What part of the climate change thesis do skeptics disagree with?

[markus3622]

Let's turn this around quickly. What part of the general thesis do climate change skeptics disagree with?

1) Greenhouse gases exist that warm up our atmosphere.

2) CO2 is the second most important of these, causing around 26% of the greenhouse effect
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/388G/KiehlTrenbertth97.pdf

3) We have seen a rise in CO2 concentrations of around 20% in the last 40 years, indeed we have observed a rise of around 31% since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Similar increases have been observed in less important gases such as methane and nitrous oxide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Major_greenhouse_gas_trends.png
The rate of increase over the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years.


4) This increase is due to the increase in emissions and deforestation. Within the last 40 years, we have observed a 300% increase in emissions.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-3.htm
The present atmospheric CO<SUB>2</SUB> increase is caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO<SUB>2</SUB>. About three-quarters of these emissions are due to fossil fuel burning. Fossil fuel burning (plus a small contribution from cement production) released on average 5.4 ± 0.3 PgC/yr during 1980 to 1989, and 6.3 ± 0.4 PgC/yr during 1990 to 1999. Land use change is responsible for the rest of the emissions.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/096.htm

5) An increase in concentrations of gases known to warm the atmosphere, will lead to more heat being trapped.

6) An increase in average global temperatures has been observed.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-1.htm

I would be interested in hearing what part of the general thesis you disagree with?

(Let's leave aside economics and Kyoto at this stage, as this is a different topic, and try and remain focused)

[Naturalized-Texan]

No one disagrees that there is climate change - there is always climate change. Today no one, and I mean NO ONE, knows what causes climate change. By far the most likely cause of climate change is the Sun, specifically solar flare activity - the higher the activity, the warmer the climate (as in the past 100+ years); the lower the activity, the colder the climate (as in the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended in the late 19th Century).

There is huge split in the scientific community about whether human activities are causing the slight warming (0.6 degerees Celsius) in the past 100+ years since the end of the Little Ice Age:

Those who claim that global warming is caused by human activities are politically-motivated junk scientists who use invalid climate models and outright fraud (e.g., Mann's "hockey stick" fraud) to advance their socialist agenda to ensure that grant money keeps coming in from the UN and other left-wing organizations. In other words, their claims are political and driven by the lust for leftist grant money and have nothing to do with science.

In stark contrast, those who oppose that position are honest scientists who have no political axe to grind who use actual temperature measurements - both surface and satellite - to thoroughly debunk the invalid climate models and the fraudulent claims of the junk scientists. In other words, they are guided by science, not politics.

Some uninformed and misguided people claim that there is a consensus that global warming is caused by human activities. Nothing could be further from the truth. The ONLY consensus for that position is from politically-motivated junk scientists.

The consensus among honest scientists is that there are FAR too many uncertainties to conclude that global warming is caused by human activities. One of the MAJOR uncertainties mentioned by these honest scientists is that the warming and cooling cycles of climate change are the result of the increased and decreased solar flare activity as mentioned in my first pargraph above.

As long as there are such significant uncertainties, there is no way that any honest person can claim that there is any consensus about the causes of global warming.

[markus3622]

Three things strike me

1) You write that there are so many uncertainties so no-one can know the cause, but the warming is most likely due to solar variation and anyone saying otherwise is a politically motivated junk scientist.

This doesn't seem a very scientific position to take, and appears contradictory.

2) Do you have any peer-reviewed evidence that "the most likely cause of climate change is the Sun, specifically solar flare activity"?

3) Could you answer the actual questions?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Three things strike me

1) You write that there are so many uncertainties so no-one can know the cause, but the warming is most likely due to solar variation and anyone saying otherwise is a politically motivated junk scientist.

This doesn't seem a very scientific position to take, and appears contradictory.

2) Do you have any peer-reviewed evidence that "the most likely cause of climate change is the Sun, specifically solar flare activity"?

3) Could you answer the actual questions?
I have already answered those question on other threads.

BTW, please note my use of the phrase "most likely" and your use of the word "likely" in the discussion of the cycles of warming and cooling. We know for a fact about the Maunder Minimun with the almost complete absence if solar activity observed by Galileo that exactly coinced with the Little Ice Age. We know for a fact that solar activity has had a dramatic increase in the last 100+ years that coincides exactly with the slight warming trend in the last 100+ years. Consequently, it is far more likely that solar activity is the cause of global warming than some flimsy "evidence" obtained from invalid climate models by politically-inspired junk scientists.

I'm sure that if I could come back to Earth in 400 years, I would find that there are 500-year cycles of increased/decreased solar activity that coincide exactly with 500-year cycles of warming/cooling. Scientists have proven that there has been a 500-year (800AD - 1300AD) cycle of warming (the Medieval Warming) followed by a 500-year (1300AD - 1800AD) cycle of cooling (the Little Ice Age). It's highly likely that we are in the first 100+ years of another 500-year warming cycle.

[markus3622]

I concur that solar variation plays a part in climate change. Only a fool would doubt that. However, the IPCC report makes the following conclusions

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/467.htm

1) 20th century climate was unusual
2) The observed warming is inconsistent with model estimates of natural internal climate variability
3)The observed warming in the latter half of the 20th century appears to be inconsistent with natural external (solar and volcanic) forcing of the climate system.
4)The observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature in the vertical is inconsistent with natural forcing
5) Anthropogenic factors do provide an explanation of 20th century temperature change.

This is essentially what I've been arguing all along. - that natural factors do not account for all the warming that has been observered and that anthropogenic factors play a significant role. (Not 100%).

I am still unsure what part of the general thesis you disagree with.

[sunsettommy]

I looked through the link and found problems that I have brought up before.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/#datter

Answers to Frequently-asked Questions

My words in Blue.

The answers given are intended to be brief rather than comprehensive. For complete details readers are referred to the scientific references already given.



What are the basic raw data used?

Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used. (not shown where the actuall stations are located) Coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly, the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. (No mention whether they accounted for Urban Heating Island effect) Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over the Antarctic. The number of available stations was small during the 1850s, but increases to over 3000 stations during the 1951-90 period. For marine regions sea surface temperature (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval vessels are used. As the majority come from the voluntary observing fleet,(The known variability of the data gathering is legend)(They variously used METAL buckets and other times WOODEN buckets)(Then too in different areas alongside of the vessels,sometimes near the engine ports and other times away)(The wildly inconsistent methods of gathering Ocean water temperatures by various types of buckets is making the data WORTHLESS!) coverage is reduced away from the main shipping lanes and is minimal over the Southern Oceans. (So little data from southern oceans!) Maps/tables giving the density of coverage through time are given for land regions by Jones and Moberg (2003) and for the oceans by Rayner et al. (2003). Both these sources also extensively discuss the issue of consistency and homogeneity of the measurements through time and the steps that have made to ensure all non-climatic inhomogeneities have been removed.

Why are sea surface temperatures rather than air temperatures used over the oceans?

Over the ocean areas the most plentiful and most consistent measurements of temperature have been taken of the sea surface. ( A dishonest statement) Marine air temperatures (MAT) are also taken and would, ideally, be preferable when combining with land temperatures, but they involve more complex problems with homogeneity than SSTs (Rayner et al., 2003). The problems are reduced using night only marine air temperature (NMAT) but at the expense of discarding approximately half the MAT data. Our use of SST anomalies implies that we are tacitly assuming that the anomalies of SST are in agreement with those of MAT. Many tests show that NMAT anomalies agree well with SST anomalies on seasonal and longer time scales in most open ocean areas. Globally the agreement is currently very good (Rayner et al, 2003), even better than in Folland et al. (2001b). However, some regional discrepancies in open ocean trends have recently been found in the tropics (Christy et al., 2001). This is incredible the explanations they make here,it is plain they made a lot of decisions on how to collate incompatible data.Then too they ASSUME that the anomolies of SST are in agreement with those of MAT!

Why are the temperatures expressed as anomalies from 1961-90? Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data. Over the oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. However it is possible to interpolate historical data to create spatially complete reference climatologies (averages for 1961-90) so that individual observations can be compared with a local normal for the given day of the year. Evident tinkering with the data.They admit it here.

It is interesting they completely bypass the Microwaves Satellite data and the Radio Sonde and the ...... This is pathetic!

Meanwhile I was unable to get the ACTUAL reporting stations in the Link.Just a mention of 3000 stations.No mention about correction for Urban Heating Islands.

PFFFFT!

[Naturalized-Texan]

1) 20th century climate was unusual
Unusual, how? We know that the Earth was significantly warmer during the Medeival Warm period when there was little or no human activity that could produce greenhouse gases.

2) The observed warming is inconsistent with model estimates of natural internal climate variability
Those climate models are not valid, so the inconsistency is more likely in the model estimates, not in the observed warming.

3)The observed warming in the latter half of the 20th century appears to be inconsistent with natural external (solar and volcanic) forcing of the climate system.
More than half of the 0.6 degrees Celsius warming that has occurred iin the past 100+ years occurred prior to 1940, prior to the huge industrial expansion following WW II. In fact, there was a significant cooling between 1940 and the 1970s at which time there was a panic that we were on the way to another ice age.
http://users4.ev1.net/~rwadding/globalcooling.jpg

The Cooling World (http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm)

4)The observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature in the vertical is inconsistent with natural forcing
What is meant by the word "verticle"? I suspect that you don't know either. I'm sure that, as usual, you are merely parroting something that you don't understand.

5) Anthropogenic factors do provide an explanation of 20th century temperature change.
Anthropogenic factors are only one of many possible explanations for 20th Century temperature changes. The fact that there are many possible and equally plausible explanations is proof positive that there are too many uncertainies to conclude that the warming is being caused by human activities.

This is essentially what I've been arguing all along. - that natural factors do not account for all the warming that has been observered and that anthropogenic factors play a significant role. (Not 100%).
Probably not even 50% or even 25% based on everything that I've posted above. It's far more likely that either increased solar activity or a natural recovery from a 500-year cold period or both are the cause of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. It's likely that global temperatures are merely returning to normal following the 500-year Little Ice Age.

[sunsettommy]

Recently a change has been observed that will favor a cooling shift.This combined with the approaching Solar Minimum will be an interesting one.

Will it make a stop to the slight warming and start a new cooling trend?

The excerpt:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=center align=left><TD>Pacific Decadal Oscillation</TD><TD align=right>Maintained by IOC http://www.oceansatlas.org/cds_upload/1027005103878_slgo_ioc.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><!--Template: org.fao.waicent.cds.CTN--><TR vAlign=top xmlns:ags="http://www.fao.org/agris/agmes/metadata/1.1/"><TD vAlign=top align=right width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff colSpan=2><A class=view href="http://www.oceansatlas.org/cds_static/en/pacific_decadal_oscillation__en_12737_all_1.html?s tatus=ND0xMjczNyY2PWVuJjMzPWN0biYzNz1pbmZv"> <A class=view href="http://www.oceansatlas.org/cds_static/en/pacific_decadal_oscillation__en_12737_all_1.html?s tatus=ND0xMjczNyY2PWVuJjMzPSomMzc9a29z"> (http://www.oceansatlas.org/cds_static/en/pacific_decadal_oscillation__en_12737_all_1.html?s tatus=Mj1vcmcuZmFvLndhaWNlbnQuY2RzLm9mLkNvbmZlcmVu Y2VDZW50ZXJQYWdlJjQ9MTI3MzcmY3RuX2luZm9fdmlld19zaX plPWN0bl9pbmZvX3ZpZXdfZnVsbCY2PWVuJjMzPSomMzc9Y29u ZmN0cg~~)</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD vAlign=top width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff colSpan=2>The Pacific Ocean, the largest of the world's oceans, undergoes recurring, long-term swings in its temperature structure. These temperature shifts include a climate mode called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO. It's an El Niño-like temperature shift, but it's more gradual and subtle (about 1- 2 degrees C over 15 - 30 years). Although the temperature change is smaller than that experienced during the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation occurs over a much larger area. The largest impacts of the PDO manifest themselves in the pattern of the jet stream across North America and in the dynamics of fishery ecosystems in the North-eastern Pacific. There are two phases associated with the PDO: the positive or 'warm' phase, and the negative or 'cool' phase.</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD vAlign=top width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff colSpan=2> </TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD vAlign=top width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff colSpan=2>It has been generally agreed upon that the Pacific Ocean has recently entered the cool phase of the PDO. In its negative, or "cool" phase, the PDO is a giant horseshoe-shaped arc of warmer-than-normal water symmetrical about the equator, that stretches from the Aleutians to the South Pacific and encloses a large wedge-shaped area of cooler-than-normal water in the eastern Pacific.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


