Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

[Naturalized-Texan]

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm)
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

{Much more good sense at the link above.}

[DesertFox]

Lefties simply repeat their global-warming mantras. Facts are so bothersome.

[Lubbock]

Poor, poor Tipper. Married to that.

You just have to feel sorry for the woman.

[DoctorDoom]

What kind of scientists are they, anway? Don't they know that Earth will be uninhabitable in 7.524 minutes? What about the consensus? What about the imminent destruction of the solar system, if not this arm of the galaxy, by global warming? What about the price of milk?

Scientists indeed! Praise Gore (piss be onto him).

[markus3622]

And the scientists seem to think he got the science right!

http://salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/10/truths/index.html

[aaron11]

LoL, Markus, why not just post a link to Moveon.org. We already know what the nuttier lefties are saying...

And in that you seemed to miss the significance of the OP, as it was from neutral sources...

Poor M, wants to believe in Man made GW sooo badly...

[markus3622]

Aaron, as is typically the case with global warming skeptics, they tend to be "economical with the actualite".

The article starts with Bob Carter, and follows that Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change.

Except that Bob Carter isn't. Bob Carter is a member of The Institute for Public Affairs, a think tank in Melbourne that campaigns against Kyoto.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

[markus3622]

This debate is increasingly similar to the evolution/creation debate. It's possible to get a list of scientists that are skeptical to climate change and evolution, but they're a very small part of the scientific community.

This article has found seven such scientists. However, ther author of the piece does work for a lobby group. Does anyone seriously think he has sought out seven scientists to represent the opinion of the scientific community, or does it look as though he's picked those that support his beliefs?

The Salon article is actually quite balanced, if anyone were to read it. It is far better than the OP article. It is actually quite balanced

Lonnie Thompson, a professor at Ohio University, whose work on retreating glaciers from the Andes to Kilimanjaro and Tibet is featured in the film, was happy with the result. "It's so hard given the breadth of this topic to be factually correct, and make sure you don’t lose your audience," he says. "As scientists, we publish our papers in Science and Nature, but very few people read those. Here's another way to get this message out. To me, it's an excellent overview for an introductory class at a university."... John Wallace, a climate scientist at the University of Washington, agreed. "I think that he's gone to great lengths to make the science comprehensible to the layman,"

However the Salon article does note a few ambiguities


David Battisti, a professor of atmospheric sciences, also at the University of Washington, thinks the science in the film is well represented, yet worries about one of the most dramatic moments in the film. "There is only one place in the film I struggled," he says. "It makes a powerful theatrical point, but it leaves open the criticism that you're stretching the truth."....Yet while objecting to the way the graph is presented, Battisti agrees with the qualitative point that temperatures are rising, and will continue to do so thanks to human-induced global warming, which is a serious problem.

[aaron11]

You call two opinions that agree with your POV, fair & balanced?...

:rolleyes:

[brilliantLiberal]

This debate is increasingly similar to the evolution/creation debate. It's possible to get a list of scientists that are skeptical to climate change and evolution, but they're a very small part of the scientific community.
Let me re-state the following:

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.

I don't give a darn who you are and what you BELIEVE, we do not dismantle the industrial age on FEELINGS that lack evidence. Document and prove your theory or shut up!

[DoctorDoom]

Lotsa luck, BL. I posted a list of points for the ecvowackos to address a couple of weeks ago, and to this moment they have refused to respond to it. The conclusion I've reached from their prattlings is that global warming is a religion, Gore is their god, and they fancy themselves as his prophets.

[Borgia]

Lotsa luck, BL. I posted a list of points for the ecvowackos to address a couple of weeks ago, and to this moment they have refused to respond to it. The conclusion I've reached from their prattlings is that global warming is a religion, Gore is their god, and they fancy themselves as his prophets.

Well, don't expect it form me since I claim no expertise in this subject (as I have said numerous times). Even if someone were to provide it, Doom, what makes you think you would have the requisite expertise to adjudicate its veracity? Are you an expert in climatology now too? :)

I recall the words of a scholar on this board who said,

"... are world-renowned authorities on every possible subject. If y'all don't believe it, just ask them. This will continue until their teenage omniscience subsides."

So, are you an expert on climatology now too, Doom? :)
<!-- / message -->

[sunsettommy]

Here comes the beating!

[Naturalized-Texan]

So, are you an expert on climatology now too, Doom? :)

DoctorDoom knows a heluva lot more about climatology and the science of global warming than any of the lefties here. Of all the regular posters on the subject of global warming, Doom is the most knowledgeable, with the possible exception of sunsettommy.

[Timberwolf]

Aaron, as is typically the case with global warming skeptics, they tend to be "economical with the actualite".

The article starts with Bob Carter, and follows that Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Except that Bob Carter isn't. Bob Carter is a member of The Institute for Public Affairs, a think tank in Melbourne that campaigns against Kyoto.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

Didja ever stop to think that maybe BECAUSE he's highly qualified, he's a member of that think tank? Furthermore, that the think tank CAMPAIGNS against Kyoto does not necessarily mean he / they are LOBBYISTS.

Reading extra info into things is how you lefties get into your delusional states in the first place...ya might wanna knock it off.

[DoctorDoom]

So, are you an expert on climatology now too, Doom?You're finally beginning to grasp the enormous honor that you have received in encountering me on the Net. I am in fact the world's greatest authority on every subject. However, I don't demand worship. There is but one God. Simple, heartfelt, awe-filled adulation will suffice.

BTW, I do not claim to know everything. In fact, there are several things that I don't know.

On topic, the list was not composed out of expertise, but rather as a compendium of points that must be addressed before it becomes reasonable to invest enormous amounts of time, research and money. The list has no ideological bias. It merely raises points of practicality. The fact that ecowackos zealously avoid it is strong evidence that they demand action based on nothing but opinion and wild-ass guesses. And that's not how things work in RealityLand.

[DoctorDoom]

And speaking of AlBore, his blockbuster is really knocking 'em dead in the 122 theaters where it's showing.

Domestic Total as of Jun. 14, 2006: $4,488,998
Release Date: May 24, 2006

An Inconvenient Truth (2006) - Daily Box Office (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=inconvenienttruth.htm)

With luck, it might recoup its production budget.

[DoctorDoom]

... The Institute for Public Affairs, a think tank ...Question: do liberals have "feel tanks"?

[sunsettommy]

Question: do liberals have "feel tanks"?

The IPCC is merely a well moneyed think tank composed of a lot of political hacks and a few scientists.

The sponsor and financial supporter is none other than the United Nations.A hostile political incompetant organization.

Born in political circles.

:roar: Hardly a sound foundation.

[markus3622]

Tim Lambert successfully takes the OP apart.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/an_embarrassment_to_australian.php#more

I've dealt with some of BL's points before. Firstly, proof does not exist in science. I would suggest reading anything by Karl Popper (or even anything about him). In the following, then I'll replace "proof" with "evidence"

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

Let me re-state the following:

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 evidence that the planet is going through an unnatural warming cycle.
3. Scientific evidence this climate change is caused by emissions and not other activity.

This has already been provided. The IPCC 3rd Assessment report covers this quite adequately

2. Scientific evidence that this warming cycle is detrimental to our environment.

I think there will be some benefits, but again the IPCC report covers many of the potential hazards. If global warming were beneficial, given #1 and #3 are alredy there, perhaps many here should be arguing for global warming.

4. Scientific evidence that we can do something to remedy the problem, if in fact one exists.

Well the science here is pretty simple, if we know #1 and #3 to be there, however this question remains largely economic in nature. Again, visit the IPCC website.

5. Scientific evidence that global warming on Mars and global warming on earth are not both reflections of solar activity having nothing to do with human activity.

This is irrelevant, and doubly so, as #1 and #3 have been provided.

I don't give a darn who you are and what you BELIEVE, we do not dismantle the industrial age on FEELINGS that lack evidence. Document and prove your theory or shut up!

This is somewhat ironic. This last statement is grounded on a false feeling to begin with. Opponents of global warming seem to assume it is a given that any measures to tackle it will "dismantle the industrial age", without a single shred of evidence, almost as if it were self-evident.

As I've stated before, the debate among scientists has been settled (at least those not funded by lobby groups). There is plenty of evidence out there and most of it is freely available. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

[brilliantLiberal]

Tim Lambert successfully takes the OP apart.
All I saw was a conflict of opinions. The fact is, alarmists have been saying that we are destroying the planet for as along as they have had a voice. What they lack is proof and credibility.

Firstly, proof does not exist in science.
Semantics. There is no absolute proof of anything. However, there can be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We know, for example, that all previously held theories of gravity are erroneous, that the earth, in fact, sucks. We know that the earth revolves around the sun and that the moon is actually made of green cheese. We know that the earth is not flat, but Brittany Spears was before silicon.

