http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/s...n/consensus.pdf

I think the Viscount is one of the people who has had a standing invitation to debate Al Gore on the issue at Oxford...the Veep has heretofore declined...

"The American Association of Petroleum Geologists’ Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues has studied the supposition of human induced climate changes ..."

It is hilarious to me that "The American Association of Petroleum Geologists' Ad Hoc Committee" is publishing papers on "unbiased" views on climate changes.

Why do I get the disconcerting feeling that "the debate is not over" is somehow equivalent to "global warming is not happening" in the minds of many people on this board?

O/T, but since when did Lorenz's 1963 paper 'found' chaos theory?

Is there any new information in there? I don't feel inclined to wade through the whole thing. Who are the "liars" and what is the proof they lied?

Ras,

The questions in my mind are:

1. Do the actions taken by humans have any signficant effects on our climate--that is the real question and

2. Is the globe on a warming trend that will continue.

I doubt the actions of humans are the sole or even main actor in any change going on (insert avatar of pissing into ocean) and I'm not certain that we are on some self sustaining warming trend that will continue forever. But I am certainly open to further research to be proven wrong (unlike the people who wish to make doubting global warming like doubting the holocaust).

It's not. We're rapidly cooling. Soon Earth will resemble Hoth, The Ice Planet. Time for a bulking cycle, Global Cooling will kill us all.

Yes yes, a tiny little blip, a colder than warmer winter and the rape-the-earth crowd is crowing victory. One swallow does not make a summer and one reading does not make a trend.

In case there is any doubt as to your political affiliation, strong emotion and name calling is always helpful to clarify things.

Calm down, Scott. No one called you or anyone here anything. If you are not part of that crowd, then simply say so. I don't think you can deny that there is a rape-the-earth mentality among certain people. I see various derogatory terms tossed around and no one gets upset even if called a hippie or something.

Those who simply want to make the most money and care nothing about how it may hurt others, are part of the rape-the-earth crowd. It does exist. Big industry that emits toxins like lead, dioxin, cadmium, etc etc and refuse to clean up until forced to do so, are part of that crowd. Now call me a hippie and you'll feel better.

Hoth is AN ice planet, not The Ice Planet.

Insert icon of Lorenz attractor.

I tried raping the earth, but it really didn't do it for me. She was so...frigid. And just lay there in stony silence.

Ras,

Fine small changes can have large effects (Chaos theory) I stand corrected. But there still needs to be evidence that that is what is happening. Modeling the earth's climate is such a monumental task and some are so arrogant that they are sure they know what is going on. I could list dramatic changes in medical thought over the years on topics where we thought we knew what was going on that later turned out to be totally false, but I trust you (Ras) get the idea.

First do no harm. Someone wise once said that in another context, and I'd just like to apply it to any human who wants to intervene in the earth's climate.


Max,

The topic is not pollution, but global warming which is a poor term for the topic. Whether I am a former accountant for Enron, or I hug trees (which I actually have been known to do--they have nice energy) is irrelevant. All that matters is whether humans are effecting the earth's temp significantly in a detrimental way, and if so do we know enough to intervene with a high probability of producing more benefit than harm.

Try tables I hear they work much better

http://www.mindandmuscle.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=33142

Probably since The American Association of Petroleum Geologists’ Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues has decided to fund the above linked paper.

BTW, you providing that link is like me providing a link to Dick Cheney's speech that explains why Haliburton is the best choice for rebuilding Iraq.

i think global warming is really about "globalization" anyway.

The glaciers are melting, the arctic ice sheet is breaking up and permafrost is melting. But, there is a tiny blip in the figures and we had a slightly colder than usual winter. No need to worry then, right? I agree that the extent of man's involvement is hard to quantify as are the correct measures to take. But, we are fiddling while rome burns and there is substantial evidence that greenhouse gases are in large part responsible for GW.

1) 10 YEARS of cooling is not a tiny blip---in the context, of course, of the AGW senario, whereby man increases atmospheric CO2, and global temperature rises in response.
2) The Antarctic is GAINING net ice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbpPOqXgFno

http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2008/03/31/aquabirds-aquabouys/

Aquabirds & Aquabouys

The latest satellite data could suggest that CO2-driven increases in water vapor actually cool the earth, not magnify warming, and equally interesting, the lastest float bouy data could suggest the ocean is cooling - at least since 2003 when they became operational. It is almost impossible to find any of this in the mainstream media, but given how quickly they dropped their favorite green hobbyhorse, biofuel, there is reason to hope. Media is fickle, and that is perhaps a strength as much as it is a weakness. Here’s the data:

Aquabirds: In a report (click “view transcript) posted on Australia’s ABC National on March 17th entitled “Climate Change,” Jennifer Marohasy of the Australian Environment Foundation comments on the possibility, based on data from NASA’s Aqua satellite, that increased water vapor actually lowers global temperatures, which is exactly opposite to what current climate models predict:

“The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that when you’ve got warming from additional carbon dioxide this will result in increased water vapour, so you’re going to get a positive feedback. That’s what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite…and the first time this data has been able to be collected is 2002 so we’ve got a little bit of data now, it’s actually showing just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they’re actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you’re actually getting a negative rather than a positive feedback.”

Aquabouys: On March 24th in the National Post, author Lorne Gunter posted a story entitled “Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong,” where he reports on an NPR interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings:

“When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors. So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys’ findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters’ hypotheses, must be wrong.”

We recommend you read both of these articles, of course, but here’s the summary: From the airless heights of outer space to the depths of the sea, the best sensors we’ve got, recently deployed, are now casting doubt onto the entire global warming paradigm. Media - perhaps it is time to point your fickle finger at the alarm industry?

I suggest we consult Oprah.

My views on this issue are well known.

Here is the question I have for those who choose to worship at the Church of Gore.

Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that global warming is happening and we have caused it.

Is there any credible evidence that even dramatic curbs in carbon dioxide production will make any appreciable impact on the predicted warming?

Did anyone ever wonder why nobody ever talked about what sort of impact a fully implemented Kyoto Protocol would have made on global temperatures and at what cost?

also, don't forget that temperature stations in the US haven't been reporting raw data all these years. their data was "corrected" and the guy in charge, despite working for the government, refused to release data on exactly what his corrections were. i forget the web site devoted to exposing this fraud, but a lot of the weather stations are now documented photographically, and some are in pretty stupid locales like near asphalt parking lots and industrial A/C waste heat dumps.

Funny you should say that, Benson. I emailed a friend on this issue last night, and as he loves chips and salsa, I wrote the following:

Andrew, do you want

1) Chips & Salsa for $1.50

OR

2) The identical Chips & Salsa for $189,456,099,844,000

No one really benefits from spreading dooms-day news about Global warming. On the other hand, Bush and his oil-baron friends have far more compelling reasons to lie and spread false propaganda about Glogal Warming than anyone or any entity that supports pro-GW crowd. This is not even a close comparison.

Henrik Ibsen's "An Enemy of the People" has been replayed once too many times.

You must be joking. Al Gore is making a career of it. And the carbon credit people. And...

"Well, there's a LOT of money at stake. The "environmentalists" generally charge anyone who challenges their conclusions and policy recommendations with being in the pay of the evil oil companies -- and also work very very hard to see that every nickel of funding from other sources goes to people with a big stake in the "consensus" position who won't disrupt the gravy train. When we feared an Ice Age there wasn't a lot of money for some reason; but Global Warming caught on, and there's lots and lots of money for studies and academic positions and travel to conferences in Rio and Kyoto, and if that dries up -- who will support the "consensus" people? I admit that's a pretty harsh view, and it probably doesn't apply to more than a small percentage of the "consensus" defenders: but it emphatically does apply to many of the more vociferous, and particularly to those who go about denouncing those who oppose them." (Pournelle)

And what will you JIm R, etc do when Bush is no longer in office?

How can you say this, when $$$ that are stake for environmentalists is nothing compared to what is at stake for the oil barons.

You are aware of how much profit EXXON made, just by itself, the last quarter?

VC,

You said basically the environmentalists must be correct, what possible alterior motive could they have
"No one really benefits from spreading dooms-day news about Global warming"

I pointed out that there are certainly alterior motives at least in some cases. Then you comment:

"How can you even compare the dollars that are stake for Bush and his oil barons, to what environmentalists will lose?"

So you wish to decide which side is right by weighing the money at stake on both sides?

If they lose the environmentalists will be seen for the hysterics they are, they will lose their reputation and grant money. You can take away all the money from some big oil baron and he can start again and make money, but take away the reputation of some scientist, and what does he have left?

Good night VC.

Actually, I don't know if the environmentalists are correct.

Earlier, you brought up a conspiracy theory, citing ozone.

My reply is merely that there is a far stronger conspiracy theory argument against the AGW crowd.


That is my point -- no rational person wants to.

But the public is always swayed by $$$ that big entities spend to further their cause.

Is it a stretch to argue that more $$$ they spend, more the public is swayed?

Completely false. Many people benefit from spreading the doomsday scenerio, not the least of which are the scientists who are promoting it. Twenty five years ago, climatology was not a very exciting field and funding for researchers was scarce...now, not so much. And the media benefits because scary stories about how we are going to incinerate ourselves sells newspapers and television ad time. And Al Gore benefits because he gets paid $200,000 to open his mouth and talk about global warming...in short, it is in the self interest of just about everyone promoting anthropogenic global warming to continue to promote it and the scarier they can make it seem, the better it works for them.

So, which is it? I still need clarification.

1) Global warming isn't happening.

or

2) The debate isn't over.

It cannot be both. If global warming is happening, the debate is over. If global warming isn't happening, the debate is over. If the debate isn't over, neither of the aforementioned propositions has been substantively proven or refuted.

"There are some questions regarding the validity of proposition X." != "Proposition X is patently false."

Before anybody confuses me with someone who gives a sweet fuck about the fate of the planet, let me clarify that I am simply questioning the reasoning processes that are supposedly occuring here.

Ras,

MU

1. We have no idea if the temperature change (warming) which has been going on will continue BUT AGAIN THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS

2. we have no idea what role man has played in the temp changes which have been going on. There is evidence of global warming on other planets in our solar system, kinda difficult to blame on man.

Does a cow have buddha-nature or not? Moo.

Leonard Koans aside, your post has rei to do with my post. I am not talking content here; I'm talking form.

Breathe a sigh of relief that he is gone then anxiously await the books that will be written about him.

<Just flushed his radiator; fluid down the driveway into the sewer.

The way the Gorenites (Gorinians?) present info in the manner of absolutism with no room for argument sorta puts a huge hole in they're credibility as objectionable scientists.

Plus, the worlds gonna end on Dec 21 2012, so whats the big fucking deal?

As I said to Scott, you are comparing a drop in the ocean (what Al Gore gets paid) to what is at stake for the oil/energy producing companies (zillions of dollars). I explained that point clearly above.

You are completely ignoring one side of this "equation."

This information may have an effect on the mental emotional state of you, JimR and a host of liberals everywhere, but does not contribute to the evidence for or against global warming. The only reason I discussed AL gore, etc is that you asked what people would have to gain on the global warming hysteria side.

Scott, why are you talking about our emotional state? Or "liberals everywhere"? What in the world are you trying to say?


I am not here to attack you, categorize you as a neocon, conservative, whatever, or to guess at your mental state. Furthermore, since I don't care about being labelled liberal or whatever, I won't protest whatever you call me ... (?)

The only reason I even started on this "conspiracy" portion is because you talked about ozone conspiracy.

If you feel that this is not relevant to whether there is a global warming, why did you even insinuate "how odd" the outcries of environmentalists are with regard to ozone?

Certainly, we can stop discussing it, if you wish. Debates like these are dime a dozen in the Internet forums.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp

1. Why are global warming specialists watching the Arctic so closely?

The Arctic is global warming's canary in the coal mine. It's a highly sensitive region, and it's being profoundly affected by the changing climate. Most scientists view what's happening now in the Arctic as a harbinger of things to come.

Since 1979, the size of the summer polar ice cap has shrunk more than 20 percent.

2. What kinds of changes are taking place in the Arctic now?

Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces.

The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century.

3. How does this dramatic ice melt affect the Arctic?

The melting of once-permanent ice is already affecting native people, wildlife and plants. When the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf splintered, the rare freshwater lake it enclosed, along with its unique ecosystem, drained into the ocean. Polar bears, whales, walrus and seals are changing their feeding and migration patterns, making it harder for native people to hunt them. And along Arctic coastlines, entire villages will be uprooted because they're in danger of being swamped. The native people of the Arctic view global warming as a threat to their cultural identity and their very survival.

No, you simply cast this in absolute rather than relative terms. Is a scientist who's funding and therefore livelyhood is dependent on a climate crisis any less motivated to cast the data in favor of that outcome than one being paid by Exxon is to cast it the other way? The money aside, Al Gore gets all sorts of attention playing Chicken Little, heck he even got a Nobel Prize...doesn't this motivate him strongly to keep doing what he is doing? Wouldn't his motivation be as strong as the that of the CEO of Conoco-Phillips to advocate the opposite position? How about the newspaper editor looking at global warming stories? Wouldn't he be strongly motivated to print sensational stories about drowning polar bears and melting glaciers because this sort of thing is more likely to sell papers?



I am not ignoring it at all, you are. You seem to think that the pro-anthro warming folks would be less inclined to 'cook the books' than those who think this theory is full of holes simply because Exxon stands to lose more in absolute dollars than Al Gore if one of them is wrong.

By the standard you seem to be using, the most, perhaps only, believable folks in this debate are those with little or nothing to gain (and perhaps a lot to lose) by holding a particular position...namely academic scientists who have put their reputation and therefore funding at risk by going on the public record doubting the hockey stick and the rest of the IPCC's conclusions.

And the explanation for the disappearing ice caps is...........?

That's the elephant in the room that the anti-environmentalists don't want to talk about. They will gladly talk all day about a colder than usual winter but not melting ice caps and disappearing glaciers. Must be Al Gore melting those ice caps so he can get another nobel prize. After all, he's motivated.

You mean this disappearing ice cap? The one that is larger today than ever since we have been measuring it?



Or maybe you mean the Arctic ice cap, the one that wasn't there 1000 years ago when the Vikings sailed to North America and settled and farmed Greenland...clearly profound changes in Arctic sea ice are not due to any sort of natural phenomenon at work...



I'll happily talk about them, especially because the truth is not nearly so clear-cut as Al Gore and his followers would have us believe.

There is evidence that the world is getting hotter and there is also evidence that it is not...the question is not settled. The last 12 months clearly do not fit well into a model that calls for steadily increasing temperatures and is therefore worth noting.

As seen above, the ice caps do not seem to both be cooperating with the IPCC and even if they are melting, this is something that has clearly happened before, long before the Industrial Revolution.

Glaciers may be melting faster than they have historically but again, glaciers are not static things...they get bigger and smaller all the time...17,000 years ago there was a glacier a mile thick over what is now NYC and now its gone. And increasing air temperatures are not the only thing that will increase glacier melt rate...increases in solar radiation intensity will actually create a much more pronounced effect.

Even if the world is getting hotter, who elected us to be guardians of the status quo? What makes us assume that the temperature of the earth in 1982 was the ideal that we should seek to preserve? Why do we assume that a dynamic system that we know for a fact has been warmer and colder than it is now many times in the past, long before humans lit their first fire, should suddenly stop acting that way? And why in the world would we assume that we caused it this time or, better yet, that we could stop it from changing if we wanted to or even if we should try to stop it?

Benson..you are utterly obsessed with your own fame and intelligence on this forum.
However..you do seem like a good father and man.

Jim, I think you've got it.

So if one iceberg or glacier seems to be getting larger, then the others don't count. Or if they count, we can look back 1000 years and make a comment about that and it still doesn't count. I'm glad the AGW crowd is logical and unemotional. I'd hate to see them get irrational on us.

If oil is over $100 a barrel, look at primitive people who don't use oil and it's all OK. If clean water is scarce, just look at the ocean and no problem. I think I'm getting the hang of it.

Are you seriously arguing that someone who earns $1 billion has less influence on the public opinion than one earns $1 million?


If you are not, then, how can you genuinely argue that the $$$ amount doesn't sway public opinion? You seriously don't think people can spend money to control the media? Do you know who funded writing of the paper that was linked at the beginning of this thread? I will tell you -- by The Science and Public Policy Institute .

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom [1], is a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop[2] ... The Frontiers of Freedom Institute received a donation of $100,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002 for the foundation (in 2003) of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Center for Science and Public Policy [5]. The institute received $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006[6]



Actually, I don't think that. I am saying one who has more to lose, in this instance, has far greater influence.


Benson, before you go on a soap box -- I mentioned the above as a RESPONSE to Scott's conspiracy theory. I was just saying that if one were to think along the lines of "motivations," the Bush league has far greater motivations to try to sway public opinion. If Scott didnt' want to make an issue of this, why bring it up?

I just miss the days when we had a president who could actually make a sentence. Al Gore and Clinton..hate them all you like can speak for hours intelligently. Bush can barely speak. Bush is a travesty upon this nation. His whole thing is based on a Rush Limbaugh hate. Never admit fault. Its all the liberal media.

What's the matter Max? You asked for discussion about ice caps and glaciers but when data are provided that the ice caps and glaciers are not all cooperating with your theory, you suddenly don't want to talk about them any more...

The fact that the Antarctic ice cap (not just one iceberg) is as large as its ever been is at least as important as the fact that the Arctic cap has shrunk (although now this now seems questionable) and yet you dismiss it as irrelevant.

The fact that the Arctic cap was much smaller 1000 years before the industrial revolution began is salient because it suggests strongly that its current shrinking is natural and normal and related to something other than human activity but you don't want to hear that.

The fact that 2007 was one of the coldest and snowiest on record is at least as important to the discussion as the fact often quoted in support of global warming theory that 1997 was one of the warmest.

The fact that the Greenland ice cap (not just any old glacier) is actually thicker today than it was a decade ago is annoying and much less fun to discuss than the 'imperiled' polar bear that is actually alive and well in record numbers.

The fact that solar radiation is a bigger factor in glacial recession than air temperature is frustrating and easier to ignore than address isn't it?

The fact that the 2006 and 2007 Atlantic Hurricane seasons were substantially quieter than usual isn't relevant even though everyone from Al Gore on down pointed to 2005 and Katrina as a direct result of global warming.

And what about the rest of my questions Max? Why is the present temperature the ideal? Doesn't the historical data demonstrate that there are non-anthropogenic forces at work controlling the earth's climate and does it make sense to assume those forces are now suddenly not at work? Do we even know if we can change the earth's temperature (make it cooler) and even it we can, should we? What will it cost to do so? Is it more rational to simply prepare to live in a warmer world than to try and alter the climate? Why can't these questions ever be part of the discussion?