Anybody who worries about global warming

Jimkel

Should read this, all of it. and please don't make judgements unless you have read it all.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

A little about one of the authors:
"James A. Peden - better known as Jim or "Dad" - Webmaster of Middlebury Networks and Editor of the Middlebury Community Network, spent some of his earlier years as an Atmospheric Physicist at the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. As a student, he was elected to both the National Physics Honor Society and the National Mathematics Honor Fraternity, and was President of the Student Section of the American Institute of Physics. He was a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, and a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. His thesis on charge transfer reactions in the upper atmosphere was co-published in part in the prestigious Journal of Chemical Physics. The results obtained by himself and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh remain today as the gold standard in the AstroChemistry Database. He was a co-developer of the Modulated Beam Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, declared one of the "100 Most Significant Technical Developments of the Year" and displayed at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. "

Read it and worry no more (I have been looking for something this comprehensive since all this "greenhouse gas" malarki started, I remember my physics teacher in secondary school used to ramble on about how this is all "nonsense", and he explained why, and now I have found an article by a group of real scientists who can do the same for you, I have found various papers on the internet by independant scientists who all come to the same conclusion but nothing as complete as this, I think everybody should read it.

And if your still not convinced read this article here:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html



For those of you with absolutely no patience I give you a summary from the text

1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.

3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.

5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.

6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.

8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.

10. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat... particularly the North Slope oil fields.

11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science.

12. Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures.

13. Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland.

14. The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula.

15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.

16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.

17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.

18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.

19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.

20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.

Jimkel

And just incase anyone misreads my intent with this post I assure all of you that I am not a conspiracy theorist, I don't believe in the NWO, Illuminati, Reptoids, Chemtrails or any other such grandly dumb attempts to explain away mankinds woes. I do however believe in using sound emperical scientific method to achieve the truth and invite people to do the same.

atilladehun

Fossil Fuels are getting smaller, eventually they will run out and they are controlled by a tiny elite group of people. The control of energy is also one of the driving forces behind the current economic situation.

For those reasons alone we should be finding alternative that create a situation when energy is not a finite commodity. i.e. renewable sources of energy.

Pollution has a direct effect on human health - asthma and more I'm sure.

Recycling has a direct effect on our local environment. Dumps are a necessity but can't be put anywhere for nimby's.


You might be right, you might be wrong. Personally I shy away from these conversations as I do debate of religion and morality. To be honest I like to de Bono's six hats, one a day. Its fun you might enjoy it. decide to go with or believe one each day, keep notes and then look over it. In the end I came up with a few facts that I go by.

gerky

One of joys of the internet is that if you look hard enough you can find anything to back your views.
So you expect people to base or change their views on this site that isn't peer reviewed and it just so happens that this person isn't actually a climate scientist and he owns and runs the site himself.

It appears as if he just looked around the net and picked bits of information from here and there.

It also begs the question if he is such a genius and has a better understanding of the climate than thousands of actual climate scientists then why is he working as a web developer.

The vast majority of whats on that site is a crock or conveniently cherry picked and as I don't have the time or patience to go through it all and refute all the so called facts:rolleyes: I'll just do what you did and post a few links.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/#faqSect3
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

Jimkel

gerky wrote: »

One of joys of the internet is that if you look hard enough you can find anything to back your views.
So you expect people to base or change their views on this site that isn't peer reviewed and it just so happens that this person isn't actually a climate scientist and he owns and runs the site himself.

Climate science is a psuedoscience, He is a physicist and the article was not written by him, it was written by a group of pysicysts and was supported by signatures of 500 real scientists at a debate on climate change.

gerky wrote: »

It also begs the question if he is such a genius and has a better understanding of the climate than thousands of actual climate scientists then why is he working as a web developer.

he is not the genius behind this article he is the editor of the website who helped scientists publish it.

gerky wrote: »

The vast majority of whats on that site is a crock or conveniently cherry picked and as I don't have the time or patience to go through it all and refute all the so called facts:rolleyes: I'll just do what you did and post a few links.

I did not just post a few links, I offered my opinion, posted a summery and rambled on for quite a few lines,.

Unless you wish to have a valid empirical debate I suggest you Go troll somewhere else .:pac:

gerky

Jimkel wrote: »

Climate science is a psuedoscience, He is a physicist and the article was not written by him, it was written by a group of pysicysts and was supported by signatures of 500 real scientists at a debate on climate change.



he is not the genius behind this article he is the editor of the website who helped scientists publish it.



I did not just post a few links, I offered my opinion, posted a summery and rambled on for quite a few lines,.

Unless you wish to have a valid empirical debate I suggest you Go troll somewhere else .:pac:

Yep I signed up two years ago pay for a subscription to help run the site, posted over 800 times and all this just so I could troll your threads.

I really don't mind that we have different views on this or any topic, difference is what makes the world what it is but I choose to get my information from different sources than you and these sources don't normally include the type of site you base your views on, they normally include proper peer reviewed research.

djpbarry

Jimkel wrote: »

The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

Common knowledge.

Jimkel wrote: »

Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.

Cooling trend? What trend is this?

Jimkel wrote: »

CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

The fact that water vapour is a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect is again, common knowledge.

