and his burgeoning "cabal" channel, what's it's name?..."Current?"
What an effin scam and all you brained washed libs are supporting the hypocritical lying, elitist, exceedingly rich leaders who you routinly rail against. What a joke.

I Like Beer

11-24-2007, 11:36 PM

preservanation

11-24-2007, 11:51 PM

We all know that Christopher Columbus encountered stiff resistance about his idea of sailing off West to try and reach the East Indies. Many of us have laboured under the impression that people were concerned that he would sail off the edge of the Earth which was widely believed to be flat. History is thought to have vindicated Columbus against those filled with the Christian superstition of a flat Earth who held on to old fashioned beliefs. A minority of people are

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

The similarities are hylarious to me and awful embarrassing to you.

I have no idea what your point is here - but then, what else is new? Care to try again? Perhaps I shall have to get drunk to get it, is that it?

The libs always accuse the right of chasing the money, when in fact it is them who are chasing confiscatory tax dollars and scamiscatory dollars from these "carbon credit" schemes sponsored by the like of such rich snake oil salesmen as AlGore just to fund his elite lifestyle and his burgeoning "cabal" channel, what's it's name?..."Current?"
What an effin scam and all you brained washed libs are supporting the hypocritical lying, elitist, exceedingly rich leaders who you routinly rail against. What a joke.

Interesting rant. Check in with reality much? :)
When I can.
Check in with the news much???

Study: Democrats the party of the rich
By Donald Lambro
November 23, 2007

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.

A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said. [/quote]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/NATION/111230087/1002

My advice for you is to either reduce, or increase your intake of stimulants/depressants...check with your primary physician.

I Like Beer

11-25-2007, 04:40 PM

Study: Democrats the party of the rich
By Donald Lambro
November 23, 2007

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.

A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/NATION/111230087/1002

My advice for you is to either reduce, or increase your intake of stimulants/depressants...check with your primary physician.

Again - I have no idea what your point is.

However, there is a reason that Democrats represent rich areas. The reason is, smarter people make more money. Smarter people - those with higher degrees - tend to vote for the more liberal party because they are not as easily duped by appeals to emotion - the cornerstone of populist conservative appeals.

http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/Education_vs_voting.htm

Now that you've taken us woefully off topic - perhaps you will tell me why Mitt is a believer in Global Warming since Kevin won't.

Being a conservative, shouldn't you support government controls over what you do to your own body and NOT take the obvious hard drugs you're taking? At least when I take illicit substance, I'm not being a hypocrite. :)

preservanation

11-26-2007, 12:40 AM

Suds:
However, there is a reason that Democrats represent rich areas. The reason is, smarter people make more money. Smarter people - those with higher degrees - tend to vote for the more liberal party because they are not as easily duped by appeals to emotion - the cornerstone of populist conservative appeals.so, the whole "rich vote For Republicans" mantra thing I've been hearing for decades is now tossed out onto the trash heap of convenience?
Furthermore, educated doesn't necessarily translate into smart, or successful or rich for that matter. I thought, last I checked the educated "educators" in this country are woefully underpaid, or did we throw that on the trash heap as well? Teachers (educators) support big gov because that's who, by in large, they work for, and higher taxes because that's what pays their salaries...If this is smart, well maybe, but not in the way we mean it.

BTW, I have a "smart" friend who has more masters than I can count. Guess what...he delivers PIZZAS and has for over 15 years. God bless him, he seems to like it and with all his "smartness" I'm sure he can manage to rationalize it somehow...
In Madison WI, we have one of the highest number of people with masters degrees in the nation who are not working in their field. IE; they're waiting tables, extruding sausage, stocking warehouses, driving cabs, etc...

What was your point again?

bobbylien

11-26-2007, 01:39 AM

preservanation

11-26-2007, 12:01 PM

In Madison WI, we have one of the highest number of people with masters degrees in the nation who are not working in their field. IE; they're waiting tables, extruding sausage, stocking warehouses, driving cabs, etc...
Do you really want to debate this? Madison consistently ranks among the Best Places for Business and Careers according to Forbes. Not only that but Madison has the lowest unemployment rating in the nation.
http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicv/vfiles13318.jpg
Move to Madison. ;)
It's not debatable, Bobby, it is a fact.
And I don't disagree that it is a good place to live. (It should be, like NYC, the rest of the state pays for Madison's subsistence)
It is a testament to Madison's allure that, A) People with a wall full of sheepskins are satisfied to work out of their field in order to stay there. If they moved, they could most certainly get a job in their field and make more money, they choose not to. and, B) One is able to live quite comfortably with a relatively low paying job.
So, I don't understand what your disagreement with me is, unless you're just being ornery.

bobbylien

11-26-2007, 01:44 PM

(It should be, like NYC, the rest of the state pays for Madison's subsistence)

In what way? I want numbers too.

BTW, I have a "smart" friend who has more masters than I can count. Guess what...he delivers PIZZAS and has for over 15 years. God bless him, he seems to like it and with all his "smartness" I'm sure he can manage to rationalize it somehow...
Well, assuming they aren't in completely meaningless areas as far as careers go(communication, literature, anything-theory, history, etc..), do you think he could get a better job if he tried?

I Like Beer

11-28-2007, 10:08 PM

BTW, I have a "smart" friend who has more masters than I can count. Guess what...he delivers PIZZAS and has for over 15 years. God bless him, he seems to like it and with all his "smartness" I'm sure he can manage to rationalize it somehow...

You know, it's so HARD to argue against all the evidence you bring to debates. You have a SINGLE friend who has degrees and delivers pizza.

Against that avalanche of statistical data, how can I argue? LOL... You're always entertaining, Shirley.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_RxYX_SXdYQJ:www.ecu.edu/e3careers/pdf/facultytools/AverageGradSalaryData2005PerCollege.pdf+average+sa lary+for+college+graduate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=ca&client=firefox-a
Here's a link to Average 2005 Graduate Salaries Per College
Arts and Science - $39 400
Business - $45 300
Education - $40 000

The median income for an American High School graduate (and went no further) over 25 is $26,505. (See link below for this number).

Nope, I see no difference.
Or, you can go to the US Gov census. I know, compared to your SINGLE friend, it's very little evidence :)
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_001.htm

Comments?

What about that Mitt Romney quote?

preservanation

11-28-2007, 10:22 PM

Even if we all stopped driving cars, shut down all industry, coal plants, oil refineries and electrical generators we still may not affect the climate one iota...what the hell, let's go for it. Sounds like a wise bet.
Hope you have a warm blankie...[hr]Anyway, all you climate warriors ought to be bugging India and China, they can't even breath in their cities, yet they are excluded from the Kyoto protocols and are immune from your rage.

Another good plan is to stop these ecowarriors from chartering rickety ships to the Arctic Circle to show a bunch of liberal pudding heads the effect of GW thus contributing the the human footprint...oh yeah, then running into an iceberg (what the hell is that doing there? They were probably worried about running into a palm tree and scaring off the toucans) and leaving 57,000 gal of diesel fuel at the bottom of the sea. Not to mention the untold damage done to the fragile environment due to the rescue effort.
Y'all insane

bobbylien

11-29-2007, 12:01 AM

Quick question Preserve..

What will come from it if we put more regulations on vehicles and require that people drive vehicles that actually fit their NEED rather than their ego?
I personally believe that everyone should have to apply for a permit to buy a car. It should be more like an application where you would have to state the reasons for needing that particular type of vehicle(IE: no more suburbanites buying trucks and hummers). That could eliminate much of the waste. Pleasure driving permits should also be issued. I doubt either theory is viable, both politically and otherwise, but it would go a long way towards eliminating our dependency on terrorist supporting states for energy and keep our air cleaner. If global warming can be used as a guise to push forward such legislation, thats fine with me. I couldn't care less about the validity of the claims(although I've yet to see any convincing arguments against the theory)..the end game is good for this country and thats all that really matters to me.

preservanation

11-29-2007, 12:29 AM

You won't be happy until the State and Fed gov tells you what you can and can't do from cradle to grave.
If you are satisfied with a meaningless gov job, a bottle of vodka, an issue of The Cap Times and a buss token to your dingy gov owned tenement, so be it.
I AM NOT!

All this GW BS is a way and means to that goal.
The ideology is the same, only the vehicle to that end changes from year to year.
Tomorrow it will be Global Cooling, cheeseburgers, the rich, the poor, too much ozone, too little ozone, to much lending, not enough lending, whatever.
Let the market decide and get Big Brother out of it.
Damn Socialists.

bobbylien

11-29-2007, 01:05 AM

preservanation

11-29-2007, 10:43 AM

You won't be happy until the State and Fed gov tells you what you can and can't do from cradle to grave.
So do you believe the government shouldn't tell people not to bury toxic waste in the middle of a residential area?
What does that have to do with anything, bobby?
Do you believe the government should tell people to bury toxic waste in the middle of a residential area? They could if you give them that power.
Why do you think the gov always make good decisions and individuals or industry always make bad ones? You trust them way too much, once you relinquish your freedoms to gov, there is no getting them back. Someday you will regret that choice.

Just go back to your dingy gov owned tenement, and try to hide from the installed cameras recording your energy, water and toilet paper usage so Big Brother won't send over the GW police to haul you away to a reeducation center or a polar bear farm.

I Like Beer

11-29-2007, 01:49 PM

Why do you think the gov always make good decisions...? You trust them way too much, once you relinquish your freedoms to gov, there is no getting them back. Someday you will regret that choice.

Good point. See Patriot Act ;)[hr]
Even if we all stopped driving cars, shut down all industry, coal plants, oil refineries and electrical generators we still may not affect the climate one iota...what the hell, let's go for it. Sounds like a wise bet.
Hope you have a warm blankie...

Good, it seems like you're changing your tune. Now we can actually discuss this.

No scientist is making the claim that we have to do these things. Yes, we should look for ways to reduce emissions and all that, but stop driving cars? That's ridiculous. The point is to start doing things now so that it never gets to that point. All the while reducing our dependence on foreign oil (isn't that a good thing?)

The things you CLAIM the left wants is flat out not true. These are conservatives CLAIMING this is what the left wants. It's called demonization. They make up what we want and convince conservatives that it's true. It's a good device but flawed.

Anyway, all you climate warriors ought to be bugging India and China, they can't even breath in their cities, yet they are excluded from the Kyoto protocols and are immune from your rage.

They are not immune from my disdain. We have to pressure them to cut back as well. You will never hear me say, 'give India and China a free ride'.

Another good plan is to stop these ecowarriors from chartering rickety ships to the Arctic Circle to show a bunch of liberal pudding heads the effect of GW thus contributing the the human footprint...oh yeah, then running into an iceberg (what the hell is that doing there? They were probably worried about running into a palm tree and scaring off the toucans) and leaving 57,000 gal of diesel fuel at the bottom of the sea. Not to mention the untold damage done to the fragile environment due to the rescue effort.
Y'all insane

LOL... good point.

bobbylien

11-29-2007, 02:28 PM

What does that have to do with anything, bobby?
I'm trying to distinguish where you would draw the line between the job of the government to both protect its people and its natural resources and personal responsibility.

I guess we could put aside the fact that people who drive cars they don't need and guzzle gas unnecessarily are essentially giving more money to Chavez, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other enemy territories, not to mention adding to inflation. I would like to see conservation come about along the lines of patriotism but as we have all seen, conservative patriotism rarely goes beyond the parade and the 'Support The Troops' bumper sticker. Give them the opportunity to really make a sacrifice for the sake of this country and they say 'I guess I could drive that efficient new vehicle to help my country but my SUV is just so big and between the tinted windows and the height, it makes me feel like an elite to drive it.' Which, I believe, sums up many Tahoe or Suburban owners thought process(if they even considered being patriotic that is).

Maybe conservatives forget that CONSERVE is in their title. I wish that such things could be accomplished through patriotism but conservatives have clearly proven that they won't cut their bad habits for the well being of this country. I think that 'gorebal warming' has also become an excuse for many conservatives, in my opinion. Instead of feeling bad about wasting resources during a time of war, they can just think about how they're standing up against Al Gore and the socialist scientific community.

I guess the overall trend I'm seeing from conservatives is a move towards the reactionary side. You would rather wait for a problem to arise than tackle it early off and its really turning off many voters who want long-term fiscal responsibility(which definitely includes responsible tax cuts) over the 'lower our taxes NOW' crowd. We must be froogle and responsible with our money, not cheap because as I've seen in the business world, being cheap often makes you pay much more in the long run. But I'll get to my main point here and stop ranting.

What is the role of our government Mr. Preservanation?

Why do you think the gov always make good decisions and individuals or industry always make bad ones? You trust them way too much, once you relinquish your freedoms to gov, there is no getting them back. Someday you will regret that choice.
I didn't say that. I am trying to draw the line between the role of government in our age and the need for personal responsibility.

Just go back to your dingy gov owned tenement, and try to hide from the installed cameras recording your energy, water and toilet paper usage so Big Brother won't send over the GW police to haul you away to a reeducation center or a polar bear farm.
Stop, I've heard all of these talking points too many times. Come up with something new or try to be more clever next time. ;)

Wndrtch

11-29-2007, 06:05 PM

Give them the opportunity to really make a sacrifice for the sake of this country and they say 'I guess I could drive that efficient new vehicle to help my country but my SUV is just so big and between the tinted windows and the height, it makes me feel like an elite to drive it.' Which, I believe, sums up many Tahoe or Suburban owners thought process(if they even considered being patriotic that is).

You mean, we should be more like Al, and fly our Gulf-stream to LA and have the Lincoln town car waiting on the run-way to pick us up?

http://scaredmonkeys.com/fun-images/gore_gulfstream_thumb.jpg

Or should we start our own "carbon-credit" company, so we can pay ourselves to keep our massive mansion, that wastes more energy per month, than 20 average homes.

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/follow-the-clues-is-al-gores-promotion-of-global-warming-hysteria-merely-a-scam-to-make-him-money/

Here's a questions for you, what does Al drive to the Sierra Club meetings?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1482655/posts

Maybe conservatives forget that CONSERVE is in their title. I wish that such things could be accomplished through patriotism but conservatives have clearly proven that they won't cut their bad habits for the well being of this country.

And nor will the self-righteous, Global Warming lefty zelots.

I wonder how many average Americans, can afford to purchase those "carbon-credits", so THEY can continue thier lifestyles like Al?

The tittle to his movie should have been "Global Warming: Do as I say, not as I do"

bobbylien

11-29-2007, 07:31 PM

You can take those Al Gore talking points and shove them right up your ass. I've said many times that I don't give a fuck what Al Gore does or says. Of course hes hypocritical for many of these things, were you expecting me to defend him?

You've proved my point completely. Instead of debate with me you just bring out the same old bullshit.

Whats really funny is that you say NEITHER WILL THE LEFT. So you are essentially saying that you are NO better than the leftists that you criticize. You fail at life. :P

Wndrtch

11-29-2007, 08:32 PM

You can take those Al Gore talking points and shove them right up your ass. I've said many times that I don't give a fuck what Al Gore does or says. Of course he’s hypocritical for many of these things, were you expecting me to defend him?

