Just when you think you had seen the last of me

Posted by Marc Morano – 9:36 AM ET - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'
POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Full Senate Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments. (See Below: Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History')

The Senate Minority Report is an update of 2007’s blockbuster U.S. Senate Minority Report of over 400 dissenting scientists. See here: This new report will contain the names, quotes and analyses of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears in just 2008 alone. The chorus of scientific voices skeptical grow louder as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses and real world data challenge the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." The original 2007 U.S. Senate report is available here: Full Report Set To Be Released in the Next 24 Hours – Stay Tuned…
Meanwhile, while the UN climate conference is in session here in Poznan, the bad scientific news for promoters of man-made climate alarm just keeps rolling in. Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and their promoters in the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The data presented below is just from the past week.

#

Peer-reviewed study: Half of recent warming was solar! - December 10, 2008

Excerpt: In this dose of peer-reviewed skeptical climatological literature, we follow Climate Research News. The blog was intrigued by a new article in Geophysical Research Letters that was accepted on Friday, December 5th. Eichler, A., S. Olivier, K. Henderson, A. Laube, J. Beer, T. Papina, H. W. Gäggeler, and M. Schwikowski: Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing - Recall that the Siberian Altai Mountains are found at the intersection of Russia, China, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan. The authors looked at 750 years worth of the local ice core, especially the oxygen isotope. They claim to have found a very strong correlation between the concentration of this isotope (i.e. temperature) on one side and the known solar activity in the epoch 1250-1850. Their data seem to be precise enough to determine the lag, about 10-30 years. It takes some time for the climate to respond to the solar changes. It seems that they also have data to claim that the correlation gets less precise after 1850. They attribute the deviation to CO2 and by comparing the magnitude of the forcings, they conclude that "Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun." Well, the word "only" is somewhat cute in comparison with the "mainstream" fashionable ideology. The IPCC said that they saw a 90% probability that "most" of the recent warming was man-made. The present paper would reduce this figure, 90%, to less than 50% because the Sun itself is responsible for 1/2 of the warming and not the whole 50% of the warming could have been caused by CO2 because there are other effects, too. Note that if 0.3 °C or 0.4 °C of warming in the 20th century was due to the increasing CO2 levels, the climate sensitivity is decisively smaller than 1 °C. At any rate, the expected 21st century warming due to CO2 would be another 0.3-0.4 °C, and this time, if the solar activity contributes with the opposite sign, these two effects could cancel. Even if you try to stretch these numbers a little bit - but not unrealistically - you have to become sure that the participants of the Poznan conference are lunatics.

Flashback: New scientific analysis shows Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature” (LINK) & (LINK)

Dr. Bruce West, A U.S Army Chief Scientist, Says Sun, Not Man, Is Driving Climate Change – June 3, 2008 – (LINK)

21 spotless days and solar magnetic field still in a funk – Meteorologist Anthony Watts Excerpt: We are now at 21 days with no sunspots, it will be interesting to see if we reach a spotless 30 day period and then perhaps a spotless month of December.

New Arctic ice analysis reveals ‘No clear evidence of a delay in the start of the later summer/early fall freeze up or the start of the late winter/early spring melt’ – Excerpt: Based on analysis by William Chapman, author of The Cryosphere Today website, graciously prepared an analysis of the dates of the minimum and maximum Arctic sea ice coverage since 1979.

Oscillation Rules as the Pacific Cools – December 9, 2008 Excerpt: A cool wedge of lower-than-normal sea-surface heights continues to dominate the tropical Pacific, ringed by a horseshoe of warmer waters. The continuation of this long-term cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation stacks the odds against a wetter-than-average winter/spring in the southwestern United States. The latest image of sea-surface height measurements from the U.S./French Jason-1 oceanography satellite shows the Pacific Ocean remains locked in a strong, cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a large, long-lived pattern of climate variability in the Pacific associated with a general cooling of Pacific waters. […] Sea-surface temperature satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration mirror Jason sea-surface height measurements, clearly showing a cool Pacific Decadal Oscillation pattern, as seen at: [url]http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/sst/sst.anom.gif[/url] . "This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation 'cool' trend can cause La Niña-like impacts around the Pacific basin," said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. […] This cool phase will likely persist this winter and, perhaps, beyond.

Report: Sea Level rise 'has stumbled since 2005' – Meteorologist Anthony Watts – December 5, 2008 Excerpt: We’ve been waiting for the UC web page to be updated with the most recent sea level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story. From the University of Colorado web page: “Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily determined with two different methods.” - Yes, I would agree, it is indeed a variable of considerable interest. The question now is, how is it linked to global climate change (aka global warming) if CO2 continues to increase, and sea level does not?

Peer-Reviewed Study: Recent worldwide land warming' NOT 'a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land' - WorldClimateReport.com – December 3, 2008 ‘Rethinking Observed Warming?’ Key quote: “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.”

Alert: 2008 will be coolest year of the decade!- December 5, 2008 Excerpt: This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07. [Note: For evidence of the panic apparently gripping the promoters of man-made climate fear, read the quotes in the article from the warming partisans absolutely assuring everyone that cool temperatures are “absolutely not" evidence that global warming is on the wane. Those same voices are usually absent when it comes to linking heat waves to global warming. ]

Flashback: Global Cooling? - 'Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof' - National Post – October 20, 2008

Report: NASA’s James Hansen "adjusts" a cooling trend into a warming trend - December 9, 2008 Excerpt: "[H]ere is what the data looks like before and after NASA GISS adjusts it. These are the USHCN “raw” and “homogenized” data plots from the GISTEMP website. The before and after is quite something to behold. ... What was down, is now up." "How not to measure temperature, part 79"

Geophysist: ‘It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history’ – ‘Alarmists are in denial and running for cover'- Washington Times

By Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles. Excerpt: Environmental extremists and global warming alarmists are in denial and running for cover. Their rationale for continuing a lost cause is that weather events in the short term are not necessarily related to long-term climatic trends. But these are the same people who screamed at us each year that ordinary weather events such as high temperatures or hurricanes were undeniable evidence of imminent doom. Now that global warming is over, politicians are finally ready to enact dubious solutions to a non-existent problem. […] To the extent global warming was ever valid, it is now officially over. It is time to file this theory in the dustbin of history, next to Aristotelean physics, Neptunism, the geocentric universe, phlogiston, and a plethora of other incorrect scientific theories, all of which had vocal and dogmatic supporters who cited incontrovertible evidence. Weather and climate change are natural processes beyond human control. To argue otherwise is to deny the factual evidence.

Climate Chancellor' No More – Der Spiegel Excerpt: Angela Merkel is facing withering criticism for remarks she made on Monday that seemed to back away from her earlier commitment to tackling climate change.

Alert: Under the Weather: Internal Report Says U.N. Climate Agency Rife With Bad Practices - Fox News – December 4, 2008

Excerpt: As more than 10,000 delegates and observers gather in Poznan, Poland, to discuss the next phase in the battle against "climate change," a U.N. agency at the center of that hoopla badly needs to do some in-house weather-proofing. […] But the WMO, the $80 million U.N. front-line agency in the climate change struggle, and the source for much of the world's information in the global atmosphere and water supply, has serious management problems of its own, despite its rapidly expanding global ambitions. The international agency has been sharply criticized by a U.N. inspection unit in a confidential report obtained by FOX News, for, among other things, haphazard budget practices, deeply flawed organizational procedures, and no effective oversight by the 188 nations that formally make up its membership and dole out its funds. The inspection was carried out by a member of the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), a small, independent branch of the U.N. that reports to the General Assembly and is mandated to improve the organization's efficiency and coordination through its inspection process. […] WMO did not respond to a series of questions from FOX News regarding its future programs, sent on the eve of the Poznan meeting.

16-year-old suggests sheep dung can help save planet Card business has really dung good - Daily Post North WalesExcerpt: The company makes its products at the Twll Golau Papermill in Aberllefenni Slate Quarry using sustainable fuel and materials. Every sheet of paper is made from recycled materials, including sheep dung, waste paper and discarded rags, using processes designed to affect the natural environment as little as possible. […] Katie 16, from Tal-y-Bont, Conwy, was appointed to help spread the word on how Wales can reduce its carbon footprint and is urging other North Wales businesses to follow Creative Paper Wales’ example and adopt innovative approaches to the design and manufacture of products and the delivery of services.

Lord Christopher Monckton: 'Companies could be sued over climate change' Excerpt: The alarmist faction knows that, if it were to bring a case against a corporation whose executives were not minded merely to believe in the extremist presentation of "global warming" just because it is temporarily in fashion, they would lose. The case of Dimmock v. Secretaries of State for Education and for the Environment in the UK in 2007 was a very clear warning. The UK Government threw all of the resources of the taxpayer and of the Meteorological Office at the case, attempting to defend Al Gore's sci-fi comedy horror movie against the plaintiff's allegation that it was serially and seriously inaccurate. The Government failed and was humiliated. The judge, having heard both sides, said bluntly of Al Gore, and particularly of his unscientific allegation that sea level was about to rise by 20 feet, that "the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view". A few more judgments like that and the "global warming" fantasy would rapidly collapse. End of scare.

OOPS, We Forgot Siberia! (M4GW) - Weather Stations in Coldest parts No Longer Reporting

Excerpt: The thing that these skewed chart never take into account is that when the Soviet Union fell in 1990 the number of reporting weather stations went form a high of 15,000 in 1970 to 5,000 in 2000. This takes some of the coldest places on the planet out of the equation like Siberia.

UN Data shows ‘Warming has Stopped!’ – Climate Fears Called ‘Hogwash’ – ‘Global Carbon Tax’ Urged (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fedf4901-802a-23ad-44bb-adf19269d36d)

Aussie Scientist Says ‘No relationship between CO2 and temperature’

I would like to say that many of the comments reflect my thoughts.. like:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.


IMO, carbon is a symptom and not the problem. Heat rejected from burning fuels (any fuels including nuclear) will increase the temperature.

Also, sun spots are an important ingredient in solar heating...

It seems to me that this carbon tax is a play by internationalists to raise taxes to implement their own ajenda.

Here's what I don't get about this global warming business.

I can understand why oil companies would want to spread FUD about the very well-documented science of global warming.

I can understand why 650 people would want to spread FUD, because they're on the oil company payroll, or because they're crackpots looking for attention, or because they're just plain wrong.

I CAN'T understand why virtually all the Christian religious zealots (Swiftfox) and other right-wing extremists continue to spout this nonsense.

I mean, what possible incentive is there for these people? Do churches require their more fanatical members to buy 1,000 shares of XOM as a prerequisite to join? Did "god" announce a secret 11th commandment, "thou shalt emit greenhouse gases"?

All you are doing is putting money in some oil executive's pocket, at the expense of YOUR environment. Even worse, you are funding the very Muslim Arabs you've been trying to wipe out for centuries.

Why do you do it?

I can understand why oil companies would want to spread FUD about the very well-documented science of global warming.


Err, and people like Al Gore spread something other than "fud"?

If you compare the 'facts' Al Gore lays out to the 2007 IPCC report, they don't exactly line up. Sure, there is (virtual) consensus that global warming is real and its man made, but there is nothing close to consensus on the extremist view of global warming that Al Gore lays out.

And do you truly think that people like Al Gore don't have a financial stake in this just as much as the global warming skeptics? You know, Al Gore and the investment fund he's a part of (Generation Investment Managment, which contains ex-Goldman Sachs execs) invested billions into alternative energy right before he released his movie; back when the stuff was a true bargain. Then he went and lobbied for massive green energy inititives. Gore and GIM have a financial stake in the government dumping billions in subsidies into green energy; if financial self interest destroys objectivity than Al Gore certainly isn't objective.

Al Gore also uses his celebrity to get rich people to buy 'carbon credits' from his investment fund. Its a genious strategy, but very sleezy.

Err, and people like Al Gore spread something other than "fud"?Al Gore is a salesman, not a scientist. His job is to sell a complex scientific idea researched in a massive report to the ignorant, uneducated, and generally stupid masses, which is easily as tough as doing the science itself. Like any salesman, he has to dumb things down and dramatize them somewhat to get people to buy the product, or idea in this case.

For example, most people think a temperature rise of 10 C would just mean milder winters, when in fact such a rise caused the largest mass extinction on Earth, killing almost all species.

People who are familiar with the science can applaud Al Gore for his success, but we don't need him. None of what he says changes the reality of the science, the reality that even oil companies now grudgingly have to admit (at least in public, while still quietly trying to spread FUD behind the scenes).And do you truly think that people like Al Gore don't have a financial stake in this just as much as the global warming skeptics?No one has as big a financial stake as the oil companies do, not even close. Last year, the large oil companies made $128 billion in profit on $1.6 trillion in sales. Show me any "green" companies that make that kind of money.

Still, I wish you had answered my initial question, the one that still interests me. Why have Christian zealots and extremist right wing types latched on this cause as some sort of new Crusade, when it is against their basic interests?

Why do you do it?

1) It's a campaign that came out of the left wing of politics primarily and is associated with environmentalists and hippies (from the 1970's, Earth day etc). And Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are always going on about environmentalists. So anyone that want to prevent global warming must be an environmentalist kook, no matter their credentials.

2) It will cost businesses more to be green, although a lot of them are doing things voluntarily because even they realize it is going to be difficult to be profitable in a warming world.

3) It is definitely inconvenient. You might feel pressured to give up your gas guzzling car, it is annoying to recycle, etc. Easier to just deny it is happening.

4) People tend to disbelieve experts and authorities a lot nowadays. I can't say I don't do this myself, I'm definitely on the other side of mainstream thinking on a lot of issues. I think one reason is because we can find a wide variety of opinions and tune out the ones we don't want to hear.

1) It's a campaign that came out of the left wing of politics primarily and is associated with environmentalists and hippies (from the 1970's, Earth day etc). And Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are always going on about environmentalists. So anyone that want to prevent global warming must be an environmentalist kook, no matter their credentials.Well, only if you place Richard Nixon in the left wing of politics. (Though I suppose given the recent extreme right shift of the conservatives, he might as well have been.)

And Rush Limbaugh zombies alone can't explain the almost religious fervor with which these people have attacked a simple, nonpartisan scientific issue. There are lots of stupid people who will mindlessly regurgitate his hateful propaganda, but not that many.

Cost isn't really the issue, because as you said, it's much cheaper in the long run to be green.

Convenience is certainly a side issue, but I don't see religious zealots attacking recycling facilities or demanding the return of leaded gasoline.

Disbelieving experts is a non-issue, since, as you said, it's more a matter of picking the expert you like than disbelieving them as a whole.

Those explanations aren't satisfying enough. There has got to be something else going on here.

I doubt you'll get any sort of honest introspection from anyone here.

Al Gore is a salesman, not a scientist. His job is to sell a complex scientific idea researched in a massive report to the ignorant, uneducated, and generally stupid masses, which is easily as tough as doing the science itself. Like any salesman, he has to dumb things down and dramatize them somewhat to get people to buy the product, or idea in this case. Perfect man to sell dumb ideas to dumb people.
You got me on that one. Good job.

For example, most people think a temperature rise of 10 C would just mean milder winters, when in fact such a rise caused the largest mass extinction on Earth, killing almost all species. How do you KNOW that?

People who are familiar with the science can applaud Al Gore for his success, but we don't need him. None of what he says changes the reality of the science, the reality that even oil companies now grudgingly have to admit (at least in public, while still quietly trying to spread FUD behind the scenes). The 'science' is based on two basic models. One, is a glass box on the Earth. The other is Venus.

Models have to be like what they are representing. These two models are NOT at all like Earth.

No one has as big a financial stake as the oil companies do, not even close. Last year, the large oil companies made $128 billion in profit on $1.6 trillion in sales. Show me any "green" companies that make that kind of money. That is what many of these global warming proponents are trying to do. Create a new industry with new companies. Or grow existing ones.

Hell, the entire heating and air industry had a conniption about CFCs. Until they realized that they were going to have to reclaim all the old CFCs, reinstall all condensers, compressors, and HVAC sytems, and every air conditioner in every car, and refrigerator. Have you seen thier trade magazines in the last decade? On it. Complete 180 after they realized that a governmentally mandated complete overhaul of their entire customer base meant huge profits for every single company in the biz.

Still, I wish you had answered my initial question, the one that still interests me. Why have Christian zealots and extremist right wing types latched on this cause as some sort of new Crusade, when it is against their basic interests? I don't know the answer to that one. Other than they generally don't like Birk wearing tie dyed homo hippies in Berkely telling them what to do, using the government to force it, and that they have to spend more money on things because of it.

