Hurricane Expert, Dr. Bill Gray, calls global warming scare a "hoax"

[Naturalized-Texan]

Chill out over global warming (http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807)

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

........................

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

{More common sense at the link above.}

[DoctorDoom]

It's leftist politics, not science. Real scientists are silenced by the anti-America, anti-business scare-mongers and ideologues. And it WILL come back to bite us in the ass.

[Lubbock]

Follow the money.

The Global Watming Hoax has made a lot of folks very wealthy.

Just follow the money.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I would go one step further than Dr. Gray and call the global warming scare a cruel hoax because the perpetrators of that hoax know very well that it is a hoax and don't care because it advances their political agenda: world socialism under UN control.

[markus3622]

Seriously, could you present some evidence for this UN World Socialist conspiracy?

PS: I feel a little sorry for Bill Gray. He's a guy that got left behind (old scientists often do - even Einstein ended up a bit of a crank and couldn't accept the latest developments in physics)

[Rink]

Two things that is the reason this hoax is being perpetrated on the world, #1. Money and #2. Power.

Scare the people enough and they'll spend whatever money they have to 'save the world' and enough also to give more power to the land-grabbing socialist autocrats.

There is no 'global warming' all they're seeing in my simple opinion is ancient old millenial weather patterns coming to the fore, reason why we dont have anything on 'record' is the fact that the human civilization is relatively young and when these weather patterns last hit, the human race wasnt paying attention they were just trying to survive in primitive societies.

Thats why.

Anyone that believes the human race could possibly hope to affect global weather patterns has a humongous ego.

As it is incredibly egotistical to think humans could possibly affect global weather whatsoever, take for instance the volcanoes, earthquakes, & hurricaines, we STILL cant control these, yet we humans are so-called responsible for global weather pattern shiftings?

BALONEY!

Its utter poppycock & Balderdash!!!

What egos!!

[markus3622]

Anyone that believes the human race could possibly hope to affect global weather patterns has a humongous ego.


Couldn't it be considered arrogant to assume that doubling CO2 and tripling Methane in the atmosphere would have little or no effect on the environment, as some would have us believe?

Is there any evidence for the UN/socialist/masonic conspiracy?

[organix]

I can look for evidence to support the theory of global warming. You can look for evidence to the contrary. Whats the point? Most people at FC are blindly convinced of the latter. And therefore you go looking for evidence to debunk global warming, while blatantly ignoring and downplahing that which supports it. I do not claim to know the truth of the matter, only that its best to keep an open mind and review all data objectively while not jumping to conclusions. Its scary how one-sided you remain on this matter.

Just stick to the creed of the right, and don't think for yourselves.

[Proud American]

Is there any evidence for the UN/socialist/masonic conspiracy?

You also need to add in the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.

[aaron11]

I can look for evidence to support the theory of global warming. You can look for evidence to the contrary. Whats the point? Most people at FC are blindly convinced of the latter. And therefore you go looking for evidence to debunk global warming, while blatantly ignoring and downplahing that which supports it. I do not claim to know the truth of the matter, only that its best to keep an open mind and review all data objectively while not jumping to conclusions. Its scary how one-sided you remain on this matter.

Just stick to the creed of the right, and don't think for yourselves.


Right back at ya' --ORGANIX

:cryrub:

[sunsettommy]

I can look for evidence to support the theory of global warming. You can look for evidence to the contrary. Whats the point? Most people at FC are blindly convinced of the latter. And therefore you go looking for evidence to debunk global warming, while blatantly ignoring and downplahing that which supports it. I do not claim to know the truth of the matter, only that its best to keep an open mind and review all data objectively while not jumping to conclusions. Its scary how one-sided you remain on this matter.

Just stick to the creed of the right, and don't think for yourselves.

There is nothing wrong with being a reasonable skeptic.

The theory of Global warming has already failed in some key points.

The IPCC and its crowd jumped to its conclusion on the then untested "Hockey Stick" paper.They made it a central part of the 2001 IPCC report.

Then in 2003 0nwards it has been revealed to be a badly flawed paper.This was a great example of shoddy science and of clear bias.The IPCC has lost credibility for being so quick to swallow a paper that made conclusions contradicting DECADES of research.Research that clearly proves the existence of a Medieval warming and the little ice age.

Historians,Geologists,Botanists and other fields have supported the existence of these two climatic events.

We have also been for 20 years now been given a generally hysterical level of claimed warming by the IPCC and others.They have also been talking about a "tipping point" to a runaway warming.The early high temperature range PREDICTIONS published in the early 1990's has since been downgraded to a rather small warming.

We have not seen any runaway warming.

Somehow they miss the part that there is ZERO evidence of accelerated warming in the temperature records.The warming has been slowing down since 1998 and recently the Southern Hemisphere has gone back into a COOLING phase last month.If that change becomes a trend.That will be a nasty shock to the Global warming theory.

The big theory 15 years ago stated that the POLAR regions will warm up the fastest in the world based on the CO2 effect.That is because there is so little water in the atmosphere there so CO2 has the dominant position.Today most of Antartica is in a cooling phase.There is also NET growth in the ice mass as well.

The Artic has warmed far less than predicted and still cooler than it was in 1938.Greenland is cooling in the upper levels and slighly warming around the edges.There is a slight net ice growth as well.

The pre-industrial estimate for CO as being around 280 pmm is just that,an estimate.It has never been well established to be a correct number.There is some concern that all that ice core drilling maybe providing a distorted set of evidence.How do we know the extent of the damage to the ice we bring up?

That is the reason why I remain a skeptic.

[Lubbock]

Get thee back to the DU.

Why seek out a site where you are so offended to be?

Just how stuck on stupid are you?

[brilliantLiberal]

Until I see the following, I will not subscribe to the notion that we need to radically change our lifestyle because of global warming:
1. Scientific proof that the planet is going through an unnatural warming cycle.
2. Scientific proof that this warming cycle is detrimental to our environment.
3. Scientific proof this climate change is caused by emissions and not other activity.
4. Scientific proof that we can do something to remedy the problem, if in fact one exists.
5. Scientific proof that global warming on Mars and global warming on earth are not both reflections of solar activity having nothing to do with human activity.

Because science has not proven these things, I do not consider global warming to be a valid scientific theory, nor do I see reason to panic. It's gloom and doom nay saying for the purpose of extorting research grants. It's like saying we're going to invest trillions of dollars to prevent hurricanes without first finding out if they can even be prevented.

[Rhino]

Its scary how one-sided you remain on this matter.
It's scary how you don't read much here before making assumptions and posting nothing but insulting jabs. Read the forums and you'll discover that this has been discussed ad nauseum, from both sides. Contribute some substance and stop trolling with insults, or you probably won't last long.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Is there any evidence for the UN/socialist/masonic conspiracy?
No one even mentioned the Masons. However, the evidence for the UN/socialist conspiracy can be summed up by the following UN entities: CGG and IPCC. The CGG has as its stated goal world government under UN control and the IPCC is the agent the CGG is using to attain that goal. The Kyoto Protocols were the outgrowth of that conspiracy. Fortunately, the US Senate unanimously defeated the Kyoto Protocols and President Bush formally rescinded them.

[markus3622]

No one even mentioned the Masons

It was a joke!

What's the CGG?

[markus3622]

Oh, I found out, CGG is the Commission on Global Governance. Where's the evidence that its goal is one world government and that the IPCC is an arm of the CGG?

[Naturalized-Texan]

It was a joke!

What's the CGG?
CGG is the UN Commission on Global Governance. I've posted a link to an article about the CGG several times.

You said that you felt sorry for Dr. Gray. I feel sorry for you because you have been so brainwashed by the Big Lie Propaganda on global warming that you actually believe that the hypothesis about human-caused global warming is true.

[Borgia]

The CGG has as its stated goal world government under UN control and the IPCC is the agent the CGG is using to attain that goal.

I have no idea if you are right or wrong, but you made a very specific claim there. You said that the CGG has stated that their goal is wolrd govt under UN control.

Please show me where the CGG has stated that. Don't bother showing me where other websites say that ABOUT them. You said that their stated goal is world govt under the UN. Please cite your source and I expect it to link directly to some sort of CGG goal statement.

[Rhino]

Can't. It's in a copyrighted book. There are excerpts out there though.

[markus3622]

I found something on a New World Order website about Maurice Strong who is attacked on NT's page (I had to search through the forums on it)

http://home.sprynet.com/~eastwood01/mstrong2.htm

Here's some stuff on another page

http://www.pushhamburger.com/morenews12.htm

I have to admit, the New World Order stuff seems a bit cranky to me.

[Rhino]

Looks like the book is reprinted here (http://www.libertymatters.org/globalgovernance.htm) though. Guess they weren't concerned about copyright.

[Borgia]

Hmm, a quick skim thorugh it and word search showed nothing in here supporting NT's claim. I did find this;


Global governance does not imply world government or world federalism.

which would seem to REFUTE his claim. I'll wait for him to provide his source.

[hdmundt]

Is there any evidence for the UN/socialist/masonic conspiracy?

NT beat me to it. Just go to the UN website and start reading. You'll find no better example of take from the U.S. and give to everyone else than the Kyoto Accords nonsense. (Its the limosine liberals' version of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs).

[Naturalized-Texan]

I have no idea if you are right or wrong, but you made a very specific claim there. You said that the CGG has stated that their goal is wolrd govt under UN control.

Please show me where the CGG has stated that. Don't bother showing me where other websites say that ABOUT them. You said that their stated goal is world govt under the UN. Please cite your source and I expect it to link directly to some sort of CGG goal statement.
After all of the wild-eyed, unsubstantiated BS you lefties excrete about global warming and almost any other subject and after the many times that you lefties have been caught indulging in intellectual dishonesty, how dare you make such demands?

Here is an article quoting the goals of the CGG that has far more substantiation than most of the BS you lefties post:

UN Commission on Global Governance (http://www.nationalreview.com/01sept97/bailey090197.html)

[Kathy29]

Seriously, could you present some evidence for this UN World Socialist conspiracy?



You might try reading the UN Charter. Also, reading up on some of the agendas and committee goals. That might help with your understanding.

[markus3622]

I have to confess, it all seems a bit vague. I'd like to see real evidence of a conspiracy. I'd like to be pointed to the exact quotes, position statements, etc. I haven't the time to read everything on the UN website.

[markus3622]

After all of the wild-eyed, unsubstantiated BS you lefties excrete about global warming and almost any other subject and after the many times that you lefties have been caught indulging in intellectual dishonesty, how dare you make such demands?


You're right NT, how dare we demand evidence?

[Maggie_T]

I can look for evidence to support the theory of global warming. You can look for evidence to the contrary. Whats the point? Most people at FC are blindly convinced of the latter.

Just as you are blindly convinced of the former.


And therefore you go looking for evidence to debunk global warming, while blatantly ignoring and downplahing that which supports it.

And vice-versa to you, Organix.

I do not claim to know the truth of the matter, only that its best to keep an open mind and review all data objectively while not jumping to conclusions. Its scary how one-sided you remain on this matter.

How open is YOUR mind, Organix? Or do we have to apply the above to you, too?

Just stick to the creed of the right, and don't think for yourselves.

Just stick to the creed of the enviro-wackos and let them think for you.

You see, Organix. Everything you say about us can easily be applied to the eco-nazis as well. I have never met people such stubborn people. You give them all sorts of evidence, but if it's not what they like, they refuse to even look at it.

And now, I suppose you'll say the same thing about conservatives. Expected.

[Maggie_T]

I have to confess, it all seems a bit vague.

Oh, dear. Here's our markus going "really? ... really? ... really? ..." again. What else is new.

[Borgia]

After all of the wild-eyed, unsubstantiated BS you lefties excrete about global warming and almost any other subject and after the many times that you lefties have been caught indulging in intellectual dishonesty, how dare you make such demands?

Here is an article quoting the goals of the CGG that has far more substantiation than most of the BS you lefties post:

UN Commission on Global Governance (http://www.nationalreview.com/01sept97/bailey090197.html)

Dude, YOU were the one who said what the CGG's stated goals were. I am just wondering where they stated those goals. I mean, you didn't just make that up, did you?

Sorry, your quote isa a National Review article. Please cite where the CGG stated their goals. Thanks!

[Maggie_T]

Incidentally, funny how liberals only question the theories that debunk global warming. They never question the theory of death by global warming.

No matter how sound the proofs you give liberals that they're not going to die of global warming, they flatly refuse to acknowledge them.

Conversely, no matter how wacky the theory on death by global warming, they believe them like Christians believe in the Bible.

No wonder Crichton says environmentalism is a religion.

[Borgia]

What are you talking about, Maggie? I don't think there will be profound death due to global warming but it would have an impact on our society and I would want to work to minimize that impact.

[Rhino]

......I would want to work to minimize that impact.
If you ever get promoted to God, then you'll have the ability to. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

[Borgia]

If you ever get promoted to God, then you'll have the ability to. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

LOL. I think humans can and do effect their climate. I could be wrong, but I'll stick with the majority of climatologists for now.

Assuming we effect the climate clearly shows that we can do things to minimize that impact.

[DeclinetoState]

Assuming we effect the climate clearly shows that we can do things to minimize that impact.

Like get rid of the internal-combustion engine?

[Naturalized-Texan]

markus & Borg:
:libsoffmeds: It's comical :hahaha: and hypocritical of the two of you to demand evidence when in all the months and months and months that we have been discussing global warming, you have never presented even one tiny shred of evidence that global warming is being caused by human activities. All you have presented is a hypothesis based on nothing more than speculation and supposition. Then when I post a link to a thoroughly researched article from one of the most reputible magazines in the world detailing the CGG's goal of world government under UN control, you pretend that that is not evidence. :libsoffmeds:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Assuming we effect the climate clearly shows that we can do things to minimize that impact.
That is certainly a rash assumption. No one has ever presented any evidence that we humans can affect the climate. Since we humans can't cause global warming, there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it, so we may as well just sit back and enjoy it.

However, I will re-post DoctorDoom's reasonable criteria for your analysis:

Outline for us what would be required to reduce the A-CO2 emission level to reduce the GCC rate by a specific level. The analysis must include:

• Irrefutable scientific evidence that human activity is causing GCC;
• Irrefutable scientific evidence of the percentage of GW attributable to human activity;
• A scientific study showing that a reduction of X% of anthropogenic CO2 will result in Y% reduction of the rate of GCC;
• the necessary technologies for achieving the reduction;
• the costs of research and development to optimize them;
• the costs of manufacturing, distributing, installing, operating and maintaining the technologies;
• the negative environmental effects of the technologies;
• the economic impact of the technologies on the nations' businesses and governments;
• the impositions on the lifestyles of the people of the nations;
• the cost-benefit ratio of dollars spent vs the value of the achieved GCC change;
• the cost of minimizing natural changes in the level of "greenhouse gases" to maintain the target GCC rate;
• the source of funding for bringing the technologies online and operating them;
• the total economic burden of the entire process.
• the arguments against spending far less money to prepare for inevitable eventualities than to attempt to stop an unstoppable process.

We'll be awaiting your analysis.

[markus3622]

markus & Borg:
:libsoffmeds: It's comical :hahaha: and hypocritical of the two of you to demand evidence when in all the months and months and months that we have been discussing global warming, you have never presented even one tiny shred of evidence that global warming is being caused by human activities. All you have presented is a hypothesis based on nothing more than speculation and supposition. Then when I post a link to a thoroughly researched article from one of the most reputible magazines in the world detailing the CGG's goal of world government under UN control, you pretend that that is not evidence. :libsoffmeds:

Yup, how unreasonable. I mean, our side has evidence from the IPCC, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers, whereas you present one article from a right wing rag and we somehow don't view the two sides as equal.

I think you need to present more evidence for your conspiracy theory NT.

[markus3622]

Irrefutable scientific evidence that human activity is causing GCC;
• Irrefutable scientific evidence of the percentage of GW attributable to human activity;
• A scientific study showing that a reduction of X% of anthropogenic CO2 will result in Y% reduction of the rate of GCC;
• the necessary technologies for achieving the reduction;
• the costs of research and development to optimize them;
• the costs of manufacturing, distributing, installing, operating and maintaining the technologies;
• the negative environmental effects of the technologies;
• the economic impact of the technologies on the nations' businesses and governments;
• the impositions on the lifestyles of the people of the nations;
• the cost-benefit ratio of dollars spent vs the value of the achieved GCC change;
• the cost of minimizing natural changes in the level of "greenhouse gases" to maintain the target GCC rate;
• the source of funding for bringing the technologies online and operating them;
• the total economic burden of the entire process.
• the arguments against spending far less money to prepare for inevitable eventualities than to attempt to stop an unstoppable process.


I love the way you call this reasonable. Unless we know everything about the future, then nothing should be done.

The "irrefutable scientific evidence that human activity is causing GCC" has already been provided. If you ignore the "think tanks" and look at the IPCC website you'll find your evidence. However, the second part of the analysis involves economics questions.

If I were to ask you in advance the total change in GDP that ,say, a rise in a particular tax would cause, I would bet that you wouldn't get the correct answer. The reason is that economic forecasting is a rather black art and far too many unknowns. If you think climatology is bad, economics is far more complex. In the other thread you seem to have accepted that global warming is happening and all the evidence points to it being caused by man.

We've thrashed out the climatology part of the debate (and quite frankly, the scientific debate over whether mankind is changing the climate is happening is over, the debate is over how much it will change in the future). I'll point you to an edition of Science where the top scientific questions were posed, and one of them was "How hot will the greenhouse world be?"

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

Let's look at discussing the political side of the question, and look at the economics. I propose that reductions in GHGs could be carried out with minimal cost to the world economy and could even spur development.

[Borgia]

markus & Borg:
It's comical and hypocritical of the two of you to demand evidence ...

Are you admitting you have no evidence of the CGG's stated goal? It is a simple request, NT. You must have wrote it because you had seen what their stated goal was. The laternative is you just made it up.

So which is it?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Yup, how unreasonable. I mean, our side has evidence from the IPCC, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers, whereas you present one article from a right wing rag and we somehow don't view the two sides as equal.
You have not presented even one tiny shred of evidence that global warming is being caused by human activities and you know it. All you have presented from those sources is a hypothesis based on nothing more than speculation and supposition. The only evidence that is contained in those sources is that global warming is occurring, but everyone already knew that.

Please read my sig line.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Are you admitting you have no evidence of the CGG's stated goal? It is a simple request, NT. You must have wrote it because you had seen what their stated goal was. The laternative [sic] is you just made it up.

So which is it?
Rhino and I have both posted links to such evidence.