Hmm, let's see here, you believe the same crap as Gore, and promote the same crap as Gore, and you even trash conservatives with the same talking points as Gore, yet you don't care what he says and are not an acolyte? Suuuurrrreee!

The fact is, that Al IS the point-man for the Global Warming religion like it or not, and he IS a hypocrite. You want more people to believe and partake of the cool-aid with you, then shoot this messenger, and at least get one who is not the embodiment of hypocrisy. Then maybe more people will be encouraged to buy $14 light-bulbs, filled with enough powdered Mercury to kill your family off, today, not 100 years from now.

You've proved my point completely. Instead of debate with me you just bring out the same old bullshit.

What debate? You just wanted to call Conservatives names. That's not debating, moron. And within the context of your "Conservatives suck because they don’t' conserve" Dem-talking point rant, I showed you how the Messiah of Global Warming is a hypocrite, and you wined.

What’s really funny is that you say NEITHER WILL THE LEFT. So you are essentially saying that you are NO better than the leftists that you criticize. You fail at life. :P [/quote]

I guess I'm to infer, you think you are better than everybody else?

Hubris too I see.

bobbylien

11-29-2007, 09:31 PM

How is saying that Americans as a whole should reduce their waste in order to reduce our dependency on foreign oil at all related to the Al Gore talking points? Al Gore isn't foolish enough to make statements anything like the ones I made. He is trying to reach out to the other side, not expose as the hypocritical fools they are.

I guess I'm to infer, you think you are better than everybody else?
Show me how you reached that conclusion based on my post.

What debate? You just wanted to call Conservatives names. That's not debating, moron. And within the context of your "Conservatives suck because they don’t' conserve" Dem-talking point rant, I showed you how the Messiah of Global Warming is a hypocrite, and you wined.
I very clearly pointed out to you that my position has nothing to do with Mr. Gore, are you capable of talking about the scientific consensus that is global warming without bringing up Al Gore? When you want to bring an article up that debates the theory, I'd be glad to debate it. Just claiming that global warming is a scam isn't enough, you need something to back that claim up... this isn't Fox News, your talking points will be challenged.

preservanation

11-30-2007, 02:04 PM

Everything is Caused by Global Warming (600+ links)
Christopher Alleva
Dr. John Brignell, a British engineering professor, runs a website called numberwatch. He has compiled what has to be the most complete collection of links to media stories ascribing the cause of everything under the sun to global warming. He has already posted more than six-hundred links.

The site's stated mission is to expose all the "scares, scams, junk, panics and flummery cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats and so-called scientists and others that try to confuse the public with wrong numbers" Professor Brignell's motto is "Working to Combat Math Hysteria."

This exercise is not merely a lark to show the abject absurdity of this global warming nonsense. Brignell wrote a great book titled Sorry Wrong Number, The Abuse of Measurement on this very subject.

Dr. Brignell is accepting additions to the list so if you have any send them along.

Agricultural land increase, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, Africa hit hardest, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, Antarctic grass flourishes, anxiety, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic lakes disappear, asthma, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric defiance, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, bananas destroyed, bananas grow, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird visitors drop, birds return early, blackbirds stop singing, blizzards, blue mussels return, bluetongue, boredom, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain Siberian, British gardens change, brothels struggle, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, cancer deaths in England, cardiac arrest, caterpillar biomass shift, challenges and opportunities, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, cloud stripping, cockroach migration, cod go south, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), computer models, conferences, coral bleaching, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , cold spells, cost of trillions, cougar attacks, cremation to end, crime increase, crocodile sex, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, cyclones (Australia), damages equivalent to $200 billion, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, death rate increase (US), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, dermatitis, desert advance, desert life threatened, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, diarrhoea, disappearance of coastal cities, diseases move north, Dolomites collapse, drought, drowning people, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spinning out of control, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, Earth wobbling, earthquakes, El Niño intensification, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, bats, pandas, pikas, polar bears, pigmy possums, gorillas, koalas, walrus, whales, frogs, toads, turtles, orang-utan, elephants, tigers, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, penguins, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches), experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, famine, farmers go under, fashion disaster, fever,figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish catches drop, fish catches rise, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, Florida economic decline, food poisoning, food prices rise, food security threat (SA), footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frostbite, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, god melts, golf Masters wrecked, Gore omnipresence, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, hazardous waste sites breached, health of children harmed, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health improvement, human health risk, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, illness and death, inclement weather, infrastructure failure (Canada), Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insurance premium rises, invasion of cats, invasion of herons, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, Kew Gardens taxed, kitten boom, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!), lightning related insurance claims, little response in the atmosphere, lush growth in rain forests, Lyme disease, Malaria, malnutrition, mammoth dung melt, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, marine dead zone, Meaching (end of the world), megacryometeors, Melanoma, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, more bad air days, more research needed, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountains break up, mountains taller, mortality lower, mudslides, National security implications, new islands, next ice age, Nile delta damaged, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks move north, ocean acidification, ocean waves speed up, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, oyster diseases, ozone loss, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plankton loss, plant viruses, plants march north, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears drowning, polar bears starve, polar tours scrapped, porpoise astray, profits collapse, psychosocial disturbances, puffin decline, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rainfall reduction, rape wave, refugees, reindeer larger, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, riches, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, rivers dry up, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, rockfalls, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, salmon stronger, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, sex change, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, snowfall reduction, societal collapse, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spiders invade Scotland, squid population explosion, squirrels reproduce earlier, spectacular orchids, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, suicide, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, tree beetle attacks, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees could return to Antarctic, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, tsunamis, turtles crash, turtles lay earlier, UK Katrina, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, volcanic eruptions, walrus displaced, walrus pups orphaned, war, wars over water, wars threaten billions, water bills double, water supply unreliability, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, weeds, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales move north, wheat yields crushed in Australia, white Christmas dream ends, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine - more English, wine -German boon, wine - no more French , winters in Britain colder, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html

Do you think the Global Warming Alarmist might have overplayed their hand just a wee bit?
I think so.

And you libs wonder why we find it difficult to take Anything you say seriously.
You do you and your ideology an acute disservice when you embarrass yourself like this.

If you weren't so dangerous to our nation, freedom and way of life you would be quite funny.

bobbylien

11-30-2007, 07:32 PM

Do you think the Global Warming Alarmist might have overplayed their hand just a wee bit?
I think so.

And you libs wonder why we find it difficult to take Anything you say seriously.
You do you and your ideology an acute disservice when you embarrass yourself like this.

If you weren't so dangerous to our nation, freedom and way of life you would be quite funny.

That story has nothing to do with debating global warming. I asked you to present me with something that debates the theory of global warming.

I think your problem is that you lump up everyone who believes in the theory together when in reality there are many many different points of view among the MAJORITY of Americans who believe in global warming. I'm not an alarmist, I simply believe that since fighting the causes of global warming are in our own national interest, it certainly doesn't hurt to cut back our energy usage. Look at the situation EVEN IF global warming wasn't an issue. We still must reduce our energy usage and improve our environment.

It seems as though you would rather throw around talking points and completely random articles than address the real issue here.

We must become more energy efficient. Simple stuff here folks...

People who drive smaller cars to help the environment are also helping this nation and those who drive huge trucks and SUVs when they don't need them are harming this nation. Its a simple concept.

preservanation

12-01-2007, 07:52 AM

GWBS is the latest vehicle of socialism.

If one would like to freeze in the winter, die of heat exhaustion in the summer, Eliminate Edison's contributions, or take the "transporter" to work like Captain Kirk...go ahead. Nothing is stopping you except your own imagination, just don't take me down with you.
~The Defender of Freedom

Elrathin

12-01-2007, 08:38 AM

preservanation

12-01-2007, 02:40 PM

I said nothing about "can't be".
GW is cyclical and to the extent that we have anything to do with it or any ability to influence it is unmitigated BS.
Wait long enough and these same people will be screaming of a coming ice age (like they did in the 70's) and trying to take our rights away on that basis.
Or droughts, floods, take your pick.