In the following, then I'll replace "proof" with "evidence"
These are not the same things. You have two arms, two legs and hair. That is evidence that you are an orangutan. My car has a horn. That is evidence it is a rhino. There is proof that the planet has warmed slightly from when these same learned scientists told us that we were going into another ice age because of our anti-perspirant. There is evidence of multiple causes, any or all of which might be causal. There is evidence on both sides that global warming is natural and unnatural. There is evidence on both sides that man is causing and has nothing to do with global warming. There is evidence on both sides that global is an imminent threat and a non-issue. There is no proof, not just to a reasonable doubt, but even to a greater statistical probability. You have people who can't tell me whether it will rain tomorrows telling me that a 1% increase in temperature will end the world in 100 years. No, if you replace "proof" with "evidence" it simply makes you look stupid... er.

This has already been provided. The IPCC 3rd Assessment report covers this quite adequately
I think Marvel Comics has about the same scientific validity as this piece of shrieking shrew prose. Sorry, it's a NO SALE.

I think there will be some benefits, but again the IPCC report covers many of the potential hazards. If global warming were beneficial, given #1 and #3 are alredy there, perhaps many here should be arguing for global warming.
First of all, you begin with a complete misunderstanding of the environment. Here's a scientific analysis. A fat man passes gas in a department store. An old woman turns away and holds her nose, making her cane fall. Another man reaches to pick up the cane and his pants split. A teenager sees the split pants and laughs so hard he bumps into a ladder. The man at the top of the ladder falls off and breaks his neck. Therefore, because of the POSSIBILITY that a man could get his neck broke, we need to destroy the farms from which the beans are grown.

Here's how the environment works. A volcano erupts, causing so much pollution and contamination the earth's temperature rises one degree. Ash falls a thousand miles away. The eruption can be seen from space. The next year, no environmental impact. Why? Because this planet is so vast and the systems which sustain it are so perfect, the simple burning of some fossil fuels does absolutely nothing. The universe will be destroyed by He who created it when He is done with it. Not before, and not by my suburban.

Well the science here is pretty simple ....
No kidding. So is the entire theory.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center>5. Scientific evidence that global warming on Mars and global warming on earth are not both reflections of solar activity having nothing to do with human activity.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
This is irrelevant, and doubly so, as #1 and #3 have been provided.
How is it irrelevant if it ties global warming to solar activity present and recordable on other planets? It is only irrelevant if you are closed minded and not at all interested in the truth. The fact is, if global warming were the result of solar activity, we would see it on other planets. The fact is, we DO see it on Mars, which is EVIDENCE of solar activity causing the slight warming. Why, then is it irrelevant? Because your 'science" is agenda driven, which means it is not "science at all.

As I've stated before, the debate among scientists has been settled (at least those not funded by lobby groups).
Then you're lying, because the debate is far from settled. In fact, not a single thing the global warming shrews are predicting has basis in anything but wild conjecture and improvable models.

There is plenty of evidence out there and most of it is freely available.
I've looked at the evidence and found it doesn't prove a thing.

You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
Ew, platitude time. You are sooooo much better educated than I, aren't you? What grade are you in? Who's your favorite teacher? Have you ever actually had sex... I mean with a member of the opposite sex?
No, you're just another quasi-educated overly indoctrinated troll. You're out of your league, child. You're just like the farmer who screws one cow and thinks he's a bull. You surround yourself with science you can't understand and yield your reasoning ability to wackos. Get a grip. These people aren't in school their entire lives because they're FUNCTIONAL.

[Timberwolf]

Ouch...his grandkids are gonna feel that one....LOL

[Naturalized-Texan]

BL,I think that you were a little too gentle with markus. :rotflmbo: :thumb:

[markus3622]

I think in this case it's best to let the global warming "skeptics" speak for themselves. There is no response I could give that will ever do justice to BrilliantLiberal.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I think in this case it's best to let the global warming "skeptics" speak for themselves. There is no response I could give that will ever do justice to BrilliantLiberal.
I'm glad that you finally admit that you are in way over your head. We've all known that since you first started posting pn the subject of global warming.

[markus3622]

No, I think this piece represents my feelings on the matter. I'm trying to argue the science about global warming and when someone responds that "Marvel Comics has about the same scientific validity as this piece [IPCC] of shrieking shrew prose", I know that it is futile to debate with such a person.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1788774,00.html

[Naturalized-Texan]

No, I think this piece represents my feelings on the matter. I'm trying to argue the science about global warming and when someone responds that "Marvel Comics has about the same scientific validity as this piece [IPCC] of shrieking shrew prose", I know that it is futile to debate with such a person.
Absolutely. It IS futile to debate with someone like BL who is correct and has the truth on his side. Marvel Comics does have about the same scientific validity as this piece [IPCC] of shrieking shrew prose.

[markus3622]

Very funny, NT. You're quite good at this irony thing.

[markus3622]

Wow! This response aught the be stickied

I agree

[markus3622]

I will admit that I haven't given global warming any real effort, primarily because the left always has one of these doomsday scenarios and they are always, inevitably, proven to be a sham.

In any case, I did do about 30 minutes worth of research a couple months ago at the request of a family member wondering why I was not more concerned. All I did was head to a pro-global warming website and look at their best evidence. I didn't bother looking at the other camp as it wasn't necessary.

My conclusion? The pro-global warming crowd are building some mighty fanciful towers out of little more than spun sugar and dreams. The best "evidence" you have falls well withing the instrament margin of error, and that doesn't even account for actual temperature fluctuations that might occur over long cycles.

When I showed this to my concerned family member (a Medical Doctor who seems pretty smart) it took him all of ten second to dismiss their best data as I had.

I'll leave aside for the moment the value of anecdotal evidence, but I wish to pose a question.

If the evidence for global warming is so weak as you suggest, why does it appear to have won over the scientific community? (I've posted plenty in these threads about the organisations that accept the evidence, and they're the most respected scientific bodies in the world).

I accept the possiblity that the scientific community could be wrong. If what you say is true, why are most of the scientists researching the field getting it wrong?

[sunsettommy]

I'll leave aside for the moment the value of anecdotal evidence, but I wish to pose a question.

If the evidence for global warming is so weak as you suggest, why does it appear to have won over the scientific community? (I've posted plenty in these threads about the organisations that accept the evidence, and they're the most respected scientific bodies in the world).

I accept the possiblity that the scientific community could be wrong. If what you say is true, why are most of the scientists researching the field getting it wrong?

You are so stuck with this consensus crap that you even imply that because the majority believes in something it must be true.

I have here a link that may just get you away from consensus of the collective back to individualized research.Where the EVIDENCE speaks for itself.

Skepticism is always needed to provide challenge to any published papers.

The link:

<TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=650 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://www.canada.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.canada.com/images/headings/en_head_canadacom.gif</TD><TD vAlign=top align=right><SCRIPT> <!-- var today = new Date(); var cc_days = new Array("Sunday","Monday","Tuesday","Wednesday","Thursday","Friday","Saturday"); var cc_months = new Array("January","February","March","April","May","June","July","August","September","October","November","December"); var cc_year = today.getYear(); if (cc_year > 99 && cc_year < 200) {cc_year += 1900} else { if (cc_year < 100) {cc_year = 2000 + cc_year}} document.write (cc_days[today.getDay()]+"*»*"+cc_months[today.getMonth()]+" "+today.getDate()+"*»*"+cc_year); //--> </SCRIPT>Monday » June 19 » 2006



</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- start story -->Climate consensus and the end of science
<TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>Terence Corcoran</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>Financial Post</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Friday, June 16, 2006

<!--begin story text--><TABLE style="FLOAT: right" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width=250 align=right border=0 valign="top"><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE style="FLOAT: right" borderColor=#cccccc cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=300 align=right border=1 valign="top"><TBODY><TR><TD>More Columns By This Writer</TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>:: Liberal mania for carbon tax mania (http://www.canada.com/components/story.html?id=37ef8471-12c6-4ebf-9797-2c168df97590) http://www.canada.com/images/subscribericon.gif




</TD></TR><TR><TD>:: Don't eat the frying pan! (http://www.canada.com/components/story.html?id=5ee63734-5617-4f20-84df-05ca930b5d12)




</TD></TR><TR><TD>:: Canada not ready for global change (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=b3e50447-fa33-4662-8460-87dab201ae29) http://www.canada.com/images/subscribericon.gif




</TD></TR><TR><TD>:: World soccer is a one-sport wonder (http://www.canada.com/components/story.html?id=f2bf4d08-25db-4a22-9d29-bee773ae1526) http://www.canada.com/images/subscribericon.gif




</TD></TR><TR><TD>:: Rona Brockovitch? (http://www.canada.com/components/story.html?id=759884cf-b55b-4fef-b85d-15752f225ebf)




</TD></TR><TR><TD>:: A bill to kill (http://www.canada.com/components/story.html?id=f8414a14-a7de-4710-a8d1-6e74f86ad020)




</TD></TR><TR><TD>:: Kyoto's dead: What's next? (http://www.canada.com/components/story.html?id=68c74621-207b-4720-bd8b-8f9f205fb5be)




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>It is now firmly established, repeated ad nauseam in the media and elsewhere, that the debate over global warming has been settled by scientific consensus. The subject is closed. It seems unnecessary to labour the point, but here are a couple of typical statements: "The scientific consensus is clear: human-caused climate change is happening" (David Suzuki Foundation); "There is overwhelming scientific consensus" that greenhouse gases emitted by man cause global temperatures to rise (Mother Jones).

Back when modern science was born, the battle between consensus and new science worked the other way around. More often than not, the consensus of the time -- dictated by religion, prejudice, mysticism and wild speculation, false premises -- was wrong. The role of science, from Galileo to Newton and through the centuries, has been to debunk the consensus and move us forward. But now science has been stripped of its basis in experiment, knowledge, reason and the scientific method and made subject to the consensus created by politics and bureaucrats.

As a mass phenomenon, repeated appeals to consensus to support a scientific claim are relatively new. But it is not new to science. For more than a century, various philosophical troublemakers have been trying to undermine science and the scientific method. These range from Marxists who saw science as a product of class warfare and historical materialism -- Newton was a lackey of the ruling classes and pawn of history -- to scores of sociological theorists and philosophers who spent much of the 20th century attempting to subvert the first principles of modern, Enlightenment science.




</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d35ca1eb-50b8-4546-8950-ca9ad18eb252

[markus3622]

Sunsettommy,

I don't know very much about the philosophy of science. I've read some Popper and Kuhn and that's about my limit, but the part of the article I've got a problem with is this.

Global warming science by consensus, with appeals to United Nations panels and other agencies as authorities, is the apotheosis of the century-long crusade to overthrow the foundations of modern science and replace them with collectivist social theories of science.

I disagree with this. Both Kuhn and Popper seem to agree on one point. Theories are developed, and through additional testing become more and more trusted. Both accept that these theories are fragile and can be overturned at any point. The scientific community is larger, and yet, at the same time more connected than it's been at any point in history. Scientists in Italy and South Africa go to the same conferences as those from the USA and China. They publish in the same international journals. Their books and articles are written in English and can be read anywhere.

Now, given that this is true, and that scientific questions are complex (more complex than the layman can truly comprehend), what's the best way for members of the non-scientific community to determine the best current approximation to the truth? I believe it's through consensus (or meta-analysis of the literature). It's by listening to what the experts are saying. They could very well be wrong, but not listening to the experts is usually a pretty surefire way of being wrong.

What I've said isn't a scientific argument, but it is empirically convincing, at least to me, and I believe most practising scientists.

If the article is correct, that the consensus is some rigid strait-jacket that cannot be altered, we would never see the "consensus" change. However, the consensus does change. We've seen that happen in Physics and I'm sure we'll see it again.

[Naturalized-Texan]

If the evidence for global warming is so weak as you suggest, why does it appear to have won over the scientific community? (I've posted plenty in these threads about the organisations that accept the evidence, and they're the most respected scientific bodies in the world).
All we have is your say-so that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming has won over the scientific community. There are at least as many reputable climatology scientists who are skeptical of that hyopothesis as there are those who support it. Even if one accepts your fallacious definition of consensus, there is no consensus one way or the other on that hypothesis. Of course, using the dictionary definition of consensus - unanimity - there is nothing even close to consensus.

I accept the possiblity that the scientific community could be wrong. If what you say is true, why are most of the scientists researching the field getting it wrong?
Again, all we have is your say-so. See my response above.

Of course, the FACT that there is global warming on Mars knocks the hypothesis of human-caused global warming into a cocked hat. Global warming on Mars is powerful evidence, far more powerful than anything that you have presented, that global warming is being caused by increased solar activity.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I will admit that I haven't given global warming any real effort, primarily because the left always has one of these doomsday scenarios and they are always, inevitably, proven to be a sham.

In any case, I did do about 30 minutes worth of research a couple months ago at the request of a family member wondering why I was not more concerned. All I did was head to a pro-global warming website and look at their best evidence. I didn't bother looking at the other camp as it wasn't necessary.

My conclusion? The pro-global warming crowd are building some mighty fanciful towers out of little more than spun sugar and dreams. The best "evidence" you have falls well withing the instrament margin of error, and that doesn't even account for actual temperature fluctuations that might occur over long cycles.

When I showed this to my concerned family member (a Medical Doctor who seems pretty smart) it took him all of ten second to dismiss their best data as I had.
I have been studying global warming claims since the late 1980s and I have seen NO evidence that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is true. That hypothesis is based on nothing more than speculation and supposition as you have already learned for yourself. The global warming scare is strictly political and has nothing to do with science.

Unfortunately, there are those like markus who have been so brainwashed by leftist Big Lie Propaganda about global warming that the truth can't penetrate into their brains.

[markus3622]

All we have is your say-so that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming has won over the scientific community.

False, we have the IPCC, statements from the major scientific bodies of the world, studies such as that by Oreskes showing that of 928 papers studied, none contradicted the consensus. These are objective real things that can be checked out.

There are at least as many reputable climatology scientists who are skeptical of that hyopothesis as there are those who support it.
You've made a claim here. I'd like to see some evidence for it. Could you suggest a way of testing your claim? I do hope you're not going to try and weasel out of this by defining a reputatable climatologist as one that denies global warming. Do you want to make a list of scientists who support or oppose the hypothesis?

Even if one accepts your fallacious definition of consensus, there is no consensus one way or the other on that hypothesis. Of course, using the dictionary definition of consensus - unanimity - there is nothing even close to consensus.


You know this argument is false. Scientific consensus does not mean unanimity. Please try to be intellectually honest here.


Of course, the FACT that there is global warming on Mars knocks the hypothesis of human-caused global warming into a cocked hat. Global warming on Mars is powerful evidence, far more powerful than anything that you have presented, that global warming is being caused by increased solar activity.

This part of your argument is very interesting. You are prepared to accept that global warming is happening on Mars, on the basis of a few years records that cover a small part of the planet. Compare this with the planet earth where we have 100s of stations that go back at least 100 years, plus proxies that we have discussed that go back further. Why is your standard of evidence so much lower for Mars, a planet we know little about?

Your argument for solar activity causing most of the warming has major problems which you refuse to tackle.
1) No-one has measured any increase in solar activity since the 1950s.
2) It is contradicted by a cooling stratosphere and a warming troposphere. If increased solar activity were the cause, we would expect both to warm. Why aren't they?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Again, all we have is your say-so, and your say-so has always been suspect.

The article that started this thread is sufficient to show that there is NO consensus about human-caused global warming among those whose specialty is climate science. BTW, sunsettommy has repeatedly knocked your consensus claim into a cocked hat.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I will admit that I haven't given global warming any real effort, primarily because the left always has one of these doomsday scenarios and they are always, inevitably, proven to be a sham.
To amplify my earlier reply to you:

It's certainly telling that support for the hypothesis of human-caused global warming comes almost exclusuvely from the left. That, in itself, is proof that the global warming scare is strictly political.

[markus3622]

Again, all we have is your say-so, and your say-so has always been suspect.

Is it my say-so that 928 papers support global warming and none contradict it? Is it my say-so that the world's scientific bodies have released statements highlighting their concern over the risk of global warming? Is it my say-so that the IPCC write lots of reports?

Anyway, you've tried to duck the question again. How can we test your claim that there are "as many respected climatologists that are are skeptical about global warming"?



The article that started this thread is sufficient to show that there is NO consensus about human-caused global warming among those whose specialty is climate science.

Then your standards of evidence are very, very, very low. All it takes is a piece by a funded PR man, to find seven scientists who are skeptical of global warming and you're satisfied. How many climatologists do you think there are in the world? 10? 20?

[markus3622]

To amplify my earlier reply to you:

It's certainly telling that support for the hypothesis of human-caused global warming comes almost exclusuvely from the left. That, in itself, is proof that the global warming scare is strictly political.

The reality is quite the opposite


1) The science behind global warming is non-partisan. The scientific bodies that support global warming include NASA, the american association for the advancement of science, and so on. None of these bodies are affiliated to any political party.
2) The opposition is nearly always political, being as it is funded by conservative think tanks. The Marshall Institute for example has strong ties to the republican party.

You provided the argument but you needed to change the sides around.

[aaron11]

If you were so damn sure of yourself Markus, you wouldn't be here trying to make arguments...

That alone should give you a hint about the nature (political) of this issue and speaks volumes about just how settled the dispute really is.

[Pendragon_6]

Between my brother and me, we know everything.:evilgrin:

[Naturalized-Texan]

The reality is quite the opposite


1) The science behind global warming is non-partisan. The scientific bodies that support global warming include NASA, the american association for the advancement of science, and so on. None of these bodies are affiliated to any political party.
2) The opposition is nearly always political, being as it is funded by conservative think tanks. The Marshall Institute for example has strong ties to the republican party.

You provided the argument but you needed to change the sides around.
:hahaha: You're joking, of course.

Everyone who has ever supported the hypothesis of human-caused global warming here is a leftist, e.g., you. Every politician who supports that hypothesis is a leftist - e.g., AlGore, Teddy Kennedy, BJ & Hillary Clinton, and on and on and no and on. The liberal-controlled media are unanimous in their support of that hypothesis. And the furthest left of them all, the UN and its lackey, the IPCC, support that hypothesis.

The skeptics about that hypothesis are almost exclusively on the right or in the center of the political spectrum: Every conservative or centrist here; every conservative or centrist politician in the U.S., notably President Bush and the majority in Congress (remember, the Senate voted 95-0 to defeat the Kyoto Protocols); the centrist/conservative media - e.g., Fox News; and dozens, if not hundreds, of conservative/free-market scientific web sites, many of which we have linked to.

[markus3622]

Every politician who supports that hypothesis is a leftist

Arnie? McCain? You might not like him but he's no leftist. David Cameron? (leader of the UK Tory Party). NASA? AAAS? Pataki? Even George Bush seems to accept the reality of human-induced climate change.

"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem,"

Is Bush a leftist? Does that make you a leftist?

Is the National Academy of sciences leftist?

You've basically made it out to be a left-right issue, but it's quite easy to show that the Marshall Institute is a right wing organisation. However, to define the UN a left-wing organisation is ridiculous. Unless you're adopting the "everything I dislike must be left-wing" approach, which is silly.

[DoctorDoom]

1) The science behind global warming is non-partisan. The scientific bodies that support global warming include NASA, the american association for the advancement of science, and so on. None of these bodies are affiliated to any political party.Have you ever looked up who attends the ecowacko conferences to wail and shrill about the EEEEE-vills of global climate change? It f**king well ain't conservatives, kid.

Ever look up who rabidly supports the Kyoto farce? It f**king well ain't conservatives, kid.

Ever research who is on the front lines of every lunatic attempt to impose draconian regulations and limitations on business and the citizenry? It f**king well ain't conservatives, kid.

Tell ya what, boy. You tend to the affairs of your pathetic continent and we'll take of our business.

[markus3622]

You're right Doom, it isn't partisan groups who are behind the science on climate change.

http://www.stabilisation2005.com/biographies.html

http://www.globalwarming.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=46

http://w3g.gkss.de/events/8imsc/8imsc.html

You might have noticed they're scientific organisations.

[aaron11]

LoL, Markus, most of them have incomes that rely on globalwarming...
:rolleyes:
In case you don't understand the meaning behind that, No global warming, no mo' money...:unsmile:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Arnie?
Arnie is uninformed and certainly not a conservative or even a centrist.
McCain?
He's now clearly a leftist.
(leader of the UK Tory Party).
I'll take your word on that. Remember, I said almost exclusively leftist.
NASA?
Only James Hansen. Those at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center are clearly among the skeptics.
AAAS?
Who at AAAS?
Pataki?
He is clearly a leftist.
Even George Bush seems to accept the reality of human-induced climate change.
Nonsense. President Bush is clearly a skeptic. That's why he rescinded the Kyoto Protocols.
Is the National Academy of sciences leftist?
The NAS Panel that produced the report that convinced President Bush to rescind the Kyoto Protocols consisted of 9 leftists and only 2 conservatives, which is undoubtedly proportional to the overall NAS membership.
You've basically made it out to be a left-right issue, but it's quite easy to show that the Marshall Institute is a right wing organisation.
Yes, those at NASA Marshall are clearly skeptics.
However, to define the UN a left-wing organisation is ridiculous. Unless you're adopting the "everything I dislike must be left-wing" approach, which is silly.
The UN is completely controlled by socialist nations and nations with left-wing totalitarian dictatorships, so, yes, the UN is a leftist/socialist organization and the UN's IPCC clearly takes its leftist slant from its parent organization.

[DoctorDoom]

Markie, you are still ignoring my list. Allow me to re-re-reiterate it.

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 bases" 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.

Thusfar you mantra-chanting ecowackos have religiously avoided addressing those points, all of which are logical, objective and vitally important to any program to address GCC.

All we see from you loonies is, "Man is causing global warming and something must be done!" When you are asked to tell us WHAT must be done and what its consequences will be, your response is "................."

If you cannot address the points, then STFU. Your leftist bullshit is becoming tiresome.

[sunsettommy]

Markie, you are still ignoring my list. Allow me to re-re-reiterate it.

Outline for us what would be required to reduce the A-CO<SUB>2</SUB> 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 CO<SUB>2</SUB> 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 bases" 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.

Thusfar you mantra-chanting ecowackos have religiously avoided addressing those points, all of which are logical, objective and vitally important to any program to address GCC.

All we see from you loonies is, "Man is causing global warming and something must be done!" When you are asked to tell us WHAT must be done and what its consequences will be, your response is "................."

If you cannot address the points, then STFU. Your leftist bullshit is becoming tiresome.

I think he already said he could not personally answer them?

If true,he could do what he has no problem doing in Global Warming threads.Post links to answer some of the questions you listed.

He has not.Therefore it is telling that they who supported the Kyoto treaty can not come up with links to answer your list which has obvious connections to Kyoto treaty.

He he he....

[markus3622]

The UN is completely controlled by socialist nations and nations with left-wing totalitarian dictatorships

Controversial! George Bush presides over a left-wing totalitarian dictatorship, does he? That sounds like DU talk, Michael Moore.

Doom, you're asking me to answer everything, and I've admitted I don't know. There's no doubt any science has uncertainty. However, if I'd argued before the Iraq war that I wouldn't support it unless I knew exactly how much it would cost, how many soldiers would die, exactly how long it would take, you'd rightly perceive it as an unreasonable request. You should also be reasonable in your requests.

Roger Pielke Jr (and he's somewhat skeptical, though not a "skeptic") wrote in a letter to Science that

A consensus is a measure of a central tendency and, as such, it necessarily has a distribution of perspectives around that central measure (1 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5724/952#ref1)). On climate change, almost all of this distribution is well within the bounds of legitimate scientific debate and reflected within the full text of the IPCC reports. Our policies should not be optimized to reflect a single measure of the central tendency or, worse yet, caricatures of that measure, but instead they should be robust enough to accommodate the distribution of perspectives around that central measure, thus providing a buffer against the possibility that we might learn more in the future

It's down to the politicians to produce flexible solutions to the problem.

I saw a good post on FreeRepublic about this a while back.



Those who want to debunk human induced climate change are going to lose this argument because they are wrong. Now, the usual suspects at FR can all go ahead and flame me, but it doesn't change the fact that I have been writing for years that we should promote a conservative, free market solution to this very real problem before the lefties give us something much, much worse.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1648519/posts?page=5#5

I might not agree with his characterisation of what the left will do, but conservatives will have to get on board at some point in the future, be it 5 years, 10 years, I don't know.

[brilliantLiberal]

Doom, you're asking me to answer everything, and I've admitted I don't know. There's no doubt any science has uncertainty.
Markus, you don't know science. All you are is a mouthpiece with links to articles which support what you have chosen to believe. When people like NT, who has actually TAUGHT science, or Doom, or myself, all better educated, more intelligent and better informed than you, post something that shoots holes in your claims, you say that "any science has uncertainty." Bunk! Science is about careful analysis and cautious theorizing. A true scientists does not blurt out an opinion without first doing meticulous research to validate that opinion. Were that the case with global warming, there would be very little room for dissenting opinions, because that which is proven is proven. That which is not proven, however, is unsupported theory. It is NOT science. As I have said before, conclusive proof may not exist, but proof beyond reasonable doubt does. There has been no such proof proffered.

I was too young to understand much of the controversy over DDT, but I know my family stockpiled 3 years worth of the stuff before the ban went into effect. I supported the ban on phosphates because the evidence of pollution was incontrovertible, and because there was a viable alternative. I doubted and still doubt the effects of CFC on the ozone layer, but the removal of aerosol hasn't had a negative impact on us.

However, if the issue was the negative impact of CO2, the obvious solution would be to log the old growth forests. This would replace old dead trees with new and growing trees, which put out many times the oxygen. This would cut roads into forests which would act as fire breaks and save millions of acres of forest per year. It would benefit the logging industry and not have a significant effect on the wildlife. In short, it would be an intelligent solution.

Why will this not be considered? Because it isn't about science. It's about politics. It's about people wanting to demagogue the issue without consideration of a viable solution. The only answer seems to be attack America and American industry.

Sorry. There is no science involved in this issue. You don't need to understand science, only politics. The "science" is all political. Science seeks truth and solutions. Neither are given much consideration in this debate.

[DoctorDoom]

A true scientist does not blurt out an opinion without first doing meticulous research to validate that opinion.Years ago, the term "Sunday supplement scientist" was applied to those who sidestepped peer review by publishing in the popular media, e.g., Parade and other additions to the Sunday papers. Their theories would never have survived the professional journals.

The GW scaremongering is in large part the work of the SSS, who would rather preach unproven, untested gloom & doom than submit their claims to fellow scientists. Real scientists will admit that the subject is fraught with uncertainty and pure guesswork.

[markus3622]

Markus, you don't know science. All you are is a mouthpiece with links to articles which support what you have chosen to believe. When people like NT, who has actually TAUGHT science, or Doom, or myself, all better educated, more intelligent and better informed than you, post something that shoots holes in your claims, you say that "any science has uncertainty."

I really don't understand why you feel the need to undermine your case, by trying to belittle your opponent. You know nothing about me. I'm fully aware that NT had a successful career, working as a computer programmer on some very interesting projects, and that is to be admired. I know nothing of your scientific credentials. I've published work as lead author in one of the American Meteorological Society's journals, so let's get this straight. I've got a PhD and I'm working as a researcher. I'm no science slouch. I'm not going to tell you I'm better educated than you, as I've no way of knowing whether it's true. It would be better if you did the same.[/quote]

Bunk! Science is about careful analysis and cautious theorizing. A true scientists does not blurt out an opinion without first doing meticulous research to validate that opinion. Were that the case with global warming, there would be very little room for dissenting opinions, because that which is proven is proven. That which is not proven, however, is unsupported theory. It is NOT science. As I have said before, conclusive proof may not exist, but proof beyond reasonable doubt does. There has been no such proof proffered.

However, the reality is there is little room for dissent because the global warming theory is well tested and is the most prominent view in climatology, with almost universal support among the scientists. As I've stated before, a study showed that of 928 published articles in the peer-reviewed literature, none contradicted the majority view. Why is that? Why is it the majority view among the climatologists?


However, if the issue was the negative impact of CO2, the obvious solution would be to log the old growth forests. This would replace old dead trees with new and growing trees, which put out many times the oxygen. This would cut roads into forests which would act as fire breaks and save millions of acres of forest per year. It would benefit the logging industry and not have a significant effect on the wildlife. In short, it would be an intelligent solution.

Why will this not be considered? Because it isn't about science. It's about politics. It's about people wanting to demagogue the issue without consideration of a viable solution. The only answer seems to be attack America and American industry.



I don't know much about this but did a quick search and found this.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/recognizing-forests-role-in-climate-change.html

The Union of Concerned Scientists (definitely a group that accept that global warming exists) view forests as part of the solution. However, I think they believe that it cannot be a total solution. If they're wrong, let's see some evidence.

[markus3622]

Years ago, the term "Sunday supplement scientist" was applied to those who sidestepped peer review by publishing in the popular media, e.g., Parade and other additions to the Sunday papers. Their theories would never have survived the professional journals.

The GW scaremongering is in large part the work of the SSS, who would rather preach unproven, untested gloom & doom than submit their claims to fellow scientists. Real scientists will admit that the subject is fraught with uncertainty and pure guesswork.

DD, it's quite the reverse, look at the science citation index and see how many papers support global warming theory and how many oppose it.

Look at Oreske's study. Here's a link to it in the Washington Post (free) but the study was published in Science
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. There have been arguments to the contrary, but they are not to be found in scientific literature, which is where scientific debates are properly adjudicated. There, the message is clear and unambiguous

How do you account for this?

[aaron11]

Oreskes' study - errata
An off-topic comment for the numerous recent visitors of my blog who are interested in the climate. Some of you may remember a paper by Naomi Oreskes in Science that claimed that 100% of the papers about global climate support the "consensus view". Well, Prof. Beiser obtained different results. And I won't try to tell you what conclusions you should make.
From: Prof. Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University
On December 3rd, only days before the start of the 10th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-10), Science Magazine published the results of a study by Naomi Oreskes (1): For the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show an unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming.
Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change". However, a search on the ISI database using the keywords "climate change" for the years 1993 - 2003 reveals that almost 12,000 papers were published during the decade in question (2). What happened to the countless research papers that show that global temperatures were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and that climate modeling is highly uncertain?

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html


Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
By Robert Matthews
(Filed: 01/05/2005) <!--NO VIEW-->

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.
<!--MPU STOPPED BY MEDIA -->A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.


Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.
However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.
Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html


Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html

[aaron11]

Amazing how dissent, regardless to numbers, only counts when its of the left.

Nutjobs never cease to amaze me...

[markus3622]

Aaron, those two studies you quote were severely flawed.

Peiser for a start searched the arts and social science list (as well as the science list). He quotes 34 abstracts that reject the consensus. Here's one of them.

Global Climate-Change and Tropical Cyclones
Lighthill J, Holland G, Gray W, Landsea C, Craig G, Evans J, Kurihara Y, Guard C
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 75 (11): 2147-2157 Nov 1994
Abstract: This paper offers an overview of the authors’ studies during a specialized international symposium (Mexico, 22 November-1 December 1993) where they aimed at making an objective assessment of whether climate changes, consequent on an expected doubling of atmospheric CO2 in the next six or seven decades, are likely to increase significantly the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones (TC). Out of three methodologies available for addressing the question they employ two, discarding the third for reasons set out in the appendix. In the first methodology, the authors enumerate reasons why, in tropical oceans, the increase in sea surface temperature (SST) suggested by climate change models might be expected to affect either (i) TC frequency, because a well-established set of six conditions for TC formation include a condition that SST should exceed 26 degrees C, or (ii) TC intensity, because this is indicated by thermodynamic analysis to depend critically on the temperature at which energy transfer to air near the sea surface takes place. But careful study of both suggestions indicates that the expected effects of increased SST would be largely self-limiting (i) because the other five conditions strictly control how far the band of latitudes for TC formation can be further widened, and (ii) because intense winds at the sea surface may receive their energy input at a temperature significantly depressed by evaporation of spray, and possibly through sea surface cooling. In the second methodology, the authors study available historical records that have very large year-to-year variability in TC statistics. They find practically no consistent statistical relationships with temperature anomalies; also, a thorough analysis of how the El Nino-Southern Oscillation cycle influences the frequency acid distribution of TCs shows any direct effects of local SST changes to be negligible. The authors conclude that, even though the possibility of some minor indirect effects of global warming on TC frequency and intensity cannot be excluded, they must effectively be "swamped" by large natural variability.

That abstract clearly states that it makes an "objective assessment of whether climate changes, consequent on an expected doubling of atmospheric CO2 in the next six or seven decades...". It clearly supports the consensus, but Benny says it doesn't. Peiser is wrong.



Bray's study was even worse. It was in the form of an online survey, and we know how reliable those are. The survey was passed as well to a skeptic's webring. Even despite that, the telegraph has to lie

Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.

This is the statement. 40. Climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.

<TABLE border=1><TBODY><TR><TD>strongly agree</TD><TD>1</TD><TD>2</TD><TD>3</TD><TD>4</TD><TD>5</TD><TD>6</TD><TD>7</TD><TD>strongly disagree</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>9%</TD><TD>25%</TD><TD>21%</TD><TD>14%</TD><TD>8%</TD><TD>11%</TD><TD>10%</TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:12DHIIJ1qV4J:timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/+tim+lambert+bray&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

The Telegraph only quotes box 1 (when really they should quote 2 and 3 as well). In short, it wasn't suitable for Science magazine.

[Naturalized-Texan]

However, if the issue was the negative impact of CO2, the obvious solution would be to log the old growth forests. This would replace old dead trees with new and growing trees, which put out many times the oxygen. This would cut roads into forests which would act as fire breaks and save millions of acres of forest per year. It would benefit the logging industry and not have a significant effect on the wildlife. In short, it would be an intelligent solution.
If the issue was the negative impact of CO2, maybe we should clear cut the jungles of Africa and South America and plant new-growth forests there. Those jungles now produce huge amounts of CO2 because of all the decaying matter there. Old-growth forests produce CO2 while new-growth forests absorb CO2 and produce Oxygen. As Timberwolf often points out, because of all the new-growth forests and the huge number of acres of farmland, the U.S. is a net CO2 sink - we absorb at least as much CO2 as we produce

[markus3622]

I'm not so sure that that's the case

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD align=left>Science 23 July 1999:
Vol. 285. no. 5427, pp. 574 - 578
DOI: 10.1126/science.285.5427.574

</TD><TD align=right>Prev (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/285/5427/571) | Table of Contents (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol285/issue5427/index.dtl) | Next (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/285/5427/578)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Reports

<!-- BEGIN: legacy HTML content --><!--RESUMEHIGHLIGHT--><VARDEF id=TEXT><!-- comment for mosaic --><!-- Pages created by the Electronic Press Engine from Atypon Systems, Inc. Visit http://www.atypon.com/-->
<HW_DATE><!--19990723080000--></HW_DATE><HW_VOL><!--285--></HW_VOL><HW_ISSUE><!--5427--></HW_ISSUE><HW_PPF><!--574--></HW_PPF><HW_PPL><!--578--></HW_PPL><HW_FCODE><!--GEOCHEMPHYS--></HW_FCODE><HW_HEADLINE>The U.S. Carbon Budget: Contributions from Land-Use Change </HW_HEADLINE>

<HW_SEE>
<NOBR><HW_AUTHOR>R. A. Houghton,</HW_AUTHOR> <SUP>*</SUP> <WBR><HW_AUTHOR>J. L. Hackler,</HW_AUTHOR> <WBR><HW_AUTHOR>K. T. Lawrence</HW_AUTHOR> </NOBR><HW_INSERT><HW_TWIS>The rates at which lands in the United States were cleared for agriculture, abandoned, harvested for wood, and burned were<SUP> </SUP>reconstructed from historical data for the period 1700-1990 and<SUP> </SUP>used in a terrestrial carbon model to calculate annual changes<SUP> </SUP>in the amount of carbon stored in terrestrial ecosystems, including<SUP> </SUP>wood products. Changes in land use released 27 ± 6 petagrams of<SUP> </SUP>carbon to the atmosphere before 1945 and accumulated 2 ± 2 petagrams<SUP> </SUP>of carbon after 1945, largely as a result of fire suppression<SUP> </SUP>and forest growth on abandoned farmlands. During the 1980s, the<SUP> </SUP>net flux of carbon attributable to land management offset 10 to<SUP> </SUP>30 percent of U.S. fossil fuel emissions.<SUP> </SUP>
<SUP></SUP>

[markus3622]

In addition, even if it were true, what difference would it make. We both understand there's a carbon cycle that has existed for a very long time. If you emit 1 tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere, you're still emitting 1 tonne into the atmosphere (and hence the cycle) that wasn't there before.

What's relevant is whether enough forests are being planted (relative to some standard before the industrial age) to make up for the emissions.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Controversial! George Bush presides over a left-wing totalitarian dictatorship, does he? That sounds like DU talk, Michael Moore.
You are becoming more and more idiotic since you are being thoroughly trounced in this discussion. :flame:

As long as 3 the 5 permanent members of the Security Council with veto power are either socialist states or left-wing totalitarian dictatorships - France, Russia, China - they have complete control over what happens in the Security Council. In the General Assembly, the Secretary General is an avowed socialist (and a crook) and the vast majority of the member nations are either socialist states or left-wing totalitarian dictatorships, so the socialists and the dictators have complete control over what happens there. You know that as well as I do.

Since the UN is controlled by leftists, anything that comes from the UN's IPCC is going to be nothing more than leftist Big Lie Propaganda. If the IPCC doesn't toe the leftist line, the UN will cut off its funding and all those junk scientists who sold their souls to the Devil (the UN) would be unemployed.

[markus3622]

You wrote "The UN is completely controlled by socialist nations and nations with left-wing totalitarian dictatorships".

Given that the US is the largest funder and a permanent member of the UN security council, if your statement were true, the US would have to be either socialist or a left-wing totalitarian dictatorship. If you want the discussion to be serious, you'll have to stop saying such silly things.

By the way, is France a socialist country or a left-wing totalitarian dictatorship? What about Russia?

Where has Kofi Annan said he's a socialist? Did you just make that up?

Finally, I don't know whether "the vast majority of the member nations are either socialist states or left-wing totalitarian dictatorships."

Did you just make it up?

[Naturalized-Texan]

You wrote "The UN is completely controlled by socialist nations and nations with left-wing totalitarian dictatorships".

Given that the US is the largest funder and a permanent member of the UN security council, if your statement were true, the US would have to be either socialist or a left-wing totalitarian dictatorship. If you want the discussion to be serious, you'll have to stop saying such silly things.
You keep proving that you are acting like a bloomin' idiot. No matter what the U.S. wants to do, as long as France, Russia, an China have veto power, any of them can prevent the U.S. from doing it.

By the way, is France a socialist country or a left-wing totalitarian dictatorship? What about Russia?
Again, you are acting like a bloomin' idiot. Any informed person knows very well that France is a socialist country; that Russia is a socialist country bordering on being a totalitarian dictatorship; that China is a totalitarian dictatorship.

Where has Kofi Annan said he's a socialist? Did you just make that up?
Again, you're acting like a bloomin' idiot. Any informed person knows that Kofi Annan is a socialist AND a crook.

Finally, I don't know whether "the vast majority of the member nations are either socialist states or left-wing totalitarian dictatorships."

Did you just make it up?
Once again, tou are acting like an idiot. Any informed person knows that the vast majority of the members of the UN are either socialist states or left-wing totalitarian dictatorships.

Get yourself informed so that you won't look like a bloomin' idiot.

[Borgia]

You keep proving that you are acting like a bloomin' idiot. No matter what the U.S. wants to do, as long as France, Russia, an China have veto power, any of them can prevent the U.S. from doing it.

NT, the reverse is true too. We have veto power so can prevent them (China, France and Russia) from doing anything. By your rather weak argument here, they could say with your logic that the UN is a right-wing capitalist controlled organization.

They have veto power, we have veto power. Detente, and therefore your claim that the UN is a socialist org is nullified unless you say we go along with it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

NT, the reverse is true too. We have veto power so can prevent them (China, France and Russia) from doing anything. By your rather weak argument here, they could say with your logic that the UN is a right-wing capitalist controlled organization.

They have veto power, we have veto power. Detente, and therefore your claim that the UN is a socialist org is nullified unless you say we go along with it.
Thanks for proving that the U.S. should withdraw from the UN. As long as we are in the UN, our national intersts are being controlled by the UN and that is WRONG! The United States alone should be in control of the interests of the United States. Get the U.S. out of the UN; get the UN out of the U.S.

We should all be thankful that we have a president who places our national interests first. He invaded Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks without UN approval and he was prepared to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom without UN approval. He also correctly rescinded the UN's Kyoto Protocols. Now we hear the good news that President Bush is considering drastically reducing our payments to the UN. I hope that he does that as a first step towards cutting off all funds to the UN. The UN long ago outlasted its usefulness.

[Timberwolf]

Ummmm....last time I checked, that veto power only existed in the Security Council, not in the General Assembly.

And for the record markus, for one who is published, you certainly don't post as such. Many of your arguments are so sophmorish, any kid with a passing knowledge of science could refute them.

Maybe you need to get back to the basics.

[DoctorDoom]

And for the record markus, for one who is published ...He claims to be. Then again, he might have sent a letter to his local newsrag.

[Naturalized-Texan]

And for the record markus, for one who is published, you certainly don't post as such. Many of your arguments are so sophmorish, any kid with a passing knowledge of science could refute them.
Since the only thing he thinks he knows about global warming is what he parrots from junk science sources, his field couldn't possibly have anything to do with climate science. I can't help but wonder if his field has anything at all to do with science.

[DoctorDoom]

In keeping with the thread's topic:

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=inconvenienttruth.htm)

Domestic Total as of Jun. 19, 2006: $6,814,383
Distributor: Paramount Classics
Release Date: May 24, 2006

The mind-numbed Gorebots are not doing their part.

[sunsettommy]

An Inconvenient Paranoia

By Dennis Prager (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=213)
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 20, 2006

Excerpt:

Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?

After all, if the science is as conclusive as Al Gore, Time, Newsweek, The New York Times and virtually every other spokesman of the Left says it is, conservatives are just as likely to be scorched and drowned and otherwise done in by global warming as liberals will. So why aren't non-leftists nearly as exercised as leftists are?Do conservatives handle heat better? Are libertarians better swimmers? Do religious people love their children less?

