Global Warming?

[chuck34]

Antarctica is on the globe, but not all the globe warms at the same speed. Some will get warmer and some cooler. But the average global temp rises.

Clearly different parts of the globe will do different things. And I think we both know there are enough problems with the ways temperatures are reported, that there can and should be serious questions as to the validity of the supposed "warming". If you honestly think that 0.5degrees is not within the error range of how we measure GLOBAL temperatures ... perhaps a primer in statistics is in order.


But your point in the argument was that GW has slowed or stopped because the last ten years have been cooler.

That is NOT my point. Never has been. Never will be. My point is that a ~30 year "trend" is not suffecient to say there is Global Warming or Global Cooling. 30 years on geologic scales is NEVER enough to prove a trend.


No, because the areas that we currently grow crops in will also get warmer and non productive for crops. We are seeing this already happen in Aus. Not only that, but with ocean acidity increasing, ecosystems in the ocean will start to break down reducing the amount of food we can take from it. There are also large areas of land in India and China that rely on annual melts from glacies to support much of the worlds rice farming. These glaciers are melting faster than they are being replenished.

You bring India and China into this. Well ok, what are they going to do about "Global Warming"? They've said repeatedly that they will not sign onto any of these treaties that are supposed to do who knows what. But we (in the US) are expected to sign on the dotted line? Ship more of our jobs to China and India? Pay a $1500-1600 per year premium just to have heat and electricity? To do what? Play with global temperatures within the noise floor/measurement error?

No thanks.

[Daniel]

I tend to agree Chuck. I don't have a problem taking action against a problem that we may potentially face because that would just be silly.

The problem for me is exactly what you've described. This period of warming is simply to short in the big scheme of things to actually prove anything to the extent that we can put a big fat "FACT" stamp on the front of the Global Warming file. Now I know this contradicts what I just said but if the scientists REALLY know what they IPCC needs to stand up as a body and say this is the world we're going to be living in 10 years from now and be right. We constantly hear of scientists being right after the fact and with so many scientists making predictions the splattergun approach is always going to end up being right.

The other thing is that statistics are forever being manipulated so if the data doesn't fit then it's made to fit. I think what climate science should do is set out clear predctions for a relatively short term period, map out a set of data points which won't be affected by the growth of cities and show how they're going to treat the data before everything happens.

IMHO the climate is too complex for us to understand it. There are too many factors and too many positive/negative feedback relations which are heavily intertwined to simply say x amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to mean x degrees warming.

[steve_spackman]

Perhaps you haven't said it. But other "true believers" have.



http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

Towards the bottom of that page there is a graph that shows both Artic and Antartic ice. The Antartic has grown. While not as much as the Artic has lost, but it is still an increasing trend. And "unprecidented" isn't my word, it's what you ALWAYS hear/read in stories about AGW.

Another story to mull over.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/antarcticas-ice-story-has-been-put-on-ice/



Of course and that's my point. When it's hot, I've seen the "true believers" come out and say, "see Global Warming we're all gonna die". Then if it's cold those same people say "It's only weather". Can't have it both ways.



http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Sept_09.jpg

From that it sure looks like we've cooled off since about 1998. Looks like we're down about 0.4 degees from the peak in '98. And only slightly above '88. It all goes back to my earlier point of what do you use as your baseline? What do you pick as the "perfect temperature". And when did that happen. Everyone in the AGW crowd seems to have picked 1979/80. Why?

And I still have some issues with the raw data here too.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15356

The Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon even made a recent appeal while standing on an Arctic ice-flow, claiming that man-made CO2 emissions were causing
"100 billion tons" of polar ice to melt each year, so that in 30 years the Arctic would be "ice-free". One organization, the WWF, claimed that the Arctic ice was melting so fast that in eighty years sea-levels would rise by 1.2 meters, creating "floods affecting a quarter of the world." Wow! That’s scary. Goodbye Hamburg, New York, Amsterdam...
The publicity stunt of Ban Ki-Moon was carefully orchestrated. It was not said that his ship could only come within 700 miles of the North Pole owing to frozen ice. Nor that he made his stunt in the summer when Arctic ice always melts before refreezing beginning September.
The reality about Arctic ice is quite different. Although some 10 million square kilometres of sea-ice melts each summer, each September the Arctic starts to freeze again. The extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km greater than it was this same time last year – which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007, the lowest point recently recorded (see Cryosphere Today of the University of Illinois, http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ ).
By next April, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14 million sq km or likely more. As British science writer Christopher Booker remarks, “even if all that sea-ice were to melt, this would no more raise sea-levels than a cube of ice melting in a gin and tonic increases the volume of liquid in the glass.”

[Rollo]

As British science writer Christopher Booker remarks, “even if all that sea-ice were to melt, this would no more raise sea-levels than a cube of ice melting in a gin and tonic increases the volume of liquid in the glass.”

What happens if all of the ice has melted and you continue to increase the temperature? The water itself expands.

This is the basic reason why thermohaline circulation exists and why if global warming were to happen significantly then Europe as a whole would get cooler; principally because of a slowing of the gulfstream.


Of course and that's my point. When it's hot, I've seen the "true believers" come out and say, "see Global Warming we're all gonna die". Then if it's cold those same people say "It's only weather". Can't have it both ways.

Can have it both ways, do have it both ways; Europe's weather depends on it.

[chuck34]

What happens if all of the ice has melted and you continue to increase the temperature? The water itself expands.

This is the basic reason why thermohaline circulation exists and why if global warming were to happen significantly then Europe as a whole would get cooler; principally because of a slowing of the gulfstream.

So it's never been warmer when humans have been around? Is it your position that if we warm up, the Gulf Stream stops and we're all f'ed?

Some food for thought.
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/easterbrook.jpg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm

The Vikings/Norse/Inuits seemed to do just fine with warmer temps. But I'm sure we couldn't figure it out.


Can have it both ways, do have it both ways; Europe's weather depends on it.

What in the world does that mean?

[chuck34]

So far the IPCC predictions have been pretty good.

Do you still stand by this statement?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

[Wim_Impreza]

It is still 20 degrees and sunny like hell here. Very warm and so dry.

[chuck34]

It is still 20 degrees and sunny like hell here. Very warm and so dry.

It's cold and rainy here. :-/

[Mark in Oshawa]

Under global warming....blah blah blah......


The debate continues, with neither side knowing really for sure they are right, but one side insisting on partial evidence it is so...and the other side saying "what, me worry?""

Then there is a few of us who think the earth is warming, but notice that solar temps rising seem to correspond with the warming...aand take note the earth has heated and cooled a few times in its history, and no SUV's, oil sands or coal fired gen stations were around for those cycles.

[chuck34]

Under global warming....blah blah blah......


The debate continues, with neither side knowing really for sure they are right, but one side insisting on partial evidence it is so...and the other side saying "what, me worry?""

Then there is a few of us who think the earth is warming, but notice that solar temps rising seem to correspond with the warming...aand take note the earth has heated and cooled a few times in its history, and no SUV's, oil sands or coal fired gen stations were around for those cycles.

Mark, the earth may be warming. Like you said, I don't know. I have read enough to know that there are at least some questions with the temperature gathering methods. That being said, I do think we probably are warming slightly do to the fact that we are still recovering from the Little Ice Age. Also like you said, the earth has heated up and cooled down quite a few times in the past. Many of those periods when man was around. And almost without fail man has thrived during the warmer periods, and gone into decline in the cooling periods.

So yeah, I probably do fall into the "What, me worry" crowd. But that's not quite acurate either as I do worry. I worry quite a lot about what will happen to our way of life if draconian measures such as the Cap-and-Trade legislation in the US and the proposed legislation at the Copenhagen conference are signed into law. I worry because that will ship even more jobs to China and India, and in the case of Copenhagen, pay money to third world nations for some reason. I worry because that will make energy more expensive, energy we need to get to work (assuming we still have one), energy we need to heat our homes, energy we need to grow our food, energy we need to live our lives.

All this for what? To fight a possible problem? A "problem" that humanity has been through before, and not only survive but thrive? And the "solutions" are going to do what exactly to fight the "problem"?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am no disagreeing with you Chuck. I agree actually. That said, I think it is folly to say the earth isn't warming period. Something is going on, but I don't think the IPCC and Al Gore's should be trusted to tell us. They are guessing...and that is a bad platform to build policy on.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Global Warming - B,JB's opinions

I think that a majority of the independent scientific research on global warming shows that the Earth is warming up, and perhaps the Human Race is contributing to that in someway.

However, even if the world is warming up I am skeptical to if it is the biggest threat that human kind has faced. The human race has lived in times when the worlds climate has changed before and we adapted. Why can't we do the same again when we have more power to control our environment than ever before?

Regardless whether there is Global Warming or if humanity is or isn't to blame, I think most of us are missing the point. The long term security of an 'inustrialised' human race relies on sustainability. I don't think our current lifestyles are sustainable.

The biggest threat to our current lifestyles is probably running out of resources e.g. oil, gas. So investment into renewable and sustainable technologies needs to happen, regardless of whether we have global warming or not.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Global Warming - B,JB's opinions

I think that a majority of the independent scientific research on global warming shows that the Earth is warming up, and perhaps the Human Race is contributing to that in someway.

However, even if the world is warming up I am skeptical to if it is the biggest threat that human kind has faced. The human race has lived in times when the worlds climate has changed before and we adapted. Why can't we do the same again when we have more power to control our environment than ever before?

Regardless whether there is Global Warming or if humanity is or isn't to blame, I think most of us are missing the point. The long term security of an 'inustrialised' human race relies on sustainability. I don't think our current lifestyles are sustainable.

The biggest threat to our current lifestyles is probably running out of resources e.g. oil, gas. So investment into renewable and sustainable technologies needs to happen, regardless of whether we have global warming or not.

First off, I think sustainability is something that is a function of the open market. When the oil supplies start to diminish in a meaningful way, it will drive R and D for alternative technologies by the private sector in ways we don't see now. I have no problem with alternative fuels, cars or anything but I object when it is something forced upon me by the gov't.

The idea that heavy authoritative edicts from various governments is going to solve these issues, or create a better world is wishful thinking at best. Oil and gas supplies are still very economical in relative terms to the replacements. Nuclear fission and Wind are great ideas, but need more work. Ditto for solar. Fusion may be the ultimate solution and I think some push from government in terms of funding for R and D might be helpful but to go to cap and trade, create treaties that basically allow rich nations to pay poor ones for the right to keep right on producing CO2 at the same rate they did before is just a ponzi scheme.

If we are the cause of the warming, nothing short of killing 5 billion of the richest people on the planet and shutting down their world will change things. Spend the money on how to deal with the rising sea's, how to use new technology and to allow industry and natual human curiousity to be encouraged passively. Heavy handed solutions that solve nothing wont help.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

First off, I think sustainability is something that is a function of the open market. When the oil supplies start to diminish in a meaningful way, it will drive R and D for alternative technologies by the private sector in ways we don't see now. I have no problem with alternative fuels, cars or anything but I object when it is something forced upon me by the gov't.


Life in the western world is based around oil. I resource that will eventually run out and a market that is controlled by OPEC. Is that sustainable?

[anthonyvop]

Life in the western world is based around oil. I resource that will eventually run out and a market that is controlled by OPEC. Is that sustainable?
Are you that short sighted?

[chuck34]

Life in the western world is based around oil. I resource that will eventually run out and a market that is controlled by OPEC. Is that sustainable?

Is basing your power supply on something that relies on it being sunny and windy all the time sustainable?

Will oil run out? Of course, but new reserves are being found all the time. New ways of extracting the oil are being invented all the time, making inaccessable deposits more accessable and economic to recover. New sources of Natural gas are being found all the time as well, especially in the US. This isn't an immediate problem. One that needs to be addressed sure, but not by Draconian edicts handed down by a bunch of politicians in Washington and elsewhere.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Is basing your power supply on something that relies on it being sunny and windy all the time sustainable?



Off shore in the UK you can pretty much guarantee that it is windy all the time :p

Hydro-electric is arguably the most sustainable power source.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Are you that short sighted?

Nope. I have 20/20 vision.

[anthonyvop]

Nope. I have 20/20 vision.
Then you are living in the dark.

[anthonyvop]

Hydro-electric is arguably the most sustainable power source.
Yea. Tell that to the Salmon lovers! How about the farmers who are loosing everything because some judge said the Delta Smelt is more important than the lives of 30,000+ people.
At least one judge ame to his senses.
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1886279.html

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Yea. Tell that to the Salmon lovers! How about the farmers who are loosing everything because some judge said the Delta Smelt is more important than the lives of 30,000+ people.
At least one judge ame to his senses.
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1886279.html

Salmon farmers or land farmers?

What's your point?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The idea that heavy authoritative edicts from various governments is going to solve these issues, or create a better world is wishful thinking at best. Oil and gas supplies are still very economical in relative terms to the replacements. Nuclear fission and Wind are great ideas, but need more work. Ditto for solar. Fusion may be the ultimate solution and I think some push from government in terms of funding for R and D might be helpful but to go to cap and trade, create treaties that basically allow rich nations to pay poor ones for the right to keep right on producing CO2 at the same rate they did before is just a ponzi scheme.


Part of the reason why governments need to get involved is because future technology doesn't come from one companies innovation. New technologies, especially in big markets such as energy, require the government to help them become artificially competitive. This allows for the infrastructure and economies of scale to develop before the new technologies are competitive on their own. For example, no single car company is going break the Hydrogen car into the market anytime soon without help from the government in developing an infrastructure of hydrogen fuel stations.

[anthonyvop]

Salmon farmers or land farmers?

What's your point?

Who said salmon "FARMERS"?

[chuck34]

Off shore in the UK you can pretty much guarantee that it is windy all the time :p

Hydro-electric is arguably the most sustainable power source.

So is there enough wind, enough area, and enough money to put up enough windmills to give enough power enough of the time to all of the UK? Is it reliable enough to ensure that when someone wants to flip on a light, or turn on an appliance that the power will always be there?

[chuck34]

Part of the reason why governments need to get involved is because future technology doesn't come from one companies innovation. New technologies, especially in big markets such as energy, require the government to help them become artificially competitive. This allows for the infrastructure and economies of scale to develop before the new technologies are competitive on their own. For example, no single car company is going break the Hydrogen car into the market anytime soon without help from the government in developing an infrastructure of hydrogen fuel stations.

Why can't a company break the Hydrogen car onto the market. If it is truly that great, and can give customers the range, price, etc. that customers want, why wouldn't companies put it in the market?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So is there enough wind, enough area, and enough money to put up enough windmills to give enough power enough of the time to all of the UK? Is it reliable enough to ensure that when someone wants to flip on a light, or turn on an appliance that the power will always be there?

No. No energy source is.

A combination of different enrgy generation is what has happend in the past, what is happening now, and what should happen in the future.

In the UK it seems like we are moving towards an increase in wind, HEP, tidal, Nuclear and reduction is fossil fuels.

I think it makes sence to move away from one energy source(fossil fuels) that is evetually going to become more expensive after we reach peak production, to the alternatives that are becoming cheaper and more efficient/reliable as the technology improves.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Why can't a company break the Hydrogen car onto the market. If it is truly that great, and can give customers the range, price, etc. that customers want, why wouldn't companies put it in the market?

Because as things stand there is no infractructure or econmoies of scale. One car company can't do it on there own. They will need the help of fuel companies and some government influence.

The technology is already there.

[chuck34]

No. No energy source is.

A combination of different enrgy generation is what has happend in the past, what is happening now, and what should happen in the future.

In the UK it seems like we are moving towards an increase in wind, HEP, tidal, Nuclear and reduction is fossil fuels.

I think it makes sence to move away from one energy source(fossil fuels) that is evetually going to become more expensive after we reach peak production, to the alternatives that are becoming cheaper and more efficient/reliable as the technology improves.

That's a fine and sensable approach. But it is not the one that the US government and many other governments around the world are taking. With things like cap-and-trade they are FORCING us into these other technologies that may or may not be totally proven out yet. THAT approach does not make any sence.

[chuck34]

Because as things stand there is no infractructure or econmoies of scale. One car company can't do it on there own. They will need the help of fuel companies and some government influence.

The technology is already there.

What is stopping the fuel companies from putting up a Hydrogen pump at their stations?

Alternatly, how did gas stations get started 100 years ago?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

What is stopping the fuel companies from putting up a Hydrogen pump at their stations?

Alternatly, how did gas stations get started 100 years ago?

It is still a big risk for the fuel companies. A fuel company might downsize its petroleum operation and focus on Hydrogen. Then a few years later battery technology might have improved dramatically, so all the car companies choose to use batteries instead of Hydrogen. The fuel company that built an infrastructure of Hydrogen filling stations would then be screwed.

It's safer for the fuel companies to keep promoting their traditional oil based fuels as this is currently what their business models are based around. And if petral/gas is readily available there is no motivation for the consumers to change their buying habits. Sadly, the governments believes the only to do this is to heavily tax petrol/gas in the hope that this will increase consumer demmand for the alternatives.

100 years ago there were no barriers to entry in fuel market. I could have launched my own brand of fuel back then. If I tried to do it today BP, Shell etc are so huge that they would just buy me out immiediatlety.

[chuck34]

It is still a big risk for the fuel companies. A fuel company might downsize its petroleum operation and focus on Hydrogen. Then a few years later battery technology might have improved dramatically, so all the car companies choose to use batteries instead of Hydrogen. The fuel company that built an infrastructure of Hydrogen filling stations would then be screwed.

The risks you outline that apply to the current fuel companies also applies to the government. If a government would mandate hydrogen tech., they would have to accompany that with tax subsidies. And subsidies are picked up by us, the taxpayer. Doesn't the government have some responsibility to protect the taxpayer from undue risk? Or are they just there to bankroll whatever technology suits their tastes this week?


It's safer for the fuel companies to keep promoting their traditional oil based fuels as this is currently what their business models are based around. And if petral/gas is readily available there is no motivation for the consumers to change their buying habits. Sadly, the governments believes the only to do this is to heavily tax petrol/gas in the hope that this will increase consumer demmand for the alternatives.

If hydrogen fuels are so great, why would the current fuel companies have to do anything?

And I have a major issue with governments artifically inflating prices of things through taxation.


100 years ago there were no barriers to entry in fuel market. I could have launched my own brand of fuel back then. If I tried to do it today BP, Shell etc are so huge that they would just buy me out immiediatlety.

But the horse and buggy buisness is so large that if I try and start up an auto company, they'll just buy me out. That's not something I think ever came out of Henry Ford's mouth.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If hydrogen fuels are so great, why would the current fuel companies have to do anything?

And I have a major issue with governments artifically inflating prices of things through taxation.
I think currently the case now is, the fuel companies aren't investing because there is little demand. There is no demand because the car companies aren't willing to produce the hydrogen cars because the technology is currently too expensive and there is no infrastructure. It's basically a big circle. No company can make the move themselves, they have to cooperate with each other.

I wouldn't mind paying taxation on my fuel if we could see that it was being spent on the alternatives. Unfortunately it seems like it is spent by Members of Parliament on accountants who can 'window dress' their expenses reports.




But the horse and buggy buisness is so large that if I try and start up an auto company, they'll just buy me out. That's not something I think ever came out of Henry Ford's mouth.

The automobile was a new product with considerable differences and advantages over a horse and cart. The hydrogen fuel cell doesn't have the same advantages over the internal combustion engine as things stand because oil is still readily available.

[chuck34]

I wouldn't mind paying taxation on my fuel if we could see that it was being spent on the alternatives. Unfortunately it seems like it is spent by Members of Parliament on accountants that can 'window dress' their expenses reports.

If the company is up front in saying that we, as a company, have decided to charge you a bit more per gallon (or liter, etc) because we want to invest in R&D for alternatives, then I have no problem with that. But if the government mandates the taxation then they are artificially tampering with the supply/demand curve, and that pretty much always has bad side effects.


The automobile was a new product with considerable differences and advantages over a horse and cart. The hydrogen fuel cell doesn't have the same advantages over the internal combustion engine as things stand because oil is still readily available.

If the hydrogen fuel cell doesn't have demonstrable advantages (economic costs, environmental costs, ect) why would anyone want it? Why MUST we all buy them?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If the company is up front in saying that we, as a company, have decided to charge you a bit more per gallon (or liter, etc) because we want to invest in R&D for alternatives, then I have no problem with that. But if the government mandates the taxation then they are artificially tampering with the supply/demand curve, and that pretty much always has bad side effects.



If the hydrogen fuel cell doesn't have demonstrable advantages (economic costs, environmental costs, ect) why would anyone want it? Why MUST we all buy them?

Where's the harm in preparing for a future after the oil has run out? If we don't we will take a step backwards. Perhaps taking a step backwards now means we can take two step forwards in the future.

There was a very informative interview with the CEO of Ford Europe on the BBC. He explained why the introduction of new technologies needed co-operation of car companies, fuel companies and the government. And he explained it better than me. I'll see if I can find it for you :)

[chuck34]

Where's the harm in preparing for a future after the oil has run out? If we don't we will take a step backwards. Perhaps taking a step backwards now means we can take two step forwards in the future.

There was a very informative interview with the CEO of Ford Europe on the BBC. He explained why the introduction of new technologies needed co-operation of car companies, fuel companies and the government. And he explained it better than me. I'll see if I can find it for you :)

There is no harm in preparing for the future. But as we HAVE NO IDEA what the future holds, why mandate what form that future takes?

As you said earlier, what if we put all our eggs in the hydrogen basket, and it turns out that batteries are better? We've taken two steps back for no gain. Or if we put all our government funded eggs into the wind energy basket, and someone comes up with cold fusion on their own. All those government funded dollars (ie yours and mine) are out the window. Don't you have a problem with wasting your money?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

There is no harm in preparing for the future. But as we HAVE NO IDEA what the future holds, why mandate what form that future takes?

As you said earlier, what if we put all our eggs in the hydrogen basket, and it turns out that batteries are better? We've taken two steps back for no gain. Or if we put all our government funded eggs into the wind energy basket, and someone comes up with cold fusion on their own. All those government funded dollars (ie yours and mine) are out the window. Don't you have a problem with wasting your money?

I don't think that is how technological improvements come about. Advancements don't appear overnight. The CEO of General Electric said that there is rarely a quantum leap when it comes to technology. Advancement comes step by step, and takes a hell of a lot of investment in research and development.

Problems such as the environment, poverty and well being of the population can't be solved by one company or even a few companies working together. It needs collective intelligence and this includes the government.As I said earlier, governments can make the new technology artificially competitive so we can build the economies of scales e.g. infrastructure, and helps us build our experience with the new technology. This well further the investment in the new technology and doesn't mean that we will put all our eggs in the wrong basket. It just means that we come to the correct solution faster.

One example I can think of, although not related to global warming, is the switchover form analogue to digital TV. No single company could have done this on their own. It needed the governments help. As a result, the whole population gets digital TV much faster than if the market was left to its own devices. This means that costs are saved as analogue transmitters no longer have to be operated.

Here's a link to a radio interview about technology. http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/bottomline/ (might not work outside of the UK)

[Malbec]

There is no harm in preparing for the future. But as we HAVE NO IDEA what the future holds, why mandate what form that future takes?

As you said earlier, what if we put all our eggs in the hydrogen basket, and it turns out that batteries are better? We've taken two steps back for no gain. Or if we put all our government funded eggs into the wind energy basket, and someone comes up with cold fusion on their own. All those government funded dollars (ie yours and mine) are out the window. Don't you have a problem with wasting your money?

There are two levels of argument here, one is the highbrow 'is global warming real and what can we do about it' argument and the other is 'how are people going to react to this global warming'. I'm going to ignore the former and concentrate on the latter.

Ultimately chuck American industry doesn't need to do anything about global warming, just like it didn't have to do anything about other countries legislating for cleaner cars back in the 70s and 80s. In the end though, American industry will be disadvantaged as more and more markets demand cleaner more environmentally friendly products, just as GM and Ford with their large polluting cars got hit hard by Honda and VW with their small clean ones back in the day.

Governments around the world will probably legislate for cleaner products, handicapping dirtier ones with greater taxes or duties. That shift is ultimately driven by public opinion which in the developed world outside the US is predominantly in favour of acting to curb global warming. You can argue all you like as to whether global warming is real. American industry can act to ignore it for as long as it wants, but it will increasingly find its products out of touch with the markets it sells to.

The American car industry refused to see the market trend thirty years ago, where is it now?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It think it comes back to the same attitudes were highlighted in the US Healthcare Reform thread. (Which takes us in a full circle because this thread is a spin off from that one).

It always comes across that Americans don't like the governments interfering in their life at all. Where as over here we are indifferent to it. It is almost as in Europe we don't mind the government interfering because that is what we elected them to do. If they didn't we would be wondering what is the government actually doing.

Culture and attitude towards the government has developed differently in America. Maybe this is because any government involvement is seen as socialism and Cold War propaganda still has an ingrained affect on the American population.

This isn't a bad thing, it is just why I think we always seem to get a split of opinion in threads between Americans and Europeans.

[Malbec]

It think it comes back to the same attitudes were highlighted in the US Healthcare Reform thread. (Which takes us in a full circle because this thread is a spin off from that one).

It always comes across that Americans don't like the governments interfering in their life at all. Where as over here we are indifferent to it. It is almost as in Europe we don't mind the government interfering because that is what we elected them to do. If they didn't we would be wondering what is the government actually doing.

Culture and attitude towards the government has developed differently in America. Maybe this is because any government involvement is seen as socialism and Cold War propaganda still has an ingrained affect on the American population.

This isn't a bad thing, it is just why I think we always seem to get a split of opinion in threads between Americans and Europeans.

I think it boils down to the fact that people outside the US have always lived with some form of government, whether its feudal, monarchist, republican or democratic for time immemorial. In the US though, especially in the mid-West government came after the people established themselves so it is more of an outside power than an intrinsic part of society, hence the different attitudes.

[chuck34]

I don't think that is how technological improvements come about. Advancements don't appear overnight. The CEO of General Electric said that there is rarely a quantum leap when it comes to technology. Advancement comes step by step, and takes a hell of a lot of investment in research and development.

Nope, technological improvements don't come about overnight usually. What's wrong with that? And why does that mean government needs to get involved?


Problems such as the environment, poverty and well being of the population can't be solved by one company or even a few companies working together. It needs collective intelligence and this includes the government.As I said earlier, governments can make the new technology artificially competitive so we can build the economies of scales e.g. infrastructure, and helps us build our experience with the new technology. This well further the investment in the new technology and doesn't mean that we will put all our eggs in the wrong basket. It just means that we come to the correct solution faster.

Why can't those problems be solved by one or a group of companies, or even individuals? That's how it's worked for most issues for most of human history. And how do you know that with government forcing all our eggs in one basket that it won't be the wrong basket? What would have happened if governments would have invested in Beta tapes, or HD DVD's? Those are dead tech's that were arguably better, but consumers chose different alternatives. Are consumers wrong? Were their choices based on faulty trades? How do you know what's right and what's wrong before consumers get to study something?


One example I can think of, although not related to global warming, is the switchover form analogue to digital TV. No single company could have done this on their own. It needed the governments help. As a result, the whole population gets digital TV much faster than if the market was left to its own devices. This means that costs are saved as analogue transmitters no longer have to be operated.

Because the government already controls all the radio and TV traffic they were the only ones that could make this switch. A TV station could not choose to do this on their own until given permission by the FCC. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, as the radio at TV frequencies probably should be regulated by the Feds, I'm just saying that this is an example well outside of normal supply/demand factors.

[chuck34]

There are two levels of argument here, one is the highbrow 'is global warming real and what can we do about it' argument and the other is 'how are people going to react to this global warming'. I'm going to ignore the former and concentrate on the latter.

Ultimately chuck American industry doesn't need to do anything about global warming, just like it didn't have to do anything about other countries legislating for cleaner cars back in the 70s and 80s. In the end though, American industry will be disadvantaged as more and more markets demand cleaner more environmentally friendly products, just as GM and Ford with their large polluting cars got hit hard by Honda and VW with their small clean ones back in the day.

Governments around the world will probably legislate for cleaner products, handicapping dirtier ones with greater taxes or duties. That shift is ultimately driven by public opinion which in the developed world outside the US is predominantly in favour of acting to curb global warming. You can argue all you like as to whether global warming is real. American industry can act to ignore it for as long as it wants, but it will increasingly find its products out of touch with the markets it sells to.

The American car industry refused to see the market trend thirty years ago, where is it now?

This probably sounds cruel or whatever, but it is what I believe.

If customers are demanding something (in your example smaller more fuel efficient cars, or in this case more "green" tech) then companies had better figure out a way to meet said demand. If they don't, then they go out of business. Which is exactly what should have happened with GM and Chrysler. I'm sorry for those workers, but something else will come up to take the place of those companies. Out of failure comes great success.

[chuck34]

It think it comes back to the same attitudes were highlighted in the US Healthcare Reform thread. (Which takes us in a full circle because this thread is a spin off from that one).

It always comes across that Americans don't like the governments interfering in their life at all. Where as over here we are indifferent to it. It is almost as in Europe we don't mind the government interfering because that is what we elected them to do. If they didn't we would be wondering what is the government actually doing.

Culture and attitude towards the government has developed differently in America. Maybe this is because any government involvement is seen as socialism and Cold War propaganda still has an ingrained affect on the American population.

This isn't a bad thing, it is just why I think we always seem to get a split of opinion in threads between Americans and Europeans.

Our distaste of governmetn does not come from Cold War propaganda. It is MUCH deeper than that. It goes all the way back to our founding pricipals of individual Liberty and freedoms.

But you are right, our views on government as Americans (and probably to some extent Canadians) is that we want them to leave us the heck alone. Europeans, as you say, are much more indifferent to government intervention. I respect that difference.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Nope, technological improvements don't come about overnight usually. What's wrong with that? And why does that mean government needs to get involved?



Why can't those problems be solved by one or a group of companies, or even individuals? That's how it's worked for most issues for most of human history. And how do you know that with government forcing all our eggs in one basket that it won't be the wrong basket? What would have happened if governments would have invested in Beta tapes, or HD DVD's? Those are dead tech's that were arguably better, but consumers chose different alternatives. Are consumers wrong? Were their choices based on faulty trades? How do you know what's right and what's wrong before consumers get to study something?



Because the government already controls all the radio and TV traffic they were the only ones that could make this switch. A TV station could not choose to do this on their own until given permission by the FCC. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, as the radio at TV frequencies probably should be regulated by the Feds, I'm just saying that this is an example well outside of normal supply/demand factors.


I think we are going round in circles :laugh:

A difference between governments now and governments in the past is that governments now are showing entrepreneurial thinking. Governments know that it is the companies that actually make the difference. Companies are aware that governments know this, and this means that the most successful businesses are the ones that collaborate with the government.

[Alexamateo]

...................

A difference between governments now and governments in the past is that governments now are showing entrepreneurial thinking. Governments know that it is the companies that actually make the difference. Companies are aware that governments know this, and this means that the most successful businesses are the ones that collaborate with the government.

Re-think this because this leads down the road to corruption. Also, government is entirely incapable of entreprenuerial thinking by it's very nature. It's nature is to regulate and create bureaucracy.

Successful businesses that collaborate with governments essentially can write laws in the name of consumer protection to drive out competition by virtually creating cost of entry barriers that are impossible to overcome. There's nothing like outlawing competition. This is why trade groups lobby for laws to create licensing and registration requirements. Trust me, you don't want businessmen and groups essentially writing their own laws.

[chuck34]

Re-think this because this leads down the road to corruption. Also, government is entirely incapable of entreprenuerial thinking by it's very nature. It's nature is to regulate and create bureaucracy.

Successful businesses that collaborate with governments essentially can write laws in the name of consumer protection to drive out competition by virtually creating cost of entry barriers that are impossible to overcome. There's nothing like outlawing competition. This is why trade groups lobby for laws to create licensing and registration requirements. Trust me, you don't want businessmen and groups essentially writing their own laws.

I'm thinking it (government/business "collaboration") leads down a very different road. There is a system of government out there that is a combination of corporations and government. Your second paragraph descibes this fairly well. And no it's not the system you think I'm thinking about, and it's not a perfect definition either. But it's a fairly scary thing to think about.

[GridGirl]

Why am I not suprised when BJB says companies should work with government the Americans on this forum automatically think about corruption yet I automatically think of governments providing grants? :s At work we have a major contract with the Audit Commission that deals with grant monies provided by both the UK government and the European Union for research and development purposes. Without government or the EU the research wouldn't be taking place. Sure some of the money has gone to academics but one hell of alot has also gone to big global corporations that if I name dropped you all would of heard of the companies.

[Alexamateo]

Well, who gets those grants and why? I don't know the particulars in your case because I don't know to whom you are referring, but in general decisions are made to favor cronies and the politically connected.

An example of government decision making:

Where I live, we were all set to be annexed and had already passed two of the three votes required. On the eve of the third vote, most of the council changed their mind and voted against annexation. Officially, because we feel we cannot provide that area with the level of city services required.

Unofficially, (and I know because I sell product in the construction industry), it was because there was too much undeveloped land and politically connected developers want to develop it before it is annexed. So what does the city do for added revenues? They sell off the parcel they owned behind our subdivision that was on long-range plans for a city park to said developers, so instead of our neighborhood abutting an undeveloped woods that was supposed to be an eventual park, we abut just another cookie-cutter subdivision that is only 30% developed (but all the trees are gone) because of the economic slowdown. If there is any solace, it's the fact I am sure annexation will be pushed off at least 5 more years so there's less taxes for me.

That's a microcosm of why I view the governmental decision making process with a healthy dose of skepticism, and this goes for both sides of the political aisle.

[chuck34]

Here's a quote from President Eisenhower's farewell address that I stumbled upon. It's a pretty good description of what we've been talking about here with government/corporate "collaboration"

“Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity…The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded.”

Basically saying that the vast sums of money handed out by government to corporations will actually stifile curiosity and invention.

[Rollo]

Basically saying that the vast sums of money handed out by government to corporations will actually stifile curiosity and invention.

So how do you feel about governments funding research through universities, and science institutes?

[GridGirl]

A simple Google search found this website http://www.uk-energy-saving.com/grants.html which give details of UK government grants for individuals and businesses to improve their energy efficiency or move to more sustainable fuel types.

[chuck34]

So how do you feel about governments funding research through universities, and science institutes?

I don't really like it, but it's probably a necessary evil. It doesn't seem as there are too many strings attached to most of that funding. But like I said, I wish there was another way to do it.

[Malbec]

Basically saying that the vast sums of money handed out by government to corporations will actually stifile curiosity and invention.

I'm guessing you've not been involved in scientific research yourself.

State funding of research tends to be quite blind, often they merely give money to a particular institution that conducts what research it wants to and tops it up with private funding from companies or charities. Sometimes of course governments kick off research by being a major client, defence techs are a good example of this.

You say it stifles curiosity, yet state funded research projects did the work to see if there really was a link between cigarettes and cancer. Private companies tried to block that research and funded projects that looked like they'd show no link. Ultimately the facts were too strong to ignore and now Big Tobacco don't bother fighting the evidence, but if your view is correct the governments were wrong to fund that original research.

Thing is you're writing on a medium that only exists due to government funding, ie the internet. I don't find the internet to be a bad thing but it took ages for private finance to get involved. I can think of other areas of research where state funding makes a large difference. Your view of government bad private initiatives good is too simplistic and ignores how scientific research works.

[chuck34]

I'm guessing you've not been involved in scientific research yourself.

State funding of research tends to be quite blind, often they merely give money to a particular institution that conducts what research it wants to and tops it up with private funding from companies or charities. Sometimes of course governments kick off research by being a major client, defence techs are a good example of this.

You say it stifles curiosity, yet state funded research projects did the work to see if there really was a link between cigarettes and cancer. Private companies tried to block that research and funded projects that looked like they'd show no link. Ultimately the facts were too strong to ignore and now Big Tobacco don't bother fighting the evidence, but if your view is correct the governments were wrong to fund that original research.

Thing is you're writing on a medium that only exists due to government funding, ie the internet. I don't find the internet to be a bad thing but it took ages for private finance to get involved. I can think of other areas of research where state funding makes a large difference. Your view of government bad private initiatives good is too simplistic and ignores how scientific research works.

Didn't read either one of my last two posts did you? Just want to disagree right?

I never said all government funding was bad. I do wish that they would fund less stuff, but some of it is necessary. Sure gov. gives a kick start to some research into some areas. But a lot of times it is privately funded research that starts things out, finds a bit of a thread into something, runs out of money to pursue things further, then applies for a gov. grant because many times they are the easiest to get money from.

[chuck34]

We've gotten quite far off topic now. Here's a report that may help bring us back to the original topic.

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

Basically it is saying that the earth's climate is controlled by the sun. Imagine that, who would have thought of that? Not that I'm really on board with the whole "global cooling" thing now. But there does seem to be slightly (very slightly) better evidence for that than AGW, and the consequences are much more dire as well.

Anyway, enjoy.

[Malbec]

Didn't read either one of my last two posts did you? Just want to disagree right?

I never said all government funding was bad. I do wish that they would fund less stuff, but some of it is necessary. Sure gov. gives a kick start to some research into some areas. But a lot of times it is privately funded research that starts things out, finds a bit of a thread into something, runs out of money to pursue things further, then applies for a gov. grant because many times they are the easiest to get money from.

I quoted your second last post, the other one refers to state funded research as a necessary evil.

A lot of my original post isn't aimed solely at you chuck but at all those who dismiss state funded research as they have earlier on this thread, as if privately funded research is some pure truth (nothing could be further from the truth). I wonder how many papers that 'debunk' global warming are funded by oil/car companies, quite a few I'd expect.

[chuck34]

I quoted your second last post, the other one refers to state funded research as a necessary evil.

Exactly I said it was a necessary evil, and that usually it seems that funding of University type research doesn't have many stings attached. Then you selectively quoted my reading of a quote from Ike, and made it seem as if I was saying all research is evil which is countered in my second quote. Anyway that's all a bit confusing.

Bottom line. Funding for University research if pretty much ok as it is, and some gov. funded corporate research can be ok. But I would really like to limit that and eliminate it if possible. A very nuaunced(sp?) stance I realize, but nothing is black and white.


A lot of my original post isn't aimed solely at you chuck but at all those who dismiss state funded research as they have earlier on this thread, as if privately funded research is some pure truth (nothing could be further from the truth).

So privately funded research is not "the truth". Ok remember that.


I wonder how many papers that 'debunk' global warming are funded by oil/car companies, quite a few I'd expect.

How much money comes from "green" companies to fund AGW studies? How much money does Al Gore personally stand to make with green tech (specifically carbon offest credits)? How much money does GE stand to make from green tech? Who makes windmills, those little curly light bulbs, etc.?

See no one has a corner on the "truth" market. Government or private. The difference is that if the government decides to push something, they can keep pushing it for as long as they want. On the other hand, private industry can only push something as long as there is a market for it. I tend to trust the market much more than the gov. But that's just me.

[Malbec]

How much money comes from "green" companies to fund AGW studies? How much money does Al Gore personally stand to make with green tech (specifically carbon offest credits)? How much money does GE stand to make from green tech? Who makes windmills, those little curly light bulbs, etc.?

Who has more money to spend? Oil and car companies or those green companies you mention? There is no parity here whatsoever.


See no one has a corner on the "truth" market. Government or private. The difference is that if the government decides to push something, they can keep pushing it for as long as they want. On the other hand, private industry can only push something as long as there is a market for it. I tend to trust the market much more than the gov. But that's just me.

So you'd rather trust, say, research that says that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, or that lead really doesn't cause much harm whether its inhaled or ingested as opposed to research to the contrary? How about the car maker sponsored researchwork from the 50s that claimed that seatbelts cost lives?

[BDunnell]

So you'd rather trust, say, research that says that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, or that lead really doesn't cause much harm whether its inhaled or ingested as opposed to research to the contrary? How about the car maker sponsored researchwork from the 50s that claimed that seatbelts cost lives?

Precisely the point I made earlier in a different way. There are a lot of, frankly, bonkers 'research findings' out there that gain undue credence merely because they go against the perceived norm. Not a sound basis on which to form an opinion.

[chuck34]

Who has more money to spend? Oil and car companies or those green companies you mention? There is no parity here whatsoever.

You are right there is no parity here. The government can outspend any and all companies that it chooses. GE has no money, power, or influence? Al Gore has no money, power, or influence? The UN has no money, power, or influence? The WWF has no money, power, or influence? Greenpeace has no money, power, or influence? Come on man, you're smarter than your last statement there.


So you'd rather trust, say, research that says that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, or that lead really doesn't cause much harm whether its inhaled or ingested as opposed to research to the contrary? How about the car maker sponsored researchwork from the 50s that claimed that seatbelts cost lives?

You seem to have some sort of view that the government is the arbiter of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Where does that view come from? Do you honestly think that the government doesn't have agendas? Do you not realise that the goverment isn't some sort of altruistic entity that is out to protect "Truth, Justice, and the American Way", but is made up of men and women? Men and women who are flawed, like all of us, and as such are suseptable to influnces of money, power, and what's "cool" at the moment. Do you really believe that the government is always right?

That being said, they are not always wrong either. Don't make the mistake of thinking that either.

[chuck34]

Precisely the point I made earlier in a different way. There are a lot of, frankly, bonkers 'research findings' out there that gain undue credence merely because they go against the perceived norm. Not a sound basis on which to form an opinion.

I've linked to a lot of papers, articles, and such. I have yet to see anyone point out how any of that is "bonkers". The only thing that came close was way back at the beginning when someone said that one of the papers I linked to was written by someone who was on Fox News once. So I guess I was proven wrong on that one. /sarc

Come on, give me a link to something that says I'm "bonkers" for not believing AGW. Let's start with the last paper I linked to. Why doesn't the sun have a large influence on the climate? Afterall it was written by someone (Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria)who works for your favorite people, government. So it must be true right? Or are the Russians somehow the wrong government now?

Or how about telling me how Dr. Hanson wasn't wrong 20 years ago?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/2...-james-hansen/

Or how about telling me that it hasn't been warmer in the past, and man thrived then?
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.c...asterbrook.jpg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1020095850.htm

How about telling me that the Copenhagen treaty isn't about a power grab?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/1...lord-monckton/

What about addressing what bluuford, a climate scientist right here on the board had to say in post #247?

Need I go on? The only one that has even given much of a scientific challenge to any of this has been rah. But he seems to have given up, or been gone for a while. I need scientific theories to change my mind. Arguments about "your research was funded by the wrong people" don't really change many minds.

[Malbec]

You are right there is no parity here. The government can outspend any and all companies that it chooses. GE has no money, power, or influence? Al Gore has no money, power, or influence? The UN has no money, power, or influence? The WWF has no money, power, or influence? Greenpeace has no money, power, or influence? Come on man, you're smarter than your last statement there.

The government? You are aware that there is no single global entity called 'government'. Governments yes, government no. There is no global conspiracy.

Historically oil and car makers do spend a lot of money funding favourable research. I'm not willing to waste time arguing that they spend more than green groups. As for your statement that GE is entirely pro-green tech, I'll have to take your word on that. Except for nuclear I'm not aware of them being particularly pro-green over other companies.


You seem to have some sort of view that the government is the arbiter of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Where does that view come from? Do you honestly think that the government doesn't have agendas? Do you not realise that the goverment isn't some sort of altruistic entity that is out to protect "Truth, Justice, and the American Way", but is made up of men and women? Men and women who are flawed, like all of us, and as such are suseptable to influnces of money, power, and what's "cool" at the moment. Do you really believe that the government is always right?

You'll have to point out where I claimed governmentS are always right. I also find your belief that science is divided into government and private funded research rather facile to be honest. Having come from a scientific background you'll have to understand that this simple 'division' bears little resemblance with reality. I'm afraid you're arguing with a position I don't believe even exists, let alone hold.

I merely took your argument to its logical conclusion BTW. You'd rather believe privately funded research unless the evidence conclusively points against them. I came up with examples of privately funded research that in their time, had strong adherents both within the scientific and public communities. You don't seem comfortable with the end conclusion of your argument. I ask you again, why would you not believe that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, lead ingestion is safe and seatbelts kill?

[chuck34]

The government? You are aware that there is no single global entity called 'government'. Governments yes, government no. There is no global conspiracy.

You are right there is no conspiracy. But when interests align things tend to mesh together quite well. I'll refer you once again to the following story on the upcoming Copenhagen conference.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/1...lord-monckton/


Historically oil and car makers do spend a lot of money funding favourable research. I'm not willing to waste time arguing that they spend more than green groups. As for your statement that GE is entirely pro-green tech, I'll have to take your word on that. Except for nuclear I'm not aware of them being particularly pro-green over other companies.

Have you not seen the comercials that they've been running fairly regularly in the past year or so? I guess I don't know if you are in the US or not, maybe they don't run those ads over in Europe? But you do know that they make many of the green tech products don't you? Don't take my word for it (on this or anything for that matter, I'm not the expert) look it up yourself.

http://www.ge.com/products_services/energy.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=GE+and+green+tech&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

You also know that GE owns NBC, right? And that NBC has run a couple of "Green Weeks" to promote these issues right? Again, don't take my word for it.

http://www.nbc.com/Green/

But I'm sure there's not motive there, no profit to be made, right?

And I notice that you conveniently left out Al Gore, the UN, the WWF, Greenpeace, and the others.


You'll have to point out where I claimed governmentS are always right.

You'll have to point out where I claimed that governmentS are always wrong.


I also find your belief that science is divided into government and private funded research rather facile to be honest. Having come from a scientific background you'll have to understand that this simple 'division' bears little resemblance with reality. I'm afraid you're arguing with a position I don't believe even exists, let alone hold.

I've never said that there was such a division. I'm simply stating my position that I would prefer if my tax dollars didn't go to fund so much research. I feel that research should be carried out by private entities as much as possible. I have also said that this is not very practical, and that some government funding IS needed. So I'm not sure why you are arguing with me on this one.


I merely took your argument to its logical conclusion BTW. You'd rather believe privately funded research unless the evidence conclusively points against them.

You'll have to point out where I made such a claim.


I came up with examples of privately funded research that in their time, had strong adherents both within the scientific and public communities. You don't seem comfortable with the end conclusion of your argument. I ask you again, why would you not believe that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, lead ingestion is safe and seatbelts kill?

Have I ever said that I think tobacco doesn't cause cancer, lead is ok, or seatbelts are ok?

I think that you are trying to argue something that I'm not arguing at all. I'm simply saying that the government has a role in research and regulation, but they have oversteped that role in the past few years. I want them to scale back a bit.

I believe in a limited government, that is all. I know that is a foreign concept to many, but it is how many people view the role of government (particularly in the US).

Now how about we get back on topic here?

[chuck34]

To put my last post more simply.

Why would you believe "government" research over "corporate" research? Both can and have been wrong. Both can be and are biased. So you have to look at what they are telling you (both sides), weigh all the factors (economic, motives, biases, believability, etc.), and make up your own mind.

To blindly believe "government" research is just just as bad as blindly beleiving "corporate" research.

[anthonyvop]

Are the "world Leaders" finally waking up to the reality of the global warming myth?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/asia/15prexy.html?_r=1

[Mark in Oshawa]

Heard on the CBC Radio news today that our PM, PM Harper said at APEC today that he wasn't going to sign any agreement on reducing Canada's GHG emissions if the Chinese, Indians and Brazilians didn't have to sign the same. Gee....I think he has just exposed this crap for what it is: A great scheme to handicap the economy of the US, Canada and Western nations while the developing world can do what they want.

Kyoto basically was the same crap, and it is this reason the Americans never ratififed it. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were the leaders that got nearly sucked into that game. Lucky for the US, they never signed.

If we REALLY need to reduce GHG gases and it is so VITAL, then every nation should agree to a treaty reducing GHG or NONE. Lets face the reality. If GHG really is the evil some say they are (I don't agree but I will play along for the sake of argument) then cutting 5% of the world's developed powers emissions every year for the next 5 wont mean diddly if you let the Chinese and Indians keep growing their economy.

Cap and Trade? Yet another scheme......no real reduction. Just like the Hollywood types who fly on private jets and then buy carbon offsets from some company to supposevly plant tree's somewhere. This is all a big pile of BS and it is about time someone SAID SO.

IF GHG is the cause of global warming, nothing short of stopping 80% of the world's economic activity will stop and push the climatic change the other way.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Correction. The USA signed onto Kyoto, just didn't ratify it. never even tried to put it to a vote in Congress. Of course, Al Gore being the brave crusader for the enviroment went back to sleep until he decided to run for election in 2000. Right AL.

[rah]

I've linked to a lot of papers, articles, and such. I have yet to see anyone point out how any of that is "bonkers". The only thing that came close was way back at the beginning when someone said that one of the papers I linked to was written by someone who was on Fox News once. So I guess I was proven wrong on that one. /sarc

Come on, give me a link to something that says I'm "bonkers" for not believing AGW. Let's start with the last paper I linked to. Why doesn't the sun have a large influence on the climate? Afterall it was written by someone (Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory, Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria)who works for your favorite people, government. So it must be true right? Or are the Russians somehow the wrong government now?

Or how about telling me how Dr. Hanson wasn't wrong 20 years ago?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/2...-james-hansen/

Or how about telling me that it hasn't been warmer in the past, and man thrived then?
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.c...asterbrook.jpg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1020095850.htm

How about telling me that the Copenhagen treaty isn't about a power grab?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/1...lord-monckton/

What about addressing what bluuford, a climate scientist right here on the board had to say in post #247?

Need I go on? The only one that has even given much of a scientific challenge to any of this has been rah. But he seems to have given up, or been gone for a while. I need scientific theories to change my mind. Arguments about "your research was funded by the wrong people" don't really change many minds.

Sorry Chuck been busy lately. Work has picked up and the wife is about to pop so it has killed some of my bludge time.

it might be just me, but none of those links worked. Do you have other links? Always happy to help when I have the time.

[chuck34]

Cap and Trade? Yet another scheme......no real reduction. Just like the Hollywood types who fly on private jets and then buy carbon offsets from some company to supposevly plant tree's somewhere. This is all a big pile of BS and it is about time someone SAID SO.

And who would these people be buying those offsets from?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

I thought that it was only the evil oil companies that made profits?

[chuck34]

Sorry Chuck been busy lately. Work has picked up and the wife is about to pop so it has killed some of my bludge time.

it might be just me, but none of those links worked. Do you have other links? Always happy to help when I have the time.

Hope the wife's doing well.

Those links seem dead for me too. Not sure why. I'll see if I can dig up some other stuff.

[chuck34]

Here's the Hansen link, not sure why it didn't work before, but it seems to now?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

Here's a link about Greenland, crops, trade, and the Medieval Warm Period
http://www.green-agenda.com/greenland.html

Copenhagen is (or at least was, looks like they've decided not to go forward) a power grab.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500580285679074.html


*edit, just checked all three of these links and they work for me. Hope they work for others, if not, let me know. Maybe I'm doing something wrong?

[rah]

Here's the Hansen link, not sure why it didn't work before, but it seems to now?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

Here's a link about Greenland, crops, trade, and the Medieval Warm Period
http://www.green-agenda.com/greenland.html

Copenhagen is (or at least was, looks like they've decided not to go forward) a power grab.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500580285679074.html


*edit, just checked all three of these links and they work for me. Hope they work for others, if not, let me know. Maybe I'm doing something wrong?
Hi Chuck,

Not sure what to say about the first one. It is esentially about a sentence in an interview about an interview that Hansen did in 88. I have not heard of this before but there are far too many links in the chain for me to comment about it.

The second link, well where do I start:
The MWP was a regional occurance, not a global one. AFAIK no evidence exists that this was a global warm period.
Grape vineyards still exist in England today.
Greenpeace do not claim that the melting of the Greenland ice shets will result in the sea level rising, they claim that the melting of Greenlands glaciers will result in sea level rise.
Comparing tapestries to photographs does not strike me as overly scientific.
Let me know if I have missed anything.

For Lord Monckton, well I would steer clear of any of his comments. This is just one recent report:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/

[chuck34]

Hi Chuck,

Not sure what to say about the first one. It is esentially about a sentence in an interview about an interview that Hansen did in 88. I have not heard of this before but there are far too many links in the chain for me to comment about it.

The second link, well where do I start:
The MWP was a regional occurance, not a global one. AFAIK no evidence exists that this was a global warm period.
Grape vineyards still exist in England today.
Greenpeace do not claim that the melting of the Greenland ice shets will result in the sea level rising, they claim that the melting of Greenlands glaciers will result in sea level rise.
Comparing tapestries to photographs does not strike me as overly scientific.
Let me know if I have missed anything.

For Lord Monckton, well I would steer clear of any of his comments. This is just one recent report:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/

Your link doesn't work either. I guess we both suck at posting links on this board. :-)

As for Hansen, take your time, digest what he said. He was wrong somewhere in the neighborhood of 300-800% if I'm reading things right. Of course, he's allowed to be wrong. But everyone seems to think he's some sort of "god" and can't be wrong. This is not the only time that any of the theories have been wrong, but a fairly "major", testable prediction.

The link I gave wasn't the best about the Medieval Warm Period. But to say that it was "only a regional event" is a bit much for me. There is evidence that it wasn't just regional. I saw a report that they proved it in Austrailia and New Zealand, it was quite a while ago, I'll see if I can dig it up.

Also, this really bothers me. When it's against AGW, it's "just weather" or "only regional" (record colds throughout the US, Antarctic ice expansion, etc) even though they are quite significant. But "global" temperatures are the end of the world when they are still within the noise floor. Is there some sort of standard for "significance"? Or is it just whatever fits your current agenda?

[chuck34]

For Lord Monckton, well I would steer clear of any of his comments. This is just one recent report:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger right? What did he get wrong?

If you really don't like Lord Monckton then how about taking a look at the actual draft of the treaty?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/the-copenhagen-treaty-draft-wealth-transfer-defined-now-with-dignity-penalty/

[rah]

Your link doesn't work either. I guess we both suck at posting links on this board. :-)

As for Hansen, take your time, digest what he said. He was wrong somewhere in the neighborhood of 300-800% if I'm reading things right. Of course, he's allowed to be wrong. But everyone seems to think he's some sort of "god" and can't be wrong. This is not the only time that any of the theories have been wrong, but a fairly "major", testable prediction.

The link I gave wasn't the best about the Medieval Warm Period. But to say that it was "only a regional event" is a bit much for me. There is evidence that it wasn't just regional. I saw a report that they proved it in Austrailia and New Zealand, it was quite a while ago, I'll see if I can dig it up.

Also, this really bothers me. When it's against AGW, it's "just weather" or "only regional" (record colds throughout the US, Antarctic ice expansion, etc) even though they are quite significant. But "global" temperatures are the end of the world when they are still within the noise floor. Is there some sort of standard for "significance"? Or is it just whatever fits your current agenda?

Not sure what the problem is, it works for me.

What I am saying about Hansen is that this "prediction" happened in an interview that AFAIK there is no record of. All you have is an interview with someone that interviewed Hansen. I see no paper or press release. I prefer peer reviewed articles and there are plenty of those for you to crticise.

Sorry but I have seen absolutely no evidence for the MWP not being a regional event. If you have some I would be grateful for a link. It is used enough in peoples arguments against AGW so I am sure there will be something to back you up.

Global temps are not within the noise floor. Where did you get that idea?
Please look up the difference between climate and weather. There is a big difference. You can not just cherry pick temps around the world, you have to look at the global average.

No agenda, just concerns.

[rah]

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger right? What did he get wrong?

If you really don't like Lord Monckton then how about taking a look at the actual draft of the treaty?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/03/the-copenhagen-treaty-draft-wealth-transfer-defined-now-with-dignity-penalty/

No, if the messenger has a record of falsifying data then disregard the messenger.

I have not read all the document yet, just some of the bits highlighted in the article you posted. Seems ok to me, no evidence of a global conspiracy to enslave the great USA.

[chuck34]

Not sure what the problem is, it works for me.

Ok, it works here at home. Must be something with my work computer.

Anyway, I don't see much in that link that appears to say he's faking anything. They seem to be suggesting two things.

1) That the IPCC projection line he uses, he just made up. I don't know where he (Monckton) got this from, so I suppose it could be made up. However, I would find it more likely that he used an older IPCC projection, while they are using their most current model. Or it could be that he did exactly what they said he did. "he appears to have derived his ‘projections’ by drawing a line from 2002 to a selection of real projections in 2100 "

2) That he cherry-picked 2002 to graph his data against. Well isn't that exactly what the IPCC is doing with 1979? I still have not heard any explaination as to why that is such a "perfect" year for temperatures.


What I am saying about Hansen is that this "prediction" happened in an interview that AFAIK there is no record of. All you have is an interview with someone that interviewed Hansen. I see no paper or press release. I prefer peer reviewed articles and there are plenty of those for you to crticise.

Here's another one.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000836evaluating_jim_hanse.html


Sorry but I have seen absolutely no evidence for the MWP not being a regional event. If you have some I would be grateful for a link. It is used enough in peoples arguments against AGW so I am sure there will be something to back you up.

You're gonna have to define regional. Greenland, North American, Europe, at least parts of Asia, Austrailia, and New Zealand seems like a fairly large region to me.

Just one sample.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CookPalmer.pdf


Global temps are not within the noise floor. Where did you get that idea?
Please look up the difference between climate and weather. There is a big difference. You can not just cherry pick temps around the world, you have to look at the global average.

I got that idea from simple statistics. What is the error of each thermometers used? Do you think that error is compounded or erased once you start to average them together? Do you not think that there could be any sighting errors in the placement of the "official" thermometers? How was the temperature data collected 50, 75, 100, 200 years ago in order to make these temperature reconstructions that "prove" it is warmer today than ever? Are there no selection biases involved in the temperature proxies from well back in time?


No agenda, just concerns.

I don't have an agenda either, just concerns. Big concerns for the future under the propsed "solutions" to AGW.

[chuck34]

No, if the messenger has a record of falsifying data then disregard the messenger.

I have not read all the document yet, just some of the bits highlighted in the article you posted. Seems ok to me, no evidence of a global conspiracy to enslave the great USA.

So you have no problem with the US "Compensate(ing) for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees"?

And that's just one part of it. Read the whole thing and tell me that this isn't a power/money grab. Basically it's fulfilling Obama's promise to "spread the wealth around" not just within this country but all over the world.

[rah]

Ok, it works here at home. Must be something with my work computer.

Anyway, I don't see much in that link that appears to say he's faking anything. They seem to be suggesting two things.

1) That the IPCC projection line he uses, he just made up. I don't know where he (Monckton) got this from, so I suppose it could be made up. However, I would find it more likely that he used an older IPCC projection, while they are using their most current model. Or it could be that he did exactly what they said he did. "he appears to have derived his ‘projections’ by drawing a line from 2002 to a selection of real projections in 2100 "

2) That he cherry-picked 2002 to graph his data against. Well isn't that exactly what the IPCC is doing with 1979? I still have not heard any explaination as to why that is such a "perfect" year for temperatures.



Here's another one.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000836evaluating_jim_hanse.html



You're gonna have to define regional. Greenland, North American, Europe, at least parts of Asia, Austrailia, and New Zealand seems like a fairly large region to me.

Just one sample.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/CookPalmer.pdf



I got that idea from simple statistics. What is the error of each thermometers used? Do you think that error is compounded or erased once you start to average them together? Do you not think that there could be any sighting errors in the placement of the "official" thermometers? How was the temperature data collected 50, 75, 100, 200 years ago in order to make these temperature reconstructions that "prove" it is warmer today than ever? Are there no selection biases involved in the temperature proxies from well back in time?



I don't have an agenda either, just concerns. Big concerns for the future under the propsed "solutions" to AGW.

Not sure about 1979, might it be that from last year it was 30 years ago?

Ahh now that is a good link. See how much more satisfying it is when you post a scientific article instead of some dude's blog? Good read and I will go over it more on the weekend.

But your idea is not worth much when you do not have the raw data. Why not go looking and see. Maybe ask you local university? They might have some insight as to how temp is measured. But rest assured, it is backed up by several different methods.

I doubt it is warmer today than it ever has been. But what I can say is that the speed of warming currently is too high.

This is just my opinion and I have not seen it anywhere else, but I don't even care what happened over 500 years ago. I don't think it has any relevance to the current situation. That is unless someone finds proof that there were several billion people on the planet over 100 years ago.

So now I have some questions for you, what do you say to the acidification of the oceans? this AFAIK will be one of the first and worst problems from AGW. Ocean acidification is backed up by solid facts and is easily to prove in the lab.

How do you explain the warming we are getting now and the speed that it is warming?

What are we going to do with all the AGW refugees?

Do you even want the USA to be energy self sufficient?

[rah]

So you have no problem with the US "Compensate(ing) for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees"?

And that's just one part of it. Read the whole thing and tell me that this isn't a power/money grab. Basically it's fulfilling Obama's promise to "spread the wealth around" not just within this country but all over the world.

Actually it will be all the developed nations helping the undeveloped nations. I have no problem with that. Lets face it, most of the developed nations have made their wealth off the back of developing nations.

Have you read the whole thing? Or just some blogs about it?

[chuck34]

Not sure about 1979, might it be that from last year it was 30 years ago?

So why is 30 years ago a better date than 7 years ago? They are both a blink of an eye on geologic scales.


Ahh now that is a good link. See how much more satisfying it is when you post a scientific article instead of some dude's blog? Good read and I will go over it more on the weekend.

I read more than just "some dude's blog". Not exactly sure what you are refering to there. Most of the time I link to sites that give a brief summary, but have links to the actual source. Or at least I try to.


But your idea is not worth much when you do not have the raw data. Why not go looking and see. Maybe ask you local university? They might have some insight as to how temp is measured. But rest assured, it is backed up by several different methods.

You want to talk about raw data now? Good, go look up some interesting things about Yamal tree ring proxy data. That might open up your eyes a bit or the whole raw data/peer review issue.


I doubt it is warmer today than it ever has been. But what I can say is that the speed of warming currently is too high.

This is just my opinion and I have not seen it anywhere else, but I don't even care what happened over 500 years ago. I don't think it has any relevance to the current situation. That is unless someone finds proof that there were several billion people on the planet over 100 years ago.

So you don't see why it is important to know if it was warmer 500 years ago without several billion people? Really? You don't see how if it was warmer before people and man-made CO2, that might indicate that perhaps man-made CO2 isn't the only factor in any warming?


So now I have some questions for you, what do you say to the acidification of the oceans? this AFAIK will be one of the first and worst problems from AGW. Ocean acidification is backed up by solid facts and is easily to prove in the lab.

Honestly I don't know much about the ocean acidification "issue" you keep talking about. The little bit I've seen says that either it's killing shellfish and coral, or that it is actually helping coral. I tend to think that it should be helping the coral because the reefs they make are carbon sinks, so that says to me that the living coral must be "eating" carbon somehow. Another thing I've seen is that the oceans aren't acidifying, just becoming less basic. The last thing I would think about is what were the effects on sea life back when the concentrations of CO2 were MUCH higher? But honestly that isn't really something that I have done too much research on.


How do you explain the warming we are getting now and the speed that it is warming?

What warming? It hasn't warmed since either '98, or '02 depending on what site you look at. NASA says '02 was the warmest, but there is a bit of doubt in that. I've seen other things that say '34 was really the warmest year too.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

So even if I would believe that it is still warming, at the very least that speed has slowed. So again what's all this about warming out of control, etc?


What are we going to do with all the AGW refugees?

What refugees? I assume you are talking about all the flooding that is suppose to happen. Have you seen any sea level rise yet?


Do you even want the USA to be energy self sufficient?

I would love for the US to be energy self sufficient. I just don't buy into wind/solar. They are too unreliable. Let's drill for oil and natural gas now to get ourselves off of Mid-East oil. Then in the long term let's build nuke plants.

[chuck34]

Actually it will be all the developed nations helping the undeveloped nations. I have no problem with that. Lets face it, most of the developed nations have made their wealth off the back of developing nations.

Have you read the whole thing? Or just some blogs about it?

As a matter of fact I did read the whole proposed treaty. There was a bunch of "lawyer speak" so I can't say I understood every word of it. Have you read it? Or are you just going off of your "beliefs" and mainstream media reports?

[chuck34]

This could be fairly damaging. We'll see how it all plays out though. I'm making no judgements on the validity of this as of yet. I can see this being fake pretty easily, but apparently it's been verified by one of the players.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/

[Mark in Oshawa]

I wont get in the middle of this one, I am not home enough to participate with much other than I share a lot of Chuck's concerns.

That said, one thing Chuck you must look into is the ocean acidification. Apparently it is a byproduct actually of fertilizer residue and the like. In the Gulf of Mexico, there is a dead zone where no fish or anything are surviving and they are linking it to the increased phosphate and pesticide residue from the Mississippi runoff. Apparently the corn growers of the midwest growing all that corn for ethanol is the culprit. Or not....lol

I have said once, I will say it again, the only way to be sure man isn't warming the earth is to take 6 Billions people and their homes, infrastucture and toys and make them all disappear. Since that isn't in the cards, realistic proposals to help the enviroment would be useful, not wealth distribution disguised as climate change protection.

[rah]

So why is 30 years ago a better date than 7 years ago? They are both a blink of an eye on geologic scales.

I read more than just "some dude's blog". Not exactly sure what you are refering to there. Most of the time I link to sites that give a brief summary, but have links to the actual source. Or at least I try to.

You want to talk about raw data now? Good, go look up some interesting things about Yamal tree ring proxy data. That might open up your eyes a bit or the whole raw data/peer review issue.

So you don't see why it is important to know if it was warmer 500 years ago without several billion people? Really? You don't see how if it was warmer before people and man-made CO2, that might indicate that perhaps man-made CO2 isn't the only factor in any warming?

Honestly I don't know much about the ocean acidification "issue" you keep talking about. The little bit I've seen says that either it's killing shellfish and coral, or that it is actually helping coral. I tend to think that it should be helping the coral because the reefs they make are carbon sinks, so that says to me that the living coral must be "eating" carbon somehow. Another thing I've seen is that the oceans aren't acidifying, just becoming less basic. The last thing I would think about is what were the effects on sea life back when the concentrations of CO2 were MUCH higher? But honestly that isn't really something that I have done too much research on.

What warming? It hasn't warmed since either '98, or '02 depending on what site you look at. NASA says '02 was the warmest, but there is a bit of doubt in that. I've seen other things that say '34 was really the warmest year too.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

So even if I would believe that it is still warming, at the very least that speed has slowed. So again what's all this about warming out of control, etc?

What refugees? I assume you are talking about all the flooding that is suppose to happen. Have you seen any sea level rise yet?

I would love for the US to be energy self sufficient. I just don't buy into wind/solar. They are too unreliable. Let's drill for oil and natural gas now to get ourselves off of Mid-East oil. Then in the long term let's build nuke plants.

Because 7 years does not show a long enough trend.

You surf a few unscientific sites to get your opinions. I surf a few sites that are written by climatologists.

The Yamal Tree Ring controversy is nothing to get excited about. One guy puts a lot of effort into a study which makes up a very small part of the IPCC data, then another guy slanders it in a blog and says the entire IPCC is bollocks.

Not particularly, now obviously I do find it interesting, but I feel it does not have any effect on todays problems. It is a different planet to what it was 50 years ago let alone 500 or 5000 years ago.

It is something you should look into. Many different species of sea life, coral or crustaceans rely on the ph level of the ocean to stay within certain parramaters otherwise they cannot form their shell. If you change the ph level then that slows the calcification process down or stops it. This is not some pie in the sky theory, this is a fact that is easily re-creatable. This has massive impacts on the planets food supply and biodiversity.

No, you cannot get less basic without getting more acidic.

We have been over this. It has warmed and continues to warm. Lets not go over this again unless you bring something fresh to the argument.

This might help you understand the speed of the change: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html

Refugees from sea level yes, but also from drought, famine and war over resources. For sea level try the people of Tuvalu.

Why is solar unreliable? AFAIK the long term forcasts for solar energy are good. Not so sure about the others you mentioned.

[rah]

As a matter of fact I did read the whole proposed treaty. There was a bunch of "lawyer speak" so I can't say I understood every word of it. Have you read it? Or are you just going off of your "beliefs" and mainstream media reports?

I have not read all of it yet, probably will not read all of it. Why put that much energy into it when it will not even be signed off in its present state?

[rah]

I wont get in the middle of this one, I am not home enough to participate with much other than I share a lot of Chuck's concerns.

That said, one thing Chuck you must look into is the ocean acidification. Apparently it is a byproduct actually of fertilizer residue and the like. In the Gulf of Mexico, there is a dead zone where no fish or anything are surviving and they are linking it to the increased phosphate and pesticide residue from the Mississippi runoff. Apparently the corn growers of the midwest growing all that corn for ethanol is the culprit. Or not....lol

I have said once, I will say it again, the only way to be sure man isn't warming the earth is to take 6 Billions people and their homes, infrastucture and toys and make them all disappear. Since that isn't in the cards, realistic proposals to help the enviroment would be useful, not wealth distribution disguised as climate change protection.

Nah mate, ocean acidification has everything to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere. What you are describing is a tragedy in pollution, but not acidification. Well at least not from the atmosphere.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Nah mate, ocean acidification has everything to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere. What you are describing is a tragedy in pollution, but not acidification. Well at least not from the atmosphere.

I have heard they THINK it is from CO2. The acidification is an issue that is like the warming. Some scientests THINK it is from CO2, and may or may not be right. Assuming you are right on this, and I will buy this theory more so than CO2 being the warming culprit; how do you really think the US cutting its CO2 output say 10 % in the next decade will work if the Chinese economy and Indian economies grow 20% and pay little attention to climatic effects? This carbon offset ponzi scheme that is being proposed does NOTHING to change the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is no different than idiots like Al Gore owning a 12000 square foot mansion and flying around the world on a private jet turning around and buying seedlings to plant as trees.

IT is hypocracy and stupidity.

We would do well better to spend a lot of money on research to help people adjust to the climatic changes and help nations like Tuvalu and the islands in the Indian ocean either build dykes or move or something. We would do better to spend money on research to figure out ways to create fusion technologies and create a situation where the free enterprise system leads the way. Last time I looked, any technological benefits that have benefitted mankind didn't come from a government lab, they were created by capitalist entreprenuers wanting to build a better mousetrap.

[Mark in Oshawa]

As per your point tho Rah, the acidfication of the oceans is troubling, and I don't think there is a solution really...There is no way we can reduce the amount of CO2 producing activity on a planet with 6 billion people enough to change things.

[rah]

As per your point tho Rah, the acidfication of the oceans is troubling, and I don't think there is a solution really...There is no way we can reduce the amount of CO2 producing activity on a planet with 6 billion people enough to change things.

Sure we can, we just have to try. What we need is one country to step up and lead. This country will surely reap the benefits later on, but the really hard part is stepping up when a lot of industry likes it how it is.

[airshifter]

Sure we can, we just have to try. What we need is one country to step up and lead. This country will surely reap the benefits later on, but the really hard part is stepping up when a lot of industry likes it how it is.

It's not just industry, it's individuals as well. Just about everyone could reduce their footprint, but most don't. There are a lot of people debating climate change who think it all has to do with CO2 levels, yet they drive gas hogs, live in homes that aren't energy efficient, and make no effort to change things.

No law requires any of us to be on the electric grid, but the vast majority of us are.

Tax incentives on energy efficient things for homes and credits for cars might encourage some people, but overall probably hasn't changed a lot of consumers minds on the actual purchase. We can't all expect big industry to change when we could do the same on the consumer level yet most don't.

Just food for thought. ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

It's not just industry, it's individuals as well. Just about everyone could reduce their footprint, but most don't. There are a lot of people debating climate change who think it all has to do with CO2 levels, yet they drive gas hogs, live in homes that aren't energy efficient, and make no effort to change things.

No law requires any of us to be on the electric grid, but the vast majority of us are.

Tax incentives on energy efficient things for homes and credits for cars might encourage some people, but overall probably hasn't changed a lot of consumers minds on the actual purchase. We can't all expect big industry to change when we could do the same on the consumer level yet most don't.

Just food for thought. ;)

People are all for conservation until it costs them more money for less product. Unless they are willing to make the sacrifices, then it is all really doesn't mean much. Some people drive smaller cars that get better mileage. Heck, The Prius is MORE and people buy it so I shouldn't say we wont sacrifice on cars. Some of us will. But houses are bigger now, people wont give up air conditioning, and governments in North America haven't really figured out that recycling isn't really all it was sold as, and we still have the issues of a growing population in most countries. You cannot conserve your way out this when the population of the earth is still growing.

It is why I am so tired and skeptical of the green movement coming up and selling a lot of ideas to idiot poltiticians who all think they are in control. They are not....nature is, and how we interact with her. I don't completely buy global warming is a man made phenomena. Sorry...the actual radiation levels of the sun go up and down, and right now...they are up. Global warming occurred when man's CO2 output was his campfire so I am not willing go down that road.....just am a skeptic about the motives of a lot of people on the bandwagon.

[chuck34]

Because 7 years does not show a long enough trend.

You are going to have to explain to me how 30 years is long enough then. For the record, I don't think that 7, or 30, or 50 years is long enough. 100 might be "just" long enough, but even then it's not much. So explain to me how 30 year is statistically significant.


You surf a few unscientific sites to get your opinions. I surf a few sites that are written by climatologists.

You don't think there are any climatologists on the sites I visit? You are getting very close to assuming here, and we all know what ass-u-me-ing does right? And don't give me this "peer reviewed" BS either, there have been many things written about how that is a flawed process, and that was before these aledged emails came to light.


The Yamal Tree Ring controversy is nothing to get excited about. One guy puts a lot of effort into a study which makes up a very small part of the IPCC data, then another guy slanders it in a blog and says the entire IPCC is bollocks.

So you are fine with a "peer reviewed" scientists using just 12 cherry picked trees to reconstruct thousands of years of climate data? You don't see a problem with that at all? You don't see how that could bring up an issue with the peer reviewed process? You don't see a problem with peer reviewing when "peers" can't get their hands on the data for at least a decade?


It is something you should look into. Many different species of sea life, coral or crustaceans rely on the ph level of the ocean to stay within certain parramaters otherwise they cannot form their shell. If you change the ph level then that slows the calcification process down or stops it. This is not some pie in the sky theory, this is a fact that is easily re-creatable. This has massive impacts on the planets food supply and biodiversity.

So then explain to me how corral and many other species have lived on this planet for millions of years when CO2 levels have been higher?


We have been over this. It has warmed and continues to warm. Lets not go over this again unless you bring something fresh to the argument.

You keep saying that it contiunes to warm, but it hasn't. What more can I say to someone who won't face facts. YOU are the one that needs to bring something fresh to the argument.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html



This might help you understand the speed of the change: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html

Interestingly, that article appears to have been written in about 2005. And the graph presented appears to show the last 4 years as being pretty flat. So that would mean the time from 2002 to 2005 would have little to no change. And the following 3.5 years are about the same. Seems to be an argument for the temperatures stagnating wouldn't it?


Refugees from sea level yes, but also from drought, famine and war over resources. For sea level try the people of Tuvalu.

Please present some evidence that these things are actually happening. Sob stories about what MIGHT happen to Tuvalu or other areas like it don't do much to sway me. What would happen to places like Canada or Russia if the world were to get a few degrees COLDER? I have just as much evidence for that happening as you do for your scenario, yet I'm not out there proposing draconian taxes on the develped nations.


Why is solar unreliable? AFAIK the long term forcasts for solar energy are good. Not so sure about the others you mentioned.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-solar19-2009oct19,0,2124650.story

Just one issue. Not to mention the issues that sometimes it's cloudy, or that you loose a lot of effeciency when trasporting electricity accross long distances.

T. Boone Pickens ran into simmilar issues with his wind farms. But again, I'm just scratching the surface here.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/07/08/t-boone-pickens-wind-farm-plan-dies-out/

[chuck34]

I have not read all of it yet, probably will not read all of it. Why put that much energy into it when it will not even be signed off in its present state?

You should read it, even if it isn't going to pass. It will give you a good insight into their minds, especially how there really aren't thinking about the "good of the environment". You might learn what these "leaders" real motivation is.

[chuck34]

Sure we can, we just have to try. What we need is one country to step up and lead. This country will surely reap the benefits later on, but the really hard part is stepping up when a lot of industry likes it how it is.

Or they suffer mightely in the short term do to lost manufacturing jobs that "later on" doen't happen.

[Daniel]

http://www.dailytech.com/Carbon+Levels+are+Soaring+But+Temperature+Isnt+Nec essarily+Keeping+Pace/article16861.htm

http://www.dailytech.com/Climategate+Stunning+Deception+and+Misconduct+at+U K+Warming+Research+Center+Revealed/article16889.htm

[Daniel]

90otAJORkK8

[Roamy]

WOW Daniel you are worth a sh!t - this is very good stuff !!!

[chuck34]

http://www.dailytech.com/Carbon+Levels+are+Soaring+But+Temperature+Isnt+Nec essarily+Keeping+Pace/article16861.htm

http://www.dailytech.com/Climategate+Stunning+Deception+and+Misconduct+at+U K+Warming+Research+Center+Revealed/article16889.htm

Come on now Daniel, that data hasn't been peer reviewed. ;-)

[Daniel]

Come on now Daniel, that data hasn't been altered to make it back up the AGW theory.

You made some spelling mistakes, I sorted them for you :p

[chuck34]

You made some spelling mistakes, I sorted them for you :p

I like your wording better. :-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186_pf.html

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

[Daniel]

I like your wording better. :-)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186_pf.html

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.
:D I've said all along that this is a religion and that bit above there proves it.

I'll say it again, the climate is too fricking complicated for it to be influenced so clearly by one particular substance.

I'm not against renewables or making reductions in CO2 but I don't like that theory is presented as fact.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What really angers me is this climategate scandal of all these messages and emails going back and forth tell a story of tampering and supressing results; denying public access to data that is supposed to be available through the Freedom of Infomation....and for what reason? To protect the probability that the science ISNT 100% pointing towards man-made global warming. These guys made the decision that their funding and futures are with this theory, and to hell with the science. I this all political. Which is what Daniel, Chuck and I have been saying. It is a political and quasi religious movement. I can live with people wanting to believe it, and I can accept the earth MAY be warming now than it was 35 years ago. What I cannot accept is science being corrupted for a poltical ideology.

When Scientests allow themselves to be bought, they are just bureaucrats serving their political masters for a cause that isn't doing anyone but the elites who wield this power any good.

Cutting CO2 production in the end will likely mean the massive loss of jobs and/or standard of living. This would be acceptable if the science was so obvious a blind man can see it, but as these emails show, even those in favour of this theory are not willing to trust the actual data to prove them right. This isn't science, it is a political debate, and we just found out about a coverup. Nixon was hated for the rest of his life for this sort of thing.......

[chuck34]

What really angers me is this climategate scandal of all these messages and emails going back and forth tell a story of tampering and supressing results; denying public access to data that is supposed to be available through the Freedom of Infomation....and for what reason? To protect the probability that the science ISNT 100% pointing towards man-made global warming. These guys made the decision that their funding and futures are with this theory, and to hell with the science. I this all political. Which is what Daniel, Chuck and I have been saying. It is a political and quasi religious movement. I can live with people wanting to believe it, and I can accept the earth MAY be warming now than it was 35 years ago. What I cannot accept is science being corrupted for a poltical ideology.

When Scientests allow themselves to be bought, they are just bureaucrats serving their political masters for a cause that isn't doing anyone but the elites who wield this power any good.

Cutting CO2 production in the end will likely mean the massive loss of jobs and/or standard of living. This would be acceptable if the science was so obvious a blind man can see it, but as these emails show, even those in favour of this theory are not willing to trust the actual data to prove them right. This isn't science, it is a political debate, and we just found out about a coverup. Nixon was hated for the rest of his life for this sort of thing.......

Well said. If the science REALLY said that man was causing some sort of catastrophic warming, then I'd be the first to jump on board with fixing it. And like I've said, I was in that camp a few years ago until I really started looking into things. Once you really start looking at the "science" you'll see why I just used quotes around science. While it may be true that the earth has warmed in the last few years, there isn't anything concrete tht says it's man's fault, or that it hasn't been warmer in the past, or worse yet, that there is one d@mn thing that humans can do about it. So it all just keeps going back to people wanting to have some measure of control over their fellow humans. THAT I can not stand!

Anyway, I think this will go a long way to "sinking" the AGW movement. But it seems be like a cat with 9 lives. So we'll see

[Mark in Oshawa]

......Anyway, I think this will go a long way to "sinking" the AGW movement. But it seems be like a cat with 9 lives. So we'll see



Don't kid yourself. This wont change those who want this power. It may change a few minds in the public, but you notice how well the politico's have listened so far. Just like the healthcare debate in the US, what the man on the street wants or understands means little.....not when there is tax dollars, power and influence in the world of income redistribution.

[chuck34]

Don't kid yourself. This wont change those who want this power. It may change a few minds in the public, but you notice how well the politico's have listened so far. Just like the healthcare debate in the US, what the man on the street wants or understands means little.....not when there is tax dollars, power and influence in the world of income redistribution.

Of course you are right ... But a man can dream, can't he? :-D

[chuck34]

More on ocean acidification.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162

"In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures—such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)."

"This may be because the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon available to them is actually increased when the ocean becomes more acidic, even though the concentration of carbonate ions is decreased."

“What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].”

"The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work."

[rah]

You are going to have to explain to me how 30 years is long enough then. For the record, I don't think that 7, or 30, or 50 years is long enough. 100 might be "just" long enough, but even then it's not much. So explain to me how 30 year is statistically significant.

You don't think there are any climatologists on the sites I visit? You are getting very close to assuming here, and we all know what ass-u-me-ing does right? And don't give me this "peer reviewed" BS either, there have been many things written about how that is a flawed process, and that was before these aledged emails came to light.

So you are fine with a "peer reviewed" scientists using just 12 cherry picked trees to reconstruct thousands of years of climate data? You don't see a problem with that at all? You don't see how that could bring up an issue with the peer reviewed process? You don't see a problem with peer reviewing when "peers" can't get their hands on the data for at least a decade?

So then explain to me how corral and many other species have lived on this planet for millions of years when CO2 levels have been higher?

You keep saying that it contiunes to warm, but it hasn't. What more can I say to someone who won't face facts. YOU are the one that needs to bring something fresh to the argument.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Interestingly, that article appears to have been written in about 2005. And the graph presented appears to show the last 4 years as being pretty flat. So that would mean the time from 2002 to 2005 would have little to no change. And the following 3.5 years are about the same. Seems to be an argument for the temperatures stagnating wouldn't it?

Please present some evidence that these things are actually happening. Sob stories about what MIGHT happen to Tuvalu or other areas like it don't do much to sway me. What would happen to places like Canada or Russia if the world were to get a few degrees COLDER? I have just as much evidence for that happening as you do for your scenario, yet I'm not out there proposing draconian taxes on the develped nations.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-solar19-2009oct19,0,2124650.story

Just one issue. Not to mention the issues that sometimes it's cloudy, or that you loose a lot of effeciency when trasporting electricity accross long distances.

T. Boone Pickens ran into simmilar issues with his wind farms. But again, I'm just scratching the surface here.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/07/08/t-boone-pickens-wind-farm-plan-dies-out/

Fine use a graph that shows the temp for the last 50 or 100 years and see what it says.

Well most of the links you post are to articles written about articles on blogs. So who are these climatologists you speak of. Actually, seriously, please do tell mw who they are as I have been long looking for some credible climatologists to balance my readings but I have not found much.
As for Peer reviewed, it may be flawed in some respects, but it is the best method we have, and no I do not believe that scientists should just publish their work without some sort of regulated scrutiny.

See thats the problem when you get your info from right wing nutjobs. The study was of 17 living tress to supplement the study of 224 sub fossil trees buried in the sediment. The whole AGW theory is not based on it and in the end it will show a regional climate record. The Yamal tree records are only a small part of the evidence.

I would hazard a guess and say that maybe the ecosystem has changed a little over the last few million years.

We talked on this before, did you just ignore it because you ran out of argument? The ten year average temp has increased over the last decade. What more do you want? Just using a graph to use the start and end points does not do justice to the data.

Ask the government of Tuvalu that. Every year it gets worse for them and countries like Australia and NZ do not do much to help. These are not sob stories, these are real people who need help. Recently the sea level has been rising by around 3mm per year.

I seriously doubt you have just as much evidence for the world getting colder.

Well all projects have to undergo environmental impact studies, no reason solar plants should be exempt.

You always loose power over long distances but there are way to help reduce the load over distances anyway such as wind and use of pv in the city and suburbs. There is much research into transporting power over distance as it will be a huge saving no matter the type of plant used to make the power.

You can make great cutbacks in CO2 emissions just by increasing efficiency. Surely this is a good aim even if you think I am a deluded greeny pinko.

[rah]

More on ocean acidification.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162

"In a striking finding that raises new questions about carbon dioxide’s (CO2) impact on marine life, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists report that some shell-building creatures—such as crabs, shrimp and lobsters—unexpectedly build more shell when exposed to ocean acidification caused by elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)."

"This may be because the total amount of dissolved inorganic carbon available to them is actually increased when the ocean becomes more acidic, even though the concentration of carbonate ions is decreased."

“What was really interesting was that some of the creatures, the coral, the hard clam and the lobster, for example, didn’t seem to care about CO2 until it was higher than about 1,000 parts per million [ppm].”

"The “take-home message, “ says Cohen, is that “we can’t assume that elevated CO2 causes a proportionate decline in calcification of all calcifying organisms.” WHOI and the National Science Foundation funded the work."

Good article. Its good to see that some species will be able to cope with the increase in CO2. However your method of only quoting the article where it fits with your view leaves a little to be desired. See I can do it too:

"Conversely, some organisms—such as the soft clam and the oyster—showed a clear reduction in calcification in proportion to increases in CO2"

"This led to the dissolving of aragonite—the form of calcium carbonate produced by corals and some other marine calcifiers. Under such exposure, hard and soft clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks and tropical urchins began to lose their shells. “If this dissolution process continued for sufficient time, then these organisms could lose their shell completely,” Ries said, “rendering them defenseless to predators.”"

" The researchers caution, however, that the findings—and acidification’s overall impact—may be more complex than it appears. For example, Cohen says that available food and nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates and iron may help dictate how some organisms respond to carbon dioxide."

"“I wouldn’t make any predictions based on these results. What these results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail.”"

" In addition, Cohen adds, even though some organisms such as crabs and lobsters appear to benefit under elevated CO2 conditions, the energy they expend in shell building under these conditions “might divert from other important processes such as reproduction or tissue building.”"

“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”

Now it is great that you posted the link because it is fascinating research and goes to show that there is always more to be learnt, however maybe you should balance your quoting.

[chuck34]

Fine use a graph that shows the temp for the last 50 or 100 years and see what it says.

Tell me how long is significant enough? 10 years: cooling , 30 years: warming, 70 years: cooling, 100 years: warming, 500 years: cooling, 2000 years: warming. What is significant? How long is long enough? What is the right time to look at? What is the "optimal" temperature? Why is that the "optimal" temperature? NO ONE has ever answered these questions, until then, the rest is fairly meaningless.


Well most of the links you post are to articles written about articles on blogs. So who are these climatologists you speak of. Actually, seriously, please do tell mw who they are as I have been long looking for some credible climatologists to balance my readings but I have not found much.

I'm sure whoever I mention, you will blow off as "not being published in the 'peer-reviewed' journals" or "being paid for by the 'evil' oil companies". Not gonna play that game.


As for Peer reviewed, it may be flawed in some respects, but it is the best method we have, and no I do not believe that scientists should just publish their work without some sort of regulated scrutiny.

FLAWED???!!!! Have you even heard of this "climategate" deal going on? Any clue why it's bad? (BTW I hate the word climategate, can't we be more original?)


See thats the problem when you get your info from right wing nutjobs. The study was of 17 living tress to supplement the study of 224 sub fossil trees buried in the sediment. The whole AGW theory is not based on it and in the end it will show a regional climate record. The Yamal tree records are only a small part of the evidence.

Oh, we'll just do a "trick" to "hide the decline". None of it will matter.


I would hazard a guess and say that maybe the ecosystem has changed a little over the last few million years.

You think? But now that has stopped right? Everything is PERFECT right now isn't it? Evolution has stopped because everything is just right. No plant, animal, or society will ever be any different than it is right now, so we better make sure that NOTHING changes.


We talked on this before, did you just ignore it because you ran out of argument? The ten year average temp has increased over the last decade. What more do you want? Just using a graph to use the start and end points does not do justice to the data.

Again, when do you want me to start? There are quite a few studies out there that say the temps haven't increased in the last decade. In fact, in the just released e-mails, there are quite a few "climate scientists" who agree with ME not you.


Ask the government of Tuvalu that. Every year it gets worse for them and countries like Australia and NZ do not do much to help. These are not sob stories, these are real people who need help. Recently the sea level has been rising by around 3mm per year.

Yes it's a tragedy for the people of Tuvalu IF this is happening. And IF their country is siniking, I'm not opposed to giving them some help. Can you please provide a link about the 3mm sea rise, I haven't seen anything like that yet.


I seriously doubt you have just as much evidence for the world getting colder.

You're right I don't have any evidence for the world getting colder, that's sort of the point.


Well all projects have to undergo environmental impact studies, no reason solar plants should be exempt.

But I thought solar plants were going to SAVE the environment? Strange that they would be denied because they HURT the environment. Don't you think?


You always loose power over long distances but there are way to help reduce the load over distances anyway such as wind and use of pv in the city and suburbs. There is much research into transporting power over distance as it will be a huge saving no matter the type of plant used to make the power.

They can do as much research they want, but the laws of physics are the laws of physics.


You can make great cutbacks in CO2 emissions just by increasing efficiency. Surely this is a good aim even if you think I am a deluded greeny pinko.

Sure, I'm all for cuting back CO2 as long as it doesn't hurt us in other ways. And aren't there more important pollutants (actual pollutants) out there to worry about anyway?

[chuck34]

Good article. Its good to see that some species will be able to cope with the increase in CO2. However your method of only quoting the article where it fits with your view leaves a little to be desired. See I can do it too:

"Conversely, some organisms—such as the soft clam and the oyster—showed a clear reduction in calcification in proportion to increases in CO2"

"This led to the dissolving of aragonite—the form of calcium carbonate produced by corals and some other marine calcifiers. Under such exposure, hard and soft clams, conchs, periwinkles, whelks and tropical urchins began to lose their shells. “If this dissolution process continued for sufficient time, then these organisms could lose their shell completely,” Ries said, “rendering them defenseless to predators.”"

" The researchers caution, however, that the findings—and acidification’s overall impact—may be more complex than it appears. For example, Cohen says that available food and nutrients such as nitrates, phosphates and iron may help dictate how some organisms respond to carbon dioxide."

"“I wouldn’t make any predictions based on these results. What these results indicate to us is that the organism response to elevated CO2 levels is complex and we now need to go back and study each organism in detail.”"

" In addition, Cohen adds, even though some organisms such as crabs and lobsters appear to benefit under elevated CO2 conditions, the energy they expend in shell building under these conditions “might divert from other important processes such as reproduction or tissue building.”"

“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”

Now it is great that you posted the link because it is fascinating research and goes to show that there is always more to be learnt, however maybe you should balance your quoting.

Honestly, I didn't post those quotes for two reasons. The first was a bit "dirty", to see if you were actually reading what I posted. :-)

The second reason was because they contridict most of what the rest of the article said. Most of the article delt with creatures that bennifited from an increase in CO2. Sure there are some that don't, but only at 1000ppm, and what level are we at now? How long will it take us to get to 1000? So there really isn't much need for alarm. Also, since these creatures bennifit from CO2 shouldn't we be upping CO2? If we don't aren't we harming these poor creatures?

Another question for you, how much CO2 was in the atmosphere when most of the coral was formed? An answer of "higher" or "lower" will suffice. Couple of related questions. What is all that Italian Marble made of? What about the cliffs in Dover? Over a couple of million year time scale, are we at the high end of the CO2 levels or the low end?

Sorry I'm in a bit of a sarcastic mood today. ;-)

[chuck34]

Sea levels:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking.thtml

"The people of the Maldives had no problems surviving the 17th century, which was 50cm higher than now. Nor the last century, where it rose by 20cm. This bodes well for their prospects of surviving the next change."

"I recently visited Bangladesh, a country cursed by floods. In the Sundarban delta, I documented very strong coastal erosion despite zero changes in sea level. So, even here, there is no global sea level rise going on today — just as in the Maldives, in Tuvalu and in Vanuatu, to mention a few famous sites claimed already to be in the process of becoming flooded."

"By the end of this century, sea level may have risen by between 30cm and 50cm according to the various IPCC scenarios. Our records suggest a maximum of 20cm. Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively."

[chuck34]

Medieval Warm Period. Not a great article, but a good overview.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

"It’s clear that the world was warmer during medieval times. Marked on the map are study after study (all peer-reviewed) from all around the world with results of temperatures from the medieval time compared to today."

"Within days McIntyre showed that the statistics were so flawed that you could feed in random data, and still make the same hockey stick shape nine times out of ten."

"Craig Loehle used 18 other proxies. Temperatures were higher 1000 years ago, & cooler 300 years ago. We started warming long before cars and powerstations were invented. There’s little correlation with CO2 levels."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Now Chuck, you stop that refuting emotion and unreason. You wont be invited to Copenhagen to solve a problem that doesn't appear to be rational. I am so sick of this debate. When science is hijacked by special interests and corrupt politicians (YOU AL GORE IN PARTICULAR) nothing good comes of it.

I think tho with latest scandal, the tide is turning. Like the Pet Rock, people are seeing through this scam.

[Rollo]

"By the end of this century, sea level may have risen by between 30cm and 50cm according to the various IPCC scenarios. Our records suggest a maximum of 20cm. Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively."

It's enough to render the nation of Kiribati completely underwater:
http://media.theage.com.au/kiribati--rising-tide-947055.html

The truth is that because the people who are affected by climate change don't have enough economic clout to mean much, the first world doesn't really care.

Poor people are worthless and this is proven time and time again.

[donKey jote]

anyone for some Godwin?

-VRBWLpYCPY

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif

[Mark in Oshawa]

It's enough to render the nation of Kiribati completely underwater:
http://media.theage.com.au/kiribati--rising-tide-947055.html

The truth is that because the people who are affected by climate change don't have enough economic clout to mean much, the first world doesn't really care.

Poor people are worthless and this is proven time and time again.

That's assuming the sea levels do come up that much. I do agree tho, we should be careful, but from what I have seen of the East Anglia coverup, the fact they destroyed original climate data and were willing to lie to keep up their theory leads me to believe the science isn't cut and dried. Furthermore, I would have to say kneecapping the economy of the major developed nations to curb our production of CO2 ( or just buy the carbon credits from the rest of the world) only to have China and India not be affected would not save Kiribati or any other islands barely above sea level.

What you keep failing to grasp in this blind rush to embrace this man made global warming theory is that with the current world's population and exempting China and India from any real reductions, this isn't doing anything but redistributing wealth. Obama may call that economic justice, I call it legalized theft.

[Easy Drifter]

You cannot take a miniscule time frame in world history and theorize climate change. Well you can but your odds of being correct are just as miniscule.
They entire data mostly relied upon by the 'man made' climate change faction has recently been cast into serious doubt, although not widely reported. Falsified records and data supplied to the very corrupt UN.
All this BS about carbon credits does absolutely and completely zip about reducing pollution. Nothing. Nada. It is entirely about screwing the developed countries and giving money to the underdeveloped world. It encompasses no actual reduction in emmisions, just makes developed countries pay emerging economies. Another UN fraudulent corrupt scheme.
Going into the Copenhagen BS session it appears no Western leader has the bull's appendages to question the now apparent falsified data the UN has been using.
The climate is changing as it always has but do mans' puny developments have any significant effect? I highly doubt it.
I will now retreat to my underground bomb shelter and sharpen my scalping knife.

[Alexamateo]

.............

4. Yes, the clue is in the answer to #3. If global warming starts to truly be a problem, the temperatures can be moderated by injecting particulate matter into the upper atmosphere. I also read recently of a man patenting an idea for ocean based aerators that have a tremendous cooling effect. All technologically feasable now without taxing ourselves into an economic disadvantage with developing countries that are not going to sign on to whatever agreements the west may come up with.



Sorry to quote my own post, but I was in the bookstore today flipping through Superfreakonomics, and they're hip to my idea, thank you very much. :)

Found a link too!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495643459234318.html

[chuck34]

Sorry to quote my own post, but I was in the bookstore today flipping through Superfreakonomics, and they're hip to my idea, thank you very much. :)

Found a link too!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495643459234318.html

I'm sure that probably works in theory. But there's this little voice in the back of my head screaming "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES" at the top of his lungs. I'm not sure that at this point in man's evolution that we are truly smart enough to be able to see every reaction to all the stuff we are doing. A bit more study may convince me though. I don't want to say this is a dumb idea or anything, I just wouldn't jump on board just yet. But that's just me YMMV.

[Sonic]

You cannot take a miniscule time frame in world history and theorize climate change. Well you can but your odds of being correct are just as miniscule.


Indeed. It is arrogant presumption on the part of scientists if they believe their knowledge of the world is so complete that they know with complete certainty the cause of the planets current warming.

That said I sure as hell don't know enough to claim that man made emissions have nothing to do with it so I am happy to adapt my lifestyle to one of less waste and a smaller impact on the planet - it can't hurt anyway!

[chuck34]

Indeed. It is arrogant presumption on the part of scientists if they believe their knowledge of the world is so complete that they know with complete certainty the cause of the planets current warming.

That said I sure as hell don't know enough to claim that man made emissions have nothing to do with it so I am happy to adapt my lifestyle to one of less waste and a smaller impact on the planet - it can't hurt anyway!

Exaclty. No one is saying that we shouldn't do some things to conserve, etc. But once you start talking about carbon offset credits, carbon taxes, and the like ... make no mistake, it will hurt.

[anthonyvop]

The truth is that because the people who are affected by climate change don't have enough economic clout to mean much, the first world doesn't really care.

Poor people are worthless and this is proven time and time again.
What a load of Bunk.
The UN Commission and this Copenhagen summit is just for that. For "Developing nations" to steal money from prosperous nations.

[Rollo]

So if it personally affects you even as much as one cent, then sod them?

[anthonyvop]

So if it personally affects you even as much as one cent, then sod them?

If it does with no good reason then yes!

The debate about man-made global warming is over. The only people still clinging to that theory are those who want to take other people's money.

[Bezza]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Global warming has always been made up and a load of bollocks. Anyone with half an IQ knows that.

A planet changes climate regardless of whether some bloke has a 4x4 instead of a Prius.

Coming out of an ice age anyone? Natural cycle.

What are they actually discussing in Copenhagen? And how did they get there? As they are all of moral courage I presume they either walked or ride their bikes?

[chuck34]

Here's one for Rah. It will more eloquently explain what I've been trying to say about time scales, what the "perfect" temperature is, starting points for trend lines, etc.

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

So by looking at that, is man really the cause for "climate change"? Doesn't look like the climate has done anything other than change in it's history. But I'm sure I'm picking the wrong points to look at, right Rah?

[555-04Q2]

"Man made" global warming is the biggest conspiracy in history along with the Y2K scare tactic to get companies to spend millions to avert "a disaster" at midnight on the 1 January 2000.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The hypocracy of Copenhagen is just appalling. 140 private jets are in the airport there just that have flown in the bigwigs for this shindig and the world's leaders haven't even begun to make an apprearence.

Just wait until they all agree to something that actually moves some cash around and listen to the chrous of "we must go along" from the trained seals in the media. Meanwhile, if there actually is a problem with warming and it happens because the Chinese, Indians and other developing nations get cash and do nothing but build more "stuff" to make the problem worse, someone will have to get a clue and realize they are being ripped off. Some of us see this coming, but apparently a whole lot of gullable fools really think this is about the climate.....

[Brown, Jon Brow]

There seems to be a lot statements flying around from certain corners that global warming is a myth and if not it isn't man-made.

Why?

The more data I see the more the data convinces me that we have global warming and it is man made. It seems now the global warming skeptics have stopped using science to back their argument because there is no science to back them anymore, but instead have tried to claim global warming is a massive scientific fraud.

[Mark in Oshawa]

There seems to be a lot statements flying around from certain corners that global warming is a myth and if not it isn't man-made.

Why?

The more data I see the more the data convinces me that we have global warming and it is man made. It seems now the global warming skeptics have stopped using science to back their argument because there is no science to back them anymore, but instead have tried to claim global warming is a massive scientific fraud.


I am not so foolish to suggest that there is no global warming. I am going to be a skeptic on the causes tho. There are many reputable people who don't buy the arguments. The damaging evidence in the East Anglia email scandal of these supporters of the theory destroying data and being catty over their opponents says to me there is much skepticism in the hearts of some of the global warming proponents. Furthermore, if you truly believe in global warming, you better get past the rhetoric of the finger pointing and noble measures to move money around in Cap and trade that does NOTHING to actually reduce the amount of CO2.

There is a reason a lot of us conservatives don't like this. We like solutions to problems. This isnt. We cannot even believe that there is a problem based on how the issue has been presented at times.....

I am all for a clean earth, and I certainly don't want the ocean to rise, but Al gore and the like spend more time lying about their position while claiming if you dont' believe, you are an idiot. In 1905 everyone thought Einstein was an idiot....but in the end he too was right....peers going along with the theory doesn't mean the theory is right, it just means a lot of people are drinking the same kool aid...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I am not so foolish to suggest that there is no global warming. I am going to be a skeptic on the causes tho. There are many reputable people who don't buy the arguments. The damaging evidence in the East Anglia email scandal of these supporters of the theory destroying data and being catty over their opponents says to me there is much skepticism in the hearts of some of the global warming proponents. Furthermore, if you truly believe in global warming, you better get past the rhetoric of the finger pointing and noble measures to move money around in Cap and trade that does NOTHING to actually reduce the amount of CO2.

There is a reason a lot of us conservatives don't like this. We like solutions to problems. This isnt. We cannot even believe that there is a problem based on how the issue has been presented at times.....

I am all for a clean earth, and I certainly don't want the ocean to rise, but Al gore and the like spend more time lying about their position while claiming if you dont' believe, you are an idiot. In 1905 everyone thought Einstein was an idiot....but in the end he too was right....peers going along with the theory doesn't mean the theory is right, it just means a lot of people are drinking the same kool aid...

The biggest issue is that people just don't want to believe that global warming is man made because it will effect their own personal freedom. I saw some memoirs from a global warming adviser George W Bush. All of the wording in that was geared towards not trying to disprove the theory that global warming is man made, but clinging to the fact that many people don't want the theory to be true. So by stirring the opposition to man made global warming, even when they have no theory to back them up, they can brain wash the general public.

*In the early 1980's when climate change was first highlighted the skeptics said, no it isn't, in fact the globe is cooling.

*When even more evidence of global warming came the skeptics said, 'no it's just urban warming, data from satellites say it's cooling.'

*When the satellites data was proved to be wrong the skeptics said, 'yeah, well warming isn't man made.'

*When the famous 'Hockey Stick' graph was published, further backing the man made evidence, all the skeptics said 'that graph is wrong'. So the skeptics made their own and even they produced similar results.

*The skeptics last effort to say global warming is natural was to blame the Sun, but even the data they used to back up their claims proves otherwise.

So far all the data that the skeptics have produced eventually has backed up the evidence that recent climate changes is man made.

[chuck34]

The biggest issue is that people just don't want to believe that global warming is man made because it will effect their own personal freedom. I saw some memoirs from a global warming adviser George W Bush. All of the wording in that was geared towards not trying to disprove the theory that global warming is man made, but clinging to the fact that many people don't want the theory to be true. So by stirring the opposition to man made global warming, even when they have no theory to back them up, they can brain wash the general public.

*In the early 1980's when climate change was first highlighted the skeptics said, no it isn't, in fact the globe is cooling.

*When even more evidence of global warming came the skeptics said, 'no it's just urban warming, data from satellites say it's cooling.'

*When the satellites data was proved to be wrong the skeptics said, 'yeah, well warming isn't man made.'

*When the famous 'Hockey Stick' graph was published, further backing the man made evidence, all the skeptics said 'that graph is wrong'. So the skeptics made their own and even they produced similar results.

*The skeptics last effort to say global warming is natural was to blame the Sun, but even the data they used to back up their claims proves otherwise.

So far all the data that the skeptics have produced eventually has backed up the evidence that recent climate changes is man made.

Have you not been paying any attention to what is coming out of the climategate stuff? These "scientists" are doing a lot of very unscientific things; hiding data they don't like, surpressing opposing views, destroying raw data, destroying emails that talk about these things, discrediting skeptics, etc. Do you not see a problem with these tactics? Is that not something that causes you to take pause and re-examine what you have been fed as "scientific data" or "peer reviewed science"?

Take a look around for yourself at the data that is out there. Start with some of the links that I and others have posted in this thread. The Earth may be slightly warming in the last few decades (but don't kid yourself there are plenty of issues with the records), but we are by no means at the warmest time in the history of the planet. So why must we enact draconian legislation to control temperatures? The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising slightly in the last few decades, but over longer time periods those levels are historically LOW. So why must we enact draconian legislation to control CO2, especially when that will HURT most economies?

Science has been turned upside down by this whole debate. Normally in science it is up to those presenting a theory to prove themselves correct. Yet somehow the global warming alarmists (who are the ones presenting a theory here) have been allowed to hide behind "concensus". Any time they are challenged they say something to the effect of "the science is settled". Well if it is so settled then, it should be easy to actually have a discussion about things and prove the skeptics wrong without resorting to ad hominem attacks. How many times has "concensus" or "settled science" been proven wrong in the past? And why is concensus now a sound scientific basis for an argument?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Most of the unscientific things such as hiding of the evidence has been done by the skeptics.

When you start adding theories about what will happen to the economies then you lose your credibility. All the skeptics are against because they worry about the effects leglislation will have on the economy.

It shouldn't have anything to do with the economy. If you take your capitalistic sunglasses and look at all the evidence you will see that it is in favour of a link between man and climate change in the past half century.

No one wants man to have a link to climate change because it will cost all of us economically.

[chuck34]

Most of the unscientific things such as hiding of the evidence has been done by the skeptics.

You sure about that?

http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html
"On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data."

"Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports."

"The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century."


And that's just one example of cherry picking, hiding, and "adjusting". You want more?


When you start adding theories about what will happen to the economies then you lose your credibility. All the skeptics are against because they worry about the effects leglislation will have on the economy.

So the economy isn't important? Why don't you just quit you job then? I'm sure that will lower your carbon footprint. Or how about giving up the computer you're on right now? I'm sure that runs on electricty, and we all know that's evil, right?


It shouldn't have anything to do with the economy. If you take your capitalistic sunglasses and look at all the evidence you will see that it is in favour of a link between man and climate change in the past half century.

Take off your socialistic glasses and see that this is all about control. And that they are cooking the books to scare people into giving up their liberties.


No one wants man to have a link to climate change because it will cost all of us economically.

Yep, that's it if we all just go back to living in caves, the world will be a better, ie cooler, place. Come on, you can't really believe this stuff can you?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

My point is by including statements about the economy you are neglecting the science part of both sides of the argument. Which in turn helps the argument of those who believe in man made climate change.

The economy has nothing to with the science behind global warming yet you almost argue that man made climate change can't be true because if it is the economy is screwed.

Or, we have have to keep stirring the pot so nothing is done.

[chuck34]

My point is by including statements about the economy you are neglecting the science part of both sides of the argument. Which in turn helps the argument of those who believe in man made climate change.

The economy has nothing to with the science behind global warming yet you almost argue that man made climate change can't be true because if it is the economy is screwed.

Or, we have have to keep stirring the pot so nothing is done.

That's not quite my argument. My argument is that at best there is some questions surrounding the science (see Climategate, etc). Therefore I don't think that we should ruin our economies based on a theory that is far from proven. The fact that there are so many "scientists" and politicians that are pushing this agenda so hard, and stifiling debate with such a heavy hand, gives me, and many others, cause to question if their motivation is truly scientific.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D3uIJ5T6Xo

[Rollo]

Therefore I don't think that we should ruin our economies based on a theory that is far from proven.

John Tyndall explained the Greenhouse Effect back in 1862 and proved it through experimentation of the absorption of gases. We know pretty well much exactly how much CO2 and latent water vapour is in the atmosphere and how much we're adding to it.

If you really wanted to take a full view of the end of the experiment, then have a look at the results of the Venera probes which touched down on the surface of Venus.

Theory proven 147 years ago.

[chuck34]

John Tyndall explained the Greenhouse Effect back in 1862 and proved it through experimentation of the absorption of gases. We know pretty well much exactly how much CO2 and latent water vapour is in the atmosphere and how much we're adding to it.

If you really wanted to take a full view of the end of the experiment, then have a look at the results of the Venera probes which touched down on the surface of Venus.

Theory proven 147 years ago.

Then tell me exactly how many ppm of CO2 will equal 1deg of warming, and is that a linear relationship, exponential, or asymtotic? Should be easy since Tyndall "proved" the greenhouse effect on global scales.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Here is another one that has been brought up before. Polar caps on Mars are shrinking. No SUV's or oilsands projects there. No heating of houses. I believe that our climate is changing. It is always changing. I have never really quibbled with the idea it could be getting warmer. Where I will fight is why....because I believe the sun's effect on us is a greater factor that people are too quick to dismiss...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Here is another one that has been brought up before. Polar caps on Mars are shrinking. No SUV's or oilsands projects there. No heating of houses. I believe that our climate is changing. It is always changing. I have never really quibbled with the idea it could be getting warmer. Where I will fight is why....because I believe the sun's effect on us is a greater factor that people are too quick to dismiss...

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sunspots-do-not-cause-climate-change-say-scientists-1839867.html

Studies published in 1991 and 1998 claimed to establish a link between global temperatures and solar activity – sunspots – and continue to be cited by climate scepticsMany sceptics who accept that global temperatures have risen in recent decades suggest it is part of the climate's natural variability and could be accounted for by normal variations in the activity of the Sun. Powerful support for this idea came in 1991 when Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, published a study showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and the length of sunspot cycles.

A further study published in 1998 by Mr Friis-Christensen and his colleague Henrik Svensmark suggested a possible explanation for the warming trend with a link between solar activity, cosmic rays and the formation of clouds.

However, many scientists now believe both of these studies are seriously flawed, and that when errors introduced into the analysis are removed, the correlations disappear, with no link between sunspots and global warming. Peter Laut, a former adviser to the Danish Energy Agency who first identified the flaws, said there were practically no observations to support the idea that variations in sunspots played more than a minor role in global warming.

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sunspots-do-not-cause-climate-change-say-scientists-1839867.html

Studies published in 1991 and 1998 claimed to establish a link between global temperatures and solar activity – sunspots – and continue to be cited by climate scepticsMany sceptics who accept that global temperatures have risen in recent decades suggest it is part of the climate's natural variability and could be accounted for by normal variations in the activity of the Sun. Powerful support for this idea came in 1991 when Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, published a study showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and the length of sunspot cycles.

A further study published in 1998 by Mr Friis-Christensen and his colleague Henrik Svensmark suggested a possible explanation for the warming trend with a link between solar activity, cosmic rays and the formation of clouds.

However, many scientists now believe both of these studies are seriously flawed, and that when errors introduced into the analysis are removed, the correlations disappear, with no link between sunspots and global warming. Peter Laut, a former adviser to the Danish Energy Agency who first identified the flaws, said there were practically no observations to support the idea that variations in sunspots played more than a minor role in global warming.

Maybe so....or maybe not. I am not going to defend or defeat the hypothesis either way, I am a lay person. But I do know this much: There are some very credible scientests trying to prove this on both sides. Only fools like Al Gore say there is no debate. There certainly is, and while your above quote says the sun's radiation isn't a factor or at least, they cannot prove it is, it still doesn't mean it isn't. Most of these theories and idea of what is causing the change in our climate are just that. They are not absolutes yet. The same people trumping this as a done deal were using the same data in the 70's and claiming we were heading for an ice age.

[chuck34]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sunspots-do-not-cause-climate-change-say-scientists-1839867.html

Studies published in 1991 and 1998 claimed to establish a link between global temperatures and solar activity – sunspots – and continue to be cited by climate scepticsMany sceptics who accept that global temperatures have risen in recent decades suggest it is part of the climate's natural variability and could be accounted for by normal variations in the activity of the Sun. Powerful support for this idea came in 1991 when Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, published a study showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and the length of sunspot cycles.

A further study published in 1998 by Mr Friis-Christensen and his colleague Henrik Svensmark suggested a possible explanation for the warming trend with a link between solar activity, cosmic rays and the formation of clouds.

However, many scientists now believe both of these studies are seriously flawed, and that when errors introduced into the analysis are removed, the correlations disappear, with no link between sunspots and global warming. Peter Laut, a former adviser to the Danish Energy Agency who first identified the flaws, said there were practically no observations to support the idea that variations in sunspots played more than a minor role in global warming.

That's all fine and dandy, maybe there's a link between sun spots, maybe not. But you didn't address my earlier, and more fundamental question. Don't you think that it is much more important to know the EXACT correlation between CO2 and temperature? Is that relationship linear, exponential, or asymtotic? Those are questions that MUST be answered before we start taxing things (like CO2) that are fundamental to our economy and industry.

Also what do you make of the fact that in the history of the earth we are still at historically LOW levels of CO2?

[Rollo]

Then tell me exactly how many ppm of CO2 will equal 1deg of warming, and is that a linear relationship, exponential, or asymtotic? Should be easy since Tyndall "proved" the greenhouse effect on global scales.

None of the above.

The curve produced by Planck's Law, the Beer-Lambert Law and the Stefan–Boltzmann law, assuming that the earth has a consistent surface and reflectivity, is a polynomial curve that tends to level off the higher you go (it's roughly logorithmic).

Nominally, using the weight of the atmosphere as 5.1480 × 10^18 kg, and assuming that CO2 comprises 387 ppmv, then just the using the weight of gases, over the surface of the earth (510,072,000 km²) then I work it out to be about 126ppm.

Svante Arrhenius wrote an interesting paper on the subject back in 1896.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Perhaps you might like to read this, or perhaps not. It's taken me nearly an hour to sort through the calculations to arrive at 126ppm, and unless you have a grasp of calculus, there's no point me explaining to you how I got there.

[chuck34]

None of the above.

The curve produced by Planck's Law, the Beer-Lambert Law and the Stefan–Boltzmann law, assuming that the earth has a consistent surface and reflectivity, is a polynomial curve that tends to level off the higher you go (it's roughly logorithmic).

Nominally, using the weight of the atmosphere as 5.1480 × 10^18 kg, and assuming that CO2 comprises 387 ppmv, then just the using the weight of gases, over the surface of the earth (510,072,000 km²) then I work it out to be about 126ppm.

Svante Arrhenius wrote an interesting paper on the subject back in 1896.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Perhaps you might like to read this, or perhaps not. It's taken me nearly an hour to sort through the calculations to arrive at 126ppm, and unless you have a grasp of calculus, there's no point me explaining to you how I got there.

I understand calculus qite well, but I can't see your link right now (I'm stuck in an airport and posting from my phone). If you say that the temp response is logorithmic then where on the "knee" are we currently?

What is 126ppmv? Is that the amount of CO2 it will take to raise the temp 1deg? Is that C or F? How long will it take, at current output levels to get to 513ppmv? Is that the only factor that contributes to warming? How confident are you that 1deg (C or F) along with an increase in CO2 levels, will really be that "devestating" You don't really think I ask these questions without knowing the answers, do you? ;-)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Science isn't about consensus. The Climate change is man's fault crowd is big on consensus. I am not buying it all. I may by that it could be getting warmer, but with all the temperature changes the earth has seen in the last 100000 years, I refuse to buy this myth it is all our fault. Just a tad pompous to think we can change the climate one way or the other. I have said it before, if CO2 is the reason the earth is getting warmer, better ban planes, ban cars, ban coal fired generation plants, and just eliminate 5 billion people from the planet. Reducing Canada's carbon footprint 10% over the next 10 years means diddly when the Chinese will continue on their merry way industrializing their nation, and the Indian's the same...while we PAY them in Carbon credits. IF you cant see the scam in THAT, you really are drinking the Kool Aid Al Gore is selling....

[Mark in Oshawa]

A satirical look at the hypocracy and stupidity of it all:

http://thealbatross.ca/2009/12/copenhagen-report-everything-our-fault-now-apparently/

HEY GUYS TAKE PART IN THE BIGGEST GLOBAL WARMING PREVENTION EFFORT EVER MADE BY TEENS OF ASIA AND MAKE IT BIGGER
JUST CLIK THE LINK BELOW AND SSAVE OUR WORLD-
http://bce480e3.qvvo.com

[Mark in Oshawa]

Apparently Burt Rutan is a denier now too...here is a link to a blog with his reason with further links to his theory.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/16/burt-rutan-engineer-aviationspace-pioneer-and-climate-skeptic/

[Mark in Oshawa]

It seems even the Guardian, for their usual backing of the whole idea that Global Warming is man made, is still willing to post stories that draw a cloud and accuse the findings of being manipulated:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

I for one think there is far more data that needs to be scrutinzed. Read the link in the post above of Burt Rutan's criticism's of the science, and realize he is a very "Green" guy and was when Green wasn't a fashionable choice of those who run around now telling us the world is in peril.

[F1boat]

I may become tedious, but I believe that the warming, man-made or not, is not the main problem. The main problem is the pollution, the poisoning of the Earth. It is real and man-made. So even of the pollution is natural, the poisoning is made of us and people IMO should bear responsibility for destruction of forests, animals and poisoning the sea.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I may become tedious, but I believe that the warming, man-made or not, is not the main problem. The main problem is the pollution, the poisoning of the Earth. It is real and man-made. So even of the pollution is natural, the poisoning is made of us and people IMO should bear responsibility for destruction of forests, animals and poisoning the sea.
ON this, you and I can agree on for the most part. I think with care, intellegence and some good legislation (I am still trying to find the politicians who understand THAT) much can be done. That said, the nations that polluted more and pollute more are often the same nations that were not subject to the Global warming cabal at Kyoto and Copenhagen. Go for a drive across industrial Canada, or the USA or the UK, and then see the industry of China, or India...and explain to me the point of making it harder for the already clean industrial operations in the west ( at least, clean as can be practical) as opposed to the lignite burning factories and power plants of China, or the ecological degradation in parts of India.

There needs to be some accountability in the West, for we do consume oil and gas, but with modern requirements for air pollution and regulation, one cannot just go around saying the US and the West are the ones who must be punished for all of this. Share the pain with some logic..

My view on this thread tho isn't on pollution, it is on the endless myth that the debate is over and Global Warming is all mankind's fault, and in particular the fault of the Industrial West. Funny how that sweater is slowly unravelling as all this "peer" reviewed science turns out to be a bunch of wild guesses and facts not with the template are either hid or tampered with. Then we read about vicious personal attacks within the scientific community.

I respect "greens" like Burt Rutan who are very enviromentally conscious who question this "science" with sheer logic and empircal reasoning....and that is why I posted his link.

[chuck34]

I may become tedious, but I believe that the warming, man-made or not, is not the main problem. The main problem is the pollution, the poisoning of the Earth. It is real and man-made. So even of the pollution is natural, the poisoning is made of us and people IMO should bear responsibility for destruction of forests, animals and poisoning the sea.

I would agree with this, and most people will. But only when we are talking about REAL pollution. And CO2 is NOT pollution.

[F1boat]

I would agree with this, and most people will. But only when we are talking about REAL pollution. And CO2 is NOT pollution.

It poisons the sea. For me this is enough.
Mark, about sharing responsibility, of course, I agree.

[anthonyvop]

It poisons the sea. For me this is enough.
Mark, about sharing responsibility, of course, I agree.

How does CO2 poison the seas?

[chuck34]

It poisons the sea. For me this is enough.
Mark, about sharing responsibility, of course, I agree.

I posted a link to some research from Wood's Hole a few pages back on this subject. It (ocean "acidification") helps some species and hurts others. It is pretty much comes out even. So I wouldn't say it "poisons the sea".

Nature is really very amazing. It deals with change quite well actually. The conditions of the air, seas, and land ARE NOT at some sort of ideal equilibrium right now. Any little pertubation WILL NOT cause life on this planet to cease. Life will change, adapt, evolve, or go extict. It always has, and always will. There are WAAAAAAAY more species that are now extinct than living. Why is it that this time, and these conditions are ideal?

[chuck34]

Speaking of "poisioning the seas", it appears that cold does a really good job. :-(

http://www.physorg.com/news184044612.html

[F1boat]

Nature is really very amazing. It deals with change quite well actually. The conditions of the air, seas, and land ARE NOT at some sort of ideal equilibrium right now. Any little pertubation WILL NOT cause life on this planet to cease. Life will change, adapt, evolve, or go extict.

Yes, but we should help creatures go extinct because we are unable to control our own greed IMO.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It poisons the sea. For me this is enough.
Mark, about sharing responsibility, of course, I agree.

Boat, that is a theory out there, but understand this. CO2 has been around a long time, and was around LONG before we had the Internal Combustion engine. It was and is a natural part of our atmosphere. The ppm of CO2 is bout what, 340? What was it maybe 100 years ago? 330? You are now going to tell me a difference of 10ppm is making the difference? I am not sure on the actual numbers but a trained number cruncher would argue the difference in PPM of CO2 differences between now and 100 years ago is probably within a statistical margin of error in the calculation. So to say the increase is causing massive damage is a theory, but is likely WAY too simple.

We keep thinking we understand every process that is occuring in nature. WE don't.....and even if a theory looks good, it is still just a theory. What is more, dissenting opinions usually have merit in science, and there is never a consensus and nor should there be. That is what has been so galling about the idea that the IPCC is right and we all should walk away. Physicists all thought Einstein was out of his mind in 1905 too...and 16 years later he was given the Nobel prize for Physics for that work. So the debate has to continue and we have to grasp that to just say CO2 is a pollutant is simplfying a complex process.

Another thing that people have to get into their head, to have a totally protected and clean enviroment, maybe having about 1 billion people on the earth would make it happen. The problem is we have 6 Billion and growing....

We can save, clean and be as green as we want, but odds are, it wont change much unless an effort is made without using subterfuge to assist all societies to improve their ecological improvements. The Global Warming crowd basically just put together a ponzi scheme and tried to make us all participate but there was no actual reduction in CO2 or pollution.

The best proof of how weak this all is, the Eco-Greens have run Europe's CAp and Trade legislation right down the EU members throats. Since the year 2000 the CO2 emissions have gone up 5% and the only thing gained is a lot of people have gotten rich selling Carbon Credits and there are more bureaucrats in Brussels drawing big salaries to keep track of it all. Still trying to figure out how the enviroment is helped.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes, but we should help creatures go extinct because we are unable to control our own greed IMO.

Sabre toothed tigers are extinct. Man didn't make that happen, we were still walking around with clubs. Mastadon's went extinct. Last I looked, Neanderthals didn't have SUV's. Change is the only constant on this planet and that includes the coming and going of species.....

[F1boat]

Sabre toothed tigers are extinct. Man didn't make that happen, we were still walking around with clubs. Mastadon's went extinct. Last I looked, Neanderthals didn't have SUV's. Change is the only constant on this planet and that includes the coming and going of species.....

Yes, but it never happened so fast and for no other reason than our greed. The other times such extinction happened t'was because of cataclysms and it happened quite slowly. So this for me is very cheap excuse.

[F1boat]

Boat, that is a theory out there, but understand this. CO2 has been around a long time, and was around LONG before we had the Internal Combustion engine. It was and is a natural part of our atmosphere. The ppm of CO2 is bout what, 340? What was it maybe 100 years ago? 330? You are now going to tell me a difference of 10ppm is making the difference? I am not sure on the actual numbers but a trained number cruncher would argue the difference in PPM of CO2 differences between now and 100 years ago is probably within a statistical margin of error in the calculation. So to say the increase is causing massive damage is a theory, but is likely WAY too simple.

We keep thinking we understand every process that is occuring in nature. WE don't.....and even if a theory looks good, it is still just a theory. What is more, dissenting opinions usually have merit in science, and there is never a consensus and nor should there be. That is what has been so galling about the idea that the IPCC is right and we all should walk away. Physicists all thought Einstein was out of his mind in 1905 too...and 16 years later he was given the Nobel prize for Physics for that work. So the debate has to continue and we have to grasp that to just say CO2 is a pollutant is simplfying a complex process.

Another thing that people have to get into their head, to have a totally protected and clean enviroment, maybe having about 1 billion people on the earth would make it happen. The problem is we have 6 Billion and growing....

We can save, clean and be as green as we want, but odds are, it wont change much unless an effort is made without using subterfuge to assist all societies to improve their ecological improvements. The Global Warming crowd basically just put together a ponzi scheme and tried to make us all participate but there was no actual reduction in CO2 or pollution.

The best proof of how weak this all is, the Eco-Greens have run Europe's CAp and Trade legislation right down the EU members throats. Since the year 2000 the CO2 emissions have gone up 5% and the only thing gained is a lot of people have gotten rich selling Carbon Credits and there are more bureaucrats in Brussels drawing big salaries to keep track of it all. Still trying to figure out how the enviroment is helped.

Well, I'm not a scientist, but I trust scientists and I do not believe that all who say that we are hurting the planet are left crooks. I can believe that the deniers are right crooks who do not care of anything except their money, but that's another topic.
I believe that the new green (electro) cars by Renault are a good effort to keep the planet clean without feeding any bureaucrats - I don't like them either, all talk, no action. I also think that such effort can be made by other companies in order to have a cleaner planet and to allow our nature to get some fresh breath. If we are not to blame, well, at least we tried to help. But I think that we are and if we manage to reduce the CO2, even better.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, I'm not a scientist, but I trust scientists and I do not believe that all who say that we are hurting the planet are left crooks. I can believe that the deniers are right crooks who do not care of anything except their money, but that's another topic.
I believe that the new green (electro) cars by Renault are a good effort to keep the planet clean without feeding any bureaucrats - I don't like them either, all talk, no action. I also think that such effort can be made by other companies in order to have a cleaner planet and to allow our nature to get some fresh breath. If we are not to blame, well, at least we tried to help. But I think that we are and if we manage to reduce the CO2, even better.

Here is where you are missing the point. The electric car is going to save on CO2 in its operation, but what damage to the enviroment will the new and rare metals used in the new battery technology do? The Prius has exotic battery technology to get similar mileage as the VW Jetta or Golf Diesel. Which one has hurt the enviroment more? The Prius, but the owners are all convinced they are saving the planet and are of the opinion they need to be seen as doing it driving that Prius. So much of the green revolution is about optics, as if saving the planet was a fashion choice. It isn't.

Being green isn't a bad thing, and I have done my best to buy fuel efficient cars, and since I am "cheap" when it comes to paying utility bills, I have tried to use less heat. I am all for people putting more efficient windows in their houses and having proper insulation. I am all for being smart about helping the enviroment, but lets spare the fiction that the activists in the enviroment movement don't have an agenda. Many do...just as many industrialists do.

There is a myth that if you love the planet you will just cave in and do whatever is required and all is going to be well. I have news for you, many of those who would tell you to be more green have big houses, access to big airplanes and have no problem living a lifestyle far more extravigant than you or I would tolerate.

Some of the biggest conservationalists that were around LONG before Al Gore fell in love with Mother Gaia are the ardent right wingers he so despises.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes, but it never happened so fast and for no other reason than our greed. The other times such extinction happened t'was because of cataclysms and it happened quite slowly. So this for me is very cheap excuse.

How do you know? We may have caused some extinctions. THAT is a tragedy, but we are part of the animal kingdom. We are the top of the foodchain, but we are part of nature. That said, species will come and go, and we should do our best to save them within reason, but there is the factor that the planet has 6 billion people on it. We cannot live any kind of lifestyle at ALL and not impact the enviroment.

[chuck34]

Boat, that is a theory out there, but understand this. CO2 has been around a long time, and was around LONG before we had the Internal Combustion engine. It was and is a natural part of our atmosphere. The ppm of CO2 is bout what, 340? What was it maybe 100 years ago? 330? You are now going to tell me a difference of 10ppm is making the difference? I am not sure on the actual numbers but a trained number cruncher would argue the difference in PPM of CO2 differences between now and 100 years ago is probably within a statistical margin of error in the calculation. So to say the increase is causing massive damage is a theory, but is likely WAY too simple.


Go back farther than that and you will find that we are at historic LOW levels of CO2.

[chuck34]

Well, I'm not a scientist, but I trust scientists and I do not believe that all who say that we are hurting the planet are left crooks. I can believe that the deniers are right crooks who do not care of anything except their money, but that's another topic.
I believe that the new green (electro) cars by Renault are a good effort to keep the planet clean without feeding any bureaucrats - I don't like them either, all talk, no action. I also think that such effort can be made by other companies in order to have a cleaner planet and to allow our nature to get some fresh breath. If we are not to blame, well, at least we tried to help. But I think that we are and if we manage to reduce the CO2, even better.

Why would you trust scientists on the "left" but not on the "right"? That is just silly on the face of it.

And you don't think that the alarmists are greedy and out for money? How do you think these people make a living? They do it by getting government grants. And the government doesn't usually give out grants so that people can study "normal" processes. Don't even get me started on Al Gore and how he makes his money.

No greed? Don't make me laugh.

[chuck34]

Yes, but it never happened so fast and for no other reason than our greed. The other times such extinction happened t'was because of cataclysms and it happened quite slowly. So this for me is very cheap excuse.

As Mark said, how do you know? And I don't think that when dinosaurs went extict it was "slowly". Same with many other mass extinction events throughout history. Many times extinctions happen quite quickly, with or without man's help.

[Alexamateo]

Well, I'm not a scientist, but I trust scientists and I do not believe that all who say that we are hurting the planet are left crooks. I can believe that the deniers are right crooks who do not care of anything except their money, but that's another topic............




Your mistake is forgetting that scientist are humans too, subject to the same foibles as the rest of us. Something to think about:



Science in not an abstract body of knowledge, but man's understanding of nature. It is not an idealized interrogation of nature by dedicated servants of truth, but a human process governed by the ordinary human passions of ambition, pride, and greed, as well as by all the well-hymned virtues attributed to men of science. But the step from greed to fraud is as small in science as in other walks of life. .

Broad, William & Wade, Nicholas - BETRAYERS OF THE TRUTH: Fraud and Deceit In The Halls of Science, (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1982) p. 223

[Mark in Oshawa]

Go back farther than that and you will find that we are at historic LOW levels of CO2.

Whether we are low or high, it makes little difference. Burt Rutan's take on the variances in CO2 and how they are calculated says to me that the margin of error is greater than the perceived change that has happened since 1900. The fact is, it could be getting warmer, or colder, or there is more, or less. THe only thing we do know is nature changes all the time, and there is diddly squat we can do about it.

[chuck34]

Whether we are low or high, it makes little difference. Burt Rutan's take on the variances in CO2 and how they are calculated says to me that the margin of error is greater than the perceived change that has happened since 1900. The fact is, it could be getting warmer, or colder, or there is more, or less. THe only thing we do know is nature changes all the time, and there is diddly squat we can do about it.

I don't know much about how CO2 is measured (other than one place often quoted is on an active volcano. How dumb is that?). But I do know that what you say about margins of error is true of temperature as well. The tenths of a degree of GLOBAL temperature rise is supposed to be a big deal. I'd like to know how that is not within any statistical margin of error.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't know much about how CO2 is measured (other than one place often quoted is on an active volcano. How dumb is that?). But I do know that what you say about margins of error is true of temperature as well. The tenths of a degree of GLOBAL temperature rise is supposed to be a big deal. I'd like to know how that is not within any statistical margin of error.

On a link from the one I supplied on Rutan, he brings up a lot of this. He says as someone who crunches numbers for a living and has done a lot of theoritical math over the years that the conclusions the IPCC are trying to snow people with don't make sense to him as a trained researcher. Understand of course too that this guy is probably the most green skeptic going....so he would follow the results to man made global warming happily if there was mathematics supporting it....but they clearly are being dressed up, tarted up and prostituted to back a theory that is barely a good theory...

[F1boat]

How do you know? We may have caused some extinctions. THAT is a tragedy, but we are part of the animal kingdom. We are the top of the foodchain, but we are part of nature. That said, species will come and go, and we should do our best to save them within reason, but there is the factor that the planet has 6 billion people on it. We cannot live any kind of lifestyle at ALL and not impact the enviroment.
But I have the feeling that we are very far from doing our best, honestly.
Chuck, I don't think that scientists should be left or right. My impression is that most scientist who warn about the pollution and the warming are like that, simply scientists. The left support them, not the other way around. In the case of the detractors there are very serious allegations that these guys are well paid to say "all is well", so we will be able to continue mercilessly destroying the planet, without thinking of the future, to live only now - a bit like the credit economy which ruined the business model.
Also, I was talking about scientists and not Al Gore. Gore was IMO a far better choice than W. and made an important movie, because it shakes the public, but he was a politician and now is a bit like showman. I do not base my opinion on him, nor the right should base their opinion on Crichton, who was against the global warming theory. I follow the opinion of scientists and to me the majority seem more convincing.

[Mark in Oshawa]

But I have the feeling that we are very far from doing our best, honestly.
Chuck, I don't think that scientists should be left or right. My impression is that most scientist who warn about the pollution and the warming are like that, simply scientists. The left support them, not the other way around. In the case of the detractors there are very serious allegations that these guys are well paid to say "all is well", so we will be able to continue mercilessly destroying the planet, without thinking of the future, to live only now - a bit like the credit economy which ruined the business model.
Also, I was talking about scientists and not Al Gore. Gore was IMO a far better choice than W. and made an important movie, because it shakes the public, but he was a politician and now is a bit like showman. I do not base my opinion on him, nor the right should base their opinion on Crichton, who was against the global warming theory. I follow the opinion of scientists and to me the majority seem more convincing.

You think the science people are unbiased? Explain the East Anglia email controversay? Explain the evidence of other efforts to either stifle or alter information when it didn't prove their case. The Left is using this theory as a hammer to have a pretence to get their hands on cap and trade money (no global warming, no giant international ponzi scheme) and redistribute the wealth of the earth.

What you need to understand Boat is the actual green house gas emissions in Europe are up 5% despite Cap and trade taxes. There is no reduction. What is more, the EU's most rabid politicians on this issue flay the US for not participating in Kyoto while giving India and China a free pass on green house gas reductions. If you REALLY believe in this theory, you should look at all of this as as sham to actual reductions in green house gas. IT has done NOTHING to reduce gas. Power plants still burn gas or oil or coal and emit, and while we build more solar and windmills, the power produced is a drop in the bucket while demand goes up because of course, we are still having children and buying stuff that needs to take power from the grid.

None of this political bafflegab that Gore and others are putting up will fix the problem they claim is such an emergency. You see how quiet all of them are in the aftermath of the Copenhagen failure? IF this was the dire emergency they claimed it was, they ought to be jumping out of buildings by now.

Boat, you need to realize something. Some VERY real green enviromentalists who next years' budget ISNT beholden to supporting this fraud are asking a lot of awkward questions about the validity of it.

The earth may be getting warmer, but it likely could have nothing to do with us. Money wasted in stupid socialization and cap and trade schemes for China and India could be spent on nuclear energy research, fusion research, and helping low level nations find solutions for a rising sea level if things are as bad as they say they are.

AS for Al Gore, He is such a beliver in all of this that when he came back from Kyoto after promising to do all sorts of things to sell it to the American people came back, forgot about it, ran for President, NEVER Mentioned it as a plank in his platform, lost the election, lectured about politics at Harvard for two years and then pops up in 04 with a movie and he is a GREENIE? The man lives in a 22000 square foot mansion, owns the companies where you can buy carbon credits off of him ( at a nice profit of course ) and flits about on private jets. THIS guy is the poster boy for all what is wrong with the enviromental movement.

This theory of green house gases heating the atmosphere up being all man's doing and it being our undoing is likely unproven or an outright lie. Don't just say you support it because that's where the science is, because there a ton of people in the science community that disagree, find it odd that peer reviews of the work done by the supporters are always done by other people who support the work, and there is mounting evidence of fraud in the results.

This is a nice theory, nothing more, and I am adamantly against spending billions propping up third world countries through Carbon Tax's for their governments to use as they see fit. No green house gas emission reducitions in Europe since 2000 Boat...remember that....they have done DIDDLY and have the gall to lecture anyone else?

[F1boat]

Mark, I do think that you believe what you want to believe. Unlike you I don't want to believe in the warming, because it is a horrible thing, but I am afraid that it is true.
There are some scientists who question the warming, but as you can see from a very simple check in Wikipedia (and please don't be like tony - the site is bloody good), the scientists who think that the warming is real are more, much more, than the others. From what I'm seeing in the climate in my country there is a very good reason to be concerned and if there is a chance, and I believe that there is a big chance, that humans are to blame, an action must be taken.
Also I have said many times that even if it is not true, the pollution is from us and it is extremely dangerous.
I also disagree with your opinion that the measures of the EU hasn't done a thing. I think that it is like the FIA measures from slowing the cars - the cars still go faster, but not that faster. So I will applaud the EU for the effort and I urge them to continue with green politics.
Also you imply that I don't care about the fact that China and India are polluting and blame only the USA. This is not true, IMO all countries are to blame and I have to say that Obama was doing his best to help. Can't say the same about W., sorry.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm not a 'Climate Change-a phobe' but quoting Wikipedia (a website that anyone can edit) for your facts really isn't going to help you argument.

[F1boat]

I'm not a 'Climate Change-a phobe' but quoting Wikipedia (a website that anyone can edit) for your facts really isn't going to help you argument.

This is a popular, but wrong argument. Wikipedia has editors which follow closely who is editing and what is he adding. Abused pages very rarely stay for long. Wikipedia also quotes various sources and other websites.

[chuck34]

This is a popular, but wrong argument. Wikipedia has editors which follow closely who is editing and what is he adding. Abused pages very rarely stay for long. Wikipedia also quotes various sources and other websites.

Boat, look at who the editors are for Wiki. Here's just one link I found with a quick Google search. But there's more much more

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2009/12/wikipedia-climategate-the-right-hand-and-the-left-hand.html

"Now there is substantial evidence that a fellow green schill has essentially re-written or deleted thousands of posts about global warming on Wikipedia."


You really need to look at this on your own. Go back through this thread, there are many good links to do a bit of investigation on your own. Like you, I started out believing in global warming or climate change. And in the course of doing my own digging I changed my mind. There are too many inconsistancies in the data, things that don't add up, etc. to believe fully in this. Please don't take ANYONE's word for it. If you are really interested in these things, look at the claims from "Alarmists" and "Deniers" alike and see who's arguments hold up more.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I'm not a 'Climate Change-a phobe' but quoting Wikipedia (a website that anyone can edit) for your facts really isn't going to help you argument.

Jon, I use Wiki as a rough outline to look up some stuff, but on something like this, I read any links put out there from either side. On this, Wiki is just sort of the wrong place to go.

Boat, I have to say I am a lot like Chuck. I want to trust science and I want to trust the truth. The problem is I know that the truth isn't defining what we need to know to the point a firm decision can be made. I have been aware of the ecology of where I live as much as anyone. Living in Canada, you never forget just how big and natural this country is, and you become connected to it. I am NOT a rape and pillage capitalist.

That said, I never bought most of the theory because I have to say the whole way this was brought forward was through a politcal message. If someone puts out some scientific evidence that makes sense, is peer reviewed by the skeptics (one of the things coming out of the IPCC scandals is that scientests on the "PRO" global warming side were reviewing each other's work) then I can accept it.

Burt Rutan, Michael Crichton and some of the more public skeptics were/are not climatogists, but what they said made sense from a pure science point of view. The late Micheal Crichton was a doctor and a brilliant man, and Rutan is a genius who is used to crunching numbers, working out statistical probabilites and is well versed in academia. What is more, he is about the Greenist man on the skeptic's side. He I am sure would go to the wall FOR the theory if he saw that it made sense. IF you read some of what he has said on the subject, it should make you question a lot.

Also understand this. I have taken courses in Weather and Climatology through school. That doesn't make me a climate scientest, but I understand how weather works, how the water cycle works, how sunspots and solar radiation levels fluctuate, and you realize just how imperfect weather science and weather prediction is. We cant tell what it will be like definatively all the time 4 days away, and yet these guys can predict the earth will be 3 degrees warmer by the end of the century? C' mon....I was born on a day, not yesterday. They are making WAG's (wild @ss guesses) based on numbers they wont let any skeptics question or review.

My final point, you say more science professionals are on board with this. I don't care if 99% of them were saying it was inevitable if the 1% got it right. Science isn't a popularity contest or election. Remember what I said about Einstein. He was right, and all those who thought he was wrong in 1905 were the ones wrong. Ptolemy's view of earth's place in the universe was universally accepted for centuries until some cat named Copernicus came along and said the earth was not the center of the universe. The church excommunicated him, he was ridiculed and attacked...but in the end he was right. The skeptics will tell you to a man that if the evidence makes sense to them pointing out where they are wrong, they can accept this. Science is the truth, and when you have people corrupting the truth and trying to shut down debate, it says to me political considerations are coming into the funding. If I pay scientests to prove to me I believe in global warming, enough of them will tell me what I want to hear if they want to keep working....

[Daniel]

http://www.dailytech.com/India+Says+it+Cannot+Rely+on+Biased+UN+Climate+Pan el+Forms+National+Institute+of+Himalayan+Glaciolog y/article17621.htm

India can't trust the IPCC so it forms its own body.

[555-04Q2]

Cant believe people are still debating whether mankind is repsonsible for global warming or not. Its a naturaly cycle the world goes through. It happened before mankind was around and it will happen again and again when mankind is gone too.

[chuck34]

Cant believe people are still debating whether mankind is repsonsible for global warming or not. Its a naturaly cycle the world goes through. It happened before mankind was around and it will happen again and again when mankind is gone too.

Trying to convince "true believers" of that fact seems to be harder than many would think. But we keep trying. :-)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Cant believe people are still debating whether mankind is repsonsible for global warming or not. Its a naturaly cycle the world goes through. It happened before mankind was around and it will happen again and again when mankind is gone too.

That has been my point all along....but somehow that answer is just not self-flagellating enough for today's left wing polticians looking for a new plank for their platform. The only problem is, the wood is rotten..and so is some of the research supporting it.

[555-04Q2]

Just heard on the radio about a group of scientists that have been caught out for inflating data to make it appear that man is responsible for global warming. And people think scientists are smart, honourable people......... :laugh:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Just heard on the radio about a group of scientists that have been caught out for inflating data to make it appear that man is responsible for global warming. And people think scientists are smart, honourable people......... :laugh:

We know there was a few who were conspiring to hide data that didnt' fit the hypothesis. As for inflating data? I would like to see how and where, but it is evident that the science is corrupted...which is sad. What is more sad is people still think scientests are somehow above reproach. THAT is the worst part of all of this.

[chuck34]

Big trouble for the "true believers".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."

[Mark in Oshawa]

Big trouble for the "true believers".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."

sssshhhhh!!!! don't point out the fact we have quit warming..

Ancedotally? I can say without a doubt that while we have had a rather tame winter here, most of our winters in the last 10 years are colder than the ones I had in the previous 20. Also, the last 3 summers I can say I didn't need A/C more than a week..and I can easily remember whole months where it wasn't shut off in the late 80's and early 90's. We had one July that was 90 or more EVERY day for the month..often with high humidity. That was 10 years ago and last July we had more rain than we knew what to do with and had better than half the month where the highs were not even 80.

What this all has to do with proving or disproving global warming isn't much, but it shows you how much of weather is local, and it also shows you that with variances that massive in short periods of time (20 to 30 years) that putting any climate model together is hit and miss. Add in the guesstimating of previous years weather from times when modern weather stations didn't exist, and the fact that in the 70's the same scientests saying we are warming were calling for an ice age leads me to believe they are just as out to lunch now as they were in 1975.

Climate modelling is a scientific field in its infancy and to guess a planet's fate based on the last 30 years is wrong. Yet really, that is what they are doing. The infamous hockey stick graph ignores that some of the goofiest and COLD winters was in the 30's when the CO2 levels were also purported to be high. Truth is, we could be warming...or cooling, but I am very confident that the "experts" are throwing a lot of ideas in the air hoping one or two of them sound credible.

James Loverock is one of the few people believing the earth is warming who I respect, and he pointed out that Kyoto and Copehagen and CO2 reductions are just a waste of time and money would be better spent helping lowlying nations deal with the higher sea levels, and helping other nations find water in case of drought. IN short, NOT wasting everyone's time with a ponzi scheme like Cap and Trade. Yet, what do the Al Gore's of this world want? Cap and Trade. Gee Al, you have stock in energy companies? I would LOVE to know...

It is all a big scam....and weather is Mother Nature's domain, and she will do what she wants to mess with us regardless of our naive assumptions.

[Daniel]

Big trouble for the "true believers".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."
As much as I'd love to believe that, the fact that it's printed in the Daily Misinformation leads me to dismiss it completely.

[chuck34]

As much as I'd love to believe that, the fact that it's printed in the Daily Misinformation leads me to dismiss it completely.

So you don't believe direct quotes from the man himself?

How about the BBC interview he did? It appears the earlier article was based on this interview.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

[Mark in Oshawa]

So you don't believe direct quotes from the man himself?

How about the BBC interview he did? It appears the earlier article was based on this interview.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

You don't understand Chuck, they wont believe it if they read it in the Mail. Just like we don't trust the New York Times? Oh wait a minute...even Rush Limbaugh admits when the Times gets it right...I guess even a right wing zealot like Rush can accept the truth when he reads it.....but Daniel and Ben just dismiss anything from the Telegraph or Daily Mail.

[F1boat]

As much as I'd love to believe that, the fact that it's printed in the Daily Misinformation leads me to dismiss it completely.

Haha :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yet another link and comment from a Canadian Paper:

Climate: Politics of fear
By Chris Vander Doelen, The Windsor StarFebruary 16,

The Windsor Star a century ago, the world's most famous huckster is said to have explained his success at duping millions of gullible people with a cynical quip that survives him still: "There's a sucker born every minute."

Mr. P.T. Barnum was an American circus owner, showman, salesman and scammer extraordinaire. But it is doubtful even he could have imagined the planetary scope of today's biggest confidence trick.

That would be the political fraud known as manmade global warming. Recently, as the snow deepened worldwide and evidence of actual warming became as rare as panda bears, the scam was given a more flexible name, climate change.

By whatever name, the entire edifice of politicized pseudo-science surrounding the weather has been crumbling over the last two months during the scandal called Climategate.

The scandal broke in December, the week before an international climate conference convened in Copenhagen. The gathering was supposed to have produced a global taxation agreement to save the planet.

Instead, Copenhagen disintegrated into confusion and farce after emails surfaced showing that the key evidence proving global warming was either massaged or made up.

The scandal deepened this weekend when one of the cardinals of this latter-day weather church, climatology Prof. Phil Jones of East Anglia, U.K., made several shocking admissions in an interview with the BBC.

Jones, who lost his influential climate research job because of Climategate, now admits that there has been no evidence of global warming since 1995.

None.

And that there were two previous periods of warming that occurred before internal combustion engines and coal power plants existed, indicating that even if warming takes place, it may not be the fault of humans.

Oh -- and he says he lost the data that formed the basis of the hockey stick graph. The famous illustration helped convince millions of concerned individuals that the world would end unless society drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Or -- and here was the key to the scam -- we could just pay heavily to continue emitting CO2.

When it comes to the weather, there's a sucker born every second. And a frightening majority of people seem eager to believe a theory which doesn't hold up under the scrutiny of a decent high school math and science education.

Barnum, bless his conniving soul, merely stole a few million dollars in his heyday during the 1880s. He did it one admission ticket at a time to his midway freak shows of midgets, giants and bearded ladies. (My favourite Barnum legend: the "Egress" display that uneducated ticketholders were so eager to see at the back of the tent.)

The global warming cabal, on the other hand, tried to steal the whole world.

It may have been the most brilliant business plan ever conceived: Identify an element emitted by nearly every human activity there is.

Convince the easily fooled they are committing a sin against the environment by emitting said element, carbon; offer to provide absolution through taxation.

Curiously, only the citizens of developed nations are guilty of this new original sin. Citizens of India, most communist countries and most "developing" dictatorships were to be exempt from seeking absolution for their carbon crimes.

To me, the most important lesson to be learned from climate change and its believers isn't about the environment at all. It's about mob behaviour and the politics of fear.

The global warming cult came so close to taking over the free world because it mixed the fear-mongering and moral superiority of old-time religion with the central control of classic Marxism.

The brilliant mix of do-gooderism and totalitarianism explains why those huddling under the climate umbrella are an unlikely coalition of church ladies, the well-meaning, union hardliners and college-age anarchists.

The people who pushed global warming didn't want to save the planet -- they wanted to enslave it through taxation.

The money -- trillions of dollars -- would have been redistributed by shadowy forces at the United Nations to those with favoured political systems. Capitalism, of course, would have been dead in a matter of decades. Liberty would have disappeared along with free markets.

The brief worldwide religion that was global warming is fading. But just as Barnum invented new scams when the old ones wore thin, the people who nearly succeeded in enslaving the globe under the banner of environmentalism won't give up.

They'll try again. But let Climategate be a warning: If it involves huge taxes and relinquishing freedom to unaccountable central authorities, stay away.

It's just an Egress -- and you don't want to go there.

[email:1i0tj23q]cvanderdoelen@thestar.canwest.com[/email:1i0tj23q]
© Copyright (c) The Windsor Star


Well? Even if there is Global warming, the above points out how buying "Carbon credits" and giving the money to the 3rd world does NOTHING.

[Daniel]

http://www.dailytech.com/WHOI+Oceanographers+Tie+Warm+Subtropical+Currents+ to+Greenlands+Glacial+Melt/article17711.htm

Interesting.

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://www.dailytech.com/WHOI+Oceanographers+Tie+Warm+Subtropical+Currents+ to+Greenlands+Glacial+Melt/article17711.htm

Interesting.

yes...basically a shift in a current causes warming. Currents, the last I looked were not driven by CO2 levels. My contention is we may HAVE some warming, but it isn't CO2 related...

Also, what currents give in warmth to Greenland can change weather elsewhere. El Nino is with us this year, giving Vancouver freakish warm weather while covering parts of every state in the lower 48 of the US in snow(yes, even the Florida Panhandle saw snow last week). Current research and understanding why they change might be more instructive in explaining why our climatic patterns shift.

[chuck34]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

"The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate" than other climate-change data sets, NASA's Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said "the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate," admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings."

"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,"



It goes on. Man what a mess they've made. Anyone still up for raising taxes to deal with this "problem"?

[rah]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

"The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate" than other climate-change data sets, NASA's Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said "the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate," admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings."

"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA,"



It goes on. Man what a mess they've made. Anyone still up for raising taxes to deal with this "problem"?


G'day mate,

Sure I would still address the problem. Not sure about raising taxes but whatever way is best. But what is wrong with the data from the NCDC and CRU?

[chuck34]

G'day mate,

Sure I would still address the problem. Not sure about raising taxes but whatever way is best. But what is wrong with the data from the NCDC and CRU?

It's all in the article.


Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."

"There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other's results," says James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute.

Earlier this month in an updated analysis of the surface temperature data, GISS restated that the separate analyses by the different agencies "are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations."

[rah]

It's all in the article.


Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."

"There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other's results," says James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute.

Earlier this month in an updated analysis of the surface temperature data, GISS restated that the separate analyses by the different agencies "are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations."

Thats nice but both Horner and Taylor are lawyers not scientists. Not only that they have both been stooges for Exxon.

So, are there any climate scientists criticising the work?

[chuck34]

Thats nice but both Horner and Taylor are lawyers not scientists. Not only that they have both been stooges for Exxon.

The head of the UN IPCC (Dr. Pachauri) is a industrial engineer and economist. And he's a stooge for TERI. Should we then just discount anything he says out of hand?


So, are there any climate scientists criticising the work?

Sure Steve McIntyre and others would be a good start. But I'm sure you'll have some issue with them.

[chuck34]

Sure Steve McIntyre and others would be a good start. But I'm sure you'll have some issue with them.

I don't think I was clear there. Steve isn't a climate scientist himself, but he runs a sight with looks of papers and articles from climate scientists. Anyway, I hate the you name a guy, I'll name a guy stuff. It's counter productive. Look at the science itself.

[BDunnell]

I don't think I was clear there. Steve isn't a climate scientist himself, but he runs a sight with looks of papers and articles from climate scientists. Anyway, I hate the you name a guy, I'll name a guy stuff. It's counter productive. Look at the science itself.

In terms of 'looking at the science', please remind us (a) what your qualifications are in this respect, (b) why these aforementioned qualifications make your opinion more valid than those of climate scientists whose experience in the field exceeds your own, yet whose view happens to differ from your own, and (c) how any of the rest of us without such qualifications are meant to reach any meaningful conclusions on what is, surprisingly, quite a complex subject. Just for the record, you know, lest anyone think that most of the comments on this thread are another example of how the internet renders the views of non-experts suddenly as valid as those of people who genuinely know what they are talking about.

[chuck34]

In terms of 'looking at the science', please remind us (a) what your qualifications are in this respect, (b) why these aforementioned qualifications make your opinion more valid than those of climate scientists whose experience in the field exceeds your own, yet whose view happens to differ from your own, and (c) how any of the rest of us without such qualifications are meant to reach any meaningful conclusions on what is, surprisingly, quite a complex subject. Just for the record, you know, lest anyone think that most of the comments on this thread are another example of how the internet renders the views of non-experts suddenly as valid as those of people who genuinely know what they are talking about.

Once again, you try to make me the subject in all this. I am clearly NOT the subject. There are two seperate "camps" of climate scientists. One that takes an alarmist view of things, the other doesn't. If you are only going to belive what "experts" tell you, how do you sort out which group to believe when they are divided? If you blindly belive any group on any subject, then you'll fall for anything.

[BDunnell]

Once again, you try to make me the subject in all this. I am clearly NOT the subject. There are two seperate "camps" of climate scientists. One that takes an alarmist view of things, the other doesn't. If you are only going to belive what "experts" tell you, how do you sort out which group to believe when they are divided? If you blindly belive any group on any subject, then you'll fall for anything.

You are not the subject, no, but you are offering what you claim to be some sort of expert opinion on the matter. Therefore, to my way of thinking, it's perfectly reasonable to inquire as to your qualifications. And have you conducted a survey of all climate scientists to find out whether they fall into only 'two camps', or is this something else that merely fits your rhetoric on the subject rather than being founded in the scientific fact that you accuse others of going against?

Oh, and as for blindly believing any group on any subject, remind me what your view on Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction was prior to the 2003 conflict?

[chuck34]

You are not the subject, no, but you are offering what you claim to be some sort of expert opinion on the matter. Therefore, to my way of thinking, it's perfectly reasonable to inquire as to your qualifications. And have you conducted a survey of all climate scientists to find out whether they fall into only 'two camps', or is this something else that merely fits your rhetoric on the subject rather than being founded in the scientific fact that you accuse others of going against?

Yes, "two camps" is probably too simplistic. I have NEVER EVER AND WILL NEVER claim to be some sort of expert on this subject. The only thing I am asking "true believers" to do is open their minds to possible alternate explainations, just as I did. Go and look at the science that is out there that conterdicts the alamists' claims of run-away man-made global warming. Look at it with an open mind. I honestly get the feeling that you haven't done that at all. I won't speculate on your reasons for not doing so, but I have my theories. Quite trying to paint me as some sort of "expert" to be torn down on this board, go read the articles that I and others have posted. And let's discuss them. That's the way these boards work. I don't understand why that is so hard. It seems that whenever anyone ever puts up something that challenges "conventional wisdom" that they are attacked, not the theory. I'm tired of that.


Oh, and as for blindly believing any group on any subject, remind me what your view on Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction was prior to the 2003 conflict?

That is waaaaaaaay off topic here. But if you must know. I wasn't convinced that they actually had WMD's, but they very well could have. And if they didn't actually have them, they damn well wanted them and were actively seeking them out. Besides that, they were in violation of so many UN sanctions, and the cease fire agreement ending the 1st Gulf War. So make of that what you will. But if you want to discuss this subject further, there are 1000's of other threads that have talked this to death, take it there.

[BDunnell]

Yes, "two camps" is probably too simplistic. I have NEVER EVER AND WILL NEVER claim to be some sort of expert on this subject. The only thing I am asking "true believers" to do is open their minds to possible alternate explainations, just as I did. Go and look at the science that is out there that conterdicts the alamists' claims of run-away man-made global warming. Look at it with an open mind. I honestly get the feeling that you haven't done that at all. I won't speculate on your reasons for not doing so, but I have my theories. Quite trying to paint me as some sort of "expert" to be torn down on this board, go read the articles that I and others have posted. And let's discuss them. That's the way these boards work. I don't understand why that is so hard. It seems that whenever anyone ever puts up something that challenges "conventional wisdom" that they are attacked, not the theory. I'm tired of that.

For a start, I do have an open mind on the subject, but what good does that do? One has to reach a decision one way or the other at some point. Secondly, (almost) whenever one reads a thread on an internet forum on a subject about which one genuinely has a deep professional knowledge, most of the comments are ill-informed nonsense. Any expert on global warming would laugh at a lot of the stuff in this thread, I'm sure, and were they to offer their views they would be shot down by people claiming to know better who really don't.

Believe me, I am all for challenging conventional wisdom, and I dislike your assertion that I don't, but I feel that the critical faculties of a lot of people have become entirely misdirected towards mad conspiracy theories.

[chuck34]

For a start, I do have an open mind on the subject, but what good does that do? One has to reach a decision one way or the other at some point. Secondly, (almost) whenever one reads a thread on an internet forum on a subject about which one genuinely has a deep professional knowledge, most of the comments are ill-informed nonsense. Any expert on global warming would laugh at a lot of the stuff in this thread, I'm sure, and were they to offer their views they would be shot down by people claiming to know better who really don't.

Believe me, I am all for challenging conventional wisdom, and I dislike your assertion that I don't, but I feel that the critical faculties of a lot of people have become entirely misdirected towards mad conspiracy theories.

ANY expert of global warming? How about taking a look at post number 247 again? He seems to take "my side" on many of these issues. Do you now throw his opinion out? And most of my comments state something to the effect of "I'm not the expert. Look at the data. Here's a link to a paper. Etc." Most of what I get in response is along the lines of "You're no expert. Who are you to say. Well those guys are shills for XYZ corp. Etc."



For the first I like to thank Daniel for telling me about that nice thread. It is nice to see that some people in this forum have a good brain and analytical thinking ability! As a rally enthusiast and researcher whose salary comes from „climate changes” topic.. I like to clarify a few things here and give a few explanations. Who is actually scientist? Well I have published bit over 20 scientific papers, published one book and been editor for one book, so I believe I am young scientist 
In science there is no such word like “belief”, when someone says that he believes in something, then he is not scientist (maybe priest or smth) and when you read and article and you can find that someone believes in something then better don’t trust it. In science you have to prove things not believe all kind of things. You can believe that Hirvonen wins in GB but if you want to say it in scientific way you have to prove it and give confidence level for your analyses.
So a few things: Q1. Why melting is so much bigger in many places in Greenland? A1: If climate warms a bit then the amount of water vapor increases and at the same time the amount of precipitation grows. That means more snow on the glaciers and if you add enough snow to glacier then it starts to flow faster and melt faster on the sides. And that is the effect that some scientists are measuring and assuming that glaciers are melting faster. Glacier itself is self-functioning system which melting process is poorly affected by the weather changes around glacier.
Q2: What is the most important greenhouse gas? A2: Believe it or not, it is water vapor and the fact is that no climate model is taking it into account. The amount of CO2 or CH4 is much less significant.
Q3: Why we have measured temperature increase? Temperature increase can be sometimes very local. In Baltic Sea and on the west Estonian coast we have measured approximately 2 degrees temperature growth in last 50 years. But the effect is very local and caused by the fact that cyclonic activity has shifted little bit to the north and leaving us south from the centrum of cyclones, that means significant temperature changes (average temperature increase more than 2 degrees is real possibility). Moreover, many measuring points are established near to the major cities and densely populated areas. In last 50 years the population in cities has grow more than twice, widening the cities and spreading the cities on the grounds of the Meteo stations. This can cause something like 1 degree average temperature increase compared to the situation when the city was not present. So, we have two factors. If we have places like Estonia, with very high local change, many stations in cities and many stations without any change, then that two degrees and cities give un-proportionally big share as the longest existing timelines are usually measured near to the cities.
Q4: IPCC and sea level rise? A4: Do you know the latest estimation by IPCC for the sea level rise in next 100 years? It was 5-25 cm. Do you know the penultimate estimation by IPCC? It was nearly 50cm. Do you know what the estimate was approximately 15 years ago by IPCC? It was up to 2.5 meters (Sorry, don’t remember the exact number, it is approximate). I see a clear trend and the fact that more data gives us better changes for the analyses and we can make our models more precise. I have also contributed for IPCC and can say that it has gone better and better each year, but it has still long way to perfection.
Among the researches we are doing some bets. The next bet is: which European parliament is going to trash CO2 emissions plans? One of my colleagues (nearly 70 years old) put his bet on the next parliament staff. I put my bet on 20 years and said that in 20 years we are going to sell C02 to warm up the climate! Can you imagine the problem when the sea level decreases, harbors are getting dry, beaches are moving away from hotels (Well my specific scientific interest is on shores), ships cannot pass shallow places, bigger heating costs, and more ice on the sea etc.
I haven’t seen a scientific article yet where someone can prove me clearly that climate change is manmade (Well I read at least 100 or 200 articles per year). Many have proved that climate is fluctuating

Well, these are just some good and clear examples I felt might fit here.

[Roamy]

I am just a simple minded person: Can anyone tell me
1. How much the level of the ocean has risen in the past 5 yrs.
2. If there are normal fluctuations in sea levels

[chuck34]

I am just a simple minded person: Can anyone tell me
1. How much the level of the ocean has risen in the past 5 yrs.
2. If there are normal fluctuations in sea levels

1) In the past 5 years I'd say about 2-3mm if this chart is correct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

2) There are normal fluctuations in sea levels. I'd think it would have to do with where you are measuring things, and over what time period you're talking.

For historic perspective have a look at this. Looks like we've been fairly stable for the last 8,000 years or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Granted Wikipedia isn't the best source.

[BDunnell]

ANY expert of global warming?

Forgive me — I meant to write 'an expert'.

[BDunnell]

1) In the past 5 years I'd say about 2-3mm if this chart is correct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

2) There are normal fluctuations in sea levels. I'd think it would have to do with where you are measuring things, and over what time period you're talking.

For historic perspective have a look at this. Looks like we've been fairly stable for the last 8,000 years or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

Granted Wikipedia isn't the best source.

And neither, with respect — and I mean that, because you're clearly a very intelligent guy, and I hope I don't ever come across in this debate as suggesting otherwise — are you the best source. Nor, I hasten to add, am I. This, as I said earlier, is part of the problem in such debates — the democratising effect of the internet, which is unquestionably a force for good in many ways, does make a lot of people think they are more knowledgeable about things than they are.

[chuck34]

Forgive me — I meant to write 'an expert'.

Any or an expert, parses the same way to me anyway. That is why I re-posted bluuford's post. He is a climate expert (or at least claims to be, I suppose I have no reason to doubt or believe him), and seems to take the skeptic's view of things. So do you believe this expert or not?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am just a simple minded person: Can anyone tell me
1. How much the level of the ocean has risen in the past 5 yrs.
2. If there are normal fluctuations in sea levels

1...that depends on who you ask and 2, yes there is.and that depends who you ask.

Clear now? I knew it wouldn't be.....

[Roamy]

i am just trying to figure how went to buy the lot in back on the one on the water :)

[rah]

I don't think I was clear there. Steve isn't a climate scientist himself, but he runs a sight with looks of papers and articles from climate scientists. Anyway, I hate the you name a guy, I'll name a guy stuff. It's counter productive. Look at the science itself.

But if you looked at the science itself you would understand AGW. The problem with the you name a guy game is that there are bugger all reputable scientist who do not support the AGW theory. Steve certainly is not a climate scientist.

[rah]

Once again, you try to make me the subject in all this. I am clearly NOT the subject. There are two seperate "camps" of climate scientists. One that takes an alarmist view of things, the other doesn't. If you are only going to belive what "experts" tell you, how do you sort out which group to believe when they are divided? If you blindly belive any group on any subject, then you'll fall for anything.

There are not two seperate camps of climate scientists. There are climate scientists, and then there are deniers. Labeling credible science as alarmist is just part of the denier program.

[chuck34]

But if you looked at the science itself you would understand AGW. The problem with the you name a guy game is that there are bugger all reputable scientist who do not support the AGW theory. Steve certainly is not a climate scientist.

Then educate me. Tell me what is wrong with the science in the articles I've linked to. Don't bother with the "well they're funded by X" BS.

There are plenty of climate scientists out there who have found fault with the alarmist's claims. It appears now that your new "out" seems to be labeling them as "not reputable". See why I say that game is counterproductive?

And not all of this is "climate science". There are quite a few geologists, anthropologists, statisticians, and other scientists and technical people who's expertise is called upon in this field of study.

[chuck34]

There are not two seperate camps of climate scientists. There are climate scientists, and then there are deniers. Labeling credible science as alarmist is just part of the denier program.

Labeling people "deniers" or "not credible" is part of the alarmist's agenda.

See both sides can play the name game. Stick to the science.

[rah]

Then educate me. Tell me what is wrong with the science in the articles I've linked to. Don't bother with the "well they're funded by X" BS.

There are plenty of climate scientists out there who have found fault with the alarmist's claims. It appears now that your new "out" seems to be labeling them as "not reputable". See why I say that game is counterproductive?

And not all of this is "climate science". There are quite a few geologists, anthropologists, statisticians, and other scientists and technical people who's expertise is called upon in this field of study.

Lol maybe you could collate them, this thread is 24pgs long.
Maybe you could tell me what is wrong with the IPCC Fourth Assessment report?

Really? to whom are you referring to? Show me a credible climate scientist who is a denier. So what we should ignore there trashy reputation because they say something you agree with?

There sure are, but you have to admit that if you want to talk climate, then a climate scientist is probably the first person to listen to.

[rah]

Labeling people "deniers" or "not credible" is part of the alarmist's agenda.

See both sides can play the name game. Stick to the science.

No, deniers is the right term. Scientist are natural skeptics so calling deniers skeptics is incorrect. The IPCC basically state that there is a 90% chance that AGW is occurring. The IPCC is naturally scientifically conservative so the real chance is higher than that.

So the deniers brake down into groups:
-The deniers who do not understand the science
-The deniers who do not care enough to look
-The deniers who are lying

[Alexamateo]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Already posted before, but I will post the link again.

The root of climategate and other problems is that the models and data are not following previous assumptions and predictions. If proponents of AGW are truly honest with themselves, they should have some doubt as to the accuracy of their models. They have missed some key variables and/or have assigned improper weight or value to those variables. An example from a few posts above is water vapor which is almost never properly accounted for because it's too hard to predict. I think we'll also find in the future that CO2 has been assigned too much weight in the overall scheme of things.

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, deniers is the right term. Scientist are natural skeptics so calling deniers skeptics is incorrect. The IPCC basically state that there is a 90% chance that AGW is occurring. The IPCC is naturally scientifically conservative so the real chance is higher than that.

So the deniers brake down into groups:
-The deniers who do not understand the science
-The deniers who do not care enough to look
-The deniers who are lying


So since The IPCC says it is so, it must be so? REALLY? They all have a vote? Or was it consensus? Sure aint science.

There are many deniers with PhD's in the related fields of climatology and chemistry. Many of these are not funded by anything but their own interest in letting science go where it goes. In otherwards, let the data prove or disprove things. The IPCC just decided they have enough data, and all dissent must be stopped. Heck of a way to run a rail road.

IPCC is just a group of people, albeit brilliant ones. Just remember, the brilliant people in the years before WW1 thought Einstein was out to lunch, but in the end they gave him a Nobel for his work. I guess popular consensus has been wrong before? Science isn't about consensus or a democratic vote, it is about what is RIGHT. So far, while the case has been made for AGW, the proof is still not conclusive to many with a lot more degrees and experience in this field than you OR I.

Toss in the scandal and political games that have come out of the East Anglia Email games, among other controversay, it says to me this is about politics as much as anything else.

[chuck34]

Lol maybe you could collate them, this thread is 24pgs long.
Maybe you could tell me what is wrong with the IPCC Fourth Assessment report?

Really? to whom are you referring to? Show me a credible climate scientist who is a denier. So what we should ignore there trashy reputation because they say something you agree with?

There sure are, but you have to admit that if you want to talk climate, then a climate scientist is probably the first person to listen to.

I'm out of town right now and can't really post links since I'm using my phone.

As for the IPCC report, have you not been paying attention to Climategate at all, and how it effects the IPCC? The "tricks" they use have been well documented. And did every scientist on the IPCC agree with their assessment? And even if they did what makes that particular group somehow above reproach?

[Alexamateo]

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html

Another interesting link from the founder of the weather channel.

[chuck34]

No, deniers is the right term. Scientist are natural skeptics so calling deniers skeptics is incorrect. The IPCC basically state that there is a 90% chance that AGW is occurring. The IPCC is naturally scientifically conservative so the real chance is higher than that.

So the deniers brake down into groups:
-The deniers who do not understand the science
-The deniers who do not care enough to look
-The deniers who are lying

Those charges can also be leveled at many of the alarmists. Stop the name calling and show me where I'm wrong

[rah]

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Already posted before, but I will post the link again.

The root of climategate and other problems is that the models and data are not following previous assumptions and predictions. If proponents of AGW are truly honest with themselves, they should have some doubt as to the accuracy of their models. They have missed some key variables and/or have assigned improper weight or value to those variables. An example from a few posts above is water vapor which is almost never properly accounted for because it's too hard to predict. I think we'll also find in the future that CO2 has been assigned too much weight in the overall scheme of things.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Data_Set_for_web_viewing.pdf

So it looks like there might be some climate scientists who are deniers, but it is certainly not 13 times the nmber of the IPCC. It is actually 20-1 against the deniers. And not all of those are confirmed deniers.

Water vapour is always taken into consideration in climate studies. And it is the predominant warming agent in the atmosphere, however that does not mean that CO2 is not causing AGW.

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Data_Set_for_web_viewing.pdf

So it looks like there might be some climate scientists who are deniers, but it is certainly not 13 times the nmber of the IPCC. It is actually 20-1 against the deniers. And not all of those are confirmed deniers.

Again, this isn't an election or a democracy. You don't win because you have more scientest's needing gov't funding to keep their jobs saying what the political movements of the day want to hear. The facts are inconclusive.


Water vapour is always taken into consideration in climate studies. And it is the predominant warming agent in the atmosphere, however that does not mean that CO2 is not causing AGW.

IT doesn't mean IT is either. The CO2 component of the atmosphere has gone from what, 310 ppm to 340 ppm in the last 100 years? So Let me get this straight? 340 parts out of a MILLION are CO2, and Water Vapour is about...oh about 30 % of of the atmosphere? But it is CO2 causing the problem? I get some of the theories, I get a lot of the chemistry and ideas that the scientests are using to justify their theory, but I am not sure most of it cannot be put down to just the natural fluctuations of the earth's temperature. They used to grow grapes in Newfoundland as recently as the year 1000. The Vikings referred to it as Vinland. There was no SUV's, Oil Sands or cattle ranching THEN and yet the climate had to be MUCH warmer then. It wasn't currents either.

The fact is the proof isn't there. The earth may very well be getting warmer, or not. I do know this much. Most of the dire repecussions and scary scenarios are bunk, because I have seen much of this die down when Copenhagen went no where. All that publicity, all that hype, and everyone has shut up? Why? WHY? Al Gore hasn't told me the world is doomed in a few months. Why, if the science is so settled has everyone gone quiet? WE all know why...this is hype....

[rah]

So since The IPCC says it is so, it must be so? REALLY? They all have a vote? Or was it consensus? Sure aint science.

There are many deniers with PhD's in the related fields of climatology and chemistry. Many of these are not funded by anything but their own interest in letting science go where it goes. In otherwards, let the data prove or disprove things. The IPCC just decided they have enough data, and all dissent must be stopped. Heck of a way to run a rail road.

IPCC is just a group of people, albeit brilliant ones. Just remember, the brilliant people in the years before WW1 thought Einstein was out to lunch, but in the end they gave him a Nobel for his work. I guess popular consensus has been wrong before? Science isn't about consensus or a democratic vote, it is about what is RIGHT. So far, while the case has been made for AGW, the proof is still not conclusive to many with a lot more degrees and experience in this field than you OR I.

Toss in the scandal and political games that have come out of the East Anglia Email games, among other controversay, it says to me this is about politics as much as anything else.

No, when the consensus of scientific experts in the field have a mountain of evidence to put forward a very sound and well thought out theory, then I am going to take notice. In every other part of my life I look to experts if my understanding in a field is limited. If the majority of these experts agree on something, then it is usually the case more often than not. What troubles me is when there is an obvious campaign against science that looks remarkably like the cigarette manufacturers campaign.

The East Anglia emails and Climate Gate troubles for instance, they are nothing in the scheme of things, but they are made out to be more than they actually are because it is the only thing that deniers have.

Politics is involved in everything.

The IPCC won a nobel prize as well, does that make them acceptable to you?

[rah]

I'm out of town right now and can't really post links since I'm using my phone.

As for the IPCC report, have you not been paying attention to Climategate at all, and how it effects the IPCC? The "tricks" they use have been well documented. And did every scientist on the IPCC agree with their assessment? And even if they did what makes that particular group somehow above reproach?

Sure, but what have they actually proved other than that a criminal can post some emails out of context.

The IPCC is the leading group on climate change, when you want to know something about space, do you go to NASA or Uncle Bob's Rockets? Not to say that Uncle Bob is not knowledgeable.

[rah]

Those charges can also be leveled at many of the alarmists. Stop the name calling and show me where I'm wrong

Stop the name calling? you first. As for the science, well look at the IPCC.

[chuck34]

No, when the consensus of scientific experts in the field have a mountain of evidence to put forward a very sound and well thought out theory, then I am going to take notice. In every other part of my life I look to experts if my understanding in a field is limited. If the majority of these experts agree on something, then it is usually the case more often than not. What troubles me is when there is an obvious campaign against science that looks remarkably like the cigarette manufacturers campaign.

The East Anglia emails and Climate Gate troubles for instance, they are nothing in the scheme of things, but they are made out to be more than they actually are because it is the only thing that deniers have.

Politics is involved in everything.

The IPCC won a nobel prize as well, does that make them acceptable to you?

Do you understand what "hide the decline" means?

What did the IPCC win the Nobel Prize for? And why would that have any bearing on me?

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, when the consensus of scientific experts in the field have a mountain of evidence to put forward a very sound and well thought out theory, then I am going to take notice. In every other part of my life I look to experts if my understanding in a field is limited. If the majority of these experts agree on something, then it is usually the case more often than not. What troubles me is when there is an obvious campaign against science that looks remarkably like the cigarette manufacturers campaign.
Again, science isn't a democracy. If it is right, only ONE guy has to identify it and in the end, he will be proven right. You say the opposition is funded by big oil? That is what you are of course saying without saying, but that is bunk. Many people like Burt Rutan and other "deniers" are in the realms of science and technology and have nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, yet they say the emperor has no clothes. Big oil isn't funding the opposition, but I can assure you BIG government is funding the people finding these findings. The solution of course to curb CO2 is Cap and Trade policies, which put a lot money in utility company pockets and the government's pockets...so I really wouldn't be accusing the "deniers" (you cannot deny what doesn't exist) of having the hidden agenda. I have seen the agenda of your side bud....


The East Anglia emails and Climate Gate troubles for instance, they are nothing in the scheme of things, but they are made out to be more than they actually are because it is the only thing that deniers have. THey mean nothing? People admitting they falsified or wont submit their work for scrutiny by the academic community that may not find what you found? Academic fraud isn't nothing, it is a direct attack on the idea that all work should be peer reviewed...


Politics is involved in everything.

Damn right it is, and the political wind of more government meddling in the economy is the only wind I am seeing in this movement.


The IPCC won a nobel prize as well, does that make them acceptable to you?

IT makes them nothing to me. Yassir Arafat was an admitted terrorist who died filthy rich while his people still live in squalor. HE has a Nobel. Obama won the Nobel for just winning an election. I would consider the IPCC to be about has worthless as these two examples of how much the Nobel Committee has lost their way....

[rah]

Do you understand what "hide the decline" means?

What did the IPCC win the Nobel Prize for? And why would that have any bearing on me?


Sure, do you? This is why it is a mistake to use illegaly obtained private emails and quote them out of context. This comment was made back in 1999 about a specific study involving tree rings. If you really need to know where they "hid" it, this is it back in 1998: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html

The Nobel thing was in response to Mark and Einstein.

[rah]

Again, science isn't a democracy. If it is right, only ONE guy has to identify it and in the end, he will be proven right. You say the opposition is funded by big oil? That is what you are of course saying without saying, but that is bunk. Many people like Burt Rutan and other "deniers" are in the realms of science and technology and have nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, yet they say the emperor has no clothes. Big oil isn't funding the opposition, but I can assure you BIG government is funding the people finding these findings. The solution of course to curb CO2 is Cap and Trade policies, which put a lot money in utility company pockets and the government's pockets...so I really wouldn't be accusing the "deniers" (you cannot deny what doesn't exist) of having the hidden agenda. I have seen the agenda of your side bud....

THey mean nothing? People admitting they falsified or wont submit their work for scrutiny by the academic community that may not find what you found? Academic fraud isn't nothing, it is a direct attack on the idea that all work should be peer reviewed...



Damn right it is, and the political wind of more government meddling in the economy is the only wind I am seeing in this movement.



IT makes them nothing to me. Yassir Arafat was an admitted terrorist who died filthy rich while his people still live in squalor. HE has a Nobel. Obama won the Nobel for just winning an election. I would consider the IPCC to be about has worthless as these two examples of how much the Nobel Committee has lost their way....

Sure but most of the time the one guy with the different theory is wrong. This is not Einsteins time, this is now. It is possible that it could all be wrong, but even a basic understanding of physics says otherwise.

Bollocks I am not afraid to say it. There are many think tanks and deniers that have proven links to or have proven payments from big oil companies. Think taks like the Heatland Insitute have received hundreds of thousands of dollard from Exxon alone. Maybe Exxon are trying to fill the ap the Phillip Morris left whe they stopped funding them. If they have stopped of course.

Between 1995 and 2005 Exxon spent $16 million on groups to quell tak on global warming. That is Exxon alone, what about the others.

I am sure Burt Rutan is a smart guy, but I go ack to my comments about listening to experts in thier field. Burt Rutan is not a climate scientist.

Actually I really think that most govenment would wish that AGW would go away and stop getting any publicity. It is much harder to do anyting abt a problem than it is to ignore it. I don't particularly like cap and trade, I prefer just a simple carbon tax, it would be easier to do and more effective. As for Governments getting more taxes, well if it fixes a problem then I am all for it. You hae to remember that no corporation owns the air, it is common property and it effects us all. Why should air pollution NOT be taxed?

So what acedemic fraud has been commited? Or is it just sound bites grabbed out of context from emails that have been illegaly posted and again taken out of context?

The Nobel thing was just proving a point on Einstein.

[chuck34]

Sure, do you? This is why it is a mistake to use illegaly obtained private emails and quote them out of context. This comment was made back in 1999 about a specific study involving tree rings. If you really need to know where they "hid" it, this is it back in 1998: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html

The Nobel thing was in response to Mark and Einstein.

So you are ok with tree ring proxie data NOT matching instrument records for about 40 years, or a little less than the total time, and then using them as "solid" proof of what the temp was hundreds of years ago?

So again what did the IPCC win their prize in, and what about Einstein? Do you not see the difference between Peace and Physics?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Sure but most of the time the one guy with the different theory is wrong. This is not Einsteins time, this is now. It is possible that it could all be wrong, but even a basic understanding of physics says otherwise.
Most of the time? This is about right and wrong. The science is right or it is wrong. Your argument is the IPCC is "most" of the world's experts so THEY must be right. Nonsense...they CAN be wrong, just as the "experts" were wrong in 1905, and it doesn't matter what year it is, breakthroughs come from people thinking outside the box and not listening to the nattering of others. This IPCC panel is dictated as much about defending their science as they actually are proving it, because the sad reality is, the East Anglia emails indicate they were NOT in the mood to accept any peer review and DESTROYED evidence. That isn't confidence in a theory, that is a lie...


Bollocks I am not afraid to say it. There are many think tanks and deniers that have proven links to or have proven payments from big oil companies. Think taks like the Heatland Insitute have received hundreds of thousands of dollard from Exxon alone. Maybe Exxon are trying to fill the ap the Phillip Morris left whe they stopped funding them. If they have stopped of course.

Between 1995 and 2005 Exxon spent $16 million on groups to quell tak on global warming. That is Exxon alone, what about the others.

Oh right...like the oil companies wouldn't spend money to protect their industry from rapacious taxes and government interference? Damn right they would..and all these scientests you admire are every bit as economically tied to winning this war to keep their funding and places in research labs. The hell with the results, we have an agenda!!! Both sides have it....but you are naive enough to believe one side is evil in it. The fact is there is a lot of people NOT connected with the oil business in any way shape or form who have very valid papers and arguments discussing where the IPCC findings don't add up. The oil companies may be right or not, but the fact is there are a lot of people who refuse to even listen to the arguments based on political stances in this deal.


I am sure Burt Rutan is a smart guy, but I go ack to my comments about listening to experts in thier field. Burt Rutan is not a climate scientist.
Saying Burt is a smart guy is like saying Einstein knew a little about the periodic table. Burt is one of the most brilliant engineers of the last 100 years. His take on this whole thing is pretty simple in that as an engineer, he understands the math, he understands the statistical model used to come to the conclusions, and he says they are WAY short of data to be making these findings. In short, he is arguing the IPCC is guessing on this. They cannot explain the fluctuations of the past, and if they cannot explain THOSE fluctuations of temperature in the past with their theory, then they better get more valid data. The model that is being used to present this as a done deal is very simple at its core. The ratio of CO2 in PPM with the world's average temperature. They are assuming that this CO2 is the trigger. Rutan's take is at best they are guessing and at worse they don't have a clue and are outright lying. Read what he says on it with an open mind, and it says volumes about what is going on.

Actually I really think that most govenment would wish that AGW would go away and stop getting any publicity. It is much harder to do anyting abt a problem than it is to ignore it. I don't particularly like cap and trade, I prefer just a simple carbon tax, it would be easier to do and more effective. As for Governments getting more taxes, well if it fixes a problem then I am all for it. You hae to remember that no corporation owns the air, it is common property and it effects us all. Why should air pollution NOT be taxed?The government fix the problem? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!! Since Cap and Trade was brought in to allow Western Europe to meet their Kyoto targets, CO2 output went up anyhow. All this whole cap and trade deal is doing is putting money in utility company pockets and sending money to the third world, including China, which the last I looked didn't give a rats behind about ANY of this. Yet the chattering classes and AGW zealots have gone after Canada and the USA in particular with just utter glee as the villians. So let me get this straight. The world's largest economy which also one of the worst polluters (China doesn't believe in scrubbers in their coal fired plants) is not even questioned, but Canada was made the world's pariah for the oil sands project when Canada is about 1% of the world's output in Co2. Maybe. This speaks and reeks of political agendas.

Most of the nations most in favour of this crap are the ones with the most screwed up socialized economies. This is something tailor made for governments because they can pour millions into their pet projects and political movements through this naivety and never have to solve the problem....

So what acedemic fraud has been commited? Or is it just sound bites grabbed out of context from emails that have been illegaly posted and again taken out of context?

The Fraud? In the emails their is a frank and open admission to data destroyed, and efforts to block peer review and these emails were not by just anyone, but by two of the leading scientests in the UK pushing this nonsense. If there is just that by itself, that is damning...but how much more of this will be found over time? Illegally posted or not, the evidence is there and one of the email writers admitted to it publically later on..


The Nobel thing was just proving a point on Einstein.

The Nobel that Einstein won was a recognition of the fact his theories did stand up and were the world's standard by 1920. When he published his paper in 1905 the "consensus" was he was a nut job...once again proving the point that science isn't about how many people agree with you, it is about putting out a theory that will withstand peer review and is duplicated over and over getting the same result. The AGW theory is just that, and it isn't proven....

If the proponents of AGW say this is a theory and we should look into it, great I agree. But when you start talking feeding large amounts of taxes into the pockets of some pretty ridiculous people and then telling me it is to stop this and it is for my own good, now you have bought into the idea the government can fix all problems. Name me one thing the government does well and you would trust in your personal life to let them handle? Really...think long and hard about it. Government serves a purpose, but it is terribly inefficient in how it spends or uses money when it actively tries to change things and often fails. It is a necessary part of our life to regulate commerce, enforce criminal law, and in most nations provide healthcare partially or wholly, and run education. In all of these things, it is often wasteful and inefficient. I don't need them to be telling me they are adding 10% to my utilities taxes to fight AGW when the theory is at best just at theory and does little to explain recent climatic shifts (recent as in the last 5000 years). We wont even get into how useless any of this taxing is even if you BELIEVE in AGW...because I can add another page or two on how stupid this all is if you BELIEVE in AGW...

[Alexamateo]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

You know if you keep predicting the end of the world, you are soon thought a fool.

some article highlights:


McIntyre normally works in the investment field, specializing in major mining projects. He has always been good at math. "I won mathematics prizes in school," says McIntyre. But after finishing his studies, which included a spell at the UK's elite Oxford University, he left the academic world for a career in high finance.

His late return would shake the academic world to its core. One day, McIntyre came across a curve that seemed all too familiar to him. It was the famous hockey stick curve (see graphic), with which US climatologist Michael Mann sought to prove that, during the last millennium, temperatures have never increased as sharply as they are rising today.

But McIntyre was suspicious. "In financial circles, we talk about a hockey stick curve when some investor presents you with a nice, steep curve in the hope of palming something off on you."

The stubborn Canadian pestered one scientist after another to provide him with raw data -- until he hit pay dirt and discovered that the hockey stick curve was, in his opinion at least, a sham.


Did Jones proceed correctly while homogenizing the data? Most climatologists still believe Jones' contention that he did not intentionally manipulate the data. However, that belief will have to remain rooted in good faith. Under the pressure of McIntyre's attacks, Jones had to admit something incredible: He had deleted his notes on how he performed the homogenization. This means that it is not possible to reconstruct how the raw data turned into his temperature curve.

'One of the Biggest Sins'

For Peter Webster, a meteorologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, this course of events is "one of the biggest sins" a scientist can commit. "It's as if a chef was no longer able to cook his dishes because he lost the recipes."

While amateur climatologist McIntyre spent years begging in vain for the raw data, Webster eventually managed to convince Jones to send them to him. He is the only scientist to date who has been given access to the data. "To be honest, I'm shocked by the sloppy documentation," Webster told SPIEGEL.

[rah]

So you are ok with tree ring proxie data NOT matching instrument records for about 40 years, or a little less than the total time, and then using them as "solid" proof of what the temp was hundreds of years ago?

So again what did the IPCC win their prize in, and what about Einstein? Do you not see the difference between Peace and Physics?

Sure, it is known as divergence and there is a lot of peer reviewd studies on it if you would care to look. The point about climate studies, is that they show a problem even if you eliminated tree ring data all together, but that is not scientific. It is far better to study the problem than ignore it.

And? The talk about Einsein were jokes, why are you going on about it?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Sure, it is known as divergence and there is a lot of peer reviewd studies on it if you would care to look. The point about climate studies, is that they show a problem even if you eliminated tree ring data all together, but that is not scientific. It is far better to study the problem than ignore it.

And? The talk about Einsein were jokes, why are you going on about it?

Far better to study a problem and ignore it. I agree, the earth could be getting warmer, but to just jump to one conclusion on this, as the IPCC did, it is very conveniently forgetting the one factor that keeps this planet warm, and that is the Sun. Sunspot activity and studies of the actual radiation we receive that warms the planet indicates THAT changes and THAT could be the trigger. In which case, we ride it out because you cannot turn down the thermostat. Mars has shrinking ice caps. You wouldn't suppose they are warmer because of the Sun too? Or is there a bunch of SUV's and power plants up there on the other side?

I am of the opinion that the earth may be getting warmer, but I will not buy this theory of AGW as caused by CO2 that is MAN MADE. It is like, ok, we eliminate 5.5 Billion people, and all this will just go away. THAT is about the only REAL solution if you are really seriously thinking this is a threat to the planet. That of course doable or necessary.

As for the idea that you believe still, read the works of James Loverock, the man who started the books on treating the Earth as Gaia.

He was on a Canadian TV show called "The Hour" where he was interviewed, and he said Copenhagen and all the other people wanting to waste money on this were too late 40 years ago. He said the money would be better spent on working to protect low lying islands and the like, and on crop research and dealing with the effects because he was of the belief that we cannot make any real changes in our CO2 output to make a difference. Now, If I was a believer, THIS would be a FAR more rational take on things.

I happen to think that it is however a lot of things we still wont understand about the planet, and this warming trend has been in the last 20 years in our consciousness, and the same people often were running about in the 70's crowing about the next Ice Age. So forgive my skepticism but the scientific community you hold so very dear was wrong before....

[chuck34]

Sure, it is known as divergence and there is a lot of peer reviewd studies on it if you would care to look. The point about climate studies, is that they show a problem even if you eliminated tree ring data all together, but that is not scientific. It is far better to study the problem than ignore it.

And? The talk about Einsein were jokes, why are you going on about it?

Problems with the tree rings. Problems with the Medieval Warm Period only being "regional". Problems with the hockey stick. Problems with the ice caps melting. Problems with the temperatures not going up in the last 10-15 years. Problems with the seas not rising as fast as they thought. It goes on and on. How many problems have to be "eliminated" for the alarmists' hypothesis to be validated?

It sure came across that you were trying to hold the IPCC's Nobel PEACE Prize up as some sort of mark of credibility. If you were intending that to be a joke then I just missed it, but yeah, THAT is a good joke.

[chuck34]

Still stand by the "peer review" process?

http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

"all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
5,587 are not peer-reviewed"

"21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F"


But this study wasn't "peer reviewed" or done by climate scientists, so I'm sure it isn't valid, right?

[rah]

Sorry guys been away on holidays and the laptop was playing up.


[quote]Most of the time? This is about right and wrong. The science is right or it is wrong. Your argument is the IPCC is "most" of the world's experts so THEY must be right. Nonsense...they CAN be wrong, just as the "experts" were wrong in 1905, and it doesn't matter what year it is, breakthroughs come from people thinking outside the box and not listening to the nattering of others. This IPCC panel is dictated as much about defending their science as they actually are proving it, because the sad reality is, the East Anglia emails indicate they were NOT in the mood to accept any peer review and DESTROYED evidence. That isn't confidence in a theory, that is a lie...No, it is not about right or wrong, science does not work that way. It is about what theory is best supported by the most amount of credible data. Or something like that anyway. Sure they can be wrong, but the vast amount of evidence supports the IPCC claims. I am more likely to believe them as my understanding of the supported science.
I am sure you like to believe the stuff about the IPCC but that is not the way I see it.

So what evidence has been destroyed? Please don't use illegaly obtained information taken out of context, out of context.



Oh right...like the oil companies wouldn't spend money to protect their industry from rapacious taxes and government interference? Damn right they would..and all these scientests you admire are every bit as economically tied to winning this war to keep their funding and places in research labs. The hell with the results, we have an agenda!!! Both sides have it....but you are naive enough to believe one side is evil in it. The fact is there is a lot of people NOT connected with the oil business in any way shape or form who have very valid papers and arguments discussing where the IPCC findings don't add up. The oil companies may be right or not, but the fact is there are a lot of people who refuse to even listen to the arguments based on political stances in this deal. No, because scientists and oil companies have different values and needs. The reputation of a scientist is his CV for his future, with a tarnished reputation the future is substantially less rosy. That is why scientific documents hardly ever have any outlandish claims, because they need to be supported or they will look like an idiot later on.
Big oil don't really care, look at Exxon Mobile, they have a long history of poor PR from bad environmental problems, but they are still number one because people still need fuel. Hell even Exxon look to have moved on in regards to AGW and supposedly have stopped funding some of the PR companies. They have even started investing in algae based fuels which looks like a great option for the future.



Saying Burt is a smart guy is like saying Einstein knew a little about the periodic table. Burt is one of the most brilliant engineers of the last 100 years. His take on this whole thing is pretty simple in that as an engineer, he understands the math, he understands the statistical model used to come to the conclusions, and he says they are WAY short of data to be making these findings. In short, he is arguing the IPCC is guessing on this. They cannot explain the fluctuations of the past, and if they cannot explain THOSE fluctuations of temperature in the past with their theory, then they better get more valid data. The model that is being used to present this as a done deal is very simple at its core. The ratio of CO2 in PPM with the world's average temperature. They are assuming that this CO2 is the trigger. Rutan's take is at best they are guessing and at worse they don't have a clue and are outright lying. Read what he says on it with an open mind, and it says volumes about what is going on.
The government fix the problem? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!! Since Cap and Trade was brought in to allow Western Europe to meet their Kyoto targets, CO2 output went up anyhow. All this whole cap and trade deal is doing is putting money in utility company pockets and sending money to the third world, including China, which the last I looked didn't give a rats behind about ANY of this. Yet the chattering classes and AGW zealots have gone after Canada and the USA in particular with just utter glee as the villians. So let me get this straight. The world's largest economy which also one of the worst polluters (China doesn't believe in scrubbers in their coal fired plants) is not even questioned, but Canada was made the world's pariah for the oil sands project when Canada is about 1% of the world's output in Co2. Maybe. This speaks and reeks of political agendas.Sure but he is not an expert in the field. So where does that leave him? Just because Burt may be a genius does not mean he can do brain surgery. He is an expert in his field, not every field.

China is not the worls largest economy, come on, just google it. China is starting to do a lot about AGW as they realise they will have problems very soon. It will take them a while as they have a lot of bad stuff in the pipeline. Who would of guessed that world politics would involve political agendas?


Most of the nations most in favour of this crap are the ones with the most screwed up socialized economies. This is something tailor made for governments because they can pour millions into their pet projects and political movements through this naivety and never have to solve the problem....


The Fraud? In the emails their is a frank and open admission to data destroyed, and efforts to block peer review and these emails were not by just anyone, but by two of the leading scientests in the UK pushing this nonsense. If there is just that by itself, that is damning...but how much more of this will be found over time? Illegally posted or not, the evidence is there and one of the email writers admitted to it publically later on..
Really? where? please do not take these things out of context. These are personal emails posted individually. Sure some stupid things were said, but that is why they are personal emails and not for public exhibition. So far the enquiry has found nothing wrong and no destroyed evidence.



The Nobel that Einstein won was a recognition of the fact his theories did stand up and were the world's standard by 1920. When he published his paper in 1905 the "consensus" was he was a nut job...once again proving the point that science isn't about how many people agree with you, it is about putting out a theory that will withstand peer review and is duplicated over and over getting the same result. The AGW theory is just that, and it isn't proven....Sure, but the opponents of AGW do not have a credible theory to explain the warming. So where does that leave us?


If the proponents of AGW say this is a theory and we should look into it, great I agree. But when you start talking feeding large amounts of taxes into the pockets of some pretty ridiculous people and then telling me it is to stop this and it is for my own good, now you have bought into the idea the government can fix all problems. Name me one thing the government does well and you would trust in your personal life to let them handle? Really...think long and hard about it. Government serves a purpose, but it is terribly inefficient in how it spends or uses money when it actively tries to change things and often fails. It is a necessary part of our life to regulate commerce, enforce criminal law, and in most nations provide healthcare partially or wholly, and run education. In all of these things, it is often wasteful and inefficient. I don't need them to be telling me they are adding 10% to my utilities taxes to fight AGW when the theory is at best just at theory and does little to explain recent climatic shifts (recent as in the last 5000 years). We wont even get into how useless any of this taxing is even if you BELIEVE in AGW...because I can add another page or two on how stupid this all is if you BELIEVE in AGW...
[/quote:2uy8ieob]We do lots of things every day based on theory, why should this be any different? We have the worlds top scientists telling us that there is at a minimum 90% chance that AGW is happening. I insure my life, house and car on far less odds than that. Something needs to be done now, not in a hundred years when we can say that AGW is absolutely bulletproof because we can see that the world is completely screwed.

Sure, if my house was on fire I would call the Fire Brigade. They are run by the government. Wow so is the police. Come to think of it, my baby was came into the world courtesy of the government, and it was a damn fine service as well. Defence forces are run by the government, I would probably wont them involved if someone tried to invade (well them and the USA).
Sure some things the govt does not do well, but that does not mean that business can do them any better. In fact we should just make them do a better job instead of getting business to bugger them up.

There are different ways to fix the AGW problem, I don't particularly like cap and trade or the similar proposal in my country, but there has to be a value on pollution. The air is common property, why should pollution be free?

[Bob Riebe]

Sure but he is not an expert in the field.
So you are saying ALL the experts, agree, without exception?

[rah]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

You know if you keep predicting the end of the world, you are soon thought a fool.

some article highlights:

You know if you pretend your house isn't on fire, you are soon thought a fool.

Come on, that is a pretty silly artlice.
His late return would shake the academic world to its core lol sure.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

I like it wher the article first describes McIntyre as and amature climatoligist, then as a scientist. Nice one.

[rah]

Far better to study a problem and ignore it. I agree, the earth could be getting warmer, but to just jump to one conclusion on this, as the IPCC did, it is very conveniently forgetting the one factor that keeps this planet warm, and that is the Sun. Sunspot activity and studies of the actual radiation we receive that warms the planet indicates THAT changes and THAT could be the trigger. In which case, we ride it out because you cannot turn down the thermostat. Mars has shrinking ice caps. You wouldn't suppose they are warmer because of the Sun too? Or is there a bunch of SUV's and power plants up there on the other side?

But the IPCC have not jumped to any conclusion. All other options have been looked at, unless you have something new to add. Sunspot activity has been looked at and it does have an influence, but sunspots do not explain the recent warming. Sunspots usually work on an eleven year cycle, recent warming has not stayed to this eleven year cycle.

AFAIK there is no evidence that Mars is on a warming trend. Different cycles are in play there mostly from the albedo and dust storms. Supprisingly enough its almost like Mars is a differnt planet altogether.


I am of the opinion that the earth may be getting warmer, but I will not buy this theory of AGW as caused by CO2 that is MAN MADE. It is like, ok, we eliminate 5.5 Billion people, and all this will just go away. THAT is about the only REAL solution if you are really seriously thinking this is a threat to the planet. That of course doable or necessary.

Well the effects of CO2 is basically a question of physics and has been know for some time. The first AGW theory was made AFAIK in the early 1900's.

There are many new technologies and many new technologies in comming through that will help solve AGW>


As for the idea that you believe still, read the works of James Loverock, the man who started the books on treating the Earth as Gaia.

He was on a Canadian TV show called "The Hour" where he was interviewed, and he said Copenhagen and all the other people wanting to waste money on this were too late 40 years ago. He said the money would be better spent on working to protect low lying islands and the like, and on crop research and dealing with the effects because he was of the belief that we cannot make any real changes in our CO2 output to make a difference. Now, If I was a believer, THIS would be a FAR more rational take on things.

I happen to think that it is however a lot of things we still wont understand about the planet, and this warming trend has been in the last 20 years in our consciousness, and the same people often were running about in the 70's crowing about the next Ice Age. So forgive my skepticism but the scientific community you hold so very dear was wrong before....

Actually for over 30 years. The ice age theory was a small one that got a lot of play. I only know of one scientist that was talking about the comming ice age and he reversed his predictions when he had more evidence.

Oh how I wish you were more skeptical.

[rah]

Problems with the tree rings. Problems with the Medieval Warm Period only being "regional". Problems with the hockey stick. Problems with the ice caps melting. Problems with the temperatures not going up in the last 10-15 years. Problems with the seas not rising as fast as they thought. It goes on and on. How many problems have to be "eliminated" for the alarmists' hypothesis to be validated?

It sure came across that you were trying to hold the IPCC's Nobel PEACE Prize up as some sort of mark of credibility. If you were intending that to be a joke then I just missed it, but yeah, THAT is a good joke.

Really what tree ring problems?
The MWP is still being studied and curently is still classed as a regional event.
The temp has consistently gone up in the last 10-15 years.
Lots to sudy with the seas but they are rising.
It may go on and on for you, but the evidence goes on and on for me.
It is a theory from scientitst, not a hypothesis from alarmists. You must of got that from a deniers website.

No, not at all. I don't understand the IPCC getting the Peace Prize at all. As I said it was just a joke about Einstien and the Nobel Prize. Text is not always the best medium for sarcasm.

[chuck34]

So what evidence has been destroyed? Please don't use illegaly obtained information taken out of context, out of context.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

"Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

"Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’."

[chuck34]

Really what tree ring problems?

So you are ok with basing things on 12 cherry picked trees in the Yamal Peninsula that don't agree with about half of the entire instrument record? "Hide the Decline" right?


The MWP is still being studied and curently is still classed as a regional event.

"Classed" by whom? I've seen (and linked) to studies that say the MWP happened in Austrailia and New Zealand as well as the North.


The temp has consistently gone up in the last 10-15 years.

Let's ask Dr. Jones. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009."


Lots to sudy with the seas but they are rising.

Show me where and by how much. I have yet to see anthing significant.


It may go on and on for you, but the evidence goes on and on for me.

There are significant questions about every point of AGW. And each time someone brings those questions up, you do some arm waving about "peer review" and "concensious". These questions have to be answered, don't you think?


It is a theory from scientitst, not a hypothesis from alarmists. You must of got that from a deniers website.

It (global warming/climate change) is a theory and as such it must stand up to rigorus challenges. You can't hide behind "peer review" and "concensious", and "the science is settled" forever. It is up to those proposing the theory to prove it, not the other way 'round. Science works by skeptics throwing questions at the theory to poke holes in it, and the proponents of said theory disproving those questions.


No, not at all. I don't understand the IPCC getting the Peace Prize at all. As I said it was just a joke about Einstien and the Nobel Prize. Text is not always the best medium for sarcasm.

Again when you brought up the Nobel thing it was pretty clear to me at least, it wasn't a joke. But if you say so....

[Mark in Oshawa]

But the IPCC have not jumped to any conclusion. All other options have been looked at, unless you have something new to add. Sunspot activity has been looked at and it does have an influence, but sunspots do not explain the recent warming. Sunspots usually work on an eleven year cycle, recent warming has not stayed to this eleven year cycle.

The IPCC has jumped into AGW with both feet. They won't look at anything that doesn't prove their hypothesis. That isn't science, that is politics.



Well the effects of CO2 is basically a question of physics and has been know for some time. The first AGW theory was made AFAIK in the early 1900's.

There are many new technologies and many new technologies in comming through that will help solve AGW>

New technologies? Oh right...stuff produced by companies who have something to gain by this theory? Just like the oil companies, there is politics on your side too except you are obviously overlooking that. There isn't a way of stopping this unless you eliminate every car, half the power plants and take 5 billion people and make them disappear. It is ludricious to say the little cuts being proposed will stop AGW if it is actually working the way you say it is. That was James Loverock's point!




Actually for over 30 years. The ice age theory was a small one that got a lot of play. I only know of one scientist that was talking about the comming ice age and he reversed his predictions when he had more evidence.

You know of only one scientest? Oh really? Well as a kid in the 70's I remember all the stories on the news, and I remember the cover of Newsweek talking about it and others. It wasn't one at all my friend, it was the trendy theory then....


Oh how I wish you were more skeptical.

I am very skeptical. It is you that should be more skeptical. See, unlike you, I am very willing to follow the science where it goes. The only problem is, I will only say AGW theory is at best just a theory that doesn't have enough meat on it to make me jump ship. Furthermore, unlike you, I see the East Anglia controversy, among others and understand there is a lot of political wrangling going on. At best, the case for AGW is being destroyed by politics in the scientific community, and their allowing themselves to be used by the likes of Al Gore.

We have no real way of knowing how the earth is warming, IF it is warming, and WHY it is warming if it is.....and we wont find out when you have people like this POS Phil Jones losing Data that doesn't help HIS cause.

[chuck34]

The MWP is still being studied and curently is still classed as a regional event.


http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_makassarstrait.php

Looks like the MWP happened in Indonesia. And this was in Nature so it was "peer reviewed". So it meets your standards.


we calculate that the Medieval Warm Period was about 0.4°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.


overlaps the instrumental record, enabling both a direct comparison of proxy data to the instrumental record and an evaluation of past changes in the context of twentieth century trends.

That's the entire instumental record, not just half, like the 12 "golden" trees in Yamal.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Chuck, I think you and I are in agreement that we are not buying into this new theory, but we can at least come to a point to agree that if the science led us to the conclusion there WAS man made global warming, we wouldn't deny it no matter what right?

This whole theory as it is being sold right now is in the infancy stages of its proof or discreditation in my books. I don't see how anyone can jump to the conclusion it is all man's fault and we can fix it, but I cant deny outright that the earth is getting warmer either. I am just a skeptic in how we should all just buy into this like some sort of cult; and how government will fix it. Take out the emotional blackmail and the governments jumping up and down on this like it is black and white, and the whole theory at least can be debated in an honest and open atmosphere. The things are now, there is no point in even debating these guys. It is the new cult....

[rah]

Still stand by the "peer review" process?

http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

"all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
5,587 are not peer-reviewed"

"21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F"


But this study wasn't "peer reviewed" or done by climate scientists, so I'm sure it isn't valid, right?

Sure it is the best process we have. Wow, didn't take me long to find this http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf

I can't belive that this noconsensus website wasted so many peoples time from so many countries.