GWBS reminds me of tribal superstitions where they try to influence the climate or weather through totemic rituals. Good luck with that.[hr]

GWBS is the latest vehicle of socialism.

If one would like to freeze in the winter, die of heat exhaustion in the summer, Eliminate Edison's contributions, or take the "transporter" to work like Captain Kirk...go ahead. Nothing is stopping you except your own imagination, just don't take me down with you.
~The Defender of Freedom

Pres has yet to post anything refuting the Arguments of Global Warming, only parotting the conservative view of "It can't be me" syndrome.
Where have you been?
I posted reams of facts and scientific testimony refuting all the GWBS fantastical claims.
This issue is years old.
GWBS supporters have dropped the "scientific" argument long ago, in favor of "feelings" and well we have to do Something. This makes them feel better so they can seem caring and superior at their elite cocktail parties or after hour raves. It's more about that than anything.
The "carbon credit" scam feeds on this and there are some very rich people now who made a lot of money on these suckers.
That's fine, but don't seek legislation or gov mandates that forces me to buy into this mierda.
I value my freedom, and so do others. Leave us alone.

bobbylien

12-01-2007, 08:10 PM

GWBS is the latest vehicle of socialism.Talking point 1.
GW is cyclical and to the extent that we have anything to do with it or any ability to influence it is unmitigated BS.Essentially talking point 2 but you also have nothing to backup that assertion.
Wait long enough and these same people will be screaming of a coming ice age (like they did in the 70's) and trying to take our rights away on that basis.
Or droughts, floods, take your pick.Talking point 3.
I posted reams of facts and scientific testimony refuting all the GWBS fantastical claims.Weasel words.
GWBS supporters have dropped the "scientific" argument long ago, in favor of "feelings" and well we have to do Something.Nothing to back this up. Its clearly a talking point too but I'll give you a break here.
This makes them feel better so they can seem caring and superior at their elite cocktail parties or after hour raves. It's more about that than anything.Talking point 4.
The "carbon credit" scam feeds on this and there are some very rich people now who made a lot of money on these suckers.Talking point 5.
That's fine, but don't seek legislation or gov mandates that forces me to buy into this mierda.
I value my freedom, and so do others. Leave us alone.6 and 7.. enough said. You presented nothing worthy of debate. Show me proof against the theory and stop stalling with the talking points.

I Like Beer

12-03-2007, 02:27 PM

preservanation

12-03-2007, 02:37 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html

Do you think the Global Warming Alarmist might have overplayed their hand just a wee bit?

LOL... American Thinker, a conservative internet publication.

This is your scientific evidence? :madlaugh::madlaugh::madlaugh:
Go to the site there are 600 links to every one of those examples in the media. The media cited all these assuming scientific evidence, not the American Thinker. If you have a problem with the list complain to the pro-GWBS media. Don't shoot the messenger, chulo.

I Like Beer

12-03-2007, 03:03 PM

Tropical Zone is expanding faster than predicted.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN3030345520071202?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Earth's tropical belt is expanding much faster than expected, and that could bring more storms to the temperate zone and drier weather to parts of the world that are already dry, climate scientists reported on Sunday.

"Remarkably, the tropics appear to have already expanded -- during only the last few decades of the 20th century -- by at least the same margin as models predict for this century," the scientists said in the current edition of Nature Geoscience.

Scientists forecast the tropic belt would spread by about 2 degrees of latitude north and south of the Equator by the end of the 21st century. That amount of tropical expansion has already occurred, and was confirmed by five independent ways of measuring it, the report found.

But climate scientists define the tropic band by what happens on the land, in the water and in the air, and that is what is changing, the study said.

'SERIOUS HARDSHIPS'

Tropical temperatures are warm, and it rains a lot, with little seasonal or day-to-day change. The subtropics, by contrast, are generally dry. If the warm, wet tropical climate is spreading poleward, the dry subtropic climate may head for the poles too.

Those dry subtropical bands could include some of the most heavily populated places on Earth, the scientists said: the Mediterranean, the U.S. Southwest, northern Mexico, southern Australia, southern Africa and parts of South America.

"Shifts in precipitation patterns would have obvious implications for agriculture and water resources and could present serious hardships in marginal areas," the authors wrote.

For those who live in the middle latitudes, like most U.S., European and Asian residents, the change could affect the storm tracks that largely determines weather in these areas, said co-author Dian Seidel of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"Those storm tracks are linked with the position of the jet stream, which is one way we use to delineate the width of the tropics," Seidel said by telephone from NOAA's Air Resources Laboratory outside Washington. "The jet streams are moving poleward, and so, presumably, would the storm tracks."

This poleward migration of storm tracks is in line with predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This worldwide panel of scientists and policymakers is convening in Bali, Indonesia this week to determine how to deal with climate change.

(Editing by Vicki Allen)

http://alaskaglacier.discoveryandtravel.com/

Crowning America’s northwest; Alaska is awe inspiring.The marine wilderness of Alaska and the surrounding glaciers provides great opportunities for adventure, a living laboratory for observing the flow of glaciers, and a chance to study life as it returns in the wake of retreating ice.

To capture one highlight or a single aspect to describe this 365 million acre frontier is near impossible. From lush rain forests to grand glaciers and icebergs, Alaska is laced with open seas, holds some of the highest mountains in the world, magistic displays of vast scenic lands, striking national parks and an abundance of wildlife.

Sadly, it has also become a casualty of Global Warming caused by the man-made increase in CO2 resulting the Meling Glacier Phenomenon.
This phenomenon is strikingly evident at Portage Glacier. At Portage, the Begich, Boggs Visitor Center used to squarely face the massive blue Portage Glacier directly in front of it. However just a few years after the Visitor facility has been built, Portage Glacier receded - around a corner of Portage Lake and out of view. Now, tourists must view the glacier's face from a tour boat.

Hmmm... Preserv, it looks like its not only scientists and liberals that are part of this global conspiracy but now the tropical zone and icebergs are in on it, too. Who knew that Mother Nature could be part of such a conspiracy?

preservanation

12-03-2007, 03:12 PM

The earth will do what the earth does. To suggest we influence it to the extent you seem to believe is beyond nonsense. The "solutions" proposed by the Man Made GW alarmists will severely impact our economy, our ability to compete in the market place, and grant overreaching powers to Fed and local govs to strip us of our individual rights.

Man made c02 emissions account for about 3% of global output. This cause is folly and boils down to an attempt to punish capitalism, America, consumers, and to prop up the advancement of socialism.

I Like Beer

12-03-2007, 03:22 PM

This from Kenneth Cohen from Exxon Mobil.

http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=6223&method=full

Exxon says important questions remain about the degree to which fossil-fuel emissions are contributing to global warming. But "the modeling has gotten better" analyzing the probabilities of how rising greenhouse-gas emissions will affect global temperatures, Mr. Cohen said. Exxon continues to stress the modeling is imperfect; it is "helpful to an analysis, but it's not a predictor," he said. But he added, "we know enough now -- or, society knows enough now -- that the risk is serious and action should be taken."

How did the liberals get to him?[hr]
The earth will do what the earth does. To suggest we influence it to the extent you seem to believe is beyond nonsense. The "solutions" proposed by the Man Made GW alarmists will severely impact our economy, our ability to compete in the market place, and grant overreaching powers to Fed and local govs to strip us of our individual rights.

Man made c02 emissions account for about 3% of global output. This cause is folly and boils down to an attempt to punish capitalism, America, consumers, and to prop up the advancement of socialism.

