[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's a zillion reasons why we should better manage our resources and do everything we can not to pollute. Man made "global warming" just isn't really one of them. Not based on real science.

The problem is that the "left" is more passionate about it than the "right" and they think that in order to get action they have to lie and/or distort the truth to make things more dramatic. Their heart is in the right place (most of them, who aren't doing it to make a buck themselves like Gore) but the "ends justify the means" way of doing things always fails in the end.It's the same thing they've done with the Iraq war and abortion (the whole coathanger campaign).

Don't get me wrong...the right does the same thing on issues they are passionate about. The difference is, they don't have the majority of the mainstream media and Hollywood to toot their horns. They also don't have phony "awards" (like the Nobel Peace Prize) to bestow acclaim on liars and nuts.

Very nice summary.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Heh. Not reading any other argument but the one that supports your own view will do that to you, I guess.

Those who, on the other hand, investigate the work of their opponents, and realize that they're industry-backed frauds who aren't published scientists and who clearly state complete lies in their argument...well, they tend to take the resulting arguments with large grains of salt.

greg

Are we talking about that guy from NASA here? The one who used to insist that we were coming upon a new Ice Age, then once George Soro's cash started flowing drank of the "global warming meltdown" grape Flavor Aid?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Heh. Not reading any other argument but the one that supports your own view will do that to you, I guess.

One is pretty well inundated with GW alarmism. It's not like you have to go too far to find "the other arguments". Particularly around here.

Those who, on the other hand, investigate the work of their opponents, and realize that they're industry-backed frauds who aren't published scientists and who clearly state complete lies in their argument...well, they tend to take the resulting arguments with large grains of salt.

Too often the problem in this debate is that some people will only acknowledge one "industry" in their indictment and use this "oil" argument even when it doesn't exist. It has for them, become a way to avoid any investigation at all. The other problem is assuming those published scientists not sponsored by the oil industry who've focused their life's work on factors that don't include anthropogenic alarmism, but on what they consider the primary causes of GW; are deemed "opponents".

Since real scientists don't speak in such an adversarial fashion, the cause is left up to people like Al Gore; just another screaming, zealous voice in a long line of industry-backed frauds who aren't published scientists and who clearly state complete lies in their arguments.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Too often the problem in this debate is that some people will only acknowledge one "industry" in their indictment and use this "oil" argument even when it doesn't exist. It has for them, become a way to avoid any investigation at all. The other problem is assuming those published scientists not sponsored by the oil industry who've focused their life's work on factors that don't include anthropogenic alarmism, but on what they consider the primary causes of GW; are deemed "opponents".

The problem with this avenue of debate is that it doesn't really exist, or exists in such small quantity as to be irrelevant to the whole. Almost every visible contrarian in this particular debate (such as the aforementioned Singer/Avery duo) are non-scientists, or scientists in unrelated fields with no climate-science experience, or scientists in climate science who haven't done any work in the field for a significant period of time...who are backed by obvious GWG-emitting enterprises. This is one good reason why they are ignored – the other being, of course, that most of what they say is outright lies.[/quote]

Since real scientists don't speak in such an adversarial fashion, the cause is left up to people like Al Gore; just another screaming, zealous voice in a long line of industry-backed frauds who aren't published scientists and who clearly state complete lies in their arguments.

This statement is dubious at best. To my knowledge there was no outright lie in Gore's movie arguments. Please provide this example.

I have said myself that there is certainly something to be said about alarmism in this debate – and I'll be the first to stand up and say, "I hate hippies!" Really, the zealous propaganda one sees on TV makes me shake my head. Similarly, there is certainly something to be said about some of the ways Gore ties current extreme weather events to "global warming"...the simple fact is that there certainly has been no direct proven link. On the other hand, there is certainly no debate that a warming climate will almost certainly lead to more extreme weather events, which is the point he was trying to make, and I think it is a valid one.

So, you have clearly stated that Gore has lied multiple times in making arguments on the validity of "global warming." Once again could you please provide these examples? I would like to look at them for myself.

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The problem with this avenue of debate is that it doesn't really exist, or exists in such small quantity as to be irrelevant to the whole. Almost every visible contrarian in this particular debate (such as the aforementioned Singer/Avery duo) are non-scientists, or scientists in unrelated fields with no climate-science experience, or scientists in climate science who haven't done any work in the field for a significant period of time...who are backed by obvious GWG-emitting enterprises. This is one good reason why they are ignored – the other being, of course, that most of what they say is outright lies.

Do you know what an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is? You should. You just forwarded one. It's a classic!

"Well..your facts don't count because you don't aren't an accepted member of the Global Warming Fanatics fan club, all of which benefit from insisting that man-made global warming is a disaster waiting to happen. Now...if you were a charter member, and you gave us the facts them MAYBE we'd listen."

IOW...if you aren't a part of the established Global Warming fear patrol, the people who are won't listen and your argument is therefore irrelevant. Non scientific debate at it's finest! People who argue in this manner are the ones who can pretty much be dismissed at the very outset as an intellectual lightweight, IMO.

[Sherman Homan]

The Hurricane Season of 2007 is about to come to a close. Did anyone notice how it went this year? How did the predictions stack up?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

The problem with this avenue of debate is that it doesn't really exist, or exists in such small quantity as to be irrelevant to the whole. Almost every visible contrarian in this particular debate (such as the aforementioned Singer/Avery duo) are non-scientists, or scientists in unrelated fields with no climate-science experience, or scientists in climate science who haven't done any work in the field for a significant period of time...who are backed by obvious GWG-emitting enterprises. This is one good reason why they are ignored – the other being, of course, that most of what they say is outright lies.

This is beneath you. I've provided peer-reviewed studies that focus entirely on natural climate variation. I've quoted a Vice-Chair of the IPCC, an organization often cited as a reference of authority on global warming and he claims the hype is unfounded and unnecessary. He is neither in the pockets of big oil nor is he interested in throwing all of humanity down on a high-stakes game of "you're wrong, I'm right". There are literally hundreds of examples of scientists that have looked beyond the anthropogenic hype in search of answers. This argument is intellectually lazy greg and particularly offensive in light of the fact that I've given you peer-reviewed examples to the contrary.

This statement is dubious at best. To my knowledge there was no outright lie in Gore's movie arguments. Please provide this example.

... why is your criteria stringent regarding those who challenge anthropogenic warming yet loose when regarding others? What outright lies have been published by Avery and Singer with regard to this issue? *hint: be very careful here. Citing examples of something Singer or Avery may have said that was later deemed incorrect or citing something they said not related to this topic is not relevant. I will inundate you with a long pattern of Gore dishonesty should you choose to go down this path.

I have said myself that there is certainly something to be said about alarmism in this debate – and I'll be the first to stand up and say, "I hate hippies!" Really, the zealous propaganda one sees on TV makes me shake my head. Similarly, there is certainly something to be said about some of the ways Gore ties current extreme weather events to "global warming"...the simple fact is that there certainly has been no direct proven link. On the other hand, there is certainly no debate that a warming climate will almost certainly lead to more extreme weather events, which is the point he was trying to make, and I think it is a valid one.

Why are only these points valid when we have literally millions of years of evidence of natural climate change outside the influence of mankind? Why is it those who study and publish for peer review these works are deemed "opponents"? Why is it important to see Polar Bears (statistically growing in population) clinging on to a chunk of ice as if this is the last of it they can find anywhere in the region? Hype, alarmism, and dishonesty. Just another industry.

So, you have clearly stated that Gore has lied multiple times in making arguments on the validity of "global warming." Once again could you please provide these examples? I would like to look at them for myself.

I simply took your point and turned it against you greg. Since you can provide no lies, I should not be compelled to. However, should you decide to take the time I've got some on standby for you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do you know what an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is? You should. You just forwarded one. It's a classic!

"Well..your facts don't count because you don't aren't an accepted member of the Global Warming Fanatics fan club, all of which benefit from insisting that man-made global warming is a disaster waiting to happen. Now...if you were a charter member, and you gave us the facts them MAYBE we'd listen."

IOW...if you aren't a part of the established Global Warming fear patrol, the people who are won't listen and your argument is therefore irrelevant. Non scientific debate at it's finest! People who argue in this manner are the ones who can pretty much be dismissed at the very outset as an intellectual lightweight, IMO.

Not to even mention the number of those "authorities" used in Gore's film including economists, population migration "experts", etc... Of course, they are all members of the hype club so the points are valid. Any point that even hints at challenging the hype is met with shrieking, screaming zealots only interested in duct-taping your mouth shut. They must all be non-scientists and oil-industry hacks of course. It just never ends.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan 

The Hurricane Season of 2007 is about to come to a close. Did anyone notice how it went this year? How did the predictions stack up?

Now that I think about it, I don't recall any Hurricanes. In fact tornado season was mild also.

[Buckaroo]

A High Court judge ruled Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was 'alarmist' and 'exaggerated'

Mr Gore's documentary was found to contain 'nine scientific errors' by the judge.

Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film| News | This is London

[Buckaroo]

Here is a better description of his LIES.

FOXNews.com - Al Gore's Convenient Untruths - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

ERROR: Gore asserted that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said: "This is distinctly alarmist and part of Gore's "wake-up call". It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia." The judge added that "the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus."

ERROR: The film had also asserted that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" - but there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

There are seven more errors in the linked story.

[BadKosh]

The biggest error was not labeling the movie as Science Fiction.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The biggest error was not labeling the movie as Science Fiction.

Now that's what I'm talking about.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do you know what an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is? You should. You just forwarded one. It's a classic!

"Well..your facts don't count because you don't aren't an accepted member of the Global Warming Fanatics fan club, all of which benefit from insisting that man-made global warming is a disaster waiting to happen. Now...if you were a charter member, and you gave us the facts them MAYBE we'd listen."

IOW...if you aren't a part of the established Global Warming fear patrol, the people who are won't listen and your argument is therefore irrelevant. Non scientific debate at it's finest! People who argue in this manner are the ones who can pretty much be dismissed at the very outset as an intellectual lightweight, IMO.

*snort*

You're a little confused on the "appeal to authority" concept. You got it backwards. Someone else brought up authoritative figures to support a contrarian position; I was pointing out that those figures weren't authorities.

Do you know what the "failure to read" fallacy is?

Sooo...yeah. Your rant makes no sense. You can talk derisively about the "global warming club" all you want, but the fact remains that modern science is a highly specialized business, and "global climate science" carries that requirement into what were formerly multiple disciplines. To have non-scientists, or economists, or nuclear physicists, or politicians, or engineers held up as authorities as to why "global warming isn't man-made" is patently ridiculous.

To make a comparison to this thread: you don't see anyone attempting to prove the validity of anthropogenic climate change by pointing to Al Gore, do you? No. He is merely a person who has become successful by presenting the information of others; it is those "others" who people like myself turn to when debating the subject.

What you have in this thread is climate-skeptic contrarians taking the "anti-Al Gores" and saying "HAH! There is debate after all!" Well, unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, that opposition simply doesn't hold water. Look at eBuddy's arguments, for example: he's presented non-scientists, for-hire contrarians who earn their livelihoods by serving as big-industry opposition to topics such as tobacco effects and climate change, dead scientists who left unfinished work, and former scientists turned semi-politicians. There's certainly some good arguments in there, but it's buried in so much FUD that there's no logical way to extract them.

What outright lies have been published by Avery and Singer with regard to this issue?

I've already covered this; don't play dumb by making me type it out again. You can scroll back a couple pages to find out some of their lies I identified (such as their lies about wine-making in contemporary England.

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

*snort*

You're a little confused on the "appeal to authority" concept. You got it backwards. Someone else brought up authoritative figures to support a contrarian position; I was pointing out that those figures weren't authorities.

I don't believe that their appeal was their "authority", but rather the strength of their argument. You then tried to refute their argument by challenging their authority (not their argument). That's a logical fallacy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Again, you fail to read the material.

The argument presented was that there is no consensus on anthropogenic climate change. These "authorities" were presented as proof of that claim. That is the crux of the contrarian argument in this thread: trying to show dissent on anthropogenic climate change.

I've spent hours and hours of writing and research refuting other arguments made on the basis of scientific claims throughout this thread. Your brilliant additions seem to start and end with chiming in on unjustifiable claims that climate science isn't "real science." You are in no position to be talking about logical fallacies then, hmmm?

greg

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Again, you fail to read the material.

The argument presented was that there is no consensus on anthropogenic climate change. These "authorities" were presented as proof of that claim.

It's not their level of "authority" that was presented. It was their arguments. People who knew the facts who disagreed. Scientists ("Climate Change" or not) who looked at the data and saw that it was being misused. Their arguments weren't refuted, their level of "authority" was.

That is the crux of the contrarian argument in this thread: trying to show dissent on anthropogenic climate change.

Right. When it's presented, the immediate response is an "appeal to authority" logical fallacy as I've outlined. Also, the "appeal to popularity' is another time worn favorite of the liberal global warming view. Since we are dealing with theories which are unproven (and the science isn't there to prove them yet), the only thing left to try to squelch dissent are these logical fallacies I've outlined.

I've spent hours and hours of writing and research refuting other arguments made on the basis of scientific claims throughout this thread. Your brilliant additions seem to start and end with chiming in on unjustifiable claims that climate science isn't "real science."

Making definitive statements in regards to unproven theories is not "science". Espcially when there are compelling alternate theories. Using logical fallacies in order to refute these alternate theories isn't "science" either. Both are example of politics or religion (since it's faith based), not science.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well, unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, that opposition simply doesn't hold water. Look at eBuddy's arguments, for example: he's presented non-scientists, for-hire contrarians who earn their livelihoods by serving as big-industry opposition to topics such as tobacco effects and climate change, dead scientists who left unfinished work, and former scientists turned semi-politicians. There's certainly some good arguments in there, but it's buried in so much FUD that there's no logical way to extract them.

A. Again with the "big industry" as if there's only one industry. We've already addressed this. Keep up.
B. There are "for-hires" no matter where you go.
C. The vast majority of scientists use terms such as "may be". This is a far cry from how it comes out the other end of a zealot. Scientists have published statements regarding this, you'd do well to temper your zeal if your interest in science is more than casual.
D. To your point, the opposition may not hold much water in your opinion, but you've certainly not indicated why they don't in this thread. You can start by addressing the numerous questions I've posed to you.
E. You rail on me for not providing scientists. I provide scientists. Now you pop in to reply to someone else by directly referring to my post (leaving me to assume for whatever reason you didn't want to address me directly?) with some passive-aggressive dig about dead scientists. Gerard Bond, Ewing Award medal winner and indeed scientist; died in 2005. You've no doubt got some sweeping changes in climate science since then? Maybe another bogus model? Yuri A. Izrael, a vice-chairman of the IPCC, former chairman of the Committee for Hydrometeorology, served as director of the Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, and former first vice-president of the World Meteorological Organization claims that the anthropogenic hype is unfounded and unnecessary. These are in fact scientists.

I don't know about definitions of "appeals to authority", but this one certainly takes the cake on passive-aggression. If there are "some good arguments" as you admit, how about addressing them in kind as I've done for you? I mean, this would at least be more respectable than passively-aggressively responding to me in a post to someone else.

I've already covered this; don't play dumb by making me type it out again. You can scroll back a couple pages to find out some of their lies I identified (such as their lies about wine-making in contemporary England.

Oh, this is the "lie" you found? There's a link in the article you're claiming is a lie. Did you check it out? No? Oh, that's right you didn't have much for time. Well then, is there any particular reason why your bias has more merit than someone else's?

There are approximately 400 vineyards in operation today in England and Wales. The 400 operating vineyards in England produced approximately 2000 acres of wine grapes, with most of the vineyards less than 5 acres and many less than one acre. The state of Ohio for example (not particularly noteworthy for grape production) had more acres of wine grapes than the entire country of England in 2005. The state of Washington had close to 28,000 acres. California had close to half a million acres in wine grapes. Where's the lie again?

I'll be looking forward to your reply to me in a post to Buckaroo or someone else.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A. Again with the "big industry" as if there's only one industry. We've already addressed this. Keep up.

No idea what this is supposed to mean.

B. There are "for-hires" no matter where you go.

No idea what this has to do with the discussion at hand. If I point out that your "authorities" are for-hire hacks, it's hardly a counter-argument to say that "oh, but they're in other places to!" is it?

C. The vast majority of scientists use terms such as "may be". This is a far cry from how it comes out the other end of a zealot. Scientists have published statements regarding this, you'd do well to temper your zeal if your interest in science is more than casual.

*snort*

Thanks for the heads-up there scooter; obviously I've never read scientific papers before, and it's not like my "interest in science" led me to spend 4 years in university studying it or anything.

D. To your point, the opposition may not hold much water in your opinion, but you've certainly not indicated why they don't in this thread. You can start by addressing the numerous questions I've posed to you.

What numerous questions? You've brought up Bond's work, which:
1. Showed that climate change was linked to solar energy output, except until some point in the 20th century
2. Showed that there is some evidence of regular climate cycles in the last ice ages over ~10,000 years ago, although we don't know what could have caused those cycles
3. Was trying to discover a similar cyclical pattern of climate change within the Holocene, but failed to do so before Bond passed away, and as far as I can determine there have been no further publications elucidating this area of his work since his death.

All of these points are well-known within the climate science community, have been roundly debated, and have been incorporated into current knowledge of climate change. None of these points in the least serve as a "reason" why anthropogenic climate change does not exist; in fact, the point about solar energy is actually used as a strong indication that anthropogenic influence is in fact true.

E. You rail on me for not providing scientists. I provide scientists. Now you pop in to reply to someone else by directly referring to my post (leaving me to assume for whatever reason you didn't want to address me directly?) with some passive-aggressive dig about dead scientists. Gerard Bond, Ewing Award medal winner and indeed scientist; died in 2005. You've no doubt got some sweeping changes in climate science since then? Maybe another bogus model?

What bogus model? You do know that climate models seem to have been surprisingly accurate thus far, right? You know, as time goes by and we get to compare what has actually happened with those models we made way back when? I know some months ago I provided a link to the study which showed this; I'm unsurprised that you probably didn't read it.

Yuri A. Izrael, a vice-chairman of the IPCC, former chairman of the Committee for Hydrometeorology, served as director of the Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, and former first vice-president of the World Meteorological Organization claims that the anthropogenic hype is unfounded and unnecessary. These are in fact scientists.

Yes they're scientists: one is dead, and his work is well-known and didn't disprove anthropogenic climate change at all. The other has given speeches such as this one which seem to indicate his belief that climate change can be combated by human activity (which should itself be determined by economic viability), and then months later wrote articles such as such as this one, which seems to say he no longer believes that human activity might be a cause of global warming. These seem to be at baffling odds with one another.

To add to this, Izrael is in his late 70s, and doesn't seem to have done scientific work in the field for a very long time. He's been extremely influential as an adviser, coalition-man, policy advisor, etc. etc. but the fact remains that he very much comes from the pre-climate-change mold, despite his work in scientific policy circles. To add to that, he's a climate adviser to Russia's Putin – yes, you know, that nation which after years of economic neglect is trying to return to its roots of industrial and natural-resource power, and is now trying to find ways to avoid getting dinged on the global market for increased GHG emissions.

Once again: this is an authority, who has opinions, but those opinions are influenced by surrounding events, and those opinions don't seem to have any links to scientific evidence other than his opinion. Is his opinion right? Possibly; but until he can prove them, they can't be held to fly in the face of what we think we know thus far.

I don't know about definitions of "appeals to authority", but this one certainly takes the cake on passive-aggression. If there are "some good arguments" as you admit, how about addressing them in kind as I've done for you? I mean, this would at least be more respectable than passively-aggressively responding to me in a post to someone else.

I've addressed your "good arguments", such as Bond's work. There are many questions about cyclical climate cycles, how or why they appeared, and whether they still exist, but unfortunately for your argument there simply isn't enough (or even, in some instances, any) evidence for them to discount the veritable mountain of evidence we have for anthropogenic climate change via GHG emissions. Thus, your argument is merely speculation, and cannot reach a level approaching persuasive.

Oh, this is the "lie" you found? There's a link in the article you're claiming is a lie. Did you check it out? No? Oh, that's right you didn't have much for time. Well then, is there any particular reason why your bias has more merit than someone else's?

There are approximately 400 vineyards in operation today in England and Wales. The 400 operating vineyards in England produced approximately 2000 acres of wine grapes, with most of the vineyards less than 5 acres and many less than one acre. The state of Ohio for example (not particularly noteworthy for grape production) had more acres of wine grapes than the entire country of England in 2005. The state of Washington had close to 28,000 acres. California had close to half a million acres in wine grapes. Where's the lie again?

WTF? This argument doesn't even make a shred of sense, and deserves a disbelieving laugh. What does Ohio and California's current wine-making capabilities have to do with England's history of wine-making? Shi† son, why not just point out that England doesn't have nearly as many vineyards as France, and thus conclude that global warming doesn't exist? Jebus, this is completely illogical.

The argument came from your source – more specifically, the Avery & Singer duo – who claimed that English winemaking thrived in the Medieval period, but was not possible today; thus, they said that it was much hotter in the former period. This was said quite explicitly upon release of the book whose ideas you have been promoting:

"The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century," says Avery, "and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages. Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate that today's warming is not unprecedented."

As I noted, this is patently untrue; English winemaking has had a great resurgence since the middle of the 20th century, and by all accounts is as thriving a business as it can be, given England's climate. Furthermore, this argument in no way debunks the idea that increasing greenhouse gases will have a warming effect; it merely claims that it was as warm then as it is now. Whether GHG emissions will make it even warmer is simply ignored.

greg

[Buckaroo]

Hey, it appears we made Google:

Al Gore Convenient Hypocrisy - Google Search

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hahaha, right on top too! That's pretty awesome.

[Buckaroo]

ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

His comments came on the same day that the Nobel committee honoured Mr Gore for his work in support of the link between humans and global warming.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.


Gore gets a cold shoulder - Environment - smh.com.au

[Buckaroo]

Scientist Were Wrong About Global Warming - Post Media Reply
World climate experts have got some egg on the faces. As it turns out, they were wrong about global warming. It is not occurring as they predicted.

Even the IPSCC report is wrong. Their predictions on global warming are also quite mistaken.

Satellite imagery and on-site investigation has now revealed the truth: Global warming is far worse then anyone imagined or predicted.

The reality is much, MUCH worse than the scientific consensus predicted. The arctic ice cap is melting decades faster than expected. DECADES. Scientific Consensus Proved Wrong

This is exactly what I’ve been saying on this blog for years now, claiming that the results and measurements we’ve been measuring, have taken decades to reveal themselves, but what we were measuring was incorrect. We failed to interpret the data correctly.

Gigantic “Niagra size moulins” (melt holes) dumping millions of gallons of water have been discovered in the Greenland ice.

I doubt the average person understands the significance of these developments, but they will, soon.

The glacier is now moving at 15 kilometres a year into the sea although in periodic surges it moves even faster. He has seen a surge, which he had measured as moving five kilometres in 90 minutes - an extraordinary event. Ice Caps Melting Fast

The Arctic sea ice is disintegrating “100 years ahead of schedule”, having dropped 22% this year below the previous minimum low, and it may completely disappear as early as the northern summer of 2013. This is far beyond the predictions of the International Panel on Climate Change and is an example of global warming impacts happening at lower temperature increases and more quickly than projected. The Big Melt

Carbon Equity also has a downloadable .pdf file on this.

Executive Summary

• Climate change impacts are happening at lower temperature increases and more quickly than projected.
• The Arctic’s floating sea ice is headed towards rapid summer disintegration as early as 2013, a century ahead of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections.
• The rapid loss of Arctic sea ice will speed up the disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet, and a rise in sea levels by even as much as 5 metres by the turn of this century is possible. [Wrong! It will be MUCH worse then this, see below]
• The Antarctic ice shelf reacts far more sensitively to warming temperatures than previously believed.
• Long-term climate sensitivity (including “slow” feedbacks such as carbon cycle feedbacks which are starting to operate) may be double the IPCC standard. [At least double]
• A doubling of climate sensitivity would mean we passed the widely accepted 2°C threshold of “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate four decades ago, and would require us to find the means to engineer a rapid drawdown of current atmospheric greenhouse gas. [Can’t be done. Only thing we could do would be stop emitting them, causing global economic collapse instantly]
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are now growing more rapidly than “business-as-usual”, the most pessimistic of the IPCC scenarios. [Told you so!]
• Temperatures are now within ≈1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years.
• We must choose targets and take actions that can actually solve the problem in a timely manner. [Optimistic bullshit]
• The object of policy-relevant advice must be to avoid unacceptable outcomes and seemingly extreme or alarming possibilities, not to determine just the apparently most likely outcome. [Political CYA!]
• The 2°C warming cap is a political compromise; with the speed of change now in the climate system and the positive feedbacks that 2°C will trigger, it looms for perhaps billions of people and millions of species as a death sentence. [A foregone conclusion already]
• To allow the reestablishment and long-term security of the Arctic summer sea ice it is likely to be necessary to bring global warming back to a level at or below 0.5°C (a long-term precautionary warming cap) and for the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases at equilibrium to be brought down to or below a long-term precautionary cap of 320 ppm CO2e.
• The IPCC suffers from a scientific reticence and in many key areas the IPCC process has been so deficient as to be an unreliable and dangerously misleading basis for policy-making.

Commentary from Lonewolf:

The coefficient of thermal expansion for sea water is about 0.00021 (fractional volume change per degree C). Because the length and width of an ocean basin does not change as the ocean is heated slightly, volume also describes the change in height as the water warms or cools.

The depth of the oceans is 3800 meters (mean elevation of Earth surface (not just the oceans, the entire Earth) is below sea level = - 2400 meters

“According to the IPCC, measurements since 1993 show that the thermal expansion of water is responsible for 1.6 mm of the annual rise and other melting glaciers and ice caps for 0.77 mm. (0.41 mm of which being from Greenland and Antarctica)” ‘meaning’ that [more than half of] the total sea level rise is due to thermal expansion effects (not ice melt).

The vast majority of articles I seen merely calculate the volumetric effect of land based melt (glaciers, ice caps) and apparently ignores thermal expansion. Meaning that actual sea level rise could be more than double (and sea level rise twice as fast) than that which can be attributed to ice melting off land.

Do you understand? Scientist were wrong about the speed of the global ice melt — and the amount of volume it’s thermal expansion will create as it enters into the oceans. Thus, the rise of the world’s oceans could be more then double what has been predicted.

This would easily displace over one billion people worldwide, causing trillions in property damage, create global famine, destroy ocean fisheries and coral reefs worldwide and eradicate entire coastlines and islands throughout the globe forever.

Any coastal lands, or even inland land, that has access to the coast with a elevation of less then 300 feet could be flooded. This represents a huge portion of the world’s inhabitable lands today.

The world as we know it would be TOAST. Dry land will heat up more and more as the cooling effects of the ice caps disappear. The same flooding and rising of sea level will destroy huge segments of the world’s forests, which help regulate our climate and air quality. A negative feedback loop will enable this to get worse and worse.

And here’s the final punch line — it’s now “ordained”. A foregone conclusion that this will happen, is happening, because these events are unstoppable and now already past their trigger points.

Those gigantic moulins they’re measuring right now, those took a long time to develop and reveal themselves. But now that we know about them, “It is too late already.”

This should be world breaking news headlines all over the world, with immediate and drastic acknowledgement and action taken by world leaders and the planet’s citizens. I’m not being the slightest alarmists — nothing less then a full-blown worldwide effort to save ourselves will have a glimmer of a hope in succeeding.

This would require an immediate shutdown of all greenhouse gas emissions and industrial activity worldwide.

Of course, this won’t happen. It can’t possibly be allowed to happen. And even if it were to happen, it’s very uncertain it would make any difference anyway.

So, if you are still unconvinced and still waiting on a lightning bolt from God to wake you from your slumber, I suggest you take a trip to Greenland with that gold stash of yours and examine what scientists are now telling us — we’re toast, swirling around a giant moulin drain as the glacier of civilization gone wrong rumbles toward the sea.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

*snort*

You do this a lot. See someone.

Thanks for the heads-up there scooter; obviously I've never read scientific papers before, and it's not like my "interest in science" led me to spend 4 years in university studying it or anything.

I'm left scratching my head when I see "they haven't disproved anthropogenic warming".

What numerous questions? You've brought up Bond's work, which:
1. Showed that climate change was linked to solar energy output, except until some point in the 20th century

You're glossing over the fact that your argument began with "stopped at the Holocene". Now it stopped at some point in the 20th century? Excellence is a game of inches I suppose.

2. Showed that there is some evidence of regular climate cycles in the last ice ages over ~10,000 years ago, although we don't know what could have caused those cycles

More than that. He showed evidence that these cyclical changes act independently of both glacial and inter-glacial periods. Gleissberg solar cycles when superposed, have shown similar regularity to D-O events' cyclicality.

3. Was trying to discover a similar cyclical pattern of climate change within the Holocene, but failed to do so before Bond passed away, and as far as I can determine there have been no further publications elucidating this area of his work since his death.

First of all, he died in 2005. You've already admitted that your reading on this issue is not up to date. How you could then make the leap that there's been nothing since his death is beyond me. If we're going to get from point A to point B in this discussion, you're going to have to maintain at least some continuity from point to point. Secondly, how do you figure he "failed to discover similar cyclical patterns of climate change within the Holocene"?
Pacings of the Holocene events and of abrupt climate shifts during the last glaciation are statistically the same; together, they make up a series of climate shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years. The Holocene events, therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennial-scale climate cycle operating independently of the glacial-interglacial climate state.

Studies as recent as 2007, such as; Sensitive moisture response to Holocene millennial-scale climate variations in the Mid-Atlantic region, USA are continuing on Bond's initial works. It's not as if the science has come to screeching halt because Bond passed away.

All of these points are well-known within the climate science community, have been roundly debated, and have been incorporated into current knowledge of climate change. None of these points in the least serve as a "reason" why anthropogenic climate change does not exist; in fact, the point about solar energy is actually used as a strong indication that anthropogenic influence is in fact true.

Again, you're arguing a non-point. The point of climate science is not to "prove anthropogenic climate change does not exist", it is the study of what you believe are more profound influences on climate change and directing your focus to that particular anomaly. There's no reason to try to "disprove anthropogenic warming". This is what zealots may want, but not how science works. Besides, we can play this game all day long. As I asked before, prove to me that man's cessation of C02 emissions would have any affect at all on global climate change. You can't? Well then, what on earth are you arguing about? If I sought to "disprove one mechanism" I'd have to provide a more plausible mechanism anyway right? It makes no sense for a scientist to stand before an audience and say; "I am disproving anthropogenic warming". I suspect most scientists (even those who've spent their life's work on anthropogenic warming) are not as interested as you in stirring argumentative foolery, but then... they're interested in publishing their work. What happens to it after that is too often quite different. Even more ironically, from those who chest-pound some personal expertise.

What bogus model? You do know that climate models seem to have been surprisingly accurate thus far, right? You know, as time goes by and we get to compare what has actually happened with those models we made way back when? I know some months ago I provided a link to the study which showed this; I'm unsurprised that you probably didn't read it.

Did you read the limitations of projections models? The scrutiny is on the predictive qualities of the models. I guess we'll have to wait right? I mean after all, we've had 50 years of comprehensive data. The eternal optimist, or pessimist as it were.

Once again: this is an authority, who has opinions, but those opinions are influenced by surrounding events, and those opinions don't seem to have any links to scientific evidence other than his opinion. Is his opinion right? Possibly; but until he can prove them, they can't be held to fly in the face of what we think we know thus far.

Again, you claim that Gore's points are valid and yet they are littered with his own agendas as reported here, loaded with climate experts such as "population migration experts" and economists, but I provide you scientists (I'm guessing you didn't read the coop listed behind Bond) and those directly related to the published works of the IPCC and they are without validity. It never ends.

We will simply never see eye to eye. You insist that any credible work must begin with "disproving anthropogenic warming" which not only wreaks of the kind of zealotry against which I'm railing, but indicates a woeful lack of interest and understanding of the true discipline of science.

A "schooled" zealot is no less destructive to science than an unschooled zealot IMO.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're glossing over the fact that your argument began with "stopped at the Holocene". Now it stopped at some point in the 20th century? Excellence is a game of inches I suppose.

You're failing to read again – you do that a lot. Climate change in the Holocene has been matched with solar energy output; that's what Bond's work revealed. Unfortunately, that ended by 1985 at the latest, with some people claiming from the 1960s on. Climate change is no longer explained by solar energy output; now GHG forcings seem to fit as better explanations.

More than that. He showed evidence that these cyclical changes act independently of both glacial and inter-glacial periods. Gleissberg solar cycles when superposed, have shown similar regularity to D-O events' cyclicality.

...which is what I said. I also linked to an article by a noted British climate-modeler – you know, a scientist that actually works in the field – who noted that D-O cycles were quite difficult to discern in the historical data, and depended on which data reference one used. FYI: Cyclical climate studies are vastly incomplete.

First of all, he died in 2005. You've already admitted that your reading on this issue is not up to date. How you could then make the leap that there's been nothing since his death is beyond me. If we're going to get from point A to point B in this discussion, you're going to have to maintain at least some continuity from point to point. Secondly, how do you figure he "failed to discover similar cyclical patterns of climate change within the Holocene"?
Pacings of the Holocene events and of abrupt climate shifts during the last glaciation are statistically the same; together, they make up a series of climate shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years. The Holocene events, therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennial-scale climate cycle operating independently of the glacial-interglacial climate state.

First off, I've done some reading on the subject.

"A series of climate shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 +- 500 years"...first off, please give me the source for this quote again? Second, what a wonderfully regular cycle – one that can be 970 to 1970 years apart. That is cyclicity?

Studies as recent as 2007, such as; Sensitive moisture response to Holocene millennial-scale climate variations in the Mid-Atlantic region, USA are continuing on Bond's initial works. It's not as if the science has come to screeching halt because Bond passed away.

Yes yes, climate variations in the Mid-Atlantic region. Perhaps you've failed to remember that regional climate variation is a well-established fact? We're talking about global climate change, thanks.

Did you read the limitations of projections models? The scrutiny is on the predictive qualities of the models. I guess we'll have to wait right? I mean after all, we've had 50 years of comprehensive data. The eternal optimist, or pessimist as it were.

As I said, scientific inquiry into the models we've developed thus far seems to indicate that they've been satisfyingly accurate. There's even some indication that they understate climate change, as Buckaroo's post above is perhaps trying to get at.

Again, you claim that Gore's points are valid and yet they are littered with his own agendas as reported here, loaded with climate experts such as "population migration experts" and economists, but I provide you scientists (I'm guessing you didn't read the coop listed behind Bond) and those directly related to the published works of the IPCC and they are without validity. It never ends.

Until I see some evidence that Gerard Bond and "the coop" behind his work believed that it served as a detractor from anthropogenic global warming, I see nothing to indicate that Bond's studies do so.

We will simply never see eye to eye. You insist that any credible work must begin with "disproving anthropogenic warming" which not only wreaks of the kind of zealotry against which I'm railing, but indicates a woeful lack of interest and understanding of the true discipline of science.

A "schooled" zealot is no less destructive to science than an unschooled zealot IMO.

I insist that any credible work must begin with "casting doubt on the veracity of own current climate-change knowledge." This is not the same as disproving; this means giving an alternate hypothesis that hasn't already been incorporated into current work. To date, no one has done so.

I'm still amused at your rantings on the "true discipline of science" and whatnot...you're an amateur scientist I suppose? I assume you've written some hypotheses and conducted experiments in your lifetime? Perhaps have a subscription to some noted journals and regularly research your interests?

I tend to define "zealotry" as continually finding new reasons to believe in one's cause, even as current reasons are logically hacked away. Seems reasonable, doesn't it? Odd, how that would apply directly to you in this context. Odd.

greg

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I insist that any credible work must begin with "casting doubt on the veracity of own current climate-change knowledge." This is not the same as disproving; this means giving an alternate hypothesis that hasn't already been incorporated into current work. To date, no one has done so.
greg

It's just they don't get the airplay of the incorrect majority. Too much of the old "can't see the forest for the trees."

The media and the vast liberal base blindly believes that we on earth are somehow responsible are emoting their guilt about it like they do about all the liberal causes from save the whales to the trees, to the polar bears, to the Spotted Owls, affirmative action, welfare and pretty much anything you see where giving money or resources away to make themselves feel better. The liberals have taken a lesson from the church who used guilt as a method of control for centuries.

[Uncle Skeleton]

There's plenty of Buckaroos out there that will give them more than enough airtime just for disagreeing with the concensus in the first place. If airtime is your only excuse, you lose.

[BadKosh]

"There's plenty of Buckaroos out there that will give them more than enough airtime just for disagreeing with the concensus"


Not in the mainstream. Technical reasons aren't gonna get the airplay that guilt and emotions do.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Your opinion is noted

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

It's just they don't get the airplay of the incorrect majority. Too much of the old "can't see the forest for the trees."

The media and the vast liberal base blindly believes that we on earth are somehow responsible are emoting their guilt about it like they do about all the liberal causes from save the whales to the trees, to the polar bears, to the Spotted Owls, affirmative action, welfare and pretty much anything you see where giving money or resources away to make themselves feel better. The liberals have taken a lesson from the church who used guilt as a method of control for centuries.

This is paranoid conspiracy theorizing at its best.

eBuddy and I are referring to scientific study, not media talking points. Opinions are like you-know-what's; everyone's got one, and you can find them all on the internet. Both eBuddy and I demand legitimate scientific points when arguing our specific sides. If studies that fit my demands for giving an alternate hypothesis that hasn't already been incorporated into current work are out there, then you should be able to post some legitimate arguments merely by searching scientific databases. That you refuse to do so, and merely point to them "being out there" and then blaming the "liberals" for hiding them, says that you are either extremely lazy or simply don't know what you're talking about.

greg

[BadKosh]

You are assuming that NO SCIENTIST has a bias or rea$on to spew out whatever findings they 'say' they have. I won't be fooled that easily. Gore is a prime example.

Have YOU examined all the data AND data collection methods? If not, then you are acting on faith that some scientist who might have an agenda.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Are you calling Gore a scientist? That's laughable. I've already pointed out that he is merely a public figure who has attempted to pull together a multitude of scientific fact, opinion and speculation on a particular subject. In order to critique the science that he espouses, however, one doesn't critique Gore – one goes back to the scientific sources.

There's no question that some scientists have an agenda. Some scientists have research grants that must be renewed, and some exist in a social context which makes them inherently biased. That is something which the "peer review" process helps to mitigate; namely, that many other people within a particular field get to look at one's work and essentially "attack" it.

Remember, there is a "scientific method" and a very high set of moral/ethical standards which every branch of science adheres to, at least in theory. Does that mean they will never be broken? Of course not. That does mean, however, that it will be very, very difficult for an entire discipline to be sabotaging the process and essentially producing "mass disinformation." As I've stated on this page, the fact that global climate science draws from such a wide discipline area makes even more ludicrous to claim – as you seem to – that such a massive amount of scientific information is essentially all lies.

Once again, I demand of you: if the "incorrect majority" is suppressing the airplay of these skeptics, where is the research?

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You're failing to read again – you do that a lot. Climate change in the Holocene has been matched with solar energy output; that's what Bond's work revealed. Unfortunately, that ended by 1985 at the latest, with some people claiming from the 1960s on. Climate change is no longer explained by solar energy output; now GHG forcings seem to fit as better explanations.

"unfortunately, that ended in 1985/with some people claiming from the 1960's on" Huh??? That statement couldn't possibly be more vague greg. The solar cyclicity supposition included in Bond's work was completed in 1997 BTW.

...which is what I said. I also linked to an article by a noted British climate-modeler – you know, a scientist that actually works in the field – who noted that D-O cycles were quite difficult to discern in the historical data, and depended on which data reference one used. FYI: Cyclical climate studies are vastly incomplete.

Climate studies in general are vastly incomplete greg. This extrapolation has little to no meaning at all and you know it.

First off, I've done some reading on the subject.

Yeah, me too. With all due respect, so what?

"A series of climate shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 +- 500 years"...first off, please give me the source for this quote again? Second, what a wonderfully regular cycle – one that can be 970 to 1970 years apart. That is cyclicity?

First of all, the source of the quote is the abstract of a study I've quoted for you twice now. A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates. Gerard Bond, * William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani

Secondly, the cycles have been found to be much more erratic during inter-glacial periods. This wouldn't be the first time you've read '+/-' figures given in scientific discourse right?

Yes yes, climate variations in the Mid-Atlantic region. Perhaps you've failed to remember that regional climate variation is a well-established fact? We're talking about global climate change, thanks.

Then you're no doubt also aware of the studies that suggest that this significant a variation could not have been isolated exclusively to the Mid-Atlantic region?

Until I see some evidence that Gerard Bond and "the coop" behind his work believed that it served as a detractor from anthropogenic global warming, I see nothing to indicate that Bond's studies do so.

To be clear, I meant co-op. Bond's work was, as are most works, a cooperative effort. These scientists don't have to "believe" or "maintain" that their model serves as a "detractor from anthropogenic warming". They simply publish their work and human contribution is not the focus of their work. Why? Because they focus their work on what they believe to be the more profound factors of climate change. That's what I'm trying to tell you. As long as you insist on this "adversarial" criteria to remain open-minded to advancement and discovery, there's really nothing more for us to discuss.

In fact, from reading a host of studies from proponents of the anthropogenic supposition, they too are not trying to directly rebut the role of solar variability in climate change as you've mentioned. To do so would be zealous and in fact moronic given the host of information to the contrary. While I didn't need your help on this point, I appreciate it as always.

I insist that any credible work must begin with "casting doubt on the veracity of own current climate-change knowledge." This is not the same as disproving; this means giving an alternate hypothesis that hasn't already been incorporated into current work. To date, no one has done so.

Impossible. I'm telling you your criteria is intellectually dishonest. I'll give you the best you'll find, but I'm skeptical that it will encourage an open mind;

- Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation, which has a cooling effect. We know that the sun was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle." a letter to the Hill Times regarding "consensus" in 2004.

- David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."

- Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.

To this last one you might say AHA! I'm telling you this is subject to considerable debate in the scientific community and you can absolutely tell by the way the quote was delivered. You may not believe it, but I guess we'd have to disagree.

- Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..."

- Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge."

All peer-reviewed, published scientists with works and expertise directly related to climate science and the evidences thereof. They have no "cause" other than science. They are not on the payroll of big oil and they are not interested in throwing all of humanity down on a high-stakes game of "I'm right, you're wrong." They base their conclusions on the exact same evidences proponents of the anthropogenic models use to form theirs. They simply disagree. I'd want it no other way and neither should you.

I'm still amused at your rantings on the "true discipline of science" and whatnot...you're an amateur scientist I suppose? I assume you've written some hypotheses and conducted experiments in your lifetime? Perhaps have a subscription to some noted journals and regularly research your interests?

Suffice it to say I consider myself at least as qualified to point out hype and dishonesty as you. Fair enough?

I tend to define "zealotry" as continually finding new reasons to believe in one's cause, even as current reasons are logically hacked away. Seems reasonable, doesn't it? Odd, how that would apply directly to you in this context. Odd.

What's my "cause" greg? You let a little zeal hanging out on that one my friend. Wanna try again? I have no cause other than to temper the hype regarding this issue. Do you have a "cause" or something because if so, I'd love to hear what that is. Maybe we can redirect to a more fruitful discussion.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

"unfortunately, that ended in 1985/with some people claiming from the 1960's on" Huh??? That statement couldn't possibly be more vague greg. The solar cyclicity supposition included in Bond's work was completed in 1997 BTW.

Sigh.

I've provided these scientific explanations for the "solar forcing" argument many times over the board life of this debate. It's getting tiring, especially as it keeps getting brought up again and again, from the same sources.

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

A review of the solar cycle length estimates

Originally Posted by Last paper

A further comparison ...since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming.

Thus, when you give me quotes like the one by Ian Clark, below, you can see how I feel justified in rolling my eyes, as it were. Given the papers above, do you think Mr. Clark's statements are backed by "sound science"? Are they misleading? Are they outright lies? It's interesting to note that this quote was made in 2004, whereas the papers I provided seem to have been published more recently. What do you think it means when you emphatically say that none of these people have a "cause" and are not associated with Big Oil...and then I google Mr. Clark, and stumble upon this page which seems to show otherwise?

- Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation, which has a cooling effect. We know that the sun was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle." a letter to the Hill Times regarding "consensus" in 2004.

First of all, the source of the quote is the abstract of a study I've quoted for you twice now. A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates. Gerard Bond, * William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani

Thanks; I knew the quote was from this article, but I had since deleted it and wanted the title again.

greg

[Face Ache]

I tend to agree with some conservatives here that there's an element of Chicken Little within the global warming crowd. Not saying it isn't happening, or debating the causes, but I lived through 30 years of "here comes the ice age" as described by many of the very same scientists who now worry about global warming. I mean, what the hell am I supposed to do with my igloo-building skills now, huh?

I agree with the tree-fondling commie pinko liberals that pollution is a Bad Thing and we should move towards minimizing (or eradicating) it at the earliest possible convenience. I'm sure even the gun-totin' warmongering SUV drivers here agree with that, only their earliest possible convenience is possibly not as convenient as some would like.

Overall, I think that as long as politicians can pull their heads out of industry's anus for long enough to smell the coffee (because carbon monoxide is odourless), then our technology will come to save the day. I'm old enough now to realise that I already live in the future and it's very impressive (eg: Pamela Anderson wasn't possible in my day). As soon as someone invents a sporty electric car, I'll have one. But a Prius? Come on.

And don't worry about China because they will be making the sporty electric cars - it's not like America has an auto industry.


ps: Warning me that Florida will sink if I don't cut down on my greenhouse gases only makes me drive harder. Pedal down, baby, yeah!

[Buckaroo]

Hold on a second. You don't have to be a pinko liberal to hate pollution. The issue is not about pollution. It's about Carbon Dioxide. The stuff we all exhale when we breath. I believe conservatives are much more concerned about pollution than the liberals. The problem is the liberals want to control the rest of us so they can pollute as much as they can. They are so full of it, it stinks.

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

I agree with the tree-fondling commie pinko liberals that pollution is a Bad Thing and we should move towards minimizing (or eradicating) it at the earliest possible convenience. I'm sure even the gun-totin' warmongering SUV drivers here agree with that, only their earliest possible convenience is possibly not as convenient as some would like.

[Face Ache]

Tell me more about this "carbon dioxide". It sounds like a gas.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Tell me more about this "carbon dioxide". It sounds like a gas.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I was just shooting my mouth off.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

I tend to agree with some conservatives here that there's an element of Chicken Little within the global warming crowd. Not saying it isn't happening, or debating the causes, but I lived through 30 years of "here comes the ice age" as described by many of the very same scientists who now worry about global warming. I mean, what the hell am I supposed to do with my igloo-building skills now, huh?

I agree with the tree-fondling commie pinko liberals that pollution is a Bad Thing and we should move towards minimizing (or eradicating) it at the earliest possible convenience. I'm sure even the gun-totin' warmongering SUV drivers here agree with that, only their earliest possible convenience is possibly not as convenient as some would like.

Overall, I think that as long as politicians can pull their heads out of industry's anus for long enough to smell the coffee (because carbon monoxide is odourless), then our technology will come to save the day. I'm old enough now to realise that I already live in the future and it's very impressive (eg: Pamela Anderson wasn't possible in my day). As soon as someone invents a sporty electric car, I'll have one. But a Prius? Come on.

And don't worry about China because they will be making the sporty electric cars - it's not like America has an auto industry.


ps: Warning me that Florida will sink if I don't cut down on my greenhouse gases only makes me drive harder. Pedal down, baby, yeah!

Oh sh*t. A voice of reason! The sky is falling!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I've provided these scientific explanations for the "solar forcing" argument many times over the board life of this debate. It's getting tiring, especially as it keeps getting brought up again and again, from the same sources.

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

A review of the solar cycle length estimates

You show studies that indicate that solar activity and warming have in fact seemingly gone two different directions since 1985? I'm not convinced. Especially considering the wealth of data that shows C02 levels increasing shortly after warming events. I believe it is as possible to have mistaken C02 as causal rather than simply correlative and this is the crux of the climate change debate. GHGs contribute to warming, yes. The globe is warming, yes. Solar activity has had the most profound affect on global climate change throughout history, yes. It is difficult to connect solar activity to warming within the last 20+ years, yes. The science is young, YES. Connections on either side are difficult and in most cases less than conclusive, YES. These, among a host of other debates and studies such as those that focus on the influence of clouds (entirely ignored by projections models to date) related to solar or "cosmic rays" are active and residual. The science continues regardless of the certainty of the zealot. Again, I'd want it no other way and neither should you. This is not certain science regardless of what you read from the IPCC panel comprised of many panels, who struggle to publish "most of the warming may likely be attributed to human activity" on time. When it's all said and done, all you have is the IPCC which is inherently, a political machine, an industry like any other by necessity. What the scientists say and what is written are too often two different things and many scientists from those panels have spoken out. We can't only hear the voices that align with our own views.

Thus, when you give me quotes like the one by Ian Clark, below, you can see how I feel justified in rolling my eyes, as it were. Given the papers above, do you think Mr. Clark's statements are backed by "sound science"? Are they misleading? Are they outright lies? It's interesting to note that this quote was made in 2004, whereas the papers I provided seem to have been published more recently. What do you think it means when you emphatically say that none of these people have a "cause" and are not associated with Big Oil...and then I google Mr. Clark, and stumble upon this page which seems to show otherwise?

According to the folks at "smog-blog", anyone who's shopped at a Coastal Mart is suspect of being connected to the evil... wait for it... *hush* big oil. Cue scary orchestral score.

Again, there is more than one industry. Big Oil is not the only one to profit from climate change "science". As long as you maintain that many of these scientists actually understand warming (because after all, the ones I've provided are in fact peer-reviewed, published scientists with a wealth of academic credentials) and the human contribution to it, but insist it's not caused by man so they can throw all of humanity down on a high-stakes game of "I'll sell you oil 'til we all die"; we're going to have to simply agree to disagree here.

At the end of the day, I'm going to allow and encourage science to continue doing what it does. I will rail against anyone that tries to silence any voice of dissent on this issue by screaming BIG OIL and CONSENSUS. These are all red-herrings for a non-point. Non-points that I find I'm continuously forced to address on this issue. If global warming is as dire as many would have you believe, paying money to pollute would not be acceptable. There are simply too many scientists working on the details of solar variation including it's influence on terrestrial circumstances and too many who challenge AGW by virtue of their life's work with no funding from any oil interest for me to wholesale buy into the fashionable hype founded on paying cash to the very entities arguably most responsible for pollution to address it.

It's all big business brother. As long as you insist there is only one industry, we have nothing more to discuss.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

The issue is not about pollution. It's about Carbon Dioxide. The stuff we all exhale when we breath. I believe conservatives are much more concerned about pollution than the liberals. The problem is the liberals want to control the rest of us so they can pollute as much as they can.

I know it's probably a waste of time pointing this out, but what does the fact that we exhale CO2 have to do with anything? Our process of exhaling has pretty much nothing to do with increasing the atmospheric carbon budget – because after all, it's merely converted to oxygen again during the photosynthetic cycle.

The issue at hand is human involvement in releasing large amounts of CO2 which has been "locked away" from atmospheric circulation for many, many years – primarily by being incorporated into fossil fuels which we are now using at unprecedented rates in the earth's history. Is this an anthropogenic phenomena? Right now, yes. Is this solely an anthropogenic phenomena? Absolutely not; there's been speculation for some time that similar events could have happened in the past through other means, such as massive methane emissions from benthic clathrates, or sudden peat decomposition during warming periods. No matter what the method, however, it still means that CO2 (or GHG in general) have a scientifically observed chemical behaviour in the atmosphere – it "traps heat" within it. I fail to see how you think you can somehow negate this fact just because humans exhale it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You show studies that indicate that solar activity and warming have in fact seemingly gone two different directions since 1985? I'm not convinced. Especially considering the wealth of data that shows C02 levels increasing shortly after warming events. I believe it is as possible to have mistaken C02 as causal rather than simply correlative and this is the crux of the climate change debate.

First off, you clearly brought up solar radiation as an argument casting doubt on AGW; I clearly showed that it no longer seems to have the climate correlation effect it historically did; you reply with "I'm not convinced" and then make vague references to why CO2 shouldn't be a climate change driver, rather than why solar radiation should. So, which is it? Are you not convinced that solar radiation is no longer correlated...in which case, where is your proof of this in light of the scientific studies I have provided? If you are merely ignoring my rebuttal and are now "not convinced" that CO2 is driving climate change – which, I'll point out, was nowhere to be found in my argument...you just wrote it in to avoid dealing with the solar issue – then please read further.

In fact, your statement here is actually an argument for anthropogenic global warming. That CO2 levels historically increase after warming events is a basic tenet of climate change science. Why? Because carbon dioxide has traditionally not been a "climate driver", but limited to an amplification effect, whereby warming temperatures (eg. from increasing solar radiation, etc.) led to more CO2 (eg. by "unlocking stored CO2") which led to further warming temperatures because of CO2's chemical properties within the atmosphere.

This is the entire point of anthropogenic climate change: that this process is no longer happening. We have no other mechanism to explain modern climate change, except the fact that humans have artificially enhanced the amount of GHG in the atmosphere. In other words, what has traditionally not been a driver of climate change, suddenly is because of human involvement.

Your argument has fallen right in line with this theory, because you have produced absolutely no proof of any other possible mechanism – besides the ones that I pointed out are invalid, of course. What you've produced have been opinions, even by influential people, but almost without fail opinions nonetheless. And despite all your posturing to the contrary, here it is you who fails to grasp a basic principle of how modern science works – namely, that opinions matter not a shred if no evidence can be produced to validate them. As you tirelessly state, you're producing "respected scientists" – but you're producing their opinions, not their scientific work with which to back those opinions up.

You, of course, haven't produced such evidence. Oh, it's been hinted at, and there's been the comment about "evidence here" and "evidence there" and "evidence is scattered", but the only scientific evidence you've been able to produce regarding solar variation or climate cycles has already been endlessly debated among climate scientists, and found not to deliver a significant explanation when compared to CO2.



What I find really funny about all this is that I'm really not a "climate change fanatic." I do believe in conservation, but I also highly doubt that actions such as the Kyoto Accord will make a shred of difference in terms of the effects we will see in the foreseeable future. You keep bringing up arguments of "overzealous harbringers of doom", but as far as I'm aware I haven't made any statements of that nature. I generally feel that my duty here is to point out where the science is, and where climate-change skeptics' arguments don't make sense – or, in the case of Buckaroo, are completely illogical or patently untrue.

As to your "cause?" Well, let's see, from what I remember you started off declaring that global warming was untrue. Once that could no longer be argued with embarrassment, then the switch was made to "anthropogenic global warming is untrue." Now that your arguments are clearly beginning to fail on that front, I soon expect you to make the complete switch to the puzzling argument Buckaroo posted (in light of his other postings flatly denying global warming): that global warming is happening, and it's caused by human actions, but there's nothing we can do about it now anyway so there's no point trying.

Sounds like a cause to me, huh?

greg

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They also don't have phony "awards" (like the Nobel Peace Prize) to bestow acclaim on liars and nuts.

I hereby declare you idiot of the century.
For the rest: "Stay the course!" a.k.a. the George Bush Jr. solution to everything over his head.

PB.

[Uncle Skeleton]

ebuddy, could you please use "CO2" instead of "C02"? It makes you sound like one of those txt messenging little girls with their "c u l8r" crap.

kthxbye (<- just kidding)

[Buckaroo]

So, Al "Liar" Gore got himself a Nobel Peace Prize for his huge Lies. He can now set in the same arena as Jimmy Carter. It's a amazing, create the biggest lie of the century and you get the Nobel peace prize.

[Uncle Skeleton]

If you say "lie" one more time it will be true. Don't be afraid, just do it.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you say "lie" one more time it will be true. Don't be afraid, just do it.

Ok, point taken. I'll try to remember never to say lie again. Sorry.



Additional information:

The earth is upside down! In the spring 1998 - Gore called The Washington Post's executive editor to tip him off on an ''error'' in the paper. ''I decided I just had to call because you've printed a picture of the Earth upside down on the front page of the paper,'' Gore said. (Source: Florida Times Union 4/3/98 ) There is no ''up'' in space; only on maps that orient the Earth's surface north and south.
For more examples of Al Gore's vast knowledge of space, take a look at the Florida Times Union article SPACE: Beam me up, Scotty 04/06/98

[Buckaroo]

Replacement message:

So, Al Gore got himself a Nobel Peace Prize for his big opinion. He can now sit in the same arena as Jimmy Carter. It's amazing, create a movie with your opinion and get the Nobel Peace Prize.

Is that better? I fixed several silly typo's while I was at it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

I hereby declare you idiot of the century.
For the rest: "Stay the course!" a.k.a. the George Bush Jr. solution to everything over his head.

PB.

Wow...name calling. We don't see enough of that on the Internet. I herby declare you the winner of the debate. I can't compete....

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wow...name calling. We don't see enough of that on the Internet. I herby declare you the winner of the debate. I can't compete....

Well he did have that slamming his head against a brick wall smiley.

[Buckaroo]

Hey everyone, here's the Global Warming Test. Take it and see what you score.


The Global Warming Test