659 replies to this topic

[Mind]

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.

That is an interesting issue you bring up. I need to get to work in the morning (in the winter I drive a car). I need gasoline. Chevron, BP, and Exxon, make sure I have the gas I need. They also provide the gas for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, ambulances, and police cars, of which I am very thankful. During the last 100 years, fossil fuels have "fueled" the entire advance of industrial (and now information-based) society. Every good thing we have was built on a economic base of cheap reliable fossil fuels. We wouldn't be here discussing indefinite lifespans without fossil fuels. Along with the use of fossil fuels came pollution but the pollution was obviously tolerable as the trade-off was progress and freedom from day-to-day subsistence living. Now we are running out of fossil fuels and switching over mostly cleaner alternatives, maybe just in time to spare worse environmental consequences. You can demonize fossil fuel providers all you want but it was the vast majority of society that supported fossil fuel use for over 100 years because it "was in our best interest".

[maxwatt]

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.

That is an interesting issue you bring up. I need to get to work in the morning (in the winter I drive a car). I need gasoline. Chevron, BP, and Exxon, make sure I have the gas I need. They also provide the gas for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, ambulances, and police cars, of which I am very thankful. During the last 100 years, fossil fuels have "fueled" the entire advance of industrial (and now information-based) society. Every good thing we have was built on a economic base of cheap reliable fossil fuels. We wouldn't be here discussing indefinite lifespans without fossil fuels. Along with the use of fossil fuels came pollution but the pollution was obviously tolerable as the trade-off was progress and freedom from day-to-day subsistence living. Now we are running out of fossil fuels and switching over mostly cleaner alternatives, maybe just in time to spare worse environmental consequences. You can demonize fossil fuel providers all you want but it was the vast majority of society that supported fossil fuel use for over 100 years because it "was in our best interest".

Excellent point. We all used oil because we could. In ancient Rome and Greece, there were 10 slaves per one free man. In the middle ages it was serfs. Industrial societies have the energy of a hundred or more slaves per person at our disposal, and we are all free men, more or less. Without the industrial revolution, first coal in Britain when they cut down their forests and ran out of wood, to "Rock Oil" and Petroleum in the 19th and 20th centuries, we would most of us be living lives of poverty, ignorance and misery if we were alive at all.

The oil and companies and their allies have undoubtedly delayed the switchover to other fuels, because it was in their interests, and because it was profitable to burn as much oil as possible. In a thousand years it won't matter much if they delayed things by a few years or not. Al Gore will be forgotten, too.

It is undeniable we are putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, and from what science knows of the properties of CO2, it will lead to warming. Some even argue that human driven increase in CO2 has been countering the beginning of another ice age for the past 10,000 years! But consider that the CO2 levels on our planet at the beginning of the 19th century were the lowest they have been since the late Carboniferous period. In the past billion years, CO2 levels have been as much as 20 times what they are now, and for the past 300 million years have usually been four to five times higher than they are now. * Solar cycles, continent configuration and earth's orbit aside, higher CO2 levels have coincided with higher temperatures world-wide, and higher sea levels. Whether conditions will change as rapidly as some predict, or more slowly, they will occur. It is jejune to believe otherwise. But in the past, higher sea levels and higher temperatures were not inhospitable to life; there was less land, but more habitable land toward the poles, though the interiors of continents toward the equator tended to be deserts. Change will come. Life will continue, as will, I believe, a trans-humanist society in some form. I rather suspect that Republicans, Democrats, Socialists and Libertarians will be extinct and irrelevant at this time-scale.

[sUper GeNius]

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.

That is an interesting issue you bring up. I need to get to work in the morning (in the winter I drive a car). I need gasoline. Chevron, BP, and Exxon, make sure I have the gas I need. They also provide the gas for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, ambulances, and police cars, of which I am very thankful. During the last 100 years, fossil fuels have "fueled" the entire advance of industrial (and now information-based) society. Every good thing we have was built on a economic base of cheap reliable fossil fuels. We wouldn't be here discussing indefinite lifespans without fossil fuels. Along with the use of fossil fuels came pollution but the pollution was obviously tolerable as the trade-off was progress and freedom from day-to-day subsistence living. Now we are running out of fossil fuels and switching over mostly cleaner alternatives, maybe just in time to spare worse environmental consequences. You can demonize fossil fuel providers all you want but it was the vast majority of society that supported fossil fuel use for over 100 years because it "was in our best interest".

Excellent point. We all used oil because we could. In ancient Rome and Greece, there were 10 slaves per one free man. In the middle ages it was serfs. Industrial societies have the energy of a hundred or more slaves per person at our disposal, and we are all free men, more or less. Without the industrial revolution, first coal in Britain when they cut down their forests and ran out of wood, to "Rock Oil" and Petroleum in the 19th and 20th centuries, we would most of us be living lives of poverty, ignorance and misery if we were alive at all.