Exxon Mobile, British Petroleum - among others - are quoted as saying it's a problem.

Explain to me how Exxon Mobile is trying to turn the US towards socialism? Talk about nonsense. You gotta get some new talking points.

preservanation

12-03-2007, 04:48 PM

I Like Beer

12-03-2007, 05:22 PM

Are you kidding, Exxon sees the Stalinist writing on the wall and they don't want to be on the wrong side of the fascists when they come to kick down his door with their shiny new jack boots.
They are business men and know how to hedge their bets.
Self preservation is of utmost importance to the shareholders.

WDNRTCH, do you see what I mean? Do you share, Preserve's interesting interpretation?

Preserve, I got this for you. It may help. :)

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".

Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

* if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
* and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".

preservanation

12-03-2007, 05:26 PM

So much for the liberal mind-set, thanks for explaining it.
What was your point again?

bobbylien

12-03-2007, 05:41 PM

It's entertaining to me that you take the word of an oil exec over the reams if climatologists who refute the GWBS theory. Are you in the pocket of big oil like your heros Cheney and Bush? LOL
Show me a list, no more weasel words. Give me a link. Show me a list with just 100 names of actual CLIMATOLOGISTS who disagree with the IPPC report.

preservanation

12-03-2007, 06:02 PM

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
Reason Public Policy Institute
A
Khabibullo Abdusamatov
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Claude Allègre
Augie Auer
B
Sallie Baliunas
Timothy F. Ball
Robert Balling
Fred Barnes (journalist)
Joe Barton
Glenn Beck
David Bellamy
Tom Bethell
Robert Bidinotto
Bill Evans (meteorologist)
Tim Blair
Roy Blunt
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Andrew Bolt
Christopher Booker
Neal Boortz
John Brignell
Reid Bryson
C
Nigel Calder
Robert M. Carter
Alan Caruba
Ian Castles
Cato Institute
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
George V. Chilingar
John Christy
Petr Chylek
Ian Clark
Climate Audit
Alexander Cockburn
John Coleman (meteorologist)
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Cooler Heads Coalition
Philip Cooney
Piers Corbyn
William R. Cotton
Michael Crichton
D
John Lawrence Daly
Robert E. Davis (climatologist)
Chris de Freitas
Dee Snider
David Deming
Michael J. Doherty
David Douglass
Paul Driessen (lobbyist)
Matt Drudge
Martin Durkin (television director)
E
Don Easterbrook
Myron Ebell
Gary England
ExxonMobil
F
Frederick Forsyth
F cont.
Fraser Institute
Friends of Science
Michael Fumento
G
George C. Marshall Institute
Global Climate Coalition
William M. Gray
Greenhouse Mafia
Michael D. Griffin
Moon Griffon
Greg Gutfeld
H
Sean Hannity
Tom Harris (lobbyist)
Betsy Hart
Heartland Institute
David Henderson (economist)
Robert Henderson (writer)
Heritage Foundation
High Park Group
Randy Hillier (politician)
Peter Hitchens
James P. Hogan (writer)
I
Craig D. Idso
Keith E. Idso
Sherwood B. Idso
Andrey Illarionov
Laura Ingraham
Jim Inhofe
International Policy Network
Yuri Izrael
J
Zbigniew Jaworowski
Dennis Jensen
Penn Jillette
Federico Jiménez Losantos
Charles Foster Johnson
Barry Jones (executive)
K
Wibjorn Karlen
William Kininmonth (meteorologist)
Václav Klaus
Ron Knapp
George Kukla
L
Lavoisier Group
Nigel Lawson
Douglas Leahey
David Legates
Marcel Leroux
Rush Limbaugh
Richard Lindzen
M
Ian Macfarlane (politician)
Tibor R. Machan
Rachel Marsden
Ilana Mercer
Patrick Michaels
Steven Milloy
Forrest Mims
Chris Mitchell
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Patrick Moore (environmentalist)
Hugh Morgan (Australian businessman)
Luboš Motl
M cont.
Kary Mullis
Tad Murty
N
National Center for Policy Analysis
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Ondřej Neff
Nils-Axel Mörner
O
Oregon Petition
P
Camille Paglia
Tim Patterson
Benny Peiser
George Pell
Penn & Teller
Rick Perry
Melanie Phillips
Ian Plimer
Jerry Pournelle
Progress Party (Norway)
Greg Proops
R
Tullio Regge
Paul Reiter
Jay Richards
Arthur B. Robinson
Dana Rohrabacher
S
Sarah Scaife Foundation
Debra Saunders
Michael Savage (commentator)
James R. Schlesinger
Science & Environmental Policy Project
Science and Public Policy Institute
Scientific Alliance
Tom Segalstad
Frederick Seitz
Nir Shaviv
James Shikwati
Julian Lincoln Simon
Fred Singer
Tim Slagle
Willie Soon
Thomas Sowell
James Spann
Roy Spencer
Chauncey Starr
Mary Starrett
John Stossel
Philip Stott
Brian Sussman
Henrik Svensmark
T
Teller (magician)
Hendrik Tennekes
V
Jan Veizer
W
The Wall Street Journal
Peter Walsh (federal politician)
Western Fuels Association
James Whale (radio)
Y
Don Young
Z
Jan Zahradil
Miloš Zeman
Antonino Zichichi

Some are journalists and commentators even magicians (Teller is hellacool), ect..., but they are clearly marked...I'm sure you can winnow them out to get the number you asked for.

Bottom line, I am not alone.[hr]The more I go through that list...it is a bit goofy, Dee Snider??? Wikipedia don'cha know. I'll get a better one for you soon.[hr]MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concern to `Little Kids' Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

MIT's Richard Lindzen called fears of manmade global warming `silly" and debated PBS's Bill Nye "The Science Guy" and the controversial Weather Channel host Heidi Cullen on last night's Larry King Live. At one point, CNN host Larry King cautioned Nye against making a bet with Lindzen over who was correct about the science of global warming. "[Lindzen's] from M.I.T. he knows what he's talking about," King warned Nye.

Lindzen mocked fears of global warming by comparing them to children's imaginations. "I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves," Lindzen said.

Lindzen, a past UN IPCC contributor, also explained how only a dozen scientists were involved in writing the 2001 IPCC media-hyped "Summary For Policymakers" that purported to speak for thousands of scientists. C.A. Jessen et al.

Abstract

The dynamic climate in the Northern Hemisphere during the early Holocene could be expected to have impacted on the global carbon cycle. Ice core studies however, show little variability in atmospheric CO2. Resolving any possible centennial to decadal CO2 changes is limited by gas diffusion through the firn layer during bubble enclosure. Here we apply the inverse relationship between stomatal index (measured on sub-fossil leaves) and atmospheric CO2 to complement ice core records between 11,230 and 10,330 cal. yr BP.

High-resolution sampling and radiocarbon dating of lake sediments from the Faroe Islands reconstruct a distinct CO2 decrease centred on ca. 11,050 cal. yr BP, a consistent and steady decline between ca. 10,900 and 10,600 cal. yr BP and an increased instability after ca. 10,550 cal. yr BP. The earliest decline lasting ca. 150 yr is probably associated with the Preboreal Oscillation, an abrupt climatic cooling affecting much of the Northern Hemisphere a few hundred years after the end of the Younger Dryas.

In the absence of known global climatic instability, the decline to ca. 10,600 cal. yr BP is possibly due to expanding vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere. The increasing instability in CO2 after 10,600 cal. yr BP occurs during a period of increasing cooling of surface waters in the North Atlantic and some increased variability in proxy climate indicators in the region.

