659 replies to this topic

[JLL]

I guess you have an explanation for how carbon lags temperature by 800 years?

[suspire]

Boortz and others have pointed out the links between the radical environmentalists and the anti-capitalist movement. That explains global warming better than anything else I have heard.

Hmm. Well, on one hand, you could say:

A) That all these scientists who argue in favor of man-made global warming are also secretly environmentalists and have various agendas that all coincide with one another and do not mind staking their professional reputations on this anti-capitalist movement that they've signed up for, wholesale. Of course, this world-wide anti-capitalist conspiracy has to be funneling serious money to these scientists to support their grants, which seems kind of counter-productive for the grant-givers (ie--anti-capitalism will surely lead to less funds).

B) On the other hand, you could posit that the scientists who are against man-made global warming-- and who are deeply in the minority on the issue--are being paid off or being given grants/incentives by either the oil/fossil fuel industries or their proxies (lobbying firms) to throw out as much smoke as possible to keep people uncertain for as long as possible.

Position B seems more likely, all things considered, especially when taken in the context of prior industry involvement with scientists (the tobacco industry, Big Pharma, etc). Pay off the right scientists with grants and the like, and provide the right pundits with monetary compensation or advertising dollars and you can provide enough smoke to keep political action tied up for years.

[Zenob]

I guess you have an explanation for how carbon lags temperature by 800 years?

Yes. See here Link and here Link

The simple answer is that most of the warming occurs over thousands of years. Normal cyclic warming/cooling affects the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Once a warming trend starts it causes more carbon to be released which amplifies the warming cycle. In other words the first few hundred years of a several thousand year move isn't caused by carbon because the carbon isn't released UNTIL some warming occurs. After that initial warming you get a feed back from the carbon. It amplifies the warming which releases more carbon which amplifies the warming, etc.

[PWAIN]

In the late 80s, I was living in the London suburbs. College started September 16th and one year, the college stayed closed on the 16th for a week due to the snow. It was thick enough to make travel difficult.

Now admittedly, this was in the suburbs about 30km from the city center and I have no idea of the weather in the city at the time. It was however at least 2 weeks before October and it was not considered a particularly remarkable event.

Single events are of little value when trying to ascertain the effects of climate change. Period!!!

[RighteousReason]

I once started a topic about the science of climate change as distinguished from the politics because it seems that no matter how much I try and have an objective discussion about the science, it becomes politicized faster than the results can be gathered.

There are no innocent parties on this matter but I should add that regardless of where people once stood or still stand, on the debate data has been coming in and it really does overwhelming support two critical aspects that those seeking to deny the reality of global warming refuse to address, first it is happening.

Yes even Bush now acknowledges the reality of "climate change" and we have moved from a debate over it being a reality to how much, how fast, and what we can realistically do or shouldn't do.

And second the debate has evolved. It is now how much if any, is caused by humans.

Again the data keeps coming in and the denial group asserts that it is biased because only those with a pre-established desire to prove the result get the funding. That premise is essentially false because there are many groups that are funded by some pretty deep pockets on both sides of the debate. When the data shifts against them the group in denial of climate change starting shifting faster than desert sands and ice floes, switching arguments like a strobe.

No we aren't responsible, yes it is occurring but it is natural, its the sun and we can't do anything about it, no it isn't happening, but it is already reversing and we don't have to do anything, no it isn't reversing but the cost is too much, DAMN ITS UNAMERICAN AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE AMERICAN DREAM YOU TRAITORS TO CAPITALISM, hell you are an atheist believer in Satan and its God's plan anyway doncha know?

Did I forget to mention it's God's Plan anyway so we should all just pray for a solution?

Oh yeah it''s just a secret plan to share the wealth by those enviro-terrorist-socialist-communist-hateful, anti-industrialist, gay-pagans that work for the AntiChrist and are plotting a world government and the end of the US.

As the world IS getting warming (at least for the moment) I suggest everyone chill out.

Yes it is getting warming. The evidence is pretty overwhelming and it is still coming in everyday. For every spurious result there are 100 supporting this conclusion and often when those contrary models are more closely examined they are found wanting for methodology or inconsistent results. That is not to say that there is no bad science on the other side too but that is why in science there is so much effort on replicating results.

For example the sun has been ruled out by multiple studies recently as the PRIMARY cause of global warming, and yes the Antarctic is melting too.

http://www.sciam.com...-climate-change
October 31, 2008
Warmer Antarctica Shows Climate Changing on Every Continent
It's official: The South Pole is also succumbing to human-induced climate change

By David Biello
Humanity's impact on climate has been detected on every continent except Antarctica, or so said the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in February 2007. No longer: scientists, comparing decades of records from 17 Antarctic weather stations with computer simulations of Earth's climate, found that human-induced global warming has been heating up the continent that is home to the South Pole, as well.

"We have detected the human fingerprint in both the Arctic and Antarctic region[s]," says Peter Stott, a climate modeler at the U.K. Met (meteorological) Office's Hadley Center, and co-author of the study published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The researchers compared 100 years of weather records from the Arctic and 50-plus years of those kept on Antarctica with the results of four computer models. Their findings: natural influences such as changes in the amount of sunlight or volcanic eruptions did not explain the warming trends, but the results matched when increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions were added to the mix.

In the past few decades, average Arctic temperatures have warmed roughly 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius); average temperatures in Antarctica have warmed slightly less than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius).

Lead study author Nathan Gillett, a climatologist at Environment Canada, the government ministry charged with Canadian environmental protection and issues, notes that the collapse of the Larsen B and Wilkins ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula, which has warmed more than any other part of the entire world, has already been linked to global warming.

As if the new finding is not disturbing enough, researchers may have underestimated the temperature change because they gave equal weight to readings from the cold continental interior—where another man-made problem, the ozone hole, has contributed to cooling in the spring and summer—and coastal regions, where warming is more pronounced. (excerpt)

OK I know Scientific American is really a secret socialist society of scientists scheming to dominate the world and make Darwin the new messiah. Wasn't that a plot on South Park?

We all know South Park is the new voice of reason in this matter.

And sure I know we can't trust all those commie Canadians and their damn universal health care, who the hell are they to treat all their citizens equally and give each and everyone of them a *right* to health care but even so here is some of the Canadian news. Doncha know, they can see the North Pole right across the melting ice shelf.

Researchers tie warming poles to human activity
Margaret Munro , Canwest News Service
Published: Thursday, October 30, 2008

An international team says it has proven humans are driving up temperatures in both the Arctic and Antarctic.

The team, led by Environment Canada climatologist Nathan Gillett, says greenhouse gases pumped into the atmosphere by cars, factories and human activities are a key factor fuelling the change.

"Our results demonstrate that human activities have already caused significant warming in both polar regions, with likely impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level," the researchers reported Thursday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

OMG I didn't notice at first, the source study is in Nature Geoscience, now there is a bunch of politically minded godless atheists with a secret agenda if I ever saw some.

So maybe we can trust these sources, they are Christians and they are scientists.

http://features.csmo...-polar-climate/

Formal human ‘fingerprints’ on polar climate
By Peter N. Spotts

So you heard the Arctic was the only pole percolating? Last year, the UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pegged Antarctica as the only continent on the planet where human influence on climate hasn’t popped up. Now, it appears, human “fingerprints” are finally showing up on climate at the bottom of the world, as well as at the top. That’s the latest word from a team of researchers in the US, Britain, and Japan.

For anyone who has followed changes in the Arctic, never mind changes in more-temperate areas of the world, this polar update is unlikely to come as a big surprise. For a sampler of what’s happening up north, try the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s catalog of changes under way there. But the team also finds a small but statistically significant increase in Antarctica’s average temperatures – although that varies significantly by location on the continent. Even in the Arctic’s case, a region feeling the heat far more dramatically than Antarctica, scientists haven’t crossed the T’s or dotted the I’s by formally linked the changes to increased industrial emission of greenhouse gases – mainly carbon dioxide. More...

To make that kind of tie-in, scientists conduct a climatological CSI effort dubbed an attribution study. Typically, a team gathers real-world temperatures and calculates how much each year’s average was above or below the climatological “normal.” Trends they are interested in appear as extended periods of above- or below-normal temperatures. Then they use one or more climate models to see which combination of factors best approximates real-world trends. The factors include changes to natural influences lying outside the atmosphere, such as variations the sun’s output and explosive volcanic eruptions, which periodically launch climate-cooling aerosols into the stratosphere. Also included: natural and human-induced changes within the climate system, including measured increases in greenhouse gases – mainly carbon dioxide — from industry and deforestation. Scientists conclude that CO2’s growth as an atmospheric gas since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution is the main trigger for the warming that the global climate has experienced. (excerpt)

Oh No We Can't. That there is the Christian Science Monitor. A bunch of Radical Left Wing Liberal Theologists that are really trying to subvert Christianity and bring it into the modern world, Now we can't allow that to happen right?!

Did I mention it's God's Plan anyway so we should all just pray for a solution?

Let's go apolitical here...

Lazarus, I don't buy these "comparisons to computer models".

Is it not a fact that the glaciers and ice masses of Antartica, Greenland, and Alaska are growing? What about all the other hard facts listed earlier?

The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?

It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.

How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today.

Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?

In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.

Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.

Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.

Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.

During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

In these videos he arguest that CO2 levels naturally plateau at a high enough level, and that higher global temperatures are historically correlated with an explosive abundance and success for life around the planet.

Alaska glaciers grew this year, thanks to colder weather
By Craig Medred | Anchorage Daily News

Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.

Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.

That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle. Read the complete story at adn.com

Also, even if everything you are saying turns out to be exactly right, what exactly are we supposed to do about it? I never got an answer about this.

if the most extreme alarmist claims turned out to be right, we should be rushing to create terrafoming nanotechnology, not completey pointlessly sacrificing the use of anything that produces carbon.

If totally eliminating the burning of fossile fuels is the goal, what exactly is that a solution to? Is that supposed to reverse global warming? If so, how do you know?

It seems very fishy to me that real solutions that directly address the problem are completely unimportant. All we get is BURNING FOSSILE FUELS BAD, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY GOOD (But not nuclear!?).

Edited by Savage, 11 November 2008 - 02:10 AM.

[biknut]

Sunspots spell end of climate myth

The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 11 November 2008

It is disturbing that many recent statements on climate change by influential people are not supported by hard evidence.


For instance, Professor Ralph Chapman's statement that the globe risks a tipping point if emissions are not reduced by 2015 is unsupported by hard evidence, as is David Parker's claim that if we do nothing to reduce emissions, New Zealand could be up to $500 million worse off by 2012.

This is not true because, if we adopt the Emissions Trading Scheme, electricity bills alone will increase by more than $500 million each year.

On Kyoto, lawyer Alistair Hercus recently claimed that "as a country we have to pay". In fact, the Kyoto protocol says nothing about enforcement and as yet there are no international emissions enforcers to act as judge, jury and executioner.

We can opt out of Kyoto whenever we like or, like most other countries, pretend to support the protocol and, at the same time, do little or nothing.

These statements and government policies on greenhouse gases, carbon trading and promoting renewable energy are based on the beliefs that the world is warming due to man-made greenhouse gases; that promoting renewable energy will make a substantial difference to New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions; and that if New Zealand reduces its greenhouse gas emissions it would affect the world climate. All these beliefs are not true.

The evidence is unequivocal. Measurable, let alone dangerous, manmade global warming is not happening, and is not likely to happen in the future. The major cause for concern is the possibility of severe cooling.

Global climate has always changed and recent climate changes are not unusual. The world was warmer in the mediaeval warm period, in the Roman warm period and on many occasions before then. During these periods agriculture and civilisations flourished. During cold periods like the little ice age there was famine, plague and war.

Both surface temperature records and the much more accurate records from satellite observations show there was a brief warming period from 1975-98. Since then, the world has cooled and is now at the same temperature it was in 1995. Nobody knows when, or if, world temperatures might increase.

Since the research for the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was completed in mid 2006, researchers have discovered that warming since 1975 is not caused by greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas warming would be at a maximum 10,000m above the tropics.

Observations from balloons and satellites have shown that warming is not happening. Therefore greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are not a major factor in the world climate. This fact alone is sufficient to sink the manmade global warming hypothesis.

Computer-based climate models provide the only "evidence" supporting claims that the world is warming, that it will be dangerous, that there will be rapid rises in sea levels and the like, yet these same models failed to predict the temperature peak in 1998 and the steady cooling trend that set in from 2002.

It is obvious that the models have failed to predict major climatic events such as El Nino (1998) and La Nina (2007-08).

The models are not an accurate representation of the world climate system and their input data is inaccurate, therefore their outputs are worthless. This fact alone is sufficient to sink the manmade global warming hypothesis.

It is often claimed that because a "consensus" of scientists agree that manmade global warming is happening, it must be true. This is nonsense for two reasons. The first is that many distinguished scientists strongly disagree. So, by definition, there is no consensus.

But even if a consensus did exist, it would make no difference to the real world. For instance, it would not be hard to find a consensus of reverends who firmly believe the world was created a few thousand years ago. But the existence of this consensus would not stop evolution in its tracks. Science is about evidence and facts, not beliefs.

Carbon dioxide is, most definitely, not a pollutant. It is as essential to life on earth as is oxygen or water. Pollutants are, by definition, something that we would be better off without. Without carbon dioxide most of the life on earth would die within a few weeks.

But there is one fact that we can be sure of: the moderate increase in carbon dioxide in the last 100 years or so has benefited mankind because it has boosted plant growth and food production by at least 15 per cent.

More evidence is gathering that the sun, not greenhouse gases, drives our climate. Records going back thousands of years show a close correlation between sunspots and climate.
The theory is that sunspot- related effects influence the number of high-energy cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere and that these cosmic rays affect cloud formation.

Very soon, a major experiment will be set up to test this theory. If it is shown to be correct, that alone will be sufficient to sink the hypothesis of manmade global warming.

There have been very few sunspots over the past few years and the next sunspot cycle, 24, is beginning but weak.

History tells us that such circumstances are associated with quite severe cooling, possibly similar to the little ice age.

If this happens, the present financial upheavals will be exacerbated by reduced agricultural output, stormy weather and, possibly, famine.

There is more authoritative scientific information in the report Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate at the website http:/ /nzclimatescience.net.

http://www.stuff.co....7411a26496.html

Edited by biknut, 11 November 2008 - 03:27 AM.

[biknut]

THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM

by Vincent Gray
Climate Consultant

75 Silverstream Road, Crofton Downs, Wellington 6035, New Zealand
Email vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz
(Revised October 2008)

ABSTRACT

The Global Warming Scam has been perpetrated in order to support the Environmentalist belief that the earth is
being harmed by the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to provide evidence for this belief. They have
published four major Reports which are widely considered to have proved it to be true. This paper examines the
evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of
greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on
IPCC Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it.

In order to establish a relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and any influence on the
climate, it is necessary to solve three problems

- To determine the average temperature of the earth and show that it is increasing
- To measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases everywhere in the atmosphere
- To reliably predict changes in future climate

None of these problems has been solved

It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the earth, yet the IPCC scientists try to claim that it
is possible to measure “anomalies” of this unknown quantity. An assessment of all the temperature data available,
largely ignored by the IPCC, shows no evidence for overall warming, but the existence of cyclic behaviour. Recent
warming was last recorded around 1950. An absence of warming for 10 years and a current downturn suggest that
the cool part of the cycle is imminent.

The chief greenhouse gas, water vapour, is irregularly distributed, with most of it over the tropics and very little over
the poles. Yet the IPCC tries to pretend it is uniformly distributed, so that its “anomalies” can be treated as
“feedback” to the global temperature models.

Carbon dioxide is only measured in extremely restricted circumstances in order to pretend that it is “well-mixed”.
No general measurements are reported and 90,000 early measurements which show great variability have been
suppressed.

Methane is mostly recycled plant material, unrelated to fossil fuels, yet it is used to penalised farmers for animal
recycling, when the larger emissions from wetlands are exempt.

Although weather cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead, the claim is made that “climate” can be
predicted 100 years ahead. The claim is based on the development of computer models based on the “flat earth”
theory of the climate which assumes it is possible to model the climate from “balanced” average energy quantities
This assumption is absurd since all the quantities have skewed distributions with no acceptable average. No
resulting model has ever been tested for its ability to predict the future. This is even admitted as the model outputs
are mere “projections”. Since the projections are far into the future, nobody living is able to check their validity.
Since no model has been validated, they are “evaluated” based on “simulations”, which are mere correlations, often
obtained by adjusting the many poorly characterized parameters to give a “fudged fit”. Several such attempts fail to
agree with observations. Future “projections”, which combine the untested models and exaggerated “scenarios”
are graded for their “likelihood” from the unsupported opinion of those paid to produce the models. A spurious
“probability” attached to these opinions is without mathematical or scientific justification

Humans affect climate by changes in urban development and land use, but there is no evidence that greenhouse
gas emissions are involved, except in enhancing plant growth.

http://www.nzclimate...lobalScam3a.pdf

[biknut]

This will take about a week to read through.

http://www.nzclimatescience.net./

Here's a good one on Arctic Sea Ice

http://www.fcpp.org/...tic Sea Ice.pdf

[biknut]

Basically they're lying about the sun. This is a long article.

Death Blow To Anthropogenic Global Warming:

September 4th 2008, 7:52 PM BST

by Stephen Wilde



http://co2sceptics.c...ews.php?id=1767

[Zenob]

I see Biknut in classic right wing fashion ignored everything that everybody posted and just went right back to googling for more crap to try and support his belief that climate change isn't real. The very first article he posted went straight into the conspiracy craziness, "the IPCC is just a bunch of crazy environmentalists". The article from the Dominon Post is just bat shit crazy. I don't know what those guys are smoking but they just peal off one bald faced lie after another. From claiming that satellites "proving" that warming isn't occuring(uh, I posted a damned satellite chart yesterday that clearly shows the opposite) to claiming that it's been "proven" that global warming isn't caused by green house gasses. That'll be news to tens of thousands of scientists, that greenhouse gasses don't contribute to the green house effect. lol Then they basically run the gamut of nutty climate change denier BS, "plants love carbon so it MUST be good", more carbon has let us grow more food because the plants like it(you just have to look past the changes to climate such as altered weather patterns that result in massive crop failures), it's sunspots(even though the charts clearly show it's not), the models don't match observed readings(just don't tell anybody that the models keep UNDER estimating the extent of the warming), etc, etc. Good god man, read this shit before you trot it out to try and justify your politically motivated fantasies.

Here's the sunspot chart again. It goes back to the 1800s. Notice how the sunspot activity peaked in the late 50s and has been falling yet the temperature just keeps on going up. Here's another article that destroys the deniers attempts to blame sunspots for global warming:

The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output.

"If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate," Foukal said.


http://news.national...3-sunspots.html

And if that's not enough here's another article that deconstructs the deniers attempts to blame global warming on solar activity

http://www.realclima...-solar-forcing/




Reality, the right wings natural enemy.

Edit:

I just noticed something, one of those links you posted is using information from Steven Milloy's website Junkscience. Milloy is the biggest pseudoscience peddler on the net. He will support ANY kind of crap or deny any real science provided the check clears. I swear, the more you try to support this crap the deeper you dig the hole. Here's Milloy spreading some bullshit for his former employers the tobacco industry:

Steven Milloy, author of JunkScience.com, also criticized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for claiming that 400,000 people die every year from alleged smoking-related illnesses, saying that studies linking smoking to heart disease are not entirely reliable. He pointed out that smokers have higher heart disease rates than non-smokers partly because smokers also tend to be people who do not exercise, have worse diets, avoid doctors and have less healthy lifestyles overall.
http://www.sourcewat...le=Steve_Milloy

Attached Files

•  600px_Temp_sunspot_co2.svg.png   81.26KB   0 downloads

Edited by Zenob, 11 November 2008 - 05:31 AM.

[JLL]

It seems strange that when anyone doubts the AGW theory, you think they're part of a right-wing conspiracy, but when someone supports the AGW theory, somehow they're not part of a left-wing conspiracy.

Apparently you think the IPCC is objective by definition and everyone that disagrees with it is a conspiracist; why is this so? If someone said it's the other way around, the IPCC is part of the conspiracy and everyone else is objective, how would you defend? By saying the IPCC consists of well-known scientists? Well... a lot of the critics are well-known scientists too.

Perhaps the wisest thing to do is concentrate on whatever these scientists produce and discuss the results instead of trying to find what's wrong with the scientist's agenda?

[Zenob]

It seems strange that when anyone doubts the AGW theory, you think they're part of a right-wing conspiracy, but when someone supports the AGW theory, somehow they're not part of a left-wing conspiracy.

One side is supported by evidence and the other is supported by BS and funded almost exclusively by oil companies. Hell, most of the claims of the global warming deniers are so absurd that all it takes to disprove them is a working set of eyes. Any fool can look satellite imagery of the ice packs and glaciers and tell the damn things are melting yet the deniers(as shown by this thread) still think they can get away with claiming the exact opposite. It would be "strange" to support the BS side of the equation over the evidence backed side. Oddly enough this is exactly what the political right has decided to do. Of course they have a history of this so it shouldn't be that surprising.

Apparently you think the IPCC is objective by definition and everyone that disagrees with it is a conspiracist; why is this so? If someone said it's the other way around, the IPCC is part of the conspiracy and everyone else is objective, how would you defend? By saying the IPCC consists of well-known scientists? Well... a lot of the critics are well-known scientists too.

The IPCC represents the views of the vast majority of climate scientists. Tell me, are 99% of the worlds scientists involved in a conspiracy? Of course not, that just as stupid as the creationists claiming that all biologists are involved in a conspiracy to suppress the "truth" of their biblical literalism.

Perhaps the wisest thing to do is concentrate on whatever these scientists produce and discuss the results instead of trying to find what's wrong with the scientist's agenda?

Which I have done. However if someone has a history of dishonesty such as Steven Milloy you would have to be a blazing fool to ignore it. It's the classic case of fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

[luv2increase]

I think everyone should read this book. I know some of those close-minded individuals out there whom have already, erroneously, made up their so-called minds will not buy this book or want to read anything about it due to their cognitive dissonance not allowing this to happen.

Product Description
From the author of the New York Times bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) comes Red Hot Lies, an exposé of the hypocrisy, deceit, and outright lies of the global warming alarmists and the compliant media that support them. Did you know that most scientists are global warming skeptics? Or that environmental alarmists have knowingly promoted false and exaggerated data on global warming? Or that in the Left's efforts to suppress free speech (and scientific research), they have compared global warming dissent with "treason"?

Shocking, frank, and illuminating, Chris Horner's Red Hot Lies explodes as many myths as Al Gore promotes.

From the Inside Flap
Liars--Al Gore, the United Nations, the New York Times. The global warming lobby, relentless in its push for bigger government, more spending, and more regulation, will use any means necessary to scare you out of your wits--as well as your tax dollars and your liberties--with threats of rising oceans, deadly droughts, and unspeakable future consequences of "climate change." In pursuing their anti-energy, anti-capitalist, and pro-government agenda, the global warming alarmists--and unscrupulous scientists who see this scare as their gravy train to federal grants and foundation money--resort to dirty tricks, smear campaigns, and outright lies, abandoning scientific standards, journalistic integrity, and the old-fashioned notions of free speech and open debate. In Red Hot Lies, bestselling author Christopher Horner--himself the target of Greenpeace dirty tricks and alarmist smears--exposes the dark underbelly of the environmental movement. Power-hungry politicians blacklist scientists who reject global warming alarmism. U.S. senators threaten companies that fund climate change dissenters. Mainstream media outlets openly reject the notion of "balance." The occasional unguarded scientist candidly admits the need to twist the facts to paint an uglier picture in order to keep the faucet of government money flowing. In the name of "saving the planet," anything goes. But why the nasty tactics? Why the cover ups, lies, and intimidation? Because Al Gore and his ilk want to use big government at the local, state, federal, and global level to run your life, and they can brook no opposition. But the actual facts, as Red Hot Lies makes clear, aren't nearly as scary as their fiction.

The book is called Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher Horner.

Enjoy

[Zenob]

I peeked behind my ignore filter to see what kind of silliness luv2increase was up to. I'm glad I did. He is pushing a joke of a book by a known climate skeptic nutjob. Let's take a look at a few things from Horner's book shall we:

Horner claims that 34% of CFCs come from natural sources. Um, CFCs don't exist in nature. They weren't even invented until the early 1930s I believe.

Horner claims that for every glacier that is shrinking there is another glacier growing. This is just absurd. The satellite maps clearly show this to be a bald face lie.

Horner claims that only 3% of CO2 comes from mand made sources. Problem with this is that CO2 levels have gone up over a third in the last century and a half or so. Not to mention you can ID the source of carbon with isotopic analysis. You never hear one of these climate skeptics mention this. I wonder why.

He also repeats the common denialst claim that the anarctic is cooling instead of warming up. I've addressed this several times in this thread already. The center of the arctic has some small cooling attributed to the increased precipitation caused by the INCREASED warming and melting of the exterior. Horner completely ignores this. Classic cherry picking.

Another common denialist tactic that Horner uses in his book is the "if global warming is real it's GOOD for us" bullshit. This is just pure fantasy. Just because plants consume carbon doesn't mean that we are all going to be rolling in extra produce/food because of it. Shifts in climate are catastrophic to existing agriculture. Droughts strike areas that used to get normal rainfall. Torrential rains pound other areas that don't normally get high rain falls. The entire weather system of the planet get's out of wack. You can't simply pickup your entire agricultural apparatus and MOVE it to where the new "good" areas are. Not to mention the coastal flooding that will result. How is having potentially millions of people displaced coupled with massive crop failures GOOD for us?

Horner also continues the "it's an enviromentalist conspiracy" nonsense too. Tell me, do you think tens thousands of scientists are all involved in an elaborate plot? Or that all the worlds scientists are communists for that matter? The title of one of the chapters in this nutjobs book is "Green is the New Red: The Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, and Anti-Human Agenda of Today's Environmentalists." The man needs prozac.

Christophoer Horner is pretty typical for the average climate change denier. He sucks at the science and he's dishonest as hell. To be brutally honest if you buy his book you are just wasting your money AND killing a tree for no good reason. lol

[luv2increase]

I peeked behind my ignore filter to see what kind of silliness luv2increase was up to.

Liar. You don't even understand how the ignore feature works. Every post I've posted, you've responded to after you so-called used your ignore feature. Now I can get a glimpse of your character because not telling the truth comes second nature to you. Don't deny it; these are facts.

Horner claims that 34% of CFCs come from natural sources. Um, CFCs don't exist in nature. They weren't even invented until the early 1930s I believe.

Horner claims that for every glacier that is shrinking there is another glacier growing. This is just absurd. The satellite maps clearly show this to be a bald face lie.

Horner claims that only 3% of CO2 comes from mand made sources. Problem with this is that CO2 levels have gone up over a third in the last century and a half or so. Not to mention you can ID the source of carbon with isotopic analysis. You never hear one of these climate skeptics mention this. I wonder why.

He also repeats the common denialst claim that the anarctic is cooling instead of warming up. I've addressed this several times in this thread already. The center of the arctic has some small cooling attributed to the increased precipitation caused by the INCREASED warming and melting of the exterior. Horner completely ignores this. Classic cherry picking.

Another common denialist tactic that Horner uses in his book is the "if global warming is real it's GOOD for us" bullshit. This is just pure fantasy. Just because plants consume carbon doesn't mean that we are all going to be rolling in extra produce/food because of it. Shifts in climate are catastrophic to existing agriculture. Droughts strike areas that used to get normal rainfall. Torrential rains pound other areas that don't normally get high rain falls. The entire weather system of the planet get's out of wack. You can't simply pickup your entire agricultural apparatus and MOVE it to where the new "good" areas are. Not to mention the coastal flooding that will result. How is having potentially millions of people displaced coupled with massive crop failures GOOD for us?

Horner also continues the "it's an enviromentalist conspiracy" nonsense too. Tell me, do you think tens thousands of scientists are all involved in an elaborate plot? Or that all the worlds scientists are communists for that matter? The title of one of the chapters in this nutjobs book is "Green is the New Red: The Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, and Anti-Human Agenda of Today's Environmentalists." The man needs prozac.

Christophoer Horner is pretty typical for the average climate change denier. He sucks at the science and he's dishonest as hell. To be brutally honest if you buy his book you are just wasting your money AND killing a tree for no good reason. lol

Sources... How can we believe anything you say now? It has been shown that you are a liar, therefore, you need to show proof ---> especially since you are giving exact figures.

[JLL]

One side is supported by evidence and the other is supported by BS and funded almost exclusively by oil companies.

Okay, so one side is funded by the oil companies, and the other side is funded by the UN. What makes the UN more reliable than oil companies?

Tell me, are 99% of the worlds scientists involved in a conspiracy?

Probably not. Tell me, are 99% of the world's scientists in the IPCC?

Which I have done. However if someone has a history of dishonesty such as Steven Milloy you would have to be a blazing fool to ignore it. It's the classic case of fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Okay... and if someone has a history of dishonesty such as the UN, what would you have to be to ignore it?

[Zenob]

Liar. You don't even understand how the ignore feature works. Every post I've posted, you've responded to after you so-called used your ignore feature. Now I can get a glimpse of your character because not telling the truth comes second nature to you. Don't deny it; these are facts.

You are the last one in these forums that should be flinging accusations. Including this time, I've used the "view anyway" feature maybe 4 times with your posts. That leaves dozens of posts from you that I've blissfully ignored thanks to the ignore feature on this website. Don't worry though, after this post I won't bother using the read anyway feature again. Your various posts have shown me everything I need to know about you. Simply put, responding to you is beneath me.

Sources... How can we believe anything you say now? It has been shown that you are a liar, therefore, you need to show proof ---> especially since you are giving exact figures.

Really? I gave "exact figures"? Where did I do that? The numbers I quoted are from the BOOK YOU WERE PUSHING. Did you not read the the damn thing before you came on here and started hawking it to defend your climate denial position? The closest thing to an "exact figure" I provided was in pointing out that carbon in the atmosphere has gone up about a third in the past century and a half or so(I believe that was my exact wording). As for "sources", they are called books genius. Barring that there is always google. Your lack of knowledge is not MY responsibility. Try reading something that isn't from a right wing hack every once in a while. It'll do wonders. I promise it won't kill you.

Now, since this is the LAST time I will EVER bother responding to you, let's get a few things out in the open. I don't expect this post to linger too long before a mod pulls it, but frankly I don't care. YOU have been wrong about damn near everything you have ever posted on here. You have shown breath taking amounts of incredulity/ignorance with your bizarre attempts to support your various right wing fantasies. From repeating every baseless rumour you heard/read leading up to the election to you getting pissy after posting obvious pseudoscience and/or discredited talking points and then getting called on it. Now after all that you want to point a finger at me and call ME a liar?!? Bud, you can stick it up your dirt pipe and spin on it. You are nothing short of an embarrasment. One of the goals of the life extension movement is to get increased visibility/acceptance. Having you here cluttering up the forums with your mad ramblings is DIRECTLY counter to that goal. I have no idea why you haven't been tossed out on your ass yet. I'd say it's safe to say most people here think the same thing, they just haven't said so in order to make life easier for the mods.

Good day. And good bye.

Post deleted by mods in 3...2...

[luv2increase]

You are the last one in these forums that should be flinging accusations.

Why is that? You don't even know what I post except for those "4" times, right? Are you fibbing once again? Post sources that contradict those figures besides your personal opinion.

Oopss.. You may not be able to see this post

[niner]

Okay, so one side is funded by the oil companies, and the other side is funded by the UN. What makes the UN more reliable than oil companies?

Good Lord.

[JLL]

He blesses the UN?

[sthira]

You guys debating global warming and its causes crack me up. You are such tools of the American Petroleum Institute, and unless you work for them and you're paid by Chevron or Honeywell or whoever, I have no idea why you would be spreading their propaganda. They do not have your interests in mind.

[JLL]

You guys promoting global warming and its causes crack me up. You are such tools of the environmental agencies, and unless you work for them and you're paid by Al Gore or Greenpeace or whoever, I have no idea why you would be spreading their propaganda. They do not have your interests in mind.

Yes, I agree!

[biknut]

The world has never seen such freezing heat

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.


http://www.telegraph...1/16/do1610.xml

[biknut]

LYSENKO AND GLOBAL WARMING

October 16, 2008

Cliff Ollier [cliffol@cyllene.uwa.edu.au]

Paul Johnson (2008) wrote that the greenhouse bandwagon is like Marxist or Freudian science. A better parallel might be with Lysenko pseudo-science (Reiter, 2004).

Lysenko was an insignificant agriculturalist who thought he had a new way of developing crops that would vastly increase food production in the starving Russia of Stalin. It was called vernalisation, and included treating seeds before cultivation to affect their behaviour.

Significantly, Lysenko introduced his ideas first through politics, and had heavy backing. Some think his idea had a Marxist backing, because it claimed biology could be modified in the way that communists wanted to control people’s behaviour. The government was anxious to increase food production and quell disturbances amongst the growers, and Lysenko was an adept propagandist and became a cult leader who impressed the peasants.

Lysenko became the head of the Soviet Lenin All Union Institute of Agricultural Sciences, and ran all the nation’s research in the area. He promised to triple or quadruple crop yields.

He demonised conventional genetics, which again suited his masters who believed it was the basis behind fascist eugenics.

Opposition to Lysenko was not tolerated, and was labelled ‘bourgeois’ or ‘fascist’. Lysenko used his position to denounce Mendelian geneticists as “fly-lovers and people haters”, which had serious consequences. From 1934 to 1940, with Stalin’s blessing numerous geneticists were shot, and others exiled to Siberia. Vavilov, for example, a truly great geneticist and biogeographer, was sent to Siberia where he died of starvation in 1943, and Lysenko in person took over his role of Director of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Any survivor of the purge had to keep quiet. In 1948 genetics was officially labelled a ‘bourgeois pseudoscience’ and genetic research came to a halt. Krushchev also supported Lysenko, but after his departure in 1964 the Academy of Sciences investigated the records and a devastating critique of Lysenko was made public. The ban on genetics was lifted in 1965.

When Lysenko denounced Mendelian thought as reactionary and decadent: he also announced that his speech had the approval of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The parallel is that the Global Warming movement was really kicked off by James Hanson, when he gave evidence to a United States Senate Committee in June 1988. Ever since, the IPCC has worked through national and international organisations. Hanson became climate adviser to the US President, to Al Gore and many others including Lehman Brothers, who saw carbon emission trading as a new business opportunity. The IPCC claims its reports are written by 2500 scientists, but in fact they are written by only about 35, controlled by an even smaller number.

Opposition to Global Warming is likened to denial of the Holocaust. We are repeatedly told that there is no debate - hardly a scientific approach. The influence of the IPCC spread throughout the administration, and it became increasingly difficult to get research funding without being a believer in global warming.

Why would governments be persuaded to follow this idea before it was scientifically evaluated? One reason may be that there was a rising tide of what some have likened to a new religion - Environmentalism. Of course no politician wants to be seen as ‘anti-environment’, nor lose the votes of the Greens. The Greens, for their part, are happy to follow the climate-change line because it gives them enormous political power. As a minor party they hold the balance of power, and the major parties dare not offend them.

The propaganda machine of the IPCC is magnificent, with its greatest tool being the Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth. It still has enormous impact, although the High Court in Britain did decide it could not be shown in schools without comment because it contained major errors. I suspect this film was the reason the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Al Gore and the IPCC. Another propaganda hit was the “Hockey Stick Graph”, purporting to show temperature was rising at an ever-increasing rate. This has been totally discredited, but it still seems to be branded on the collective mind of politicians and the public. Much Government propaganda has been lent to support Global Warming, and major media outlets such as the BBC in Britain have chosen to join in on the Global Warming side.

Climate change, like Lysenkoism, is much easier to understand than the complexities of real science. This appeals to the public and also to politicians and other influential people who can talk as if they understand it. If questioned about details they refer back to the IPCC reports.

So-called “independent reports” on climate change have been produced by Nicholas Stern in Britain and Ross Garnaut in Australia. Both Stern and Garnaut make it plain they are not scientists and have based their conclusions on the IPCC reports. Yet both continue to make public statements warning about the increasing dangers of climate change as if they were experts. This merely keeps their reports in the public eye, and echoes the flawed science of IPCC Global Warming.

At a lower level, without the need for evidence, everything can be blamed on Global Warming - droughts, floods, malaria, hurricanes and even cooling! The IPCC rhetoric continues although their predictions failed to come true, just as Lysenkoism continued when the promised crop increases never arrived. The IPCC forecast ever-increasing temperatures, but global temperatures have become lower since 1998. They have now put off Global Warming for 15 years because some other factor has intervened. Their models did not predict this event, but such detail does not affect the faithful.

Some scientists sided with Global Warming in the early days, and are so committed they cannot get off the bandwagon. Others worked for the IPCC, but resigned when they realised how their work was being twisted, or that real science did not support the claims that were made. Luckily we do not have the equivalent of Siberia to deal with them. The Global Warming affair has already lasted twenty years, and many administration and scientific research centres have sprung up - most of the latter being computer simulators. Computer simulation has a part to play in science, but it should not replace observation, and hypothesis testing and falsification. There are now Departments of Climate Change, for which read “Departments of Global Warming Blamed on Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide”

We should not forget the basic fact, that the one villain in the piece, and the one that is costing billions of dollars, is anthropogenic carbon dioxide. This is the equivalent of ‘vernalisation’ in the Lysenko era.

In summary, the comparisons between Lysenkoism and Global Warming are:

1. Work first through political organisations.

2. Claim that the science is settled. There is nothing to debate.

3. Disregard or deny all the accumulating evidence that the predictions are wrong.

4. Demonise the opposition (Mendelian geneticists; deniers of Global Warming)

5. Victimise the opposition (execution and exile; loss of jobs or research funds)

6. Relate to a current ideology (Stalinism; Environmentalism)

7. Support a vast propaganda machine.

8. Create a huge bureaucracy where many people have careers dependent on the ruling concept.

The parallel is expressed nicely by Helena Sheehan, who wrote of Lysenkoism:

“What went wrong was that the proper procedures for coming to terms with such complex issues were short-circuited by grasping for easy slogans and simplistic solutions and imposing them by administrative fiat.”

Lysenkoism was eventually replaced by real science. The same will happen to Global Warming eventually, because real science will not go away.

Cliff Ollier
School of Earth and Geographical Sciences
University of Western Australia
Nedlands, W.A. 6009

Reference

Paul Johnson. 2008. The Nonsense of Global Warming. Forbes Magazine. 6 October, 2008.

Paul Reiter. 2004. Passion and politics cloud the climate debate. Nature 431, 739, 14 October 2004
http://www.nature.co...ll/431739c.html

Helena Sheehan. 1993. Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History (Humanities Press International).

http://www.timothybirdnow.com/?p=1233

[Lazarus Long]

This is just to let everyone know that I have consolidated the 3 principal global warming politics threads and pinned them to the top of the politics area. The title defaulted to Biknut's first thread and includes both the threads started by Nonzero and Savage.

Now it will be easy to find but from now on any posts that are political in nature referring to this issue will be moved to this thread in politics and taken out of the areas associated with the science of the issue.

[TianZi]

That this thread has been stickied is a travesty. Might as well sticky the threads by the same OP, Biknut, "demonstrating" that Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President.

Edited by TianZi, 09 December 2008 - 07:14 AM.

[biknut]

Hows this for a trend line?





http://www.weatherqu...bal-warming.htm

Edited by biknut, 11 December 2008 - 11:16 PM.

[biknut]

I may have found proof of global warming.

[sUper GeNius]

Hey Bikinut, when you gonna buck-up for membership? With as many threads you start, you should paying your way.

p.s. Shame works wonderfully for recruitment. It worked on me. Dukenukem challenged me to buck up a while back.

[biknut]

Where's all this damn ice coming from? Who was ths the dumb ass that said all the ice would be gone from the Arctic this year? Wrong.

Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

January 1, 2009 11:31 AM

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.

http://www.dailytech...rticle13834.htm