The oil and companies and their allies have undoubtedly delayed the switchover to other fuels, because it was in their interests, and because it was profitable to burn as much oil as possible. In a thousand years it won't matter much if they delayed things by a few years or not. Al Gore will be forgotten, too.

It is undeniable we are putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, and from what science knows of the properties of CO2, it will lead to warming. Some even argue that human driven increase in CO2 has been countering the beginning of another ice age for the past 10,000 years! But consider that the CO2 levels on our planet at the beginning of the 19th century were the lowest they have been since the late Carboniferous period. In the past billion years, CO2 levels have been as much as 20 times what they are now, and for the past 300 million years have usually been four to five times higher than they are now. * Solar cycles, continent configuration and earth's orbit aside, higher CO2 levels have coincided with higher temperatures world-wide, and higher sea levels. Whether conditions will change as rapidly as some predict, or more slowly, they will occur. It is jejune to believe otherwise. But in the past, higher sea levels and higher temperatures were not inhospitable to life; there was less land, but more habitable land toward the poles, though the interiors of continents toward the equator tended to be deserts. Change will come. Life will continue, as will, I believe, a trans-humanist society in some form. I rather suspect that Republicans, Democrats, Socialists and Libertarians will be extinct and irrelevant at this time-scale.

Yep. And those fossil fuels will allow me to store potential energy (from the tow) to enjoy my new hobby. Who would have thought so much fun could come from 200 million year old ferns. (shameless bravado coming...)

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Just joined a club! Sorry for the semi-OT post...

edit: I think my middle-aged crisis just hit. And I don't like Corvettes. Thank God for carbon...

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 06 January 2009 - 07:06 AM.

[Zenob]

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.

That is an interesting issue you bring up. I need to get to work in the morning (in the winter I drive a car). I need gasoline. Chevron, BP, and Exxon, make sure I have the gas I need. They also provide the gas for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, ambulances, and police cars, of which I am very thankful. During the last 100 years, fossil fuels have "fueled" the entire advance of industrial (and now information-based) society. Every good thing we have was built on a economic base of cheap reliable fossil fuels. We wouldn't be here discussing indefinite lifespans without fossil fuels. Along with the use of fossil fuels came pollution but the pollution was obviously tolerable as the trade-off was progress and freedom from day-to-day subsistence living. Now we are running out of fossil fuels and switching over mostly cleaner alternatives, maybe just in time to spare worse environmental consequences. You can demonize fossil fuel providers all you want but it was the vast majority of society that supported fossil fuel use for over 100 years because it "was in our best interest".

Oh for crying out loud. That has to be the biggest red herring I have ever seen in my life. The issue isn't whether or not fossil fuels have been/are useful. The issue is whether or not energy companies have been bank rolling bad science to muddy the waters on global warming in order to preserve their profit margins. And the answer to that is a resounding yes. Exxon for instance has an active program where they PAY for articles that are critical of global warming. If you look into all the main climate skeptics you will see that most of them have financial ties to the energy companies. Nothing says good science like a "study" who's outcome was purchased by a company with a vested financial interest in the outcome....

[Mind]

All climate scientists get a paycheck and not all the skeptics are paid by "big oil"....that is also a red herring. I don't get paid by "big oil" (well, I don't really do climate research...beyond 7-10 days, lol), but I am skeptical some models, their inputs, the worst case scenarios, and of the motivations of some AGW adherents (ie, Al Gore has gotten obscenely wealthy by scaring people).

It is NOT against the law for "big oil" to fund studies and each study should be judged upon its individual data/method/conclusions. You can be skeptical of studies funded by "big oil" but you would be foolish to dismiss everything not funded by government agencies.

Just look at it from the perspective of the oil companies and their shareholders. A bunch of government funded scientists (many who loathe the free market), and government funded organizations, and government funded research all coming to the conclusion that we need more government and more funding to study why your business needs to be taxed and regulated out of existence. Don't you think they have a reason to be skeptical as well?

That being said, I do think fossil fuel companies are trying to frame the issue the best they can and promote research that keeps their business from being steamrolled. Who wouldn't? People (and the businesses they run) react poorly to change, and times are a changn'....rapidly. In my view, instead of pursuing an all out war to crush big oil, environmentalists and socialists should be working with them to hurry the transition to cleaner alternatives. Here you have a large group of people/companies who are experts in procuring and delivering most of the world's energy needs. Why not work together to start procuring and delivering a cleaner future.

Edited by Mind, 06 January 2009 - 07:14 PM.

[sUper GeNius]

I think a more interesting question is, not whether humans are causing the earth to warm, but whether we should spend trillions trying to stop it. Perhaps that money is better spent on abatement of the consequences.

This is a question that essentially transcends science and scientists.

Sounds like this question deserves a thread of its own.