http://www.oceansatlas.org/cds_static/en/pacific_decadal_oscillation__en_12737_all_1.html

[Naturalized-Texan]

sunsettommy:
Scientists estimate that the Urban Heating Island effect accounts for at least half of the 0.6 degrees Celsius global warming in the past 100+ years. For example, on another thread I showed that while temperatures rose significantly in New York City since 1800, temperatures fell in Albany, NY, and Rye, NY, both a short ways north of NYC.

[sunsettommy]

sunsettommy:
Scientists estimate that the Urban Heating Island effect accounts for at least half of the 0.6 degrees Celsius global warming in the past 100+ years. For example, on another thread I showed that while temperatures rose significantly in New York City since 1800, temperatures fell in Albany, NY, and Rye, NY, both a short ways north of NYC.

John daly pointed this out on his website.That is why he continually uses RURAL Temperature data.

[markus3622]

Quoting straight from the IPCC Report

Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up to 1990 in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change.

We've been through this before. John Daly uses around 200 of the 2900 stations i.e. he cherry picks his data

I'm happy to post peer-reviewed science again

Peterson, T.C., K.P. Gallo, J. Lawrimore, T.W. Owen, A. Huang and D.A. McKittrick, 1999: Global rural temperature trends. Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 329-332.


Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Using rural/urban land surface classifications derived from maps and satellite observed nighttime surface lights, global mean land surface air temperature time series were created using data from all weather observing stations in a global temperature data base and from rural stations only. The global rural temperature time series and trends are very similar to those derived from the full data set. Therefore, the well-known global temperature time series from in situ stations is not significantly impacted by urban warming.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Unless you have any peer-reviewed science that says otherwise, we shall assume that the urban heat effect is insignificant

[markus3622]

It's a bit frustrating to see that you continue to post falsehoods.

1) Medieval warm period - it's been discussed before - stop clinging to it
2) Vertical - means as we go through the atmosphere
3) Stop relying on research from the 1970s - research has continued since then. We should be relying on more recent graphics

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-1.htm

[markus3622]

There's an interesting article in Science this month.

There's a section on the top 125 current scientific questions. In the top 25, is the question "How hot will the Greenhouse world be?"

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/100

Scientists know that the world has warmed lately, and they believe humankind is behind most of that warming. But how far might we push the planet in coming decades and centuries?

What this suggests is that the questions the scientists are asking have moved on. In effect, this debate we're having has been settled. It seems pretty much settled on whether we're affecting the climate, and the question is how much will we in the future.

Any thoughts?

[Naturalized-Texan]

It's a bit frustrating to see that you continue to post falsehoods.
After all of the falsehoods you have posted, some knowingly and some not, it's hypocritical of you to claim that I post falsehoods, especially when what I have posted are proven facts.

1) Medieval warm period - it's been discussed before - stop clinging to it
Why should I stop posting the proven fact that there was a 500-year warm period referred to in science and world history as the Medeival Warm period? The only falsehood comes from your ridiculous denial of that proven fact.

2) Vertical - means as we go through the atmosphere
Thanks for the clarification of that bureaucratic gobbledygook: "The observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature in the vertical is inconsistent with natural forcing"

Yes, that is one of the main uncertainties that has been observed based on NASA satellite data. The claim of human-caused global warming is contradicted by the measured cooling in the stratosphere since 1979 from NASA statllite data. If global warming was actually being caused by greenhouse gases, stratospheric temperatures would also be increasing. They aren't. Those temperatures have been declining significantly since 1993.

Temperatures in the lower troposphere (from the surface to 8 km) are increasing at a rate of 0.08 deg C per decade since 1979. The satellite readings in that region have been strongly affected by "El Niño" and "La Niña".

3) Stop relying on research from the 1970s - research has continued since then. We should be relying on more recent graphics
You are being very dense. That 1970s graphic is vital to the understanding of how temperatures have changed in the past 100+ years. It shows that temperatures increased by nearly 0.9 deg F (nearly 0.5 deg C) between 1880 (the approximate end of the Little Ice Age) and 1940. After a decline between 1940 and 1975, temperatures rose again to the point that the net increase in temperatures in the past 100+ years is 0.6 deg C. That proves the point that honest scientists have been making that most of the increase in temperatures in the past 100+ years occurred prior to 1940 (nearly 0.5 deg C prior to 1940, a little more than 0.1 deg C, net, since 1940.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-1.htm
This graphic confirms my response to 3) above.

I must ask you a question that has been on my mind for several days:

Why do you put so much faith in the reports from a bunch of government bureaucrats?
I'm referring, of course, to the IPCC.

[markus3622]

It's just that your proven facts aren't proven facts. There was an editorial in the Wall Street Journal recently and it's uncannily similar to the points you keep on raising, despite what the actual peer-reviewed science says.

I'll sum up the points you continue to make and offer rebuttals

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=167#more-167

1) Most global warming alarms are based on computer simulations that are largely speculative and depend on a multitude of debatable assumptions.

This is not correct. Concern about global warming is not based primarily on models, but rather on an understanding of the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and on observed data. We know from data that we have caused the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to rise sharply during the past century: it is now much higher than any time during the past 650,000 years (which is as far back as reliable ice core data exist). And we know that this rise in CO2-concentration changes the radiation balance of the planet and leads to a warming of global surface temperature. This is scientifically undisputed and well-established physics, which has been known since in the year 1896 the Swedish Nobel prize winner Svante Arrhenius calculated the climatic effect of a rise in CO2.
Since there is a continued increase in emissions of (in particular) CO2, continued greenhouse warming is highly likely to continue. The models serve merely to quantify these basic facts more accurately, calculate the regional climate response, and compute effects (such as the expected increase in ocean heat content or sea level) which can be tested against observed data from the real world.

This is basic physics, outlined in the OP, and you still haven't pointed out what part you disagree with

2) This century is not different to the Medieval warm period when the Vikings farmed Greenland and a "little ice age" more recently when the Thames River often froze solid.

The sentence, first of all, perpetuates two well-known fallacies regarding the so-called "Medieval Warm Period" and "Little Ice Age". See the RealClimate discussions of the Little Ice Age (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=32) and Medieval Warm Period (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=33) for explanations of why both the Viking colonization of Greenland and the freezing of the River Thames actually tells us relatively little about past climate change.

The actual large-scale climate changes during these intervals were complicated, and not easily summarized by simple labels and cherry-picked anecdotes. Climate changes in past centuries were significant in some parts of the world, but they were often opposite (e.g. warm vs. cold) in different regions at any given time, in sharp contrast with the global synchrony of 20th century warming (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/302/5644/404).

3) The slight warming believed to have occurred in the past century could well be no more than a natural rebound, especially since most of that warming occurred before 1940.

Firstly, the overall warming of the globe of nearly 1 degree C since 1900 (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/) is hardly "slight". That warming is about 1/5 of the total warming of the globe from the depths of the last Major Ice Age (about 20,000 years ago) to present.

Secondly, the argument that the climate should have naturally "rebounded" with warming during the 20th century defies the actual peer-reviewed scientific studies which, as discussed earlier, suggest that the climate should have actually cooled during the 20th century, not warmed, if natural factors were primarily at play. Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are required to explain the observed warming. Also, it is incorrect that most of the warming occurred before 1940; in contrast, the warming since 1970 is larger than that up to 1940.

4) Finally, an increasing number of scientists are concluding that variations in solar radiation associated with sun spots -- that's right, the heat of the sun -- play a major role in Earth's climate.

Solar forcing of climate is indeed an important component, and in the pre-industrial period appears to explain a significant share of the century-scale variability (though there is large uncertainty in the magnitude of the effect). There is likely an increase in the early 20th Century as referred to above, however, since 1950 there is no evidence (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=153) for increases in solar activity (most indices are flat) and so it is highly unlikely to be able to explain the bulk of the current warming trend.

I make no apology for copy and pasting this article, as it's increasingly clear you're singing from the same right-wing songsheet

[markus3622]

What makes it so frustrating is that you don't appeared to be interested in discussion. For you this is like a court room rather than a discussion forum. You decided a long time ago, on the basis on what you've read in the National Review, Wall Street Journal and other right wing sources that it's all a socialist conspiracy. Each time it's pointed out to you that you've made a mistake, you ignore it and then repeat it again in a few posts' hoping that nobody would notice.

I'm a relative newcomer to this debate, and it seems clear on the scientific evidence, mankind is affecting the climate to some extent. The experts in the field agree. The major scientific bodies agree. It matches with what we know about physics - the idea that putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would trap more heat isn't a novel one.

(i) When did you decide that global warming was all bunk?
(ii) Is there any evidence that would convince you that mankind was affecting the climate?

[DesertFox]

The experts in the field agree.No, they don't. THAT is the problem. The Left pretends the issue's all settled -- and it isn't. The major scientific bodies agree.No, they don't. It matches with what we know about physics - the idea that putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would trap more heat isn't a novel one.At some threshhold, that's entirely correct. There's nothing persuasive that we even know what that threshhold is, much less than we exceed it.

Beyond the issue of proof is the issue of "how much and to what benefit." Bjorn Lonborg's book clearly demonstrates that if we go balls-to-the-wall Kyoto and bankrupt the world economy to stop greenhouse gas emissions, we might delay serious global warming by a grand total of -- six years, beginning in 2100.

IOW: It's not at all sure you can have it (severely reduced greenhouse emissions), nor that you'd want it if you could have it. We need better science than is now available, and we need honesty.

[markus3622]

DF,

Look, I've read Lomberg's book and it's a great read, and in it he does severely criticise Kyoto. However, at this stage of the debate, bringing economics into it muddies the waters. It's discussing the cure, but that doesn't change the diagnosis.

This isn't a left-right issue - it's a scientific issue and the major scientific bodies are agreed. I've shown that scientists aren't discussing whether we've warmed the climate, but by how much we may in the future. The first issue has been resolved. I don't doubt there are some researchers in the field who disagree with the general consensus, and I'm not going to question their motives. But they represent a handful of the active researchers. This group consists of Singer, McKitrick, Soon, Ballunas et al, but the IPCC report alone references hundreds of peer-reviewed journal papers.

In the Science report above, of the 125 important questions that need answers, the ones related to climatology

1) What causes ice ages?
Something about the way the planet tilts, wobbles, and careens around the sun presumably brings on ice ages every 100,000 years or so, but reams of climate records haven't explained exactly how.
2)How will ecosystems respond to global warming?
To anticipate the effects of the intensifying greenhouse, climate modelers will have to focus on regional changes and ecologists on the right combination of environmental changes.

and of course
3) How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be? (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/100)

The point is, no-one is asking whether we are warming the world, but they are asking by how much we are, and what the effects will be. This debate is settled.

[DesertFox]

No, the debate isn't settled. It's very much doubtful that humanity's contribution to global warming is in the least significant. If we're not the cause, we can't be the cure.

[Naturalized-Texan]

What makes it so frustrating is that you don't appeared to be interested in discussion. For you this is like a court room rather than a discussion forum. You decided a long time ago, on the basis on what you've read in the National Review, Wall Street Journal and other right wing sources that it's all a socialist conspiracy. Each time it's pointed out to you that you've made a mistake, you ignore it and then repeat it again in a few posts' hoping that nobody would notice.
And you don't rely completely on left-wing sources? Get real! Of course you do and you know it.

However, I have been studying the issue of global warming from hundreds of sources - left, right, and center; favoring and opposing the theory (yes it is at best a theory since there is NO proof) that human activities are causing global warming - for more than 15 years. I have used my background as a college minor in chemistry, as a science teacher, as a student and user of atmospheric physics in the space program, as someone who has studied math models and used them in testing the reentry of the Apollo Command Module and the Space Shuttle, in my evaluation of the various claims and theories on the cause of global warming.

After more than 15 years of study and evaluation, I have concluded that there are too many probable and plausible causes of global warming to conclude the actual cause or causes. My logic and my knowledge of history shows me that the most likely cause of global warming now and during the Medieval Warm period (and the global cooling of the Little Ice Age) is the intensity and the sunspot/flare activity of the Sun. I have never denied that human activity MAY be a contributing factor, but it isn't the MAJOR contributor.

I'm a relative newcomer to this debate, and it seems clear on the scientific evidence, mankind is affecting the climate to some extent.
As I stated above, I completely agree and that has been my position all along. As I also stated above, it isn't the major effect.

The experts in the field agree. The major scientific bodies agree.
THEY DO NOT! As several of us have shown repeatedly, there are at least as many experts and scientific bodies that disagree as there are that agree. That's why it's impossible to state with any accuracy that global warming is caused by human activities (or, for that matter, that it isn't). Bottom line: No one knows for sure.

It matches with what we know about physics - the idea that putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would trap more heat isn't a novel one.
No one is denying that fact. Unfortunately, there is no empirical evidence that greenhouse gases released by human activities (e.g., CO2) are causing global warming, especially when by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapor from the Oceans.

(i) When did you decide that global warming was all bunk?
I have never stated nor do I believe that global warming is bunk. Why are you misrepresenting my position?

(ii) Is there any evidence that would convince you that mankind was affecting the climate?
I have already stated many times that human activities do affect the climate. My quibble is how much. As I have always stated, there are far too many uncertainties about causes of global warming to conclude that it is being caused by human activities. Once again, why are you misrepresenting my position?

[shoemoodoshaloo]

Good post, texan. I hear alot about how global warming works, but no one ever seems to talk about why it might not be a problem.

[Lazarus]

1. The Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old... Any competent scientist will tell you that you cant base a realistic serious hypothesis concerning an object this old based on 40 years of very limited data... The whole concept of this theory is poor ametuer science at best - which just points to a recent trend we see today of using ecology as a not-so-subtle ruse for political agendas...

2. The only real long term data we can glean on the question is in the mineral evidence... And that evidence indicates that the Earth has gone thru many cycles of warming and cooling in its 4.5 billion years - all these cycles have evidence of CO2 increase and decrease... And all these previous cycles occurred long before mankind had developed the industrial levels we see today... So these cycles of warming and cooling are natural occurances... All of the industrial effects of mankind combined cannot produce a fragment of the climate effects of a single volcanic eruption...

The bottom line is that the Earth is a self-maintaining machine that is so huge in scope that the totality of mankind is insignificant in its effect on the processes that the earth goes thru in its self-maintenance cycles... While we can poison our environment on a local level for a temporary period, we simply dont have the power to effect the planet on a global scale... The premise is man's arrogance at its highest degree...

[sunsettommy]

No, the debate isn't settled. It's very much doubtful that humanity's contribution to global warming is in the least significant. If we're not the cause, we can't be the cure.

He is desperate because doubters and skeptics are not wanted.

He is a big fan of the idea that "Scientific Consensus" is the foundation to believe that they have it well understood.

The value is really this when it sheds real understanding....:flushlib.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Excellent post, Lazarus. :claps:

[Keith J]

Excellent post, Lazarus. :claps:

Yes, Lazarus made a VERY important point, that being the Earth has an inheritly STABLE system. The models of GW presented so far are all based on worst case scenarios, typically ignorant of negative feedback mechanisms of the climate.

The issue of carbon dioxide (incorrectly attributed to carbon alone) levels falls flat when trying to explain "missing carbon". Missing carbon is that fraction of the atmosphere which should be CO2 ends up missing each year. That is the negative feedback mechanism that doomsday climatologists intentionally omit because the explaination minimizes their issue.

Ever see a pine forest in the middle of the desert? Neither have I until I visited Seminole Canyon, near Del Rio Texas. This area had a settlement of paleo-Americans living in cliffs on the Rio Grande/Pecos River canyons. Their middens (dumps) were littered with pine cone duff. Pine cones were apparantly part of their diet, the nuts being rich in oils and highly desireable as a food that could keep. But in the middle of a desert, some 400 miles from any current stands of conifers capable of producing such cones? Clearly this area was intensly forested some 12,000 years ago. This society collapsed due to climate change some 8,000 years ago. Long before the Industrial Revolution.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Keith J:
I remember reading a year or two ago that the U.S. is a net carbon sink, i.e., the U.S. absorbs more carbon than it produces. Is that true? As I remember, all of the CO2 that the U.S. produces is absorbed by the extensive forestation of the country.

[Keith J]

Keith J:
I remember reading a year or two ago that the U.S. is a net carbon sink, i.e., the U.S. absorbs more carbon than it produces. Is that true? As I remember, all of the CO2 that the U.S. produces is absorbed by the extensive forestation of the country.