Jimkel wrote: »

Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change…

This theory has been well and truly debunked:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

Jimkel wrote: »

CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

This is very misleading; plants require far more than just CO2 to grow. If there are limiting levels of water or nutrients, then it doesn’t matter how much CO2 you provide – the plants will still not grow.

Jimkel wrote: »

CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets

Care to provide such a dataset?

Jimkel wrote: »

The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions.

Evidence?

Jimkel wrote: »

Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs

Not true:

“There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in 19 population groups around the Arctic. While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing.
…
The best-studied population, in Canada’s western Hudson Bay, fell by 22% from 1194 animals in 1987 to 935 in 2004, according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A second group in the Beaufort Sea, off Alaska’s north coast, is now experiencing the same pattern of reduced adult weights and cub survival as the Hudson Bay group.

A comprehensive review (pdf) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that shrinking sea ice is the primary cause for the decline seen in these populations, and it recently proposed listing polar bears as threatened (pdf) under the Endangered Species Act.”

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11656

Jimkel wrote: »

Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years…

But what about the global trend?

Jimkel wrote: »

Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century.

Would you trust a map from the 14th century when navigating the globe? I don’t think so.

Jimkel wrote: »

The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite…

Source?

“Contrary to what you might expect, the third IPPC report predicted that global warming would most likely lead to a thickening of the ice sheet over the next century, with increased snowfall compensating for any melting cause by warming.”

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648

Jimkel wrote: »

The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved.

Could you outline this “artefact”?

Jimkel wrote: »

Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.

Evidence?

Jimkel wrote: »

The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.

Absolute nonsense; I have already provided a link to an article that debunks the “solar warming” theory.

Jimkel wrote: »

Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.

Finally – an element of truth!

Jimkel wrote: »

Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.

This is getting ridiculous – I can’t believe I took the time to go through this post point-by-point…

Jimkel wrote: »

He is a physicist and the article was not written by him, it was written by a group of pysicysts and was supported by signatures of 500 real scientists at a debate on climate change.

Do you have that list of “scientists” handy?

Macha

Great post djpbarry, but it may be a case of bringing a horse to water..

ART6

Global warming is only a part of the story IMHO. It may indeed be a nonsense started by vested interests, or it may be caused by the sun or by aliens, or it may be an entirely natural phenomenon as historical and archeological data seems to suggest. However, the one fact remains that there are simply too many humans on this planet, and we are consuming too much of it's resources and polluting it's environment to an unsustainable level. We have to stop doing those last two things, and anything that leads to improving or protecting the environment has my vote. Think back. There was a time when people threw their rubbish and their sewage out into the street. Rivers were toxic, and the air in cities was often unbreathable. Enlightened people worked to correct that, and we should continue their efforts. If we don't, global warming will be the least of our problems.

Jimkel

DJ barry have you read the link? Explain one thing to me if your so clever, In the infamous "hockey stick" dataset of climate history which is the basis of this CO2 hype, where was the little ice age of 17th century? conveneintly forgotten? You asked for datasets, they are all provided in the links.

bonkey

Jimkel wrote: »

DJ barry have you read the link? Explain one thing to me if your so clever, In the infamous "hockey stick" dataset of climate history which is the basis of this CO2 hype, where was the little ice age of 17th century? conveneintly forgotten? You asked for datasets, they are all provided in the links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

You can see it, right there. Named and marked. As is the Medieval warm period.

Hardly "forgotten".

Jimkel

bonkey wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

You can see it, right there. Named and marked. As is the Medieval warm period.

Hardly "forgotten".

Yet that is not the same graph used by AL Gore and the panic merchants who ram this CO2 tripe down our necks. My opinion, thats all.

bonkey

Jimkel wrote: »

Yet that is not the same graph used by AL Gore and the panic merchants who ram this CO2 tripe down our necks. My opinion, thats all.

And my opinion is that they're being no more misleading than you are with your objection to "the infamous hockey stick" on the grounds that you claim one specific example of it doesn't contain these events.

Seriously, though, if you want to try and argue that these guys are somehow misleading the public through misdirection, I'd ratchet down the rhetoric and emotive language a level. After all - isn't the use of that sort of approach what you're complaining about?

If you made your point calmly, without rhetoric, and with more evidence than they supply, then I could understand your stance. As it is, you're supplying no more than them, using language just as emotive as they do, all the while complaining about those very tactics. All I can figure out from this is that your complaint is not that people shouldn't use such tactics, but rather that its somehow wrong that they are more successful at it.

jawlie

Like many others, I am unsure about the whole environmental movement, and saw Penn Jillett answer a question on it at TAM6 where he summed it up quite well.

"I just don’t know. I’ve thought about it and have read so much stuff, and every bit of my bull**** detector goes off like crazy about global warming and Al Gore seems to me to be a lying sack of **** who’se wrong about everything. He seems that way to me but my feeling on that is a feeling. If there’s one thing we all believe is that that’s not enough. And I still try to read about the climate change and the environment and I try to ask my friends who are smarter than me, which is virtually all my friends, and I just haven’t got an answer, I just don’t know. It feels to me like in 30 years they’re going to look back at the environmental movement like huala hoops.