[Zenob]

All climate scientists get a paycheck and not all the skeptics are paid by "big oil"....that is also a red herring. I don't get paid by "big oil" (well, I don't really do climate research...beyond 7-10 days, lol), but I am skeptical some models, their inputs, the worst case scenarios, and of the motivations of some AGW adherents (ie, Al Gore has gotten obscenely wealthy by scaring people).

It is NOT against the law for "big oil" to fund studies and each study should be judged upon its individual data/method/conclusions. You can be skeptical of studies funded by "big oil" but you would be foolish to dismiss everything not funded by government agencies.

Just look at it from the perspective of the oil companies and their shareholders. A bunch of government funded scientists (many who loathe the free market), and government funded organizations, and government funded research all coming to the conclusion that we need more government and more funding to study why your business needs to be taxed and regulated out of existence. Don't you think they have a reason to be skeptical as well?

That being said, I do think fossil fuel companies are trying to frame the issue the best they can and promote research that keeps their business from being steamrolled. Who wouldn't? People (and the businesses they run) react poorly to change, and times are a changn'....rapidly. In my view, instead of pursuing an all out war to crush big oil, environmentalists and socialists should be working with them to hurry the transition to cleaner alternatives. Here you have a large group of people/companies who are experts in procuring and delivering most of the world's energy needs. Why not work together to start procuring and delivering a cleaner future.

You failed to notice the difference(and tossing out an obligatory Gore or Clinton reference won't change it). A scientist who is payed by a research university is not going to be biased either way yet you tried to insinuate just that with your "many who loathe the free market" comment. Are you seriously suggesting that the vast majority(and yes there IS a consensus among the worlds climate scientists) of the worlds climate scientists are in a conspiracy to "get" big oil because they all "loathe the free market"? Do you have ANYTHING to support that?

Also, does fear of a changing market somehow lift any and all restrictions on a company's behavior? Seriously. I want to know. Tobacco companies were afraid of lost sells due to people becoming aware of the dangers of smoking. I guess that fear means that their actions in lying and covering up the dangers of cigarettes is justified then. After all, "Who Wouldn't?" Also, how did this segue into "environmentalists and socialists?"(I already know the answer) Are 99% of the world's climate scientists some kind of radical environmentalists or "socialists"? Trying to find someone to blame for something you don't like does nothing to establish/disprove it's veracity.

The reason I picked the tobacco companies as my example is because they are the ones that pioneered the strategy that the oil companies are now employing. They basically find researchers(people willing to whore out there PhDs for cash) and feed them money to produce "research" that they use to generate doubt among the general populace as to whether or not there is a scientific consensus. The oil companies managed to improve the strategy slightly. They souped up the political element. They have basically tried to frame it as a right/left issue or a conservative/liberal issue. This is suprisingly easy and also effective. They can completely ignore the evidence for global warming and just point the finger at scientists in general and say that they are liberals/environmentalists/socialists/etc and the right wing brain blows a fuse. They automatically reject whatever was associated with their hated nemesis the left and will then begin to parrot the talking points they just heard. At this point trying to argue/debate them is pretty much futile. It's like trying to explain radio-metric dating to a young earth creationist.

I just wish you righties would wise up and realize that you've been had.

Edited by Zenob, 07 January 2009 - 01:00 AM.

[JLL]

There was a consensus once that the earth is flat. Didn't make it flat, though.

Btw, just look at the list of so-called climate sceptics. It's growing all the time. And we're seeing less news dealing with global warming, simply because what we're seeing is the opposite. Frankly, global warming is going out of style fast.

I think a more serious issue is global cooling, or the next ice age. How are we going to deal with the increased energy demand? Are there going to be too many uninhabitable places? When, and it is a "when", not an "if", the next ice age begins, we can't just wait it out. At least for immortalists, this should be a big issue, since we're hopefully going to be here when things get colder than a ticket taker's smile at the Ivory theatre on a Saturday night.

[biknut]

Here's a article that's not about global cooling or warming, but it does provide evidence that the warming over the last 100 years was probably caused by the sun. What this article says is that for the last 80 years we've had a more active sun. Now they think it's about time the sun will become less active. Duh, guess what it's already less active.

Isn't it interesting the sun has been more active for the last century and the global temperatures have been rising. Now the sun is less active and guess what? The temperatures are falling as if they turned on a dime. What a surprise, for algore and his dupes.

Russian scientists seem to be the ones on the leading edge of this curve, because they were the ones a few years ago telling us that the sun would be less active by 2020 and we were going to be needing a lot of fur coats. Could it be that western scientists knew about this too, but were keeping it to themselves because it's so not PC to mention anything against global warming? I say hell yes.

What a pity, right when the global warming alarmists were about to have their way, the sun had to double cross them, and show them up as the frauds they really are.


Astronauts threatened by cosmic rays as sun becomes less active

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:19 AM on 08th January 2009

Astronauts returning to the moon could be threatened by cosmic rays as a result of the sun becoming less active, scientists have said. The sun's ability to shield the solar system from harmful radiation could falter in the early 2020s, research from the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology claimed. At about the same time, the American space agency Nasa plans to send astronauts back to the moon.