It wouldn't surprise me if the ' States were a carbon sink, owing to all of the grain we export, the forests we grow and the trash we bury in "sterile" landfills.

Mature forests do NOT absorb CO2 since the biomass is not increasing. It is only when the biomass is increasing that meaningful quantities of CO2 are absorbed. Or in other words, tree farms are good.

All that corn we ship around the world is about 40% carbon by weight.

And the landfills. All that paper and wood we throw away gets preserved for a very long time in a modern landfill.And that wood and paper was mostly grown on tree farms.

[DesertFox]

Good to see you again, Keith.

[Pendragon_6]

The part of 'global warming' theory that strikes me is that increased CO2 results in a greener ecosystem. A greener ecosystem results in higher O2 emissions, equalizing the pollution and providing richer air to breathe. Yes?

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm sure that Markus, if he ever comes back to face the music, will thoroughly enjoy the following quote from "Hot Enough For You?: The state of the global-warming debate, and politicking" by Jerry Taylor, National Review, July 18, 2005:

What’s causing this warming? We don’t know. As the vice president of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Yury Izrael, wrote bluntly last month, “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming.” Given the extreme variability of global temperature, warming might simply be statistical noise. It might result from solar and/or volcanic activity. It might be caused by industrial emissions. And it might come from some combination of the three. (My emphasis)
Even the VP of the UN's IPCC agrees that there is no proven link between human activity and global warming. :claps: :claps:

[farmfriend]

markus3622 (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/member.php?u=1275)<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_288616", true); </SCRIPT>

The IPCC report has been proven false if not an out right lie. You cannot maintain that the Earth is warming do to man's emissions as long as there is concurrent warming on the other planets in the solar system.

[markus3622]

NT,

We may have found a solution, by you appearing to change your position.

There has been some global warming in the past 100+ years, but it's nothing more than a natural recovery from the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended in the late 19th Century. Most of that warming occurred prior to 1940 and there is no scientific evidence that any of the warming is due to human activity......

Since the warming is natural, there is absolutely nothing that we can do to stop it.


The ONLY way that junk scientists can make the claim that global warming is caused by human activity is to fudge the data - in other words, they are forced to LIE! The case for global warming being natural and cyclical is overwhelming and irrefutable.

The "Hockey Stick" fraud was typical enviro-Nazi Big Lie Propaganda....I guess they thought that in their Nazi-like arrogance they could get away with their frauds.

You are every bit as evil as those enviro-Nazis are.<!-- / message --><!-- sig --><!-- / message --><!-- sig -->




Perhaps if your position was as nuanced as you claim, then you could do with not displaying your temper and making such wild statements.

Yet, all of a sudden

That's why it's impossible to state with any accuracy that global warming is caused by human activities (or, for that matter, that it isn't)....

I have already stated many times that human activities do affect the climate...My quibble is how much

Whereas, I wrote that
1) Greenhouse gas concentrations are rising
2) Temperatures are rising
3) That much of this rise is most likely due to human activities
4) Some of this variation could be due to natural variation


In fact, you criticised me earlier for using words such as "could", "possibly". If I've changed your position, then it's a good thing

I can't know what Izrael exactly said, and in what context, but the IPCC report states quite clearly that


There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50 years



I can only go by what is actually being published rather than a quote which may or may not represent someone's views. It's important to remember what proof entails and why it is different from supporting evidence.

However, I have been studying the issue of global warming from hundreds of sources - left, right, and center; favoring and opposing the theory (yes it is at best a theory since there is NO proof) that human activities are causing global warming - for more than 15 years. I have used my background as a college minor in chemistry, as a science teacher, as a student and user of atmospheric physics in the space program, as someone who has studied math models and used them in testing the reentry of the Apollo Command Module and the Space Shuttle, in my evaluation of the various claims and theories on the cause of global warming.

Well, I'm younger than you, but I was at a scientific conference for the past two days. (My research is in hydrometeorology). I don't want to argue credentials with you. Most of the working scientists I have spoken to say that they believe the evidence suggests that some of the warming is due to mankind - completely in agreement with my position.

What you may have noticed is that I have been posting from the scientific literature, not articles from the New York Times, not from the left-wing think tanks.

[Naturalized-Texan]

markus:
You're absoulutely hilarious. :grin: I have always maintained that there is far too much uncertainty to conclude that global warming is being caused by human activities and that it is FAR more likely that is completely natural. Since global warming is natural, there is nothing that we can do about it. I have been completely consistent.

You have consistently made the patently false claim that there is a scientific consensus that global warming is being caused by human activities based on left-wing Big Lie Propaganda from politically-motivated junk scientists (e.g., the UN's IPCC). Yet you also hypocritically admit in your most recent post that most of the working scientists you have spoken to say that they believe the evidence suggests that some of the warming is due to mankind - exactly proving my consistent points that there are significant uncertainies and that there is NO consensus among scientists. Thanks for finally agreeing with me. :thumb:

Fortunately, the VP of the UN's IPCC, Yury Izrael, finally saw the light and had enough guts to tell the truth: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming.” Thus proving one of the points that I have been making all along.

[Keith J]

Hydrometeorology? Wow, what a mouthful. But such degree programs are woefully lacking supporting work in physics. Instead, it is taught like stamp collecting. But only so much can be crammed into the program and still have space for gender studies and social indoctrination programs pervasive in "modern" university.

The Earth is covered with water. The hydrologic cycle provides the majority of the heat transfer to outer space via mass transport. Of course the energy transported by upper troposphere condensation pales in comparison to the heat reflected via albedo. And increasing hydrologic heat transfer only increases the albedo.

Sounds like someone had a real bargain education diploma. What other graduates does such a fine institution turn out? Geographers who believe the Earth is flat?

[Naturalized-Texan]

It's hilarious that Markus claims so often that there is consensus (i.e., unanimity) among scientists that global warming is caused by human activlties, yet over and over and over, again, he uses or quotes some pseudo-scientific body (i.e., the UN's IPCC) that uses weasel-words or -phrases such as likely or probably or most or some or most likely. The reason those pseudo -scientific bodies use such weasel-words or -phrases is that there are far too many uncertainties to conclude that human activities cause global warming.

It's only recently that Markus has started agreeing that those of us who have been pointing out those uncertainties may very well be correct as he did in his most recent post. There's hope for him yet. I don't think that it will be very long until he begins to state categorically that "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming,” as Yury Izrael, the VP of the UN's IPCC, did last month.

[sunsettommy]

From a COPYRIGHTED article,RED bolding mine.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 align=right bgColor=#666666><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE bgColor=#ffffff><TBODY><TR><TD align=right>Change font size:</TD><TD align=middle>http://www.ivanyi-consultants.com/articles/hotenoudh_files/font_up.gif</TD><TD>http://www.ivanyi-consultants.com/articles/hotenoudh_files/font_down.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD align=right>Save settings:</TD><TD>http://www.ivanyi-consultants.com/articles/hotenoudh_files/save.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>http://www.ivanyi-consultants.com/articles/hotenoudh_files/bullet_gray.gif PUBLIC POLICY II
Hot Enough For You?
The state of the global-warming debate, and politicking


<BYLINE>JERRY TAYLOR</BYLINE>

<EXCERPT>

What do most scientists suspect is going on? The best way to ascertain the “scientific consensus” is to look at the latest report of the IPCC (released in 2001), which purports to summarize the state of scientific knowledge on global warming. Here’s what it says: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” The report finds that it is “unlikely (bordering on very unlikely) to be entirely the result of internal variability,” and that “natural forcing alone [i.e., solar and/or volcanic activity] is unlikely to explain the increased rate of global warming since the middle of the 20th century.”

The promiscuous use of such vague terms as “likely” and “unlikely” by scientists who are trained in precision speaks volumes about how much is unknown. At the very least, such language makes it impossible to accept the Greens’ claim that “the debate is over,” particularly given all the uncertainty — fully discussed in the IPCC report — regarding long-term climate records and important data on atmospheric feedbacks. In fact, uncertainty about future climate conditions is greater in the 2001 IPCC report than it was in the 1995 IPCC report.

http://www.ivanyi-consultants.com/articles/hotenoudh.html

The Article also talks about the silliness of Scientific Consensus.

[sunsettommy]

markus3622 (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/member.php?u=1275)<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_288616", true); </SCRIPT>

The IPCC report has been proven false if not an out right lie. You cannot maintain that the Earth is warming do to man's emissions as long as there is concurrent warming on the other planets in the solar system.

He will say the Aliens drive SUV's there.

[markus3622]

You're also very funny Tex. I think you've realised that I've been arguing a different point than you think I've been arguing, so you quietly try and change your position.

Right throughout, I've been taking the middle position on this debate. I've been arguing straight from the start that much (or a significant part) of this rise is most likely due to human activities. I haven't said all, I haven't said definitely, I haven't said without any doubt. I've also said that most of the active researchers believe (although could be wrong) that much of the warming is most likely due to human activities. - If a significant majority agree in science, it becomes a consensus. Definining consensus as unanimity is false. Then you could say scientific consensus never exists on say evolution even though 99.9% of scientists agree.

In the IPCC report, words such as likely, probably are used because there are uncertainties.



Where appropriate, the authors of the Third Assessment Report assigned confidence levels that represent their collective judgment in the validity of a conclusion based on observational evidence, modeling results, and theory that they have examined. The following words have been used throughout the text of the Synthesis Report to the TAR relating to WGI findings: virtually certain (greater than 99% chance that a result is true); very likely (90–99% chance); likely (66–90% chance); medium likelihood (33–66% chance); unlikely (10–33% chance); very unlikely (1–10% chance); and exceptionally unlikely (less than 1% chance). An explicit uncertainty range (±) is a likely range. Estimates of confidence relating to WGII findings are: very high (95% or greater), high (67–95%), medium (33–67%), low (5–33%), and very low (5% or less). No confidence levels were assigned in WGIII.





I like the fact you call them weasel words, and at the same time trying to argue that uncertainties exist. You contradict yourself. Either they do exist, or scientists shouldn't use words such as "likely". The Earth's climate is hugely complex, so these "weasel words" are necessary.

It appears that you've actually begun to realise what I've been arguing and that it's pretty rock solid - it appears you've begun to agree with me.

Not that this matters a jot for me, it won't be you peer-reviewing my research. I'll just have to content myself within the folds of the scientific community.

[sunsettommy]

Discussion of Consensus in a PDF,

http://www.unm.edu/~ejpc/ConsensusSummary.pdf

For YOU Markus.

If you really are a researcher,you certaintly do not seem to know what CONSENSUS really is.:laugh:

[sunsettommy]

You're also very funny Tex. I think you've realised that I've been arguing a different point than you think I've been arguing, so you quietly try and change your position.

Right throughout, I've been taking the middle position on this debate. I've been arguing straight from the start that much (or a significant part) of this rise is most likely due to human activities. I haven't said all, I haven't said definitely, I haven't said without any doubt. I've also said that most of the active researchers believe (although could be wrong) that much of the warming is most likely due to human activities. - If a significant majority agree in science, it becomes a consensus. Definining consensus as unanimity is false. Then you could say scientific consensus never exists on say evolution even though 99.9% of scientists agree.

In the IPCC report, words such as likely, probably are used because there are uncertainties.



























I like the fact you call them weasel words, and at the same time trying to argue that uncertainties exist. You contradict yourself. Either they do exist, or scientists shouldn't use words such as "likely". The Earth's climate is hugely complex, so these "weasel words" are necessary.

It appears that you've actually begun to realise what I've been arguing and that it's pretty rock solid - it appears you've begun to agree with me.