The usual liberal responses -- to label a conservative position racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic or the like -- obviously don't apply here. So, liberals would have to fall back on the one remaining all-purpose liberal explanation: "big business." They might therefore explain the conservative-liberal divide over global warming thus: Conservatives don't care about global warming because they prefer corporate profits to saving the planet.

(More here)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23008

Albert Gore plays on this well known liberal illogical worshipping of nature.

Why else is scaremongering headlines from liberal media sources so common?

[Borgia]

Thanks for proving that the U.S. should withdraw from the UN. As long as we are in the UN, our national intersts are being controlled by the UN and that is WRONG! The United States alone should be in control of the interests of the United States. Get the U.S. out of the UN; get the UN out of the U.S.

How so? If we have veto power, cannot we just veto anything we don't like? How does the UN control us when we can veto anything?

You said that China, Russia and France can use their veto to stop us from doing anything. Last I checked, we have veto power too so can stop them from anything. Please explain how they force anything on us when we can veto it.

Thanks!

[aaron11]

----One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.-----Dennis Prager

[markus3622]

I'm sure it would quite easy to say something similar.

One day, our grandchildren may ask what we did when scientists began to warn that greenhouse gas emissions were radically changing the climate, leading to enormous global environmental degradation, Florida and Louisiana were flooded and huge droughts afflicted the country leaving large parts of the south inhabitable; others will say they were trying to stop gay marriage. One of us will look bad.

I can play this game as well.

[aaron11]

LMAO!

You've been watching to many sci-fi movies.

BTW, Since when was anyone suggesting policies that would destroy the American economy and the Free market in order to protect the sanctity of marriage?

You can play, thing is, you're not any good at it.

[markus3622]

LOL too. Since when is anyone arguing for policies that would destroy the American economy and the free market?

[aaron11]

Oh, now your going to play coy?

Good little lefty...

[markus3622]

No, go on, you tell me. Who's arguing for policies that would "destroy the american economy?" I would expect some evidence that
a) Said policies were devised with the aim of destroying the american economy
b) said policies would destroy the american economy

[aaron11]

First, i would expect you to provide evidence that i suggested policies were devised for the purpose of destroying the American economy.

Second, Kyoto protocol, voted down 95-0...

edit: added after thought.

Please keep in mind.

This argument has been beaten to death.

As of yet, not a single lefty has provided a reasonable solution to their unreasonable hysteria over GW any sooner then any of you have provided a shred of proof towards human causation.

[markus3622]

Could you at least provide b) evidence that policies would destroy the american economy?

There seem to some here that argue that the policies are expressly devised to destroy the american economy, but let's assume you haven't said that.

Let's see some evidence then that the policies "would destroy the american economy".

[aaron11]

Let's assume?


Yes let's...That is certainly something the left is good at.

[markus3622]

I would say that no evidence has been produced that attempts to tackle climate change would "destroy the economy". It seems to be bandied around like a self-evident truth, while being nothing of the sort.

secondly, the Kyoto protocol wasn't voted down by the senate 95-0, though to be fair, it's just me being pedantic.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html

[aaron11]

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--
(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or
(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States


Thank you...

[Nutrider99]

First, i would expect you to provide evidence that i suggested policies were devised for the purpose of destroying the American economy.
Let me share with you something that the tree hugging lefties have done, that the emasculated republicans have allowed.

The air in America is more pure than it was 50 years ago, but that isn't enough for the America-hating eco-wackos. The emission standards for 2007 and 2010 are so restrictive that in cities like Huston the air coming out of the exhaust will be cleaner than the air coming into the intake. This SOUNDS like a good idea. Unfortunately, what is being demanded by the EPA will have a profound effect on the American economy.

It is being packaged and sold to the American people like this:

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.html

The EPA estimates the cost of reducing the sulfur content of diesel fuel will result in a fuel price increase of approximately 4.5 to 5 cents per gallon.

This of course, applies only to production, and does not take into effect supply and demand. New engines can run ONLY ultra low sulfur fuel, which will not only cost more to refine, it wall also be more market sensitive. These engines will suffer a 4%-5% DECREASE in fuel economy, which means that more of the more expensive, high demand fuel will be consumed. You're welcome, OPEC!

The EPA also estimates that the new emission standards will cause an increase in vehicle costs between $1,200 to $1,900 (for comparison, new heavy-duty trucks typically cost up to $150,000 and buses up to $250,000).

This statement is a blatant lie. Every engine manufacturer puts the added cost between $4,000. and $7,000. for medium duty engines, and from $7,000. to $12,000. for heavy duty engines. This does not count engineering time, the redesign of cooling systems, charge air systems, particulate traps etc. The total cost for 2007 compliant engines is as much as $20,000. per truck compared to 2002 emission standards. Coupled with that, many trucking companies have seen fuel expenses TRIPLE, insurance costs rise, and equipment costs skyrocket.

Now, why does this effect you? Everything that is anywhere was once moved by truck. As this industry, which has been targeted for attack by people like al gore ("The diesel engine is the Joe Camel of the transportation industry"), incurs greater and greater expenses they will be passed on to the consumer. Are you ready for $4. per gallon milk? Can your budget easily absorb a ten percent increase in the cost of every item in it? Inflation is coming. It is a 100% certainty! It will be brought to you by your friendly America hating tree hugging moron who is intent on destroying America because America is destroying the planet.

Of course, whoever the next president is will get the blame. The fact is, however, that these emissions standards should NEVER have been allowed to become law. They are simply not realistic. Rabid haters of the diesel engine fail to observe that diesel engines are 190% as efficient as gas engines, and that by ENCOURAGING the use of clean, efficient turbo diesels we could dramatically cut our fuel consumption. However, the morons don't want solutions, they want issues.

Enjoy the coming inflation, people. When you have to cut back your standard of living to make ends meet, thank the stupid fools that believe in all this global warming B.S.

[Naturalized-Texan]

One of the reasons that convinced President Bush to rescind the Kyoto Protocols (besides the June 2001 NAS Climate Change Report) was the estimate that those protocols would cost the American economy between $300 Billion to $400 Billion per YEAR. That's the equivalent of the loss of 6 million to 8 million jobs per year paying $50,000.

[Faithful_Servant]

Scientists indeed! Praise Gore (piss be onto him).
A waste of perfectly good urine, if you ask me...

[Faithful_Servant]

I would say that no evidence has been produced that attempts to tackle climate change would "destroy the economy". It seems to be bandied around like a self-evident truth, while being nothing of the sort.

secondly, the Kyoto protocol wasn't voted down by the senate 95-0, though to be fair, it's just me being pedantic.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html
Marky, I'm taking it that you believe in the Most Holy Doctrine of Global Warming. So, I have a very simple question for you... In every statement made by the Most Holy Church of Global Warming, there is a prophecy of doom for the planet. The best evidence we have for the effect of Global Warming indicates that things were pretty stinking good during that time (just in case you're not aware of this evidence, it's a little thing called the Medievel Optimum). Crops were good, farmland was plentiful, winters were short. There was an extended drought in Meso-America, but for most of the rest of the world things were great. So, if the best evidence we have is that GW would be good for the world, why do the scientists keep predicting doom?

[markus3622]

One of the reasons that convinced President Bush to rescind the Kyoto Protocols (besides the June 2001 NAS Climate Change Report) was the estimate that those protocols would cost the American economy between $300 Billion to $400 Billion per YEAR. That's the equivalent of the loss of 6 million to 8 million jobs per year paying $50,000.

NT, do you have a reputable source for that, or did you just make it up?

Note, I don't know a great deal about the intricacies of Kyoto, and I'm pretty sure there's a better way to limit GHG emissions, so I'm not out to defend Kyoto in particular.

[markus3622]

Marky, I'm taking it that you believe in the Most Holy Doctrine of Global Warming. So, I have a very simple question for you... In every statement made by the Most Holy Church of Global Warming, there is a prophecy of doom for the planet. The best evidence we have for the effect of Global Warming indicates that things were pretty stinking good during that time (just in case you're not aware of this evidence, it's a little thing called the Medievel Optimum). Crops were good, farmland was plentiful, winters were short. There was an extended drought in Meso-America, but for most of the rest of the world things were great. So, if the best evidence we have is that GW would be good for the world, why do the scientists keep predicting doom?

I think you need to question your assumptions a little more.

You make three false assumptions.

1) By the "most holy church of global warming", I assume you mean the scientific community. Not every statement comes with a prophecy of doom. Scientists are just making statements about forecasts of temperature rises. Some scientists look at the impacts, and not all of them are negative, as you later say in your post. You contradict yourself.


2) You also write that things were great during the middle ages. Well, I don't simply know about that. It might have been better for growing wine in Europe at that time, but there were also great famines and droughts. The south west of america suffered a great drought. In addition, the population of the earth is 10 times greater now, so the two situations aren't truly comparable.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley2003d.pdf (see last paragraph)

3) Finally, you write that "the best evidence we have is that GW would be good for the world". I'm not sure this is actually true. You're correct that there will be a whole manner of benefits and disadvantages. I don't know if anyone is really sure either way whether on balance it will be better or worse.

An NAS report said
It is important not to be fatalistic about the threats posed by abrupt climate change," "Societies have faced both gradual and abrupt climate changes for millennia and have learned to adapt through various mechanisms, such as moving indoors, developing irrigation for crops, and migrating away from inhospitable regions. Nevertheless, because climate change will likely continue in the coming decades, denying the likelihood or downplaying the relevance of past abrupt events could be costly."


A major finding of this study is that the only thing we can be sure of is that there will be climatic surprises. Physical, ecological, and human systems are complex, nonlinear, dynamic and imperfectly understood. Climate changes are producing conditions outside the range of recent historical experience and observation, and it is unclear how the systems will interact with and react to the coming climatic changes.

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309074347/html/

I think the thing that has to be taken into account is that we are effectively conducting a global experiment we have no idea what the outcome will be. We certainly don't know whether it will be beneficial (or negative for that matter), but denialism doesn't appear to be the way forward.

[DoctorDoom]

Could you at least provide b) evidence that policies would destroy the american economy?When you address the list points, maybe we'll think about paying a little more attention to your requests for info—which you, being a kneejerk liberal, will reject anyway,

You thusfar have shown not the slightest evidence to support your ecoloony contention that your "policies" will achieve anything. "Do it because we say so!" is not a basis for adopting them.

[Faithful_Servant]

I think you need to question your assumptions a little more.

You make three false assumptions.

1) By the "most holy church of global warming", I assume you mean the scientific community. Not every statement comes with a prophecy of doom. Scientists are just making statements about forecasts of temperature rises. Some scientists look at the impacts, and not all of them are negative, as you later say in your post. You contradict yourself.
Please marky, show me just one report from the MHCGW that makes the benefits fo GW it's focus. Show me just one report where the MHCGW disusses how to best take advantage of GW if it happens. Show me one report from the MHCGW that applies the ONLY historical evidence we have to how things could possibly turn out. When you say "Scientists are just making statements about forecasts of temperature rises.", you are lieing. Almost every report form the MHCGW has in it a prophecy of doom. Please be honest in the future or people will start avoiding you.


2) You also write that things were great during the middle ages. Well, I don't simply know about that. It might have been better for growing wine in Europe at that time, but there were also great famines and droughts. The south west of america suffered a great drought. In addition, the population of the earth is 10 times greater now, so the two situations aren't truly comparable.
Wrong again. Your knowledge is sorely lacking, please buy an encyclopedia. Things were better all across Europe, Asia, Africa, S. America and most of N. America. The only place where there was a recorded extended drought was in meso America, JUST LIKE I SAID!! The two situations are not only comparable, but the lessons we should be learning from the MO are being ignored. If GW is real (and that's one BIG "if"), then our efforts should be focued on taking the best advantage possible of this change.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley2003d.pdf (see last paragraph)...and??? The paper says that the MO was warmer, the causes are unimportant, the results of the warming is what should be looked at.

3) Finally, you write that "the best evidence we have is that GW would be good for the world". I'm not sure this is actually true. You're correct that there will be a whole manner of benefits and disadvantages. I don't know if anyone is really sure either way whether on balance it will be better or worse.
Horsecrap!! IF GW is real and this place is getting warmer, then we will most certainly be able to handle the problems it creates, especially if we take advantage of teh benfits. MY issue is that there are NO reports coming out about to best take fulll advantage of the changes that GW would bring (if it was real). Extended growing seaons means MORE food for the world, shortened winters means LESS energy consumed for heating. Why isn't there billions of dollars being spent making plans for how to take full advantage of this and raise the standard of living for people all over the world? Why isn't the benefits of GW being touted far and wide? Why don't any liberal EVER think of this kind of thing?

[/quote]An NAS report said
[/b]

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309074347/html/

I think the thing that has to be taken into account is that we are effectively conducting a global experiment we have no idea what the outcome will be. We certainly don't know whether it will be beneficial (or negative for that matter), but denialism doesn't appear to be the way forward.[/quote]

Here's a little reality break for you, marky. If GW is proven to be the fraud that any thinking person knows it to be, what happens to all of the research scientists who are studying it? They get to back to teaching Jr. College math classes at 1/4 the salary they are currently receiving. This is a huge motivation to keep the doom and gloom flowing. Without the prophesies of disaster, the funding would dry up and they'd be back to teaching A2 + B2 = C2 to kids who weren't smart enough to get into a real university ( no offence intended to any Jr. College grads out there). GW is the biggest fraud in recorded history, it's sucked up billions, possibly trillions of dollars for the sole and only purpose of providing a bunch of liberal scientists high-paying jobs that don't involve actual work (the liberal Holy Grail and the true core goal of the MHCGW).

[markus3622]

Doom,

Saying I don't know isn't ignoring your question, it's saying I don't know. Now let's see some studies that tackling global warming will destroy the economy.

Faithful Servant,

Please marky, show me just one report from the MHCGW that makes the benefits fo GW it's focus

http://www.uni-hamburg.de/Wiss/FB/15/Sustainability/worldecon1.pdf


Two reasons to be concerned about climate change are its unjust distributional impact and its negative aggregate effect on economic growth and welfare. Although our knowledge of the impact of climate change is incomplete and uncertain, economic valuation is difficult and controversial,
and the effect of other developments on the impacts of climate change is largely speculative, we find that poorer countries and people are more vulnerable than are richer countries and people. A modest global warming is likely to have a net negative effect on poor countries in hot climates, but may have a net positive effect on rich countries in temperate climates. If one counts dollars, the world aggregate may be positive. If one counts people, the world aggregate is probably negative.[/quote]

This paper does not present a doomsday scenario, and discusses the positive. Here's another one talking about events on a smaller scale

[quote]
Title: Climatechange and recreation benefits in an Alpine National Park
Author(s): Richardson RB (http://wos.isiknowledge.com/CIW.cgi?SID=S2G948lkkK7EAEHIG9j&Func=OneClickSearch&field=AU&val=Richardson+RB&curr_doc=1/58&Form=FullRecordPage&doc=1/58), Loomis JB (http://wos.isiknowledge.com/CIW.cgi?SID=S2G948lkkK7EAEHIG9j&Func=OneClickSearch&field=AU&val=Loomis+JB&curr_doc=1/58&Form=FullRecordPage&doc=1/58)
Source: JOURNAL OF LEISURE RESEARCH 37 (3): 307-320 2005

Weather conditions may affect the quality of an outdoor recreation experience. Quality of the recreation may be reflected in the visitor's willingness to pay or their net economic benefits of recreation. We used the contingent valuation method to measure the effects of weather on net willingness to pay (WTP) for trips to Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. We used a visitor survey to elicit responses to a dichotomous-choice WTP question and to gather information about recreation activities. Results were analyzed with daily weather data to test for climate effects on recreation benefits. We found that temperature and precipitation were statistically-significant determinants of WTP. We estimated increases in recreation benefits of 4.9% and 6.7% for two climate change scenarios.

Here's a further one talking about adaptation

http://www.springerlink.com/(tk2zwq3tvydmbc45egpe0zaw)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,14,14;journal,74,221;linkingpublicati onresults,1:100247,1

Now it's your turn. Find me a scientific paper that actually portrays a doomsday scenario.

Things were better all across Europe, Asia, Africa, S. America and most of N. America. The only place where there was a recorded extended drought was in meso America, JUST LIKE I SAID!! The two situations are not only comparable, but the lessons we should be learning from the MO are being ignored. If GW is real (and that's one BIG "if"), then our efforts should be focued on taking the best advantage possible of this change.

I'm actually going to have to ask you for evidence that "things were better". As for comparing the two, what was the population of New York in 1300? How can you compare human adaptation to today?

There's little point in you claiming that we know things will be better. Again, I'll have to ask you for some evidence. The truth is, we don't know. Maybe you want to start a campaign for global warming.

GW is the biggest fraud in recorded history, it's sucked up billions, possibly trillions of dollars for the sole and only purpose of providing a bunch of liberal scientists high-paying jobs that don't involve actual work (the liberal Holy Grail and the true core goal of the MHCGW).

Beautiful, the conspiracy theory! Surely at the moment, there's plenty of money from think tanks to deny climate change.