The sun has been relatively active for around 80 years. Scientists have now calculated that the active spell's total lifetime is likely to be between 95 and 116 years. They suspect it will probably finish at the shorter end of this range. Cosmic rays from deep in space are to some extent prevented from entering the solar system by the solar wind, a gale of atomic particles blasted out from the sun.

The sun produces more solar wind when it is highly active. Fluctuating levels of rare isotopes such as beryllium-10 in Greenland ice cores provide evidence of the effect of the sun's active and inactive phases, according to Jose Abreu from the Swiss Institute in Duebendorf. Isotopes are atomic mutations - different versions of a particular element. Certain isotopes are formed when cosmic rays break down the nuclei of oxygen and nitrogen atoms in the Earth's atmosphere.

Mr Abreu's team found that production of these isotopes peaks when the sun is inactive and more cosmic rays hit the Earth. A report in New Scientist magazine said in a new inactive phase, 'those most likely to be affected would be astronauts'. It added: 'Beyond the Earth's protective magnetic field, their exposure to the increased cosmic rays let into the solar system due to a weaker solar wind could cause cancer and fertility loss. However, astronauts would benefit from a reduced number of solar flares, which also produce dangerous radiation, said the magazine.

http://www.dailymail...sun-active.html

[sUper GeNius]

Here's a article that's not about global cooling or warming, but it does provide evidence that the warming over the last 100 years was probably caused by the sun.

I read an article a few months back which stated the sun theory had been discredited.

[Mind]

A scientist who is payed by a research university is not going to be biased either way yet you tried to insinuate just that with your "many who loathe the free market" comment.

Are you seriously saying that university researchers are incapable of bias? Is that because of some magic potion or something? Many of the climate skeptics ARE university researchers. There are serious debates at every climate conference as to whether the inputs are correct, the models are good enough, whether feedback mechanisms are accurately accounted for, and even how much the sun's output has an effect. Is every researcher who questions Al Gore's worst case scenario and James Hansen "We are all toast" comment automatically tools of "big oil"? I don't think so. The AGW theory only gets better through questioning and dissent.

I for one think we should move away from fossil fuels as soon as practical. It is about time. Fossil fuels are so 20th century. Fossil fuels cause a lot of pollution and I am more concerned with the classic pollutants than CO2. I am more concerned about ocean pH than atmospheric warming. But I don't want to risk causing a destabilization of whole societies by pursuing and all out war against big oil. Just seems foolish to me. There has got to be a win-win solution to gradually ween us off of fossil fuels.

[Zenob]

There was a consensus once that the earth is flat. Didn't make it flat, though.

Btw, just look at the list of so-called climate sceptics. It's growing all the time. And we're seeing less news dealing with global warming, simply because what we're seeing is the opposite. Frankly, global warming is going out of style fast.

I think a more serious issue is global cooling, or the next ice age. How are we going to deal with the increased energy demand? Are there going to be too many uninhabitable places? When, and it is a "when", not an "if", the next ice age begins, we can't just wait it out. At least for immortalists, this should be a big issue, since we're hopefully going to be here when things get colder than a ticket taker's smile at the Ivory theatre on a Saturday night.

There was never a SCIENTIFIC consensus that the earth was flat. There IS a scientific consensus about global warming. Not to mention that science CAN be wrong but it's self correcting. If it IS wrong then eventually new evidence will show it. This is not happening with global warming no matter how many cranks say otherwise. That bit about the "list of so-called climate skeptics growing" is pretty laughable. It's VERY similar to the creationist's "dissent from darwin" list. They seemed SO proud of their little list. Until people started looking at it. The vast majority of the names on it are people without relevant degrees in biology. Not to mention, if you just went ahead and gave them all the names on it, all 300 or so, that's only a fraction of a percent of the worlds total biologists. I think the actual numbers came out to less then .1%. I'm no math whiz but I think 99.9% is a consensus. lol

Also, all this talk about "global cooling" is the biggest pile of steaming dog poo I've seen in a LONG time. There is ZERO evidence of global cooling. There is MASSIVE amounts of data pointing to global warming. Cherry picking one or two days out of a 40 year long history isn't going to alter that. Here's another tip on the "global cooling" scam, the ice IS melting. When some climate skeptic says "well it froze back this year, it MUST be getting cooler" ask them if that 2 or 3 inches of frozen sea ice is the same as the 100-300 meter thick glacial ice that used to be there. Then when they insist that the ice IS growing, point to the sattelite photos that I posted previously in these global warming threads and ask them WHERE all this new magically forming ice is. They won't be able to do it.

[Mind]

Speaking of the sea ice...here is a cool site where you can view all the satellite data since 1979.

There is also an cool app where you can compare dates side-by-side.