Not that this matters a jot for me, it won't be you peer-reviewing my research. I'll just have to content myself within the folds of the scientific community.

You are funny,as Warwick Hughes in his website pointed out the NUMEROUS "weasel words" found in the so called definitive IPCC reports.They are not backing up their rather bold claims with that much certainty.:whistle:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Right throughout, I've been taking the middle position on this debate. I've been arguing straight from the start that much (or a significant part) of this rise is most likely due to human activities. I haven't said all, I haven't said definitely, I haven't said without any doubt. I've also said that most of the active researchers believe (although could be wrong) that much of the warming is most likely due to human activities. - If a significant majority agree in science, it becomes a consensus. Definining consensus as unanimity is false.
That is patently false.

From the beginning, you have been hard over in your claim that there is a consensus among scientists that global warming is being caused by human activities. THERE IS NO SUCH CONSENSUS, no matter the definition of the word consensus.

According to the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary and Thesaurus, the definition for the word "consensus" is: "1) A general agreement: UNANIMITY. (caps in original); 2) group solidarity in sentiment and belief."

According to the Random House College Dictionary, the definition of "consensus" is: " 1) collective judgement or belief; solidarity of opinion. 2) general agreement or concord; harmony."

According to Roget's Thesaurus, consensus is a synonym of unanimity.

According to Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition, the definition of consensus is: "unanimity; agreement, especially in opinion; hence, general opinion."

(It's easy to see that you are on such extremely shaky grounds when you claim that "[d]efinining consensus as unanimity is false," that one can correctly say that your claim is clearly FALSE.) :flushlib. :smash:

Then you could say scientific consensus never exists on say evolution even though 99.9% of scientists agree.
Good grief! Even that claim is false. :flushlib.

[Naturalized-Texan]

The more I study, the more I read, the more I see, and the more I learn, the more I am convinced that the effect of human activities on global warming is so tiny as to be insignificant. Consider the facts that 94% of greenhouse gases is water vapor, primarily from the Oceans; that there are many sources of CO2 such as volcanoes, the oceans, and decaying vegetation in old-growth forests and the jungles, etc. Based on those facts, one can easily conclude that the human contribution to the production of greenhouse gases is infinitesimal.

Environmental wackos are always stressing the human contribution to global warming in contrast to the “natural” contributions, some of which are listed above, but never stop to consider the fact that human beings are as much a part of nature as a spotted owl, a bald eagle, a redwood tree, an ivory-billed woodpecker, a pine tree, a rose bush, etc., etc., etc. In other words, the human contribution to global warming, if it is even significant, is nothing more than just another in a long line of natural contributions.

[Keith J]

You're also very funny Tex. I think you've realised that I've been arguing a different point than you think I've been arguing, so you quietly try and change your position.

Right throughout, I've been taking the middle position on this debate. I've been arguing straight from the start that much (or a significant part) of this rise is most likely due to human activities. I haven't said all, I haven't said definitely, I haven't said without any doubt. I've also said that most of the active researchers believe (although could be wrong) that much of the warming is most likely due to human activities. - If a significant majority agree in science, it becomes a consensus. Definining consensus as unanimity is false. Then you could say scientific consensus never exists on say evolution even though 99.9% of scientists agree.

In the IPCC report, words such as likely, probably are used because there are uncertainties.















I like the fact you call them weasel words, and at the same time trying to argue that uncertainties exist. You contradict yourself. Either they do exist, or scientists shouldn't use words such as "likely". The Earth's climate is hugely complex, so these "weasel words" are necessary.

It appears that you've actually begun to realise what I've been arguing and that it's pretty rock solid - it appears you've begun to agree with me.

Not that this matters a jot for me, it won't be you peer-reviewing my research. I'll just have to content myself within the folds of the scientific community.

Research? You mean stamp collecting. Climatology with respect to anthropogenic change is not a science by any stretch of the definition. Try explaining missing carbon. It doesn't fit the model yet it shows the intrinsic stability of the Earth's climate, something sehr traif in the GW field.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Well, I'm younger than you, but I was at a scientific conference for the past two days. (My research is in hydrometeorology). I don't want to argue credentials with you. Most of the working scientists I have spoken to say that they believe the evidence suggests that some of the warming is due to mankind - completely in agreement with my position.
Given the hysteria among junk scientists about global warming, a real scientist who would dare challenge the claim that global warming is being caused by human activities at such a scientific conference like the one you attended would be subjected to the same derision that a Christian would be subjected to if he proclaimed the Word of God at a convention of atheists.

[farmfriend]

Carbon Caps Aren't The Answer To Global Warming Uncertainties

By Lynn Scarlett
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=56 bgColor=#d0d0d0>Published </TD><TD width=70 bgColor=#003366>03/05/2001 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

IPCC report documents, for example, that temperature shifts in the climate record are sharper before humans existed than currently observed changes, shedding some doubt on the idea that human action lies at the root of currently observed warming trends. Those same documents show a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice since the 1970s, rather than melting, as global warming might cause. They also show sea levels have risen for 20,000 years, unrelated to human action, and IPCC scientists found no speeding up of this trend. And they find that the greatest warming in this century occurred between 1910 and 1945 and mostly lack any human connection.

Close examination of one summary's most alarming claims - that temperatures may be rising faster than thought - show these new predictions result from computer modeling of "worst-case" scenarios, not new empirical information.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/030501E.html

[Naturalized-Texan]

markus3622:

If you had been as close to agreeing with us on the uncertainties about the causes of global warming at the beginnings of the discussions on these several threads as you are now, instead of being hard over on "the science is settled" side, these extensive duscussions would have been unnecessary.

However, I do thank you for forcing me to read and research far more on the subject than I would have otherwise. The reading and researching you forced on me coalesced my thinking about the causes of global warming to the point that I am now convinced that the human contribution to global warming is insignificant. Again, I thank you for leading me to that conclusion. :thumb: