What consensus?

[Wild Cobra]

The Global Warming Alarmists say they have consensus. I find that rather funny considering there are only about 2,500 of them who agree with the IPCC report.

Is that consensus? Did you all know there are more than 19,000 scientists who signed a petition disagreeing!

Global Warming Petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)

This site has some real good links. I suggest anyone how has at least a minimal scientific grasp go here to this peer reviewed paper too:

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm)

[Nbadan]

Perry S Mason, PhD

:lol .....no forgery there.....

[Nbadan]

The article that accompanied the petition was written in the style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal.[5] Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said that it was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article…is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of "half-truths".[10] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[10]

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[11] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[12]

In a 2006 article the magazine Vanity Fair stated: "Today, Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming"

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition)

[Wild Cobra]

:lol .....no forgery there.....
Again Dan, don't you ever verify your supposable facts before shooting off your mouth:

Perry S. Mason (http://www.lcu.edu/LCU/faculty/p.mason/)


P E R R Y S . M A S O N , P H . D .

Professor, Math and Physical Sciences
B. S., Harding College, 1959
M.A., Texas Tech Univeristy, 1997
Ph.D., Louisiana State University, Chemistry, 1963.
Back to Faculty Listing

Contact Information
Office Location: SC 119
Phone: (806) 720-7706
E-mail: [email protected]

Office Hours:
8:00-9:30 TTh, 2:00-4:00 M-Th

Biography:

Dr. Mason was born in Lubbock. He has taught at LSU, Oklahoma Christian, Arkansas State University as well as LCU.

He did his Postdoctoral study at the University of Arkansas.

He is a minister at several churches and an elder at Greenlawn Church of Christ.

You know, several people out of the 300,000,000 people in the USA do in fact share the same name.

You did know that. Right?

[some_user86]

At this point, the burden of proof lies on the anti-climate change side to show that a) the earth's yearly average temperature is not rising, b) that the rising temperature is not abnormal for this period in history, and c) that the rising and abnormal temperature is not caused by caused by man-made activities.

There is solid and concrete data on the climate change equation. The anti-climate change side has yet to produce as concrete of evidence. Mostly, it is just pure supposition and conjecture. At that point, you're no longer in the realm of science, but instead in the realm of religion. It's the same problem with the evolution vs Intelligent Design/Creationism debates. You can't ever prove that God/god/Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, so it's not science. One can believe that evolution is the mechanism that God/god/Flying Spaghetti Monster used to create the organisms that we have today, but you can't prove that the entity exists through observations or experiments. It's a philosophy or religion, and there's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to preach it as science.

Science is four things: 1) Measurable/Observable Data, 2) Hypothesis/Theory based on data, 3) Predictions based on hypothesis, and 4) Experimentation at every step. Climate change scientists have been able to show results at each of these steps (with models for climate predictions created, but time needed over the next several years to verify the predictions). The anti-climate change side needs to produce data or a reasonable hypothesis explaining their belief. They've got a long way to catch up at this point.

[Wild Cobra]

The article that accompanied the petition was written in the style and format of a contribution to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal.[5] Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said that it was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article…is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the article was full of "half-truths".[10] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[10]

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal."[11] It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." The NAS further noted that its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."[12]

In a 2006 article the magazine Vanity Fair stated: "Today, Seitz admits that "it was stupid" for the Oregon activists to copy the academy's format. Still, he doesn't understand why the academy felt compelled to disavow the petition, which he continues to cite as proof that it is "not true" there is a scientific consensus on global warming"Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition)
Dan, look at the source links. These statements do not make it fact. Wiki is a good intermediate source, but you must be careful and look at the sourced links for fact or opinion. Or... even outright lies.

This is also in that wiki link:


Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

[Wild Cobra]

At this point, the burden of proof lies on the anti-climate change side to show that a) the earth's yearly average temperature is not rising, b) that the rising temperature is not abnormal for this period in history, and c) that the rising and abnormal temperature is not caused by caused by man-made activities.

I didn't know there were anti climate change folks out there. The debate is whether it is man caused or not.

We have shown that the changes do in fact correspond to natural phenomena!



There is solid and concrete data on the climate change equation. The anti-climate change side has yet to produce as concrete of evidence. Mostly, it is just pure supposition and conjecture.

Are you asleep at the wheel?

I have over and over since I joined here shown compelling evidence that the warming is not caused by man. Anyone who has a good grasp of the sciences can follow the facts I have presented.



At that point, you're no longer in the realm of science, but instead in the realm of religion. It's the same problem with the evolution vs Intelligent Design/Creationism debates. You can't ever prove that God/god/Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, so it's not science. One can believe that evolution is the mechanism that God/god/Flying Spaghetti Monster used to create the organisms that we have today, but you can't prove that the entity exists through observations or experiments. It's a philosophy or religion, and there's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to preach it as science.

Religion to the believers who have blind faith in the likes of Al Gore...

It is us who are called the deniers who have not seen any credible evidence of man made global warming.



Science is four things: 1) Measurable/Observable Data, 2) Hypothesis/Theory based on data, 3) Predictions based on hypothesis, and 4) Experimentation at every step. Climate change scientists have been able to show results at each of these steps (with models for climate predictions created, but time needed over the next several years to verify the predictions). The anti-climate change side needs to produce data or a reasonable hypothesis explaining their belief. They've got a long way to catch up at this point.

That is utter bullshit. It is the theories of the alarmists that constantly changes as their previous predictions never take shape.

You really should read the second link in my first posting of this thread. You should go back and read all my previous posting in past threads on the subject as well.

I can probably dispel any points of dogma you believe on the subject if you have a sufficient grasp of the sciences.

Give me a point to give you the truth on.

[some_user86]

I didn't know there were anti climate change folks out there. The debate is whether it is man caused or not.

We have shown that the changes do in fact correspond to natural phenomena!


Are you asleep at the wheel?

I have over and over since I joined here shown compelling evidence that the warming is not caused by man. Anyone who has a good grasp of the sciences can follow the facts I have presented.


Religion to the believers who have blind faith in the likes of Al Gore...

It is us who are called the deniers who have not seen any credible evidence of man made global warming.


That is utter bullshit. It is the theories of the alarmists that constantly changes as their previous predictions never take shape.

You really should read the second link in my first posting of this thread. You should go back and read all my previous posting in past threads on the subject as well.

I can probably dispel any points of dogma you believe on the subject if you have a sufficient grasp of the sciences.

Give me a point to give you the truth on.

I'll happily look over the paper and read your past quotes over the weekend. I am not a climate scientist, so I am not an expert on the topic. However, as a chemist, I understand the evidence that the climate scientists are purporting. I just skimmed the paper, mainly looking at the graphs, but I think these scientists may have looked at too small of a sample size. They start their observations from 1800s on forth. If I am not mistaken, the climate change scientists have looked at data for the last 700,000 years. Their analysis shows that climate change is cyclical, as is the carbon dioxide amount in the air. The issue that they have found is that their is an abrupt rise of the average temperature on earth recently. This rise in temperature is at least 40,000 years early from the next predicted warming period. In addition, this corresponds with a near triple rise in carbon dioxide levels from the highest maxima. The current hypothesis for climate change via differential carbon dioxide levels is that CO2 acts as a regulator of the other green houses, chiefly water vapor. As temperatures rise due to CO2, more water enters the atmosphere as water vapor, which contributes to more temperature. Frozen peat bogs are hypothesized to contribute to the CO2 levels as centuries old organic matter buried under ice is exposed due to warming temperatures. Thus, CO2 triggers a feedback loop for the continual increase in temperature, until the loop is broken. If I am not mistaken, water vapor itself can contribute to the break in this cycle, triggering another feedback loop via ice albedo, slowly shifting the cycle back to cooling. It's a remarkably elegant system, actually.

The biggest non-CO2 theory that I saw out there was temperature variation due to solar activity. I was actually a big proponent of this. I think it does indeed have a role in climate change. Unfortunately, it alone cannot explain the unusual trigger of the warming cycle 40,000 years before its natural occurrence. And I think it's role is smaller than it's proponents suggest. I swung into the man-made climate change camp when I saw the Siple Station ice core data. It was hard to refute the evidence at that point. When I said that the anti-climate change side needs to bring forth a new model or more data to bulk up their argument, I was speaking chiefly of the solar activity proponents.