1) It's a campaign that came out of the left wing of politics primarily and is associated with environmentalists and hippies (from the 1970's, Earth day etc). And Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are always going on about environmentalists. So anyone that want to prevent global warming must be an environmentalist kook, no matter their credentials. Partly because the environmentalist kooks have been proven wrong. They used the Spotted Owl as their red herring. To keep people from cutting down trees. If they wanted to protect the trees, they needed to sell that, and not lie about the whole deal.

2) It will cost businesses more to be green, although a lot of them are doing things voluntarily because even they realize it is going to be difficult to be profitable in a warming world. Businesses are going to be just fine and profitable. All of them are. They will have to sub out customer complaint departments in India and Pakistan to deal with all of the complaints. Hire more lawyers to defend against lawsuits, pay more insurance to pay for the lawsuits. They will move all of their factories to China and India to avoid all the restraints, and then just pass the cost on to you American consumers.

They don't want to do that, but businesses will do just fine. There will be new and more profitable businesses. It will be a profit hanoverfist bonanza.

3) It is definitely inconvenient. You might feel pressured to give up your gas guzzling car, it is annoying to recycle, etc. Easier to just deny it is happening. See, we are doing red herring here right now. Is this discussion about oil consumption or CO2 pollution. No matter where you get your energy, or how you burn it, you still have to capture those carbon atoms. Moving to electric, or any other form of energy(besides PV solar) does not do that. And what is the carbon footprint of producing those PV circuits?

Or nuclear. But when will the environmentalist ever allow a new plant to ever be built?
Or hydro. But when will an environmentalist ever allow a new dam to ever be built again?

4) People tend to disbelieve experts and authorities a lot nowadays. I can't say I don't do this myself, I'm definitely on the other side of mainstream thinking on a lot of issues. I think one reason is because we can find a wide variety of opinions and tune out the ones we don't want to hear. Because the so called experts have been proven wrong time and again, and the so called authorities have been caught in lies. And vice versa.

Ya, I agree, you tune out the completely plausible explanation that the sun is the most responsible force for temperatures on the planet.

We already know that the CFC thing was a lie. The vast bulk of them are now just floating to the Ozone layer. The science, your experts and authorities, said that it would take 45 years to get there. It has been 45 years. And it is behaving nominally right now, ain't it? It was a lie. You don't even hear about it anymore. Who brings it up? They promised cataracts and melanomas to EVERYone right now. Nope, not really real, was it.

Or nuclear. But when will the environmentalist ever allow a new plant to ever be built?
Or hydro. But when will an environmentalist ever allow a new dam to ever be built again?


What gives PV political muscle is silicon valley. It is the green back and who will materially benefit from building this infrastructure.... or the Unions with building roads or government buildings... this is more of the same payback from our government coffers.

I don't know the answer to that one. Other than they generally don't like Birk wearing tie dyed homo hippies in Berkely telling them what to do, using the government to force it, and that they have to spend more money on things because of it.I'd buy that, if Berkeley hippies were the ones sounding the alarm. They're not.

By the way, I also understand why libertarians oppose the science of global warming, so you need not rehash it for my sake. Suffice it to say, you're wrong on almost every point, I've proven you wrong before and have even linked you all of the data (which you demanded, then ignored once I got it), and I suspect you even know you're wrong but don't want to admit it.

I CAN'T understand why virtually all the Christian religious zealots (Swiftfox) and other right-wing extremists continue to spout this nonsense.

I do it just to piss you off ... ahh I am gonna sleep so good tonight.

Yeah, I believe in a GOD, a creator. The carbon tax aka a tax on breathing is ridiculous. For those who believe in a God unless you profess to say God got something wrong Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant nor a "National security issue" as Obaaaahma declares. There are many far more "real" environmental detriments to the earth as a whole.



Al Gore-linked Goddard Institute claimed “hottest October on record” after using temperature figures from September

No matter where you get your energy, or how you burn it, you still have to capture those carbon atoms. Moving to electric, or any other form of energy(besides PV solar) does not do that.Nuclear (which even Obama supports building), hydroelectric (which is were a lot of our, California's, energy comes from), solar, and wind, to start off.

And ultimately, fusion, if we stop pissing away money on old, dying, grossly polluting technologies and start investing in research on new ones. Because the so called experts have been proven wrong time and again, and the so called authorities have been caught in lies. And vice versa.Aren't these 650 also supposedly "experts"?We already know that the CFC thing was a lie. The vast bulk of them are now just floating to the Ozone layer. The science, your experts and authorities, said that it would take 45 years to get there. It has been 45 years. And it is behaving nominally right now, ain't it? It was a lie.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

(I don't feel like retyping the obvious.)

For those who believe in a God unless you profess to say God got something wrong Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant nor a "National security issue" as Obaaaahma declares.Your god also created all the trees that were designed to soak up your god's carbon dioxide, and now you've interfered with your god's plan, by cutting most of them down. Surely this sin will not go unpunished in the afterlife.

We have more trees in North American than before Europeans came here.

You know that is true. Why do you keep saying different?


You know that there even more trees in SF now than there were 300 years ago. You know that it true. The SF hills were covered in grass before Europeans settled there. And that is a major metropolitan city.

We have more trees in North American than before Europeans came here.First, you are wrong (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html), as to the areas the Europeans actually settled.

Second, Europeans weren't the first humans here, and the earlier inhabitants knew how to rape the environment, too.

Third, the small number of new trees recently planted aren't comparable to old growth forests in terms of ecological value.You know that there even more trees in SF now than there were 300 years ago. You know that it true. The SF hills were covered in grass before Europeans settled there. And that is a major metropolitan city.San Francisco makes up 121 square kilometers, or 0.00049% of the land area of North America. And we have no old growth forests here either. In fact, most of trees planted are in pretty bad shape.

Wait, didn't you two already have this exact same tree discussion years earlier?

Maybe I dreamed it; the search feature does not work well for me :(

First, you are wrong (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html), as to the areas the Europeans actually settled.
I know Asians came here first. Not my point. Are you writing to me or to the other readers.

Second, Europeans weren't the first humans here, and the earlier inhabitants knew how to rape the environment, too.
Ya, I know Asians were here first. They were and are not known for massive deforestation.

Third, the small number of new trees recently planted aren't comparable to old growth forests in terms of ecological value.
I know it is not comparable. The number of trees the forestry companies have planted to replace is cut trees is 100 fold what they cut down. Then contrast that with the firefighting in forested areas for the last 120 years of natural occurring fires. I can show you pictures of wilderness areas which have much more trees today than 40, 80, or 100 years ago.

That is not mentioning that on the land I live on now, there are 8 trees where there were none 50 years ago.


San Francisco makes up 121 square kilometers, or 0.00049% of the land area of North America. And we have no old growth forests here either. In fact, most of trees planted are in pretty bad shape.
Old growth new growth, CO2 does not know the difference.

That is stupid. There are more trees in a heavily heavily populated metropolitan city now, than there were before any human person ever set foot upon it. Why?

Because there were uncontrolled fires before that happened. Fires burned all the trees down. The Golden Gate is not called that because it lead to the gold fields of California. It was called that because the San Francisco Hills were gold with dried grasses. NO Fn trees. Not to say that grass does not convert CO2 to O2, it does.

Same with every other place Americans live. There are MORE trees there now, than before. South Lake Tahoe notwithstanding.

You are wrong. There is much more environmental biomass living plant matter now in the US than before Europeans came here. It does not matter if it is old growth or not. If you take a look at an average old growth redwood, most of it is dead, it's wood, in the middle of the trunk is DEAD. It does nothing in terms of converting CO2 to anything, much less O2.

Wait, didn't you two already have this exact same tree discussion years earlier?

Maybe I dreamed it; the search feature does not work well for me :(

Yes, we have.

Many times over the years.

There are MORE trees in the US now than 500 years ago. Not just in terms of twig stick trees, but more actual real trees.

He knows it. You know it.

He just lies about it. He lives in a city with more trees there now than 500 years ago, but his liberal SF white guilt prevents him from acknowledging it.

You are wrong. There is much more environmental biomass living plant matter now in the US than before Europeans came here.You are wrong. Read the link.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/defores9.JPG

Just because our respective tiny little patches of land have a few more trees than they had 500 years ago, does not mean it has been the general trend in the United States in the past 500 years. We just happen to live in area where such trees are not common, naturally.It does not matter if it is old growth or not.If you think the sapling in my back yard is as important, ecologically, as a 2,000-year-old, 100m high redwood, you are not just wrong, but stupid.

Most of that 2000 year old redwood is dead. Deadwood.

It is only the surface life of that tree which is alive. It is only the surface life of that tree which is transpiring.

Macrobiotically, you are wrong.

There are more trees in the US than before Europeans set foot here. You know that is true intuitively. You know it is true.


I can show you pictures of Yosemite taken by Ansel Adams years and years ago. There are more trees there now than then. You know I am right.

I can show you pictures of the Marble Mountains Wilderness from over 100 years ago. There are more trees now, than then. You know it is true.

Stop lying.

If you think the sapling in my back yard is as important, ecologically, as a 2,000-year-old, 100m high redwood, you are not just wrong, but stupid.
Biotically,

It does not make ONE Fn difference how old the plant is. It transpires just the same if it is one second old, as it does if it is 200 years old.

Algae transpires just fine, when it is one second old. Or your lawn, if it 10 days old.

Obtw.

I don't want to cut down tall assed redwoods.

I want them to survive on their aesthetic sense.

I like how they look. And smell. And feel. Artistically, they should be protected. Not on some Fn lie.



I don't need some fn retarded owl to sell me on the idea to keep redwoods alive for me.

I love tall assed redwoods. Sell me on that. I will buy. I love how they smell and look. But don't try to sell me, like some snake oil salesman, that the only reason I should love them is because the prevent global warming or make a home for a silly owl.

You insult me when you do that.

There are more trees in the US than before Europeans set foot here. You know that is true intuitively. You know it is true.I see the problem, you have never been to the Eastern United States. It used to be all forested, like all of Europe used to be. I lived, and traveled, in that region, for many years, and I assure you, it is no longer all forest.

I have seen area cleared of forest, so that suburban tract housing can be built. I used to live in such a neighborhood, where all the trees had been cut down, with just the odd few left standing. And no new ones were planted.

The European settlers did the same thing here, as they did in Europe. They cut down all the trees for timber and fuel. They didn't give a second thought to sustainability. On the contrary, they used their ability to rape the environment as a yardstick for progress.

That is where the forests were: Eastern United States, and some in the Pacific Northwest. Not here in San Francisco. And Golden Gate park is no substitute for half a nation of forest.

Most of that 2000 year old redwood is dead. Deadwood.What is it made of? What is the litter below it made of?

I love tall assed redwoods. Sell me on that. I will buy. I love how they smell and look. But don't try to sell me, like some snake oil salesman, that the only reason I should love them is because the prevent global warming or make a home for a silly owl.When did I try to sell you that?

We should protect both: the forests that create the ecosystem, and all the animals and smaller plants that inhabit that ecosystem.

The problem is, most people don't care about either. Until they destroy them all and realize how ecologically valuable they were.

CAN we all agree – yet – that the issue is settled?

Scientists DON’T all agree the planet is warming precipitously, or that humans are responsible for that supposed warming. In fact, more and more experts in a number of fields have been speaking up to challenge the supposed scientific "consensus" on climate change.

As the headlines scream out the latest sensational warning – a NASA scientist now predicts U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has just four years to save the planet – let’s not forget that last month, more than 650 international scientists went on record as dissenting from the man-made global warming findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Who are these scientists?

The list, which grew by a substantial 250 new names from a similar statement in late 2007, includes prominent names in fields ranging from geology, atmospheric science and solar physics to meteorology, oceanography and paleoclimatology. According to the U.S. Senate’s environment and public works committee minority report, released Dec. 10, the skeptics also include many current and former IPCC scientists.

You can check it for yourself with a quick Google search, but here’s a sample of some of the comments from scientists:

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming." – atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg

"Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science." – physicist Will Happer

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" – geologist Dr. David Gee

According to the document, the planet has actually been in a cooling trend during the last decade, not getting warmer.

That claim certainly fits the theories of scientists who say warming and cooling trends on Earth are closely related to sunspot activity, and that the lull in the numbers of these solar phenomena in recent years has corresponded with dropping temperatures.

More worrying are claims by Russian scientists that their research has convinced them the planet faces not overheating, but the imminent return of a major ice age.

Talking about ice ages as we shiver through another winter of record-setting cold in many parts of North America (though Nova Scotia just seems snowier this year) is not meant to suggest there’s more than coincidence at work in terms of short-term weather patterns. That, of course, would be as unfair as suggesting global warming is out of control in the middle of a summer hot spell.

But the fact remains that scientists have long known the Earth has gone through a cycle – for perhaps a million years – of ice ages, lasting perhaps 100,000 years, which have been regularly interrupted by short, warmer periods of 12,000 years or so. According to that clock, we’re apparently overdue for a major refreeze, since the last ice age ended more than 12,000 years back.

I’m not buying that we’re on the brink of kilometre-thick ice sheets stretching down south from the Arctic, but the report – and the undisputed fact that the planet has cycled through ice ages and warm periods for a very long time – certainly shows that not everyone’s on board with Al Gore, UN IPCC and the global-warming conformists.

Regardless of the shifting sands in terms of the science, I think it’s safe to say that many people are far more worried about the current global economic crisis than about claims by either the warming or cooling crowd. We’ve already seen European countries recently move to water down their Kyoto treaty requirements.

The acknowledgement there actually is a scientific debate about global warming and its causes would be, at the very least, a refreshing change from the monotonous droning of the climate change cultists that it’s all a done deal. Um, no, it’s not.

Prominent scientists, in ever greater numbers, are now speaking up to reject the group-think paradigm. While there’s no doubt the climate is changing, there’s less certainty about just where it’s going.

I expect one trend to continue, however. I predict the number of scientists willing to defy the global warming "consensus" is only going to get bigger.

From

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/1101704.html

Scientists DON’T all agree the planet is warming precipitously, or that humans are responsible for that supposed warming.You Christians really need to come up with new ideas and slogans, you overused "teach the controversy!" when you tried to push that intelligent design creationist crap on students and failed.

Global warming is not rendered scientifically false just because 650 kooks say so. It's rendered false when they prove that's so, and they haven't.

And those scientists who claim that the planet has been cooling should invest in some thermometers. The past 10 years have been some of the hottest on record.

Both sides are guilty. Rather then hear "we are seeing trends leading twords yada yada" we get "we humans are destroying the planet and if we do nothing NOW then our children will suffer!"

The thing is, unlike the short lifespans of humans, earth works on a different timetable.

Who is to say that we can have a clear picture of anything in 1 year, 2, 10, 100?

I think I instinctivly distrust something when its sold to me on a platform of fear.

I think I instinctivly distrust something when its sold to me on a platform of fear.
Not necessarily a bad instinct but at some point you've got to just look at the evidence and decide for yourself.

There was some fear mongering ahead of the market collapse in September that was pretty danged accurate. But no one ever likes to hear that stuff.

There was some fear mongering ahead of the market collapse in September that was pretty danged accurate. But no one ever likes to hear that stuff.

Could have been the cause of the collapse.

The Market is predicated on people's behaviors.

That is not a very good example. If you are a stockholder, and are told that your share price is going to drop tomorrow, you will sell it off today. Causing the price to drop. A self fulfilling example.

Now of course, it IS very similar to the Global Warming crowd. But it will take time to bear fruit.

1) We must do X and Y, and spend trillions on new industries, or the climate is going to kill us.
2) Fast forward to the future, look the climate did not kill us, all those things we did, and all the trillions spent was a GOOD thing. We Are Vindicated and Victorious.

Never crosses anyone's mind in the Climate FUD crowd, that if you did nothing (or at least not X and Y, and spent trillions), that the climate would have gotten there all by itself.

What hubris you people must have, to think that humans can change the climate. Hubris.

Based on a model of a small glass box, lying on the ground, in the sun. As if the Earth is a small enclosed glass box.

Never crosses anyone's mind in the Climate FUD crowd, that if you did nothing (or at least not X and Y, and spent trillions), that the climate would have gotten there all by itself.And it has never crossed your mind that science can actually be right, particularly when it's supported by huge volumes of research, solid theories, and large quantities of data.

And please spare us your lame speech about weathermen, as meteorology is far more accurate a science than your field is (not that global warming is strictly a matter of meteorology anyway).

My suggestion for you is:

1) Read the IPCC report. (This will take you a long time, so if you reply quickly, I will know you haven't.)

2) Come up with intelligent rebuttals to the argument, supported by evidence (not stupid comments like, "oh gee, it must be the sun in some cycle!" which demonstrate the speaker's total ignorance in the field).

The research has been done with computer models.

With variables and constants inputted by human beings, with agendas.

When you have real world data, your theories fall apart.
Remember how the FUD crowd jumped up and down about how Katrina was PROOF of their theories?

It just took me an hour to go back through the records to discover that there are is a 20 year and 40 year cycle to strength of hurricanes(tropical storms) and their numbers. Katrina was not even in that big of a year for hurricanes. It was smaller than the one in the 50s.

The real research falls apart. And computer models are worthless at this time, because they are all still based on the simple Earth is an enclosed small glass box.

Just as fallacious as the CFC FUD(babies and children with cataracts and skin cancer). According to all the scientific models(ostensibly with the same level of expertise as Climate Change), that was the basis for the science, the majority of the CFCs EVER produced should be just getting to the ozone layer now. With the most destruction possible, going on right now.

That is to say, that all the science stated that it takes 40 years for the CFCs to ascend to the ozone layer. That the largest amounts of CFCs produced and released were in the 70s(made mostly illegal after that). It has been 40 years since then.

Where did it all go?

Actually, what one can gather from this, is that every generation needs some large social fear, or social guilt in order to function. Like a mass religion for secularists, controlling the masses.

After this one, there will be another. So be it.

Remember how the FUD crowd jumped up and down about how Katrina was PROOF of their theories?Show me where in the IPCC report it says that Katrina was PROOF of their theories.

I don't care what the "FUD crowd" says. They are idiots, just like the opposing Christians are idiots. I don't get my data or conclusions from either side.

Al Gore is just a salesman who dumbs down the theories and data so that the stupid, ignorant masses can understand them. I don't believe what he says because he's saying it; he just happens to be correct.The real research falls apart. And computer models are worthless at this time, because they are all still based on the simple Earth is an enclosed small glass box.It is not just based on computer models. For example, ice cores show the connection between greenhouse gasses and mean temperature very clearly, for hundreds of thousands of years in the past.

Greenhouse gasses cause global warming, that is a fact. The only debate is the extent.Actually, what one can gather from this, is that every generation needs some large social fear, or social guilt in order to function. Like a mass religion for secularists, controlling the masses.I do not feel guilty, or afraid (regarding global warming). It is what it is, simple science.

Not necessarily a bad instinct but at some point you've got to just look at the evidence and decide for yourself.

Thats exactly it, I draw my own conclusions. Im sorry but if the basis of a persons argument is "you must do this NOW or else these bad things will happen tomorrow," you may want to work on your sales pitch.

The problem now is people are becomming desensitized to it. How many times can you hear the world is going to end or the sky is falling before you just stop caring and want it to happen already?

There was some fear mongering ahead of the market collapse in September that was pretty danged accurate. But no one ever likes to hear that stuff.

Markets fluxuate, and are bound to hit low points as well as high. Now if these people said that "the market would collapse at this time, on this date, on this year and last this long" I may be a bit more impressed. But making broad statements of things that are bound to happen eventually...

I could make predictions all day long, when one is right does that make me enlightened? Maybe since I was right once, we should listen to everything else I say and act accordingly.

For example, ice cores show the connection between greenhouse gasses and mean temperature very clearly, for hundreds of thousands of years in the past.
So you are saying that in the past there were times in the past where there was excessive greenhouse gasses, and that the temperature rose to match it? Now who's got it?

Naturally.

Look, if I throw the ball to first base, somebody's gotta get it. Now who has it?

Naturally.

Who?

Naturally.


Naturally?


Naturally.


So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Naturally.


No you don't, you throw the ball to Who.

Naturally.

Thats exactly it, I draw my own conclusions. Im sorry but if the basis of a persons argument is "you must do this NOW or else these bad things will happen tomorrow," you may want to work on your sales pitch.
If you believed that humans were a major contributor to climate change and that the changes would have dire consequences, how would you convince people to help address the problem?

Now who's got it?

Naturally.

Bla, bla, bla, bla.Let me know when you have something intelligent to say on the issue.

Well, human history is rife with people ignoring warning signals. I'm reading a book on Krakatoa and well, those people had months and months of warnings before that sucker blew, killing something like 36,000 people.

There's always a good reason not to get worried and act.

Really?

People are living on active volcanoes in Hawaii and Greenland.

Are they derelict in not heeding the obvious warnings(years and years worth of them) too?



Human history has 1000 fold more examples of running around Chicken Little and nothing happens, than ignoring the primordial fear. These people have obviously tapped into a natural trait. Very interesting, actually. You are like a little science experiment, or Uncle Miltons ant farm. Tap on the glass, and you run around in fear, complete controlled by others who are tapping into your instinctual fears. Very cool.

People are living on active volcanoes in Hawaii and Greenland.

Are they derelict in not heeding the obvious warnings(years and years worth of them) too?
Not all volcanoes erupt the same way or are equally dangerous. In the case of Hawaii, the people who were warned were people living in towns where scientists predicted that lava would flow. Not surprisingly (at least to those of us who give scientists some credit) when the volcanoes have erupted it is the very towns that the scientists said were at risk where people have lost their homes and property.

What town in Greenland were you referring to?

Human history has 1000 fold more examples of running around Chicken Little and nothing happens
A smart person will decide which Chicken Littles are worth listening to and which can be ignored. When the Chicken Littles comprise the majority of the worlds scientific community then only a complete dumbass would choose to ignore them without investigating the issue thoroughly.

You are like a little science experiment, or Uncle Miltons ant farm. Tap on the glass, and you run around in fear, complete controlled by others who are tapping into your instinctual fears. Very cool.
You are like that stubborn old codger who said the scientists were exaggerating the danger of an eruption from Mt. Saint Helens. He was proven wrong quite decisively when he got vaporized.

Human history has 1000 fold more examples of running around Chicken Little and nothing happens, than ignoring the primordial fear.And your evidence for the 1000 figure is, what?

History is replete with examples of people and governments ignoring warnings and paying the price, often a total societal collapse. And I mean warnings from rational educated people, not crazed religious zealots or some such thing.

If you're going to identify a basic human instinct, it is the one that ignores rational warnings, out of fear, greed, and stubbornness.

Only a fool would make up a 1000 figure, NOT weigh or evaluate the evidence, and assume that this is NOT the 1 in (not) 1000 cases where there's nothing to worry about.

This is just like a religion(I said that).

End of the world warnings are religious, and based on belief.

You object to 1000? I could have wrote 1000 million and been just as correct. A million million, just as correct. Given 200 thousand years of human existence.

It is the reason why we instinctively recognize human faces and images in bushes, in clouds, on the moon, on urine stains under bridges. Because we don't 'lose' by false negatives, and neither did any of our ancestors. But we die(or rather the comrades of our ancestors did) by false positives, of course.

And we will lose 'nothing' by buying this false negative either(I have said that many many times). Nothing except our rationality and the truth, and self respect. So no real loss to us, most people already believe in silly impractical guilt ridden beliefs. And I don't believe it, so I lose nothing myself.

Human caused Climate Change has its priests and zealots and followers and tithes. Just because you are one of them does not mean that they don't exist. It has its own church, and hierarchy. It has its own heretics and system of excommunication even.

Even if it is a true positive, I lose nothing. Because all of you and your beliefs and your religion are gonna save the World anyway(with or without the truth). I lose nothing.

And you say greed? The only greed are those trying to create a whole new system of industries to milk this for a buck, euro, or yen. The advocates for this new religion are the greedy ones. I have said many many times, that this is going to be very profitable for those who sell this. What is greed to you, is it those who want to make the buck, or those who don't want to pay the buck? The latter were not paying it before, that is the default position. It follows that those who are trying run the scam, game the system, are the truly greedy ones.

Human caused Climate Change has its priests and zealots and followers and tithes. Just because you are one of them does not mean that they don't exist. It has its own church, and hierarchy. It has its own heretics and system of excommunication even.
There is no scientific evidence that supports the existence of god(s) yet there is plenty that suggests a link between human activity and climate change. Your analogy is false.

Sheesh, weren't you the guy who didn't like analogies?

End of the world warnings are religious, and based on belief.Show me where in in the IPCC report it forecasts the "end of the world". You'll find it next to the "carbon dioxide emissions caused Katrina" section, i.e., nowhere.

Global warming will not be the "end of the world." I can absolutely, positively guarantee you that (well, at least to the extent that I can guarantee the Sun will burn in the sky tomorrow).

The problem here is that you are so ignorant, you don't even understand the basic theory, let alone the scientific details, and you substitute your own ridiculous notions for scientific facts.

You can either keep arguing against your own fictional straw man, or educate yourself and debate the topic intelligently. Your choice.

Personally, I think you're just afraid to educate yourself, because you will realize we are right and you are wrong, and you will have to side with the majority. Poor Fyyr, can't be a rebel and right at the same time. It must ruffle your libertarian feathers.

I understand the basic theory.

A closed glass box, filled with CO2 gas will heat up when placed in the sun, because the IR radiation becomes trapped in the glass box.

That is the fact, the science that all of your other conclusions are based on.

The problem is, the Earth is NOT a closed glass box.

Here are your arguments, in a nutshell.

Scientists are smart people.
They all think that the Earth is like a closed glass box.
Fill the glass box with CO2, place it in the sun, and it heats up higher than the ambient temperature outside.
Scientists have done this experiment.
Scientists have based all their cool computer models on this experiment.
Oh, and if that is not enough evidence for you, scientists have Venus.
Venus is a planet just like Earth, exactly like Earth, except that its atmosphere is almost all CO2, and it is really hot on Venus,,,See, we are scientists, see how smart we are?
Scientists can't be wrong, because they are smart(see above).
Scientists are right because they are scientists.
Scientists have evidence of natural heating of the Earth from Ice cores.
But these scientists, because they are smart, say that humans are unnaturally heating the Earth.
Scientists say, because they are smart, that any heating of the Earth MUST, now, be caused by humans, can't be natural.
You are wrong, because you are not a scientist.
You are not a scientist, you are wrong and stupid and ignorant.

You can't see why this does not look EXACTLY just like an Abbott and Costello vaudeville routine?

There is no scientific evidence that supports the existence of god(s) yet there is plenty that suggests a link between human activity and climate change. Your analogy is false.

Sheesh, weren't you the guy who didn't like analogies?
Show me the evidence!


Show me any evidence at all of a heating of the global temperature above normal.
Of a cause and effect relationship of that heating.
Show me human causation evidence.

Not theories. Not conclusions. Not opinions. Not that a whole bunch of people we think are smart say so.

Show me the evidence.

Evidence is numbers, facts, data. Give me some evidence.

I understand the basic theory.

A closed glass box, filled with CO2 gas will heat up when placed in the sun, because the IR radiation becomes trapped in the glass box.
What theory are you talking about? If you're referring to the role of greenhouse gasses in climate change then it doesn't appear that you understand the basic theory at all. Forget glass boxes and look at the basic facts (and I do mean facts) if you raise the concentration of greenhouse gasses in a volume of atmosphere then you also raise the capability of that volume of atmosphere to absorb heat. Greenhouse gasses absorb more heat that other atmospheric gasses. That's what makes them greenhouse gasses. You understand this, right?

And your evidence for the 1000 figure is, what?

History is replete with examples of people and governments ignoring warnings and paying the price, often a total societal collapse. And I mean warnings from rational educated people, not crazed religious zealots or some such thing.

If you're going to identify a basic human instinct, it is the one that ignores rational warnings, out of fear, greed, and stubbornness.

Only a fool would make up a 1000 figure, NOT weigh or evaluate the evidence, and assume that this is NOT the 1 in (not) 1000 cases where there's nothing to worry about.

And how many times have people claimed doom and it not happened? My point is, I could live in my closet for fear that every single person who claims the world is going to end and I may as well just do whatever they say, or else I can tune it out like I do commercials, white noise and spam ads.

Fear mongering is a powerful tool to get anything you want pushed, but when your talking about me changing my way of life in any significant way, you better come at me with more then "if you dont do this you'll be sorry."

For the record I have made modest changes, and watch what the SCIENTISTS say, not the politicians. But I wont jump on something that hasnt been run through the wringer a few times and proven to still mean the same thing.

Fear mongering is a powerful tool to get anything you want pushed, but when your talking about me changing my way of life in any significant way, you better come at me with more then "if you dont do this you'll be sorry."
What should they be doing if they want to convince you that the risks of not addressing the problem outweigh the costs of trying to do something about it?

I think Pan was right when she said that a lot of the resistance comes from people who can't get over the fact that the campaign to address climate change has roots in left wing politics. There are a lot of people whose dislike for the left leads them to try to force the science to fit their politics.

I heard something interesting on PBS recently, Bill Moyer's show I think. College educated democrats tend to believe in global climate change and it's human roots. Non-college democrats tend to disbelieve it.

College educated Republicans tend to disbelieve in global climate change and it's human roots. Non-college Republicans tend to believe in it.

Weird!

I remember awhile back, like a year or two, we had a thread the theme was about whether or not the human race could come together to prevent something disastrous but preventable. Interestingly I think most people said they thought they could. I didn't however.

Maybe it just depends on the speed of the disaster. If it's a big comet heading towards earth whose trajectory you've pretty well worked out is NOT going to miss, then sure, everyone would probably be pretty mobilized. But if it is somewhat slow progressing and the results are a little vague then I think humans are about as bright as fish. I see it all the time in how people treat their health. If it's a risk that's 10-20 years away, it might as well not exist. If it's here now, suddenly they're ready to mobilize and start to take care (but not always).

So whenever I hear Republicans get all up in arms about the future of their children and the debt, etc. I think they're being disingenuous. They've got a whole lot of issues we're pushing down to them a lot worse than an enormous national debt.

I understand the basic theory.From your description, it's quite obvious you don't.

It's also quite obvious that you don't understand the evidence, either, such as ice core data stretching back hundreds of thousands of years showing a direct connection between carbon dioxide levels and temperature.

Disputing that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is like disputing the germ theory of disease. You just sound like a moron if you do, because it has been so well proven. (Even Swiftfox's nutjob global warming "skeptics" don't dispute this.)

And if you insist on being a moron, I'm not going to waste my time proving it to you, just as you wouldn't waste your time trying to prove to some fanatical Christian that germs (and not "god" or evil spirits) really do cause disease.

The only real question is the extent, and if you want that data, go read the IPCC report. The Wikipedia page also has a good summary. The last three or four times I spoon fed the data to you, you either ignored it or started the usual moronic babbling you resort to when you have nothing intelligent to say.

And how many times have people claimed doom and it not happened?The IPCC report does not claim "doom" or the "end of the world".

Furthermore, in my lifetime, I can't think of a single time an international consensus of scientists has claimed "doom" (or the "end of the world"). The closest example I can think of in the past 10 years was the year 2000 bug, and most rational people agreed that it wasn't going to be a big deal, and it wasn't.

The science behind global warming is not a method of spreading fear, any more than than telling you to wear a condom to prevent contracting HIV is a method of spreading fear.

It is a scientific prediction and should be evaluated logically based strictly on the evidence.

I heard something interesting on PBS recently, Bill Moyer's show I think. College educated democrats tend to believe in global climate change and it's human roots. Non-college democrats tend to disbelieve it.In my experience:

Virtually all democrats/liberals believe in global warming.
Most republicans/conservatives do not.
Virtually all Christians do not (I'm still trying to figure out why).

None of these groups usually has any clue why they think the way they do, they just regurgitate something someone else has fed them. The liberals just happen to be right this time.

The closest example I can think of in the past 10 years was the year 2000 bug, and most rational people agreed that it wasn't going to be a big deal, and it wasn't.
It should be pointed out that "Y2K" wasn't a big deal specifically because we (programmers, etc.) worked hard to fix most of the problems, in many cases years in advance.

It should be pointed out that "Y2K" wasn't a big deal specifically because we (programmers, etc.) worked hard to fix most of the problems, in many cases years in advance.
Exactly. People were pretty prepared for it.

From your description, it's quite obvious you don't.

It's also quite obvious that you don't understand the evidence, either, such as ice core data stretching back hundreds of thousands of years showing a direct connection between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. What that does is show that warming and cooling of the atmosphere is normal and NATURAL. It proves that other forces besides humans cause it. Negating your argument.

Disputing that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is like disputing the germ theory of disease. You just sound like a moron if you do, because it has been so well proven. (Even Swiftfox's nutjob global warming "skeptics" don't dispute this.) There are other etiologies to disease besides germs. Genetics, prions, chemicals, plants, animals, self induced. Tylenol can kill your liver easier than a virus.

The germ theory took hundreds of years of experiments and science to prove. With real facts and data. You want acceptance of your theory without any of that, you want it on faith. You want it on numbers of people who believe it.

