Says differences of opinion are generational. That young people "get it", but that y'all Crusty Old Farts are basically too stupid to grasp the idea. ;D
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=XdnzVrVrnz (http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=XdnzVrVrnz)
Wouldn't it be horrible havin' that guy jump out at ya in a dark alley?
so, his argument is that they won a nobel prize for discovering climate change. it's not a small award, it's a big deal. you cannot dispute it after that. to dispute that would be inappropriate an unpatriotic.
Does that actually work? Do people actually get convinced of anything with a message like that?
To thing is I love nature. I am all about care for the ground, the water and the skies. I spend entire weekends or in the case of this past weekend 4 days submersed in nature. some building, much time in the trees. During deer season I spend nearly every free available time away from the city. I hate litter, I try to make responsible choices about the products I buy, the energy I use, and how I interact with the earth. I love those qualities about the climate change argument.
Its the batshit crazy science, the hiding and obscuring of data, the mostly the sweeping taxation and hugely invasive regulation for others to get hugely wealthy from -- without actually correcting a observable problem that I have an issue with.
If you want to talk science, people are still debating newtons theory of gravity. and that is a good thing, that is science, ask questions until new things are learned.
I guess I am just one of those old people who don't get it.
Climate Change is a conspiricy theory.
The theory is the gods have conspired to make Al Gore look stupid by creating the worst winter in 100 years.
I don't get it either.
How does a 30-year winter disprove climate change? ???
Climate change is no longer a science but a theology.
Maybe because we crusty old farts were taught all about "global cooling" when we were young. I can remember being told the next ice age was coming. Makes you skeptical the second time around.
Also, the tactics and methods of the global warming crowd make me wonder about the motivations of them...
Saw Bill on the "Living with Ed" show on Discovery, or whichever channel it's on, and Ed was talking about having his wife fix Bill up with some of her actress friends because, shockingly enough, Bill has trouble getting dates. Go figure. He's a smart guy, to be sure, but he's a scientist, so he is naturally going to defend his vocation and peers. There's also tons of research money at stake.
Our planet is always changing, and that includes the climate. The real question is; how much of the climate changes are resulting from human activity?
A Nobel prize means nothing, they gave one to Yassar Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez.
Quote from: pagancelt on February 12, 2010, 10:32:38 AM
A Nobel prize means nothing, they gave one to Yassar Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Perez.
Actually, PC you couldn't be more incorrect. Besides demeaning an Arab and two Israeli patriots - to be clear here - from the POV of many Arab people and many Israeli people, not necessarily from others, and to say that the Nobel means nothing because the Peace Prize was awarded to these three shows not only your glaring prejudice but lack of understanding on how science actually works, especially when it relates to the most prestigious award for science achievement that mankind has. Here I leave out the Peace Prize as that is subject to opinion and not facts.
All scientific awards that >>>I<<< am aware of must be thoroughly peer reviewed and agreed upon. Peer review is a generally a slow process. It might be 2 decades before a hypothesis proposed today will be widely accepted as true, whether as proven fact or accepted as a working theory.
Reputable scientists - those without connections to personal financial gain or political connections to satisfy - universally agree that earth's climate is changing. Most agree that it is changing very rapidly. Most also agree that man plays a significant role in this rapid change. Measurements from all over the globe distinctly and clearly show that the global average temperature has been and is rising. The global average is warmer this past decade than it was even 50 or 100 years ago.
There can be no debate that there is a difference between climate and weather.
All of us that are reasonable thinking adults will agree that in general the SW United States is a desert. That's its climate. Dry. Desert.
All of us that are reasonable thinking adults will agree that within that general dry climate there occur weather events where it might snow or rain - even to the point of a flash flood.
Even though it might rain in some specific area that rain does not change the general climate - it is still desert.
The point of climate change - and the outdated and too narrow term global warming - is that whatever weather we experience most likely will be more pronounced. Droughts will be dryer and longer. "Normal" spring rains might not be as prolific as they once were. Winter storms might dump record snows in some areas unused to much snow. Other areas might not get their normal allotment. It could be much colder in a region than normal - see Great Britain this winter as but one example.
And for anyone to suggest that these snow storms of late are any indication that climate change is fake or somehow not real is disingenuous at best and more likely borne from listening to too much fear mongering on a certain faux news network.
And if y'all that have posted in this thread will open your minds for a moment or two you might see the Mr. Nye >>>COULD<<< be right about climate change deniers being unpatriotic. How, pray tell, you might ask?
In My Opinion... we - the USA - are at risk economically from those peoples and countries that move toward recognition that climate change is happening. Why? How about this link for starters - http://forward.msci.org/articles/1205nolonger.cfm (http://forward.msci.org/articles/1205nolonger.cfm)
This details just a few things that the USA once lead the world producing that are no longer "Made in the USA".
How about:
- GYM SHOES by Nike and Converse
- BRAS - 56% of its product in China, 36% in Thailand and 8% in the Philippines.
- GUN TRIGGER LOCKS - More than 90% of all trigger locks on the market today are made in Asia.
- Neodymium-iron-boron magnets - Using Pentagon grants, General Motors developed a new kind of permanent magnet material in the early 1980s, and began manufacturing the magnets at its subsidiary's, Magnequench, factory in Anderson, Indiana. Over the past few years, Magnequench moved virtually all its U.S. production operations—and soon its headquarters and research facilities—to Mexico, Singapore and China. In 2004, when Magnequench moved its production facilities to China, it marked the end of U.S. production of the world's most advanced permanent magnets, tiny but crucial components in computers, automobiles and consumer electronic products—as well as cruise missiles and the Joint Direct Attack Munition bomb.
- RADIOS - the vast majority of AM-FM radios are manufactured overseas
- BLUE JEANS - In 2004, Levi closed its last two sewing plants in the United States. Right here in San Antonio - thousands of jobs gone!
- MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALLS
- SEMICONDUCTORS AND MICROCHIPS - Asia's share of production in 2005 was 65% - The USA - 20% And Shockley et al invented the damn things
China now leads the world in large windmill production and soon in installed capacity. Same for solar panels. China is investing heavily in electric cars. So is India. The list goes on and on and on.
Prominent climate change deniers are the current vested interests - oil, coal, autos, banking, Wall Street and others that have bought and paid for - bribed - politicians and other mass media outlets and 'personalities' to keep us - the sheeple of the USA - distracted by the latest 'celebrity gossip' or who's Dancing with the Stars - or heaven forfend, the latest threat from some obscure minority in some mid-east sheikdom.
As an aside, did you happen to notice that the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi's? And we've invaded their country to bring all those radical mullahs to justice when? Ah... Too much oil dependency and too many green backs being held to do something silly like that don't ya think?
Back to those countries that are preparing
today for the effects of
tomorrow's climate change. They are going to be the the world leaders and we're gonna be sucking hind teat because of the vested interests in today's technologies and today's economic interests can only see far enough to grab the last penny out of your pocket and mine. We're being bled dry by these unpatriotic thieves.
As of September of 2009 the USA
OWES the rest of the world $3.428 trillion dollars. China held nearly 24% of that amount - about $800 billion.
If we here in the USA choose to believe the vested interests and their bought and paid for lackeys that climate change is not real and we do not prepare for its effects, my youngest grandson will reach his majority living - maybe - in a third rate country behind China, India and the oil exporters. We'll be as broke as Russia was 20 years ago but without the vast oil, gas and mineral wealth of Siberia to bail us out. We'll be like Iceland - broke. Like Greece - broke. Like Ireland - broke. Like Spain - broke. Like Argentina was a few years ago - broke.
But if we do the true patriotic thing and invest now in both technologies and societal change we can remain a major player on the world stage and not just another failed super power like those that litter history's annuals.
But the current PTB - here and abroad - have too much of a strangle hold through their bought-and-paid-for lackeys for there to be any significant change of the status quo.
So if you want to be part of the deny-er sheeple herd, go on letting someone else do your thinking for you. Go on believing that faux news if "fair and balanced". Go on believing that 'Rush is Right' and O'Reily's rant about there being a war on Christmas is real. Go ahead and believe that New Orleans was destroyed by Katrina because of the promiscuity of the whole city. Go on and believe that the nation of Haiti has been devastated by a large earthquake because, as Pat Robertson said, its people "made a pact with the devil." Go believing that you're not being manipulated and used. Go on believing that climate change ain't real. Go on believing that short-term weather is just the same as long-term climate.
Go ahead and be on that river to nowhere - the de-nile. But don't diss science and its prestigious prizes for outstanding achievements and advances just because you don't understand it or the results don't fit your preconceived prejudices.
Interesting post. I'll take a different look at this. But a few questions need to be answered.
Why is the data kept secret?
Who collected the data?
Do they have a conflict of intrest?
Why is any debate or discussion attacked?
How does CO2, which makes up such a small percentage of the atmosphere cause so much of the change?
The weather can not be predicted a month in advance. What makes these people so sure they can predict the climate 100 years in advance?
Why are some people being set up to make huge profits from new regulations?
Why are members of the public not being considered for a share in carbon credits?
How will new taxes solve the problem?
Unless these questions are answered honestly I can not be expected to belive the propaganda being force fed to us every day.
Leo,
I love a good rant, and that was one. We dont agree on some of the statements you made, but I sincerly appreciate you taking the time to convey them. Cheers to you on that. (http://forum.northernbrewer.com/images/smilies/icon_beerchug.gif)
I don't want to argue with anyone here, and I'll leave it at that. If you are interested in honest and civil discussion of the details you posted I think it might be a lively and good discussion. It's up to you, again, cheers and thanks for your view of this. An angle on our economic situation I had not even considered.
To everyone else, let's keep the focus on what makes this site great and not get into anything that detracts from it.
Leo
I have to say that that C&P was just plain illogical and silly
For starters, if you had read much of the so called Copenhagen draft agreement you would know that the results of that agreement would impoverish the US and devastate our economy
even more 'jobs' would leave the US because we would not have the energy to produce virtually anything
Like it or not the economy runs on energy
Please explain how our economy will prosper using 20 to 40 % less energy than we did in 1990 while paying hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries in the form of 'carbon credits'.
That author had some real fuzzy thinking.........
us
I'm at the local bar enjoying a Shiner draft. I said nothing about any political "deal" of any sort. IMO they're all ruses to once again fleece us of our money and transfer it to the same tratiors the have screwed our country for the X number of years.
I'll go into more detail after I'm once again sober - suggesting that this will not be my only beer of the evening.
Well, Leo... I owe you a beer.
Okay, a sixpack of your favorite for that post.
But...
The Nobel prizes for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature are still valid measures of achievement, and really mean something, but the Peace Prize is clearly and primarily influenced by leftist European politics.
It was the Peace Prize awarded to Gore and the IPCC, and so, to me, despite the views of The Science Guy, is irrelevant to the question of climate change.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490
Quote
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
By JONATHAN PETRE
Last updated at 1:51 PM on 14th February 2010
◆ Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
◆ There has been no global warming since 1995
◆ Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
The academic at the centre of the 'Climategate' affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble 'keeping track' of the information. 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'.
The data is crucial to the famous 'hockey stick graph' used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
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.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of 'scientific fraud' for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC's environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC's website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the 'hockey stick graph' which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said 'his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them'.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.
But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: 'There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it's probably not as good as it should be. 'There's a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.'
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no 'statistically significant' warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend. And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: 'There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
'For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions. 'Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.'
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled 'until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend'.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4's Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made. But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones's 'excuses' for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and 'mates'.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates. He added that the professor's concessions over medieval warming were 'significant' because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
please explain why is it that the primary dogma of climate change is that "There can be no debate".
It is in your post above as well, there can be no debate.
Why is that, and how is that in any way conductive to actual science? That is the mindset of religion, not science. There is always room for debate and questions in science. Science is built on questions, science is never about blind acceptance.
I don't know about any scientist claiming that "There can be no debate". On its face that would be a very silly statement indeed. Perhaps the context is missing. There can be no intellectually honest scientific debate, for instance, with those who use people like Rush, Alex Jones, or Glen Beck as their primary source of scientific data.
Professor Phil Jones puts it like this:
Q: When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
A: It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
_________
Speaking to the Daily Mail article linked, the author somehow comes to almost exactly the opposite conclusions from the words of Phil Jones than what was actually said.
If you reference the actual Q&A referenced between the BBC's Roger Harrabin and Professor Phil Jones you'll see the full quotes, without the cherry picking, snipping, and quoting out of context that this author does. I suggest taking Jonathan Petre off the short list of examples of fine journalistic integrity.
Oh wait... he was never on it. The Daily Mail is is a British daily tabloid newspaper. A gossip rag.
Here's the BBC Q&A, for context:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm)
________
I'd recommend this video, which debunks several very common false claims made by climate change skeptics, tracking them back to original sources and showing the deceptive tactics used by the denial industry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvMmPtEt8dc)
Oh, looky what I just happened upon, without even trying:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html (http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html)
Journalism at its most irresponsible. There really ought to be a law. At least there ought to be consequences.
The BBC interviews Phil Jones:
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. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
The Daily Mail headline:
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Right.
___________________________
And another:
Daily Mail caught in another lie.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily_mail_caught_in_another_l.php (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily_mail_caught_in_another_l.php)
If I may comment. Why is it that the majority of those who oppose this idea of global warming have no sceintific background yet for the most part spend every availible minute in the outdoors. Those that support Global warming tend to stay inside all day stare at a computer screen and only go outside when the computerized instruments flashes blue, reads "ERROR" and need to be reset.
Just wondering
The fact that all these "experts" spent 100s or maybe thousands-I have no idea the exact amount except that airliners are not cheap to operate-of gallons of fuel to fly to some conference to tell all us "common folk" to reduce our footprint for the sake of our kids, It does not do a very good job of convincing me.
Sod Breaker.
Quote from: Sod Breaker on February 14, 2010, 08:57:17 PM
If I may comment. Why is it that the majority of those who oppose this idea of global warming have no sceintific background yet for the most part spend every availible minute in the outdoors. Those that support Global warming tend to stay inside all day stare at a computer screen and only go outside when the computerized instruments flashes blue, reads "ERROR" and need to be reset.
Just wondering
The fact that all these "experts" spent 100s or maybe thousands-I have no idea the exact amount except that airliners are not cheap to operate-of gallons of fuel to fly to some conference to tell all us "common folk" to reduce our footprint for the sake of our kids, It does not do a very good job of convincing me.
Sod Breaker.
Wow! That certainly wins first prize for the most non sequiturs within the fewest words.
Congratulations!
;D
So you're not even going to bother to adress the obvious?
rainndog.
the man, and in fact damn near the entire science of climatology is a disgrace to the "scientific method". I'm sorry we do not agree on this.
Quote from: muldoon on February 14, 2010, 10:30:19 PM
rainndog.
the man, and in fact damn near the entire science of climatology is a disgrace to the "scientific method". I'm sorry we do not agree on this.
Oh, I'm not sorry we disagree. Keeps the world spinnin', y'know. ;)
I do agree that Jones seems, at least to my reading, to be a pretty wishy-washy character and a weak link. However, I've seen plenty of disgrace to go around on both sides of the issue.
Between the hysterics of the doomsaying left, and the deceptive tactics of the right (and vise versa), the whole thing has become so politicized and twisted that I have a difficult time imagining a calm reasoned inquiry into the premise of climate change at this point or in the foreseeable future.
It's really too bad.
Quote from: Sod Breaker on February 14, 2010, 09:25:35 PM
So you're not even going to bother to adress the obvious?
I honestly don't know what it is you want addressed.
Truly.
Is it the broad-brushed stereotypes you presented? That people who spend a lot of time outdoors are under-educated, or that proponents of AGW are pencil-necked computer geeks?
Well... I think that's preposterous.
Or is it that someone like Al Gore's behavior has any bearing on anything other than Al Gore's behavior?
Seriously. I'm not following your logic.
Or perhaps the fact that with Global warming (not unlike most everything) the people who are actauly "on the ground" almost always have a diiferent oppinion of a subject then those sitting behind a desk writting up theories about the same forementioned.
Okay. Yes, people who specialize in any given study are in a position to know more about the subject than people who don't, though it doesn't necessarily follow that there's disagreement.
In this case, people "on the ground" and untrained in climate science (read you and me), are being influenced from both directions by persons and groups with political, social, and financial interests and agendas in dishonest fashion.
I don't expect anyone to be particularly following my posts on this subject, but just to make myself clear once again, I'm an equal opportunity hater. I'm pissed at both sides of the aisle on this one.
Peace, and g'night. ;)
Oh how did I miss this one?
This is a pet peeve of mine and I've spent countless hours debating some pretty smart folks about -- those smart folks are so deep into the Theology of AGW (I like to call it MMGW just to piss them off) that they can't see the obvious.
I think the reason though, is becuase they have a genuine fear for the planet and think this is the way to protect it -- at least that seems to be what I can get out of them just before they start speaking in tongues.
Sorry if I offend (well not really) but I've yet to have anyone in that camp actually have a serious debate -- they are like 911 Truthers (sorry to those who are in that camp actually, since there is some strange stuff surrounding 911 but the Truthers are so narrow minded they can't hear anything other then Alex Jones diatribes)...anyway, I digress, the point is, when a MMGWer (what would Al Gore do) can explain how Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, the moons around Jupiter and other bodies within our solar system ALL experienced Global Warming at the same time the Earth did (for indeed we did but more on that later) and how those celestial bodies were impacted by the CO2 levels on earth, well, lets just say I put them in the 'The Aliens really did abduct me' category.
Seriously, anyone unwilling to consider solar cycles in the grand scheme of things is just a religious nutjob or a very ill informed zombie. Currently we've been in a cooling period (since 2001 actually) and have dropped nearly as far as we went up in the last 100 years! But then, that's if you believe the Berkley crowd anyway.
Current studies have shown so much nonsense in the IPCC that it's downright pathetic, I even used to post links but don['t bother since I don't fine many who worship the Goreacle who actually both to read them.
So let's see -- the polar bear population has risen, the glaciers aren't melting, the ice caps have grown, the satellite was broken, the documents used were a scam, the weather stations are in bad places -- the list goes on and on and on -- the sun is very inactive (since 1998 it began to drop in solar flares which happens to directly correlate with the lower temps -- hmmm)...more cars are driven yet it's getting colder, worst winters in decades over and over in fact, record snow...mars is cooling again too...hmmmm...wait, Mars got warmer too? Ya, they noticed the polar 'ice' caps had melted a bit -- so too on the moons around Jupiter and oh the eye grew some buddies...ya, folks it just aint that simple.
But you see, it never was about warming anyway, it was about cap and trade, control, regulation, socialism and the progressive agenda.
now that sounds like a conspiracy theory.
But let me ask you:
1. Did you learn the Fabian society was cool? Did you know they were socialists?
2. Did you learn Shaw was a great guy in school? Did you know he wanted to gas people BEFORE Hitler?
3. Did you learn Nazi's were bad guys (yup they were)? Did you also learned they got it from American Progressives?
You see, it's not always so simple. So back to AGW:
In 1300 AD the earth was warmer. -- check it out, it's true.
So, let me get this right, discounting all of the above stuff, if the earth was warmer in 1300 then um, why all the fuss now? After all, it was very good for the northern hemiphere when it was warmer in 1300. In fact right up until 1350 the north of Egland was growing better grapes then France! It was great for the English and they were producing great wines...amazing eh? In fact, the Irish were growing wheat and other grains that needed a warmer climate too..hmmm but aren't the Irish known for Potatoes? Nope -- Idaho is though right? Ya, that's interesting isn't it? So where did the spuds come from?
Do you know? The America's! So think about that for a minute will ya. Why did the Irish start to grow potatoes? Becuase they were starving because around 1350 the temps dropped and continued to remain cold! It wasn't until spuds were brought back from the America's that they began to grow them in the now colder Irish country side....ya few know that it seems.
The Little Ice Age as it was called (is called) reached it's lowest point at the Maunder Minimum in around 1645-1715...but then something happened....the sun woke up! The Maunder Minimum was a period of abnormally low solar flares/sunspot activity (like we have today) and when it ended the activity cranked up, the cycles returned and the sun warmed the earth....the Little Ice Age was called OVER in 1850 but um, the earth was still cooler then it had been 500 years earlier.
Interesting huh?
It is still cooler but the sun has gone dormant again....
Some think the cycle will kick back in soon and warm us all back up again, maybe even to levels around 1300 or so -- and oh boy will the global warming religionists have a hay day then!
Fact is, discounting the sun is like discounting a gun shot to the heart in a cadaver as the cause of death when no other sign appears but some foam at the mouth. It's stupid actually.
Anyway, it's a sham.
Oh and before I sign off, let's not forget this little tidbit (snicker) leave your beer out in the sun :) And leave another one in the freezer -- but make sure you opened both. The hot one last.
Now answer me this: Which will go flat first?
Ya, I thought so, we all know the hot one will.....why? CO2 is released by the beer into the atmosphere -- faster, much faster, when it's warm....hmmm....so let me get this straight, the sun warms the oceans right? Which contain CO2 right? Which then release it right? and um, the cycle for that is reportedly about 8 years after the solar peak. So, around 2006 which should have had a steller CO2 level increase.
So, to conclude, AGW is a farce.
This topic is often discussed using knowledge learned on television and web blogs.
I've seen the "Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, the moons around Jupiter and other bodies within our solar system ALL experienced Global Warming at the same time the Earth did" argument all over the internet, but have yet to see one single reliable peer-reviewed scientific source for that information.
Actually, what I find when I research the question is that all the planets in the solar system aren't warming, and the heating of those that are are attributed to causes other than solar activity.
Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.P31D..05R (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.P31D..05R)
Neptune's largest moon, Triton, is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6687/abs/393765a0.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6687/abs/393765a0.html)
Jupiter's storms are fueled by the planet's own internal heat (sunlight is 4% the level of solar energy at Earth). When several storms merge into one large storm (eg - Red Spot Jr), the planet loses its ability to mix heat, causing warming at the equator and cooling at the poles.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006DPS....38.3903M (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006DPS....38.3903M)
Given that warming has been detected on only 6 out of the over 100 bodies in the solar system, if you truly believe solar activity to be the cause, it would have been smarter not to mention it at all. Uranus, for instance, is cooling.
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf (http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf)
It is not true, by the way, that the Medieval Warm period was warmer then the current average temperatures. According to all reconstructed global temperatures, it is warmer today then at any point over at least the past 800 years and more likely warmer today then at any point over the last 1200 and 2000 years.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=2 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=2)
A beer in the fridge? Hey, if that's your idea of sound analogy for the complex mechanisms involved in climate science...
In any case I still feel that I have to repeat my disclaimer. I am not advancing the claims of AGW adherents. I am simply lamenting the politicization and dishonest tactics on both sides of the issue.
I'd be as happy to go toe-to-toe with Al Gore as with Alex Jones.
Oh, you mentioned Alex Jones, didn't you? You are aware, I assume, that he's no longer putting so much energy into the 9/11 Truth Movement. He's now the darling of the global warming denier crowd.
When You Lay with Dogs You Get Fleas.
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_vs_TSI_2009.gif)
LeoinSA,
I understand the geopolitical issues regarding Middle East peace, hence my post. Arafat was the head of a terrorist organization. The Israelis continue to invade, displace, and appropriate Palestinian property for Israeli "settlers." Yet because these men paid a little lip service to European interests they're awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I stand by my initial post; the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
The problem is that it's always a coincidence to the AGW crowd that other similar events are taking place. Always.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/global_warming_on_jupiter.html
What amazes me is that the 'the debate is over crowd' are having to find excuses for so many new things which suggest the debate is NOT over that they are falling all over themselves to find answers but keep missing the obvious ones.
In fact, they keep debating me, which tells me the debate really isn't over after all and gee whiz maybe that don't have a clue ;)
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
Of course let's not forget that all of the 'the sky is falling' AGW folks today were screaming at the top of their lungs (ok a lot of them were still in diapers actually but none-the-less a lot of them did do this also) that we were heading to the next ice age.
Of course, let us also not forget that their so called 'peer review process has been tainted by 'email gate' and 'glacier gate' and hey while I'm at it we've not got 'under water gate' too. The IPCC has no credibility and there are more and more scientists coming out every day against them.
QuoteResults from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was sim 1°C cooler than today sim 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and sim 1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).
But what do I know....so I was off by 300 years (funny that eh, so we need to warm 1 degree still, but to get to the temps of 1000AD....
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503
There is so much out there that while it might not be in the 'progressive' university classrooms (go figure) it is certainly out there and all of it lends to the question: is the debate really over?
And then, while all of these things come up DC gets wacked with a 100 (not 30) year winter storm...hmmmm.....I wonder if the polar ice caps and snow levels could POSSIBLY gain at all while Atlanta is getting snow? *chuckle* ya think.
You see, I hate pollution.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d11-Arctic-Sea-Ice-returns-to-1979-levels
The funny thing is, there is just so much out there if a person wants to look.
When I wanted to plant my crab apple tree two years ago I wait a month longer then 'normal' -- why? It was too cold. The whole of the US had this problem and nurseries were pitching fits.
The thing is, I wouldn't argue with anyone that said "since the maunder minimum we've been experiencing warming, which has also seen the expansion of many and the shift to the industrial age and digital age. Coincidence? Don't know, but we've definitely experienced warming at least until 1998 and maybe as late as 2001. However, since then we've seen a rapid decline in temperatures and are currently uncertain what the cause is for all of this change -- though it may simply be natural, man is a polluter and we should at least try to find ways to stop pollution."
You see, I'd love to see an honest debate, one that centers around how to resolve mans bad habit of pollution while not taking away his freedom (that's an issue I have, I like my Liberty thanks).
But I'm just a schlub so I'll probably crawl back under the rock I came from and watch my warm beer lose CO2 faster then my cold one :P
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 15, 2010, 01:42:12 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Quotes:
"Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "
"Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists. "
"Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide. "
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 15, 2010, 01:42:12 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/global_warming_on_jupiter.html
The American Thinker is a daily conservative internet publication. Allen Hoover is what? A journalist? A blogger? I don't know.
Please.
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 15, 2010, 01:42:12 PM
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
I've already addressed this. It's that Russian physicist thing.
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 15, 2010, 01:42:12 PM
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503
I didn't really get into this last time because I don't get the point of it. Doesn't prove or disprove anything.
Why don't you just come right out and say that you simply don't
want to buy into climate science? That you feel it's wrong
intuitively?
I don't like the idea either, and it strikes me as intuitively wrong. I'm just not egotistical enough to think my intuition trumps decades of scientific research and the overwhelming consensus of scientists worldwide.
Look, I don't think the majority of people on either side of this issue are bad, stupid, or gullible, particularly. I think they've chosen sides in a political and social battle, sweeping aside and willfully ignoring the actual data in pursuit of "winning".
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 15, 2010, 01:58:01 PM
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d11-Arctic-Sea-Ice-returns-to-1979-levels
The funny thing is, there is just so much out there if a person wants to look.
When I wanted to plant my crab apple tree two years ago I wait a month longer then 'normal' -- why? It was too cold. The whole of the US had this problem and nurseries were pitching fits.
The thing is, I wouldn't argue with anyone that said "since the maunder minimum we've been experiencing warming, which has also seen the expansion of many and the shift to the industrial age and digital age. Coincidence? Don't know, but we've definitely experienced warming at least until 1998 and maybe as late as 2001. However, since then we've seen a rapid decline in temperatures and are currently uncertain what the cause is for all of this change -- though it may simply be natural, man is a polluter and we should at least try to find ways to stop pollution."
You see, I'd love to see an honest debate, one that centers around how to resolve mans bad habit of pollution while not taking away his freedom (that's an issue I have, I like my Liberty thanks).
But I'm just a schlub so I'll probably crawl back under the rock I came from and watch my warm beer lose CO2 faster then my cold one :P
Okay, you didn't read what I'd spent 10 or 15 minutes,
easy, writing in response to you earlier.
But how did you miss the big, giant graph?
It seems we can at least agree that remedies to ecological problems should be explored besides the ones that
just happen, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, to reflect long-standing leftist agendas.
I had to chime in after seeing this dominate the "Recent Posts" today.
Last election we had "My scumbag politicians are better than your scumbag politicians."
Now we have "My scumbag junk scientists are better than your scumbag junk scientists."
Supported by "My Internet links are better than your Internet links."
It really is quite comical to the casual reader.
When will we learn...
- Follow the money
- Follow the power
- Follow the control
- Follow the deception
...and only then will you find the true answer.
Peace.
Quote from: RainDog on February 15, 2010, 02:42:18 PM
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 15, 2010, 01:58:01 PM
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d11-Arctic-Sea-Ice-returns-to-1979-levels
The funny thing is, there is just so much out there if a person wants to look.
When I wanted to plant my crab apple tree two years ago I wait a month longer then 'normal' -- why? It was too cold. The whole of the US had this problem and nurseries were pitching fits.
The thing is, I wouldn't argue with anyone that said "since the maunder minimum we've been experiencing warming, which has also seen the expansion of many and the shift to the industrial age and digital age. Coincidence? Don't know, but we've definitely experienced warming at least until 1998 and maybe as late as 2001. However, since then we've seen a rapid decline in temperatures and are currently uncertain what the cause is for all of this change -- though it may simply be natural, man is a polluter and we should at least try to find ways to stop pollution."
You see, I'd love to see an honest debate, one that centers around how to resolve mans bad habit of pollution while not taking away his freedom (that's an issue I have, I like my Liberty thanks).
But I'm just a schlub so I'll probably crawl back under the rock I came from and watch my warm beer lose CO2 faster then my cold one :P
Okay, you didn't read what I'd spent 10 or 15 minutes, easy, writing in response to you earlier.
But how did you miss the big, giant graph?
It seems we can at least agree that remedies to ecological problems should be explored besides the ones that just happen, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, to reflect long-standing leftist agendas.
Actually I've seen a graph that shows a direct correlation actually. And my point was that despite everything I toss someones way, they find convenient ways to ignore it, don't read it, their eyes glass over etc etc...so I don't both with them most of the time anymore.
As for reading you stuff, if you read mine you'd see contradictions in there -- intentionally. Why? Becuase I don't outright discount anything (quite different then the Goreacleites) but rather don't agree that it's a complete coincidence (the weather etc).
As for cleaning up the pollution etc, I agree that it needs to be done, but doing it by socializing the country I don't agree with. I'm far more radical then that ;) Like banning city expansion -- most of the green greenies live in places like Seattle, the scourge of mankind in my opinion. So, you want progressive taxes (personally I don't beleive in taxing the citizens but that's another subject) then tax the city dwellers into oblivion and give tax breaks to the country dwellers since they are far more environmentally friendly -- that's a start :)
Quote from: SpoonyG on February 15, 2010, 03:37:16 PM
I had to chime in after seeing this dominate the "Recent Posts" today.
Last election we had "My scumbag politicians are better than your scumbag politicians."
Now we have "My scumbag junk scientists are better than your scumbag junk scientists."
Supported by "My Internet links are better than your Internet links."
It really is quite comical to the casual reader.
When will we learn...
- Follow the money
- Follow the power
- Follow the control
- Follow the deception
...and only then will you find the true answer.
Peace.
I'm not sure you will then even.
The true answer I think is far simpler then most will admit: we don't know.
Of course another answer is: man is arrogant.
Why do I say these things? Becuase anytime someone says "The debate is over" you that not only is it NOT over, but it's clearly hiding something too.
Steven Hawking has been trying to prove himself wrong now for years -- why? Becuase a scientist is supposed to be objective -- the AGW crowd is most decidedly NOT objective. Is the other side? Some probably aren't but I actually think some are -- why? Becuase many of them don't say they have the answer but rather more questions and when one admits that ones research only begets more questions but that the answer is yet to be discovered then one is far more likely a scientist then the "the debate is over" gang of thugs and socialist crazies.
As for my links, they are posed only to prove one point: the debate is not over.
I could care less actually, becuase quite frankly Global Warming has proven very good for mankind -- yes indeed -- so if all we do is raise the temperature on the earth a little so we can grow wheat in polar bear country, well, then, we just might not starve after all :)
Global Cooling would be frightful! I can't imagine a return to even the Little Ice Age!
Anyway, we don't really know what's going on, and as such I don't think it's right to tax the bat crap out of the free citizens (hmmm) of the USA just becuase we THINK the sky is falling -- last time we thought it was falling we were quite wrong weren't we?
Quote from: SpoonyG on February 15, 2010, 03:37:16 PM
Now we have "My scumbag junk scientists are better than your scumbag junk scientists."
Supported by "My Internet links are better than your Internet links."
Boy, that was the straw that broke
this camel's back. Plumb wears me out.
Okay, okay. Science is hooey, and blogs and biased journalism are the equivalent of peer-reviewed scientific findings.
Until I get my second wind, that is. ;)
____________________
British scientist Richard Dawkins asked readers to imagine they are a teacher of Roman history whose attention is constantly distracted by a movement that claims the Roman Empire never existed.
"Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rear-guard defense of the proposition that the Romans existed at all,"
Quote from: RainDog on February 15, 2010, 05:10:31 PM
Quote from: SpoonyG on February 15, 2010, 03:37:16 PM
Now we have "My scumbag junk scientists are better than your scumbag junk scientists."
Supported by "My Internet links are better than your Internet links."
Boy, that was the straw that broke this camel's back. Plumb wears me out.
Okay, okay. Science is hooey, and blogs and biased journalism are the equivalent of peer-reviewed scientific findings.
Until I get my second wind, that is. ;)
____________________
British scientist Richard Dawkins asked readers to imagine they are a teacher of Roman history whose attention is constantly distracted by a movement that claims the Roman Empire never existed.
"Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rear-guard defense of the proposition that the Romans existed at all,"
Any time the peer reviewed science is a climbing magazine article quoting someone making a statement about something that he or she may not be able to prove and when other 'peer' reviewed documents have been proven to have been 'reviewed by specific individuals interested in pushing an agenda' well then, you might as well read the blogs.
You see it's easy to say my references are better then yours as long as no one knows the real story but once the cats out of the bag (email gate anyone) then you might as well drop the whole 'peer reviewed' stuff since clearly it isn't.
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 15, 2010, 05:38:12 PM
Any time the peer reviewed science is a climbing magazine article quoting someone making a statement about something that he or she may not be able to prove and when other 'peer' reviewed documents have been proven to have been 'reviewed by specific individuals interested in pushing an agenda' well then, you might as well read the blogs.
Did I quote a climbing magazine? If I did, it was a frightful error. Please direct me to where I did that and I'll correct it with the link intended.
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 15, 2010, 05:38:12 PM
You see it's easy to say my references are better then yours as long as no one knows the real story but once the cats out of the bag (email gate anyone) then you might as well drop the whole 'peer reviewed' stuff since clearly it isn't.
"Science is hooey, and blogs and biased journalism are the equivalent of peer-reviewed scientific findings."
I was being facetious, I thought. That's really your position?
On second thought, never mind. I know a brick wall when I see it. With those criteria, there certainly is no reasoned debate possible.
[frus]
Quote from: RainDog on February 15, 2010, 05:51:16 PM
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 15, 2010, 05:38:12 PM
Any time the peer reviewed science is a climbing magazine article quoting someone making a statement about something that he or she may not be able to prove and when other 'peer' reviewed documents have been proven to have been 'reviewed by specific individuals interested in pushing an agenda' well then, you might as well read the blogs.
Did I quote a climbing magazine? If I did, it was a frightful error. Please direct me to where I did that and I'll correct it with the link intended.
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 15, 2010, 05:38:12 PM
You see it's easy to say my references are better then yours as long as no one knows the real story but once the cats out of the bag (email gate anyone) then you might as well drop the whole 'peer reviewed' stuff since clearly it isn't.
"Science is hooey, and blogs and biased journalism are the equivalent of peer-reviewed scientific findings."
I was being facetious, I thought. That's really your position?
On second thought, never mind. I know a brick wall when I see it. With those criteria, there certainly is no reasoned debate possible.
[frus]
The climbing reference was actually to something the IPCC used -- I'm a brick wall? *chuckle* nah..but since Phil Jones is the man, the AGW scientist that really lead the movement on the science front (didn't he?) let's ask him shall we?
That ought to be good enough right? I mean, he's the man right?
QuoteThe embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/
It's all over the news today -- well probably NOT on MSNBC....
So um, who's really the brick? I'm just looking at what's out there and concluding that the so called 'science' behind the whole AGW movement was and is bunk.
Seems that if nothing else seems to phase the AGW alarmists then I wonder if their top scientist coming out of the closet and...
QuoteJones also allowed for the possibility that the world as a whole was warmer in medieval times than it is today -- a concession that may also undermine theories that global warming is caused by man.
DOH!
So maybe this old jarhead isn't so stupid after all ;)
Seems to me that the questions I've asked are good ones that need serious answers and answers that don't ignore the possibility that there is indeed a connection to other bodies within our solar system that experience warming and cooling along with the earth -- and um, once we get there then the conclusion has to be that the AGW alarmists are infact either 'chicken littles' or socialists just looking for one more way to control the masses.
I'm not a conspiracy nut by the way, I'm ju st a guy that sees the snow falling and wonders "is this whole global warming thing really settled?"....seems to me it isn't.
One thing I find amusing though, is those who profess to NOT trust government are hell bent to trust them on this. I'm not.
Cheers
Oh my God! rofl
You not only announce that peer-reviewed scientific papers, the "gold standard" for scientific evidence, aren't credible, but you don't even read what I've typed out!
Not only do you obviously have no idea of what my position even is, though I've repeated it a number of times in extremely simple and easy to understand terms, but now you've submitted a dishonest analysis that has been bouncing around the internet for a couple of days, as some kind of definitive proof, that I debunked thoroughly like... YESTERDAY!
Dude! d*
Like I said, man, never mind. Nobody in their right mind is going to discuss anything with you under those conditions.
Doesn't seem to me that you debunked anything.
And I don't presume to understand your point of view at all. What I understand, from reading the Phil Jones transcripts is that he doesn't seem certain about too much, points to all sorts of indicators that suggestion warming and cooling other then caused by man and then jumps to man is 100% the cause -- personally I think he's strongly biased which is a bad precedent for a scientist.
For the record, I'll again recap my proposition.
From a post directed to OlJarhead:
"In any case I still feel that I have to repeat my disclaimer. I am not advancing the claims of AGW adherents. I am simply lamenting the politicization and dishonest tactics on both sides of the issue."
From an earlier post in the thread:
"Between the hysterics of the doomsaying left, and the deceptive tactics of the right (and vise versa), the whole thing has become so politicized and twisted that I have a difficult time imagining a calm reasoned inquiry into the premise of climate change at this point or in the foreseeable future."
So, for the next person who picks up a handful of cut-rate talking points from political hacks, pundits, activists, or their sycophants and feels like they're loaded for bear and are determined to, by God, let loose a volley at those left-wing pinkos/right-wing fascists/villains du jour, without regard or respect to what their perceived opponent actually has to say... I am not an appropriate target.
As a matter of fact, you prove my point.
I'll clarify my position as well.
climatology is a disgrace to the scientific method. Hiding data, losing data, coddling algorithms to arrive at preconceived notions and lying about it do not make good science. Refusing to acknowledge discreditors, refusing to peer review data outside of those who already have a bias to your work is not good science. And refusing the idea of debate is not good science.
Calling those who wish to see the data and perform identical experiments wishing to see the same results unpatriotic and inappropriate is not good science. It is flawed science.
Raindog, I do agree it is politicized, and will not be corrected now that it is in the state it is in.
Lastly - you also prove your own point. You are just as non-interested in hearing the arguments against as others are non-interested in hearing the arguments for.
Quote from: muldoon on February 16, 2010, 09:32:19 AM
Lastly - you also prove your own point. You are just as non-interested in hearing the arguments against as others are non-interested in hearing the arguments for.
Quite to the contrary, I'm very interested in hearing legitimate arguments from either side. Although I'm not particularly "interested" in disinformation, I do make a strong effort to address even erroneous claims directly, go to and read links given, and usually even bother to track the source of the information quoted in the links. It's common courtesy, as well as a necessary rule of debate.
The sentence "You are just as non-interested in hearing the arguments against as others are non-interested in hearing the arguments for." indicates to me that I continue, somehow, to fail in communicating my position. I'm not "against" or "for" one side of this particular issue or the other. I'm against disinformation and intellectually dishonest tactics.
I'd like to expound further, but the evidence I'm seeing here is that most people don't read beyond the first sentence, if that.
Oh, and of course I agree that Bill Nye's arguments were nonsense, pretty much straight down the line. Comical, even. That's why I posted them.
Quote from: muldoon on February 16, 2010, 09:32:19 AM
Raindog, I do agree it is politicized, and will not be corrected now that it is in the state it is in.
Lastly - you also prove your own point. You are just as non-interested in hearing the arguments against as others are non-interested in hearing the arguments for.
Exactly my point actually.
I just spent 15 minutes typing, and then had to delete it all...
I think the problem is that no one knows who to believe anymore....
Do you believe the mainstream...knowing that their way out of the problem will affect your way of life. Not just how you live, but how our whole society WILL behave???
Or do you believe the energy and big energy companies who would love nothing better than being left alone to do whatever it is they do to make money???
There are problems on both sides. As a scientist, I have personally seen how funding sources affect research...Somehow it usually comes out in favor of those spending the research dollars...
I for one am thoroughly disgusted with unethical science. It makes me question EVERY bit of research done by that person...
I have lost jobs because of my stand, but I have also stood my ground and in the end have been proved right. As one of my professors once said, "If you can't be open and honest in science, you don't belong in this profession".
Being questioned on your research is hard. But if you think your hypothesis is right, you don't have to worry...you will be proved in the end.
What I hate are the scientists who are so thin-skinned that when questioned that they might be wrong, turn and hide behind their walls. It makes me question ALL of their research, right or wrong.
Quote from: fishing_guy on February 16, 2010, 11:21:10 AM
I just spent 15 minutes typing, and then had to delete it all...
I think the problem is that no one knows who to believe anymore....
Do you believe the mainstream...knowing that their way out of the problem will affect your way of life. Not just how you live, but how our whole society WILL behave???
Or do you believe the energy and big energy companies who would love nothing better than being left alone to do whatever it is they do to make money???
There are problems on both sides. As a scientist, I have personally seen how funding sources affect research...Somehow it usually comes out in favor of those spending the research dollars...
I for one am thoroughly disgusted with unethical science. It makes me question EVERY bit of research done by that person...
I have lost jobs because of my stand, but I have also stood my ground and in the end have been proved right. As one of my professors once said, "If you can't be open and honest in science, you don't belong in this profession".
Being questioned on your research is hard. But if you think your hypothesis is right, you don't have to worry...you will be proved in the end.
What I hate are the scientists who are so thin-skinned that when questioned that they might be wrong, turn and hide behind their walls. It makes me question ALL of their research, right or wrong.
Not unlike writing reviews on a given product. The manufacturer sends the product to you free of charge (often expensive items) and you are expected to fairly present the object to the public -- just not too fairly.
Actually, this is something I do and it sometimes is a bit of trouble -- I can assure you that a business that does not like a review will not be back to advertise or provide more items for review (which has happened to me more then once).
So, some will write the review keeping that in mind just to get more advertising (funding). Sadly, folks like me that try to be objective (yes raindog, I know it's hard for you to imagine that but I'm known for it in certain circuits -- might make you think twice about your opinion perhaps) are often not the richest around. Though my website does well enough and is very highly rated, it will never make me rich.
The problem with this subject, and raindogs position is that rather then actually discuss the possibilities presented, most AGW supporters (and raindog) throw out things intended to either discredit a source, belittle the individual questioning their position or discard them altogether. All of which is intellectually dishonest.
Furthermore, writing off multiple solar 'coincidences' as mere coincidence is not being very intellectually honest and ignores the obvious (common denominator).
To be honest, I'm not a scientist, but I am an individual who is paid to solve problems and when I look at this problem I see so called 'peer reviewed papers' that are rigged by those interested in pushing the AGW theme and I see snippets of other documents, interviews, emails and anecdotal evidence from the other side that ignores everything put in front of them to the contrary.
However, if I had to take a stance on one side or the other I'd have to go with the non-AGW group because they seem to have the most honest approach -- how? Simple, they look outside and see snow, they notice cooler springs and winters and they just ask the question: are you sure?
It's really only after that and receiving the "your too stupid to understand" answers from the AGW thugs that they really get their ire stirred up and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Shell Oil etc.. and everything to do with wanting to understand what really is going on.
And what is going on? The progressive/socialist movement has glommed onto the AGW movement as a vehicle for moving an agenda forward and nothing more. So, at this point the entire 'Global Warming' crowd is compromised by the very same type of individuals who drained a sea, made a river flow backwards, allowed forests to burn uncontrollably and worse -- yes, those same people that attacked big industry for the minuscule amounts of synthetic estrogen they were dumping into rivers while ignoring the massive amounts flushed down the toilet are going to save us all from what? The natural cycle of warming and cooling on the earth? With what? A faked hockey stick graph which was compiled with faulty data?
I'm sorry, but they've discredited themselves completely and it's time realize that.
Now, before the responses fly let'/s get something straight: I hate pollution and would like to see it stopped -- so, do you live in the city? If so, consider this: your city is nothing more then a cess pit and if you really want to save the planet start thinking about the unchecked expansion of cities around the world -- sewage piles up, rivers contaminated and garbage dumps grow at unbelievable levels. If you really want to save the planet start thinking about fixing your home territory first -- and do it without destroying the rights and freedoms of the citizens.
Then maybe we'll have a great conversation about it :)
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 16, 2010, 11:41:07 AM
Not unlike writing reviews on a given product. The manufacturer sends the product to you free of charge (often expensive items) and you are expected to fairly present the object to the public -- just not too fairly.
As a research scientist, I can state unequivocally that writing a review and doing science are not even in the same ballpark.
QuoteThe problem with this subject, and raindogs position is that rather then actually discuss the possibilities presented, most AGW supporters (and raindog) throw out things intended to either discredit a source, belittle the individual questioning their position or discard them altogether. All of which is intellectually dishonest.
I would argue that discrediting a source is part of science. Results are only as good as the data, if a source in bunk, well then...
Belittling a person is politics, and unfortunately climate change is more politics than science these days, at least in the public eye.
QuoteFurthermore, writing off multiple solar 'coincidences' as mere coincidence is not being very intellectually honest and ignores the obvious (common denominator).
Correlation does not (and never will) equal causation, and is not science. What is the mechanism? If you don't have one then start looking, but just pointing to correlated events shows nothing. I bet I can show you thousands of things that are completely unrelated yet correlated.
QuoteTo be honest, I'm not a scientist, but I am an individual who is paid to solve problems and when I look at this problem I see so called 'peer reviewed papers' that are rigged by those interested in pushing the AGW theme and I see snippets of other documents, interviews, emails and anecdotal evidence from the other side that ignores everything put in front of them to the contrary.
That is because this topic has gotten so over the top politicized, that opinions are being used as results - from both sides of the debate. Throw in some good 'ol journalism - who rarely get scientific topics written up correctly (sorry journalists) - and the general public has no real idea of what is going on.
QuoteHowever, if I had to take a stance on one side or the other I'd have to go with the non-AGW group because they seem to have the most honest approach -- how? Simple, they look outside and see snow, they notice cooler springs and winters and they just ask the question: are you sure?
Honesty, like beauty, can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder. As far as casual observations, by looking outside, they are representative of one of the biggest problems with this entire "debate". Climate change cannot and will not be established by looking outside your back door. Ever.
The scale for looking at climate is generally 20-30+ years, weather on the other hand is reviewed in hours, days, weeks, etc. So if you want to debate a topic you should first be sure you know what you are debating. It is foolhardy at best to do otherwise.
QuoteAnd what is going on? The progressive/socialist movement has glommed onto...
Earlier on you stated that
Quote...belittle the individual questioning their position or discard them altogether.
as a negative point. though you are using the exact same thing to start off this diatribe. Pot meet kettle.
QuoteNow, before the responses fly let'/s get something straight: I hate pollution and would like to see it stopped -- so, do you live in the city? If so, consider this: your city is nothing more then a cess pit and if you really want to save the planet start thinking about the unchecked expansion of cities around the world -- sewage piles up, rivers contaminated and garbage dumps grow at unbelievable levels. If you really want to save the planet start thinking about fixing your home territory first -- and do it without destroying the rights and freedoms of the citizens.
Then maybe we'll have a great conversation about it :)
How can you have a great conversation about something when you have already set terms that may be unduly acceptable to others- destroying the rights and freedoms of the citizens as it were? Why is your opinion more valuable?
Lastly, I don't study the climate. I study fish. Fish however are impacted strongly by the climate and by weather. In the Arctic we have seen significant and dramatic changes over a long period of time. It will have an impact regionally, nationally, and globally. No matter what is causing this impact it is changing things, and fast. A few years back I sat in on a meeting of the American Fisheries Society where the topic was not about whether climate change was occurring, but how to deal with the impending changes, because the public raises quite a ruckus when their fishing gets closed down. Basically, they were saying we need to be preemptive.
Finally, since this is a political topic these days, with the real and observed impacts taking a backseat to cap and trade etc. In my political opinion to all those that cry foul about doing something that may have an economic impact in order to slow the changes that will be hugely disruptive to humans, on a global scale - if we went into Iraq to start a war based upon the possibility of WMDs and we don't do anything to curb our impacts upon the globe, even though the results could have far greater implications than WMDs - well then we get what we deserve.
I belive that one reason there is so much controversy about climate change is because we are discussing the wrong thing. Just like we talk about bankers bonus' without talking about how the corporations made that much money to begin with. With the climate, it shouldn't be about whether or not there is climate change but about the sustainability of continuing to poop where we eat (poluting our air, earth and water). That's what the conversation should be about.
I had a research scientist once tell me, "The solution to pollution is dilution." Makes you wonder about forcing people to live in cities and not spread out....
I live in Minnesota. The DNR is now studying a decline in Moose in the Northern part of our state....
At one point, we had NO moose...
Animal's range move all of the time....they follow the food better than we humans do...
What gives us the right (or audacity) to determine what is the right/wrong climate for a given area? I think it is this aspect of the AGW debate that I have the most problem with...
We could do with a temperature shift up here in the north. I could stand for a lower midwest climate here in the frozen north.
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 16, 2010, 11:20:33 AM
Quote from: muldoon on February 16, 2010, 09:32:19 AM
Raindog, I do agree it is politicized, and will not be corrected now that it is in the state it is in.
Lastly - you also prove your own point. You are just as non-interested in hearing the arguments against as others are non-interested in hearing the arguments for.
Exactly my point actually.
English is your first language, right? Are my communication skills really so poor? This is becoming surreal! rofl
I've caught myself suspecting you of deliberately and willfully pretending to obfuscate and misunderstand my every word simply to frustrate me, but realistically there's likely some more mundane element at work in your spectacular failure to comprehend my words, which I would be loathe to speculate about and exploit publicly. So I won't.
Make you a deal. You can believe that you've utterly decimated my position of AGW advocacy with your links from foxnews.com and American Thinker magazine, and in turn you will not force me to repeat
EVER AGAIN that I am not, in any shape or form, nor have I ever been, an AGW advocate.
Mmmkay?
So after all this we have concluded that Global Warming Climate Change is a political issue and the science may or may not be valid depending on who you listen to. This would seem to cast some doubt on the whole issue. If there is any doubt then forcing the entire world to radicaly change their lifestyles seems a tad reckless and self serving.
Quote from: RainDog on February 16, 2010, 12:51:38 PM... and in turn you will not force me to repeat EVER AGAIN that I am not, in any shape or form, nor have I ever been, an AGW advocate.
Mmmkay?
Agreed
Quote from: ScottA on February 16, 2010, 01:33:52 PM
So after all this we have concluded that Global Warming Climate Change is a political issue and the science may or may not be valid depending on who you listen to. This would seem to cast some doubt on the whole issue. If there is any doubt then forcing the entire world to radicaly change their lifestyles seems a tad reckless and self serving.
Absolutely - yes!
Quote from: ScottA on February 16, 2010, 01:33:52 PM
So after all this we have concluded that Global Warming Climate Change is a political issue and the science may or may not be valid depending on who you listen to. This would seem to cast some doubt on the whole issue. If there is any doubt then forcing the entire world to radicaly change their lifestyles seems a tad reckless and self serving.
1. There is no debate that climate change is occurring.
2. The debate centers around the influence that humans have upon climate change, namely speeding it up, particularly the warming part.
3. There is strong supporting evidence that humans are drastically influencing the environment, yes there are alternative theories. None of the alternative theories has risen to the top, politics aside, most climate scientists are in agreement and scientists like to disagree.
4. If you do nothing and you are wrong, the odds are good that the "lifestyle changes" inflicted by the climate globally will be much greater than any that we could impose upon ourselves in an attempt to be preemptive.
I'm guessing most people would be okay being preemptive against something that could displace millions and impact crop growth, etc.. Similarly I'm guessing most people's big beef is with the methods
proposed for being preemptive, not with climate change itself. Which is where politics come into play, if you don't like the proposals then come up with something better.
Quote from: wendigo on February 16, 2010, 02:09:12 PM
Quote from: ScottA on February 16, 2010, 01:33:52 PM
So after all this we have concluded that Global Warming Climate Change is a political issue and the science may or may not be valid depending on who you listen to. This would seem to cast some doubt on the whole issue. If there is any doubt then forcing the entire world to radicaly change their lifestyles seems a tad reckless and self serving.
1. There is no debate that climate change is occurring.
2. The debate centers around the influence that humans have upon climate change, namely speeding it up, particularly the warming part.
3. There is strong supporting evidence that humans are drastically influencing the environment, yes there are alternative theories. None of the alternative theories has risen to the top, politics aside, most climate scientists are in agreement and scientists like to disagree.
4. If you do nothing and you are wrong, the odds are good that the "lifestyle changes" inflicted by the climate globally will be much greater than any that we could impose upon ourselves in an attempt to be preemptive.
I'm guessing most people would be okay being preemptive against something that could displace millions and impact crop growth, etc.. Similarly I'm guessing most people's big beef is with the methods proposed for being preemptive, not with climate change itself. Which is where politics come into play, if you don't like the proposals then come up with something better.
Ahhh haven't we gone through this already?
Quote1. There is no debate that climate change is occurring.
Of course not -- it's been doing it since the dawn of time and who are we to argue that it does not and/or will not continue to do so? Of course there is climate change. Saying there is no debate about it is like saying there is air and there no debate about that either? Of course there is air -- we are alive right?
Winter changes to Summer -- that's climate change. Noon is warmer then midnight most days -- that's climate change too if you want to get specific....climate is a funny word.
Quote2. The debate centers around the influence that humans have upon climate change, namely speeding it up, particularly the warming part.
Not exactly, the debate centers around whether or not we've experienced any warming at all since 1998 (or 2001 depending on who you are). The debate also centers around other issues such as whether or not to use the term 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change' that change was made when the very question of warming was significantly challenged.
There is a debate as to the effects of solar activity (like it or not there is this debate) there is even a debate on whether or not the term 'green house gasses' is legitimate or not (since it seems it actually isn't) and of course there is a debate as to whether or not water vapor isn't several times more of an issue then CO2....oh there are so many debates.
The POLITICAL debate, now that is a totally different thing isn't it? The question there is "throw out the constitution in the USA and force compliance with agreements, treaties or ideas that may or may not be legitimate on the bases that the sky might be falling (ok that's my own version of it but close enough I assure you).
You have on one hand those who support a more 'Marxist view of controlling people' and on the other hand pretty much the rest of us.
So no, the political debate is not about Global Warming or Cooling or Stagnating at all.
Quote3. There is strong supporting evidence that humans are drastically influencing the environment, yes there are alternative theories. None of the alternative theories has risen to the top, politics aside, most climate scientists are in agreement and scientists like to disagree.
Would this be the evidence that Phil Jones talked about changing in order to get it to be more along the lines with what they wanted it to be by injecting false numbers? Or the evidence gathered from weather stations near smoke stacks? Or perhaps the faulty satellite images?
I'm sorry, but the evidence is not as you state at all -- that's politics talking not reality.
Quote4. If you do nothing and you are wrong, the odds are good that the "lifestyle changes" inflicted by the climate globally will be much greater than any that we could impose upon ourselves in an attempt to be preemptive.
Says who? Al Gore? Sorry but Al is motivated by money and not saving anyones rear end. Don't beleive what you hear from politically motivated folks.
It is a fact, actually, that man does much better in a warmer world, so your statement is faulty on that basis alone, but beyond that it's also silly to think that we can start to change the climate ourselves for the better or worse without first knowing how to correctly read it.
Now, to be fair, I agree that we should work towards solving the pollution problem but lets do it for the right reasons ok? And within the bounds of our Constitution and not some new Global initiative. We have a country that is not ruled by men but by law and the law of this country is the Constitution. So, before we hack that up in the name of some holy grail we think we might find, let's stick to it instead and start to adress real problems -- like say banning birth control pills.
Wow! Didn't see that coming I'm sure eh? What? You don't know that it's birth control pills that pollute the rivers and kill the fish? Perhaps a little more reading is in order.
The point is that we really know far less then we are willing to admit as a society much less as individuals. We assume that since someone opposes the AGW agenda they must be a 'dittohead' or Glenn Beck 912'er or one of those evil Tea Party people! But in reality it just might be that they have valid concerns and questions that are not yet adequately answered and that they are tired of the whole 'climate gate' which has become nothing short of a farce.
heck, we've had it really.
Quote from: wendigo on February 16, 2010, 02:09:12 PM
1. There is no debate that climate change is occurring.
2. The debate centers around the influence that humans have upon climate change, namely speeding it up, particularly the warming part.
3. There is strong supporting evidence that humans are drastically influencing the environment, yes there are alternative theories. None of the alternative theories has risen to the top, politics aside, most climate scientists are in agreement and scientists like to disagree.
4. If you do nothing and you are wrong, the odds are good that the "lifestyle changes" inflicted by the climate globally will be much greater than any that we could impose upon ourselves in an attempt to be preemptive.
I'm guessing most people would be okay being preemptive against something that could displace millions and impact crop growth, etc.. Similarly I'm guessing most people's big beef is with the methods proposed for being preemptive, not with climate change itself. Which is where politics come into play, if you don't like the proposals then come up with something better.
Geez, I owe you a debt of gratitude, Wendigo.
Bullet Points or
Numbered Lists of key ideas in short phrases are so easy to read that it's virtually impossible for anyone but the most severely reading-challenged or willfully inattentive to pick up on at least your basic premise.
I further note that when you fell back into standard prose that the propositions contained within were ignored completely and were not addressed, which supplements my conclusion.
I'll try to keep that in mind in the future. Thanks again.
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 16, 2010, 03:27:27 PM
heck, we've had it really.
It doesn't appear to me that you have raised any argument other than "but there are dissenters, I hate AL Gore, personal freedoms, let's change the topic, etc."
None of which does a single thing to discredit the hypothesis that global climate change is currently being substantially impacted by man, in a manner that may have significant consequences for (wo)man.
I could pick apart your responses, and give you first hand evidence of rapid climate change (20-30 years) in the Arctic, but I get the sense you wouldn't want to hear it. I would encourage you to inform yourself of the topic, though avoid if at all possible any website, or opinion piece, go straight to the journals as much of what you mention can be or is accounted for. Mostly I would advise you to look into ocean temperatures, though I am biased as a fish biologist, as they hold far more energy than is reflected by air temperatures, and the implications of the oceans warming is a bit alarming, imho.
Quote from: wendigo on February 16, 2010, 04:41:03 PM
Quote from: OlJarhead on February 16, 2010, 03:27:27 PM
heck, we've had it really.
It doesn't appear to me that you have raised any argument other than "but there are dissenters, I hate AL Gore, personal freedoms, let's change the topic, etc."
None of which does a single thing to discredit the hypothesis that global climate change is currently being substantially impacted by man, in a manner that may have significant consequences for (wo)man.
I could pick apart your responses, and give you first hand evidence of rapid climate change (20-30 years) in the Arctic, but I get the sense you wouldn't want to hear it. I would encourage you to inform yourself of the topic, though avoid if at all possible any website, or opinion piece, go straight to the journals as much of what you mention can be or is accounted for. Mostly I would advise you to look into ocean temperatures, though I am biased as a fish biologist, as they hold far more energy than is reflected by air temperatures, and the implications of the oceans warming is a bit alarming, imho.
Ocean temperatures don't say one way or another who or what caused the warming they experienced.
In fact, recently a study was done based on the last two hundred years which showed warming -- of course it did, as stated before any study that looks at only one span of time and discounts previous periods can be done to prove one point or another. Now, looking at levels going back 700 years might show a different picture but as I beleive Phil Jones points out we don't really have good data beyond 1979 -- so um, 20-30 years only shows that period.
I'm not disputing, for the record, that we have experienced warming (or cooling) that would be silly. Of course we have on both counts. I'm only disputing the cause which has clearly not been definitively established.
This could be argued until doomsday with no solution. The bottom line is until the climate change gurus are willing to publish the entire study including the raw data so it can be checked by anyone their argument is no better than mine. I'm sorry but, belive it because they say so isn't going to cut it. If this topic is so critical why can't I personaly see the data or atleast a resonable cross section? All they show is charts and graphs, several of which are being challenged by other researchers. Publish everything. Give it time to be examined. Then I'll belive it.
Do you want surface or upper air databases?
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/metobsdata_databases.htm (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/metobsdata_databases.htm)
How about a collection of raw and processed data?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/)
You know this stuff isn't kept in a locked vault right?
Looking forward to seeing the results of your validated models!
Quote from: wendigo on February 16, 2010, 06:16:04 PM
Do you want surface or upper air databases?
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/metobsdata_databases.htm (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/metobsdata_databases.htm)
How about a collection of raw and processed data?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/)
You know this stuff isn't kept in a locked vault right?
Looking forward to seeing the results of your validated models!
OK let me get this straight becuase I'm somewhat dense I guess:
1. You actually believe in what the EPA posts and believe that they have no agenda at all right?
2. You don't see realclimate.org as a biased source right?
That's great. Where's the data for the last 7-10 years? All the surface and upper air databases are 7-10 years or more out of date and only go back to the early 1980's. Hardly enough to get an accurate picture but I'll do my best to find the missing data.
Realclimate.org has been shown to be well, somewhat biased and isn't exactly a scientific organization without an agenda -- that's my take on it anyway. But here are some links just to show how easy it is to find something (in mere seconds) which put in doubt what might be found there:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/08/a-definitive-thumping-of-realclimateorg.html
QuoteThe global warming promoting website RealClimate.org, is under fire yet again from a prominent scientist for presenting incorrect climate information. Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. publicly rebuked the website in a June 30, 2009 article for "erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving." Pielke, the former Colorado State Climatologist and currently a senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, countered Real Climate's claim that warming was "progressing faster than expected" with the latest data on sea level rise, ocean heat content and Arctic ice.
http://www.sciencebits.com/RealClimateSlurs
QuoteRealclimate.org continues with its same line of attack. Wishfulclimate.org writers try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.
As for the EPA, that's like quoting the Federal Government -- oh wait that is EXACTLY what it is. Never mind.
QuoteRealClimate.org is assumed by those who do not know any better to be an "objective" source on climate change. It features activist scientists with degrees in Geology, Geosciences, Mathematics, Oceanography and Physics who are all self proclaimed "climatologists". Yet skeptical scientists with equivalent credentials are not (probably because they have not proclaimed it). Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
Quoting realclimate.org isn't helpful.
ISHD Data is through 2003.
You asked for links to RAW data, I provided them.
Not liking the source for data does not invalidate the data.
Show me the RAW data that supports the argument against climate change, and I will adjust my views accordingly. Actually show me processed data, because I know for certain that I do not have the background to interpret the raw data. Do you?
Or is supporting the opinion of people with similar political viewpoints more important than examining the data for its own merits?
From what I can see it was about 4/10 of a degree Farenheit warmer in 2004 than it was in 1954. Temperature readings before that are suspect at best. What times of day where the readings taken? Where they taken at the same times every day? The temperature in a single day can vary by 80 degrees or more. It's hardly enough to be called an emergency. But I'll look into a bit more. Here's the thing that gets me though. It was as warm or warmer in medieval times as it is today. Did they produce alot of CO2 back then too? How do we know for sure how warm it was to within +/- .1 degree? This could take a while to sort out.
Showing a source that shows an argument against Climate Change is like trying to show a source which refutes water freezing at 32 degrees Fahrenheit -- of course there is climate change.
A source that refutes MAN MADE Global Warming on the other hand is certainly doable. If of course you are willing to consider it.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
This article specifically sites research done previously which shows a cooling trend. This graph:
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg
reportedly shows data gathered from
QuoteAll four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS)
So assuming you believe those sources then the question has to be asked: if man is causing the warming we experienced up to 1998 then how is it possible we cooled since then?
Now this article suggests cooling also: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
Another interesting read is this: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31:vanishing-sunspots-prelude-to-global-cooling&catid=1:latest
I guess the point is that it isn't that simple and there is science out there that puts everything into question if you are willing to consider it.
wendigo, great additions to this post, thanks and I hope you keep contributing. This is not a contest and I hope you dont see it that way. All of us in our own way are trying to understand and learn, although we all bring our own biases to the table.
That being said, I think the topic of un-trustable data has been discussed to death above.
I have another question, and to some extent I am taking this thread in a new direction. Yet something that I never understood at a scientific level and would love to hear a response from others in the know.
The notion that as artic sea ice bergs melt, the seas will rise.
As I understand it, 99% of iceburgs are underwater. As I understand it, water in a frozen state is more dense than water in a liquid state.
To use a poor analogy, when my bourbon, ice and water melts I have a level of liquid that is lower than when the ice is solid. When I worry about pipe freezing it is because ice is more dense and takes up more space (thus breaking pipes) than as a liquid.
If these ice chunks are melting, shouldn't the sea levels actually rescind and not rise? This is a serious question, something I have never been able to put my knowledge of the mechanics and practical experience into seeing the GW statement.
If the ice is reduced in density by melting, would melting icecaps actually reduce the water displacement and lead to lower sea levels? I honestly do not understand that concern, it just does not fit my understanding. I would welcome any help on this.
I read somewhere that the rise of warming ocean water may be more due to the expansion of water as it warms, than to any ice that may melt; that cold water occupies less space than warm. I don't know how true that is, I never took time to research it. I almost hate to write it down in case it is wrong and someone reads it and takes it as gospel truth. d*
Muldoon is correct in that if only sea ice, such as icebergs, melt, there would not be much of a change in sea levels. However, ice sheets and glaciers, which constitute the greatest reservoir of fresh water on Earth, sit on land surface. As global temperatures increase, they will begin to melt and flow into rivers and the sea, raising the level.
MountainDon refers to thermal expansion. In the same way that air expands when it is warm, warm water expands and takes up more space than cold water. Even if land ice didn't melt at all the sea levels will still rise, because as the seas warm, the water will expand.
Please keep scale in mind. The tiniest and most inconsequential rise in a vessel the size of a glass of water (or bourbon if you're in the mood) would represent, in a volume as large as the Earth's oceans, a comparatively massive swell.
Quote from: muldoon on February 16, 2010, 11:20:42 PM
This is not a contest and I hope you dont see it that way.
I know you are addressing wendigo, but please understand that it can't help but rankle a bit when one realizes that he's spent his personal time and energy typing out reasoned responses and sourcing data, only to have the person he's been addressing explicitly state that the gold standard of evidence, peer-reviewed scholarly work and research, not only from climatologists, but from scientists of all the periphery fields, geology, astrophysics, etc, has no more scientific credibility than a two paragraph op/ed blurb on some conservative political blog. When the same tired memes are repeated over and over in spite of all evidential proofs provided against them. When it becomes obvious that no consideration whatsoever is being made to one's arguments, or when it's apparent that they weren't even read at all.
"That don't mean nothin!" may go quite a way toward convincing cronies at the corner bar, but in the realm of reasoned debate it is virtually worthless.
When it becomes glaringly evident that you're dealing with
simple obstinance and
willful ignorance of an issue, there's nothing left to say. One must throw up his hands, laugh, and walk away from the discussion, but of course at the same time it's a little irritating on a personal level to realize you've flushed your time and energy down the toilet.
It doesn't help much when, as you resign in dismay, there's the sense that the antagonist is poking out his chest in triumph, in contempt of all logic.
It's not surprising at all if a little bit of that exasperation bleeds out onto the thread, in spite of best intentions.
When faced with cognitive dissonance, when our long held belief systems fail to stand up to evidence, there's always a tendency to cover our ears and deny. We've all done it at one time or another. Nevertheless, that doesn't make it any less tiresome and vexing for those attempting to shed light on an issue to face.
Quote from: RainDog on February 17, 2010, 08:03:00 AM
Muldoon is correct in that if only sea ice, such as icebergs, melt, there would not be much of a change in sea levels. However, ice sheets and glaciers, which constitute the greatest reservoir of fresh water on Earth, sit on land surface. As global temperatures increase, they will begin to melt and flow into rivers and the sea, raising the level.
MountainDon refers to thermal expansion. In the same way that air expands when it is warm, warm water expands and takes up more space than cold water. Even if land ice didn't melt at all the sea levels will still rise, because as the seas warm, the water will expand.
Please keep scale in mind. The tiniest and most inconsequential rise in a vessel the size of a glass of water (or bourbon if you're in the mood) would represent, in a volume as large as the Earth's oceans, a comparatively massive swell.
Quote from: muldoon on February 16, 2010, 11:20:42 PM
This is not a contest and I hope you dont see it that way.
I know you are addressing wendigo, but please understand that it can't help but rankle a bit when one realizes that he's spent his personal time and energy typing out reasoned responses and sourcing data, only to have the person he's been addressing explicitly state that the gold standard of evidence, peer-reviewed scholarly work and research, not only from climatologists, but from scientists of all the periphery fields, geology, astrophysics, etc, has no more scientific credibility than a two paragraph op/ed blurb on some conservative political blog. When the same tired memes are repeated over and over in spite of all evidential proofs provided against them. When it becomes obvious that no consideration whatsoever is being made to one's arguments, or when it's apparent that they weren't even read at all.
"That don't mean nothin!" may go quite a way toward convincing cronies at the corner bar, but in the realm of reasoned debate it is virtually worthless.
When it becomes glaringly evident that you're dealing with simple obstinance and willful ignorance of an issue, there's nothing left to say. One must throw up his hands, laugh, and walk away from the discussion, but of course at the same time it's a little irritating on a personal level to realize you've flushed your time and energy down the toilet.
It doesn't help much when, as you resign in dismay, there's the sense that the antagonist is poking out his chest in triumph, in contempt of all logic.
It's not surprising at all if a little bit of that exasperation bleeds out onto the thread, in spite of best intentions.
When faced with cognitive dissonance, when our long held belief systems fail to stand up to evidence, there's always a tendency to cover our ears and deny. We've all done it at one time or another. Nevertheless, that doesn't make it any less tiresome and vexing for those attempting to shed light on an issue to face.
Gee thanks -- since we all know you were addressing me (or at least addressing the responses I had to yours) you might as well call a spade a spade.
What's funny, however, is that this seems like a case of bruised 'self importance'. I'm sorry Raindog, because you're a helpful individual here on CountryPlans but this is pure blustering.
The reason I don't give any more credence to one reference or another is that it's become clear the so called 'peer reviewed' articles are simply not. In fact, there is plenty of evidence out there to prove the total lack of peer reviews in the AGW community.
Furthermore, the in the vein of 'if the shoe fits wear it' I contend that there is valid evidence that proves a current cooling trend which in and of itself demonstrates a total lack of understanding on the part of the AGW crowd. How can they, for example, claim CO2 levels are directly impacting global temperatures and forcing them to rise (green house effect) when at the same time temperatures are dropping? It's ludicrous.
Of course, it's easy to see that if a person is in the AGW camp and has something at stake there (millions of dollars in funding perhaps) then they must work to either prove themselves wrong (not going to happen) or find ways to muddy the water so to speak. Muddying the water seems to be the course of the day.
So, to recap, if CO2 is creating a green house effect which is warming the earth then it isn't possible that while continuing to spew forth massive doses of CO2 the earth could cool significantly. It has. The climate models have been proven to be broken, the hockey stick graph has been debunked, the polar ice caps are not shrinking etc etc etc
So at what point do we begin to accept that maybe, just maybe, all those scientists had some other agenda in mind? The flat earthers were in fact the establishment – these scientists are the establishment. See a pattern?
Lastly, in the 70's these same 'the sky is falling' folks were screaming 'Ice Age Ice Age'...seems to me we should not commit massive resources, hurt our economy (any worse than it is) and completely destroy our constitution based on some have brained testimony by Al Gore and his neophytes.
And yes, I know, you will come back with "where's your proof" which only proves my point that much more. After all, anyone really interested in a discussion rather than some one sided blathering contest would acknowledge that:
A: The AGW side is asking to change the world – I'm not – so that's the side that needs to look at ALL data presented and consider its source and validity.
B: The AGW side is running around yelling "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" so it stands to reason that they must address each and every concern with honor and dignity not name calling and belittling tactics.
And of course, it doesn't matter if you are an AGW supporter or not. You're rather energetic defense of their position in this discussion puts you in position A and B.
I've posted some links to some articles demonstrating something not acknowledged by the AGW side but certainly from credible sources – seems to be the honorable thing for you to do would be to read them and consider them – rather than blather on about how rude I am.
OlJarhead,
Man, if you really want to know the answers to questions, you're gonna have to do some legwork yourself. I'm plumb worn out with your "'peer reviewed' articles are simply not" silliness.
There's credible research, scientific consensus, empirical evidence all available freely on the web for your perusal. I suggest you take the time to check it all out, instead of having it provided on a silver platter to you only to say it doesn't count. Every planet in the solar system is not warming, solar cycles do not cause global warming, global temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were not higher than today, the planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998... you're just gonna have to look it up, whether or not it flies in the face of what you just heard on TV or read in your favorite gossip rag.
Fox News is easier, though, I know.
My bet is that tomorrow or the day after, when one of your "pretty smart" friends brings up the subject, you'll be repeating the same dis-proven memes you were yesterday and the day before.
Speaking to your "bruised ego" scenario, your obstinacy doesn't affect my self-esteem in the least. I was simply explaining to muldoon, who doesn't strike me as being woefully demagogic, of why someone might be a little ticked at having scientific research considered highly credible by any measure, as well as their own time and energy, tossed aside without any due consideration.
I'm done with you as far as this particular topic goes. It's a complete waste of time. You've had your preconceived conclusions handed to you by the climate denial industry, it's mouthpieces, and dupes, and have exhibited no real interest in honest discussion or evidence.
RainDog,
What's a meme? I Know I can look it up, but it's probably quicker to have you answer it for me. I'm being facetious, but I'm trying to lighten the mood a bit. If I've failed, forgive me, the attempt was made in kindness and not meant to offend. Having said all that, I really don't know what "meme" means. Sad, isn't it?
By the way, I see your point of view.
Dammit, PC! ;D
It's an idea that passes from person to person, replicating all the while. Y'know, much as a virus does?
;)
Ah yes, a meme...thank you.
I spent some hours looking into this. I concede that there is no way I can truly prove this issue one way or the other. I have no way to verify the data. I don't know how it was used. The available data is incomplete. The time involved to put it all together is not available. I have my opinion based mostly on my gut instinct. The issue smells rotten to me. So to those who disagree I'll just say you have a right to your opinion. No matter how strong you feel about the issue it can not be proven one way or the other. It is a theory. That theory being that global warming is caused by man. I support being friendly to the enviroment as much as possible but we still have a right to live on this planet as much as the next weed. It looks as if this issue is being used to push some sort of anti-human agenda. Who in thier right mind really feels the world deserves to be rid of humans? I say let them lead the way or STFU. Sorry but I'm done with this topic.
I think I need to go out and do something --
Raindog, I'm a moron.
Sorry.
But boy did I have one hell of an essay written ;)
Seriously, I won't beat myself up too much, but it's clear I'm a little too tired of this debate (AGW vs. Natural Cycles) to even read what's written before my post.
My hat's off to you sir for striving to get through to my clearly thick skull.
I sincerely apologize for not actually reading ALL of what you'd written.
Now for the rest: I don't believe man has anything to do with global climates, I personally believe the data is tainted and my gut tells me that that the AGW crowd is not only wrong, but also corrupt.
Thanks Raindog for finally getting through.
OlJarhead,
I read your long essay before you altered it, sorry you felt the need to change your post.
Quote from: pagancelt on February 17, 2010, 02:59:27 PM
OlJarhead,
I read your long essay before you altered it, sorry you felt the need to change your post.
Thanks Pag but in all honesty I was off on a tangent that wasn't warranted. Sadly, I let myself get into something due to other debates I've had without actually giving credit where it was due. The essay shoudl not have been addressed to raindog who was actually correct in my behavior. :-[
Perhaps I'm just too passionate about the subject and get carried away responding without paying enough attention to the individual -- in this case I certainly did and am somewhat ashamed of myself for doing so.
Raindog was absolutely correct in his assessment of my responses and thus, despite my 'essay' perhaps being well crafted it's no longer relevant.
Sorry.
Clearly I need to get to the cabin and some fresh air this weekend!
After having witnessed and participated in this thread and similar ones on other forums, what always strikes me is how similar the tree-hugging Goracle groupies and the Climate change deniers are. I mean, they share exactly the same mind set.
Willing to defend to the death, without question, the belief system they've been told to embrace.
Anyhow, nobody got killed. I do believe we may all survive this thread. ;)
Quote from: RainDog on February 17, 2010, 03:42:27 PM
After having witnessed and participated in this thread and similar ones on other forums, what always strikes me is how similar the tree-hugging Goracle groupies and the Climate change deniers are. I mean, they share exactly the same mind set.
Willing to defend to the death, without question, the belief system they've been told to embrace.
Anyhow, nobody got killed. I do believe we may all survive this thread. ;)
We may yet ;)
It is good sometimes, however, to listen and reflect on what's being said. After all, one might find (I certainly did) that taking a little more time to contemplate the responses might be in order before exhausting energies to refute a perceived point.