But I'll take a look at the paper you linked to and some of your past quotes before going further with this.

[some_user86]

As far as Al Gore... Well, what I can say? He shouldn't be spearheading this campaign. He should leave to scientific community to duke it out. But given that the business community is active in spreading propaganda without research first, how can anyone criticize him for speaking his mind. The risk is that by making it a political issue, the facts are going to be brushed aside in favor of political hackery on both sides. Then again, all three Presidential candidates have come out in support of the climate change evidence and the need to do something about it.

None of this matters. Nobody is going to change their lives over this stuff. The only thing that can be done is convince the public that fission is safe and use more fission reactors for energy. Then, we can invest in energy research like we invested in space research in the '60s. Of course, all three candidates support this, but their idea of energy is corn ethanol (to prop up the corrupt Corn Lobby). I'm talking about fusion research.

[Nbadan]

Again Dan, don't you ever verify your supposable facts before shooting off your mouth:

Perry S. Mason (http://www.lcu.edu/LCU/faculty/p.mason/)



You know, several people out of the 300,000,000 people in the USA do in fact share the same name.

You did know that. Right?


So, you willing to back up that all these names are real?

[RandomGuy]

Man-made global warming or not is a moot question.

zORv8wwiadQ


(take the lovely bait, so shiny and yummy...)

[Wild Cobra]

So, you willing to back up that all these names are real?

Absolutely not. Some people intentionally spoil the collection efforts to propagandize it as void, as you are. If you had any shred of integrity, you would look and see the invalid entries are in fact removed from the name list!

Again Dan, you do you ever verify your repeated propaganda of others?

I'll bet not.

I understand. You're just a good Lemming.

[Wild Cobra]

all these climate experts!
Good work, in a way.

Now I challenge you to look with the same scrutiny why type of scientists are named in the IPCC report.

Thing is, many of the same sciences apply. I also am no scientist, nor am I a college graduate. I am an expert as am electronic and mechanical technician. However, I have a very good understanding of other sciences to do my job as well as I do.

These people can read the various reports and data and understand them. Real climatologists out there like Timothy Ball give clear reasons why they fear mongers are wrong.

There is one name I know of on the list who is a Climotologist. Fred Singer. In fact, he was fired from his position as Oregon's Climatologist by the governor because he wouldn't bow to the politically correct view on Global Warming.

I'll bet if you managed to check all the names, you would find more climatologists on the petition than are in the IPCC report.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll happily look over the paper and read your past quotes over the weekend. I am not a climate scientist, so I am not an expert on the topic. However, as a chemist, I understand the evidence that the climate scientists are purporting.

Well, the below list of threads have responses from me in them. I may of missed some. I tried to sort them by relevance, with the more informative ones first:

"Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79916)

Damn Climate Change (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74209)

Thank God for Global Warming... (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90752)

Recent Results on Solar Variability and Climate Change (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87735)

It’s the Sun Dammit (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74717)

The U.S. is Burning... (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73291)

So much for Global Warming (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73477)

The Science of Gore's Nobel (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82824)

"No Sun link" to climate change (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91330)

Calling out Global-Warming Deniers (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58202)



I just skimmed the paper, mainly looking at the graphs, but I think these scientists may have looked at too small of a sample size. They start their observations from 1800s on forth. If I am not mistaken, the climate change scientists have looked at data for the last 700,000 years. Their analysis shows that climate change is cyclical, as is the carbon dioxide amount in the air. The issue that they have found is that their is an abrupt rise of the average temperature on earth recently. This rise in temperature is at least 40,000 years early from the next predicted warming period. In addition, this corresponds with a near triple rise in carbon dioxide levels from the highest maxima. The current hypothesis for climate change via differential carbon dioxide levels is that CO2 acts as a regulator of the other green houses, chiefly water vapor. As temperatures rise due to CO2, more water enters the atmosphere as water vapor, which contributes to more temperature. Frozen peat bogs are hypothesized to contribute to the CO2 levels as centuries old organic matter buried under ice is exposed due to warming temperatures. Thus, CO2 triggers a feedback loop for the continual increase in temperature, until the loop is broken. If I am not mistaken, water vapor itself can contribute to the break in this cycle, triggering another feedback loop via ice albedo, slowly shifting the cycle back to cooling. It's a remarkably elegant system, actually.

