[OldManMac]

There are a lot of wacos and wakos out there, so it's conceivable that **** could be made up.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Here's my counter point:

I guess you got confused, because that's a response to a different article! LOL

Anyway, I already replied to this article in another thread, where I supposed you copied it from.

[Buckaroo]

NOW PREPARE FOR 'DANGEROUS GLOBAL COOLING'

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

Read the sunspots

[Buckaroo]

I'm not sure what a fjord is.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I'm not sure what a fjord is.

Yet you pop in here and post an article that has to do with fjords!

Fjord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Yet you pop in here and post an article that has to do with fjords!

Fjord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was just kidding.

[Buckaroo]

Too little, too late: Gore blames scientists for climate crisis

Too little, too late: Gore blames scientists for climate crisis - Independent Online Edition > Climate Change

In an extraordinary outburst aimed at America's failure to tackle global warming, Al Gore says that if scientific agreement on the climate crisis had been reached sooner it would have been easier to "galvanise the public and persuade Congress to act".


This moron will never give up on his lies. He is a true blue liar politician.

[tie]

Buckaroo, I don't think you bothered to read past the headline.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Too little, too late: Gore blames scientists for climate crisis

Too little, too late: Gore blames scientists for climate crisis - Independent Online Edition > Climate Change

In an extraordinary outburst aimed at America's failure to tackle global warming, Al Gore says that if scientific agreement on the climate crisis had been reached sooner it would have been easier to "galvanise the public and persuade Congress to act".


This moron will never give up on his lies. He is a true blue liar politician.

I think that if I had called you a moron as many times as you have called Gore a moron I would have been banned from these forums long ago. Good thing I restrained myself...

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by tie 

Buckaroo, I don't think you bothered to read past the headline.

Sometimes I goof and don't read the whole thing. I'll have to take a look at the story.

[Buckaroo]

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny


Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Other Views

I haven't read the whole article, but I've read enough to see that Gore is an idiot. He doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

"Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims."

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Ars Technica

Modern warming: sun down, temps up

Perhaps to avoid the fact that the earlier paper was sometimes ignored, the authors are remarkably blunt. Half of the abstract is comprised of a clear statement of their conclusions: "Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."

Link to article: Modern warming: sun down, temps up

[Buckaroo]

Now, China's polution is crossing the Pacific to California.

Science Journal - WSJ.com

[Uncle Skeleton]

What's your point, buck? Now you believe in man-made climate change? Is it just because America isn't implicated by this article, is that why you believe it?

[Buckaroo]

It's Hillary's favorite number 666.

[Buckaroo]

Remember Global Cooling?

Remember Worries About Global Cooling? - Newsweek Technology - MSNBC.com



In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.

[OldManMac]

I would like to believe that we've learned just a smidge more about climatology and the effects of pollution in 32 years, but you have to get credit for popping in every once in a while to post another link, and then running.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I would like to believe that we've learned just a smidge more about climatology and the effects of pollution in 32 years, but you have to get credit for popping in every once in a while to post another link, and then running.

"Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling."

We certainly have learned a great deal about climatology and the effects of pollution in 32 years and hopefully, we'll learn a great deal more in the next 32 years. Personally, I'd like to see a little less "urging government" and a little more "urging science". Who knows, it may not take another 32 years to turn our current understanding on its head.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Remember Global Cooling?

...

The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism. Astronomers have been warning for decades that life on Earth could be wiped out by a collision with a giant meteorite; it hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean that journalists have been dupes or alarmists for reporting this news. Citizens can judge for themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what occurred 30 years ago.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling."

We certainly have learned a great deal about climatology and the effects of pollution in 32 years and hopefully, we'll learn a great deal more in the next 32 years. Personally, I'd like to see a little less "urging government" and a little more "urging science". Who knows, it may not take another 32 years to turn our current understanding on its head.

Bullshit. The Global Warning scientist are using a broken program with bad data to predict global warming. No one really knows the truth. They can't even predict the weather right.

It's all smoke and mirrors for an excuse to stop progress. The waco's want to put us back into the stone ages.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Bullshit. The Global Warning scientist are using a broken program with bad data to predict global warming. No one really knows the truth. They can't even predict the weather right.

It's all smoke and mirrors for an excuse to stop progress. The waco's want to put us back into the stone ages.

You're welcome to this view Buckaroo, but I think you'll be hard-pressed in getting someone to buy off on the fact that all who believe this are wishing us back to the stone age. That said; the operative phrase in my post and the reason for posting it was;

"Personally, I'd like to see a little less "urging government" and a little more "urging science". Who knows, it may not take another 32 years to turn our current understanding on its head."

[besson3c]

I don't believe in Buckaroo. I think he must be a conspiracy created by Liberals and Jimmy Carter to control big business.

[BadKosh]

Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder

Agency roasted after Toronto blogger spots `hot years' data fumble

Aug 14, 2007 04:30 AM
DANIEL DALE
STAFF REPORTER

In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.

After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review.

Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998.

More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.

NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy."

But the revisions have been seized on by conservative Americans, including firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that climate change science is unsound.

Said Limbaugh last Thursday: "What do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA ... is in the scientific community with false data."

However Stephen McIntyre, who set off the uproar, described his finding as a "a micro-change. But it was kind of fun."

A former mining executive who runs the blog ClimateAudit.org, McIntyre, 59, earned attention in 2003 when he put out data challenging the so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting a spike in global temperatures.

This time, he sifted NASA's use of temperature anomalies, which measure how much warmer or colder a place is at a given time compared with its 30-year average.

Puzzled by a bizarre "jump" in the U.S. anomalies from 1999 to 2000, McIntyre discovered the data after 1999 wasn't being fractionally adjusted to allow for the times of day that readings were taken or the locations of the monitoring stations.

McIntyre emailed his finding to NASA's Goddard Institute, triggering the data review.

"They moved pretty fast on this," McIntyre said. "There must have been some long faces."

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We certainly have learned a great deal about climatology and the effects of pollution in 32 years and hopefully, we'll learn a great deal more in the next 32 years. Personally, I'd like to see a little less "urging government" and a little more "urging science". Who knows, it may not take another 32 years to turn our current understanding on its head.

But current science says that 32 years from now will be too late.

Here's a good opinion article on the current administration's efforts to "urge science."

If the president's FY 2008 budget is enacted, it will mark a regression of federal R&D spending to pre-2004 levels, a 7.4 percent reduction adjusted for inflation, according to a recent report by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
...
Even more significantly, the nature of federal R&D spending has shifted. Since 2003, government spending on health and science research has been eclipsed by spending on weapons development, according to the AAAS. The trend is a significant departure from the late 1990s, when the Clinton administration, flush with budget surpluses, doubled the research budget of the National Institutes of Health. Since 2004, the NIH research budget has been cut every year.

And climate science is even worse, since it is being so heavily censored and politically manipulated by the current administration.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder

Agency roasted after Toronto blogger spots `hot years' data fumble

Aug 14, 2007 04:30 AM
DANIEL DALE
STAFF REPORTER

In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.

Actually it's true. For 2% of the earth. The temperatures are for the 48 contiguous states only, not globally. Is 1934 statistically important by itself? Probably not, what concerns me, and lots of others are the trends that these temperatures are following, globally and domestically.

Despite all this, it's still true that, that the hottest 20 years globally since 1880 are:

2005
1998
2002
2003
2006
2004
2001
1997
1995
1990
1991
2000
1999
1988
1996
1987
1983
1981
1994
1944

All but one are in the past 25 years...

[BadKosh]

The lefties are not known for being detailed thinkers either. I'll wait until the computer models are more accurate, and real scientists dig thru the data, methods and theories and can explain the last ice ages, warm periods between them, and the many fluctuations of gasses in our atmosphere that didn't match the BS Gore and the Global Warming crowd says. I hear that Venus and Mars are also having warming spells. It would be funny if THAT was the real cause of the recent temperature rises. Climate and Weather are two different things.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The lefties are not known for being detailed thinkers either. I'll wait until the computer models are more accurate, and real scientists dig thru the data, methods and theories and can explain the last ice ages, warm periods between them, and the many fluctuations of gasses in our atmosphere that didn't match the BS Gore and the Global Warming crowd says. I hear that Venus and Mars are also having warming spells. It would be funny if THAT was the real cause of the recent temperature rises. Climate and Weather are two different things.

Glacial and inter-glacial periods are most likely due to Milankovitch cycles. Have a look at them.

Global warming on Venus? Tell us about it. Give us the primary factor for why that is occuring there.

Fluctuations of gasses? Which gasses and how much are they fluctuating?

Yes, climate and weather are two different things. I hope buckaroo picks up on that.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

The Global Warning scientist are using a broken program with bad data to predict global warming. No one really knows the truth. They can't even predict the weather right.

[BadKosh]

The Milankovitch cycles aren't producing the heat. I'm talking about the long duration solar output cycles. Most are aware of the sunspot cycles, but the electromagnetic frequencies radiating from the sun change too. We are getting lower frequencies of heat right now. There seem to be 6-7 different sets of fluctuations, all with different periods. It's making Mars warmer too.

Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics

I have to refind the links to the gases and their fluctuations. I don't know if Volcanos made a difference. It was gasses trapped in other materials that showed cooler temps but higher CO2.

[besson3c]

Well, all I know is that this environment stuff is Bill Clinton's and Jimmy Carter's fault. I'm assuming that Jimmy Carter was working some corrupt pollution deals with Islamo-facist terrorists while Clinton was having sex with an intern.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

But current science says that 32 years from now will be too late.

Too late? We'll all be dead in 32 years? This is more serious than I thought.

Here's a good opinion article on the current administration's efforts to "urge science."

Actually, I was referring to science "urging science" as opposed to "urging government". When you urge government, you enter politics. A very dirty business.

And climate science is even worse, since it is being so heavily censored and politically manipulated by the current administration.

I don't understand. Is this administration doing less for climate science than the last administration?

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Too late? We'll all be dead in 32 years? This is more serious than I thought.

Too late in many senses. Fixing a problem nearly always becomes more expensive the longer you wait. But in this case, it is worse, because there are many feedback cycles we need to worry about. For example, we're melting 40,000-year-old permafrost now. And there's enough CO2 and methane trapped in the world's permafrost to increase greenhouse gas levels by a factor of 10. The science we have now tells us that the problem is going to become much more serious, the longer we wait to deal with it.

Basically, the CO2 we emit over the next 32 years will remain in the atmosphere for the next few thousand years. Actually, I think the timeframe we have to work with is even shorter than that, more like 20 years.

Here are some statistics (source is Nathan Lewis):

Although major uncertainties remain, most climate-change researchers set 550 ppmv as the upper limit of what would lead to about a two-degree-Centigrade mean global temperature rise. This is projected to have significant, but possibly not catastrophic, impacts on the earth's climate. For example, the coral reefs would probably all die... If we want to hold CO2 even to 550 ppmv, even with aggressive energy efficiency we will need as much clean, carbon-free energy within the next 40 years, online, as the entire oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear industries today combined---10 to 15 terawatts... Furthermore, if we wait 30 years, the amount of carbon-free energy we'll need will be even greater, and needed even faster, because in the meantime we'll have put out 30 years of accumulated CO2 emissions that will not go away for centuries to millennia. So stabilizing at 550 ppmv will then require about 15 to 20 terawatts of carbon-free power in 2050.

Actually, I was referring to science "urging science" as opposed to "urging government". When you urge government, you enter politics. A very dirty business.

Who do you think funds the science? Is your position that we should "urge" the science, but not fund it? The article I linked to was about how government funding for science is dropping.

I don't understand. Is this administration doing less for climate science than the last administration?

What do you think?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Too late in many senses. Fixing a problem nearly always becomes more expensive the longer you wait. But in this case, it is worse, because there are many feedback cycles we need to worry about. For example, we're melting 40,000-year-old permafrost now. And there's enough CO2 and methane trapped in the world's permafrost to increase greenhouse gas levels by a factor of 10. The science we have now tells us that the problem is going to become much more serious, the longer we wait to deal with it.

Basically, the CO2 we emit over the next 32 years will remain in the atmosphere for the next few thousand years. Actually, I think the timeframe we have to work with is even shorter than that, more like 20 years.

Here are some statistics (source is Nathan Lewis):

egadz. All very scary stuff. I'd say without funding we're looking at less than 5 years. I'm more worried about global tensions warming and am personally pleased that we've cut junk science spending in favor of defense spending.

Who do you think funds the science? Is your position that we should "urge" the science, but not fund it? The article I linked to was about how government funding for science is dropping.

My point had nothing to do with funding. If you'd like to discuss funding, we can. I don't appreciate science "urging" government action. Soliciting government funding is an act of survival and is expected, but getting too close to government policy is dirty business.

- From 1995 to 2001; Climate science funding was cut from $2.234B to $1.886B, representing a cut of 15.6%. As a proportion of domestic discretionary spending the cut is 23%.

- From 2002 to 2006; Climate science funding was cut from $1.792B to $1.674B ( both in "constant dollars"), representing a cut of 6.6%. As a proportion of domestic discretionary spending the cut is 20%.

The article you linked spent a bit too much of its opening on stem-cell research which is yet another tired partisan conflict. I got bored and exited the article. Did it get around to discussing the decreased cuts under the Bush Administration for global climate research?

What do you think?

No, but this was your opportunity to show otherwise. What do you think?

[Buckaroo]

Here is one that I agree with. At home I don't drink bottled water, I do filter it, but I don't buy bottled water. I believe it is a total waste of money. All the bottling company does is take standard tap water, filter it and bottle it. The plastic used for the bottles is from oil, the trucks that drive it around consume fuel. It is a total waste on the environment.

The new public enemy Number 1: bottled water

At work, I do drink the water from those big 5 gallon jugs the company buys. I'd just as well drink filtered water if they would attach a filter to the sinks. When I'm out and about, I just drink from the fountain, or drink a soda. I don't like paying for a stupid bottle of water.

[Uncle Skeleton]

What's your point, buck? Now you believe in man-made climate change? Is it just because this is something that saves you money, is that why you believe it now? Who's the real "master of hypocrisy?"

[BadKosh]

OK, so if the CO2 we put in the atmosphere is gonna stay there a THOUSAND YEARS, WHO put the stuff in the atmosphere a thousand years ago we are breathing now? I don't think the Global warming people are on the same page. I see that the estimates of melted glaciers was wrong too! Seems the glaciers have thickened in the middle, and squeezed out the edges which then melted or fell into the seas. The problem seems to be the snapshot look the GW folks are using don't explain a lot of whats really happening. You can't trust the faulty, and bogus formulas they use either it seems.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

OK, so if the CO2 we put in the atmosphere is gonna stay there a THOUSAND YEARS, WHO put the stuff in the atmosphere a thousand years ago we are breathing now?

Are you talking about O2 or CO2 when you say 'stuff?' If it's O2, then plants otherwise animals for CO2. There has always been CO2 around - it's natural. Remember that off-target campaign - 'CO2 isn't pollution?'

You should try to be clear in your writing.

I don't think the Global warming people are on the same page. I see that the estimates of melted glaciers was wrong too! Seems the glaciers have thickened in the middle, and squeezed out the edges which then melted or fell into the seas.

Thickening and narrowing of glaciers (are you talking about Antarctica, Greenland, others) makes them less stable and more likely to flow - exactly what is being seen in Greenland.

News in Science - Greenland icecap thickens despite warming - 21/10/2005

But satellite measurements showed that more snowfall is falling and thickening the icecap, especially at high altitudes, say Johannessen and team.

"The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 5 centimetres a year or 54 centimetres over 11 years."

But, they say, the thickening seems consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.

Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more moisture. That extra moisture falls as snow below 0°C.

And the scientists say that the thickening of the icecap might be offset by a melting of glaciers around the fringes of Greenland. Satellite data is not good enough to measure the melt nearer sea level.

You say the estimates are wrong but then say they're melting? In the case of Greenland, they're speeding up, probably more than can be balanced by a light dusting of snow.

In addition, large ice sheets have collapsed in the Arctic and on Antarctica. Arctic sea ice extent and thickness has been decreasing for decades.

[BadKosh]

How long does it take to go from Little Ice Age back to "normal" Are we there yet? Anybody seriously looking at outside sources for the increase in temp, or would that preclude GUILT from driving the liberals and Global warming people?

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

egadz. All very scary stuff. I'd say without funding we're looking at less than 5 years. I'm more worried about global tensions warming and am personally pleased that we've cut junk science spending in favor of defense spending.

Great non-response.

My point had nothing to do with funding.

Well, I don't know what your point was. You are saying that we need to "urge" the science forward, but also that we should cut its funding?

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Here is one that I agree with. At home I don't drink bottled water, I do filter it, but I don't buy bottled water. I believe it is a total waste of money. All the bottling company does is take standard tap water, filter it and bottle it. The plastic used for the bottles is from oil, the trucks that drive it around consume fuel. It is a total waste on the environment.

It sounds to me like you are just jumping on the bandwagon to try to drive us all back into the stone age!

Originally Posted by BadKosh

OK, so if the CO2 we put in the atmosphere is gonna stay there a THOUSAND YEARS, WHO put the stuff in the atmosphere a thousand years ago we are breathing now?

Whoah, that's a real hard question. It must be aliens. After all, the earth is only two thousand years old, right?

Originally Posted by BadKosh

The lefties are not known for being detailed thinkers either.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How long does it take to go from Little Ice Age back to "normal" Are we there yet? Anybody seriously looking at outside sources for the increase in temp, or would that preclude GUILT from driving the liberals and Global warming people?

Yup. There's been tons of looking at outside sources to explain the increase in temperatures. Zee list: Malankovitch cycles, solar/cosmic radiation, natural fluctuations of x type, data inaccuracies, model inaccuracies, yadda yadda yadda. (You would know this, if you had done any background study at all or even know what the hell you're supposed to be talking about.) No one can identify any "external" influences, or problems with current data conclusions, that might possibly account for what's going on...or at least, none that are nearly as comprehensive as "massively expanding human population producing a sh!tload of byproducts," anyway.

Of course, your laughable arguments already presented clearly indicate that you have no effin' idea what you're talking about, in any case. "Real" scientists haven't looked at the data yet?? Our computer models aren't accurate? Hah. As for your linked "paper" on solar activity, do you have a date for that link? I could not find a single listed reference older than 1998 (and I don't believe any at that date were peer-reviewed papers, though I could be wrong). If this is a new theory on solar activity that the thousands of scientists studying climate change can't account for, I surely hope there's evidence for it more newer than a decade old, hmmmm? If it's the article itself that's old...well then, why are we reading it today??

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by tie 

Well, I don't know what your point was. You are saying that we need to "urge" the science forward, but also that we should cut its funding?

He's responding to the highly unusual situation of scientists insisting that their findings come with an obligatory change in public policy attached. This is something that pretty much never happens in any field of science. The vast majority of scientific findings are worded with elaborate explanations downplaying the immediate implications for public policy, with tons of "mays" and "possiblys" and especially "further investigations would be neededs." For scientists to say their findings mean you have to stop everything right now and do what they say is quite an extraordinary claim (especially at the same time they're asking for the gracious donation of more funding from the very same audience). Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

[Warren Pease]

oops

[tie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

He's responding to the highly unusual situation of scientists insisting that their findings come with an obligatory change in public policy attached. This is something that pretty much never happens in any field of science. The vast majority of scientific findings are worded with elaborate explanations downplaying the immediate implications for public policy, with tons of "mays" and "possiblys" and especially "further investigations would be neededs." For scientists to say their findings mean you have to stop everything right now and do what they say is quite an extraordinary claim (especially at the same time they're asking for the gracious donation of more funding from the very same audience). Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

No, I don't think that was his point.

[BadKosh]

Short... Just tell us why Mars and Venus are also warming. You look at your "Perfect Models" as you infer, and tell us it HAS to be from something us people have done, not some other reason. They can't even tell you how much CLOUDS impact our climate!! Your dealing with so much estimated amounts of everything, from glacier ice, to gas expended from volcanoes to how to estimate the percentage of all gases in our atmosphere 10,000 years ago.

You statedYou would know this, if you had done any background study at all or even know what the hell you're supposed to be talking about.)

Actually I do. Thats why I KNOW they aren't even CLOSE to understanding the climate on earth, or any local planets. do YOU understand the newest solar data?

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What's your point, buck? Now you believe in man-made climate change? Is it just because this is something that saves you money, is that why you believe it now? Who's the real "master of hypocrisy?"

Don't get me wrong. I am always in favor on conservation. After a couple years with larger cars, I drove Honda Civics for many years. I'm against pollution, and I don't want to one extra penny to the foreign oil producers than I have too.

I have used florecent lights for many years. Anything to save a buck. hehehehe.

What I am against is the BS Global Warming crap. This is 100% BS. No one knows enough about the enviornment to understand what causes the temperatures to fluctuate from year to year. In fact the glaciers have been changing back and forth from the beginning of the first drop of snow. It's all in the cycle of the Earth. The Sun also has a big affect on temperatures.

One very important sign that the people that are preching this BS, is many years ago, they preched about how the loss of the Rain Forests was going to kill off all animal life (including man) because the Rain Forests produced all the Oxygen. Well that is BS. In fact the Rain Forests produce a fraction of the Oxygen. It's plant life in the ocean that produces the majority of the Oxygen.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I have used florecent lights for many years. Anything to save a buck. hehehehe.

HAHHEEHHEHAheehahah!! That's awesome! Heheh... good one!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Short... Just tell us why Mars and Venus are also warming.

Oooo, love this classic argument. Are you hypocritical much? You say that we don't have perfect models, and don't know enough about the earth to say for sure what exactly is happening...and then point to what seems to be happening on entirely other planets as some sort of "proof". Hell, we only have extremely localized data from either of those planets, for the past couple decades at best! If you say we don't know enough about the Earth to make predictions, after our million years of living on this damn globe, how the hell are we then supposed to know why Mars and Pluto might be warming up?!

Finally, I ask you...what, exactly, do you think could be a correlating cause between Mars and Pluto's supposed (remember, we don't even have enough data to know if those planets are warming or not) temperature increases and Earth's similar warming period? I assume you're talking about solar radiation, correct? How does that match with the fact that the sun's energy output has not significantly changed since we started direct measurements in the late 1970s? In addition, why do you point to only Mars and Pluto - if your insinuation is correct, shouldn't the rest of the planets be warming up as well? Are they? If so, why not?

The bottom line: you're making the same style of idiotic contrarian arguments that have been made since this issue came to the forefront. Almost by definition our knowledge of global climate will contain many, many areas about which we simply don't know enough. Your tactic is to continually seize upon one of these areas, and hold it up as some sort of "proof" that our lack of knowledge in this area somehow invalidates what we do know. When someone finally sighs in annoyance and enough scientific evidence is shown to dismiss your claim, you inevitably turn to the next unknown, and so on and so forth in agonizing fashion. (See: evolution debates.)

I leave you with a fun little link rebutting the "Mars/Pluto are warming!" argument (although, if the history of eBuddy and Doofy and Buckaroo and Spliffdaddy around here are any indication, I shouldn't expect you to read it). It also contains some in-depth links on the issue. I especially like the last little bit:

Back to Mars for a quick summary:

On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers worldwide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting, and stratospheric cooling, all of which leads us to believe the earth is undergoing global warming driven by an enhanced greenhouse effect.

One Mars we have one spot melting, which leads us to believe that ... one spot is melting.

Forgive me for not being reassured.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

(although, if the history of eBuddy and Doofy and Buckaroo and Spliffdaddy around here are any indication, I shouldn't expect you to read it).

You should aspire to treat your audience with at least the same amount of courtesy you would like to receive from them. But failing that, you shouldn't disparage others' attention to detail in the same post where you go on at length about pluto when you didn't notice it was actually venus... and then call the other guy a hypocrite. The irony is just too distracting.

[Warren Pease]

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Climate change hits Mars - Times Online

The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.

In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.

Fenton’s team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa’s Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker.

When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet.

There are two ideas.

I have no problem with the sun playing a part in climate (It is where 99% of our energy comes from), there are many different cycles at play that don't seem to match up with observation. Nineteen ninety-eight happened at a minimum in the solar irradiance and even as the irradiance ebbs now, the temperature continues to go up.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.u...irradiance.gif
(probably not a good graph, but shows my point. estimated solar irradiance?)

While temperature increases almost 0.8C the irradiance varies by 0.4w/m2 around 1366 w/m2. It doesn't seem like that is all that huge a change, 0.02% or 1/50th of 1%.

Also, the recent warming observed on Mars over 3 martian years occurred when the solar cycle was ebbing as well. :/ Solar doesn't seem to cut it as the cause for the changes we are seeing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Great non-response.

Let me assure you, the response I gave you was an adequate response to the may likely be you failed to add to each of the points you made above. I'm curious though since you saw to include a partisan talking point in your last post; did you have a better non-response to my point that the Bush Administration has cut less funding for global climate research from 2001 to date than from 1995 to 2001 under the Clinton Administration or are you going to pretend you didn't see that also?

Well, I don't know what your point was. You are saying that we need to "urge" the science forward, but also that we should cut its funding?

I said funding was a necessary part of the science's survival and that it was to be expected. "Urging" government action through policy however, is dirty business. Before you correct Uncle Skeleton on what you believe is his mistaken summary of my point, maybe you've missed what I've said earlier in this thread. Scientists should not be in the government policy business. Scientists should remain in the science business.

If you're too emotionally attached to the subject matter to address questions and points with some modicum of sobriety, maybe we should take a break for a while?

[BadKosh]

Short...

Why did you read Venus, and spout out "Pluto" ?


The frequency of the heat as electromagnetic radiation from the sun has shifted down a little, and some have suggested THIS as the reason we are absorbing just a little more heat.

Of course I don't say I know everything about astronomy, or heliophysics, but some of my associates know lots.