The reconstructed CO2 changes also show a distinct similarity to indicators of changing solar activity. This may suggest that at least the Northern Hemisphere was particularly sensitive to changes in solar activity during this time and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations fluctuated via rapid responses in climate.
C.A. Jessen et al.

Abstract

The dynamic climate in the Northern Hemisphere during the early Holocene could be expected to have impacted on the global carbon cycle. Ice core studies however, show little variability in atmospheric CO2. Resolving any possible centennial to decadal CO2 changes is limited by gas diffusion through the firn layer during bubble enclosure. Here we apply the inverse relationship between stomatal index (measured on sub-fossil leaves) and atmospheric CO2 to complement ice core records between 11,230 and 10,330 cal. yr BP.

High-resolution sampling and radiocarbon dating of lake sediments from the Faroe Islands reconstruct a distinct CO2 decrease centred on ca. 11,050 cal. yr BP, a consistent and steady decline between ca. 10,900 and 10,600 cal. yr BP and an increased instability after ca. 10,550 cal. yr BP. The earliest decline lasting ca. 150 yr is probably associated with the Preboreal Oscillation, an abrupt climatic cooling affecting much of the Northern Hemisphere a few hundred years after the end of the Younger Dryas.

In the absence of known global climatic instability, the decline to ca. 10,600 cal. yr BP is possibly due to expanding vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere. The increasing instability in CO2 after 10,600 cal. yr BP occurs during a period of increasing cooling of surface waters in the North Atlantic and some increased variability in proxy climate indicators in the region.

The reconstructed CO2 changes also show a distinct similarity to indicators of changing solar activity. This may suggest that at least the Northern Hemisphere was particularly sensitive to changes in solar activity during this time and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations fluctuated via rapid responses in climate.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2007/02/new-climate-sceptics-are-ipcc-greenies.html

You probably don't like that one either, but Idid a little research on the IPCC and turs out it's a bunch of nonsence...no wonder you cited it.
Read this, there are a HUGE list of accredited scientists who not only contend the findings but the motivation.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/other/whatiswrongwiththeipcc.html
Some main points of criticism of the IPCC include:

- The hypothesis that an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will lead to a rise in temperature has not been proven and is even at odds with the observations.
- Satellite-based temperature measurements show that the earth has warmed a few tenths of a degree Celsius between 1979 and 1998. It is not likely that this is caused by mankind.
- There is still a lack of scientific understanding, required to model all assumed radia¬tive forcings. The most important one, for which there are not sufficient quantitative data to date, is the variable impact of clouds.
- Climate models, which are being used to achieve a better understanding of the climate system, are not suited to serve as basis for predictions. This is, inter alia, related to the stochastic nature of climate.
- The global climate is very much determined by extra-terrestrial phenomena, of which the fluctuation of sun activity is the most important.
- Should there still be global warming in the future, for which there are only model-based indications, then mankind will not be able to do something about it. Moreover, also according the IPCC, a modest additional warming (e.g., of 2 degrees Celsius) will on balance be beneficial for mankind.
- The IPCC has ignored the climate projections of astrophysicists, which suggest global cooling.

The advent of climate alarmism, fuelled by statements of many prominent politicians and the media, has no scientific justification. Many catastrophic consequences of climate change, such as floods and extreme weather events, have been predicted, which are not based on sci¬entific knowledge. Especially the European governments have opted for a climate policy which is completely unrealistic and results in a massive waste of scarce resources.

Finally, one should not discount the possibility that the average global temperature will fall considerably in the near future. This might have harmful implications, as opposed to a modest rise of temperatures, which on balance will have positive effects. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I owe you one.
Plaese go to the above link, it's worth while.

Wndrtch

12-03-2007, 06:57 PM

Are you kidding, Exxon sees the Stalinist writing on the wall and they don't want to be on the wrong side of the fascists when they come to kick down his door with their shiny new jack boots.
They are business men and know how to hedge their bets.
Self preservation is of utmost importance to the shareholders.

WDNRTCH, do you see what I mean? Do you share, Preserve's interesting interpretation?
And what is that? That large corporations, will say what they need to say, in order to head-off impending law-suits? McDonalds got rid of trans-fats, because they feared a class-action suit by a bunch of fat folks who can't figure out how to eat an apple once in a while.

I can see how that can happen, especially if you consider that in the context of the Global Warming argument, Exxon has one of the largest targets in it's back. They have to throw-in, else incur the wrath of the Enviro-mental Left, and their legal cohorts.

For Exxon to change all of its infrastructure, to support a new fuel alternative, will cost them many tens-of-billions of dollars of up-front expenses, plus a loss of revenue from dropping oil sales. Guess what happens after that? Chapter 13. It would take them the better half of 100 years to pull it off an infrastructure change, and the environmental hacks say we have less than a few years to make a drastic change.

Elrathin

12-03-2007, 07:10 PM

preservanation

12-03-2007, 07:16 PM

But to put that uncertainty to a bet that would cost us everything I have described would make sense?
Vegas would love some of you guys.

Elrathin

12-03-2007, 07:21 PM

But to put that uncertainty to a bet that would cost us everything I have described would make sense?
Vegas would love some of you guys.

If it is man made, doing nothing can be just as bad or worse.

Wndrtch

12-03-2007, 07:32 PM

What's amusing is many of the folks against man made global warming claim the other side refuses to accept the possibility that man-made global warming is a myth, however, many of the folks against man made global warming refuse to accept the possibility that it is man-made.

Interesting circle. Personally I think it is both.

This is why I said before, that the Science is incomplete. If the science was complete, then there would be no arguing. You can't argue with Empirical data.

This is exactly what happens, when the Scientific Method is not followed to a conclusion, and people/politicians jump the gun with nothing more than theory in hand. Everybody should just cool-it (no pun intended (well maybe a bit)), and let the science community duke it out until there is irrefutable evidence of what is really going on.

Alonzo

12-03-2007, 07:37 PM

preservanation

12-03-2007, 07:39 PM

Elrathin

12-03-2007, 07:48 PM

That's a big if.
And truly the crux of the debate.
Without incontrovertible scientific proof that our 3% of the worlds co2 emissions is going to destroy the earth, I don't think the Machiavellian solutions proposed by some on the left are warranted, nor wise.

Its no more of a big "if" than you are proposing when you say it is just natural. That's a pretty big "IF" to me as well.

I Like Beer

12-03-2007, 07:50 PM

And what is that? That large corporations, will say what they need to say, in order to head-off impending law-suits? McDonalds got rid of trans-fats, because they feared a class-action suit by a bunch of fat folks who can't figure out how to eat an apple once in a while.

I can see how that can happen, especially if you consider that in the context of the Global Warming argument, Exxon has one of the largest targets in it's back. They have to throw-in, else incur the wrath of the Enviro-mental Left, and their legal cohorts.

WNDRTCH, okay, let me ask you this...

If man-made GW is a myth, as you contend, hasn't EXXON and British Petroleum given these 'enviro-mentalist' (who, I guess control the courts now, too) ammunition?

Exxon has effectively removed the burden of proof from those who support man-made GW, right? Now, it's much easier to go after them, wouldn't you agree? It's like trying to convict someone of murder when there is no body, well Exxon has now admitted there was a body.

Assuming one could even sue Exxon over the damage caused by GW (and I think that's highly unlikely), how have they mitigated possible damages by admitting it's real? If anything, they've made their position more perilous because now,they CANNOT say they didn't know they were doing any harm.

Wndrtch

12-03-2007, 07:58 PM

But to put that uncertainty to a bet that would cost us everything I have described would make sense?
Vegas would love some of you guys.

If it is man made, doing nothing can be just as bad or worse.
That's a big if.
And truly the crux of the debate.
Without incontrovertible scientific proof that our 3% of the worlds co2 emissions is going to destroy the earth, I don't think the Machiavellian solutions proposed by some on the left are warranted, nor wise.

Out of curiosity, why is this entire debate centered on CO2? Methane is much worse green-house gas, and can be found in massive quantities, both from the surface (mammal farts) and under the sea (huge Methane pockets are trapped under the ocean floor, and "burp-up" often).

Does the focus on CO2, demonstrate the political aspect of this argument, because CO2 it is derived from evil oil, and Methane is not?

Just a thought...

bobbylien

12-03-2007, 08:01 PM

Information-

This one is interesting considering deniers always seem to say that the scientists who support global warming have a conflict of interest... please, if it was about money they wouldn't have become climatologists, it is easy to make money in the business world:
After the IPCC released its Feb, 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute reportedly offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees have worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration. Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

The British Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". In 2006, the British Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."

Climate change survey:
The National Registry of Environmental Professionals (NREP) is a the largest U.S. non-governmental environmental accrediting organization, and is recognized by the US Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency. NREP has about 12,000 members worldwide, including managers, technicians, and other professionals working on operations and management related to regulatory matters such as compliance with air, soil and water pollution regulations.
In November 2006, NREP published the results of a survey conducted among its membership on the issue of climate change. 793 responses were received from 47 states including Puerto Rico and Guam.

* 82 percent think global warming is a real, measurable, climactic trend currently in effect

Scientific Consensus:
A question which frequently arises in conveying the scientific opinion to a broader audience is to what extent that opinion rises to the level of a consensus. Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

* American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."
* US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."
* American Meteorological Society: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus. ...IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research. ... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."

Noncommittal statements:
[edit] American Association of State Climatologists

The 2001 statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate:

Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. (...) The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate.[20]

[edit] American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change states that "the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."[21]

Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[22] The AAPG updated its statement in part because the previous statement was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members".[23]

Statements by concurring organizations:
[edit] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[2]

The New York Times reports on the report:

The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.[3]

The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.[4]

The Associated Press summarizes the position on sea level rise:

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues.[5]

[edit] Joint science academies’ statement 2007

In preparation for the 2007 G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states:

It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.

[edit] Joint science academies’ statement 2005

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action[6], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

[edit] Joint science academies’ statement 2001

In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. Among the signatories are the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[7]

[edit] U.S. National Research Council, 2001

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [8]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[9]

[edit] American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[10]

[edit] American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [11] adopted by the society in 2003 affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases will cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

[edit] American Institute of Physics

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[12]

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.

[edit] American Astronomical Society

The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[13]

In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.

[edit] Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments. Though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic, the assessment concluded:

Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone) alone.[14]

[edit] American Association for the Advancement of Science

The American Association for the Advancement of Science stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."[15]

[edit] Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London

The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."[16]

[edit] Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning."[17]

[edit] American Chemical Society

The American Chemical Society stated, "There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century. Current debates focus on the extent to which humans may be altering the pattern of natural change and appropriate policy responses. (...) The greatest challenges facing the global community include understanding how the global climate system works and how our own activities may be influencing it, as well as undertaking responsible actions to protect that system for our children. (...) The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. Although vigorous climate research is certainly needed to reduce uncertainties and to identify potential adverse effects, it should not forestall prudent action now to address the issue."[18]

[edit] Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[19]

Here is the most important one...... now read this carefully:
Dissenting statements
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no scientific bodies of national or international standing are known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

So to just go over the list of groups that generally agree with the consensus:
American Meteorological Society
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001, 2005 and 2007
US National Academy of Science
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
American Chemical Society
Geological Society of America
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Geophysical Union
U.S. National Research Council, 2001
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
American Association of State Climatologists
Where is the list of groups that say climate change is a fraud?

I will try to find the time to respond to the individual articles you've posted preserve but I cannot guarantee that I'll have the time to be able to respond to them all. I am glad to see that you are actually taking the time to find articles which support your views though.

I Like Beer

12-03-2007, 08:02 PM

This is why I said before, that the Science is incomplete. If the science was complete, then there would be no arguing. You can't argue with Empirical data.

This is what you're missing. Among scientists, there is NO argument.

You cannot find ONE peer-reviewed journal article published in the last five years that in any way refutes anthropogenic climate change - not one.

Don't you think if the science was incomplete, you should be able to find them?

Yes, there are some VERY public deniers and I can name many of them. Seitz, Lindzen, Singer, Ball, Peterson - google articles on denying and inevitably their names will come up. (Seitz and Singer also fought with Big Tobacco against science. Those two, along with Ball, fought against CFC being the cause of Ozone depletion). Look it up - it's not hidden.

Popular media attempts to give both sides equal time which gives the impression that there is debate among scientists - there is not.[hr]

So to just go over the list of groups that generally agree with the consensus:
American Meteorological Society
Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001, 2005 and 2007
US National Academy of Science
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
American Chemical Society
Geological Society of America
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Geophysical Union
U.S. National Research Council, 2001
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)
American Association of State Climatologists
Where is the list of groups that say climate change is a fraud?

I will try to find the time to respond to the individual articles you've posted preserve but I cannot guarantee that I'll be able to respond to them all.

Now they will say 'consensus' is not science.

Well, when you have thousands of scientists working independently across the world coming up with the same conclusion - what would you call it?

You can add to that list British Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, and George W Bush - but, it doesn't seem to matter. They will have an excuse or reason for everything.
[hr]
Out of curiosity, why is this entire debate centered on CO2? Methane is much worse green-house gas, and can be found in massive quantities, both from the surface (mammal farts) and under the sea (huge Methane pockets are trapped under the ocean floor, and "burp-up" often).

Does the focus on CO2, demonstrate the political aspect of this argument, because CO2 it is derived from evil oil, and Methane is not?

Just a thought...

It's because we have the power to alter the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There isn't much we can do about methane - especially once the perma frost melts and much of the methane trapped there as methyl hydrates gets released.

It's a huge positive feedback mechanism and it's not being discounted. We're trying to focus on what we have the power to fix before (as Preserve fears) drastic action becomes necessary.

Wndrtch

12-03-2007, 08:24 PM

Everybody should just cool-it (no pun intended (well maybe a bit)), and let the science community duke it out until there is irrefutable evidence of what is really going on.

Even if there was a real controversy, a clean environment is a good thing. A lot of people don't seem to give a fuck.

I can agree wit that. I said early on, that I felt we have an obligation to clean our messes up. However, I object to scaring and coercing people with no evidence. I won't give up one dime, until you can prove to me that you that you can actually accomplish the change you say we need. How can you do that, when you don't know what's causing the problem in the first place? Just give me money and trust me, doesn't fly in my book.

Prove to me there is a problem, then prove to me you can effect change in the problem. It would also help to be an "objective" scientists, when you do.[hr]

This is why I said before, that the Science is incomplete. If the science was complete, then there would be no arguing. You can't argue with Empirical data.

This is what you're missing. Among scientists, there is NO argument.

You cannot find ONE peer-reviewed journal article published in the last five years that in any way refutes anthropogenic climate change - not one.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

I Like Beer

12-03-2007, 09:04 PM

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

Where is the peer-reviewed journal article?

A peer-reviewed journal article looks like this. This one is from the Journal, "Nature" one of the most prestigious scientific journals there is.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=11089968&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD, Spall SA, Totterdell IJ.

Hadley Centre, The Met Office, Bracknell, Berkshire, UK. pmcox@meto.gov.uk

The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate. About half of the current emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land ecosystems, but this absorption is sensitive to climate as well as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, creating a feedback loop. General circulation models have generally excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon-cycle models that do not include climate change. Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional carbon-climate model, indicating that carbon-cycle feedbacks could significantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-first century. We find that under a 'business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr(-1) is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models, resulting in a global-mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon-cycle feedback.

It is written by scientists, for scientists. It is not the popular press or the US Senate committee. Your link took me to the Inhofe Press Blog - really, one of the most vocal global warming denying politicians? I sincerely hope you can do better than that.

preservanation

12-03-2007, 09:41 PM

Consensus is not science.
Period.
If there is empirical data that our minuscule rise in global temp is due to me driving my Pontiac, using toilet paper or even flying my Lear jet down to the Stop and shop to buy conventional light bulbs, I'll listen. Till then forget it.

One cruise ship burns more fossil fuel on one cruise than I do in a life time.
Eff with them, which is wrong too, but they have more money for you to extort or "take" (as Hillary said she wanted to do with oil company profits) and stop trying to enact your back door socialism on my life.
Better yet go eff with India or China, if America is going to destroy earth in ten years, those guys will accomplish that mean feat in a fortnight.
Thank you.

Elrathin

12-03-2007, 10:02 PM

Pres can you show me which person is saying America is going to destroy the Earth in ten years from Global Warming? Cause it sure isn't Al-Gore.

I Like Beer

12-03-2007, 10:06 PM

Consensus is not science.

Tell me - exactly - what you mean by this statement.

preservanation

12-03-2007, 10:43 PM

Consensus is not science.

Tell me - exactly - what you mean by this statement.
31 pages, I can't expect you to go back.
Scientific method:
1)Characterizations (observations , definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)

2)Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)

3)Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)

4)Experiments (tests of all of the above).

No where above does it mention Consensus...Consensus as collective thought

Consensus usually involves collaboration, rather than compromise. Instead of one opinion being adopted by a plurality, stakeholders are brought together (often with facilitation) until a convergent decision is developed. If this is done in a purely mechanical way it can result in simple trading—we'll sacrifice this if you'll sacrifice that. Genuine consensus typically requires more focus on developing the relationships among stakeholders, so that they work together to achieve agreements based on willing consent.

A criticism of such modelling is that the opinions or agreements are only theoretical, and that the strength or degree of conviction as measured is not closely correlated to the willingness of any given individual to take action. In direct action politics, the consensus is constantly tested by asking those who agree to immediately place their own bodies 'on the line' and in harm's way, to actually demonstrate that they are committed to a consensus. (Need I mention alGore at this juncture? Oh, i just did[sic])

Typically, the usefulness of formal models of consensus is confined to cases where follow up action is closely and centrally controlled, e.g. in a military hierarchy or a set of similar computer programs executing on hardware that it completely controls. The idea of consensus itself is probably quite different when considering action by a group of independent human agents, or considering action by those taking orders and committed to executing them all without question, or suffering great harm or exile for any disobedience.

Drawbacks
Business and political analysts have pointed out a number of problems with consensus decision-making. A too-strict requirement of consensus may effectively give a small self-interested minority group veto power over decisions. Decision by consensus may take an extremely long time to occur, and thus may be intolerable for urgent matters, e.g. those of executive decisions. In some cases, consensus decision-making may encourage groupthink, a situation in which people modify their opinions to reflect what they believe others want them to think, leading to a situation in which a group makes a decision that none of the members individually think is wise. It can also lead to a few dominant individuals making all decisions. Finally, consensus decision-making may fail in a situation where there simply is no agreement possible, and interests are irreconcilable.

Examples of non-consensus
Interestingly, the peer review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process. Referees submit their opinions individually and there is not a strong effort to reach a group opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus[hr]
GWBS is not science, it is a political movement, big diff.
Pres can you show me which person is saying America is going to destroy the Earth in ten years from Global Warming? Cause it sure isn't Al-Gore.
Mr. Gore predicts a global-warming catastrophe featuring massive flooding, with major portions of the earth under as much as twenty feet of water, together with increased frequency and intensity of huge storms, wildfires, and droughts. Great numbers of species, Mr. Gore tells us, will perish and the world as we have known it will cease to exist within ten years if we don't ratify the Kyoto treaty.
http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=7057[hr]That world renowned climatologist Ted Danson also claimed we were going to "KILL" the oceans in ten years...twelve years ago.
I can dig that up too if you want.
Sean Penn also said he would leave the country if Bush was reelected. Again, no such luck

piratemonkey

12-04-2007, 12:28 AM

Consensus is not science.

31 pages, I can't expect you to go back.
Scientific method:
1)Characterizations (observations , definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)

2)Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)

3)Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)

4)Experiments (tests of all of the above).

No where above does it mention Consensus...

Now show us how the 1000's of individual studies published with respect to Climate Change didn't use the above methodology...

Consensus is what most scientists think about most of the data that's been collected... it's not science itself. The science was done when all those individual studies were performed, peer-reviewed and published.

Having said that... who should the average non-scientist trust, when determining truth about scientific issues?
1) 98% of all scientists in the world and 1000's of peer reviewed studies
2) you

Elrathin

12-04-2007, 01:44 AM

Mr. Gore predicts a global-warming catastrophe featuring massive flooding, with major portions of the earth under as much as twenty feet of water, together with increased frequency and intensity of huge storms, wildfires, and droughts. Great numbers of species, Mr. Gore tells us, will perish and the world as we have known it will cease to exist within ten years if we don't ratify the Kyoto treaty.
http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=7057[hr]That world renowned climatologist Ted Danson also claimed we were going to "KILL" the oceans in ten years...twelve years ago.
I can dig that up too if you want.
Sean Penn also said he would leave the country if Bush was reelected. Again, no such luck

[/quote]

Pres, I've watched "inconvenient truth" and I still cannot find anywhere in the movie it mentions that the world will cease to exist in ten years. That may be the author of the articles impression, but I have not seen a direct quote from Al-Gore on that.

Until I see an actual quote from Al-Gore on that, I'm taking the article pretty much like the previous one you posted where the author accuses Hillary directly of putting a plant in the debates.

I Like Beer

12-04-2007, 05:20 AM

Consensus is not science.

Tell me - exactly - what you mean by this statement.

Scientific method:
1)Characterizations (observations , definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)

2)Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)

3)Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)

4)Experiments (tests of all of the above).

No Preserv, I don't want quotes from websites telling you what to think.

I want you to answer, in your own words, what YOU mean when you say consensus is not science. That's not hard, is it?

By the way, all the scientific articles I post (like the one below) follow the example of non-consensus that you yourself posted and I quote below.

You should find ONE article that follows this pattern that supports what you say. Just one.... That can't be hard, can it?

Examples of non-consensus
Interestingly, the peer review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process. Referees submit their opinions individually and there is not a strong effort to reach a group opinion.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/4jl70h7cxfqghlvk/

Authors
T. C. Johns, J. M. Gregory, W. J. Ingram, C. E. Johnson, A. Jones, J. A. Lowe, J. F. B. Mitchell, D. L. Roberts, D. M. H. Sexton, D. S. Stevenson, S. F. B. Tett, M. J. Woodage

1, Met Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, London Road, Bracknell, RG12 2SY, UK
2, Department of Meteorology, University of Edinburgh King's Buildings, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland, UK
Abstract

In this study we examine the anthropogenically forced climate response over the historical period, 1860 to present, and projected response to 2100, using updated emissions scenarios and an improved coupled model (HadCM3) that does not use flux adjustments. ..... By 2100, global mean warming in SRES scenarios ranges from 2.6 to 5.3 K above 1900 and precipitation rises by 1%/K through the twenty first century (1.4%/K omitting aerosol changes). Large-scale patterns of response broadly resemble those in an earlier model (HadCM2), but with important regional differences, particularly in the tropics. Some divergence in future response occurs across scenarios for the regions considered, but marked drying in the mid-USA and southern Europe and significantly wetter condition