The one thing I am almost sure of is that it seems to me that conservation has to be bull****. It’s never worked in history. We didn’t save tin by conserving tin, we saved tin by inventing aluminium. There are cases like that over and over again.

We are not going to save the planet, if indeed the planet is in jeopardy, by driving slower in smaller cars. That is clearly bull****.

But the environmental movement, I just don’t know. I’d love to be able to grow a dick and say that its bull****, that I don’t believe in any of it, but really smart people have made really compelling arguments about it.

The one thing we are sure of is that carbon credits are bull****."

I'd add that Governments around the world seem to have have seized on it as a heaven sent opportunity to increase taxes pretending they are "green " taxes.

djpbarry

jawlie wrote: »

Penn Jillette wrote:

We didn’t save tin by conserving tin, we saved tin by inventing aluminium. There are cases like that over and over again.

We "invented" aluminium did we? And then invented loads of other elements too? This guy's quite clearly a complete idiot.

jawlie wrote: »

I'd add that Governments around the world seem to have have seized on it as a heaven sent opportunity to increase taxes pretending they are "green " taxes.

Which taxes are these?

jawlie

djpbarry wrote: »

We "invented" aluminium did we? And then invented loads of other elements too? This guy's quite clearly a complete idiot.
Which taxes are these?

I hate the confrontational nature of some replies on boards, and I have to say I find this reply aggressive and confrontational. I come to boards to try to have interesting discussions and develop my knowledge, rather than to be snippy.

You may be right that to say aluminium was "invented" is not the smartest thing to say. Aluminium, as we all know, comes from bauxite and undergoes a particular process where it has to be mined, refined, smelted before it eventually becomes aluminium. Aluminium is not a natural material in the way gold or iron is, so its arguable as to whether or not it was originally invented by someone, as in the process to convert bauxite eventually into aluminium. In any case, its not really relevant to the point Penn Jillette was making.

To conclude from an answer to a question, which was transcribed from an off the cuff answer which he made in a public forum, that his use of the word "invented " means that he is a "complete idiot" seems to be a rash judgement. However, whether or not he is a complete idiot (I disagree) does not address the dilemma many have about the environmental movement, and which he summed up quite well.

Do you really want me to have to list all the "green" taxes which have been introduced. The new rates of VRT, increased VAT on cars due to increased VRT, increased taxes on air travel, increased taxes on the annual car tax..... I'm not sure why you want a list?

bonkey

jawlie. quoting Penn wrote: »

The one thing I am almost sure of is that it seems to me that conservation has to be bull****. It’s never worked in history.

Thats true. Its never worked. Ever.

As a simple example...despite the Brits best efforts to ration during the War, they ran out of everything, starved to death, and as a result the Germans won the war.

Or, indeed, when the Norse settled in Iceland and found that their way of life wasn't sustainable, they just packed up and left rather than changing their way of life to live off the resources they were limited to rather than those they were used to. This is why Iceland is deserted to this day.

Its a pity, also, that Jared Diamond didn't write a book called Collapse, where he could have compared societies which failed against those who came to the brink of collapse and managed to hang on, often by learning to ration their use of resources, to give up unsustainable habits, and so forth. Had he written such a book, that would have served as an even more detailed counter-point to Penn's convincing arguments.

jawlie

bonkey wrote: »

Thats true. Its never worked. Ever.

As a simple example...despite the Brits best efforts to ration during the War, they ran out of everything, starved to death, and as a result the Germans won the war.

Or, indeed, when the Norse settled in Iceland and found that their way of life wasn't sustainable, they just packed up and left rather than changing their way of life to live off the resources they were limited to rather than those they were used to. This is why Iceland is deserted to this day.

Its a pity, also, that Jared Diamond didn't write a book called Collapse, where he could have compared societies which failed against those who came to the brink of collapse and managed to hang on, often by learning to ration their use of resources, to give up unsustainable habits, and so forth. Had he written such a book, that would have served as an even more detailed counter-point to Penn's convincing arguments.

lol - thats a great contribution. Well done.

Rationing a resource which is limited and which is going to run out is of no use, except to delay the inevitable. If we are to ration petrol , for example, it will have a detrimental effect on our society and economy, and is not a solution to anything.

Rationing food during the war was necessary, but not because food was going to run out and could never be replaced. Food can be grown and replaced at will, and was rationed during the war because imports of food were severely restricted and britain had to resort to being self sufficient in food. Incidentally, Germany also had rationing during the war as did many European countries, Ireland included.

I have always thought that science and technology is the most likely way to resolve whatever issues we face, which includes replacing fossil fuels.

Macha

bonkey wrote: »

Its a pity, also, that Jared Diamond didn't write a book called Collapse, where he could have compared societies which failed against those who came to the brink of collapse and managed to hang on, often by learning to ration their use of resources, to give up unsustainable habits, and so forth. Had he written such a book, that would have served as an even more detailed counter-point to Penn's convincing arguments.

Almost finished this book - it's a great one, if a bit tedious at times.

I think the concept of rationing oil is about having enough of it to tide us over before we find alternatives, but as someone else pointed out if we did this, nothing would ever get invented (which comes from the Latin 'to discover' or 'to come across' for the pedants).

Although my lecturer did used to say that the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone (har har), but because we found something better.

KenH

Do you really want me to have to list all the "green" taxes which have been introduced. The new rates of VRT, increased VAT on cars due to increased VRT, increased taxes on air travel, increased taxes on the annual car tax..... I'm not sure why you want a list?

I'm not sure about VRT being "greened".

Road tax has always crept up, but with the new system can lower your road tax depending on the choices you make. It's up to you.

Air travel has increased due to the increase in the price of oil. We don't have oil, but we have a choice as to whether we want "suckle from the tit of the arabs" forever. It might take abit of investment in the short term though.

Bonkey: Correct. The way forward isn't conservation. Just innovation with a conscience.

Jimkel

bonkey wrote: »

And my opinion is that they're being no more misleading than you are with your objection to "the infamous hockey stick" on the grounds that you claim one specific example of it doesn't contain these events.

Seriously, though, if you want to try and argue that these guys are somehow misleading the public through misdirection, I'd ratchet down the rhetoric and emotive language a level. After all - isn't the use of that sort of approach what you're complaining about?

If you made your point calmly, without rhetoric, and with more evidence than they supply, then I could understand your stance. As it is, you're supplying no more than them, using language just as emotive as they do, all the while complaining about those very tactics. All I can figure out from this is that your complaint is not that people shouldn't use such tactics, but rather that its somehow wrong that they are more successful at it.

Ever hear of over analasis. I am emotive because I am human.

My opinion being expressed here cannot be construed as "tactics" as I require no tactics to express my opinion, after all I am free to do so.

I am not a politician, I do not use "Rethoric" with the intent to mislead and manipulate opinion, I will respect your opinion.

I expressed my opinion, I gave my sources, It really is as simple as that take it or leave it, but I will not get into semantics with you.

I have my opinions on climate change, and how it is presented by the mainstream media. I have nothing to gain or lose by anyone standing by my here or speaking against me, I have no agenda, I really don't care but I do enjoy discussion.

I will not however discuss anything with someone who resorts to this kind of psychology because I see it as manipulating, leading and off topic. Conversation over buddy, You can worry about climate change, I won't. Lifes too short to talk BS with a keyboard warrior. You win I lose, if it makes you happy, I achieved my purpose with this thread in the OP, expressing my view based on what I've read and seen.

Take it ham and cheesey

bonkey

Jimkel wrote: »

Ever hear of over analasis.

This is ironic, considering the topic at hand.

To answer your question - yes, I've heard of over-analysis. I've also heard of under-analysis.

I am emotive because I am human.

THe implication being that those who manage to make their points without being emotive are...what, exactly?

I will not however discuss anything with someone who resorts to this kind of psychology because I see it as manipulating, leading and off topic.

I see. So you're allowed to be emotive and put your argument as you see fit, because you're human. When I put my argument as I see fit, its because I'm playing psychological games and trying to manipulate people and over-analysing.

Conversation over buddy,

It most certainly is.

I suggested you might be more successful if you use more fact and less emotion. You responded with less fact and more emotion, and then did the intellectual equivalent of throwing your toys out of the pram, or taking your ball and going home.

I'm pretty sure you've made your point, and a number of other points besides.

jawlie

bonkey wrote: »

And my opinion is that they're being no more misleading than you are with your objection to "the infamous hockey stick" on the grounds that you claim one specific example of it doesn't contain these events.

Seriously, though, if you want to try and argue that these guys are somehow misleading the public through misdirection, I'd ratchet down the rhetoric and emotive language a level. After all - isn't the use of that sort of approach what you're complaining about?

If you made your point calmly, without rhetoric, and with more evidence than they supply, then I could understand your stance. As it is, you're supplying no more than them, using language just as emotive as they do, all the while complaining about those very tactics. All I can figure out from this is that your complaint is not that people shouldn't use such tactics, but rather that its somehow wrong that they are more successful at it.

Jimkel wrote: »

Ever hear of over analasis. I am emotive because I am human.

My opinion being expressed here cannot be construed as "tactics" as I require no tactics to express my opinion, after all I am free to do so.

I am not a politician, I do not use "Rethoric" with the intent to mislead and manipulate opinion, I will respect your opinion.

I expressed my opinion, I gave my sources, It really is as simple as that take it or leave it, but I will not get into semantics with you.

I have my opinions on climate change, and how it is presented by the mainstream media. I have nothing to gain or lose by anyone standing by my here or speaking against me, I have no agenda, I really don't care but I do enjoy discussion.

I will not however discuss anything with someone who resorts to this kind of psychology because I see it as manipulating, leading and off topic. Conversation over buddy, You can worry about climate change, I won't. Lifes too short to talk BS with a keyboard warrior. You win I lose, if it makes you happy, I achieved my purpose with this thread in the OP, expressing my view based on what I've read and seen.

Take it ham and cheesey

bonkey wrote: »

I see. So you're allowed to be emotive and put your argument as you see fit, because you're human. When I put my argument as I see fit, its because I'm playing psychological games and trying to manipulate people and over-analysing.

It’s a shame to take up positions and then to defend them at all costs, even if that means missing the point.

The point of Jimkel’s post seems to be that you are not actually making any argument which is relevant to the subject ( which is “Anybody who worries about global warming” ), but you seem to be making points about Jimkel’s style of response.

It would be great to take the heat out and discuss the issue at hand, rather than take issues with individual posters styles. It’s an interesting topic, and while I enjoy discussion of it, it would be refreshing to discuss/argue about the substance, rather then the style of individual posters.

Lennoxschips

The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

Attack of the killer straw man!

jawlie

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Attack of the killer straw man!

I think you'll find that its illegal to burn even straw these days. It's not illlegal to throw back hundreds of tons of fish into the sea , however, if they do not conform to a bureaucrats idea of what you should have been catching!

bonkey

jawlie wrote: »

The point of Jimkel’s post seems to be that you are not actually making any argument which is relevant to the subject ( which is “Anybody who worries about global warming” ), but you seem to be making points about Jimkel’s style of response.

My point, which you seem to have missed, is that the attack on the hockey-stick was inaccurate. The detail claimed to be missing from it is, in fact, there.

The comments about the style of posting were because, apparently like you, I'm fed up of people resorting to basing their arguments on anything but the facts. I may have taken the wrong tack in how I approached that problem, but you've summarised it nicely....so all's well that ends well, eh?

It would be great to take the heat out and discuss the issue at hand, rather than take issues with individual posters styles.

Yes, it would. Lets do that.

So...do you agree or disagree that Jimkel was incorrect in his allegation that the Hockey Stick ignores the Little Ice age?

Or, as he claims, do you support the notion that one specific graph does not clearly denote it?

If so, does this mean that you support the notion that one can choose one specific line of evidence that one disagrees with in order to challenge all lines of evidence that one wishes to challenge?

Is it the case that Global Warming, as a topic, can be summarised as "what Al Gore says", and that if we can show that his message is flawed, then we can conclude that the science is a hoax? Or should we be looking at the science, at ignoring what it is that pundits have to say on the issues?

It’s an interesting topic, and while I enjoy discussion of it, it would be refreshing to discuss/argue about the substance, rather then the style of individual posters.

Here's your chance. In my responses to you, I'll limit myself entirely to discussing the substance and what constitutes meaningful analyisis/criticism of it.

molloyjh

A wee point on this issue, and I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but all of the theories re the climate that have been put forward are nothing more than this: theories.

The planet is far too large and has far too many factors influencing its climate (some of which are well known, understood and documented, others not as much) for any one of these theories to be proven. The only way they can be proven would be through controlled global climate experiments. Anyone care to take a guess at how many years we are away from that? I wouldn't. I doubt we'll ever have the capability to do this.

On this basis I've started to refuse to argue which theory is "right" or more likely or whatever. We just don't, and can't, know. So what are the facts at hand:

- There is a chance that we are causing global warming. Just as we can't prove it, we can't disprove it.

- IF the theory is correct then we could be doing untold damage to our planet and future generations

- We are very quickly using up the non-renewable fuel sources on the planet

To my mind, given the large amount of uncertainty and the potential for such huge negative impact, coupled with the ultimate need to replace non-renewable with renewable energy sources anyway, it strikes me as nothing more than prudent to make the push for renewable energies sooner rather than later. If it suits that end then maybe we should use the whole man-made global warming theory as a driver for change.

Steviemak

Why is 1998 always shown as the end point of global warming by sceptics?


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/2.html

"A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade."

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/dept/0108_globaltemp.htm

"To determine if warming has recently stopped, consider the data from the past eight years, from 2000 to 2007. This is a more meaningful comparison than 1998 to 2007, as 1998 temperatures were anomalously high as a result of the "El Niño of the century" (pdf), a natural cyclical event that produced an enormous temperature spike relative to surrounding years. Choosing an El Niño year as that start of the dataset would amount to rather egregious cherry picking (though both GISS temp and HadCRU would still show a warming trend over the decade)."

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

"It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a).

"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend."

"Over the past eight years, Earth has warmed 0.025 degrees C per year according to GISS, and 0.014 degrees C per year according to HadCRU, so GISS shows slightly faster warming than over the long-term trend of 0.018 degrees C per year, and HadCRU shows warming slightly slower."

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif

bonkey

molloyjh wrote: »

A wee point on this issue, and I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but all of the theories re the climate that have been put forward are nothing more than this: theories.

Well, yes....in the same sense that the theory of gravity is nothing more than a theory, or the theory of special relativity is nothing more than a theory.

I'm guessing that if no-one has pointed it out, its because from a scientific perspective, theory is just-about as good as it gets. When you say that its "nothing more" than a theory, you neglect to mention that in the relevant terminology there is nothing more than a theory.

Its a bit like trying to suggest that someone didn't do so well in their exams, because they got nothing more than an A+, or that someone isn't that rich, because they're nothing more than a multi-billionaire.

- There is a chance that we are causing global warming. Just as we can't prove it, we can't disprove it.

You know when you said that its "nothing more" than a theory? By definition, scientific theories can be disproven.

molloyjh

bonkey wrote: »

Well, yes....in the same sense that the theory of gravity is nothing more than a theory, or the theory of special relativity is nothing more than a theory.

I'm guessing that if no-one has pointed it out, its because from a scientific perspective, theory is just-about as good as it gets. When you say that its "nothing more" than a theory, you neglect to mention that in the relevant terminology there is nothing more than a theory.

Its a bit like trying to suggest that someone didn't do so well in their exams, because they got nothing more than an A+, or that someone isn't that rich, because they're nothing more than a multi-billionaire.

Are we disagreeing on something here? I was just addressing some people here who seem to think that they know some of these things for a fact. However your exam analogy is nothing like what I'm talking about. There are specific measurables there, things we know for a fact, and relatives, things we think that others may not agree with. So in this case "well" is relative, but once we determine a definition for well we can prove the result one way or another.

bonkey wrote: »

You know when you said that its "nothing more" than a theory? By definition, scientific theories can be disproven.

Yes they can, just as they an be proven. Read my post again, I didn't way it was utterly impossible to prove or disprove. I did say that to do either would require something that we cannot currently do (controlled global climate experiments) and also requires knowledge of factors that we know little about (cosmic rays being a perfect example, there are theories as to what they do but we don't really "know" therefore can't "know" we are accurately reflecting their affect on our environment). I also speculated that we may never have the ability to do the former. So from our current standpoint we need to realise we're in no position to prove or disprove any theory on climate change.

bonkey

molloyjh wrote: »

I was just addressing some people here who seem to think that they know some of these things for a fact.

If what you wanted to say was "a theory is not a fact", then fine...I agree, but believe you made your point incredibly badly.

Put bluntly, the argument that something is "just a theory" (or words to that effect), when applied to a scientific theory, is almost always either a comment from ignorance, or from a deliberate effort to conflate the scientific and non-scientific meanings of the word.

However your exam analogy is nothing like what I'm talking about.

How about my analagy to the theories of gravity and special relativity? Will you argue that they are each "nothing but a theory"?

Yes they can, just as they an be proven. Read my post again, I didn't way it was utterly impossible to prove or disprove.

What you said was : "There is a chance that we are causing global warming. Just as we can't prove it, we can't disprove it." Nowhere in there did you allow that we might be able to prove or disprove it. You said that we cannot do either. Admittedly, you offered reasoning why it couldn't be proven, but then made this quantum leap to arguing that "equally it cannot be disproven".

Incidentally, just as theories are required to be disproveable, they are impossible to prove. What you argue as the requirements to prove them is equally incorrect - even were we capable of carrying out such experiments, they wouldn't prove the theory. Theories cannot be proven. That's why "theory" is as good as it gets. You can verify that observation matches prediction as many times as you like, but you cannot prove that it will continue to do so.

So from our current standpoint we need to realise we're in no position to prove or disprove any theory on climate change.

We cannot ever be in a position to prove a theory of climate change. Theories cannot be proven.
We can, however, easily disprove them. Theories of climate change make predictions. If the observed results do not match the predictions, the predictions are wrong. If the predictions are wrong, the theory is wrong, and thus disproven.

To go back to the first sentence of your post...

Are we disagreeing on something here?

Most certainly. We are disagreeing on the accuracy of your portrayal of what a scientific theory is...and possibly on the meaning of "prove" and "disprove".

Kama

The hang-up on 'proof' in global warming...its trivially true that AGW isn't proven; but proof went out with Popper anyways. Its accepted that we can't have certainty (thats why we moved to falsification) much as its generally accepted that we don't need it. Probability is as good as it gets.

Given information being partial, and policy being essentially a bet on outcome, the 'its just a theory' rhetoric isn't justified, and misleads. Agree fully with bonkey, its ignorance or muddying the issue, similar to the Creationist/Evolution 'debate'; frankly, provide a better theory of gtfo. AGW is a very robust theory, with a clear path of causality, and mountains of evidence supporting it. Saying 'we can't be sure' is no excuse for not taking action.

molloyjh

bonkey wrote: »

Theories cannot be proven.

Noone here (AFAIK) is a scientist and therefore I am only talking in laymans terms, deliberately simplifying what I know is a more complex issue, to make it more accessible. I don't want to get into simantics (sp?).

Kama

Its very hard to simplify successfully without knowing a lot about what you're trying to simplify. Theory itself can be viewed as a successful simplification, or a useful one. AGW is a parsimonious and elegant theory, and fits the evidence quite neatly. It can't be proved, but its the best model we currently have, and will remain so unless someone else suggests a model with better descriptive and predictive value. Which thusfar the Other Side have failed to do, to the best of my knowledge.

To say thats just semantics, or thats just a theory, was bonkeys point. Definitions matter, especially since we are talking about a scientific issue; as bonkey said, there's often a conflation between the non-scientific use of the word 'theory', and the generally accepted scientific one.

Jack Sheehan

molloyjh wrote: »

Noone here (AFAIK) is a scientist and therefore I am only talking in laymans terms, deliberately simplifying what I know is a more complex issue, to make it more accessible. I don't want to get into simantics (sp?).

I'm pretty sure DJPB is a scientist, though probably not a climate change specialist.

bonkey

molloyjh wrote: »

Noone here (AFAIK) is a scientist and therefore I am only talking in laymans terms,

I am pointing out where your layman's terms are an inaccurate representation of the true state of affairs.

Don't you think that's reasonable - that I'm suggesting we use accurate layman's terms, rather than inaccurate ones?

deliberately simplifying what I know is a more complex issue, to make it more accessible. I don't want to get into simantics (sp?).

I'm pointing out that your simplifications are inaccurate to the point of being wrong. Each time you've tried to defend them, you made additional statements that were equally inaccurate to the point of being wrong.

Saying "theories are as good as science gets - they are the closest we get to proof" is no less layman-ish then saying "just a theory", but has the advantage of being more accurate and less misleading.

Saying "we can disprove them, although we cannot ever prove them" is as simple as saying "just as we cannot prove them, we cannot disprove them", but has the advantage of actually being correct.

I applaud the intention of trying to simplify the issues to make them more accessible. I am, however, of the opinion that much (but not all) of the confusion surrounding issues such as Global Warming has been brought on by inaccurate simplifications - by people simplifying to the point that what they say is misleading or downright false. I'm not suggesting for a second that everyone who does this does so intentionally, but it being unintentional doesn't mitigate it being part of the problem.

bonkey

Kama wrote: »

It can't be proved, but its the best model we currently have, and will remain so unless someone else suggests a model with better descriptive and predictive value. Which thusfar the Other Side have failed to do, to the best of my knowledge.

I'd settle for the Other Side successfully showing that its inaccurate or unreliable to the point that it cannot be meaningfully used.

They don't need to offer something better, merely show that this model isn't as good as it appears to be.

There are, of course, no shortage of people attempting to do just that. I've yet to see a meaningful critique stand up to scrutiny, however.

molloyjh

bonkey wrote: »

Saying "theories are as good as science gets - they are the closest we get to proof" is no less layman-ish then saying "just a theory", but has the advantage of being more accurate and less misleading.

What I said wasn 't really a million miles away. I said that it is a theory that we can't prove absolutely so its as good as we have.

bonkey wrote: »

Saying "we can disprove them, although we cannot ever prove them" is as simple as saying "just as we cannot prove them, we cannot disprove them", but has the advantage of actually being correct.

This I think is where we differ in this. Your position is a purely scientific one and accounts for the problems of induction (i.e. just because we have always observed that a stone falls to the ground when we release it doesn't mean it always will, therefore we can never prove gravity) whereas, in my view at least, no layman would consider this. To most people gravity is true and there is no disputing it, and statements like "Gravity is a theory and therefore can never be fully proven" is not something that most people would pay much attention to. Therefore I tend to ignore these aspects to the science when discussing them normally.

Of course you are completely right and I probably did phrase what I was saying in an inaccurate way, from a scientific point of view. However the idea that I was getting across, that AGW is a theory that we currently cannot hope to prove or disprove and to state it as fact or fiction would be wholly presumptuous, isn't inaccurate either. I refrained from saying that it is as good a theory as we have because I haven't researched the other theories (like the cosmic ray theory) in enough detail to be able to make that judgement and I'm no scientist myself anyway, so I'd be inclined to go with the consensus argument for the most part, i.e. most scientists believe AGW is true so the chances are they are right.

Also, by not judging which theory is more probable, I was hoping to make the remainder of my argument (re the needs for renewable energy sources) more accessible to the OP as I do believe that climate impacts aside we need to move away from fossil fuels for a number of other reasons.

Burial

To get back to the topic at hand, because your all complaining about something so trivial:

Jimkel wrote: »

Should read this, all of it. and please don't make judgements unless you have read it all.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

I think it should be understood, that Middlebury.net is about as reliable source as my ass. Sorry for the harshness, but the description of the website states "Provides an online presence for businesses and organizations in Middlebury and the central Champlain Valley." Most business don't want to change due to climate change as it'll be costly for them. Also, Jimkel has a right to discredit Wikipedia, as I think, it's not accepted as credible in the scientific community as anyone can edit it. However, if you were to check peer reviewed articles on the subject, you most surely will find an overwhelming amount finding proof that global warming is being contributed by man. (The little bit that isn't is debatable. Their reliableness is questionable. Like taking limited data-sources as their example) Even your point about Scientists saying there is no Global Warming and they then get discredited. Most were paid in the past to change their results to fit to companies agendas. Also, just because 500 scientists say it's true, DOESN'T make it so. There are hundreds of scientists and historians who believe the Holocaust didn't happen, but just because they said so, doesn't make it so.

*NOTE* I'm not sure on this issue yet, I agree with recycling but Global waming, I've watched a few documentaries on both sides of the issue, and I don't know who to believe. I have however, come to only accepting Peer reviewed opinions. For example, it is common knowledge that the ice caps are melting due to the warming of the Earth. I just can't tell if there'll be a cool period or not or even when that'll be. Also, conserving our fossil fuels is a must. Why would we waste a resource and then decide what to do? Renewable energy as it is now, is not worth it. You waste more energy to get it then by using it. I got this from a guy working on the ESB. Anyway, saying to Jimkel about his arguement being rubbish and saying supply evidence, in honesty, why should he have to? If you can't prove it wrong, then why make him prove it right? If ye both can't do neither then it is a theory until proven wrong. (Though most of his arguements have been steaming piles of lies, that come from just about the most unreliable place on Earth..)

P.S. *From the article on Middlebury.net *

"That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate. "

Please, Please, PLEASE stop posting links that are mis-reading the facts. I have to reject your arguements as this "essay" is absolute biased. I want to accept your facts, but your not providing me with anything that isn't so biased. The guy is on the payroll of the website, who are maintained by Companies in Middlebury who WANT taxes for their pollution abolished. Please post something that isn't made by totally biased people.

Burial

I'm sorry for my post being all over the place, (This one and the one before this one), my mind works that way on issues I haven't decided on yet. (Like Religion, etc) Anywho, another point I'd like to make for anyone who's reading this. Surely there's more evidence of climate cooling BEFORE 2001? That anomaly that occured in 1998, surely there's evidence well before 1996. Use that AND the data after, and see if the temperature is declining. The guy offers no data to back himself up. Just absurd claims, and remarks and ATTACKS against other people who don't accept his opinion. I'm really sorry, but reading that article nearly caused my brain to bleed. It's biasedness and personal attacks, is the reason I DON'T accept your posting as evidence or as an ardguement of any sort. Quite frankly, those type of postings is the reason I'm unsure of who to believe myself. That's why peer reviewed stuff is only accepted by me.

Edit the last line I wish to change it to:

"That's why peer reviewed stuff should only be accepted by people who wish to argue on this debate."

There is more I probably want to change, but I really have to get back to work, and once again I aplogise for my postings being all over the place, and I'm sorry to anyone, if I hurt them personally, it wasn't my intention.

Pgibson

The crust of the Earth is called "SiAl"

Si.............Silicon

Al...........Aluminium.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sial

Pretty natural stuff is Aluminium.


.

Pgibson

Dangerous Graph here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

Looks innocent but it is the most danger-filled graph in human history.

It has the potential to fry us all.

Those who scoff at that graph are fools indeed.

.

You could probably find another graph that shows the global land area of forest going in the opposite direction over the same period!

Pgibson

Forest Destruction Graphs:

http://photos.mongabay.com/07/trop_defor_bar-600.jpg

Those who scoff at those graphs are ALSO fools indeed.

.

Pgibson

Changes in Pedersen Glacier in Alaska over 85 years:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/8c/Pedersen_Glacier.jpg

Glaciers don't ask to be "peer-reviewed" as they disappear before our very eyes.

.

Belfast

Jimkel wrote: »

Should read this, all of it. and please don't make judgements unless you have read it all.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html



And if your still not convinced read this article here:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html
15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.

16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.

17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.

18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.

19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.

20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.

Using the term hoax implies the the people who say the climate change is caused by man are intentionally deceiving people and they do not believe their own theory, this and implying they are mentally ill does not contribute to a reasoned debate.

Kama

Indeed, pathologizing the opposition rarely inproves the quality of a debate.

Btw Point 20 contradicts Point 17. If global cooling is the problem, as you say, then there is a climate crisis, but a different one.

I am Pedantor! Hear me Roar!

ulysses1

Burial wrote: »

I think it should be understood, that Middlebury.net is about as reliable source as my ass.

Care to provide a more reliable one? Reliability is relative. If you believe everything you're told, then nothing outside official centres will do. See my point?

For those wishing for a more thorough rebuttal of current alarmism, I'd suggest the article below.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Macha

ulysses1 wrote: »

Care to provide a more reliable one? Reliability is relative. If you believe everything you're told, then nothing outside official centres will do. See my point?

For those wishing for a more thorough rebuttal of current alarmism, I'd suggest the article below.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Reliability can depend on an individual's interpretation but don't try pulling the relativistic argument and insinuate that distinctions cannot be made between a more and less credible/reliable source.

ulysses1

djpbarry wrote: »

Absolute nonsense; I have already provided a link to an article that debunks the “solar warming” theory.

These findings do not by any means rule
out the existence of important links between
solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links
have been demonstrated by many authors over

the years.

I'm afraid this article does not debunk the solar warming theory. It's largely simple: if the sun cools, then so in time will everything in our solar system. Of course, our atmosphere contains many homostasis mechanisms which are responsible for their being disputable graphical evidence. Disputable yes - not disproven.

I have yet to read credible reasoning as to why Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon and pluto have all shown increases in surface temperature over recent years. I wonder if their scientists are as alarmed as ours. The undisputed solar "Grand Maximum" could provide a not-so-subtle clue.

ulysses1

taconnol wrote: »

Reliability can depend on an individual's interpretation but don't try pulling the relativistic argument and insinuate that distinctions cannot be made between a more and less credible/reliable source.

Our course distinctions can be made; that was not my point. There is no central bank of approved sources and I realise you are not disputing that. Even if a source is disproven to 99%, then 1% of information in there is credible, so I'm afraid it is relative.

A dot edu or dot gov is just as unrelaible.