However, no one has ever presented any evidence, much less proof, anywhere that global warming is being caused by human activities. Until and unless you lefties present such evidence (preferably, proof), you are being hypocritical when you demand the evidence that you know very well that we have already provided.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Dr. Gray is certainly justified in stating, "My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

If one looks at the temperature graph that markus and others have posted, one can easily see that in the past 100 years there have been three 30-40 year cycles of warming and cooling and warming. We are now nearing the end of one of those 35-40 year warming cycles, so it's certainly possible that we will be seeing the beginning of another cooling cycle in 3 or 4 years.

[Etaoin]

Couldn't it be considered arrogant to assume that doubling CO2 and tripling Methane in the atmosphere would have little or no effect on the environment, as some would have us believe?

Is there any evidence for the UN/socialist/masonic conspiracy?

The fact is that there is global warming....The fact is also that Mars is experiencing global warming...one might consider if there is a common cause, and if so, how are WE causing it? We haven't shifted the flows of El Nino and La Nina....it is beyond our power, yet they significantly impact much of the weather changes..

Certainly, human endeavors may be contributing to perhaps a half of a degree, but doubtfully any more than that.

One thing you can be sure of is that the political environmentalists will infringe on individual rights at every opportunity while creating an ever expanding bureaucracy.

[Rhino]

Unless we know everything about the future, then nothing should be done.More like, if we aren't reasonably assured of our effect, we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot.

[markus3622]

You have not presented even one tiny shred of evidence that global warming is being caused by human activities

You did it for us. Remember the thing you posted about the tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling you posted? You still haven't explained it why the stratosphere is cooling if the world is warming due to increased solar activity.

Please read my sig line.

Your sig line is funny. Is this Steorts fellow a scientist? He can't be as he says "we don't know that we have a problem". I assume by "we" he means "right wing ideologues". It can't represent the scientific community as the debate over whether we have a problem has been settled. Have a look at Science and Nature.

Again, I'd like you to prove (let's say balance of probabilities, not reasonable doubt) that there is a conspiracy. Would your one NR article stand up in court?

[markus3622]

The fact is that there is global warming....The fact is also that Mars is experiencing global warming

This is wrong. I'm sorry. We have 100 years of global climate records (+ proxies going back further) that show warming. We have I think two regional data points on Mars stretching back 5 years, yet you state that it is a fact that there is global warming on Mars.

[markus3622]

More like, if we aren't reasonably assured of our effect, we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot.

This depends on your perspective. My perspective is that we are doing something.

The question is "ok, we've increased greenhouse gases by 30% and we're not sure whether it's affecting the climate (although I would argue that scientific community is agreed), shall we double the greenhouse gas concentrations and hope for the best?"

I agree with you that combatting global warming has to be economically viable, but it's too often taken as a given that to do something would ruin the economy, even though there appears little evidence for this.

[Rhino]

This depends on your perspective. My perspective is that we are doing something.I know. We disagree there.

[DoctorDoom]

Damn! We're up to our asses in Gorebots again. :rolleyes:

I can look for evidence to support the theory of global warming. You can look for evidence to the contrary. Whats the point? Most people at FC are blindly convinced of the latter. And therefore you go looking for evidence to debunk global warming, while blatantly ignoring and downplahing that which supports it. I do not claim to know the truth of the matter, only that its best to keep an open mind and review all data objectively while not jumping to conclusions. Its scary how one-sided you remain on this matter.

Just stick to the creed of the right, and don't think for yourselves.Here's a libertroll from China, a notorious polluter, trying to lecture us about GCC.

China released details of its greenhouse gas emissions for the first time in a report released on 9 November. The report showed that China is the biggest producer of these gases after the United States.

The figures were presented in China's Initial National Communication on Climate Change to the United Nations (UN), a requirement of all signatories to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Although China's total emissions are high, the emissions per person are relatively low due to China's large population. [b]However, the figures presented are from 1994, as required by the UN. Current emissions are likely to be much higher.

China mainly relies on fossil fuels, particularly coal, for energy. Between 1996 and 2003, oil imports increased from 20 million tonnes to 90 million tonnes.

According to Khalid Malik, the UN resident coordinator in Beijing, China's emissions are increasing steadily. Energy consumption in China is expected to continue rising significantly as it aims to quadruple its gross domestic product by 2020. Car ownership has increased by 30 per cent since 2002.China is second biggest greenhouse gas emitter (http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1761&language=1)

Clean up your own back yard berfore bitching about ours, lib.

[markus3622]

I know. We disagree there.

Rhino, I don't have a problem with you, and I don't have a problem with Sunsettommy. You're both very reasonable. What I do object to is the position that it's all a socialist plot to destroy America, especially when this position isn't based on any evidence. I also object to the argument that there's no evidence for global warming (it's just simply false, there's nothing debatable about that in the slightest).

[Borgia]

Rhino and I have both posted links to such evidence.

That's funny, cause I went through it and nowhere did they state the goal you describe. Perhaps you could cite the exact place where they state their goal?

I don't know, it starts to look like you are avoiding this NT. Did you really just make it up or choose your words unwisely?

[DesertFox]

Dude, at every point in your so called evidence is an assumption, or series of assumptions, that are big time questionable. I have read countless proofs of global warming and they all come down to weak assumptions on which heavy weight leans.

The issue has never been global warming. The issue is, how bad is it and is it caused by human activity. Having lived thru the Seventies scare from the same people about global cooling, I no longer believe a thing they say about melting ice caps, flooded coasts and all that silly crap.

[Borgia]

The CGG has as its stated goal world government under UN control

Still waiting for evidence of this, NT. Please cite where they stated this goal. The link you provided earlier did not have it in there.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Still waiting for evidence of this, NT. Please cite where they stated this goal. The link you provided earlier did not have it in there.
Since you and markus made the claim that global warming is being caused by human activities first (long before I made my claim), you are obligated to provide evidence of your claim first. Until and unless you present hard evidence (read: proof) of your claim, there is no need for me to provide any evidence beyond what I have already presented. After you, sirs.

[Naturalized-Texan]

markus & Borg:

Since the beginning of the discussions about global warming, we realists have been making the following main points:

- Global warming is real.
- There is no proof that global warming is being caused by human activities and there never will be such proof

The lefties make the following main points:

- Global warming is real.
- And now they admit that there is no proof that global warming is being caused by human activities and there never will be such proof.

So, I ask: Now that both sides are in complete agreement on the main points, what is the point of any further discussions about global warming?

However, DoctorDoom has provided to the lefties here a set of reasonable criteria for an analysis of the subject of human-caused global warming. I'm sure that Doc won't mind if I re-post them again:

Outline for us what would be required to reduce the A-CO2 emission level to reduce the GCC rate by a specific level. The analysis must include:

• Irrefutable scientific evidence that human activity is causing GCC;
• Irrefutable scientific evidence of the percentage of GW attributable to human activity;
• A scientific study showing that a reduction of X% of anthropogenic CO2 will result in Y% reduction of the rate of GCC;
• the necessary technologies for achieving the reduction;
• the costs of research and development to optimize them;
• the costs of manufacturing, distributing, installing, operating and maintaining the technologies;
• the negative environmental effects of the technologies;
• the economic impact of the technologies on the nations' businesses and governments;
• the impositions on the lifestyles of the people of the nations;
• the cost-benefit ratio of dollars spent vs the value of the achieved GCC change;
• the cost of minimizing natural changes in the level of "greenhouse gases" to maintain the target GCC rate;
• the source of funding for bringing the technologies online and operating them;
• the total economic burden of the entire process.
• the arguments against spending far less money to prepare for inevitable eventualities than to attempt to stop an unstoppable process.

We'll be awaiting your analysis.

When you lefties have completed your analysis according to Doc's reasonable criteria, please PM DoctorDoom, sunsettommy, or me so that we can view your analysis. I'll be anxiously awaiting your PM.

[Borgia]

Since you and markus made the claim that global warming is being caused by human activities first...

On this thread the very first post I made requested you to back up what you said here:


The CGG has as its stated goal world government under UN control

Do you have evidence for this or not?

[DoctorDoom]

Markie is multi-orgasmic in this thread.

Post #5:
PS: I feel a little sorry for Bill Gray. He's a guy that got left behind (old scientists often do - even Einstein ended up a bit of a crank and couldn't accept the latest developments in physics)I'm sure Dr. Gray is blessed by the fact that he is felt sorry for by a nameless Web nobody from the Dying Continent. Left behind? You're attacking the wise, learned scientists who don't follow like swarming rats after every ecowacko Pied Piper who strolls down the lane. Buy a clue: being trendy is not a scientific attitude.

Post #7:
Couldn't it be considered arrogant to assume that doubling CO2 and tripling Methane in the atmosphere would have little or no effect on the environment, as some would have us believe?No doubt you have irrefutable, objective proof (i.e., not from Greenpeace or Earth Liberation Front) that human activity is responsible for "doubling CO2 and tripling Methane in the atmosphere", and no doubt you have the statistics that will demonstrate the percentage of GW caused by "doubling CO2 and tripling Methane in the atmosphere".

Actually, if you liberals would stop farting around, the methane would decline drastically.

Post #17:
Oh, I found out, CGG is the Commission on Global Governance. Where's the evidence that its goal is one world government ...Main Entry: glob·al
Pronunciation: 'glO-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : SPHERICAL
2 : of, relating to, or involving the entire world : WORLDWIDE < global warfare > < a global system of communication > ...

Main Entry: gov·er·nance
Pronunciation: 'g&-v&r-n&n(t)s
Function: noun
: GOVERNMENT

Read Merriam-Webster's lips: WORLDWIDE GOVERNMENT.

... and that the IPCC is an arm of the CGG?Re the IPCC.

Mandate and Membership of the IPCC

Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the
UN and WMO.

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature. Its role, organisation, participation and general procedures are laid down in the "Principles Governing IPCC Work"About IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm)

Note the highlighted segment. The IPCC exists to find evidence to support the presupposition that humans cause climate change. Not IF. Just HOW. Typical junk science: draw the curve and then look for data that fits it.

And ...

1988 -- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - open to all members of the UN and WMO.Timeline to Global Governance 1986 to Present (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Timeline_to_Global_Governance_1986 _to_Present)

Golly gosh gee willikers! The IPCC is listed on a page about Global Governance.

Post #27:
I have to confess, it all seems a bit vague. I'd like to see real evidence of a conspiracy. I'd like to be pointed to the exact quotes, position statements, etc. I haven't the time to read everything on the UN website.We're not obliged to do a liberal's homework.

Post #40:
... copy of my points list ...I love the way you call this reasonable.I love the way a lib pretends to have the merest concept of what is reasonable.

Unless we know everything about the future, then nothing should be done.Do you have Bobby Arctor's posts enshrined in your flat? You're quoting him almost verbatim.

The point is WHY we (read: the US) should invest trillions of dollars attempting to do something for which there is absolutely no proof that it will have any effect whatever. Until you provide something more substantial than leftist ravings and UN bullshit, I see no rationale at all for spending a dime on it.

The "irrefutable scientific evidence that human activity is causing GCC" has already been provided. If you ignore the "think tanks" and look at the IPCC website you'll find your evidence.As I pointed out above, the IPCC exists to plot points on a predrawn curve. If you call what they are doing "science", don't bother us, kid.

You attack us for presenting evidence that minimizes or discounts human activity's contribution to climate change, and then you have the balls to use as your bible the ramblings of a UN group that preaches the dogma that humans are responsible for global climate change, and that intends to find every shred of evidence to support that doctrine." REAL science would involve studying the issue to see if man is in fact in any way responsible, rather than stating flatly that it's a fact and then looking only for evidence to buttress the claim.

However, the second part of the analysis involves economics questions.As it must.

If I were to ask you in advance the total change in GDP that ,say, a rise in a particular tax would cause, I would bet that you wouldn't get the correct answer.Red herring. The issue is the economic impact of a crash program to attempt to do something with no evidence that it can be done.

The reason is that economic forecasting is a rather black art and far too many unknowns.Then why do you ecowackos insist on committing trillions of dollars to address a problem when you can't demonstrate that there IS a problem?

If you think climatology is bad, economics is far more complex.But the economic impact is paramount to the issue.

In the other thread you seem to have accepted that global warming is happening ...I accept that global climate change has been occuring since there has been global climate. It's natural, it's inevitable, and it's irresistible.

... and all the evidence points to it being caused by man.If you are implying that I support such an idiotic, absolutist concept, then you have no shame. Only hyper-leftist ecozealots push that egregious myth. You might as well claim that a fisherman taking a piss in a brook results in a river downstream overflowing its banks.

We've thrashed out the climatology part of the debate ...Only because we have no end of liberaloonies who come here to show us iggernit redneck yahoo conservatives how EEEEE-vill man is for advancing beyond the middle ages.

... (and quite frankly, the scientific debate over whether mankind is changing the climate is happening is over ...Dream on.

... the debate is over how much it will change in the future).No, the debate is whether or not anyone will pay attention to strident, mantra-chanting enviroalarmists.

I'll point you to an edition of Science where the top scientific questions were posed, and one of them was "How hot will the greenhouse world be?" (URL deleted)And I'll point you to any weather site's ten-day forecast, which in all probability will be wrong after the second day. Sorry, kid, but I don't buy the bullshit about what the climate will be decades or centuries down the road when they can't get it right one day at a time.

Let's look at discussing the political side of the question, and look at the economics. I propose that reductions in GHGs could be carried out with minimal cost to the world economy and could even spur development.And you thus come to a crashing halt as you impact my points list. Utilities have spent millions of dollars on emissions controls (e.g., stack scrubbers) to achieve slight reductions in particulates and noxious vapors—and creating toxic wastes in the process. What do you think it would cost to reduce a plant's CO₂ emissions when CO₂ is a product of complete combustion, and there is no efficient way to remove CO₂?

As for methane, it's a valuable fuel, if it can be collected.

The principal human-related sources of methane are described below. For each source, a link is provided to the report entitled "US Emissions Inventory 2005: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2003," prepared by EPA, which provides detailed information on the characterization and quantity of national emissions from each source. This report, hereafter referred to as the "U.S. inventory report", provides the latest descriptions and emissions associated with each source category and is part of the United States' official submittal to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The U.S. inventory report also describes the procedures used to quantify national emissions, as well as a description of trends in emissions since 1990.

Also, for those sources where EPA has established voluntary programs for reducing methane emissions, a link to those program sites is provided.

Landfills. Landfills are the largest human-related source of methane in the U.S., accounting for 34% of all methane emissions. Methane is generated in landfills and open dumps as waste decomposes under anaerobic (without oxygen) conditions. The amount of methane created depends on the quantity and moisture content of the waste and the design and management practices at the site. The U.S. inventory report provides a detailed description on methane emissions from landfills and how they are estimated (see the Chapter entitled "Waste").

EPA has also established a voluntary program to reduce methane emissions from landfills. This program, known as the Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), works with companies, utilities, and communities to encourage the use of landfill gas for energy.

Natural gas and petroleum systems. Methane is the primary component of natural gas. Methane losses occur during the production, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution of natural gas. Because gas is often found in conjunction with oil, the production, refinement, transportation, and storage of crude oil is also a source of methane emissions. The U.S. inventory report provides a detailed description on methane emissions from natural gas and petroleum systems and how they are estimated (see the Chapter entitled "Energy").

EPA has also established a voluntary program to reduce methane emissions in the natural gas industry. This program, known as the Natural Gas STAR Program (Gas STAR) is a voluntary partnership between EPA and the natural gas and oil industries to reduce emissions of methane from the production, transmission, and distribution of natural gas.

Coal mining. Methane trapped in coal deposits and in the surrounding strata is released during normal mining operations in both underground and surface mines. In addition, handling of the coal after mining results in methane emissions. The U.S. inventory report provides a detailed description on methane emissions from coal mining and how they are estimated (see the Chapter entitled "Energy").

EPA has also established a voluntary program to reduce methane emissions in the coal mining industry. This program, known as the Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP) helps the coal industry identify the technologies, markets, and finance sources to profitably use or sell the methane that coal mines would otherwise vent to the atmosphere.

Livestock enteric fermentation. Among domesticated livestock, ruminant animals (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels) produce significant amounts of methane as part of their normal digestive processes. In the rumen, or large fore-stomach, of these animals, microbial fermentation converts feed into products that can be digested and utilized by the animal. This microbial fermentation process, referred to as enteric fermentation, produces methane as a by-product, which can be exhaled by the animal. Methane is also produced in smaller quantities by the digestive processes of other animals, including humans, but emissions from these sources are insignificant. The U.S. inventory report provides a detailed description on methane emissions from livestock enteric fermentation and how they are estimated (see the Chapter entitled "Agriculture").

EPA has studied options for reducing methane emissions from enteric fermentation and has developed resources and tools to assist in estimating emissions and evaluating mitigation options. For more information, please visit the Ruminant Livestock site.

Livestock manure management. Methane is produced during the anaerobic (i.e., without oxygen) decomposition of organic material in livestock manure management systems. Liquid manure management systems, such as lagoons and holding tanks, can cause significant methane production and these systems are commonly used at larger swine and dairy operations. Manure deposited on fields and pastures, or otherwise handled in a dry form, produces insignificant amounts of methane. The U.S. inventory report provides a detailed description on methane emissions from livestock manure management and how they are estimated (see the Chapter entitled "Agriculture").

EPA has also established a voluntary program to reduce methane emissions in the livestock industry. This program, known as the AgSTAR Program, encourages adoption of anaerobic digestion technologies that recover and combust biogas (methane) for odor control or as an on-farm energy resource.

Wastewater treatment. Wastewater from domestic (municipal sewage) and industrial sources is treated to remove soluble organic matter, suspended solids, pathogenic organisms, and chemical contaminants. These treatment processes can produce methane emissions if organic constituents in the wastewater are treated anaerobically (i.e., without oxygen) and if the methane produced is released to the atmosphere. In addition, the sludge produced from some treatment processes may be further biodegraded under anaerobic conditions, resulting in methane emissions. These emissions can be avoided, however, by treating the wastewater and the associated sludge under aerobic conditions or by capturing methane released under anaerobic conditions. The U.S. inventory report provides a detailed description on methane emissions from wastewater treatment and how they are estimated (see the Chapter entitled "Waste").

Rice cultivation. Methane is produced during flooded rice cultivation by the anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of organic matter in the soil. Flooded soils are ideal environments for methane production because of their high levels of organic substrates, oxygen-depleted conditions, and moisture. The level of emissions varies with soil conditions and production practices as well as climate. Several cultivation practices have shown promise for reducing methane emissions from rice cultivation. The U.S. inventory report provides a detailed description on methane emissions from rice cultivation and how they are estimated (see the Chapter entitled "Agriculture").US EPA - Methane: Sources and Emissions (http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html) (gov't publication, uncopyrighted)

Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas. Since 1750, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by more than 140 %. The primary sources for the additional methane added to the atmosphere (in order of importance) are: rice cultivation; domestic grazing animals; termites; landfills; coal mining; and, oil and gas extraction. Anaerobic conditions associated with rice paddy flooding results in the formation of methane gas. However, an accurate estimate of how much methane is being produced from rice paddies has been difficult to ascertain. More than 60% of all rice paddies are found in India and China where scientific data concerning emission rates are unavailable. Nevertheless, scientists believe that the contribution of rice paddies is large because this form of crop production has more than doubled since 1950. Grazing animals release methane to the environment as a result of herbaceous digestion. Some researchers believe the addition of methane from this source has more than quadrupled over the last century. Termites also release methane through similar processes. Land-use change in the tropics, due to deforestation, ranching, and farming, may be causing termite numbers to expand. If this assumption is correct, the contribution from these insects may be important. Methane is also released from landfills, coal mines, and gas and oil drilling. Landfills produce methane as organic wastes decompose over time. Coal, oil, and natural gas deposits release methane to the atmosphere when these deposits are excavated or drilled.CHAPTER 7: Introduction to the Atmosphere (http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html)

Judging by the second quote, it will take a shitload of effort to suppress CH₄ generation.

Post #47:
You did it for us. Remember the thing you posted about the tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling you posted? You still haven't explained it why the stratosphere is cooling if the world is warming due to increased solar activity.Perhaps you would care to show us the data available from past warming cycles where "tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling" were not the same as they are now. You won't have it, of course, since the technologies did not exist for obtaining that data. Therefore you have no way to determine whether it is anomalous or simply concomitant.

Your sig line is funny. Is this Steorts fellow a scientist?No, he's not. And? Are you a scientist? If not, why should consider you to be credible?

He can't be as he says "we don't know that we have a problem".There is no problem that was not invented by the fertile but undisciplined imaginations of power-lusting leftist scaremongers. Naturally occuring phenomena can be a problem only when they are shamelessly exploited by politicians and ideologues.

I assume by "we" he means "right wing ideologues".He means people who don't fall for every egregious example of junk science peddled by Gaia-worshipping enviroreligionists.

It can't represent the scientific community as the debate over whether we have a problem has been settled. Have a look at Science and Nature.And no doubt Science and Nature permit publication of articles that are contrary to the doctrines of the faith.

Post #48:
This is wrong. I'm sorry. We have 100 years of global climate records (+ proxies going back further) that show warming.And we have data that show warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. It's very difficult to build a credible case that SUVs and barbeque grills contributed to them.

We have I think two regional data points on Mars stretching back 5 years, yet you state that it is a fact that there is global warming on Mars.Mars is a planet that is lifeless, and thus is affected ONLY by sunlight as a warming factor. If it is warming, what else can be causing it? And if the sun is causing warming on Mars, then how much more so is it warming Earth, where the sunlight is 2.3 times as intense?

There are far too many variables on Earth to point to any single source and proclaim that it is THE cause of GCC. However, on Mars there is ONE variable: sunlight. It therefore is a significant factor on Earth as well.

Post #49:
This depends on your perspective. My perspective is that we are doing something.I assume by "we" you mean "left wing ideologues". The only thing you're doing is hawking bad science, and trying to scare the shit out of the uninformed sheeple, for political gain. The "solutions" proposed by ecoloonies invariably call for massive expansion of government, the liberals' concept of utopia.

The question is "ok, we've increased greenhouse gases by 30% and we're not sure whether it's affecting the climate (although I would argue that scientific community is agreed) ...Science by consensus again. Don't you libs ever tire of that? A few decades ago, "the scientific community (was) agreed" that we'd freeze our asses because of global cooling. And when it didn't happen, the alarmism reversed course. After all, they needed a gloom & doom scenario to justify millions (or billions) of dollars in research grants and cushy, do-nothing careers.

They were full of it then, and they're full of it now.

... shall we double the greenhouse gas concentrations and hope for the best?"And who is suggesting that, liberal? That's a straw-man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) "argument".

I agree with you that combatting global warming has to be economically viable ...If there is no evidence whatsoever that "combatting global warming" will have any effect, then it is not "economically viable" if we spend a dollar on it. Investments must be justified by arguments that are far more substantial than, "Something must be done because we say so."

... but it's too often taken as a given that to do something would ruin the economy, even though there appears little evidence for this.Again you speak from a position of ignorance of the technologies that would be required and the costs of putting them into practice with no assurance that they would do anything useful. In short, you're a typical liberal.

But then you dismissed my list by calling it unreasonable ("I love the way you call this reasonable"), even though it had no political or ideological bias, and dealt solely with practical considerations. The list called for information, and you ecowackos without exception either ignore it or brush it off. The conclusion that I must reach is that you expect the world to spend outrageous amounts of money on a project for which there is absolutely no evidence that it will be successful. THAT is unreasonable.

Post #52:
What I do object to is the position that it's all a socialist plot to destroy America, especially when this position isn't based on any evidence.When one sees the political biases of the individuals and organizations that are pushing this junk science, there's no doubt about the goals.

I also object to the argument that there's no evidence for global warming (it's just simply false, there's nothing debatable about that in the slightest).And I object to your pig-headed insistence on making statements that you know are barefaced lies. No one here is claiming "that there's no evidence for global warming." What we state is that there is no evidence to attribute all global warming to man. And before you object, read your own words.

The "irrefutable scientific evidence that human activity is causing GCC" has already been provided. ... and all the evidence points to it being caused by man.Those two statements clearly blame all GW on "human activity". You cannot spin your way out of that. Your deliberate choice of words disallows it. And by those words, you have demonstrated that you are without a clue and that your sole interest is ideological.

[DoctorDoom]

However, DoctorDoom has provided to the lefties here a set of reasonable criteria for an analysis of the subject of human-caused global warming. I'm sure that Doc won't mind if I re-post them again:Feel free to use them as often as you see fit, brer NT.

[Rhino]

Damn, Doc. You're gonna hafta pour water on the keyboard to cool it off!!! LOL!

[Naturalized-Texan]

A major problem is that lefties like markie, Borg, et al., have been brainwashed their entire lives into believing that the UN is a cure for all the world evils. That's why they are willing to believe the IPCC which is controlled by the UN and has been tasked by the UN "to find evidence to support the presupposition that humans cause climate change," hence the Kyoto Protocols.

We realists know very well that the UN is the focus of evil in the modern world that is controlled by those who hate the U.S. and have as their goal the destruction of our country. The interests of the UN are diametrically opposed to the national interests of the U.S. and that is why we need to get the U.S. out of the UN and get the UN out of the U.S.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I can understand how the lefties can believe that the UN is the cure for all the evils in the world. I also believed that when I was young and foolish, but about 45 years ago I finally realized that the UN was powerless to stop Communist aggression, so what good was it? More and more since then, the UN has been diametrically opposed to our national interests as well as to the interests of the world.

[Lubbock]

Well, I just heard on H&C that Babra Striesand is coming out of retirement, going to stage a series of concerts, to end global warming.

The only thing I can see that will cause is more global warming.

When that ugly witch opens her mouth, the global temperature will go up at least ten degrees.

[sunsettommy]

Dr. Gray is certainly justified in stating, "My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

If one looks at the temperature graph that markus and others have posted, one can easily see that in the past 100 years there have been three 30-40 year cycles of warming and cooling and warming. We are now nearing the end of one of those 35-40 year warming cycles, so it's certainly possible that we will be seeing the beginning of another cooling cycle in 3 or 4 years.

The Russian scientists have said something similar recently.

Making predictions on the future in weather trends is a crap shoot beyond 3 days.

[markus3622]

DoctorDoom, I'm sorry but your diatribe just consists of fallacy piled upon fallacy. I haven't time to go through all of it, but I'll just do a few

No doubt you have irrefutable, objective proof (i.e., not from Greenpeace or Earth Liberation Front) that human activity is responsible for "doubling CO2 and tripling Methane in the atmosphere"...

Note, I didn't say we had doubled CO2, we've increased it by around 35% and we've seen a 150% increase in Methane. However we do have complete convincing evidence of this. The CO2 increase correlates perfectly with CO2 emissions, and although not proof (proof doesn't exist in science), it is convincing evidence that cannot be denied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png

and no doubt you have the statistics that will demonstrate the percentage of GW caused by "doubling CO2 and tripling Methane in the atmosphere". Again, not yet as it hasn't happened - I was hypothesising what will happen if and when this level is achieved. However, we have estimates of the effect of the increased CO2, and every estimate agrees that it's significant.

Main Entry: glob·al
Pronunciation: 'glO-b&l
Function: adjective
1 : SPHERICAL
2 : of, relating to, or involving the entire world : WORLDWIDE < global warfare > < a global system of communication > ...

Main Entry: gov·er·nance
Pronunciation: 'g&-v&r-n&n(t)s
Function: noun
: GOVERNMENT

Read Merriam-Webster's lips: WORLDWIDE GOVERNMENT.

Oh come on DD! Global goverance is not world government. That's a terrible argument. By your argument, it could also mean "spherical government"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_governance

Re: the IPCC

understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change

The IPCC exists to find evidence to support the presupposition that humans cause climate change. Not IF

That's not what it says at all - it says "understanding the risk" - that risk might be zero - that's just a mistake on your part.

The IPCC is listed on a page about Global Governance.

Therefore it follows that the IPCC is a wing of the CGG? That doesn't follow at all.

The point is WHY we (read: the US) should invest trillions of dollars attempting to do something for which there is absolutely no proof that it will have any effect whatever.

I could modify this to "why should the world (not just the US) invest dollars attempting to do something for which there is absolutely no proof that will satisfy me, because a priori, I am opposed to the idea of global warming". Go out and read scientific journals. That's why I accept the risk of global warming.

I haven't the time to respond to the rest of your post, but it follows in a similar vein.

[Borgia]

<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">Originally Posted by Naturalized-Texan
The CGG has as its stated goal world government under UN control
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Still waiting for evidence of this, NT. Please cite where they stated this goal. I am starting to suspect you have not actually seen the CGG state this and just plain lied through your teeth.

The old end justifies the means, eh NT?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[markus3622]

The Russian scientists have said something similar recently.

Making predictions on the future in weather trends is a crap shoot beyond 3 days.

There's a significant difference between weather and climate. Weather is whether it will rain in three days time (I think forecasts lose all their information after five days. I've used MM5 a mesoscale meteorological model) whereas climate is whether summer is warmer than winter. It's not a crap shoot to say that summer in New York is warmer than in winter.

[sunsettommy]

Originally Posted by sunsettommy
The Russian scientists have said something similar recently.

Making predictions on the future in weather trends is a crap shoot beyond 3 days.


There's a significant difference between weather and climate. Weather is whether it will rain in three days time (I think forecasts lose all their information after five days. I've used MM5 a mesoscale meteorological model) whereas climate is whether summer is warmer than winter. It's not a crap shoot to say that summer in New York is warmer than in winter.

You missed my meaning.

The key words are WEATHER TRENDS.

I was not talking about long term climatic trends.We both know no one has been able to predict that accurately beyond guessing.

All those GCM being used as serious science is a joke.It does not meet the scientific test when they predict decades into the future.How is it testable in the present time? Besides there has been a number of paper this year showing that CO2 was being overestimated and that there are OTHER warm forcing not adequately addressed in the models.Water Vapor being the chief neglect.

It is beyond stupid to proclaim that it is CO2 the main driver as proclaimed in the late 1980's for warming.When so little was known about the Greenhouse gases and the global climate in general at the time.Now they are stuck with it and the recent papers are reducing the CO2 TRACE Gas back into a minor role.There is simply so little of the gas available to promote that much warming.

I was talking about that beyond 3 days of short term forcasting becomes a guess.In my area they commonly REVISE theirs every day.

Of course Summer in ANY city will be warmer than in Winter in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE, Duh!

[markus3622]

Actually, the scientists seem to be doing quite well at predicting long term climatic changes (in the fairly short period of time they've been doing it). Bill Gray has stated that the world will begin to cool in 3-4 years, whereas the climatologists are saying it will continue to warm.

I suppose we'll have to see who is correct.

[Naturalized-Texan]

President Bush used the results of two studies by independent organizations as the basis for his correct decision to rescind the Kyoto Protocols. Either one of those studies by itself provided sufficient justification for his decision:

1) The June 2001 climate change report from the National Academy of Sciences showed that there are far too many uncertainties about the cause(s) of global warming to conclude that it is being caused by human activities.

2) A study conducted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that the Kyoto Protocols would cost the American economy $300 billion to $400 billion a year with no measurable effect on greenhouse emissions.

Another fact that probably didn't enter into President Bush's decision, but probably should have, is that the U.S. is NOT a net contributor of CO2 emissions (if that is even the cause of global warming, which is dubious, at best). As Timberwolf has pointed out several times, because of its vast acreage of forestlands, the U.S absorbs as much, or more, CO2 than it produces.

[Naturalized-Texan]

DoctorDoom: I made the rash assumption that our resident lefties were intelligent enough to know that "global governance" is equivalent to "world government" and that the UN Commission on Global Governance could easily have been called the UN Commission on World Government.

When I made that rash assumption I forgot the admonishment in DeclinetoState's sig line, "Never overestimate the intelligence of a liberal." I'll not make the mistake to overestimate the intelligence of liberals again.

[sunsettommy]

Actually, the scientists seem to be doing quite well at predicting long term climatic changes (in the fairly short period of time they've been doing it). Bill Gray has stated that the world will begin to cool in 3-4 years, whereas the climatologists are saying it will continue to warm.

I suppose we'll have to see who is correct.

They are both providing educated guesses.

[sunsettommy]

Now we have this to digest.It appears that already just a year later the ocean surface waters are much less warm than last year.

Click on the link for the very revealing comparison(images) between 2005 and 2006 mays.

From NASA by way of Climate Science website:

An excerpt:

June 1 marks the first official day of hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean. In 2006, conditions in the Atlantic were “hurricane friendly,” said NASA scientist David Adamec, and not quite as extreme as they had been at the opening of the 2005 hurricane season. Hurricanes need both warm sea surface temperatures and calm winds to develop. Warm water provides both heat and humidity needed for storm formation. Strong winds would tear a developing storm apart, while calm winds allow a hurricane to build. In late May 2006, sea surface temperatures were warmer than normal, and winds were calm.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17292

How can the huge ocean region be so much less warm in just a year?

[Borgia]

<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">Originally Posted by Naturalized-Texan
The CGG has as its stated goal world government under UN control
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Hmm, you still have not provided evidence that the CGG stated this goal, NT. Any chance you will actually cite your source?

[Borgia]

All those GCM being used as serious science is a joke.It does not meet the scientific test when they predict decades into the future.How is it testable in the present time?

That is a good question and allow me to give you a reasonable answer. When you create a climate model you have a set of data available to you. Let's assume you have data from 1945 through 2005.

You create your model and use SOME of the data available to you, for example let's assume you use data from 1960-1985 to determine the paramters of your model. Now that your model is working, you then test it to see how well it predicts data in the ranges that you did not earlier use, 1945-1959 and 1986-2005. Now you have performed a test of your model to determine its accuracy.

People make models predicting future events all the time and it is not a problem. We just have to know what the parameters for the model are and which are the major varibales which effect the function.

[DoctorDoom]

Damn, Doc. You're gonna hafta pour water on the keyboard to cool it off!!! LOL!Not a problem. I have five spares. I buy 'em on sale.

[DoctorDoom]

DoctorDoom, I'm sorry but your diatribe just consists of fallacy piled upon fallacy. I haven't time to go through all of it, but I'll just do a fewTranslated from Libspeak: "You kicked my ass so hard that I'm still looking for my rectum, but I'm too frigging arrogant to admit it, so I'll just blow off your brilliant and incisive commentary with one of our liberal mantras."

Did anyone ever read Mad Magazine's "Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions"? We have now seen the reverse. How appropriate that it comes from a clue-bereft liberaloser.

Markie, I have a graphic of your minor deity in action. Enjoy!

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/GoreTree.gif" />

And BTW, speaking of that assmite, it appears that Americans aren't enamored of his Unholywood fantasy.

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

Domestic Total as of Jun. 8, 2006: $2,478,370
Distributor: Paramount Classics
Release Date: May 24, 2006An Inconvenient Truth (2006) - Daily Box Office (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=inconvenienttruth.htm)

Maybe when the Golden Schnozz gets the hundred or so bucks from her tour, she'll donate a few to AlBore so that he can buy a beer in which to wail pathetically about how unkind the American people are for not flocking to his fraudulent film.

[sunsettommy]

That is a good question and allow me to give you a reasonable answer. When you create a climate model you have a set of data available to you. Let's assume you have data from 1945 through 2005.

You create your model and use SOME of the data available to you, for example let's assume you use data from 1960-1985 to determine the paramters of your model. Now that your model is working, you then test it to see how well it predicts data in the ranges that you did not earlier use, 1945-1959 and 1986-2005. Now you have performed a test of your model to determine its accuracy.

People make models predicting future events all the time and it is not a problem. We just have to know what the parameters for the model are and which are the major varibales which effect the function.

You forget the "tuning" part.

:shame:

The rest I will pass since it is still not testable.It is still a mystery for most people on how a climatologist create a model and when they fail to meet expectations.They redo the model with different data.That alone destroys the model as being testable.

By the way most GCM are often 25-50 or more,years into the future.

:rolleyes:

[DoctorDoom]

By the way most GCM are often 25-50 or more,years into the future.And they are based on pure assumption and guesswork. Great science, hey?

[Naturalized-Texan]

I’m frustrated. No matter how much I simplify I still find myself overestimating the intelligence of liberals. But, I’ll make one last try.

For the sake of argument, let’s imagine several hypothetical UN commissions with clearly defined goals. (We all know that the UN as currently constituted would never have such commissions because their stated goals are diametrically opposed to the goals of the UN, but one can dream, can’t one?)

If the UN had a Commission on Economic Freedom, the proof that it’s stated goal is promoting economic freedom is certainly clear from its name.

If the UN had a Commission on Free-Market Capitalism, the proof that it’s stated goal is promoting free-market capitalism is certainly clear from its name.

If the UN had a Commission on Representative Democracies, the proof that it’s stated goal is promoting representative democracies is certainly clear from its name.

If the UN had a Commission on Personal Freedom, the proof that it’s stated goal is promoting personal freedom is certainly clear from its name.

If the UN had a Commission on Free Trade, the proof that it’s stated goal is promoting free trade is certainly clear from its name.

Consequently, since UN has a Commission on Global Governance, the proof that it’s stated goal is promoting global governance is certainly clear from its name.

I know! I know! Such logic is wasted on liberals to whom logic is a foreign language, but the logic of the above is inescapable. Even my 8-year-old granddaughter could probably understand it, but, of course, my granddaughter is smarter than most liberals.

[markus3622]

Consequently, since UN has a Commission on Global Governance, the proof that it’s [sic] stated goal is promoting global governance is certainly clear from its name.

Ok, and now on to the next part in the chain, showing that promotion of "global governance" means the promotion of "one world global government".

There must be some evidence there, surely, if you can confidently state that "The CGG has as its stated goal world government under UN control". Where is it?

[aaron11]

Markus, are you really that tarded?

Must be a liberal thing.

[markus3622]

No Aaron, it's not enough to say that governance necessarily implies government, so that global governance necessarily implies global government. Someone making that claim needs evidence, other than just similar etymology.

[Jag Wife]

Seriously, could you present some evidence for this UN World Socialist conspiracy?

PS: I feel a little sorry for Bill Gray. He's a guy that got left behind (old scientists often do - even Einstein ended up a bit of a crank and couldn't accept the latest developments in physics)

Perhaps YOU can tell us why the biggest proponents of "global warming" are not scientists, but Hollywood mouthpieces:

1. Barbara Streisand,who rides around in a gas-eating motorhome and an armored limo;

2. Al Gore, who flies in a private jet most places;

3. One-hit-wonder Terry Jacks, who no doubt displaced some forest creatures to build that mansion of his in British Columbia and burns lots of boat fuel scaring away Canadian fishermen.

[Borgia]

Naturalized-Texan][/B]
The CGG has as its stated goal world government under UN control

Still waiting for where you found their stated goal as such. Or did you infer from that from their writings? If so, it would not be a stated goal, would it? :)

[markus3622]

Perhaps YOU can tell us why the biggest proponents of "global warming" are not scientists, but Hollywood mouthpieces:

1. Barbara Streisand,who rides around in a gas-eating motorhome and an armored limo;

2. Al Gore, who flies in a private jet most places;

3. One-hit-wonder Terry Jacks, who no doubt displaced some forest creatures to build that mansion of his in British Columbia and burns lots of boat fuel scaring away Canadian fishermen.

I suppose if you were to believe that the only people who see the reality of global warming were "Hollywood mouthpieces" I could understand your skepticism. However, it's simply untrue. The reality of global warming is accepted by every major scientific body in the world, from the US National Academy of Sciences, to the American Meteorological Society and all the major scientific organisations I can think of (UK, Germany, Canada, etc.)

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13618

In the scientific community, the argument over whether man is causing global warming has been settled. There are just debates over how much the earth will warm in the future.

However, it is obviously the case that you and significant number of people view global warming as some fringe idea supported by wealthy liberals and "enviro-wackos", and I really wonder where it is you get these views that are so at odds with the reality.

[aaron11]

I suppose if you were to believe that the only people who see the reality of global warming were "Hollywood mouthpieces" I could understand your skepticism. However, it's simply untrue. The reality of global warming is accepted by every major scientific body in the world, from the US National Academy of Sciences, to the American Meteorological Society and all the major scientific organisations I can think of (UK, Germany, Canada, etc.)


However, it is obviously the case that you and significant number of people view global warming as some fringe idea supported by wealthy liberals and "enviro-wackos", and I really wonder where it is you get these views that are so at odds with the reality.

Tell that to Galileo...

[Borgia]

Tell that to Galileo...

Let's see. Galileo wanted to teach what other scientists at the time were advocating, that the earth revolved around the sun. Yet the non-scientists (Church) barred him from teaching that standing in the way of scientific progress.

Yep, that sounds like today where a bunch of non-scientists (op-ed writers, politicians, etc.) stand in the way of scientists and attempt to promote non-scientific ideas instead. As Markus said, the vast majority of scientists accept global warming.

[Timberwolf]

Couldn't it be considered arrogant to assume that doubling CO2 and tripling Methane in the atmosphere would have little or no effect on the environment, as some would have us believe?




Considering that CO<SUB>2</SUB><SUB> spikes FOLLOW temperature spikes, one of your contentions is moot. As for man-made methane and CO<SUB>2</SUB> concentrations, they are , respectively, .066% and .117% of atmospheric composition so, WHO CARES if they've doubled or tripled? They will have NO effect on "global warming".http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)




I can look for evidence to support the theory of global warming. You can look for evidence to the contrary. Whats the point?
The point is we look to FACTUAL information, not unsupportable emotionalism and faulty cause and effect relationships.

Most people at FC are blindly convinced of the latter.
Yes, convinced - though NOT blindly so - and for good reason...there is NO evidence to support HUMANITY has anything whatsoever to do with the warming trend we are now experiencing.

And therefore you go looking for evidence to debunk global warming, while blatantly ignoring and downplahing that which supports it.
Doc, this one is in serious need of a cluepon...you got an extra one layin' around somewhere?

I do not claim to know the truth of the matter, only that its best to keep an open mind and review all data objectively while not jumping to conclusions. Its scary how one-sided you remain on this matter.
What's even scarier is how BLATENTLY one-sided the EVIDENCE is...and it supports OUR side of the argument.

Just stick to the creed of the right, and don't think for yourselves.
Look who's talking...no evidence to support his postion, yet WE are the one's who are being "ideological". Yo', Sparky, we DO think...that is WHY we know your PoV is dead wrong.
</SUB>

[Timberwolf]

btw - here are a couple of graphs...notice that the first one conveniently leaves out water vapor which grossly skews the percentages into something not even closely resembling reality (truth).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/images/New%20Fig%203.gif
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif

[Timberwolf]

This is wrong. I'm sorry. We have 100 years of global climate records (+ proxies going back further) that show warming. We have I think two regional data points on Mars stretching back 5 years, yet you state that it is a fact that there is global warming on Mars.
Actually, this is not true...according to scientists, 5 BILLION years ago, the Earth was 27ºC...today the Earth is 23ºC...that's NOT a warming trend, wouldn't you agree?

[sunsettommy]

Let's see. Galileo wanted to teach what other scientists at the time were advocating, that the earth revolved around the sun. Yet the non-scientists (Church) barred him from teaching that standing in the way of scientific progress.

Yep, that sounds like today where a bunch of non-scientists (op-ed writers, politicians, etc.) stand in the way of scientists and attempt to promote non-scientific ideas instead. As Markus said, the vast majority of scientists accept global warming.

Still on that consensus B.S. huh.I hope you realize that consensus does not establish evidence or knowledge.Just popularity.

Then Amateur Geologist Alfred Wegener was wrong because the Professional Geologists of his day had a consensus that he was wrong.

Guess what.........

What about Robert Goddard........

Hannes Alfven..........

[DoctorDoom]

From the lips (and pens) of "experts":

Famous Authoritative Pronouncements

1486
...so many centuries after the Creation it is unlikely that anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value.
-- Committee advising King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain regarding a proposal by Christopher Columbus.

1800
What, sir, would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense.
-- Napoleon Bonaparte, when told of Robert Fulton's steamboat.

1825
What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?
-- The Quarterly Review

1830
Rail travel at high speeds is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.
-- Dionysius Lardner, Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy at University College, London, and author of The Steam Engine Explained and Illustrated

1842
I watched his countenance closely, to see if he was not deranged ... and I was assured by other senators after he left the room that they had no confidence in it.
-- U.S. Senator Smith of Indiana, after witnessing a demonstration of Samuel Morse's telegraph

1864
No one will pay good money to get from Berlin to Potsdam in one hour when he can ride his horse there in one day for free.
-- King William I of Prussia, on hearing of the invention of trains

1865
Dear Mr. President: The canal system of this country is being threatened by a new form of transportation known as "railroads" ... As you may well know, Mr. President, "railroad" carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 miles per hour by "engines" which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to crops, scaring the livestock and frightening women and children. The Almighty certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck speed.
-- Martin Van Buren, Governor of New York

1865
Well-informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value.
-- Boston Post

1872
It's a great invention but who would want to use it anyway?
-- Rutherford B. Hayes, U.S. President, after a demonstration of Alexander Bell's telephone

1872
Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.
-- Pierre Pachet, professor of physiology at Toulouse

1873
The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.
-- Sir John Eric Ericksen, Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria

1876
This "telephone" has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.
-- Western Union Co. internal memo

1878
The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.
-- Sir William Preece, Chief Engineer, British Post Office

1878
... good enough for our transatlantic friends ... but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men.
-- British Parliamentary Committee, referring to Edison's light bulb

1880
Such startling announcements as these should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievious to its true progress.
-- Sir William Siemens, on Edison's light bulb

1880
Everyone acquainted with the subject will recognize it as a conspicuous failure.
-- Henry Morton, president of the Stevens Institute of Technology, on Edison's light bulb

1895
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
-- Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society

1897
Radio has no future.
-- Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society

1899
Everything that can be invented has been invented.
-- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents

1899
The ordinary "horseless carriage" is at present a luxury for the wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the future, it will never, of course, come into as common use as the bicycle.
-- Literary Digest

1902
Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.
-- Simon Newcomb, Canadian-born American astronomer

1904
Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
-- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre

1919
Taking the best left-handed pitcher in baseball and converting him into a right fielder is one of the dumbest things I ever heard.
-- Tris Speaker, baseball expert, talking about Babe Ruth.

192x
The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?
-- David Sarnoff's associates, evaluating his idea

1921
Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out in high schools.
-- New York Times editorial

1922
The radio craze will die out in time.
-- Thomas Edison

1926
While theoretically television may be feasible, commercially and financially I consider it an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming.
-- Lee de Forest

1927
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?
-- H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers

1928
There is no likelihood that man can ever tap the power of the atom. The glib supposition of utilizing atomic energy when our coal has run out is a completely unscientific Utopian dream, a childish bug-a-boo.
-- Robert Millikan

1929
Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.
-- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University

1932
There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean the atom would have to be shattered at will.
-- Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist.

1933
The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.
-- Lord Ernst Rutherford

1936
A rocket will never be able to leave the earth's atmosphere.
-- The New York Times

1939
Atomic energy might be as good as our present-day explosives, but it is unlikely to produce anything very much more dangerous.
-- Winston Churchill

1940
... too far-fetched to be considered.
-- Editor of Scientific American, in a letter to Robert Goddard about Goddard's idea of a rocket-accelerated airplane bomb.

1942
The Americans are good about making fancy cars and refrigerators, but that doesn't mean they are any good at making aircraft. They are bluffing. They are excellent at bluffing.
-- Hermann Goering, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe

1943
I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
-- Thomas J. Watson, Chairman of IBM

1945
This is the biggest fool thing we've ever done- the bomb will never go off- and I speak as an expert on explosives.
-- Admiral William Leahy, speaking to President Truman about the atom bomb

1946
Television won't last because people will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.
-- Darryl Zanuck

1949
Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.
-- Popular Mechanics

1956
Space travel is utter bilge.
-- Dr. Richard van der Reit Wooley, space advisor to the British government

1957
Space travel is bunk.
-- Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal

1957
I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year.
-- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall

1958
We will bury you.
-- Nikita Khrushchev

1962
We don't like their sound. We don't think they will do anything in their market. Guitar groups are on their way out.
-- Decca Recording Co., declining to sign the Beatles

1962
Transmission of documents via telephone wires is possible in principle, but the apparatus required is so expensive that it will never become a practical proposition.
-- Dennis Gabor

1966
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible.
-- A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. He was the founder of Federal Express.

1968
With over fifteen types of foreign cars already on sale here, the Japanese auto industry isn't likely to carve out a big share of the market for itself.
-- Business Week

1968
But what... is it good for?
-- Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, commenting on the idea of microchips

1977
...there is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
-- Ken Olson, President, Chairman, and Founder of Digital Equipment Corp

198x
If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you couldn't do this.
-- Spencer Silver, commenting on the work that led to the adhesives for 3M "Post-It" notepads

1981
640K ought to be enough for anybody.
-- Bill Gates

Lastly, a quote that is especially pertinent to global warming:

If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
-- Anatole France

[Borgia]

Still on that consensus B.S. huh.I hope you realize that consensus does not establish evidence or knowledge.Just popularity.

How do you think science works? It works by new thories slowly being accepted until a consensus is achieved. We don't immediatley coddle minority viewpoints. That is what peer review is for.

[Borgia]

<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">Originally Posted by Naturalized-Texan
The CGG has as its stated goal world government under UN control
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Still waiting for where the CGG stated this goal, NT. Not where you INFERRED it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

<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">Originally Posted by Naturalized-Texan
The CGG has as its stated goal world government under UN control
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Still waiting for where the CGG stated this goal, NT. Not where you INFERRED it.
I have provided my proof. Where's yours?

DoctorDoom has provided to you lefties a set of reasonable criteria for an analysis of the subject of human-caused global warming:

Outline for us what would be required to reduce the A-CO2 emission level to reduce the GCC rate by a specific level. The analysis must include:

• Irrefutable scientific evidence that human activity is causing GCC;
• Irrefutable scientific evidence of the percentage of GW attributable to human activity;
• A scientific study showing that a reduction of X% of anthropogenic CO2 will result in Y% reduction of the rate of GCC;
• the necessary technologies for achieving the reduction;
• the costs of research and development to optimize them;
• the costs of manufacturing, distributing, installing, operating and maintaining the technologies;
• the negative environmental effects of the technologies;
• the economic impact of the technologies on the nations' businesses and governments;
• the impositions on the lifestyles of the people of the nations;
• the cost-benefit ratio of dollars spent vs the value of the achieved GCC change;
• the cost of minimizing natural changes in the level of "greenhouse gases" to maintain the target GCC rate;
• the source of funding for bringing the technologies online and operating them;
• the total economic burden of the entire process.
• the arguments against spending far less money to prepare for inevitable eventualities than to attempt to stop an unstoppable process.

We'll be awaiting your analysis.

When you lefties have completed your analysis according to Doc's reasonable criteria, please PM DoctorDoom, sunsettommy, or me so that we can view your analysis. I'll be anxiously awaiting your PM.

[sunsettommy]

How do you think science works? It works by new thories slowly being accepted until a consensus is achieved. We don't immediatley coddle minority viewpoints. That is what peer review is for.

Incorrect!

New theories are TESTED by others.If it has merit then it is now fair game for the rest of the world.

It never has anything to do with popularity.

You have chewed on the consensus crap so badly that you have no real idea what makes science research works.

Peer review is increasingly being exposed as being narrowminded and biased.Climate research has some of the worst examples of all the fields of science on valid papers being supressed or ignored.

"Hockey Stick" paper ring any bells fella?

[sunsettommy]

From ABOUT,

Scientific Theories
How are they developed?

Excerpt:
<!--crumbs begin-->
Once you understand how the scientific method works, the next step in understanding science is understanding the nature of scientific theories. If scientific observations are the fuel which power scientific discoveries, then scientific theories are the engine. Theories are what allow scientists to organize and understand earlier observations, then predict and create future observations.

Scientific theories can be described by characteristics which they share in common and which differentiate them from unscientific theories. Informally, we can say that the criteria of scientific theories can be grouped into a few basic principles: scientific theories should be consistent, parsimonious, correctable, empirically testable/verifiable, useful, and progressive.

Snip:

Empirical Criteria

A scientific theory must:
1. be empirically testable or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable
2. actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions
3. involve reproducible results
4. provide criteria for the interpretation of data as factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant

The above criteria are not cited quite as often as the logical criteria, but they come close. A theory which cannot be tested empirically is useless for researchers. A theory which has not made any actually verified predictions might prove useful in the future when its predictions are verified, but not currently.

A theory which cannot provide retrodictions (to utilize present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs - e.g., to "retrodict past eclipses" as opposed to predicting future eclipses) may also be useful in the future, but not currently. If a theory's results cannot be reproduced, it is impossible to determine if those results were ever actually valid (rather than the result of error or fraud).

Finally, a scientific theory must allow us to better understand the nature of the data we have - after all, not all data are valid for a particular theory. Some data may be interpreted as factual (that is, they fall within the boundary conditions specified by the theory and verify its predictions or retrodictions); some may be artifactual (that is, the result of secondary or accidental influences lying outside the boundaries set for the validity of the theory); some are anomalous (that is, demonstrably valid within the bounds of the theory, but also at odds with predictions or retrodictions made by the theory); some are irreproducable and thus invalid; and some are irrelevant since they address the theory not at all.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_sci_theory.htm

Consensus is never a part of real science research.

It is always in a state of flux as more research down the road realigns viable reproducable past research.

Consensus never advance science.

Research does.

[markus3622]

Timberwolf

As for man-made methane and CO2 concentrations, they are , respectively, .066% and .117% of atmospheric composition so, WHO CARES if they've doubled or tripled? They will have NO effect on "global warming".
<SUB></SUB>
Do you have evidence for your conclusion? You've placed a model that implies that the "contribution to the greenhouse effect" of CO2 is 0.117%. However CO2 itself causes up to 20-30% of the greenhouse effect. Now given that we've seen a 35% increase in the greenhouse effect due to human emissions (that is not in dispute) that's a significant increase. You're correct that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, but it's not nearly as important as you claim. CO2 has a long residency time, and water is expected to act as a positive feedback (a warmer world will allow more water vapor in the atmosphere). Your graph is therefore misleading.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

Regarding the lag you refer to, in short it is believed that the CO2 rise is initiated by increases in temperature, and then the CO2 acts as a positive feedback. So at first the temp rise causes the CO2 to rise, which then causes the temperature to rise. Essentially, the ice cores shows us that increases in CO2 cause increased temperatures.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

DD

1933
The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.
-- Lord Ernst Rutherford

The question here, who is the Lord Rutherford in the global warming debate? Bill Gray or the rest of the scientific community? As I said earlier, Bill Gray comes across a great expert who got left behind (I said it wasn't common and you've backed it up).

[DoctorDoom]

When you lefties have completed your analysis according to Doc's reasonable criteria, please PM DoctorDoom, sunsettommy, or me so that we can view your analysis. I'll be anxiously awaiting your PM.You'll be waiting until the sun explodes, good sir. All the wackos are interested in is spreading their "WOE IS US!" bullshit to the gullible. They refuse to consider doing real science.

[Borgia]

Incorrect!

New theories are TESTED by others.If it has merit then it is now fair game for the rest of the world.

It never has anything to do with popularity.

Implied in my response was that in the process of peer review others evaluate the theories themselves. But it certainly does have to do with popularity.


You have chewed on the consensus crap so badly that you have no real idea what makes science research works.

Your opinion is noted but of no real value in this instance.

Peer review is increasingly being exposed as being narrowminded and biased.Climate research has some of the worst examples of all the fields of science on valid papers being supressed or ignored.

"Hockey Stick" paper ring any bells fella?

Peer review certainly can be wrong and biased. But I'll put my trust in the process and not hang onto conspiracy theories in the meantime.

[Borgia]

<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">Originally Posted by Naturalized-Texan
The CGG has as its stated goal world government under UN control
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Still waiting for where the CGG stated this goal, NT.