So if anyone is trying to argue this date and that date, when there was more sea ice or less sea ice (areal extent anyway - which is important for albedo), then you can go to the source and see if it passes muster.

[sUper GeNius]

There was never a SCIENTIFIC consensus that the earth was flat.

There was "scientific" consensus that the sun, stars and planets circled the earth.

[JLL]

There was never a SCIENTIFIC consensus that the earth was flat.

There was no scientific community either.

There IS a scientific consensus about global warming.

Is there? According to Wikipedia consensus "is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action." Certainly, if you take global warming alarmists as your given group, then you have consensus, but if you take every scientist in the world, then there isn't.

Not to mention that science CAN be wrong but it's self correcting. If it IS wrong then eventually new evidence will show it. This is not happening with global warming no matter how many cranks say otherwise.

Evidence of global warming not happening is constantly piling up. See this thread for one example and pubmed for more. And all the studies that global warming alarmists mention are constantly being criticized, so your position seems odd.

For man-made global warming to have occurred, one would need to prove, at minimum, that the rise in temperature has been faster now than in history. But you can look at the data and see this isn't so. Computer models saying it WILL be hotter quicker in the future are not proof of man-made global warming.

That bit about the "list of so-called climate skeptics growing" is pretty laughable. It's VERY similar to the creationist's "dissent from darwin" list. They seemed SO proud of their little list. Until people started looking at it. The vast majority of the names on it are people without relevant degrees in biology. Not to mention, if you just went ahead and gave them all the names on it, all 300 or so, that's only a fraction of a percent of the worlds total biologists. I think the actual numbers came out to less then .1%. I'm no math whiz but I think 99.9% is a consensus.

I think there were a lot more than 300, but I don't remember. I'll check and get back to you.

Also, all this talk about "global cooling" is the biggest pile of steaming dog poo I've seen in a LONG time. There is ZERO evidence of global cooling.

I didn't say it's cooling now. It's hard to say, really. For the past 100 years, the temperature has been rising. Whether it's changing now, I don't know.

If you look at the historical data on temperatures, you will notice that the times between two ice ages are very short. We are currently in one of those periods, so if history repeats itself (and it has until now), we are headed for another ice age.

[JLL]

http://arctic.atmos....a.withtrend.jpg

[Zenob]

A scientist who is payed by a research university is not going to be biased either way yet you tried to insinuate just that with your "many who loathe the free market" comment.

Are you seriously saying that university researchers are incapable of bias? Is that because of some magic potion or something? Many of the climate skeptics ARE university researchers. There are serious debates at every climate conference as to whether the inputs are correct, the models are good enough, whether feedback mechanisms are accurately accounted for, and even how much the sun's output has an effect. Is every researcher who questions Al Gore's worst case scenario and James Hansen "We are all toast" comment automatically tools of "big oil"? I don't think so. The AGW theory only gets better through questioning and dissent.

I for one think we should move away from fossil fuels as soon as practical. It is about time. Fossil fuels are so 20th century. Fossil fuels cause a lot of pollution and I am more concerned with the classic pollutants than CO2. I am more concerned about ocean pH than atmospheric warming. But I don't want to risk causing a destabilization of whole societies by pursuing and all out war against big oil. Just seems foolish to me. There has got to be a win-win solution to gradually ween us off of fossil fuels.

It impossible to be human and be completely bias free. However, who is going to have more bias, a university researcher who is beholden to no one, or a crackpot like Stephen Milloy who only get's paid if Exxon likes what he writes? It's an easy question, with an even simpler answer. No magical potions required.

Find the name of your favorite skeptic and see if he's on this list and where his $$$'s come from: Source Watch

Also, this isn't about "worst case scenarios". That's a red herring also. The high end versus low end of a projection isn't what global warming deniers are crying about. Denialists have two main "flavors". There are those that just flat out deny everything. They are the ones who just refuse to acknowledge that the temperature has been going up for the past century and that world climate is clearly shifting. The other group will grudgingly except reality, but then will try to deny that it has anything to do with man made causes. They are the ones who look for EXCUSES to explain it away, like solar activity(debunked), "natural cycles", etc. None of them ever offer any kind of verifable evidence for their claims(unlike anthropogenic warming which DOES have evidence).

There is also no "all out war" against oil companies or an attempt to "destabalize" the worlds economy(which are kind of already shot to shit anyways). That is nothing but more FUD from big oil and an attempt by them to frame themselves as the "victim". You need to understand their game plan here. They aren't playing to "win". They know full well that the science is damning(just as it was for the tobacco companies). They can buy some PhDs off here and there and muddy the waters a great deal, but the end game is still going to happen and they know who is going to win. The name of the game for them is delay. The longer they can delay a consensus in public opinion, the longer they can delay alternatives to oil and new regulations(MPG targets and such). For them, every day of delay is more money in the bank. Literally. And by cleverly framing their global warming denial in political terms they have managed to essentially draft the entire right wing of american politics to their side. The next time you see some right wing pundit on tv going off about "liberal socialsts and their radical environmentalist global warming conspiracy blah blah blah" I want you to imagine a cash register going CHA CHING! That'll help you put things in perspective. lol

[Zenob]

http://arctic.atmos....a.withtrend.jpg

Not all ice is created equal. Sea ice melt has been MOSTLY re freezing during it's cold season. That's what your chart is. The problem is that each year there has been more and more of it that has been melting that didn't melt previously. This is clearly a sign of global warming(hotter seasons causing more melting). That can plainly be seen here: http://www.whoi.edu/...p;article=14087

Essentially global warming deniers use charts like that to try and trick people into thinking that global warming isn't real. In reality all that chart shows is that yes, we still have winters. It'll be a few more degrees before we warm up to the point that winter won't cause freezing in the north Atlantic. Essentially pointing to that chart as evidence against global warming is about like me saying that since my pond still freezes every winter then clearly global warming isn't real.

Glacial ice on the other hand is massively different then sea ice. Sea ice might be a foot or two thick. Glacial Ice is hundreds of meters thick and 10s of thousands of years old. It's also on the retreat world wide. Simple winter re-freezing isn't any where NEAR enough to replenish those monsters. Glacial ice accounts for WAY more ice then simple sea ice. Those things are BIG. The fact that those monsters are melting at such an alarming pace should be enough to tip off even the most stubborn person that clearly something is going on.

You can also view many other photos of the result of global warming here http://www.worldview...s/glaciers.html

It's a lot harder to argue with photographic evidence. lol

Attached Files

•  Muir_Glacier_01.jpg   35.45KB   0 downloads

[JLL]

"A university researcher who is beholden to no one"

Where I come from, university researchers pretty much do what universities tell them, and universities do what the government tells them. Good thing we can trust the government, though, because otherwise all this would just be stupid.

[Zenob]

"A university researcher who is beholden to no one"

Where I come from, university researchers pretty much do what universities tell them, and universities do what the government tells them. Good thing we can trust the government, though, because otherwise all this would just be stupid.

Oh well clearly then the whole thing is just a big government conspiracy then. Just like evolution, the Apollo missions, and 911.

The fact of the matter is that a tenured professor at a University has a huge amount of leeway. Once they have tenure they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want(provided it's legal). Show me an example of some climate researchers pandering/caving to government pressure to produce pro global warming results. I'm not going to hold my breath.

[bgwowk]

I think a more interesting question is, not whether humans are causing the earth to warm, but whether we should spend trillions trying to stop it. Perhaps that money is better spent on abatement of the consequences.

Or something else entirely.

[JLL]

"A university researcher who is beholden to no one"

Where I come from, university researchers pretty much do what universities tell them, and universities do what the government tells them. Good thing we can trust the government, though, because otherwise all this would just be stupid.

Oh well clearly then the whole thing is just a big government conspiracy then. Just like evolution, the Apollo missions, and 911.

The fact of the matter is that a tenured professor at a University has a huge amount of leeway. Once they have tenure they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want(provided it's legal). Show me an example of some climate researchers pandering/caving to government pressure to produce pro global warming results. I'm not going to hold my breath.

The IPCC

[Zenob]

"A university researcher who is beholden to no one"

Where I come from, university researchers pretty much do what universities tell them, and universities do what the government tells them. Good thing we can trust the government, though, because otherwise all this would just be stupid.

Oh well clearly then the whole thing is just a big government conspiracy then. Just like evolution, the Apollo missions, and 911.

The fact of the matter is that a tenured professor at a University has a huge amount of leeway. Once they have tenure they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want(provided it's legal). Show me an example of some climate researchers pandering/caving to government pressure to produce pro global warming results. I'm not going to hold my breath.

The IPCC

So the IPCC is involved in a conspiracy now is it? The IPCC is a collection of hundreds of scientists from all around the world. I guess that means that all of these countries are carefully plotting together via their scientists to trick everyone into thinking global warming is real. That's some feat. Especially considering the results of the IPCC's research/studies are freely available on their website. Those must be some devious bastards indeed if they can organize a conspiracy involving hundreds(thousands if you count support personel) AND publish their results freely online where ANYBODY who wants can look through it for errors/mistakes/lies. Devious indeed. Or, I guess it could be that they are actually honest scientists producing REAL science and some people are just looking for reasons to discount that science because it disagrees with their personal beliefs. Hmm, that almost makes sense...

[Lazarus Long]

The issue of whether or not there are natural cycles impacting climate is essentially a red herring argument, of course there are. What is important is determining whether humans impact climate, by how much, and to what extent we can control our own behavior to reverse the worst of the impact.

Human activity is analogous to a catalyst of change in this context. We are accelerating natural cycles by orders of magnitude

http://www.eurekaler...g-gsr010909.php

Contact: Dr. Eduardo Zorita
eduardo.zorita@gkss.de
49-041-528-71856
Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres
GKSS scientists refute argument of climate skeptics
The global increase of warmer years is no accident

Between 1880 and 2006 the average global annual temperature was about 15°C. However, in the years after 1990 the frequency of years when this average value was exceeded increased.

The GKSS Research Centre asks: is it an accident that the warmest 13 years were observed after 1990, or does this increased frequency indicate an external influence?

Calculating the likelihood

With the help of the so called „Monte-Carlo-Simulation" the coastal researchers Dr. Eduardo Zorita and Professor Hans von Storch at the GKSS-Research Centre together with Professor Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern estimated that it is extremely unlikely that the frequency of warm record years after 1990 could be an accident and concluded that it is rather influenced by a external driver.

The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 could have accured by accident after 1990 corresponds to a likelihood of no more than 1:10 000.

These likelihood can be illustrated by using the game of chance "heads or tails": the likelihood is the same as 14 heads in a row.

„In order to understand and statistically analyse the climate system and its interaction between the ocean, land, atmosphere and human activity, the comparison with a game of chance is no longer sufficient.

The natural sequence of warm and cold years no longer functions according to the simple principle of „zero or one", explains the GKSS scientist Dr. Eduardo Zorita about the challenges of his calculations, because the climate system possesses some inertia.

An example: After a warm year milder years tend to follow, since the oceans have stored some heat. This natural inertia must also be included in the calculations.

„Our study is pure statistical nature and can not attribute the increase of warm years to individual factors, but is in full agreement with the results of the IPCC that the increased emission of green house gases is mainly responsible for the most recent global warming", says Zorita in summary.

###

Original title of publication Zorita, E., T. F. Stocker, and H. von Storch (2008), How unusual is the recent series of warm years?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L24706, doi:10.1029/2008GL036228

[Zenob]

Here's some more salt to throw into the wounds of the climate change deniers:

Scientists Refute Argument Of Climate Skeptics
With the help of the so called „Monte-Carlo-Simulation" the coastal researchers Dr. Eduardo Zorita and Professor Hans von Storch at the GKSS-Research Centre together with Professor Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern estimated that it is extremely unlikely that the frequency of warm record years after 1990 could be an accident and concluded that it is rather influenced by a external driver. The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 could have accured by accident after 1990 corresponds to a likelihood of no more than 1:10,000.

„Our study is pure statistical nature and can not attribute the increase of warm years to individual factors, but is in full agreement with the results of the IPCC that the increased emission of green house gases is mainly responsible for the most recent global warming", says Zorita in summary.

Link

I guess these guys are in on the conspiracy too.

Edited by Zenob, 09 January 2009 - 08:32 PM.

[shifter]

I may have had more faith in the 'global warming' side of things and how we should all be aware of our 'carbon footprint'. But was totally lost when people like Al Gore, take private jets and fly around the world to give a conference on how to minimise our carbon footprint and emissions. Then why not get all the world leaders to get together and take their own private jets several times a year! If talking is all they are doing, and they are so serious and concerned well why not use satellite conferencing or take commercial jets that are going that way anyway? This hypocracy of Al Gore (and thats apart from the millions of dollars and fame he won for this) leads me to sit and wait the next few years to see how the climate will behave now that the sun spot cycle and the going of El Nino and coming of La Nina has come. Indeed, here in Australia the droughts are breaking, the dams are filling and in the capital we only had our 17TH warmest year on record last year. Back in the 80s or so weren't we all headed for an Ice Age? I'm sure there was scientific 'proof' of this also.

I guess if I want I can pick facts and figures from any side of the debate to suit any argument I wish to make. But have a read of this article. Its funny how WRONG this climate change lobbyist was. He scared us so much we made him Australian of the year!! LOL

http://network.natio...ie-drought.aspx

you can find some more very amusing articles at www.junkscience.com


If it hasn't been mentioned previously then I will ask that all the climate change lobbyists that have been promoting the use of ethanol blended fuels please consider that the process is far more destructive to the environment due to

You can count on clearing of rain forests to make way for the crop. (forget carbon emissions, the destruction of these forests in itself certainly leads to increased warming)
Lots more water usage to maintain crops (a precious resource)
The process of transporting the crop uses carbon emissions
The process of converting it to ethanol uses carbon emissions
The fuel burns quicker, is less efficient so the net carbon emission difference to ordinary unleaded is probably that the end product has burned more carbon. And if it doesn't ruin your car, the savings of the fuel don't even add up.

Here's some more salt to throw into the wounds of the climate change deniers:

Scientists Refute Argument Of Climate Skeptics
With the help of the so called „Monte-Carlo-Simulation" the coastal researchers Dr. Eduardo Zorita and Professor Hans von Storch at the GKSS-Research Centre together with Professor Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern estimated that it is extremely unlikely that the frequency of warm record years after 1990 could be an accident and concluded that it is rather influenced by a external driver. The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 could have accured by accident after 1990 corresponds to a likelihood of no more than 1:10,000.

„Our study is pure statistical nature and can not attribute the increase of warm years to individual factors, but is in full agreement with the results of the IPCC that the increased emission of green house gases is mainly responsible for the most recent global warming", says Zorita in summary.

Link

I guess these guys are in on the conspiracy too.

[Zenob]

Ok, first off, the last thing you want to do is go around plugging Milloy's website. Steve Milloy is a piece of shit shill for hire. Back in the 90s he was the tobacco companies go to guy to try and discredit/cast doubt on tobacco research. Now he primarily get's his money from oil companies. The man is basically just a whore. As long as the check clears he will say ANYTHING.

Go here and you can read all about this scumbag and his junkscience website: http://www.sourcewat...le=Steve_Milloy

Also the attempts by denialists to blame global warming on solar activity have all died on the vine.

Last fall, solar physicists and climate scientists in the US and Europe reviewed the latest studies of changes in total solar irradiance driven by the 11-year sunspot cycle. They concluded that those changes are unlikely to have had a "significant influence" on global warming since the 1600s. In particular, satellite measurements since the late 1970s showed changes too weak to have "contributed appreciably to accelerated warming over the past 30 years."

The effect "is really small, unless you can come up with ways to amplify it," says Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, who took part in the study. Link

***


Finally, and most importantly, even if cosmic ray intensity does turn out to influence cloud cover and temperature, it cannot explain the warming trend of the past few decades. Direct measurements of cosmic ray intensity going back as far as 50 years show no downward trend coinciding with the recent warming.
Link

Lastly, ethanol IS a boondogle, but that has nothing to do with global warming. That is just corn producers trying to exploit the situation to snag more farm subsidies.

[JLL]

With the help of the so called „Monte-Carlo-Simulation" the coastal researchers Dr. Eduardo Zorita and Professor Hans von Storch at the GKSS-Research Centre together with Professor Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern estimated that it is extremely unlikely that the frequency of warm record years after 1990 could be an accident and concluded that it is rather influenced by a external driver.

The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 could have accured by accident after 1990 corresponds to a likelihood of no more than 1:10 000.

These likelihood can be illustrated by using the game of chance "heads or tails": the likelihood is the same as 14 heads in a row.

After you have flipped 14 heads in a row, you can't say "wow, this is too improbable - that means it didn't happen." Probabilities only make sense when you're trying to predict things, not when you look into things that have already happened. This is a similar argument to the one put forth by creationists: the improbability of that first cell emerging is so low that it couldn't have happened.

Only problem with that hypothesis is that it did.

The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 have been after 1990 means nothing. What are they trying to measure? Nobody has said that it hasn't gotten warmer. What sceptics are saying is that there have been similar periods in history - but you have to look much further than 1880.

[Zenob]

After you have flipped 14 heads in a row, you can't say "wow, this is too improbable - that means it didn't happen." Probabilities only make sense when you're trying to predict things, not when you look into things that have already happened. This is a similar argument to the one put forth by creationists: the improbability of that first cell emerging is so low that it couldn't have happened.

Only problem with that hypothesis is that it did.

The fact that the 13 warmest years since 1880 have been after 1990 means nothing. What are they trying to measure? Nobody has said that it hasn't gotten warmer. What sceptics are saying is that there have been similar periods in history - but you have to look much further than 1880.

If you want to compare tactics with creationists I suggest you start with the climate change deniers. They use the same exact same tactics. They even have their very own "dissenters list". lol

You seem to be confused as well. They weren't calculating the odds of whether or not we would have 13 of the warmest years in a set period of time, they were calculating the odds of whether or not it would do that "naturally" or have to have some kind of external driver to produce that much warming. The probabilities pointed to an external driver. Just for the record, they did this buy looking at past events/history. Compared to these past events they determined that the odds of our present warming being part of these natrual cycles to be 10,000 to 1. In other words, something else has to be pushing it. If you disagree, then point to one of these other periods in history and show me how it compares to today. We'll call the guys up that did that paper and tell them you found something they overlooked. lol

Climate change denialists think that everybody else is an idiot and if they point out that we have had ice ages and "warm" periods in the past then everybody will think that recent climate changes are "normal". They just fail to point out the degree and rapidity of those present changes compared to past events. They know that most people won't think it through to that point. Kind of like when a denialist points to sea ice as "evidence" against global warming because he knows that most people are either going to not understand the difference between sea ice and glacial ice or just be too damn lazy to google it.

[platypus]

There IS a scientific consensus about global warming.

Is there? According to Wikipedia consensus "is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action." Certainly, if you take global warming alarmists as your given group, then you have consensus, but if you take every scientist in the world, then there isn't.

Yes there's about as large a scientific consensus as pratically possible:

http://en.wikipedia...._climate_change

Please list the scientific organisations who have issued a statement against AGW here so we can compare: