Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 14): Quoting Klaus (Reply 12): The sheer number of repetitions does not increase the validity of false claims. Funny, it applies to those who believe in man-made global warming as well...

Sure. "Belief" is just not required due to the presence of verifiable evidence.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16): "Belief" is just not required due to the presence of verifiable evidence.

Verifiable evidence can change according to the newest theories. There have been plenty of theories, proven during their time by 'verifiable evidence', that have been proven incorrect after additional evidence came to light.

And climate does NOT have the best record of correct prediction, witness the predictions of the last two hurricane seasons. You are essentially asking me to believe in a science that cannot verify what the weather will do two weeks from now but that they are correct in assumptions about what it will do ten years from now.

Again, if you had lived in the past, both recent and long past, you would have defended many consensus theories that are no longer applicable.

Hell, even last night I was watching a program about T-Rex last night. In my short 36 years, I have seen T-Rex assumptions (with verifiable evidence) change THREE times. Lately, dinosaur theories are changing AGAIN to believing that dinosaurs may NOT have disappeared after all, but that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs. And yet, seeing how science is ALWAYS in a state of flux, you are asking me to believe that this time they are correct.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17): Verifiable evidence can change according to the newest theories.

Wrong. It's the theories which have to adapt if the evidence requires it.

Thus far the theory of a significant human influence on global climate change has not just not been debunked by verifiable evidence, it has actually been vindicated the more the more evidence is accumulated. It has grown from a crazy and laughed-about outsider hypothesis to the mainstream theory in the climatology field of natural science which is now the basis for worldwide policy changes.

It takes a high level of consistency with accumulating evidence for a theory to get that far.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 17): Hell, even last night I was watching a program about T-Rex last night. In my short 36 years, I have seen T-Rex assumptions (with verifiable evidence) change THREE times. Lately, dinosaur theories are changing AGAIN to believing that dinosaurs may NOT have disappeared after all, but that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs. And yet, seeing how science is ALWAYS in a state of flux, you are asking me to believe that this time they are correct.

This is all fair game. And I will feed you another example you may already know. Geologists did not believe in "plate tectonics" until the 1960s, if not later. That's the most basic thing about geology, and the scientists did not get it! In fact they were hostile to it for the longest time!

I think scientists can get on the wrong track. But at least, when science IS wrong, it has good self-correction mechanisms. The best way to solve problems like this is to become a scientist. Skeptics are very valuable.

I am willing to entertain the idea that climate change from Co2 and coal plants is an unproven theory. But that seems random. So many phenomena are even more poorly understood. Fact is, you can model planet Earth, covered by an atmosphere like ours. You can cut down forests in that model, and add Co2. At the atomic level, you can simulate what happens.

That's what they are doing. The Earth is complicated but not THAT complicated. They are NOT predicting cloud patterns and hurricanes (very hard tasks). Instead, they are modeling 1 ball in space covered with air, against 1 Sun.

As they change the surface of the ball, its atmosphere composition etc, its temperature will change according to basic physics. Pretty simple right.

They know the forest coverage over time. They know our human Co2 emissions. Established laws of physics can explain what happens (if anything). The computer spits out an answer.

With those results, we get into debating "does sunlight against a co2 molecule induce heat-trapping" which we know to be a molecular fact, it does. Look at Venus for a nice example.

Just surmising HOW they do this work, but I really have no idea.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 18): Wrong. It's the theories which have to adapt if the evidence requires it.

Easy to have a global warming theory, when history and prior evidence shows that global warming and cooling have been a normal part of earth history for millenia. Global warming and cooling would have occurred whether we'd be responsible for it or not. My only issue is whether it is human caused. And my biggest question is whether the solution proposed is worse than the disease.

Humans have HAD to adapt to climate change since our arrival here. The Sahara is quite recent by earth history. The Pueblo indians were affected by a prolonged drought. The last Ice Age occurred a mere 10,000 years ago.

And frankly, global warming is NOTHING compared to other disasters that befall the earth in a regular basis. Eathquakes can create big tsunamis. The Cumbre Vieja could have a landslide anytime. Or we could have another meteor hit the earth, with an interesting article attached.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0706977104v1

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 1): Come to think of it, has anyone seen any unicorns lately?

HAHA!!

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2): We get it. Some of you think that Global Warming is a cult/church/sect/delusion/conspiracy/fallacy/hypocrisy.

All of the above. The real conservationist and rational discussion jumped the shark a few years ago.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2): How hard would it be to include a little thought?

Ask the enviro-cultists that. That knife cuts both ways, admittedly.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): It's a contradiction because we cannot dismiss reality.

Democrats do it all the time! haha.... sorry couldn't resist that one. Politicians in general ignore reality.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 14): And science can KILL in many instances.

Kinda like the hysteria over DDT. NOT using it has killed more people than not.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):

All I care about in the end is for BOTH sides to realize that science changes constantly, and the attitude that STOPS progress is the belief that 'now we have it right'. DO NOT STIFLE DEBATE, regardless of your opinions.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 19): The Earth is complicated but not THAT complicated.

Yes, it is complicated and remains so. When you do a search for what science has NOT been able to answer, you'd find some very basic questions in that list. Did you know, for example, that science still does not have an answer for how felines purr?

And reminds me of the same T-Rex show last night, as they were making comparisons with Jurassic Park. In the years since the movie came out, scientists have found that there are other (not understood steps) to get the Jurassic Park concept to happen.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): Easy to have a global warming theory, when history and prior evidence shows that global warming and cooling have been a normal part of earth history for millenia. Global warming and cooling would have occurred whether we'd be responsible for it or not.

For the current rapidly accelerating change which is what we're dealing with now, scientists have found entirely (or even predominantly) natural causes to be increasingly unlikely.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): My only issue is whether it is human caused.

That is exactly what the theory in question is all about, not about the undisputed reality of natural cycles.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): And my biggest question is whether the solution proposed is worse than the disease.

That's not even a good joke.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): Humans have HAD to adapt to climate change since our arrival here.

And they've had several very close calls.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): The Pueblo indians were affected by a prolonged drought.

And there are indications that at least some of them starved and/or abandoned their homes after damaging or destroying the ecosystems around them. This kind of thing has happened several times in different regions of the world.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): And frankly, global warming is NOTHING compared to other disasters that befall the earth in a regular basis. Eathquakes can create big tsunamis. The Cumbre Vieja could have a landslide anytime. Or we could have another meteor hit the earth, with an interesting article attached.

Total fatalism is the least convincing approach to any possible problem I know.

Quoting Slider (Reply 21): The real conservationist and rational discussion jumped the shark a few years ago.

How so? You could only get that impression if all you follow was prime time mass media coverage.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23): Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): And my biggest question is whether the solution proposed is worse than the disease. That's not even a good joke.

Really, DDT and kudzu come to mind. Lobotomies as well. There have been plenty of cases where the cure was worse than the disease.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23): Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 20): The Pueblo indians were affected by a prolonged drought. And there are indications that at least some of them starved and/or abandoned their homes after damaging or destroying the ecosystems around them. This kind of thing has happened several times in different regions of the world.

CO2, which is required by plants to grow, does not constitute destroying the ecosystem. And we forget the example of Easter Island. There are far worse things that humans have done to the environment that adding CO2 to it.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23): Total fatalism is the least convincing approach to any possible problem I know.

Fatalism? Why? It is simply reality. I have not used any examples that are not from the recent or very recent past. From the article above, it seems that the last Ice Age could have been caused by a bolide exploding above ground a mere 10,000 years ago. Will it happen again? You bet. Could it be tomorrow? Ditto there as well. And do global warming proponents not use fatalism in their arguments as well?

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 22): DO NOT STIFLE DEBATE, regardless of your opinions.

Unfortunately, the political skullduggery from the White House aimed at bona fide scientific research on the global warming issue -- coupled with "findings" that oil companies can purchase and research "foundations" that these same companies can just as easily manufacture are designed to do just that.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 24): How so? You could only get that impression if all you follow was prime time mass media coverage.

Or Anet...

Aloges, unfortunately, the mass media HAS framed the debate and thus it has become rather polarized. The rational thought has been drowned out.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 25): Really, DDT and kudzu come to mind. Lobotomies as well. There have been plenty of cases where the cure was worse than the disease.

Don't believe the hype. DDT is fine. THe hysteria over it was a scam. Meanwhile, how many have died due to unchecked malaria because of its prohibition?

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 26): Unfortunately, the political skullduggery from the White House

Speaking of political skullduggery.


Green crusades lot of talk
By Stephen Dinan, Washington Times February 19, 2008

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama have called for strict mandatory limits to control greenhouse gases but they aren’t leading by example — each has failed to pay for offsets to cover all of his campaign’s carbon emissions.

Campaign finance records for 2007 show that neither of the two leading presidential candidates has spent money to independently cover his campaign’s "carbon footprint"

"They clearly should be not only buying these ration coupons, or indulgences, but they should be massively reducing their footprint," said Christopher Horner, author of the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming." "The fact that they’re out front on [global warming] is where their troubles start."

http://junkscience.com/blog_js/2008/02/19/green-crusades-lot-of-talk/


More hypocrisy by the Politicians that try to use the natural fluctuations of our planets climate to tax us but then do not follow there own advice to us.

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 26): Unfortunately, the political skullduggery from the White House...

So, you think only one side has done so??

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23): For the current rapidly accelerating change which is what we're dealing with now, scientists have found entirely (or even predominantly) natural causes to be increasingly unlikely.

Which scientists? Which studies have shown that natural cause is unlikely?




From the RSS monthly anomalies.


Where is the rapid accelerating increase? Looks like pretty steady ups and downs except for the El Nino year. Well within narural cycles.The only accelerating increase is on the models of the alarmist. Well

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 29): Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 26): Unfortunately, the political skullduggery from the White House... So, you think only one side has done so??

You shouldn't assume that.

Quoting Slider (Reply 27): The rational thought has been drowned out.

Which is exactly why I posted reply 2. I would much appreciate discussion beyond the level that makes national/worldwide headlines these days, but alas, that is rare. Oh well, such is life... not a bowl of cherries.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 32): Oh well, such is life... not a bowl of cherries.

yeah, cherries are endangered because of rising temperatures! Crops are being made extinct!

LMAO!!

Good points though, seriously.  

Another Global Temp Index Dives in January 08, This Time HadCRUT

The global surface temperature anomaly data from the UK Hadley Climate Research Unit has just been released, and it shows a significant drop in the global temperature anomaly in January 2008, to just 0.034C, just slightly above zero. This caps a full year of temperature drop from HadCRUT’s January 2007 value of 0.632C.

The ∆T for the past 12 months is minus 0.595°C which is in line with other respected global temperature metrics that I have reported on in the past two weeks. RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.”

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...-dives-in-jan08-this-time-hadcrut/







Notice the steady drop over the last four to six years. The trend will be pointing down very soon. Why is the Main Stream media not covering this?

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 34): Why is the Main Stream media not covering this?

One significant factor might be that the sources are considered unreliable, and having a tendency. Your graph as such has not been produced by the UK unit you mentioned, and the site that hosts it, ICECAP.US, also hosts a number of well-know global warming deniers and sceptics. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Icecap

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): To dismiss science is to dismiss reality itself

In some parts of the world, the creation story is called "science", go figure  

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 35): One significant factor might be that the sources are considered unreliable, and having a tendency. Your graph as such has not been produced by the UK unit you mentioned, and the site that hosts it, ICECAP.US, also hosts a number of well-know global warming deniers and sceptics. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...cecap

Once again with the typical alarmist response. If you do not like the fugures attack the source.  

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 35): One significant factor might be that the sources are considered unreliable, and having a tendency

Little or no warming in the last ten years and a cooling trend the last few.Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit ,an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years. And even then can you tell us what portion of that is man made and then that it is Co2 that is causing it???

Can you prove without a shadow of a doubt that you can rule out Land Use? UHI effect? Dubious record keeping, The closing of numerous cold weather stations at the end of the cold war? A combination of all of the above? Can you show us the studies that eliminates all of that and points a smoking gun at Co2. Or will you use that there is a consensus among scientist???  

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 35): ICECAP.US, also hosts a number of well-know global warming deniers and sceptics. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...cecap

Deniers and skeptics. How about Scientist and Climatologist? If they agree with the Man is at fault side of the story they are scientist and if they do not then they are

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 35): well-know global warming deniers and sceptics

Apparently Alarmist also think that if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?  




Okay this one is right from the Alarmist website . Untouched by skeptic hands. See the decline. Hard to miss

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 38): So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment

I for one am not in the habit of quoting those sites since their contents could be compromised.

I hope your "government" does not include any (or all of the) government agencies?

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 38): Okay this one is right from the Alarmist website

Ok, I figured this one out, this UK academic institution is an Alarmist institution. May I continue referencing to it all the same?

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 38): See the decline. Hard to miss

Depends on the smoothing used. From the same site: (includes data up to Dec 2007)





From the last graph we can quite clearly see the tendency of the averaged global temperature to oscillate at a reasonably regular interval (the "reds" and the "blues" are not randomly organized), and that the present trend fits that larger picture quite well. The latest "dip" was a small one due to that one strikingly anomalous year 1998. I know of no other explanation here than the regular storing/releasing of heat by the various oceanic oscillations.

Perhaps we'll remember this discussion when the yearly interval trend is firmly upwards globally again?

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 39): Perhaps we'll remember this discussion when the yearly interval trend is firmly upwards globally again?

But that still does not answer

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 38): the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit ,an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years. And even then can you tell us what portion of that is man made and then that it is Co2 that is causing it??? Can you prove without a shadow of a doubt that you can rule out Land Use? UHI effect? Dubious record keeping, The closing of numerous cold weather stations at the end of the cold war? A combination of all of the above? Can you show us the studies that eliminates all of that and points a smoking gun at Co2. Or will you use that there is a consensus among scientist???

And I have never met or heard of a scientist called "consensus"

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 39): From the last graph we can quite clearly see the tendency of the averaged global temperature to oscillate at a reasonably regular interval

And the last graph continues to show that no year since 1998 has passed it in temps and the last five have flattened and then went down. ANd also why does the Northern graph I pulled of the site show a definate down trend and the one you did show temps still rising in januuary when we had the coldest jan in a long time? Meanwhile the whole time the Co2 rise has been steadily going up. Maybe it actually is the Sun?

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 40): ANd also why does the Northern graph I pulled of the site show a definate down trend and the one you did show temps still rising in januuary when we had the coldest jan in a long time

One of the remaining great mysteries of our times that I for one can't crack. But that I know it was predicted a relatively long time ago that global warming would affect first high Northern latitudes in winter. Locations that were predicted to become "hot" have done just so in recent years and in the correct times. If you do not live in those parts, chances are you'd be initially less affected.

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 39): Ok, I figured this one out, this UK academic institution is an Alarmist institution. May I continue referencing to it all the same?

Well lets look at the hadley Center review for 2006.


1. Is the Hadley Centre world leading?
The Hadley Centre is currently regarded as a world leading climate modelling centre.
No other single body has a comparable breadth of climate change science, data analysis
and modelling, or has made the same contribution to global climate science and
current knowledge.
The UK Government’s role in international climate change policy has been strongly
supported by Hadley’s world leading status and Hadley’s stakeholders value this
international standing.

Okay as for Climate modeling we know that a model is only as good as the Data put in to it. And since there has been no rise in overall temps in the last five years I wonder if the models predicted that or did they point to the Sky like an Atlas V rocket? And since moisture is the number one greenhouse gas and there is no way to tell how much moisture is in the air and how much rain is falling on the planet at any one time I guess they have to Guess what that is?

2. Are Hadley’s customers and stakeholders satisfied?
Hadley delivers high levels of customer satisfaction. The materials they provide are
generally considered to be of a high standard and fit for purpose.

This one I really love. Are the customers happy and satisfied? Who is paying the bill to keep this people happily employed and does their results tilt towards what the "client wants" and if not does the funding dry up??


3. Is the Hadley Centre providing value for money?
This review has concluded that the Hadley Centre is providing value for money. We
have qualitatively assessed alternative options for delivery and conclude that there is no
other credible means of meeting the requirement as cost-effectively. We have
identified some opportunities for efficiency gains for consideration by Hadley,
although it has proved difficult to assess these formally.

Once again the all important funding. If there is no man made GW disaster does a big chunk of funding dry up??

Quoting AverageUser (Reply 39): Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 38): Okay this one is right from the Alarmist website Ok, I figured this one out, this UK academic institution is an Alarmist institution. May I continue referencing to it all the same?

Okay, Agreed that I overstepped that one. But it is the same as NASA or NOAA in that it is only as good as the people leading it and the agenda they put forth. NASA and NOAA have people on both sides and to me they are being paid to do the work of the taxpayers and not what certain individuals pick up as there personal or political crusade. They still have an aganda and that is funding. Whether the money comes fron XOM, Greenpeace or Big Government a grant usually has something attached to it.


I know that all scientists are not money grubbing Dr Evils for the most part but money is what makes the scientific world go round and round. As the line from the Right stuff goes, " No bucks, No Buck Rogers"


And also the Met office gets its data from the Hadley Center. Why does it have a page that only shows pro man made warming news. If it is a governmnet site should not be unbiased and not have an agenda and show both sides of the story?

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

Why does it have a whole section that trys to debunk skeptics?

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

Should not a government funded site not have a neutral agenda and show both sides of the story? Political agendas at there best.

Okay here is the Actual Hadley projection for the next 100 years. While not quite and Atlas V rocket it is quite the Climb rate. Now look at the rate for the 2005 to 2010 area and compare it to the other graph I had posted from their site. One is going up (the Model) and one The actual temps) from the Hadley Center is flatlined and actually going down at the end. It looks like the model cannot even predict the first 10 years let alone 100 years.

The

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 42): Hadley%u2019s customers and stakeholders

Should be asking for their money back

Ironically, here's an article I just happened to come across the same day I waded thru this thread.

A noted "skeptic" and his point of view.
http://timespublications.com/feb08-feature2.asp

Nothing earth shattering, but just a plea for open, non-McCarthyistic debate.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): Quoting NWA742 (Reply 5): ....all of this nonsense revolves around cult, delusion, fallacy, etc. If so then I recommend you never fly in airplanes...

great post!

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 14): Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): Do you suppose scientists are publicity hounds? How, then, do they get research funds?

All academics and scientists need to be funded. But their conclusions are free in general when the funding comes from universities and scientific foundations. Their results should be reproducible, allow predictions, and fit other criteria for good science (which they do for the most part).

The real meddling and agendas have come from politicians (NOT scientists) around the Bush administration and oil lobbyists--who have changed wordings, pressured "their" scientists to find what they wanted them to find, etc., even threatened to fire people. I know of no such coersions among mainstream scientists who do believe that global warming is a human consequence, only among the skeptics. (By the way, this meddling by the Bush administration is not just about global warming. This administration is the first ever to have interfered in various scientific endeavors in order to pressure scientists in several areas because of religious or economic interests. It is a horrifically dangerous precedent.)

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 37): Once again with the typical alarmist response. If you do not like the fugures attack the source.

Of course, the deniers never attack sources and messengers like Al Gore... (Gore may by a hypocrite, and he personally isn't a scientist. But that doesn't in any way invalidate most of his claims gotten FROM scientists.)

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 38): Apparently Alarmist also think that if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Those organizations do have agendas. But Greenpeace and the Sierra club don't fund scientists really, they campaign based on the findings of others. And governments tend to have agendas (conscious or unconscious) AGAINST finding global warming is bad, since it will force spending and difficult economic decisions... So this is basically an irrelevant point. Strike 1...

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 42): If it is a governmnet site should not be unbiased and not have an agenda and show both sides of the story?

The "other side" have their handful of scientists with opposing views, and a healthy number of followers who mainly hail from the U.S., and a lot of virtual blogosphere space where e.g. to visualize data and results provided by other ("alarmist", "government") institutions. Will that not be quite enough, and in accordance with the principles of free speech? What more do you want?

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 43): Okay here is the Actual Hadley projection for the next 100 years. While not quite and Atlas V rocket it is quite the Climb rate

Speaking of rates, there are valleys and peaks in the UK prediction, just like there are valleys and peaks in the recorded temperature history by the same institution. If you question global warming on the account of a downward rate now, would you be happy to be questioned back hard when the rate will reverse?

[Edited 2008-02-26 02:00:39]

Quoting 4holer (Reply 44): A noted "skeptic" and his point of view. http://timespublications.com/feb08-feature2.asp Nothing earth shattering, but just a plea for open, non-McCarthyistic debate.

[Professor Robert C.] Balling has acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_C._Balling

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 22): Yes, it is complicated and remains so.

Agreed. We THINK we know a lot about the world and that our technology is very advanced, but in reality our knowledge is minuscule.

Quoting Elite (Reply 48): our knowledge is minuscule.

I would not say it is minuscule, but a great part of it is directed to doing things the wrong and harmful way.