And if you insist on being a moron, I'm not going to waste my time proving it to you, just as you wouldn't waste your time trying to prove to some fanatical Christian that germs (and not "god" or evil spirits) really do cause disease. I just insist that you prove your case with something besides opinion. I can take data and see for myself. You have produced none. And you certainly have not proved any causation correlation.

The only real question is the extent, and if you want that data, go read the IPCC report. The Wikipedia page also has a good summary. The last three or four times I spoon fed the data to you, you either ignored it or started the usual moronic babbling you resort to when you have nothing intelligent to say. Those are opinions, interpretations, and conclusions from flawed models. Not facts and data or evidence.

I have already listed all of the pro arguments for you Climate Change folks. I have not seen any new ones so far. None of them are convincing to anyone with a brain.

What theory are you talking about? If you're referring to the role of greenhouse gasses in climate change then it doesn't appear that you understand the basic theory at all. Forget glass boxes and look at the basic facts (and I do mean facts) if you raise the concentration of greenhouse gasses in a volume of atmosphere then you also raise the capability of that volume of atmosphere to absorb heat. Greenhouse gasses absorb more heat that other atmospheric gasses. That's what makes them greenhouse gasses. You understand this, right?
You tell me to forget glass boxes.

Then you tell me to look at them.

What is a greenhouse besides an enclosed glass box on the ground, with a controlled environment. It is a horrible model for the Earth.

Take a deep breath and hold it, for YOU are polluting the Earth just by exhaling.

You tell me to forget glass boxes.

Then you tell me to look at them.
No, forget the fvcking glass box. It's irrelevant. The term "greenhouse" in "greenhouse gas" is a reference to the fact that the gas itself absorbs heat better than other atmospheric gasses. It doesn't really matter what the fvck the gas is in.

Do you understand that some gasses trap heat better than other gasses? This is a pretty basic question to be asking after six years of debating this issue in these forums but it really seems like you don't get it.

What that does is show that warming and cooling of the atmosphere is normal and NATURAL. It proves that other forces besides humans cause it.Well, duh.

Just because explosions happen NATURALLY doesn't mean man-made nuclear warheads aren't dangerous.Those are opinions, interpretations, and conclusions from flawed models. Not facts and data or evidence.

I have already listed all of the pro arguments for you Climate Change folks. I have not seen any new ones so far. None of them are convincing to anyone with a brain.You are clueless. You have NOT read the IPCC report. You do NOT know what theory is, let alone what the data supporting it is. You have not even begun to list the facts in support of climate change, because you don't know what they are.

The fact that you say there is no data (and keep talking about idiotic things such as glass boxes) proves just how clueless you are. There is a ton of data, some of which I have already hinted at.

For the last time: GO READ IT. Educate yourself. If you then have an intelligent rebuttal to the arguments, and a better alternative hypothesis, we can discuss it.

In the meantime, you sound like an uneducated Christian trying to disprove evolution by pointing to biblical phrases. Or a troll, take your pick.

Take a deep breath and hold it, for YOU are polluting the Earth just by exhaling.Of course you are. Every non-photosynthetic organism with aerobic respiration is.

However, Nature has developed a set of checks and balances, preventing the planet from freezing or boiling over.

By pumping massive amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, while simultaneously destroying natural resources that sequester them, we have overloaded Nature's systems and are warming the planet.

Even libertarians can check their thermometers and see that the planet has been steadily warming for decades, with no other known natural phenomena to account for it.

As with many other of our modern American practices, what we're doing is not even remotely sustainable. But then again, Americans could never live within their means anyway.

Even libertarians can check their thermometers and see that the planet has been steadily warming for decades, with no other known natural phenomena to account for it.

Really? No known natural phenomenon? Uhhh, look up.

Where is your data showing that solar energy output is static? Is it in your ice cores?

As with many other of our modern American practices, what we're doing is not even remotely sustainable. But then again, Americans could never live within their means anyway.
If it is not sustainable, then why are you worried?
If it runs out, that solves your problem.

Red herring anyway, just like the spotted owl. If you want to save fuel, then save fuel. Don't make something up.

However, Nature has developed a set of checks and balances, preventing the planet from freezing or boiling over.
What makes you think these are not in play right now?

You state that your ice cores show that there were high percentages of CO2 partial pressures in the atmosphere previously. Where did it go? What makes you think that low CO2 partial pressures are the normal, or what it is supposed to be? I bet you that every single celled algae in the ocean would be much happier with a higher level of CO2. Every tree and blade of grass would thank you for turning up the CO2 level. Don't you care what they think, how they feel?

Ever go to a rock concert in an enclosed arena.

Ever notice how warm it gets with all those bodies down on the floor.

HOT.

This is the Arena Climate Change Theory.

There are so many people in California right now. That their ambient and radiant body heat, all their incandescent lights, ovens, fireplaces, vehicles, stoves are just warming up the air around them.

Just on average, they are putting out 2,000,000 calories of heat a day, every day(even when they are not driving). This is what is warming up California right now. 2,000,000 calories times 30 million people. That is a lot of warmth. 100 times that just in the US. I bet you that China and India are much warmer than they were 100 years ago, and the ice core data are sure to correlate this. I am sure that it will show that the Earth was much colder before humans came around. I mean they are made of ice, it had to be cold, right?

And there are no natural checks or balances to take all this heat and dissipate it. Well, besides killing yourself.

So for those of you who are really concerned with heating up of the planet, well, you know what you can do to do your part.

Save The Planet!

Really? No known natural phenomenon? Uhhh, look up.No known natural phenomenon to account for it.Where is your data showing that solar energy output is static?Of course it isn't static. But it can't account for global warming in recent decades.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060913_sun_warming.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL101501320070710

http://climate.weather.com/science/urban-legends/solar-variations.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Solar_variationIf it is not sustainable, then why are you worried?
If it runs out, that solves your problem.I'm worried about what happens WHEN it runs out.

Human history easily predicts the inevitable outcome.What makes you think these are not in play right now?Of course they're in play. But they're getting saturated (in the case of oceans (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/05/17/southernocean_pla.html?category=earth)) or destroyed (in the case of forests (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7210/abs/nature07276.html)), while carbon dioxide output is increasing exponentially.You state that your ice cores show that there were high percentages of CO2 partial pressures in the atmosphere previously. Where did it go?Carbon sinks. Read the last paragraph for two major systems.

There are also others. How do you think all that oil that's being dredged from below ground got there in the first place?What makes you think that low CO2 partial pressures are the normal, or what it is supposed to be?We define "normal" based on the data we have for the past 650,000 years.

Who knows, maybe the past 650,000 years have been terribly abnormal, but those conditions did allow our species to evolve in the first place, and did allow the ecosystem to live in a fairly balanced state.

So I/we would like to keep it that way.I bet you that every single celled algae in the ocean would be much happier with a higher level of CO2. Every tree and blade of grass would thank you for turning up the CO2 level. Don't you care what they think, how they feel?Except that the algae will be dead because the ocean will be too hot to support its ecosystem and the tree will be dead because it will be too hot and dry.

There's no doubt that climate change will produce some evolutionary winners (those that can very rapidly adapt to higher temperatures, especially simpler and fast breeding organisms), but at the cost of a huge number of evolutionary losers (especially complex and slow breeding organisms).

There's also no doubt that mass extinctions, over the very long run, drive evolution to create a new, balanced ecosystem. Without mass extinctions, we wouldn't even be here.

However, we should not be actively seeking to cause them. We are too foolish and stupid to do it effectively, and we will only end up making life worse for ourselves, and ultimately hastening our own extinction.

This is the Arena Climate Change Theory.If the relative volume of humans to atmosphere on the planet were the same as the relative volume of humans to atmosphere in an arena, you might have a point.

It isn't (not remotely, even by astronomical standards), and you don't.

No known natural phenomenon to account for it.Of course it isn't static. But it can't account for global warming in recent decades.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060913_sun_warming.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL101501320070710

http://climate.weather.com/science/urban-legends/solar-variations.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Solar_variation

From your first link. They go back to the 17th century using reconstructions. Models. What

Earth's warming trend, which climate reconstructions show began in the 17th century
From your second link. Temperatures have only been recorded since the 1860s.

which are expected to reach their second highest level this year since records began in the 1860s.
What caused it in the 1860s. That was preindustrial. Where was the data collected?

A blink in time.

unable to account for the large and steady increase in temperature since 1970.
From your fourth link.

In 2006, Peter Foukal and colleagues found no net increase of solar brightness over the last 1,000 years.
How was this data collected. It says brightness(implying visible light), IR is invisible. So is most of the radiation that the Sun puts out.

So I/we would like to keep it that way.Except that the algae will be dead because the ocean will be too hot to support its ecosystem and the tree will be dead because it will be too hot and dry. You don't know that algea actually grows better in hot water do you? Never had a salt water aquarium, I suppose.

And there are huge multi trillion acres worth of real estate which is too frigid to grow trees right now. They can grow there.


However, we should not be actively seeking to cause them. We are too foolish and stupid to do it effectively, and we will only end up making life worse for ourselves, and ultimately hastening our own extinction. Thought you did not buy the doom and gloom fear ****. Here you are selling it.

"Don't do what I tell you, and the whole human species will die."

Sounds just like religion to me.

If the relative volume of humans to atmosphere on the planet were the same as the relative volume of humans to atmosphere in an arena, you might have a point.

It isn't (not remotely, even by astronomical standards), and you don't.
The vast majority of temperature readings, real data, have been taken in population centers, and you know it.

You know as well as I do, when they take temperatures out at the airport, they are higher than they are at your house. Where the temps are taken is very important(if truth is important).

And as outlandish and absurd as my Arena Theory is, it is much more plausible than yours. 70,000,000,000,000 calories of heat just in California atmosphere alone, every day.

The vast majority of temperature readings, real data, have been taken in population centers, and you know it.Actually, they're now taken from space (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/), as well as at observatories in various areas unconnected with urban centers.

But if, as you claim, urban centers are hotter, and temperatures used to be taken only in urban centers, shouldn't we see a cooling trend?

That's the problem with making wild, unsupported assumptions: you might end up inadvertently contradicting your previous wild, unsupported assumptions.

From your first link. They go back to the 17th century using reconstructions.How do YOU calculate the solar intensity in the 17th century? Time machine?From your second link. Temperatures have only been recorded since the 1860s.Humans have only been checking thermometers and writing down the number since the 1860s.

However, atmospheric temperatures can be calculated from isotopes in ice cores for hundreds of thousands of years."Don't do what I tell you, and the whole human species will die."

Sounds just like religion to me.The whole human species will die no matter what you do.

It is not a question of whether humans will die, but rather how they will live. History has shown time and time again that when humans ravage their environment, they pay a terrible price. It is simply not worth it.

There is no prediction of doom here, no matter how much you want to try to paint one. It is a simple cost/benefit analysis, extended into the long term.

From your fourth link.

How was this data collected. It says brightness(implying visible light), IR is invisible. So is most of the radiation that the Sun puts out.If you follow the link to the study you will see your assumption is wrong (as usual).

What caused it in the 1860s. That was preindustrial. Where was the data collected?Heat waves do happen, you know. Besides, it was the 1860s. Their measurement methods were crude and limited.

Re: 10C average temperature rise leading to mass extinction

How do you KNOW that?


Two reasons really.

First is that the difference between the average global temperature during the last ice age and now is approximately 2C if I recall correctly. Even that transition caused a lot of species to become extinct and that took place over ten millenia or so, not less than a century.

Second is that an average rise in temperature means that where I live the average summer temperature tops what is currently a heatwave that happens only a few days every year (and if it last more than a week will cause thousands of people extra to die). The new definition of heatwave here would be what a hot summer day in India is currently. India and most of the tropics can expect to regularly see temperatures in excess of 50C and hitting 60C+ on a hot day. That is approaching the temperature needed to pasteurize milk (i.e. render bacteria in it infertile). It will do very nasty things with not only to many animals and plants directly, but also to the evaporation and rainfall patterns (expect a lot more desert and extreme rainfall causing soil erosion).

A good thing that the optimistic estimates only expect the global average temperature to rise by 2C (which is still plenty devastating to many species in the warmer regions of our planets, including many species of fish, coral and much of the tropical forests who have evolved in a situation where the environment temperature was pretty constant year around. Oh, and it may just do in the crocodiles after all).
It may be hard, but imagine a world that is as much hotter than ours as the ice age was colder. Look at the Sahara for an idea what hot means in this context.


Eri

I think one thing we're going to see is more exotic diseases that used to flourish in only some parts of the world start to come to the US.

In some ways it's probably a good thing we're having this huge recession, it'll slow down the production of green house gasses. Of course, when/if civilization collapses due to famine that'll slow it down even more.

But if, as you claim, urban centers are hotter, and temperatures used to be taken only in urban centers, shouldn't we see a cooling trend?
Why would we see a cooling trend in urban centers?

Or do you mean a cooling trend outside of urban centers? Where temperatures are now just being taken.

That's the problem with making wild, unsupported assumptions: you might end up inadvertently contradicting your previous wild, unsupported assumptions.
I don't understand the first part, so this part makes no sense to me.

Most science starts with wild assumptions. They are called hypotheses. And before those, observations are made.

My observation is that(as you say until recently) most official urban temperatures have been taken at airports. I also know that not only have the airplanes moved from props to jets, I know that jets give off more heat. I also know that the numbers of jet traffic at those airports has increased over the last 50 years or so. And the size of the jets, and the number of jet engines on those jets have increases as well. Airports are also large areas of IR absorption, with black tarmac ground coverings. Airports have increased in size, and so has the area of black IR absorbing tarmac surface.

It would not be an assumption, but a valid conclusion, that all temperatures taken at any time from airport thermometers are suspect for they are not isolated or controlled. Those temperature readings are invalid for determining general Earth temperature trending.

I think one thing we're going to see is more exotic diseases that used to flourish in only some parts of the world start to come to the US.

In some ways it's probably a good thing we're having this huge recession, it'll slow down the production of green house gasses. Of course, when/if civilization collapses due to famine that'll slow it down even more.

Diseases come to the US because of travel.

If as Tudamorf suggests, we will deplete all of our fossil fuels soon. Not only will that stop carbon from moving from one place to another, it would deter people from moving from one place to another.

How do YOU calculate the solar intensity in the 17th century? Time machine?
This is YOUR data, supporting your argument. When you yourself call into question its validity you shake your own argument.


Humans have only been checking thermometers and writing down the number since the 1860s.
This is YOUR data, supporting your argument. When you yourself call into question its validity you shake your own argument.

However, atmospheric temperatures can be calculated from isotopes in ice cores for hundreds of thousands of years.

The whole human species will die no matter what you do.
Well, I suppose that it will eventually evolve to another species.

It is not a question of whether humans will die, but rather how they will live.
Well individuals will die. Groups will die. But you are saying that the species will die. Again, for not buying doom and gloom, you sure like to sell it.

History has shown time and time again that when humans ravage their environment, they pay a terrible price. It is simply not worth it.
What terrible price?

There is no prediction of doom here, no matter how much you want to try to paint one. It is a simple cost/benefit analysis, extended into the long term.
Extinction is generally pretty gloomy and doomy.

I am not painting it. You are the one who is.

Why would we see a cooling trend in urban centers?

Or do you mean a cooling trend outside of urban centers? Where temperatures are now just being taken.Perhaps you didn't read my response to your flawed idea.

You said temperatures are taken in urban centers. I explained to you how now, they're not.

I also explained that if, as you claim, temperatures were taken in urban centers before and if, as you claim, urban centers are hotter, and if, as is a fact, temperatures are now NOT being taken in urban centers, we should see a cooling effect.

Of course, your assumptions are BS to begin with, but I just wanted to show you how absurd they are when applied to the facts.

Well individuals will die. Groups will die. But you are saying that the species will die. Again, for not buying doom and gloom, you sure like to sell it.Just because the prediction involves bad news, doesn't mean it's "doom and gloom," or that it's any less accurate than a prediction that involves good news. It also doesn't make it religious, as you're so desperately trying to paint it. It's just a prediction, based on the evidence.

If a doctor tells you you'll eventually contract HIV if you have unprotected sex with infected individuals, that's also a prediction of bad news. However, that doesn't make it inaccurate.

Furthermore, the species will die anyway. I am not claiming that by correcting global warming, the species will not die. It will simply live better in the near future, provided we correct many of our other flaws and begin to live sustainably.What terrible price?Societal collapse, usually. Read Collapse, it addresses the precise question you're asking quite nicely.

If you want a quick and recent example, take Rwanda. Their latest civil war (what you call "genocide") was the result of overbreeding and using up all their resources. When it reached a tipping point, civil war broke out, a kind of free-for-all where people thinned out the (over)population and redistributed their resources.

Again, this is not "doom". It is historical fact, and has happened so many times under similar circumstances, you can be quite certain it will happen again.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/page2.html

"Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made

Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report

"Shunichi Akasofu[Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)"

Introductory discussion.
Point 1.1: Global Warming has halted

Global mean temperature rose continuously from 1800-1850. The rate of increase was .05 degrees Celsius per 100 years. This was mostly unrelated to CO2 gas (CO2 began to increase suddenly after 1946. Until the sudden increase, the CO2 emissions rate had been almost unchanged for 100 years). However, since 2001, this increase halted. Despite this, CO2 emissions are still increasing.

According to the IPCC panel, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to rise, so it is very likely that the hypothesis that the majority of global warming can be ascribed to the Greenhouse Effect is mistaken. There is no prediction of this halt in global warming in IPCC simulations. The halt of the increase in temperature, and slight downward trend is "something greater than the Greenhouse Effect," but it is in effect. What that "something" is, is natural variability.

From this author's research into natural (CO2 emissions unrelated to human activity) climate change over the past 1000 years, it can be asserted that the global temperature increase up to today is primarily recovery from the "Little Ice Age" earth experienced from 1400 through 1800 (i.e. global warming rate of change＝0.5℃/100).

The recovery in temperatures since follows a naturally variable 30-50 year cycle, (quasi-periodic variations), and in addition, this cycle has been positive since 1975, and peaked in the year 2000. This quasi-periodic cycle has passed its peak and has begun to turn negative.

(The IPCC ascribes the positive change since 1975, for the most part, to CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect.) This quasi-periodic cycle fluctuates 0.1 degrees C per 10 years, short term (on the order of 50 years). This quasi-periodic cycle's amplitude is extremely pronounced in the Arctic Circle , so it is easy to understand. The previous quasi-periodic cycle was positive from 1910 to 1940 and negative from 1940 to 1975 (despite CO2 emissions rapid increase after 1946).

Regardless of whether or not the IPCC has sufficiently researched natural variations, they claim that CO2 has increased particularly since 1975. Consequently, after 2000, although it should have continued to rise, atmospheric temperature stabilised completely (despite CO2 emissions continuing to increase). Since 1975 the chances of increase in natural variability (mainly quasiperiodic vibration) are high; moreover, the quasiperiodic vibration has turned negative. For that reason, in 2000 Global Warming stopped, after that, the negative cycle will probably continue.

Regarding the current temporary condition (la Nina) JPL observes a fluctuation of the quasiperiodic cycle [JSER editor's note: this book is is still being proofed as of 12/19]. So we should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis.

They should have verified this hypothesis by supercomputer, but before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for "truth". This truth is not observationally accurate testimony. This is sidestepping of global warming theory with quick and easy answers, so the opinion that a great disaster will really happen must be broken.

It seems that global warming and the halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity. Currently, the sun is "hibernating". The end of Sunspot Cycle 23 is already two years late: the cycle should have started in 2007, yet in January 2008 only one sunspot appeared in the sun's northern hemisphere, after that, they vanished completely (new sunspots have now begun to appear in the northern hemisphere). At the current time, it can clearly be seen there are no spots in the photosphere. Lately, solar winds are at their lowest levels in 50 years. Cycle 24 is overdue, and this is is worrisome.

If global warming is halting, why has the last decade been the hottest on record, possibly the hottest in the past 1,300 years (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/climatewatch/article.html?Last_decade_hottest_for_over_one_thou sand_years&in_article_id=288561&in_page_id=5)?

Funny, I thought the Japanese had thermometers too.

I suppose it's also a coincidence that that report was commissioned by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources, which is headed by oil and electric company executives.

Funny how the "skeptics" always seem to have their hands in oil/coal companies' pockets. Or they're Christians (and I still haven't figured out that connection).

NASA's Chief Climate Scientist Stirs Controversy With Call for Civil Disobedience
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,501064,00.html
NASA's chief climate scientist is in hot water with colleagues and at least one lawmaker after calling on citizens to engage in civil disobedience at what is being billed as the largest public protest of global warming ever in the United States.

http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/globo-warmer-scientist-make-up.html

Globo warmer 'scientist' make up Antarctica data

Christopher Booker:

Another example last week was the much-publicised claim, contradicting all previous evidence, that Antarctica, the world's coldest continent, is in fact warming up, Antarctica has long been a major embarrassment to the warmists. Al Gore and co may have wanted to scare us that the continent which contains 90 per cent of all the ice on the planet is heating up, because that would be the source of all the meltwater which they claim will raise sea levels by 20 feet.

However, to provide all their pictures of ice-shelves "the size of Texas" calving off into the sea, they have had to draw on one tiny region of the continent, the Antarctic Peninsula – the only part that has been warming. The vast mass of Antarctica, all satellite evidence has shown, has been getting colder over the past 30 years. Last year's sea-ice cover was 30 per cent above average.

But then a good many experts began to examine just what new evidence had been used to justify this dramatic finding. It turned out that it was produced by a computer model based on combining the satellite evidence since 1979 with temperature readings from surface weather stations.

The problem with Antarctica, though, is that has so few weather stations. So what the computer had been programmed to do, by a formula not yet revealed, was to estimate the data those missing weather stations would have come up with if they had existed. In other words, while confirming that the satellite data have indeed shown the Antarctic as cooling since 1979, the study relied ultimately on pure guesswork, to show that in the past 50 years the continent has warmed – by just one degree Fahrenheit.

But it was also noticed that among the members of Steig's team was Michael Mann, author of the "hockey stick", the most celebrated of all attempts by the warmists to rewrite the scientific evidence to promote their cause. The greatest of all embarrassments for the believers in man-made global warming was the well-established fact that the world was significantly warmer in the Middle Ages than it is now. "We must get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period," as one contributor to the IPCC famously said in an unguarded moment. It was Dr Mann who duly obliged by getting his computer-model to produce a graph shaped like hockey stick, eliminating the mediaeval warming and showing recent temperatures curving up to an unprecedented high.

...

The globo warmers take an Alice in wonderland approach to science and data. Record cold temperatures are a sign of global warming to them. Antarctica has been getting colder for the last 30 years so just make up data to prove the opposite. Global warming skeptics have begun to call it a hoax and the true believers appear to be helping them.

Oh, now we have some random, gun-toting military history expert blogger throwing out ridiculous statements like Antarctica has been getting colder and sea ice is 30% above average. Naturally, they're unsupported by any evidence, because they're false, like most of that nonsense posted.

The Antartica cooling can be partially explained. Earth has a wobble in it's orbit. The North Pole essentially drifts south by 3 feet a year or so. As you can imagine that exposes the Northern Hemisphere to higher temperatures do to more time in the sun, exposure to sunspots, ultra violet rays, etc. It helps explain part of the reason the Artic is shrinking slightly. Towards the Antartica region, it spends less time in the sun etc, so, that part just cools. Ninety feet shift over the last 30 years may not seem like alot, but it does cause slight shifts that can be tracked, like they have been.

Representative John Shimkus (R-IL) provides a compelling argument (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E) on why global warming is a myth.

Well... if we just blame it on God we don't have to fuss over all this stuff! Nice.

Really, some people should really pay attention in science class. And not the science class preached by Rush, but a real science class based on Science of all things, strange I would have to say that in America. Well it is the internet so mabye your not from America. Or you got your education from a Rush approved school.

Tudamorf is correct. At least in the sense that science supports what he says currently. Science changes as any educated person knows, but in order for science to change it must be supported by science not conjecture. The problem with the start of this article is that science doesn't support their claims. Thats why you read about people losing their jobs on science. If your going to be a scientist you better have a provable theory that can be repeated. And not only can it be repeated it repeated by independant labratories. These 2 things the oil companies and their "scientist" can't do and that why they get ridiculed and lose their jobs. Not because they speak out, but cause they lose all their credentials by not being able to do either of the previose 2 things. And there is more than those 2 things, its actually quite more rigirouse than that but if you can't support your theory and have others repeat it, how can you be a scientist people will listen to. And using Data thats 10 years old will get you lauphed at in the science community. Thats why the Japan study is worthless. When your talking about global warming anything less than centuries is worthless. I.e. for the challenged ones, you need data that spreads at least 100 years. So yeah, you can use those 10 years in the Japan study but you also need to add 90 previouse years. Even if you do that, 100 years is not alot of data. Most scientist want 1000+ years and thats why they use Ice Core Samples. Thats why mathmaticians are used. Because temperature gages weren't invented during the time of the dinosaur, but guess what was around then? Animals (Fossils), Water (Ice Core), and Debri (Crap stuck in sap and ice) that was trapped for us to study 650,000 years later. Thats why we know so munch, not b/c of a "time machine."

Some day, will Green House Effect be proven wrong? Possible. But until its proven wrong (the theory that is) we have to assume its correct. And because of this, we must act. If we are wrong about green house gasses but we do what is needed to correct the problem, what harm have we done? Cleaned the air so less people have ashma. More tree's so our great grandchildren can see what a Spotted Owl looks like in RL and not in a book. This is why your argument fails. You can't take money with you to the grave. So any money you spend to improve green house gasses is like spending on your great grand children. And if the scientist are incorrect, we'll still be better off than if we do nothing.

Some day, will Green House Effect be proven wrong? Possible. But until its proven wrong (the theory that is) we have to assume its correct. And because of this, we must act.

I don't think any rational person is suggesting the green house effect doesn't exist. What some people are questioning is c02's effect on global warming and some of the supposed consequences of global warming.

What's "the problem" with acting on it now? For one, take a scenario where we put massive amounts of funding into lowering c02 emissions thinking it will prevent anymore warming, but then that warming occurs anyways. If that's the case, all the threats of global warming will occur because we thought we would have prevented them by lowering our c02 emissions. Under this scenario, the right action would've been to spend that money to adapt to warming planet (building levees, funding malaria treatment, running liquid nitrogen pipes through the Arctic sea to make ice sheets for the polar bears -- what have you.)

The other thing that some economists are suggesting is that even if c02 does play a major role in global warming, that there is little we can do to slow it at a very high cost. In other words, the amount of money you think it will cost to stop global warming all together is actually the price tag to slow it down by 25% or so.

Slowing it down might not be "worth it" to you and me, but I'd imagine if you had kids and thought a bit about their future it might make some sense.

What some people are questioning is c02's effect on global warming and some of the supposed consequences of global warming.Which is silly, since we have a clear history of CO2 levels and environmental conditions for hundreds of thousands of years, and can easily interpret the effect.

It's like saying you won't know what happens if a culture ravages their environment to the point it can no longer sustain them, just because we haven't witnessed it personally. Of course we know what happens, because we can easily dig up the remains of prior cultures where the exact same thing happened (and it typically isn't pretty).The other thing that some economists are suggesting is that even if c02 does play a major role in global warming, that there is little we can do to slow it at a very high cost.That's the beauty of it. All of the things we need to do to stop global warming are things we should be doing anyway, for various other reasons. Like ending our dependence on gasoline and stopping deforestation and destruction of wild habitats.

Plus it will create a whole new economy of its own, one that gives people something to do and moves the planet in a positive direction.

All that's needed is a consensus of opinion, that the goal is the correct one. Then there is no issue of "waste" or "high cost".

the right action would've been to spend that money to adapt to warming planet (building levees, funding malaria treatment, running liquid nitrogen pipes through the Arctic sea to make ice sheets for the polar bears -- what have you.)The solution to a warming world is to dramatically halt the human birth rate.

Barring that, the solution is to start stockpiling guns and nukes, because we're going to need them, guaranteed.

Slowing it down might not be "worth it" to you and me, but I'd imagine if you had kids and thought a bit about their future it might make some sense.

I didn't state my opinion about whether it was "worth it" or not. I pointed out that it's only possible to 'slow down' c02 levels (with any legislation that's being seriously considered by governments), because many people are under the false impression that it's possible to reverse c02 levels.

the right action would've been to spend that money to adapt to warming planet (building levees, funding malaria treatment, running liquid nitrogen pipes through the Arctic sea to make ice sheets for the polar bears -- what have you.)
Which is silly, since we have a clear history of CO2 levels and environmental conditions for hundreds of thousands of years, and can easily interpret the effect.

Tuda, I was replying to Abyssal insisting that we must act even if we are uncertain with a hypothetical scenario where c02 wasn't the cause of global warming. I said "Under this scenario," at the beginning of the sentence you quoted.

And the relationship between c02 and temperature is anything but clear cut, it's quite dynamic in fact. Just thought I'd point that out.

And the relationship between c02 and temperature is anything but clear cut, it's quite dynamic in fact. Just thought I'd point that out.http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

Since the time that chart was made, there has been new ice core data dating back 800,000 years. The correlation is plain to see.

Did I say the correlation wasn't easy to see? You said it was easy to interpret in the context of C02's effect on warming (or more accurately, temperature.) Some of the correlation is due to temperature rises (due to other reasons) causing increased C02, some of the correlation is due to C02 causing increased temperatures. If 100% of the correlation is due to C02 explaining temperature, Edmonton would be looking like Cairo right now with how high the C02 levels are.

What you've done is concluded that C02 explains temperature, looked at the data, and assumed it backed your claim. But it's not that simple, hence, I call it a dynamic relationship since both factors can explain each other.

Not that hard to figure out the relationship. If the C02 goes up before the temperature does then it seems fairly obvious. Then also, it could be true that temperature going up also bumps up C02, but it seems like that'd make it pretty easy to reach a tipping point where the process goes wild and recovery is very unlikely.

Not that hard to figure out the relationship. If the C02 goes up before the temperature does then it seems fairly obvious.
But that's not the case.... historically speaking, it's usually the other way around. Pre-1850ish C02 trends were largely explained by the ocean. The ocean holds a massive amount of dissolved carbon. When temperatures rise, the ocean releases C02 into the atmosphere, when temperatures fall, the ocean dissolves C02 from the atmosphere. Since changes in the overall ocean temperature "lag" changes in the surface temperature by a couple hundred years, trends in the level of C02 the ocean is releasing or dissolving lags a couple hundred years. On a map that shows hundreds of thousands years of data, this is hard to see, and most C02-temperature maps use funky scales or have the 2 lines separated.

This isn't to suggest that C02 doesn't have an effect on temperature, but rather that the factor of the C02 / temperature equation that has the highest correlation is the is temperature's effect on the ocean's C02 cycle.

Then also, it could be true that temperature going up also bumps up C02, but it seems like that'd make it pretty easy to reach a tipping point where the process goes wild and recovery is very unlikely.
What you're talking about is feedback. There are hundreds of positive and negative feedbacks. The entire reason why climate models require a megacomputer is because it's calculating 1,000s of feedback varibles under a given scenario.

The climate models used by the IPCC assumes that there is more positive feedback than negative feedback, but the majority of the values they use for feedback variables are unproven. What they're essentially doing is testing for runaway global warming assuming that runaway global warming exists.

Few scientists fear of 'global warming' when feedback variables aren't considered. The more important debate isn't whether or not global warming exists and is caused by man, the more important debate is whether or not runaway global warming is a likely scenario. And the science on this is anything but settled.

deleted

I didn't state my opinion about whether it was "worth it" or not. I pointed out that it's only possible to 'slow down' c02 levels (with any legislation that's being seriously considered by governments), because many people are under the false impression that it's possible to reverse c02 levels.


How is science under the false impression that CO2 level's can't be controlled? We know scientifically that CO2 can be reduced by drastically reducing CO2 producing tecknoligoes (Cars and Coal plants being the major contibuters, and Farm's using pesticides a close 3rd). We know that planting tree's will reduce CO2 gasses. We also know that the algae blooms in the pacific that are dieing are the greatest source of CO2 "decomposers" the earth has. The moss in Ireland (could be wrong on the country but I know its a Europeon one) has the 3rd or 4th largest Fugus covering that helps reduce the emissions of CO2 from the atmosphere and these patches are also dieing due to their climate and environment changing. Although environmental change (I.E. pollution) seems to be a bigger factor than climate change. Scientist aren't misinformed on how to reduce CO2 or wether its possible. The question is will we spend the money we made destroying the earth, and instead, invest the money to improve it?

What's "the problem" with acting on it now? For one, take a scenario where we put massive amounts of funding into lowering c02 emissions thinking it will prevent anymore warming, but then that warming occurs anyways. If that's the case, all the threats of global warming will occur because we thought we would have prevented them by lowering our c02 emissions. Under this scenario, the right action would've been to spend that money to adapt to warming planet (building levees, funding malaria treatment, running liquid nitrogen pipes through the Arctic sea to make ice sheets for the polar bears -- what have you.)


Unfortunetly that is a risk I have to share. Nothing says we will succeed or for that matter some models already say we are past "the point of no return" depending who you listen to. I brather do something that "may" work then attempt to levy water that WILL dry up or create ice sheets from machines that haven't been made (We would be using them by now if they existed and could produce in such a large scale). Funding of Malaria and other deadly deseases should be done reguardless simply b/c that is a seperate issue.

Earth will exist with or with out us. The history of mass extinctions proves this (well until the sun becomes a Red Nova or what ever that stage is called). So doing something that may guarantee a few billion more years for the human race is better than guaranteeing only a couple more thousand years due to us playing "god."

Mabye if we fund more space exploration and become like Star Trek and can live in the vacuum of space will be safe and not have to worry about our planet... /steps down from his soap box

Slowing it down might not be "worth it" to you and me, but I'd imagine if you had kids and thought a bit about their future it might make some sense.
It may make sense to you, as the way that it is sold this way.
But is it the truth?
Is it real?

Hell is sold to children just like this.
Easter is, that a man died and rose from the dead.
What harm is there in indocrinating your kids to Christianity with fuzzy notions of bunnies and colored eggs, and communions.? What harm is there?

What harm is there in believing? What loss is there?
If you believe, you lose nothing.
If you don't, you go to Hell.

But is it true?

If the human face in the foliage is not really human, do you really lose anything if you turn and run away?

What do you lose when you run away from a perceived human face with a spear in the foliage? For 100,000 generations, what do you lose from running away from a face in the foliage?

What do you lose when you run away from a perceived human face with a spear in the foliage? For 100,000 generations, what do you lose from running away from a face in the foliage?
If the majority of the worlds scientists study the face in the foliage and deem it to be a serious threat, it's probably in the best interest of survival to treat it accordingly.

Hell is sold to children just like this.
Easter is, that a man died and rose from the dead.A pointless analogy, since there is no scientific evidence to support that belief, whereas there is a ton of scientific evidence to support the theory behind global warming and its causes.

What evidence, you say? Read the IPCC report and you'll get your answer.

Only people who reject the Scientific Method (i.e., zealots/morons) would equate the global warming theory to mythology. I hope you are not becoming one of those, because then you have no place being employed in a scientific field.

Only people who reject the Scientific Method (i.e., zealots/morons) would equate the global warming theory to mythology. I hope you are not becoming one of those, because then you have no place being employed in a scientific field.
Skepticism and doubt are integral parts of the Scientific Method. I have that for this hypothesis. Dissent is part of the Scientific Method.
Non-critical acceptance is part of faith.

Up until just within the last couple hundred years, respected scientists and physicians believed that disease was caused by imbalance of humors or evil spirits. Some of the terms to describe these diseases still persist in vernacular. Stroke, struck by God. Malaria, evil or bad air. Cholera, an imbalance of choler. Most, if not all respected scientists and physicians, for thousands of years believed and practiced with this assured knowledge.

And again, I have never trusted weathermen or meteorologists. They are wrong most of the time. They can't predict weather next week or tomorrow accurately. Let alone 100 years from now. I have never changed my life according to what a weatherman has stated. Many people do, their are websites and TV channels dedicated to just that.

To tell what the weather is like, I look out my window or door. I am more times right than any weatherman is. I can myself, take the data at hand, make a prediction, then make choice of action accordingly. Others are not equipped to do that, and must rely on what these people say and predict.

To tell what the weather is like, I look out my window or door.So you can predict global weather trends for the next century by looking out your window.

And you just KNOW that the theory behind global warming is wrong because, well, you just know and you're too lazy to even look at the data and reasoning (except the straw man reasoning you invent).

Sounds like a new religion to me.

So you can predict global weather trends for the next century by looking out your window. No one can. If a weatherman can't accurately predict today's weather(no more accurately than I can), why do you think that they can predict weather 100 years from now?

And you just KNOW that the theory behind global warming is wrong because, well, you just know and you're too lazy to even look at the data and reasoning (except the straw man reasoning you invent). Because the computer simulations that these weathermen use are based only on models. The model is a small glass box on the ground. Or Venus. Or ice core models, which are extremely inaccurate(I remember you even conceding that point in this long discussion).

Those are flawed models, they do not accurately represent the Earth.

Sounds like a new religion to me. If doubting a hypothesis to be true, is a religion to you, then yes.

Doubting a hypothesis, which uses an inaccurate model to derive the experiment and observation can not have a valid conclusion.

Mark Twain said it best...
“Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.”



I can give you several examples of where scientists have concocted phony science to further their own personal or career agendas.

Franz Boas concocted Cultural Relativism. Logically bogus to protect his, and every cultural anthropologist's and socialogist's paycheck.
Pharmas which produce statins. We know that statins only really work on 8 percent of the risk population. Yet they are billed as 100% effective in reduction of heart ischemia/heart attacks.
Ecologists and biologists farmed out that the spotted owl could only nest in old growth redwood. Knowing the whole time that was false, to their agenda to prevent tree cutting, spotted owl was a known red herring.
Watson and Crick discovered the molecules of DNA to further human understanding and enlightenment of genetics, when they did what they did for fame, godhood, and wealth.

Out and out wrong science, universally accepted(for a while).
Gastric ulcers are caused by stress(they are mostly caused by a bacteria).
Trans fats are healthier than butter or lard.
Eggs will give you heart attacks.
Oatmeal will prevent you from getting colon/rectal cancer.
(and don't forget the industry wide explanation for the origin of MRSA and VRE).

No one can. If a weatherman can't accurately predict today's weather(no more accurately than I can), why do you think that they can predict weather 100 years from now?Because:

a) they can predict far more accurately than you can by guessing, at least in terms of statistical probabilities of an event happening;

b) global warming is not strictly a prediction of weather patterns in the first place (though you can't seem to grasp the difference); and

c) predicting an overall trend is far easier than predicting the exact weather on a specific day, since many random factors cancel themselves out.

No one can predict exactly when and to what extent you will get sick either, yet that doesn't mean you shouldn't eat a proper diet, exercise, and not use dangerous drugs such as tobacco.Those are flawed models, they do not accurately represent the Earth.A rat is also a highly flawed model for a human, yet your field uses them all the time to make all sorts of predictions about what will happen to humans, and you personally pump people full of drugs based on those conclusions.

Unfortunately, the only perfectly accurate model for the Earth is the Earth, and that's an experiment we can only perform once, with disastrous results if we're wrong.If doubting a hypothesis to be true, is a religion to you, then yes.Doubting it to be true when a) there is plenty of experimental data to support it, b) the evidence does not support any other plausible alternative, and c) you have no plausible explanation of your own (based on actual data, not your usual speculation), yes, that's religion.

Better start writing your bible and your commandments ("thou shalt bury thy head in the sand").

I can give you several examples of where scientists have concocted phony science to further their own personal or career agendas.Like any field, science has its bad apples. But you haven't proven that that's the case here.

Unless you're making a blanket claim about scientists, that they are inherently untrustworthy because a number of them have had agendas in the past.

In which case, you're back to your religion. Commandment #2: "Thou shalt never agree with the majority, even when they're right."

In which case, you're back to your religion. Commandment #2: "Thou shalt never agree with the majority, even when they're right."

Well, I'm the one asking for and waiting for proof. And remain skeptical.
You may continue to move along with the herd, because they are in the majority, on faith. Or because you agree with their ulterior objectives(whatever those may be).

Believe in their Cold Fusion, all you like. I will reserve agreement and acceptance until they come up with something real or observable.

Like any field, science has its bad apples. But you haven't proven that that's the case here.
I don't have to prove it.
It is the default state in the Scientific Method.

A scientist is de facto a fake and a fraud until HE proves otherwise. Until his valid experimental results are repeated, with accurate predictions and conclusions.

It is not a matter of bad apples. It is that most scientific hypotheses are proven wrong, when they are repeated.

Another example, would be the Big Bang Theory. We have proof that the Universe is expanding, through the Doppler Shift. It 'looks' like a balloon that is being inflated. That's what it looks like. But only from our perspective, and that is the best model that we can form in our mind's eye. But there is no other proof that there was a singularity, other than we imagine that balloon to be very small at some 'beginning'.

What if there were no beginning? There is no proof that there was. We have no proof that there was a singularity, other than by our little balloon model. It is just as likely that the Universe is expanding, has always been expanding, and will always continue to expand. If I can wrap my mind around the notion that something is both a particle and a wave, that is not a far stretch. Hard to sell though.

Science rules out inaccurate models all the time. The Niels Bohr atomic model for instance. Easy to sell, because it is easy to put in one's mind's eye. We can easily imagine a bunch of little balls circling each other, because we know what, and accept what the Solar System looks like.

It is still taught in schools, as a precursor to what we really know about atoms. "Here is a model of an atom little Johnny, this is what it is like. Big Johnny, that model was not real at all, but allowed you to move to the next level, here is what we think it looks like now." "And if you stay in this field, you may get a chance to prove that one wrong, as well, as we expect and hope."

We know now that an atom is NOT like a little solar system.

Well, I'm the one asking for and waiting for proof.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

By the way, where's your theory? And your data to support it? Unless you reject thermometers in your religion, you have to agree that the Earth has been warming for decades. If you have no explanation for it, then you are not simply dubious, but deliberately rejecting the best scientific explanation, His Holiness.You may continue to move along with the herd, because they are in the majority, on faith.I move with the herd when, and only when, I independently conclude that they are heading to the best grazing pastures. The majority is sometimes right, you know.

We have proof that the Universe is expanding, through the Doppler Shift. It 'looks' like a balloon that is being inflated. That's what it looks like. But only from our perspective, and that is the best model that we can form in our mind's eye. But there is no other proof that there was a singularity, other than we imagine that balloon to be very small at some 'beginning'.There is plenty of other proof of that theory you're apparently unaware of (such as cosmic background radiation), but that's besides the point.

There is far better evidence for man-made causes of global warming. And it's the best-supported theory to explain the causes. You certainly haven't come up with a better one, at least one based on real data.Science rules out inaccurate models all the time. The Niels Bohr atomic model for instance.We could rule out that model because we came up with a better one, once we were able to gather more data.

Can you come up with a better model for global warming, that is supported by data?

I move with the herd when, and only when, I independently conclude that they are heading to the best grazing pastures. The majority is sometimes right, you know.
I was thinking of a herd of lemmings, actually.


I bet you like Dave Mathews too.
Or Yanni.

There is plenty of other proof of that theory you're apparently unaware of (such as cosmic background radiation), but that's besides the point.


It is precisely the point.

Explain to me, to us, in simple terms, layman's explanation, how cosmic background radiation is evidence of a Big Bang with a finite singularity at some finite distant past.

Can you come up with a better model for global warming, that is supported by data?
Okham's Razor.

There are variations in the intensity of the Sun's radiation output, perhaps?
This arm of the galaxy or solar system is moving through a pocket of your cosmic background radiation?
There is not enough data?



Kind of like how scientists, pharmas, and physicians KNOW that the majority of heart attacks are really caused by the shape and size of the arteries that provide blood to your heart. And that is an inherited trait, which we have no control over. And that you don't hear ANY of them telling that to you as the main cause because they can't sell you anything for it.

There are variations in the intensity of the Sun's radiation output, perhaps?
This arm of the galaxy or solar system is moving through a pocket of your cosmic background radiation?
There is not enough data?That is not data.

You keep yapping about not being convinced, by a mountain of evidence.

You have ZERO evidence, and you want me to be convinced?

You are preaching religion, not science. (Not to mention, the actual data has already ruled out your solar variation theory, see here (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL101501320070710) for example.)

You are no different than the pope, who says that condoms increase HIV risk. I guess you could call him a dubious skeptic too. But he's no scientist.

That is not data.

You keep yapping about not being convinced, by a mountain of evidence.
What is not data? I don't know what you are talking about.
And what mountain are you talking about?

You have ZERO evidence, and you want me to be convinced?
Evidence for what? What are you talking about? I am not trying to convince you of anything. Other than you are gullible, or have a hidden agenda.

You are preaching religion, not science. (Not to mention, the actual data has already ruled out your solar variation theory, see here (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL101501320070710) for example.)
I am skeptical of your hypothesis, and that makes me preaching a religion. Your link shows nothing. What was the experiment, what was the study? What is the data? Where are the numbers, where were they taken?

You are no different than the pope, who says that condoms increase HIV risk. I guess you could call him a dubious skeptic too. But he's no scientist.
I don't see at all what you mean?

What is not data? I don't know what you are talking about.da⋅ta /ˈdeɪtə, ˈdætə, ˈdɑtə/

–noun
1. a pl. of datum.
2. (used with a plural verb) individual facts, statistics, or items of information: These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered by terminal for immediate processing by the computer.
3. (used with a singular verb) a body of facts; information: Additional data is available from the president of the firm.

Where are the facts that support your opinion? (By "facts" here I mean the regular definition, i.e., objective evidence, not your warped definition.)

The facts that support the IPCC's collective opinion are cited in the extensive endnotes following each chapter. I've mentioned a number of them to you already.

You haven't shown me one fact so far that supports your opinion, that human activity is not and cannot have an effect on global temperature.

Preaching an opinion without supporting evidence (or, in your case, without supporting evidence, and in spite of a lot of contrary evidence) is religion, not science.

It's even sadder that you're preaching against a theory you don't fully understand and don't care to educate yourself about. Maybe you should actually read the IPCC report, and its supporting evidence, instead of making up your own straw man opinions and evidence to shoot down.Your link shows nothing. What was the experiment, what was the study? What is the data? Where are the numbers, where were they taken?http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

The references are all (or mostly) linked for you in the study.I don't see at all what you mean?What is, conceptually, the difference between your position on global warming, and the pope's position on condoms and HIV?

You are both speculating.

You both have no data to support your opinion.

You are both arguing against a competing opinion which is backed by a lot of supporting data.

You could describe the pope as a doubter and skeptic too, but that doesn't change the fact that he's wrong. Just as you are wrong, unless you can prove otherwise.

I stated that there was no data, not enough data.
Are you being obtuse on purpose.

You post links to conclusions as your data.
What so and so says is data for you, I am left to assume.

Ultimately your agenda is to decrease the amount of fossil fuel being burned. I get it. But by the time there is enough data, or that your Chicken Little prophesy either comes true or does not come true, the oil will have already been sucked dry. But that does not stop you from using this silly hypothesis as your argument, rationalization, and justification.

Regarding that last part of your post...
I refuse to try and make my mind work around your twisted convoluted analogy about the pope. It is completely disconnected and absurd. You are like the Dalai Lama, you want to enthrone yourself back in Tibet, as a living god, to enslave the peasant Tibetans, with out any proof of your divinity, and you got a bunch of people on your side trying to help you out. That is what your argument is like.

I don't believe that the Utah folks actually made cold fusion, do you?
I did not believe it when they announced it either. Did you?
Being skeptical of what so called smart people say is true is part of the Scientific Method, and has nothing to do with the pope or the Dalai Lama either.


30 years worth of temperature data is NOT enough data to be predicting century long cycles of temperatures.
Even data from the 1850s shows that there are 20 and 40 year cycles in cyclone level storms in the Atlantic.
There is still a very large base of skiable snow up a Kirkwood, right now. And Kirkwood does not make snow. It is April 16th. With 10 feet of base still. I started skiing in the 70s, when your scientists started collecting temperature data, and skiing at Kirkwood, at that time, this late was unheard of.

Your supporting data is insufficient to prove that any changes now are not natural.
You have NO data linking a causal relationship between climate and humans.
Insufficient time of collection to make the predictions which are being made.
The models used are completely flawed.
So many variables are left in your data, that it has to be counted as unreliable, ex; official temperatures for the last 30 years have been taken at airports. Airports are warmer now than 30 years ago, but that does not mean that the Earth is.
Your ice core data is completely unreliable to make the predictions that are being made with them. Absolutely not accurate enough for what is being stated with it.

I don't need any DATA to make these claims, they are self evident.

Page 4 of your link.
The Earth’s surface air temperature (figure 1e) does not respond to the solar cycle.
Your British scientists who you are using...Measured sun spots since 1975, and plotted them against their temperature data collected since 1975.

That is their experiment essentially, correct?

And you believe that the number of sun spots, on the sun, is a measurement of the solar radiation hitting the Earth, Correct?

your Chicken Little prophesyThe only Chicken Little prophesy is the straw man argument you invented.30 years worth of temperature data is NOT enough data to be predicting century long cycles of temperatures.We have as primary sources:

a) 150 years of direct temperature measurements
b) data from ice cores at multiple sites, with some recent ones going back 800,000 years
c) data from the sedimentary record, going back about 200 million years

Of course it's easier to invent straw man data of your own to shoot down ("30 years worth" and the particularly retarded "taken at airports") than to confront the actual data. But you are wrong. So is the doubting, skeptical pope.There is still a very large base of skiable snow up a Kirkwood, right now.You sound like Pat Robertson, who suddenly believed in global warming (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/04/national/main1864868.shtml) after a heat wave in 2006.

Global warming is a small effect. Less than 0.1 C per year, globally. Weather variations from year to year, and from location to location, are far greater and make it impossible for you to visually see the effect on a yearly time scale. You have to measure it over many years, and luckily we have.Your supporting data is insufficient to prove that any changes now are not natural.We are part of Nature, so of course it's natural. The question is what part of Nature is causing it.

I/we are saying it's largely human activity.

You are saying it's solar activity, or whatever your theory-of-the-week is.

Your theory is not the default, and you do not get a free pass over the Scientific Method. You have to prove it just like I have to prove mine.

Can you?I don't need any DATA to make these claims, they are self evident.That is the basis of all religion.

What are you going to call yours?

Page 4 of your link.

Your British scientists who you are using...Measured sun spots since 1975, and plotted them against their temperature data collected since 1975.

That is their experiment essentially, correct?If you had bothered to read more than half a sentence, you would've seen that they also look at "the open solar flux FS (figure 1b), derived from the observed radial component of the interplanetary magnetic field (Lockwood et al. 1999); the counts C of neutrons generated by cosmic rays incident on the Earth’s atmosphere, as observed at Climax (figure 1c); and the TSI (figure 1d)."

But that's part of your problem, you don't know what the data really is, and you don't even want to know. It's far easier to make up your own data and shoot it down, to support your libertarian agenda.

You sound like Pat Robertson, who suddenly believed in global warming (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/04/national/main1864868.shtml) after a heat wave in 2006.

Global warming is a small effect. Less than 0.1 C per year, globally. Weather variations from year to year, and from location to location, are far greater and make it impossible for you to visually see the effect on a yearly time scale.

Funny thing is, short term temperature trends do have a large impact on how people view the problems.

The first big push to use global warming as a political tool was in the early 1980s by Thatcher's government (she was using it as an excuse to bust the coal unions.) But the issue didn't pick up much steam partly because temperatures were flat for the past 40 years. As temperatures rose in the late 80s and early 90s, the issue became a bit more important in the scientific community but still didn't gain much political ground. It wasn't until the major temperature rises of the late 90s that the issue transformed into what it is today. It wasn't until Al Gore blamed Hurricane Katrina on global warming (even though science doesn't agree with him) that the issue really picked up political momentum.

Had we not gone into an abnormally high temperature spike in the late 90s and early 2000s, I doubt the issue would be what it is today.

Funny thing is, short term temperature trends do have a large impact on how people view the problems.


And thats why the problem persists. Americans can't think past tomorrow. Glad you relize that the problem is perception and not reality.

The first big push to use global warming as a political tool was in the early 1980s by Thatcher's government (she was using it as an excuse to bust the coal unions.) But the issue didn't pick up much steam partly because temperatures were flat for the past 40 years. As temperatures rose in the late 80s and early 90s, the issue became a bit more important in the scientific community but still didn't gain much political ground. It wasn't until the major temperature rises of the late 90s that the issue transformed into what it is today. It wasn't until Al Gore blamed Hurricane Katrina on global warming (even though science doesn't agree with him) that the issue really picked up political momentum.


Again, history repeats itself. When a problem is observed. It usually takes a few decades for people to catch on. Americans can be "slow" some times. Slavery, National Banks, Taxes, and Schooling are just a few examples of things Americans said where useless (School, National Bank), not needed (Taxes, National Banks), or was divine right (Slavery). Some states caught on before others and the US had to fight a civil war before slavery ended. Too bad slavery had ended in almost every other Europeon country by time we figured it out in 1865!

So just cause the topic is recently new, doesn't mean it wasn't valid in 1980. Americans have a history of riding the short bus to progression and enlightenment.

Had we not gone into an abnormally high temperature spike in the late 90s and early 2000s, I doubt the issue would be what it is today.

Well, we've been seeing abnormally high temperatures longer than the 1990's. Look at the graph again that was so kindly provided for you. You will see that the extreme temperatures began before 1990. Just because they didn't happen in the US before 1990 doesn't mean they didn't exist. Thats why its called GLOBAL WARMING and not US warming. And the US has been experiencing "abnorally" high temperatures about the same time the WORLD was experiencing "abnormally" high temperatures. The problem with using the word "abnormally" is that abonormal refrences something that is temperary. 15 Decades isn't abnormal, its a pattern. Its something you can be used for perdictions.

If you had bothered to read more than half a sentence, you would've seen that they also look at "the open solar flux FS (figure 1b), derived from the observed radial component of the interplanetary magnetic field (Lockwood et al. 1999); the counts C of neutrons generated by cosmic rays incident on the Earth’s atmosphere, as observed at Climax (figure 1c); and the TSI (figure 1d)."

But that's part of your problem, you don't know what the data really is, and you don't even want to know. It's far easier to make up your own data and shoot it down, to support your libertarian agenda.

If you are gonna 'measure' the output of the Sun, then measure the output of the Sun.

Don't tell me that because you measured some tertiary rubric, that that is your data and proof of output of radiation hitting the Earth.

I am not making up any data, that is what you are doing. I have clearly and repeatedly stated that there is no date, or not enough data. Are you retarded? It is your side which is making up data to support their flawed hypotheses and models to prove their pre configured and pre constructed conclusions. That is not science.

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DATA!

Can you read and understand that?

Funny thing is, short term temperature trends do have a large impact on how people view the problems.

The first big push to use global warming as a political tool was in the early 1980s by Thatcher's government (she was using it as an excuse to bust the coal unions.) But the issue didn't pick up much steam partly because temperatures were flat for the past 40 years. ... I doubt the issue would be what it is today.
Actually, IIRC, the notion of global warming was first pushed(popularized) very hard by Carl Sagan. Based in part on his Nuclear Winter models. And especially on the/his Venus model.

Well, we've been seeing abnormally high temperatures longer than the 1990's. Look at the graph again that was so kindly provided for you. You will see that the extreme temperatures began before 1990. Just because they didn't happen in the US before 1990 doesn't mean they didn't exist. Thats why its called GLOBAL WARMING and not US warming. And the US has been experiencing "abnorally" high temperatures about the same time the WORLD was experiencing "abnormally" high temperatures. The problem with using the word "abnormally" is that abonormal refrences something that is temperary. 15 Decades isn't abnormal, its a pattern. Its something you can be used for perdictions.

How do you know it is abnormal?

There are many cycles in climate in temperature. El Nino is a irregular cycle several years long. El Nino.

The 20 and 40 year cycles of Atlantic storms and hurricanes.

Those are short cycles. How do we know there are not longer hundred, 3 hundred, 1000 year cycles that are doing exactly what is happening now?

Egypt was a lush green paradise 3000 years ago. Baghdad was a lush garden 4000 years ago. Why are they not now? The climate has changed, and changed naturally without human intervention. What caused those fluctuations in climate?

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DATA!
Can you read and understand that?And therefore, what?

We should sit back and accept your theory, which has no data in support?

Yes, it would be nice if we had 1,000 other identical Earths we could experiment on, giving each of them a slightly different greenhouse gas concentration, keeping all other variables exactly the same, then waiting 100 years to see what happens. Then we would know for sure.

But that isn't going to happen. Science is about making inferences and deductions based on the available data. Otherwise we wouldn't need scientists, just data collectors.

You pump people full of drugs all day based on inferences and deductions by scientists, who pump rats with drugs all day, use fallible computer models, and make educated guesses. That's because it isn't practical or ethical to gather up 1,000 humans to test the LD50 of each new experimental drug.

The conclusions in the IPCC report are currently the best explanation of what's happening. You certainly haven't come up with a better one, that's supported by more convincing data. (Divinely inspired explanations don't count, by the way.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html?ref=earth

E.P.A. to Clear the Way for Regulation of Warming Gases

How do we know there are not longer hundred, 3 hundred, 1000 year cycles that are doing exactly what is happening now?Because we have a temperature record spanning 200 million years?Egypt was a lush green paradise 3000 years ago. Baghdad was a lush garden 4000 years ago. Why are they not now? The climate has changed, and changed naturally without human intervention. What caused those fluctuations in climate?Human intervention has been altering the environment for at least 10,000 years -- especially in those regions where agriculture first took hold, such as the (formerly) Fertile Crescent.

Deforestation, salination, soil erosion, and so on, are the direct result of human activity and have helped turned once lush regions into barren wastelands. (If you want a small-scale but textbook example, look at Rapa Nui a.k.a. Easter Island.)

And no divine "natural forces" of yours were necessary. Just humans doing stupid, short-sighted things. (Sound familiar?)

You really should educate yourself before spouting further baseless opinions. The actual data is a lot different than the data you're inventing, and once you learn it I think you'll be forced to dismiss your former opinions.

And therefore, what? Making predictions and changes of behavior on flawed, insufficient, or inaccurate data is idiotic.

Roll a pair of dice three times.
It comes up with 3,4 and 2,5, and 6,1.
And you make a prediction that your dice will always roll a 7.

Now you come along, looking at your 3 rolled 7s, and call me religious and whatnot because I am waiting for more rolls.

Because you believe that the world will end when the dice roll up 3 more 7s. And call me a fool because I am content to see what the next three rolls will be, and content with watching the end of the world as you know it, because you know that the next 3 rolls will be 7s.

Idiotic FUD.

You don't think it is really hotter now in Iraq and Egypt right now(or 200 years ago) than it was 4000 years ago?

Are you are saying that human beings turned the Middle East and Northern Africa to the desert it is today?

Making predictions and changes of behavior on flawed, insufficient, or inaccurate data is idiotic.Then every scientific field, including medicine, is idiotic, because all data is flawed and inaccurate in some way, and there is never sufficient data to prove anything with total certainty.

Let's abolish science then, and live according to your bible, which has truths that are self-evident and therefore require no data.

And you still don't see the connection between you and the pope? On this issue, you're the same.Roll a pair of dice three times.
It comes up with 3,4 and 2,5, and 6,1.
And you make a prediction that your dice will always roll a 7.

Now you come along, looking at your 3 rolled 7s, and call me religious and whatnot because I am waiting for more rolls.The IPCC report is not based on three data points. Moreover, with a system the scale of the Earth you do not get infinite practice rolls.

Your analogy is stupid.

If you want analogies, a slightly less stupid one would be Russian Roulette. You'd probably play it until your brains are splattered against the wall, because there just isn't enough evidence that the next pull of the trigger will do it.Because you believe that the world will endWhere do you come up with this garbage?

No credible scientist is predicting the end of the world.

Stop making up nonsense and look at the actual data.

[stuff]
You didn't read what I said. I said an abnormally high temperature 'spike,' not merely abnormally high temperatures. In particular, I was talking about 1998.

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/satellite-temperatures.jpg

You don't think it is really hotter now in Iraq and Egypt right now(or 200 years ago) than it was 4000 years ago?No, at least not as a result of factors not directly related to desertification (i.e., solar radiation).

Desertification does not require an increase in temperature.Are you are saying that human beings turned the Middle East and Northern Africa to the desert it is today?Now you're learning. I don't have time to give you a complete education, but here's a quick link on Iraq to give you the gist of it:

http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Earth-Science-Vol-3/Soil-Conservation.htmlTHE EXAMPLE OF IRAQ

The arid regions of Iraq provide another example of how human influences can result in desertification. Once that country, known in ancient times as Mesopotamia, was among the greenest and most lush places in the known world. For this reason, historians today use the name Fertile Crescent to describe an arc from the deltas of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia to the mouth of the Nile in Egypt. Today, of course, Iraq is mostly a dust-colored land of bare trees and brush.

What happened? Agricultural mismanagement certainly played a role, as did the simple exhaustion of the soil by some 6,000 years of human civilization. Indeed, since the Fertile Crescent was perhaps the first area settled by agricultural societies long before the beginning of full-fledged civilization as such in about 3500 B.C., it is safe to say that the region has been under cultivation for several thousand years longer—perhaps 8,000 or even 10,000 years. Direct human action and malice also may have played a role: some historians believe that the Mongols, during their brutal invasion in the 1250s, so badly devastated the farmlands and irrigation channels of Iraq that the land never recovered.There is a lot of other information out there on the topics of desertification and soil conservation.

For North Africa, look at sources on Roman history. That region was their main source of grain, and they overharvested it, eventually destroying the soil and the surrounding environment.

The same pattern has been repeated in many other civilizations, usually followed by their swift collapse. (I recommend you read Collapse, which touches on many of these topics.)

China is suffering this desertification problem at this very moment, in its fertile southwest region, and it is a result of human activity, which the Chinese government is now desperately trying to reverse.

Suffice it to say that humans have been an ecologically destructive force long before they invented the internal combustion engine. The main difference is that today, our technology allows us to do it a hell of a lot faster, and with far greater destructive force.

[Edit] Just to be clear, I don't mean to suggest that humans weren't environmentally destructive before agriculture. They were, and there's good evidence they were responsible for mass megafauna extinctions on at least two continents. It's just that agriculture helped speed things along considerably.

Yes, finally, I have learned something.

I learned that someone actually believes that stone, bronze, and iron age humans had the ability to change the climate of North Africa and the Middle East from a temperate and mediterranean to saharan.

No wonder you and I have no common ground on this topic.

Imagine, pseudo-prehistoric men were able to change the climate and weather of the planet...and all without spending a single clam shell on the endeavor.

I learned that someone actually believes that stone, bronze, and iron age humans had the ability to change the climate of North Africa and the Middle East from a temperate and mediterranean to saharan.There's no shame in ignorance; only willful ignorance.

You should be ashamed.

Human-caused desertification is a fact. It is happening right now, especially in China. It has happened in the past, many times, and is well documented historically. It requires NO advanced technology and can transform the environment dramatically.

No wonder your opinions are so warped; you live in your own little world of made up straw man facts and bury your head in the sand, refusing to accept reality. You accuse the IPCC scientists of manipulating facts to fit the theory, when you're the one who's really guilty of that crime.

Hypocrisy is another common characteristic of religious leaders. Congratulations, you ARE the pope (of your own religion).

Two recent polls:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/energy_updateJust one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity,http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspxOn the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution,"Interesting parallel, don't you think? No wonder Americans are the laughing stock of the world scientific community.

Oh and Fyyr, you better hurry and flip flop on your opinion. You're actually in the (nutjob Christian) majority!

Tuda,

Your average American doesn't have the time nor the desire to read IPCC reports. I'd be more mad at at my countrymen if more believed in anthropogenic global warming, because the only side of the issue they hear is the alarmist version of global warming presented in the popular media, which has little basis in reality or science. Anyone who watches "An Inconvenient Truth" or news specials like "Planet In Peril" and doesn't think most of it is BS is a gullible dope.

Since the only side of the story people hear is the radical alarmist side, it's quite easy for average people to think the only alternative is global warming deniers. It's the enviromentalists who shot themselves in the foot on this one, my friend.

Oh and Fyyr, you better hurry and flip flop on your opinion. You're actually in the (nutjob Christian) majority!

Unlike you I don't believe or not believe something to fit into some group, or not fit into some group.

Believe it or not, most of the groups I belong to consist of one person, and have never had a problem with that.

I don't gain ANY satisfaction by how many or how few lemmings or sheep are standing next to me.

You and I are very very different people that way.

I think you're giving the average American WAY too much credit.

They don't believe it because they are brainwashed by either a) their Christian leaders, who for some reason I still can't fathom have declared a crusade against this issue, or b) oil companies, who have been saturating the media with FUD for years.

It's the same with evolution, except there the Christians are to blame completely.

Either way, the average American is a scientific doofus.

They don't believe it because they are brainwashed by either a) their Christian leaders, who for some reason I still can't fathom have declared a crusade against this issue, or b) oil companies, who have been saturating the media with FUD for years.

Way to give a one sided view of the situation. You should add in carbon credit hedge fund profiteers (Al Gore and his Goldman Sachs buddies), the utility companies (the first major corporation to lobby for C02 cap and trade was Enron, hint, think about how utility regulation can increase profits for utilities), the solar/wind companies, the farm lobbies (hi ethanol), and steel unions (225 TONS of steel per wind turbine, buy America provisions, etc.)

Way to give a one sided view of the situation.Because it IS one-sided.

Do you know what company just replaced Wal-Mart for the #1 spot in the Fortune 500 listing?

Any comparison in media-bribing power between the oil companies and the other players you mentioned is simply ridiculous.

Yeah, some mom & pop solar installer outfit is really going to take their $10 billion quarterly profit and spread some FUD of their own, when they're struggling just to survive in this economy. :rolleyes:

Last time I checked, General Electric wasn't exactly a small corporation, and was a corporation with far more political and media influence than ExxonMobil.

Last time I checked, General Electric wasn't exactly a small corporation, and was a corporation with far more political and media influence than ExxonMobil.But global warming-related business only accounts for a tiny percentage of their revenue. And even then it's a mixed blessing for manufacturers, utilities, and so on, since they'll have to deal with much higher energy costs, smaller market share for many products, etc.

Oil companies sell oil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html?ref=earth

E.P.A. to Clear the Way for Regulation of Warming Gases They can start by regulating fat people:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8004257.stm1970s lifestyle protects planet

Getting back to the relatively slim, trim days of the 1970s would help to tackle climate change, researchers say. The rising numbers of people who are overweight and obese in the UK means the nation uses 19% more food energy than 40 years ago, a study suggests. That could equate to an extra 60 mega tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year, the team calculated. Transport costs of a fatter population were also included in the International Journal of Epidemiology study.

Dr Phil Edwards, study leader and researcher at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said they had set out to calculate what the UK energy consumption would be if the weight of the population was put back a few decades. A "normal" adult population, where only 3.5% are classed as obese, was compared with a population where 40% are obese. These populations reflect the proportions of overweight and obese people living in the UK in the 1970s - and what is predicted for the UK in 2010, the researchers said.

In addition to calculating the increased food energy costs of the heavier population, the team worked out how much additional fuel would be needed for transportation of modern-day UK compared with the 1970s version. Greenhouse gas emissions from food production and car travel in the fatter population would be between 0.4 to 1 giga tonnes higher per 1bn people, they estimated.

"Staying slim is good for health and for the environment." "We need to be doing a lot more to reverse the global trend towards fatness, and recognise it as a key factor in the battle to reduce emissions and slow climate change."

Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, president of the Faculty of Public Health said shifting the population weight distribution back to that of the 1970s would do quite a lot to help the planet. "In the 1970s we had bigger portions of vegetables and smaller portions of meat and there's been a shift in the amount of exercise we do." "All these things are combining to hurt the planet and this is a calculation that deserves a bit more attention," he said.Fat people do a lot more damage than just running up huge medical bills (and sticking us with them).

Either way, the average American is a scientific doofus.
You have proven yourself, in this thread, so well, as being an average American.


But don't take that as a slight.
As the average, or mean. Half of Americans are dumber than you.

Please walk away with that as a compliment.

I tend to interpret ad hominem attacks as signs of reluctant capitulation.

Absolutely, I have given up.

I give.
You win.
Uncle.

Honestly, now that I know what you believe, I am really in awe that you even took the time to argue with me on the topic. You must think of me as a complete idiot and moron.

Absolutely, if Iron Age man had the ability to change the climate, then de facto, with real certainty, Automobile Age man most assuredly IS changing the climate right now. Someone would not even need any proof to make the argument, it would be KNOWN. Um, like, DUH!

I don't know why you even wasted your time with me.

Someone would not even need any proof to make the argument, it would be KNOWN. Um, like, DUH!You're describing your arguments, not mine.

You have still provided zero proof to back up your statements. They're all divinely inspired, not to mention many of them are disproven by the evidence.

Mine are well-supported, and I've linked a lot of evidence, many, many times for you.

It's sad that you don't understand that humans can alter environments without advanced technology, when that very thing has happened many times in the past and is happening right now, in front of our eyes.

But it's downright disturbing that you don't even want to understand, and cling to your religion instead.

Enjoy your willful ignorance. Luckily the rest of us can act, and force you to pay your share.I don't know why you even wasted your time with me.Because I thought that deep down in that ridiculous position of yours, there was an intelligent argument buried.

Now I know, you're just a closet Christian (at least on this issue).

At least I learned something.

You have proven yourself, in this thread, so well, as being an average American.


But don't take that as a slight.
As the average, or mean. Half of Americans are dumber than you.

Please walk away with that as a compliment.

:gratz01: Fyyr, he was talking abou you. Although I would call you less than average on intelligence atm. You couldn't even grasp the concept of desertification. You my friend should of kept you mouth closed. But as he linked for amusement he showed how the average american doesn't believe is things that are REALLY happening and you fall in this category. So yes, your average, but not in a good way.

I don't know why you even wasted your time with me.

Because he wanted to help educate you. Your never to old to learn. But, in order to learn you must be willing to "want to." This is where he failed. He thought you were willing to learn when in fact you just wanted to blow steam up everyones <bleep>. The sad fact is people are going to read this and think its ok to ignore fact and continue blindly like lemmings. You have become a "leader" of sorts. The kind that isn't good for any nation. You have become the "Rush" of this topic. Can't support crap with your claims but willing to have everyone pay the consequences for your ignorance.

Fyyr, he was talking abou you. Although I would call you less than average on intelligence atm. You couldn't even grasp the concept of desertification. You my friend should of kept you mouth closed. But as he linked for amusement he showed how the average american doesn't believe is things that are REALLY happening and you fall in this category. So yes, your average, but not in a good way.

So, you too believe that Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age man with a population less than a million(give or take a million) changed the climate of Northern Africa and the Middle East?

We are not just talking about not rotating crops, or pulling all of the nitrates out of the soil. The climate changed.

You honestly believe that pseudo-prehistoric humans caused that?

So, you too believe that Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age man with a population less than a million(give or take a million) changed the climate of Northern Africa and the Middle East?Learn the difference between global warming and desertification.

Yes, a million humans can easily, over time, deforest continents, burn vegetation, ruin the soil, and cause deserts to expand. It has happened countless times in the past, often causing civilizations to collapse, and is still happening right now. The only technology necessary is primitive agricultural tools, and the optional technology of fire.

Also, by the time the raping of the Fertile Crescent was in full swing, there were almost ten million humans. By the time of the Romans' raping of North Africa, there were around 200 million. Plenty of people who did plenty of damage.

There is also a plausible argument that ancient humans might have had a small effect on global warming through their activities (see this article (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/met102/docs/Ruddiman_article.pdf), for example), but that is NOT what we're talking about.The climate changed.You mean the environment changed.

Unless you have proof that the amount of solar radiation changed, and you're holding back on us. Or maybe you went back in a time machine with your thermometer and measured?

I am done discussing the topic with you, Tudamorf.

I was addressing this new poster, and if he agreed with you that humans changed the climate of Northern Africa and the Middle East.


But,
If you want to change what you said, then by all means come out and say it.
Is the climate different now, or not?

By the time of the Romans' raping of North Africa, there were around 200 million.



This just intuitively seems hugely inaccurate.

200 years ago the whole planet had 1 billion people, that's 1000 million. Just simple regression, puts it at a 6th of that 200 years earlier, 6th of that 200 prior to that, etc.

You are saying that 2000-4000 years ago that Northern Africa and the Middle East alone had a population of 1/5th of the worlds population in 1800.

Hugely implausible and inaccurate.

But,
If you want to change what you said, then by all means come out and say it.
Is the climate different now, or not?I don't want to play word games, so I'll spell it out for you.

Humans have had a big hand in turning what were once lush fertile regions into barren deserts. That is a fact, observable through archaeological records, documented by the history of literate cultures, and observable by your own eyes today.

Desertification and global warming are also not the same thing. Even though global warming can accelerate desertification, there need not be any global warming for desertification to happen, and causing desertification is not the same as causing global warming.

Perhaps if you took a moment to educate yourself regarding these differences, you wouldn't make comments that sound so stupid.

This just intuitively seems hugely inaccurate.

200 years ago the whole planet had 1 billion people, that's 1000 million. Just simple regression, puts it at a 6th of that 200 years earlier, 6th of that 200 prior to that, etc.If the population increased by a factor of six every 200 years, and if there were 1 billion people in 1800, then 2400 years prior there would have been 0.46 people.

If 600 B.C.E. is going to be the date of Creation in your bible, you're going to have a huge problem explaining away a lot of recorded history. Including actual ancient census figures that contradict your claim.

Try again, Fyyr.

Or you can just look here (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html) for the real numbers.You are saying that 2000-4000 years ago that Northern Africa and the Middle East alone had a population of 1/5th of the worlds population in 1800.

Hugely implausible and inaccurate.I am talking about the WORLD population, not the population of a specific region.

The Romans weren't the only ones raping the environment, you know. (Or maybe you don't know.)

If the population increased by a factor of six every 200 years, and if there were 1 billion people in 1800, then 2400 years prior there would have been 0.46 people.
I said simple regression. We could do all kinds of math to get another inaccurate number. 200 Million people in Egypt and Babylonia 2000 to 4000 years ago, is just completely improbably and unbelievable. Regardless of whose math we use.

Obstetrics was not even invented until 200 years ago. Maternal death rates in childhood were huge percentage wise. Consequently, infant deaths were huge, just from that. Not including any antibiotics. While that definitely skews my simple math, it only supports the basic premise that there were very few humans respectively living in Egypt and Babylonian region when they were fertile gardens, akin to California in climate.

If 600 B.C.E. is going to be the date of Creation in your bible, you're going to have a huge problem explaining away a lot of recorded history. Including actual ancient census figures that contradict your claim.
Humans have been human for about 200K years or so. What are you talking about. Dogs have been dogs for 60K.

Or you can just look here (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html) for the real numbers.I am talking about the WORLD population, not the population of a specific region.
You said your Fertile Crescent region. Not world.

Ill give you 50 Mil 4000 years ago, world wide. Ill give you 200 mil world wide 2000 years ago, just for discussion. Those seem plausible to me. 200 mil in Northern Africa and Iraq,,,,not plausible.

For Example; Numbers 31, just out of Exodus. The entire Hebrew race put together an army of 12,000 men, out of 12 nations. Just some extrapolation, the entire Jewish population had to be less than 120K people, at the time.

The Romans weren't the only ones raping the environment, you know. (Or maybe you don't know.)
Rome was a city state at this time, tell me, what did they do to change the weather?

Even at its biggest size, it was smaller than Sacramento. Counting the suburbs(for both).

You are saying that a city state the size of Sacramento changed the climate of the entire region of Northern Africa and the Middle East.

While we know that at the same time that from 20K to 5K BCE that Asians were moving into America from the Bering Ice Bridge, from Russia, into North America, Central America, and South America. "I can see Russia and Alaska from my where I stand".

That Ice Bridge is gone now. I suppose you think your Roman Centurions, Pharaohs, and Babylonian farmers had something to do with that. Bad farming in Iraq caused the Bering Ice Bridge to melt....I gotcha. Check. Roger, OK.

High infant mortality simply leads to larger families, and contributes to overpopulation. If you want to be reasonably certain that your family will have at least n children survive to maturity, then the greater the odds are of an individual child surviving, the fewer children are needed to meet the desired certainty. This is likely one of the reasons overpopulation is not an issue in most industrialized nations.

I wouldn't take a Bible verse concerning quantities as a reliable source. Or do you believe people like Noah literally lived for over 900 years?

In any case, extrapolation must always be done with care.

Natural childbirth without today's medical healthcare is very risky.
I was not talking about child mortality, I stated maternal mortality.

A very large percentage of the mothers you know today would be dead without today's healthcare just from (attempting) giving birth.

One has to realize that mothers having 13 children is completely 'unnatural' in a evolutionary sense.

One has to realize that the whole field of Obstetrics was invented to get dead (or large) babies out of living women to keep them from dying. This field of medicine is only 200 years old.

Ask your female friends if you doubt me. How many of them know women who have had necessary C Sections because of placenta previa, or abruptia. Or breech births. Those are almost always fatal to the mother without medical treatment.

In this respect the Bible is true, the curse of Eve. For women before the advent of medicine, this curse was fatal. For us today, we only think of it as childbirth pain. That is short of the reality.

One has to realize that mothers having 13 children is completely 'unnatural' in a evolutionary sense.
There are animals that regularly give birth to litters of this size. Is that "unnatural" too?

There are animals that regularly give birth to litters of this size. Is that "unnatural" too?
What?

You did not say that, right?


Did YOUR mother drop you on your head when you were a baby?

You said your Fertile Crescent region. Not world.No, I didn't. I said there were 200 million humans, without qualification as to where. Scroll back and see for yourself. Not that that number really matters anyway.

Your pedantic word games just drive home the basic point: you have no clue as to what you're talking about, no intelligent argument, and certainly no data.

When you acquire at least one of three, post.Rome was a city state at this time, tell me, what did they do to change the weather?

Even at its biggest size, it was smaller than Sacramento. Counting the suburbs(for both).At its height, the Roman Empire spanned all of Western Europe and countries surrounding the Mediterranean (including some of their inland neighbors), and contained over 50 million people. It was more akin to the United States of America than to Sacramento.

And all those people required a lot of farmland to feed them (hence, North Africa), and lots of trees to provide fuel and timber (hence, one reason Europe's forests, which formerly covered the continent, are now gone).

Yes, I am saying deforesting and destroying soil on a continental scale affects the environment. Even the Romans knew that, but they kept on doing it. They must've had ignorant Fyyrs in charge, but then again we're not typing this in Latin, are we?While we know that at the same time that from 20K to 5K BCE that Asians were moving into America from the Bering Ice Bridge, from Russia, into North America, Central America, and South America. "I can see Russia and Alaska from my where I stand".

That Ice Bridge is gone now. I suppose you think your Roman Centurions, Pharaohs, and Babylonian farmers had something to do with that. Bad farming in Iraq caused the Bering Ice Bridge to melt....I gotcha. Check. Roger, OK.What a retarded comment.

The ice age ended millennia before the Roman, Egyptian, or Babylonian civilizations arose. Its ending was the eventual reason they arose.

And what the hell does a land bridge or ice bridge on the other side of the world have to do with desertification in the Fertile Crescent? Haven't you yet learned that desertification isn't the same as global warming?

What?

You did not say that, right?


Did YOUR mother drop you on your head when you were a baby?
You don't want to participate in a civil intellectual discussion? Fine.

You don't want to participate in a civil intellectual discussion? Fine.
Why break with tradition? :xblueman:

I think this is a pretty good example of the level of scientific understanding of the issue that many of the dissenters possess:

Are you smarter than a Nobel Prize winner? (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/04/23/barton_chu/index.html)

I think this is a pretty good example of the level of scientific understanding of the issue that many of the dissenters possess:Oh well, at least he's less embarrassing than Ted Stevens was.

Yeah, those republicans look almost as dumb as Al Gore citing weather events as 'proof' of out of control global warming, predicting ~60ft of sea level rise, and saying that major ice melting in East Antarctica is likely.

Right. Perhaps you guys should stop listening to politicians -on either side of the issue- if you want to hear smart debate.

I am done discussing the topic with you, Tudamorf.

I was addressing this new poster, and if he agreed with you that humans changed the climate of Northern Africa and the Middle East.


And have you read your History lesson yet. Agriculture started around 10,000 BC, well a primitive form of agriculture did. Irrigation was discovered around this time also. As far as the amount of humans. As ancient cities sprang up, so did the human population. Desease and War were the only things keeping this in check and even then populations increased. This also doesn't include those who were still in the Hunter/Gatherer stages of evolution as we have no real way of counting them.

Lets take the history lesson even further. We'll add geography for you. Ever seen what the techtonic plates (sp?) do? Ever seen what Valcano's do? How about Salt water on soil? Current history lesson... Look up the Russian Damm thats destroyed a whole city and is now a desert waist land. That was caused by damming. A whole dessert was creating by damming. I repeat, I WHOLE DESSERT WAS CREATED BY DAMMING and that's within a generation. Imagine what people can do over a few hundred years!

So when you ask silly question like, do I believe humans can be idiots and cause environmental changes. Well crap, I have to cause we have seen it in my(our) generation. And we know they had simple irrigation techniques way back when.

Now back to Volcano's and Tectonic Plates. You do relise they've moved in the last 10,000 years? You do know when they move they change ocean currents. You do relize ocean currents effect weather? Volcanoe's destroy land and make sould acidicy, preventing growth and well, if your from the stone age, you really don't know yet how to fix it. Ever seen how many Techtonic plates and Volcanoe's are in the region?

Last history question...In the 30's in the US there was thing called the Dust Bowl (look it up, it really happened). What do you think happened? And do you know what one of the things that prolonged it was? Like #3 or #4 reason. No plant life on the ground to cause evaporation to cause Rain. So can humans screw the world up I ask you?

Again, once you goto school to learn, you'll understand the falicy of your thinking. But that means you must be open to learning.

Final note: Global Warming and Environmental Changes are different subjects like its been pointed out to you. But if you can't believe that humans can effect Environmental change, you can't believe we have also caused Global Warming (well a sharper increase than normal). Environmental Change effects a region. But we also know that if you effect one environment you can effect another. And a domino effect occurs. This does relate to Global Warming. So please open your mind and not your mouth.