It is remarkable, and complex. Thing I see is that CO2 is near saturation. It cannot block hardly any more IR than it already does. The current effect is about 6 C by CO2. Water vapor is the strongest of the greenhouse gasses. Yes, it is somewhat regulating because the warmth creates more clouds (reflective) and more precipitation (more ice growth.)

Thing with CO2 is that it has almost no effect on temperature when it is higher than it's historical minimal levels. It is not a linear effect like the solar output is. Another thing is that CO2 levels lag historical temperature by about 800 years. If I remember right, the atmosphere contains only 1.2% of the CO2 , the ocean contains 93+% or 97+%. I don't remember the exact numbers. I do remember this however. The mathematical change in the equilibrium between the ocean and the atmosphere is about 28ppm per degree C change. Near the poles, the cold water absorbs CO2. Near the equator, CO2 is released. An interesting finding behind this is that using carbon 13 ratios, it appears than anthropogenic CO2 is more readily absorbed than natural CO2 onto the ocean, with a net sinking effect while natural CO2 has a natural ocean source effect when looked at by isotopes. There are some real interesting discussions here:

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html)

Here is something I haven't mentioned yet, although some values are disputed, I find this interesting out of the above link:


Ianric Ivarsson wrote:

Consulting my old textbook in inorganic chemistry, written in 1978, I found some numbers which are quite illuminating.

Atmospheric CO2: 330 ppm by volume corresponding to 480 ppm by weight.

Oceanic CO2: 100 ppm by weight.

The bottom line:

2.4E15 kg CO2 in the atmosphere

1.4E17 kg CO2 in the oceans

5E14 kg CO2 biomass flux

2E13 kg CO2 added yearly from fossil fuels

So the rise from 330 to 380 ppm (+15% in 29 years) would be caused by man adding a fraction of a per cent to the total of the CO2-stream?

If man would burn fossil fuels at the rate of 1978 for 7000 years, the amount of CO2 in the CO2-stream would double. I can live with those numbers.



The biggest non-CO2 theory that I saw out there was temperature variation due to solar activity. I was actually a big proponent of this. I think it does indeed have a role in climate change. Unfortunately, it alone cannot explain the unusual trigger of the warming cycle 40,000 years before its natural occurrence. And I think it's role is smaller than it's proponents suggest. I swung into the man-made climate change camp when I saw the Siple Station ice core data. It was hard to refute the evidence at that point. When I said that the anti-climate change side needs to bring forth a new model or more data to bulk up their argument, I was speaking chiefly of the solar activity proponents.

But I'll take a look at the paper you linked to and some of your past quotes before going further with this.

Well, there are three direct celestial factors for the long term trends, and we really don't know what else may apply. I will assume, and I think safely so, that the calming of the earth over the last 100,000 years is also a factor. More life, less violent, a different mix of atmosphere like less oxygen.

There are too many factors to try to pin any facts with. We do understand, as scientists, the linear effect of solar radiation changes. Right?

Now as for Siple, I did see a link to it some time back, but never looked. What relevance does it have? Have a link or so?

[Wild Cobra]

find me 7 in your global warming petition and i'll look into the matter further

I'm not going to bother. I know for a fact that the IPCC report is off base. To me, I just see scientists that either shouldn't be in the positions they hold, or they are being leaned on to follow suit.

Remember. The consensus in the past was that the world was flat. Only a minority believed it was round. A majority does not change scientific facts.

Again, as long as the scientists are in fields closely related in required knowledge. I don't care what title they hold.

[Wild Cobra]

so i win

thanks!

:toast

If that's a win for you then your standards are too low for me to compete against. I cannot see that far below my standards. How about some real science rather than numbers of people. That's what I'm willing to place my bets on. If you can understand the sciences involved, we can have a real debate rather than a childish popularity contest.

[Nbadan]

While the deniers deny...


Planet Earth continues to run a fever. Last month was the warmest March on record over land surfaces of the world and the second warmest overall worldwide. For the United States, however, it was just an average March, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Thursday.

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said high temperatures over much of Asia pulled the worldwide land temperature up to an average of 40.8 degrees Fahrenheit (4.9 degrees Celsius), 3.2 degrees (1.8 C) warmer than the average in the 20th century.

While Asia had its greatest January snow cover this year, warm March readings caused a rapid melt and March snow cover on the continent was a record low.

Global ocean temperatures were the 13th warmest on record, with a weakening of the La Nina conditions that cool the tropical Pacific Ocean.

Overall land and sea surface temperatures for the world were second highest in 129 years of record keeping, trailing only 2002, the agency said.

SF Gate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/17/national/w123418D68.DTL)

[Wild Cobra]

While the deniers deny...

Planet Earth continues to run a fever. Last month was the warmest March on record over land surfaces of the world and the second warmest overall worldwide. For the United States, however, it was just an average March, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Thursday.

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said high temperatures over much of Asia pulled the worldwide land temperature up to an average of 40.8 degrees Fahrenheit (4.9 degrees Celsius), 3.2 degrees (1.8 C) warmer than the average in the 20th century.

While Asia had its greatest January snow cover this year, warm March readings caused a rapid melt and March snow cover on the continent was a record low.

Global ocean temperatures were the 13th warmest on record, with a weakening of the La Nina conditions that cool the tropical Pacific Ocean.

Overall land and sea surface temperatures for the world were second highest in 129 years of record keeping, trailing only 2002, the agency said.

SF Gate (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/17/national/w123418D68.DTL)
Dan, I don't know the accuracy of the article, but I will assume it's true. Asia is the worse possible place to consider. Consider these points:

1) That is one region. We have snow predicted tonight where I live. Except for earlier this year which set a record for latest measurable snow at the Portland Airport (18 ft above sea level, 26 Mar 08) the prior record was March 10, 1951. We may extend that to 18 Apr 08!

2) The discussion is global warming. Some places are hotter and some colder and can produce the same average.

3) Nobody is denying that there has been warming. It appears we have or will start a small cooling trend.

4) It is the anthropogenic warming we deniers are arguing against. Not natural warming.

5) I have pointed out in the past that Asia's lack of pollution control may be causing warning, but it is because of black carbon (soot) collecting more than average heat from the sun rather than the CO2 content. Asia's impact is the only thing that stands up to scientific scrutiny for warming!

Now consider some simple atmospheric physics...

1) Pollution in atmosphere causes increased precipitation and cooler atmospheric temperatures because of blocking sunlight. Since it is winter and cold, it comes down as snow.

2) Warmer weather comes with darkened snow. The color absorbs more sunlight rather than the 90% reflection. Warming is faster than natural.

Now as for the 13th warmest global temperature. BFD.

Remember the movie "An Inconvenient Truth?" The title screen shows soot covered glacier ice breaking up, right? Funny how they never explain how the black soot absorbs most the light instead of the nominal 90% reflected back out to space...

Asia is a menace. Not only did China beat us in CO2 emissions by 8% in 2006, but they are not using clean technologies like we are. They are spewing out very dirty air, much of which drops on the northern ice, melting it faster. When it melts, the Arctic ocean now absorbs nearly all the solar radiation rather than 90% (where the ice should be) of it being reflected back into space.

Wait till you hear people coming back from the Olympics. As them how clean (dirty) the place is. Where I live in Portland, OR. Our air gets more physical pollution at times carried by the jet stream from Asia than we produce ourselves!

Did you purposely leave these tidbits out?:


The climate center said that for the 48 contiguous United States it was about average, ranking as the 63rd warmest March in 113 years of record keeping.

The average temperature for the U.S. in March was 42 degrees, 0.4 degrees below the 20th century mean.

---

The snow pack declined in many parts of the West in March, but the Western snow pack remains the best in more than a decade thanks to heavy snowfall December through February.

63rd in 113 years... thats in the bottom half...

0.4 degrees colder that the 20th century average...

great snow packs...

Didn't I say something a month or two ago about how good the snow was on Mt. Hood, and maybe it would stay white all summer? That's something I hadn't seen in a few years. Only the North Slope has kept snow on it year round this last decade. We might actually have a summer long snow cap!

[Wild Cobra]

One more thing Dan.

If you took the time and went to the SF Gate's source article, you would have found the following:


The global land surface temperature was the warmest on record for March, 3.3° F (1.8° C) above the 20th century mean of 40.8° F (5.0° C). Temperatures more than 8° F above average covered much of the Asian continent. Two months after the greatest January snow cover extent on record on the Eurasian continent, the unusually warm temperatures led to rapid snow melt, and March snow cover extent on the Eurasian continent was the lowest on record.

Consider how large Asia is and what that increased 8° F does to the global average. Go back to my older posts and you will see the only place I have criticized is Asia, specifically China. I wish I read the source article before responding in the last post.

I have been consistant that there is no significant warming caused by man made greenhouse gasses, and that soot is the only cause of any measurable man made warming.

[DarrinS]

Global warming in the past century is real, but it is not remarkable.


Carry on.

[RandomGuy]

Man-made global warming or not is a moot question.

zORv8wwiadQ

:fishing
(take the lovely bait, so shiny and yummy...)

Man, that's what I get for actually stepping back from the whole debate and asking pertinent questions.

Ignored... :depressed

It is quite a simple, less than ten minute video, and makes a point that both sides in the man made climate change debate should consider.

[DarrinS]

Not scientific, but funny as hell.


ruuux4AuHfQ

[ClingingMars]

global warming does exist, it's just not manmade.

ZXrc1XZayp4

0cElkco-hDk

- Mars

[some_user86]

Not scientific, but funny as hell.


ruuux4AuHfQ

That was pretty damn funny.

[Nbadan]

That was pretty damn funny.

Dennis Miller stopped being funny in the 90's....

[Ignignokt]

Ron Paul doesn't believe in global warming
--

[xrayzebra]

Our friend Elpimpo4cc:

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z273/xrayzebra/NothingtoSay.gif

He kinda reminds me of Dan sometimes.

[DarrinS]

Research the "hockey stick" graph and you'll definitely start to wonder how much of a "crisis" global warming really is.

[RandomGuy]

Well, the below list of threads have responses from me in them. I may of missed some. I tried to sort them by relevance, with the more informative ones first:

"Global Warming" or not? Doesn't matter. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79916)

Damn Climate Change (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74209)

Thank God for Global Warming... (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90752)

Recent Results on Solar Variability and Climate Change (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87735)

It’s the Sun Dammit (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74717)

The U.S. is Burning... (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73291)

So much for Global Warming (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73477)

The Science of Gore's Nobel (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82824)

"No Sun link" to climate change (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91330)

Calling out Global-Warming Deniers (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58202)

Thanks for that list, BTW.

Interesting reading.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's anoher interesting article:

22,000 Scientists Disagree With UN Global Warming Push
Analyzing Global-warming Science (http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/22000-scientists-disagree-with-un-global-warming-push/)

The consensus is growing for the deniers. Part of the article:


We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition who’ve looked at the issue and concluded essentially the opposite of these United Nations people. This says nothing about the science. Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims.

Scientific questions are never settled in this way. Science is about natural truth. The truth doesn’t require any advocate. It stands by itself.

In science, a scientist may discover the truth about something. Then he develops a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is tested by various means. So long as the hypothesis passes experimental tests, it becomes stronger and is further relied upon — unless it fails an experimental test. If it is a very fine hypothesis with wide utility, it may spread throughout the entire scientific community and become part of the basis of scientific knowledge. The process by which this is done is not what is important. The truth is important. Scientific truth is not determined by polling or by convening meetings.

The articlce also brings out some great points. In my words:

Sure, we have been warming for the last 250 years, but we have been warming for the last 400 year too... before industrialization...

Solar activity is a primary driver

The UN's IPCC has a political interest to control the world's allotment of energy.

For the exact words, read the article.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's another good piece:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport)