Reader comments
Readers' forum: Global warming is a hoax
152 comments | Read story
Grimble | 4:19 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Tommie,
So, instead, you adopt a "Blame America for Nothing" attitude? (Doesn't the Book of Mormon explicitly warn us against that sort of thing?)
The problem is, you come across some "facts," supplied by sources you're already sympathetic with, and you think you've got the big picture. Thanks, but I'll rather go by the research of the overwhelming, vast, HUGE majority of scientists that accept human contribution to global warming as a fact.
I don't have a "blame America for everything" mentality. I have a "praise America for what it's done right, and try to fix what it's done wrong" mentality.
Isn't that kinda how it's supposed to go?
So, instead, you adopt a "Blame America for Nothing" attitude? (Doesn't the Book of Mormon explicitly warn us against that sort of thing?)
The problem is, you come across some "facts," supplied by sources you're already sympathetic with, and you think you've got the big picture. Thanks, but I'll rather go by the research of the overwhelming, vast, HUGE majority of scientists that accept human contribution to global warming as a fact.
I don't have a "blame America for everything" mentality. I have a "praise America for what it's done right, and try to fix what it's done wrong" mentality.
Isn't that kinda how it's supposed to go?
Mike Richards | 4:39 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Grimble,
Why do you accept the data from the pro-warming scientists and reject the data from the anti-warming scientists? Respected scientists on both sides disagree. It seems, at the very least, that the data is inconclusive.
Why do you accept the data from the pro-warming scientists and reject the data from the anti-warming scientists? Respected scientists on both sides disagree. It seems, at the very least, that the data is inconclusive.
Comments continue below
Mc | 4:42 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
You can believe the hoax if you want to. I choose not to, but that doesn't
mean that I don't believe in taking of our planet. I want less polution
because breathing poluted air isn't healthy. I don't litter and I
support cleaning up our lakes and rivers. I will not support the carbon
footprint hoax. That is a waste of money and could destroy our economy.
mark | 5:06 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Tommie? The ice caps and glaciers are not melting? Where, exactly, do you get
your information?
"Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press." - CBS News, Dec 13, 2007
"A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average. In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface size of the U.S."NASA, Sept 25, 2007
"The ice�s seasonal shrinkage in 2007 smashed records, reaching a September minimum of 2.6 million square miles � some 23 percent smaller than the previous record, set in 2005. If it sets another record this year, it would mark the fifth season of record declines since 1998." Christen Science Monitor, June 12, 2008
"Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was just four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The Associated Press." - CBS News, Dec 13, 2007
"A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average. In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface size of the U.S."NASA, Sept 25, 2007
"The ice�s seasonal shrinkage in 2007 smashed records, reaching a September minimum of 2.6 million square miles � some 23 percent smaller than the previous record, set in 2005. If it sets another record this year, it would mark the fifth season of record declines since 1998." Christen Science Monitor, June 12, 2008
And? | 5:10 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Those who believe climate change is a hoax are more likely to believe Reagan
defeated the Evil Empire, they are still waiting for money to trickle down and
they attest to Bush's great leadership skills. This speaks to their
cognitive processes.
the truth | 5:15 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
People are missing the most important point:
So what if there is global warming.
What can we really do about it?
According the lastest information:
We can spend trillion and trillions and trillions of dollars and MAYBE MAYBE after fifty years or more of this change the global temperature 1/10 to 3/10 of a degree.
So how can anyone honestly say Humans are having any more than negligible effect on global warming.
When anything we actually do to change the global temperature is also negligible even after 50 to hundred years of seriously trying.
So what if there is global warming.
What can we really do about it?
According the lastest information:
We can spend trillion and trillions and trillions of dollars and MAYBE MAYBE after fifty years or more of this change the global temperature 1/10 to 3/10 of a degree.
So how can anyone honestly say Humans are having any more than negligible effect on global warming.
When anything we actually do to change the global temperature is also negligible even after 50 to hundred years of seriously trying.
WHAT data? | 5:26 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
MikeR,
What "data" do anti-GW scientists posses? In what peer-reviewed science journals are their findings published?
Industry-funded "think tank" publications don't count as "data," nor does the blathering of Hannity et al.
If anti-GW folks want to have _any_ credibility, tell them to quit whining from the back rooms of PR firms and get busy convincing other professional climate researchers that they've got real research data of their own to report.
Until then, I'm paying attention to the peer-reviewed research published by actual working climate scientists.
What "data" do anti-GW scientists posses? In what peer-reviewed science journals are their findings published?
Industry-funded "think tank" publications don't count as "data," nor does the blathering of Hannity et al.
If anti-GW folks want to have _any_ credibility, tell them to quit whining from the back rooms of PR firms and get busy convincing other professional climate researchers that they've got real research data of their own to report.
Until then, I'm paying attention to the peer-reviewed research published by actual working climate scientists.
mark | 5:55 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Yeah, Mike Richards, Pielke also said,
"the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers "
And William Connolly is on board with global warming.
"the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers "
And William Connolly is on board with global warming.
To Mc 4:42 | 6:16 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
People do not want anything to do with logic, when they have fantasy to believe
in.
For some reason it is easyier to believe that we can do and act any way we want to, because the bible tells us so.
Lets just pretend that it is 1850, and we can produce famlies of 10 or 12, and no matter what we are protected by God.
You know, those rumors by the libs about the ocean having dead spots, and natural resources
going away are just stupid.
No matter what common sense and science says, just keep doing what we have the God given right to do.
Remember, if we look hard enough we can find somebody to tell us what we want to hear.
Silly, silly people. What about your grandkids, and future generations of kids?
Then you vote for people if they pretend they are against abortion? Do some of you really have the ability to think beyond today?
For some reason it is easyier to believe that we can do and act any way we want to, because the bible tells us so.
Lets just pretend that it is 1850, and we can produce famlies of 10 or 12, and no matter what we are protected by God.
You know, those rumors by the libs about the ocean having dead spots, and natural resources
going away are just stupid.
No matter what common sense and science says, just keep doing what we have the God given right to do.
Remember, if we look hard enough we can find somebody to tell us what we want to hear.
Silly, silly people. What about your grandkids, and future generations of kids?
Then you vote for people if they pretend they are against abortion? Do some of you really have the ability to think beyond today?
Mike Richards | 6:57 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
@ 5:26,
Have you read this peer-reviewed paper?
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
"ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the
environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth�s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed."
Have you read this peer-reviewed paper?
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
"ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the
environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth�s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed."
Does it Matter? | 7:09 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
FACT 1: CO2 is essential for plant life. They need CO2 to breathe and we need
oxygen to breath which is what plants expel after taking in CO2. This is a good
thing.
FACT2: Since the referenced article clearly indicates that there has not been any warming in the last 10 years how can any legitimate scientific hypothesis ignore that fact without formulating a new hypothesis based upon more current data? Could it be they would lose all credibility and would have to attach a "I signed on to the moronic global warming hoax" addendum to their job resume?
FACT3: The temperature of other planets has increased as well. I'm no scientist but I'm thinking a good one would have to dismiss the original theory and adopt a new one such as the well thought out and researched sun spot theory which can clearly be linked to warming trends on other planets as well as this earth.
Final Conclusion based upon the facts. There is no man made global warming and if there were it would be good. My hypothesis with a 99.99999% probability is that it is a hoax for the purpose of world control and making money.
FACT2: Since the referenced article clearly indicates that there has not been any warming in the last 10 years how can any legitimate scientific hypothesis ignore that fact without formulating a new hypothesis based upon more current data? Could it be they would lose all credibility and would have to attach a "I signed on to the moronic global warming hoax" addendum to their job resume?
FACT3: The temperature of other planets has increased as well. I'm no scientist but I'm thinking a good one would have to dismiss the original theory and adopt a new one such as the well thought out and researched sun spot theory which can clearly be linked to warming trends on other planets as well as this earth.
Final Conclusion based upon the facts. There is no man made global warming and if there were it would be good. My hypothesis with a 99.99999% probability is that it is a hoax for the purpose of world control and making money.
Mike Richards | 7:34 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
In March 2007, Lord Monckton of Brenchley wrote a paper entitled, "Errors
covertly corrected by the I.P.C.C. after publication And Uncorrected Errors by
Al Gore"
This quote shows that the I.P.C.C. added data AFTER the peer review process.
"Units have been changed from metres per century in the first version to millimetres per year in the corrected version. The error in the original table had been caused by a tenfold exaggeration of the contributions of the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets to sea-level rise. This error may perhaps have arisen from the inadvertently incorrect positioning of four decimal points in the table.
Why did the IPCC�s 2,500 scientists fail to spot so serious an error?
Because the table did not appear at all in the version of the Summary for Policymakers that the Scientific Assessment Working Group sent to governments for approval. The table was inserted by the IPCC bureaucracy after the scientists had reached their conclusions on the science."
----
Lord Monckton, who was a policy advisor to former Prime Minister, Margeret Thatcher, also listed many errors made by Al Gore in the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth".
This quote shows that the I.P.C.C. added data AFTER the peer review process.
"Units have been changed from metres per century in the first version to millimetres per year in the corrected version. The error in the original table had been caused by a tenfold exaggeration of the contributions of the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets to sea-level rise. This error may perhaps have arisen from the inadvertently incorrect positioning of four decimal points in the table.
Why did the IPCC�s 2,500 scientists fail to spot so serious an error?
Because the table did not appear at all in the version of the Summary for Policymakers that the Scientific Assessment Working Group sent to governments for approval. The table was inserted by the IPCC bureaucracy after the scientists had reached their conclusions on the science."
----
Lord Monckton, who was a policy advisor to former Prime Minister, Margeret Thatcher, also listed many errors made by Al Gore in the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth".
Grimble | 7:49 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Mike Richards:
You ask: "Why do you accept the data from the pro-warming scientists and reject the data from the anti-warming scientists?"
Because the former outnumber the latter by about 100 to one, maybe more. Also, the publications of the former appear in peer-reviewed journals. In other words, several outside experts examine the data, methodology, and reasoning in each article for the specific purpose of weeding out and error or bias.
You provide a perfect example of the bunk science trying to debunk global warming:
You cite an article published in the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), an "institute" that has exactly eight members, none of whom have degrees in climatology. One of the authors, Arthur Robinson, is the founder of the OISM, and is trained in biochemistry. Another author, Zachary Robinson, is Arthur's son, and has a doctorate in veterinary science, not climatology or a related field; also, Zachary was 22 when he coauthored the paper. The third author, Willie Soon, is an astrophysicist for a right-wing think tank originally established to advocate for Reagan's Star Wars initiative.
This is "science" far beyond the fringe of accepted methodology, with no peer review. In other words, BUNK.
You ask: "Why do you accept the data from the pro-warming scientists and reject the data from the anti-warming scientists?"
Because the former outnumber the latter by about 100 to one, maybe more. Also, the publications of the former appear in peer-reviewed journals. In other words, several outside experts examine the data, methodology, and reasoning in each article for the specific purpose of weeding out and error or bias.
You provide a perfect example of the bunk science trying to debunk global warming:
You cite an article published in the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), an "institute" that has exactly eight members, none of whom have degrees in climatology. One of the authors, Arthur Robinson, is the founder of the OISM, and is trained in biochemistry. Another author, Zachary Robinson, is Arthur's son, and has a doctorate in veterinary science, not climatology or a related field; also, Zachary was 22 when he coauthored the paper. The third author, Willie Soon, is an astrophysicist for a right-wing think tank originally established to advocate for Reagan's Star Wars initiative.
This is "science" far beyond the fringe of accepted methodology, with no peer review. In other words, BUNK.
Grimble | 8:07 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Mike Richards,
Also, I did a little more digging about Willie Soon. He worked as a scientist for the George C. Marshall Institute, an organization funded by a number of right-wing foundations as well as Exxon-Mobil, which provided over 10% of its overall funding in the last ten years.
So, you're going to entrust this country's environmental policy to a moonbat biochemist, a 22-year old veterinarian, and a shill for Exxon?
I hope you'll forgive my suspicion.
Also, I did a little more digging about Willie Soon. He worked as a scientist for the George C. Marshall Institute, an organization funded by a number of right-wing foundations as well as Exxon-Mobil, which provided over 10% of its overall funding in the last ten years.
So, you're going to entrust this country's environmental policy to a moonbat biochemist, a 22-year old veterinarian, and a shill for Exxon?
I hope you'll forgive my suspicion.
wrz | 8:25 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
To Gimble:
Who cares if there is global warming. There is nothing we can do about it short of spending every nickel that the world possesses to stem perhaps ten percent of it. Besides, who cares if New York City goes underwater. Serves them right for building too close to the water. The good news would be that Utah finally would have some waterfront property.
Who cares if there is global warming. There is nothing we can do about it short of spending every nickel that the world possesses to stem perhaps ten percent of it. Besides, who cares if New York City goes underwater. Serves them right for building too close to the water. The good news would be that Utah finally would have some waterfront property.
Mike Richards | 9:23 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
To Gimble,
It's odd that you would discount the work of a scientist just because his paycheck comes from sources with whom you disagree, but you would take the word of Al Gore, who is not a scientist. Mr. Gore has been caught in numerous lies, not only about his movie, but also his claim that he invented the Internet.
What facts, in particular, in the paper written by ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON, do you dispute?
Lord Monckton wrote, "That global warming is likely to cause harm rather than good is an opinion, to which Gore is entitled. That there is no scientific consensus as to the rightness of that opinion is a fact, to which all are entitled.
.
.
.
About 95% of the 500 emails I received, and very nearly all the emails from scientists, were strongly supportive of the conclusions which I had reached: namely, that global warming is probably harmless, and that, if not, even if we in the UK stopped using energy altogether the effect on future temperature would be negligible."
-----
(The 200 word limit means you'll have to read "Gore Gored CSPP Reprint 11-21-06").
It's odd that you would discount the work of a scientist just because his paycheck comes from sources with whom you disagree, but you would take the word of Al Gore, who is not a scientist. Mr. Gore has been caught in numerous lies, not only about his movie, but also his claim that he invented the Internet.
What facts, in particular, in the paper written by ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON, do you dispute?
Lord Monckton wrote, "That global warming is likely to cause harm rather than good is an opinion, to which Gore is entitled. That there is no scientific consensus as to the rightness of that opinion is a fact, to which all are entitled.
.
.
.
About 95% of the 500 emails I received, and very nearly all the emails from scientists, were strongly supportive of the conclusions which I had reached: namely, that global warming is probably harmless, and that, if not, even if we in the UK stopped using energy altogether the effect on future temperature would be negligible."
-----
(The 200 word limit means you'll have to read "Gore Gored CSPP Reprint 11-21-06").
Cambridge | 9:25 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
I haven't been following this entire thread so please forgive if this is
repetitive: While there are certainly some, I believe Mr. Gore to be among them,
who deliberately exaggerate for personal gain, I do not think "hoax"
is the right word. Religion is a better word.
Consider: Regarding God, there is nothing science can present to disprove his/its/her reality. Regarding global warming, recent improved measuring techniques have revealed 1934, not 1998 to be the warmest year on record and have shown no warming at all for 10 years. Yet many claim, through logic too convoluted to repeat here, that this is actually evidence FOR global warming. In other words, there is nothing science can present to disprove global warming in the minds of believers.
Furthermore, it has all the classic elements of religion, not least of which is the foretelling of a blazing end of the world. Usually the left mocks the Religious Right for such superstition. There are prophets, Mr. Gore among them; there are sins, greed and materialism. It is a religion.
Consider: Regarding God, there is nothing science can present to disprove his/its/her reality. Regarding global warming, recent improved measuring techniques have revealed 1934, not 1998 to be the warmest year on record and have shown no warming at all for 10 years. Yet many claim, through logic too convoluted to repeat here, that this is actually evidence FOR global warming. In other words, there is nothing science can present to disprove global warming in the minds of believers.
Furthermore, it has all the classic elements of religion, not least of which is the foretelling of a blazing end of the world. Usually the left mocks the Religious Right for such superstition. There are prophets, Mr. Gore among them; there are sins, greed and materialism. It is a religion.
Charles | 9:39 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
So according to Grimble, to win the argument it's just a matter of who has
more people on their side. Interesting take.
Do facts matter? Does proof come into play or are you just a consensus guy? Did you buy shares in Algore's carbon credit companies?
I guess you echo Laurie David and her entourage in the hugely successful end all be all conversation...The debate is over; the consensus is in; global warming is man-made!
I have more people on my side than you. So I guess I win the debate in your world....foolishness....
Jason, was it "hot" enough for you today? All those 100+ days this year...wow...did you go do your homework yet and compare last year to this year?
It's truly amazing what 'idols' the looney liberal left have as their golden calf.
Do facts matter? Does proof come into play or are you just a consensus guy? Did you buy shares in Algore's carbon credit companies?
I guess you echo Laurie David and her entourage in the hugely successful end all be all conversation...The debate is over; the consensus is in; global warming is man-made!
I have more people on my side than you. So I guess I win the debate in your world....foolishness....
Jason, was it "hot" enough for you today? All those 100+ days this year...wow...did you go do your homework yet and compare last year to this year?
It's truly amazing what 'idols' the looney liberal left have as their golden calf.
Grimble | 9:41 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
wrz:
At 10:06 you were saying global warming was a hoax. Now you're saying "So what if it's real." I count that as progress.
Here's one thing we could do in response to global warming: actually make industries out of clean energy. Every piece of the wind farm at the mouth of Spanish Fork canyon had to be imported because while we were saying "drill drill drill" and making fun of environmentalists, European, Scandinavian, and Chinese companies saw business potential. If we'd taken our cues from scientists, rather than from oil companies, we'd have tens of thousands of people in the rust belt working in manufacturing in the alternative energy sector right now. We'd also have more efficient cars (or even electric ones!), better public transportation, and more energy efficient buildings.
But instead, we've built policy on fake science paid for by the oil industry -- fake science designed, ultimately, to protect an industry that we'd have otherwise started weaning ourselves from decades ago.
And after all of that, the only argument you have left is to joke about New York City being flooded.
At 10:06 you were saying global warming was a hoax. Now you're saying "So what if it's real." I count that as progress.
Here's one thing we could do in response to global warming: actually make industries out of clean energy. Every piece of the wind farm at the mouth of Spanish Fork canyon had to be imported because while we were saying "drill drill drill" and making fun of environmentalists, European, Scandinavian, and Chinese companies saw business potential. If we'd taken our cues from scientists, rather than from oil companies, we'd have tens of thousands of people in the rust belt working in manufacturing in the alternative energy sector right now. We'd also have more efficient cars (or even electric ones!), better public transportation, and more energy efficient buildings.
But instead, we've built policy on fake science paid for by the oil industry -- fake science designed, ultimately, to protect an industry that we'd have otherwise started weaning ourselves from decades ago.
And after all of that, the only argument you have left is to joke about New York City being flooded.
Breaking News!! | 9:48 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
The average high temperature in Juneau Alaska for July 2008 was the lowest on
record @ 58.0. and the overall average temperature of 53.0 makes it the third
coldest July on record. How can this be? The climate report from the national
weather service in Juneau must be linked to some right winged conspiracy.
I'm just curious is Al Gore a scientist or meteorologist? I mean how do win an award for writing a book and making a movie about a subject you have no professional expertise in?
How do you speak with any authority when you lose to man that both parties now concede is an imbecile. Where does this man get any credibility to speak about any subject much less about one he has no expertise in?
Side note: This was the man who was trying to intimidate Ross Perot on the NAFTA issue. We now know that Perot was spot on in his prediction that there would be a giant sucking sound as jobs were sucked out of this country.
When Al Gore Speaks, Grab your wallet and the Bill of Rights and turn the volume down so your kids won't be deceived.
I'm just curious is Al Gore a scientist or meteorologist? I mean how do win an award for writing a book and making a movie about a subject you have no professional expertise in?
How do you speak with any authority when you lose to man that both parties now concede is an imbecile. Where does this man get any credibility to speak about any subject much less about one he has no expertise in?
Side note: This was the man who was trying to intimidate Ross Perot on the NAFTA issue. We now know that Perot was spot on in his prediction that there would be a giant sucking sound as jobs were sucked out of this country.
When Al Gore Speaks, Grab your wallet and the Bill of Rights and turn the volume down so your kids won't be deceived.
Grimble | 10:05 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Mike Richards,
This has nothing to do with Al Gore. I'm concerned about global climate change because of the overwhelming number of experts that recognize it, not because of Al Gore's movie. To poke holes in the way Al Gore presents (and occasionally sensationalizes) the information is a far cry from actually overturning the climate science on which the vast majority of climate scientist agree.
RE OISM: of course I'm suspicious of the environmental conclusions of a scientist paid by Exxon! It would be silly not to be, especially when his work is conducted in collaboration with a 22-year old veterinarian, is not co-authored with any climate scientists, does not contain any original experimental research, and has not been subject to ANY outside peer review.
I'm on the editorial board of an academic journal in another field. We do not publish articles by members of our board, and we send EVERY article under consideration to multiple outside experts. That's what real academic organizations do. That's why OISM isn't one.
Finally: Lord Monckton is NOT a scientist! He's an unsuccessful politician and a partisan journalist. If Gore's a lefty opportunist, Monckton is his exact counterpart on the right.
This has nothing to do with Al Gore. I'm concerned about global climate change because of the overwhelming number of experts that recognize it, not because of Al Gore's movie. To poke holes in the way Al Gore presents (and occasionally sensationalizes) the information is a far cry from actually overturning the climate science on which the vast majority of climate scientist agree.
RE OISM: of course I'm suspicious of the environmental conclusions of a scientist paid by Exxon! It would be silly not to be, especially when his work is conducted in collaboration with a 22-year old veterinarian, is not co-authored with any climate scientists, does not contain any original experimental research, and has not been subject to ANY outside peer review.
I'm on the editorial board of an academic journal in another field. We do not publish articles by members of our board, and we send EVERY article under consideration to multiple outside experts. That's what real academic organizations do. That's why OISM isn't one.
Finally: Lord Monckton is NOT a scientist! He's an unsuccessful politician and a partisan journalist. If Gore's a lefty opportunist, Monckton is his exact counterpart on the right.
Thinkin' Man, Ph.D. | 10:17 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
I know it's late in the day, but I think some moderation is needed here.
Those who accept anthropogenic warming need to realize there is a healthy amount of uncertainty in the science, including measuring a global "average" temperature, understanding feedback (+ and -) mechanisms, understanding the complex atmosphere, and in the modeling process. As in most complex science, "it ain't a done deal" as far as uncertainty goes. They also need to recognize how the climate science has been grossly exaggerated and misused in scare tactics by politicians and others (generally not by scientists).
Those who do not accept anthropogenic warming need to realize the great amount of good science that supports the idea. CO2 can hold onto heat, period. They also need to recognize how often denial is misused as a political tool and good science is run over in the process.
As for me, I like to stick to the basic data-- non-urban temperatures-- and to time frames long enough to show Nature's cycles (hundreds of years). Forget your favorite hot summer, glaciers, polar bears, beetles, and anecdotal "evidence"-- it doesn't really mean anything.
Those who accept anthropogenic warming need to realize there is a healthy amount of uncertainty in the science, including measuring a global "average" temperature, understanding feedback (+ and -) mechanisms, understanding the complex atmosphere, and in the modeling process. As in most complex science, "it ain't a done deal" as far as uncertainty goes. They also need to recognize how the climate science has been grossly exaggerated and misused in scare tactics by politicians and others (generally not by scientists).
Those who do not accept anthropogenic warming need to realize the great amount of good science that supports the idea. CO2 can hold onto heat, period. They also need to recognize how often denial is misused as a political tool and good science is run over in the process.
As for me, I like to stick to the basic data-- non-urban temperatures-- and to time frames long enough to show Nature's cycles (hundreds of years). Forget your favorite hot summer, glaciers, polar bears, beetles, and anecdotal "evidence"-- it doesn't really mean anything.
Grimble | 10:29 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Charles,
C'mon, we're not talking about a popularity contest, we're talking about trained experts vs. partisan hacks. If 100 auto mechanics examined your car and said your transmission was about to give out (and provided the data and evidence), but a 22-year old veterinarian and a British celebrity journalist said your car was fine, wouldn't you find the consensus a little compelling?
Of course facts come into play! That's what the global warming doubters have such a short supply of. That's why they lose. And that's why so few scientists listen to them.
Breaking News:
Your type of cherry-picking is very common. And very foolish. We're talking about long-term trends here; there will always be intermittent spikes and plunges somewhere or other if you point your zoom lens in the right place. And the partisan right-winger pseudo-scientists always find someplace to zoom in on, when the rest of the picture tells a different story.
C'mon, we're not talking about a popularity contest, we're talking about trained experts vs. partisan hacks. If 100 auto mechanics examined your car and said your transmission was about to give out (and provided the data and evidence), but a 22-year old veterinarian and a British celebrity journalist said your car was fine, wouldn't you find the consensus a little compelling?
Of course facts come into play! That's what the global warming doubters have such a short supply of. That's why they lose. And that's why so few scientists listen to them.
Breaking News:
Your type of cherry-picking is very common. And very foolish. We're talking about long-term trends here; there will always be intermittent spikes and plunges somewhere or other if you point your zoom lens in the right place. And the partisan right-winger pseudo-scientists always find someplace to zoom in on, when the rest of the picture tells a different story.
Ron | 10:47 p.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Gee Ron | 8:09 a.m. Aug. 16, 2008
Hey Ron- the Pine Beetle is more prevelant in southern states like GA, MS, AL, FL, SC, etc.
Gee Ron Please show me a lodgepol pine in these states. Where are the most of the wild fires? In the west with lodgepol pines.Logging does not stop it, it spreads it.
Hey Ron- the Pine Beetle is more prevelant in southern states like GA, MS, AL, FL, SC, etc.
Gee Ron Please show me a lodgepol pine in these states. Where are the most of the wild fires? In the west with lodgepol pines.Logging does not stop it, it spreads it.
A lot hotter | 12:32 a.m. Aug. 17, 2008
actually its going to get a lot hotter and there will be nothing we can do about
it. Don't believe me, read the book of Revelations. Global warming is
just
the tip of the iceberg (non pun intended)
the tip of the iceberg (non pun intended)
Mike Richards | 8:33 a.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Gimble (10:05 p.m.),
You wrote that you are on the editorial board of an academic journal. I am assuming that being on the editorial board means that you deal with writers. I am also assuming that holding that position means that you deal with what writers write. Surely you consider a writer's content before publishing something.
So, what facts, in particular, in the paper written by ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON, do you dispute?
You have dismissed Lord Monckton's rebuttals to global warming because he is not a scientist. What exactly has Lord Monckton written that you dispute?
Using your own argument, whatever YOU have written about global warming has no merit, unless you are a scientist whose writings have been reviewed by his peers in the global warming field.
You might think that I've just taken a cheap shot, but that was not my purpose. If FACTS are discarded because the writer is not recognized by the people who belong to a certain "club", then it is the people in that "club" who are in error, not the facts.
You wrote that you are on the editorial board of an academic journal. I am assuming that being on the editorial board means that you deal with writers. I am also assuming that holding that position means that you deal with what writers write. Surely you consider a writer's content before publishing something.
So, what facts, in particular, in the paper written by ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, AND WILLIE SOON, do you dispute?
You have dismissed Lord Monckton's rebuttals to global warming because he is not a scientist. What exactly has Lord Monckton written that you dispute?
Using your own argument, whatever YOU have written about global warming has no merit, unless you are a scientist whose writings have been reviewed by his peers in the global warming field.
You might think that I've just taken a cheap shot, but that was not my purpose. If FACTS are discarded because the writer is not recognized by the people who belong to a certain "club", then it is the people in that "club" who are in error, not the facts.
Climatologist | 11:09 a.m. Aug. 17, 2008
The Earth is getting warmer but it is not man made.
Google Maunder Minimum
The truth is that the Earth is bieng warmed by the Sun. The Sun gets brighter and darker over hundreds of years. Which is hotter, a bright light or a dim light?
There is nothing we can do about the Sun. There is something we can do about Al Gore and that is to not listen to him. He is not a scientist and he has no idea what he is talking about. Humans are not evil self destroying creatures and we should not surrender our way of life to his theories. Burning carbon will not warm the Earth. How did all the previous ice ages end? Did you know that the VIkings settled and farmed Greenland? Why can't we farm Greenland now? It is to cold!!!
Google Maunder Minimum
The truth is that the Earth is bieng warmed by the Sun. The Sun gets brighter and darker over hundreds of years. Which is hotter, a bright light or a dim light?
There is nothing we can do about the Sun. There is something we can do about Al Gore and that is to not listen to him. He is not a scientist and he has no idea what he is talking about. Humans are not evil self destroying creatures and we should not surrender our way of life to his theories. Burning carbon will not warm the Earth. How did all the previous ice ages end? Did you know that the VIkings settled and farmed Greenland? Why can't we farm Greenland now? It is to cold!!!
mark | 11:55 a.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Mike Richards, when will you learn not to argue with those who clearly are more
knowledgeable then you on issues?
Grimble has made you look foolish. Especially because some of the things he says to you have been pointed out to you before. You do have a hard time learning, MIke.
You should not use sources that are so easily disputed.
You are foolish not to see when someone else has the upper hand.
By the way, Grimble is in no way discounting an argument because someone is not in a certain club.
Grimble has made you look foolish. Especially because some of the things he says to you have been pointed out to you before. You do have a hard time learning, MIke.
You should not use sources that are so easily disputed.
You are foolish not to see when someone else has the upper hand.
By the way, Grimble is in no way discounting an argument because someone is not in a certain club.
Freeman | 12:14 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Grimble,
Scientists have to get research money from somewhere. And then they have to get a journal to publish their findings. You don't see the politics in that? Plenty of data refuting anthropogenic global warming is out there. Unfortunately, opportunities to advance your career and get published are not unless you toe the party line. Forgive me for being skeptical of academia--it's just that as a professor of physical geography (which includes climatology) at a major university (top ten in Forbes' new list) I see everyday what it takes to get funded and published, and good science isn't always considered.
Scientists have to get research money from somewhere. And then they have to get a journal to publish their findings. You don't see the politics in that? Plenty of data refuting anthropogenic global warming is out there. Unfortunately, opportunities to advance your career and get published are not unless you toe the party line. Forgive me for being skeptical of academia--it's just that as a professor of physical geography (which includes climatology) at a major university (top ten in Forbes' new list) I see everyday what it takes to get funded and published, and good science isn't always considered.
Mike Richards | 2:28 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Mark @11:55,
You have not shown any facts that would dispute those that I have quoted. Instead, you have taken the position that what you have written is more believable than that which others have written. Why? Why should anyone agree with you?
If you want to be a voice of authority, present your facts.
To quote Lord Monckton again:
"We conclude, on the basis of a study of the UN�s own reports and of the academic literature in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, that the UN may have failed to take negative climate feedbacks sufficiently into account, there is no consensus among climate scientists on any of the three classes of evidence for the UN�s estimate of climate sensitivity cited by Gore, and that in all three classes � 20th-century observation, palaeoclimatological reconstruction and studies of volcanic eruption � there is recent, frequent and compelling evidence in the scientific literature that raises serious questions about the validity of the �consensus� position."
You have not shown any facts that would dispute those that I have quoted. Instead, you have taken the position that what you have written is more believable than that which others have written. Why? Why should anyone agree with you?
If you want to be a voice of authority, present your facts.
To quote Lord Monckton again:
"We conclude, on the basis of a study of the UN�s own reports and of the academic literature in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, that the UN may have failed to take negative climate feedbacks sufficiently into account, there is no consensus among climate scientists on any of the three classes of evidence for the UN�s estimate of climate sensitivity cited by Gore, and that in all three classes � 20th-century observation, palaeoclimatological reconstruction and studies of volcanic eruption � there is recent, frequent and compelling evidence in the scientific literature that raises serious questions about the validity of the �consensus� position."
Grimble | 5:18 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Mike Richards:
Okay, let me just get this straight: you want ME to find the problems with an article on climate change written by a nutrition scientist, a 22-year old veterinarian, and an Exxon-funded astrophysicist? See, for most reasonable problems, those WOULD be the problems, but okay, here goes:
*they compare satellite data with what they call an IPCC climate model, even though it's not an IPCC climate model, and the data and the model don't coincide!
* They use short-term satellite data to prove a cooling trend since 1979. That's far too short to be climatologically relevant. That's like driving a block to check your gas mileage.
* They also fail to correct for El Nino and volcanic activity; if they had, they'd have found a warming trend, not a cooling trend, even within that ridiculously small time window.
* Their conclusions about CO2 and plant growth have been thoroughly debunked -- they based their specuulations on lab conditions that do not exist in nature.
The list goes on, but I'm running out of words.
The IPCC based their findings on over 20,000 peer reviewed articles. The kooks at OISM had NO expertise and NO outside peer review.
Okay, let me just get this straight: you want ME to find the problems with an article on climate change written by a nutrition scientist, a 22-year old veterinarian, and an Exxon-funded astrophysicist? See, for most reasonable problems, those WOULD be the problems, but okay, here goes:
*they compare satellite data with what they call an IPCC climate model, even though it's not an IPCC climate model, and the data and the model don't coincide!
* They use short-term satellite data to prove a cooling trend since 1979. That's far too short to be climatologically relevant. That's like driving a block to check your gas mileage.
* They also fail to correct for El Nino and volcanic activity; if they had, they'd have found a warming trend, not a cooling trend, even within that ridiculously small time window.
* Their conclusions about CO2 and plant growth have been thoroughly debunked -- they based their specuulations on lab conditions that do not exist in nature.
The list goes on, but I'm running out of words.
The IPCC based their findings on over 20,000 peer reviewed articles. The kooks at OISM had NO expertise and NO outside peer review.
Grimble | 5:34 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Also:
How can I dispute Lord Monckton? He doesn't say anything in the paragraph you listed at 2:28! He simply takes the opinion of a few scientists in a very small minority and calls it a "lack of consensus."
That's the whole global-warming doubter strategy. Set up a phoney-baloney "Institute" like OISM and publish articles in phoney-baloney journals that undergo no peer review. Then people like you and rightwing celebs like Lord Monckton have something to refer to to claim that the issue has two sides.
In 1998 the OISM also circulated a famous petition that is often cited by right-wingers as evidence of a "dispute" in the scientific community. The petition had 31,000 "scientists" as its signatories. Turns out the list was heavily padded. Out of the 31,000 only a few dozen were meteorologists, oceanographers, and glaciologists - and almost none were climate specialists. Some of the "scientists" listed were PE teachers; one signer was a member of the Spice Girls!
On the other hand, the IPCC's findings were based on 20,000 studies by climate experts.
Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr. Stephan Harrison of Oxford University have both thoroughly debunked Lord Monckton's pseudo-science. Look it up.
How can I dispute Lord Monckton? He doesn't say anything in the paragraph you listed at 2:28! He simply takes the opinion of a few scientists in a very small minority and calls it a "lack of consensus."
That's the whole global-warming doubter strategy. Set up a phoney-baloney "Institute" like OISM and publish articles in phoney-baloney journals that undergo no peer review. Then people like you and rightwing celebs like Lord Monckton have something to refer to to claim that the issue has two sides.
In 1998 the OISM also circulated a famous petition that is often cited by right-wingers as evidence of a "dispute" in the scientific community. The petition had 31,000 "scientists" as its signatories. Turns out the list was heavily padded. Out of the 31,000 only a few dozen were meteorologists, oceanographers, and glaciologists - and almost none were climate specialists. Some of the "scientists" listed were PE teachers; one signer was a member of the Spice Girls!
On the other hand, the IPCC's findings were based on 20,000 studies by climate experts.
Gavin Schmidt of NASA and Dr. Stephan Harrison of Oxford University have both thoroughly debunked Lord Monckton's pseudo-science. Look it up.
Charles | 6:00 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Grimble,
It's really an easy concept to understand. If your 100 mechanics used a mechanism to tell me why my check engine light is on and they all gave me the same fact that X is the issue and it needs to be replaced and the light will go off, I'd change X and it would be done.
The problem with your belief is that you don't have any facts to support your conclusion. Major leaps of faith have to be found in your conclusion that global warming is real and that it is man-made.
Your front man is not a mechanic, he's a used car salesman who has no clue what he is talking about, yet you believe and swallow.
Temperatures have gone down for the last 8-9 years. What do you make of those facts? How is that global warming? Why are scientists who "signed on" to the IPCC initial document rescinding and saying the conclusions are wrong?
I'm sorry, but just because you want to believe it to be true doesn't make it true.
I always get a 2nd opinion regarding car matters. You might want to get a 2nd opinion regarding your global warming belief system.
It's really an easy concept to understand. If your 100 mechanics used a mechanism to tell me why my check engine light is on and they all gave me the same fact that X is the issue and it needs to be replaced and the light will go off, I'd change X and it would be done.
The problem with your belief is that you don't have any facts to support your conclusion. Major leaps of faith have to be found in your conclusion that global warming is real and that it is man-made.
Your front man is not a mechanic, he's a used car salesman who has no clue what he is talking about, yet you believe and swallow.
Temperatures have gone down for the last 8-9 years. What do you make of those facts? How is that global warming? Why are scientists who "signed on" to the IPCC initial document rescinding and saying the conclusions are wrong?
I'm sorry, but just because you want to believe it to be true doesn't make it true.
I always get a 2nd opinion regarding car matters. You might want to get a 2nd opinion regarding your global warming belief system.
RE: Grimble | 6:45 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
While it may been based on 20000 studies, the individual studies each ONLY
support their piece.
They do not constitute suppport for the whole or the larger conclusions.
THus, many of the scientists have said and since recinded their parts.
So while they may belive in ther small part they do believe in or support man made global warming.
And while you can say every person or industry can be a little more cleaner, that doesn't means it will actually change Global Warming,
And in fact all studies say the effects will be immeasurably small even after years and years of trying.
So again what is the point? especially if it is just natural.
So should we bankrupt industies and destroy econmies of countries chasing and gaining nothing but ruin of our societies pushing us back to the middle ages?
Or do we forge ahead and deal the future as it comes.
And not destroy ourselves (or at the very least not get panties in a bunch) over nothing.
And trust that science and entrepenuers and captialist will privide us with better solutions in time.
They do not constitute suppport for the whole or the larger conclusions.
THus, many of the scientists have said and since recinded their parts.
So while they may belive in ther small part they do believe in or support man made global warming.
And while you can say every person or industry can be a little more cleaner, that doesn't means it will actually change Global Warming,
And in fact all studies say the effects will be immeasurably small even after years and years of trying.
So again what is the point? especially if it is just natural.
So should we bankrupt industies and destroy econmies of countries chasing and gaining nothing but ruin of our societies pushing us back to the middle ages?
Or do we forge ahead and deal the future as it comes.
And not destroy ourselves (or at the very least not get panties in a bunch) over nothing.
And trust that science and entrepenuers and captialist will privide us with better solutions in time.
Mike Richards | 6:56 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Grimble @ 5:34,
It only takes ONE error in the "peer review" process to discredit the whole process. If the process works, then at least one scientist in that group would surely find an obvious error. If the error goes undetected, or if the data is added after peer review, then either the process or the IPCC is suspect.
Apart from that, it looks like you've taken the side of the authors who "angrily dismissed Soon and Baliunas (2003)" quoted here by Lord Monckton in the Gore Gored CSPP Reprint of 11-21-06:
"Mr. Gore says that all of the peer-reviewed evidence points in the same direction. A very large proportion of it points in the opposite direction, as the papers listed here make plain. For instance, Soon and Baliunas (2003) listed some 240 scientific papers in which a period of at least 50 years of anomalous drought, rainfall or temperature were indicated at some time during the mediaeval warm period. The authors of the �hockey-stick� graph angrily dismissed Soon and Baliunas (2003) as irrelevant, but � whatever the paper�s faults � it demonstrates that the �consensus� repeatedly claimed by the UN and its supporters is far from real."
It only takes ONE error in the "peer review" process to discredit the whole process. If the process works, then at least one scientist in that group would surely find an obvious error. If the error goes undetected, or if the data is added after peer review, then either the process or the IPCC is suspect.
Apart from that, it looks like you've taken the side of the authors who "angrily dismissed Soon and Baliunas (2003)" quoted here by Lord Monckton in the Gore Gored CSPP Reprint of 11-21-06:
"Mr. Gore says that all of the peer-reviewed evidence points in the same direction. A very large proportion of it points in the opposite direction, as the papers listed here make plain. For instance, Soon and Baliunas (2003) listed some 240 scientific papers in which a period of at least 50 years of anomalous drought, rainfall or temperature were indicated at some time during the mediaeval warm period. The authors of the �hockey-stick� graph angrily dismissed Soon and Baliunas (2003) as irrelevant, but � whatever the paper�s faults � it demonstrates that the �consensus� repeatedly claimed by the UN and its supporters is far from real."
A hoax, folks... | 6:59 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Global warming is a hoax, people.
It just doesn't exist. If you do some research you'll see that the science doesn't support the fears that the liberal, tree-huggers are trying to cram down our throats.
Plus, the earth was created to serve man and not the other way around. To me, that's a key point, just about as crucial as the science, that tells me it's all a lie.
In the liberals' view, we're supposed to forsake anything and everything that betters mankind if it pollutes the earth at all. I'm not saying that we should not take care of our home here in the universe; we certainly should, but the pollution put out by a car taking an employee thirty miles to work should be weighed against the value of a worker earning a paycheck to support their family.
You want to bike to work?, I think that's great, but don't make that the ONLY option for everyone.
"Global warming" and "going green" is like a demented religion with these people; passionate but going in the wrong direction.
It just doesn't exist. If you do some research you'll see that the science doesn't support the fears that the liberal, tree-huggers are trying to cram down our throats.
Plus, the earth was created to serve man and not the other way around. To me, that's a key point, just about as crucial as the science, that tells me it's all a lie.
In the liberals' view, we're supposed to forsake anything and everything that betters mankind if it pollutes the earth at all. I'm not saying that we should not take care of our home here in the universe; we certainly should, but the pollution put out by a car taking an employee thirty miles to work should be weighed against the value of a worker earning a paycheck to support their family.
You want to bike to work?, I think that's great, but don't make that the ONLY option for everyone.
"Global warming" and "going green" is like a demented religion with these people; passionate but going in the wrong direction.
Grimble | 7:29 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Charles:
I don't have any facts to support my conclusion? I just listed several! And your comment recycles some of the claims for which I already cited solid scientific refutations. Get past your personal hatred of Gore and see what the actual scientists say.
RE Grimble @ 6:45:
Please provide references for the "many scientists" who have rescinded. Please cite references for "all studies" that prove effects to reduce carbon emissions will have no effect. As for bankrupting industries: trying to tackle this issue would do the exact opposite! It would be the biggest industrial expansion we've ever undertaken that doesn't involve going to war. And if we don't get with the program now we'll be playing catchup with China and Europe for decades.
Mike:
Monckton does nothing in this quote to engage with the scientific criticisms of Soon and Baliunus. Baliunus's calculation of temperature in past centuries was based on highly speculative methods; when other scientists repeated the study using more reliable temperature indicators, Baliunus's claims fell apart. There were many other criticisms I don't have room to get into -- but others (like those I mentioned) have. Monckton is in show business, not science.
I don't have any facts to support my conclusion? I just listed several! And your comment recycles some of the claims for which I already cited solid scientific refutations. Get past your personal hatred of Gore and see what the actual scientists say.
RE Grimble @ 6:45:
Please provide references for the "many scientists" who have rescinded. Please cite references for "all studies" that prove effects to reduce carbon emissions will have no effect. As for bankrupting industries: trying to tackle this issue would do the exact opposite! It would be the biggest industrial expansion we've ever undertaken that doesn't involve going to war. And if we don't get with the program now we'll be playing catchup with China and Europe for decades.
Mike:
Monckton does nothing in this quote to engage with the scientific criticisms of Soon and Baliunus. Baliunus's calculation of temperature in past centuries was based on highly speculative methods; when other scientists repeated the study using more reliable temperature indicators, Baliunus's claims fell apart. There were many other criticisms I don't have room to get into -- but others (like those I mentioned) have. Monckton is in show business, not science.
Charles | 8:59 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Grimble, I see no facts from you. Again, global warming but temperatures are on
the decline for the past decade. I'm sorry, but I live in AZ and I have
some beach front property that I think you'd be interested in.....
Gore has you hook line and sinker....and you've sunk with the ridiculous claims. No proof, no facts, no mechanic's report that can pinpoint with proof of the supposed problem...just a bunch of people who have been duped...because the CONSENSUS is in, the DEBATE is over, Global Warming IS MAN-MADE!
fools on a fools errand...
Gore has you hook line and sinker....and you've sunk with the ridiculous claims. No proof, no facts, no mechanic's report that can pinpoint with proof of the supposed problem...just a bunch of people who have been duped...because the CONSENSUS is in, the DEBATE is over, Global Warming IS MAN-MADE!
fools on a fools errand...
Mike Richards | 9:33 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
The stupidity of imposing sanctions against countries that do not accept the
"fact" that MAN is causing global warming is shown in this quote from
Lord Monckton,
"Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) has told the Senate that even if all signatories were to comply with Kyoto in full (most won�t) world temperature in 2100 would be one-twenty-fifth of a degree Celsius lower than it would be if Kyoto had never happened. We should not fool ourselves that feel-good, gesture politics such as the irrelevant Kyoto Protocol will make any difference to the reality of the problem � if there is a problem. The US Senate � during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore � rightly voted unanimously, 97-0, to reject Kyoto or any suchlike treaty that did not bear down upon carbon emissions from all the nations of the world, including fast-developing countries like China."
"Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) has told the Senate that even if all signatories were to comply with Kyoto in full (most won�t) world temperature in 2100 would be one-twenty-fifth of a degree Celsius lower than it would be if Kyoto had never happened. We should not fool ourselves that feel-good, gesture politics such as the irrelevant Kyoto Protocol will make any difference to the reality of the problem � if there is a problem. The US Senate � during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore � rightly voted unanimously, 97-0, to reject Kyoto or any suchlike treaty that did not bear down upon carbon emissions from all the nations of the world, including fast-developing countries like China."
Grimble | 10:27 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Charles,
My post at 5:18 including several points that neither you or Mike Richards has rebutted; one of those points directly addressed your erroneous and repeated referral to the global cooling canard.
You have failed to respond to my request that you back up your claim about the supposed scientists that rescinded their endorsement of the IPCC report.
You have failed to back up with evidence your outrageous claim that there is even a critical mass of scientists that question global warming, let alone a "CONSENSUS," as you claim.
You keep mentioning Gore. I have not discussed Gore; I've referred to scientists from NASA, from Oxford, from Harvard, from the IPCC. You have not produced a single counterargument or any opposing evidence.
The debate is indeed over, and the consensus is indeed in. Global warming is recognized as a threat by the overwhelming majority of scientists.
No one this thread has referred to any "doubter" scholarship that has not already been refuted by actual climatologists.
In the mean time, China and Europe are listening to real scientists and beating us to alternative energy technology. We'll be playing catchup for years to come because of fools like Monckton and OISM.
My post at 5:18 including several points that neither you or Mike Richards has rebutted; one of those points directly addressed your erroneous and repeated referral to the global cooling canard.
You have failed to respond to my request that you back up your claim about the supposed scientists that rescinded their endorsement of the IPCC report.
You have failed to back up with evidence your outrageous claim that there is even a critical mass of scientists that question global warming, let alone a "CONSENSUS," as you claim.
You keep mentioning Gore. I have not discussed Gore; I've referred to scientists from NASA, from Oxford, from Harvard, from the IPCC. You have not produced a single counterargument or any opposing evidence.
The debate is indeed over, and the consensus is indeed in. Global warming is recognized as a threat by the overwhelming majority of scientists.
No one this thread has referred to any "doubter" scholarship that has not already been refuted by actual climatologists.
In the mean time, China and Europe are listening to real scientists and beating us to alternative energy technology. We'll be playing catchup for years to come because of fools like Monckton and OISM.
Grimble | 10:37 p.m. Aug. 17, 2008
Mike Richards,
When you're quoting Lord Monckton quoting James Inhofe, you've really turned this into a circus and given up all aspirations to actual scientific discussion. Because guess where crackpots like James Inhofe get their information? From the 22-year old veterinarian and retired Spice Girl that the OISM call "scientists," and from the articles by Monckton based on the OISM nonsense.
I'm still waiting for any report supporting your case from an actual climatologist, or any response to the scientific critiques that have led virtually all climatologists to dismiss as quackery the work of the OISM and the journalism of Monckton.
When you're quoting Lord Monckton quoting James Inhofe, you've really turned this into a circus and given up all aspirations to actual scientific discussion. Because guess where crackpots like James Inhofe get their information? From the 22-year old veterinarian and retired Spice Girl that the OISM call "scientists," and from the articles by Monckton based on the OISM nonsense.
I'm still waiting for any report supporting your case from an actual climatologist, or any response to the scientific critiques that have led virtually all climatologists to dismiss as quackery the work of the OISM and the journalism of Monckton.
mark | 12:39 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008
Charles! Are you not reading what Grimble is saying? I mean really. My gosh,
Charles, he is making a very strong argument.
And Mike I know I haven't disputed what you have said. (of course you have not disputed what Grimble has said.) But I did not set out to dispute what you said.
All I said was that Grimble has got the best of you and you can not see it.
And Mike I know I haven't disputed what you have said. (of course you have not disputed what Grimble has said.) But I did not set out to dispute what you said.
All I said was that Grimble has got the best of you and you can not see it.
Save the planet | 7:44 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008
Everyone stop breathing for 10 minutes. That way, man-made global warming may
have a chance to be stopped! Just stop!
Mike Richards | 8:39 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008
Grimble,
Let's roll back the clock and allow only "actual climatologists" to contribute to the discussion on global warming. Let's get the U.N. out of the debate. Let's get Nobel Prize recipients out of the debate. Let's get everyone who is not a certified "actual climatologist" out of the debate. Let's nullify all signatures to the Kyoto Accord because people other than "actual climatologists" were allowed to peddle the "man caused" global warming point of doctrine.
Let's start over and let the "actual climatologists" prove conclusively that man is causing 100% of global warming. Let's let them show us exactly how much the globe is warming from each source of energy that man uses. Let's let them prove that nothing except man is to blame. Let's let them shown with 100% accurate data that they have even the slightest clue about what is actually happening.
Of course, to make it fair, they can only speak to their area of expertise - which is climate. They can't speak on the subject of carbon dioxide because that lies outside of their area of expertise - and anything outside their area of expertise is not allowed to enter the debate.
Let's roll back the clock and allow only "actual climatologists" to contribute to the discussion on global warming. Let's get the U.N. out of the debate. Let's get Nobel Prize recipients out of the debate. Let's get everyone who is not a certified "actual climatologist" out of the debate. Let's nullify all signatures to the Kyoto Accord because people other than "actual climatologists" were allowed to peddle the "man caused" global warming point of doctrine.
Let's start over and let the "actual climatologists" prove conclusively that man is causing 100% of global warming. Let's let them show us exactly how much the globe is warming from each source of energy that man uses. Let's let them prove that nothing except man is to blame. Let's let them shown with 100% accurate data that they have even the slightest clue about what is actually happening.
Of course, to make it fair, they can only speak to their area of expertise - which is climate. They can't speak on the subject of carbon dioxide because that lies outside of their area of expertise - and anything outside their area of expertise is not allowed to enter the debate.
Grimble | 10:29 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008
Rather than answer my straightforward request to provide me with any evidence by
experts that support your opinion, you respond with a childishly misconstrued,
reductio-ad-absurdum rant.
I simply asked you to provide scientific evidence for your position that did not come from a widely debunked English dandy or from an organization that considers Spice Girls scientists.
You have failed to do so, so instead you mock my preference for actual science. I respond to your claims with science. You respond to my claims with the online equivalent of "Nuh-HUH!"
Does that mean we're done here? Because I've got some work to do. And you probably have some climate reports from Ginger Spice to read.
Unless you have any actual arguments with which to respond to the information I've posted here, in which case I'm happy to continue the conversation.
I simply asked you to provide scientific evidence for your position that did not come from a widely debunked English dandy or from an organization that considers Spice Girls scientists.
You have failed to do so, so instead you mock my preference for actual science. I respond to your claims with science. You respond to my claims with the online equivalent of "Nuh-HUH!"
Does that mean we're done here? Because I've got some work to do. And you probably have some climate reports from Ginger Spice to read.
Unless you have any actual arguments with which to respond to the information I've posted here, in which case I'm happy to continue the conversation.
BMW120556 | 11:09 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008
I have noticed many of you saying you will go along with the majority of
scientists. The truth is the scientists that support the global warming theory
are the minority! This theory is supported by scientists who have a vested
intrest the the political machine be it research grants or pay checks. There was
a list of 33,000 scientists and climatologists, ect. who believe global warming
is a hoax delivered to the Whitehouse last month.
This is all about the redistribution of wealth and taxation without rasing taxes!
This is all about the redistribution of wealth and taxation without rasing taxes!
BMW120556 | 11:27 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008
Grimble,
Here are a few of the many scientists and professonals that dispute GW. If you want facts anad staistics go to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change on the internet. As amatter of fact NASA Admistrator Michale Griffin thinks it is a flawed theory as well.
Tim Patterson[31], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[32][33]
Continued
Here are a few of the many scientists and professonals that dispute GW. If you want facts anad staistics go to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change on the internet. As amatter of fact NASA Admistrator Michale Griffin thinks it is a flawed theory as well.
Tim Patterson[31], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[32][33]
Continued
BMW120556 | 11:28 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology
Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University:
"This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global
ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation
variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do
with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[23]
"I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes
ever perpetrated on the American people."[24] "So many people have a
vested interest in this global-warming thing�all these big
labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to
study it more."[25]
BMW120556 | 11:32 a.m. Aug. 18, 2008
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World
Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a
real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be
attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has
been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human
influences."[26]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn�t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[30]
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; founder of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers...this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."[56]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn�t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[30]
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; founder of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers...this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."[56]
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- George lost in rivalry hatefest 1:33 a.m.
- Paul returns after being out 1:04 a.m.
- Nets finally win 1:04 a.m.
- Olympus downs Box Elder 1:03 a.m.
- Saint Mary's next for Aggies 1:03 a.m.
- Cougars look to bounce back 1:03 a.m.
- Battle goes to PG's Hamson 1:03 a.m.
- Snow hopes to snap bowl game skid 1:03 a.m.
- U.S. gets favorable World Cup draw 1:03 a.m.
- Utah's Wynn healing up 1:03 a.m.
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony
- Mr. Football 2009: Tuni Kanuch
- 5A high school football All-State
- Miller predicted Tiger's rough road
- Utah Jazz going green with unis
- 4A high school football: All-State
- Harpring's NBA career is over
- Nutty Putty Cave to be sealed today
- MVPs wrap up stellar prep careers
- Jazz: Miles, Kirilenko to play Friday
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
410 - Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?294
- BYU says Hall incident resolved247
- Letters: Liberal because LDS237
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game189
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry184
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage118
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore118
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan104
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
and they are correct. Good grief.
In the wake of a great, competitive game all people can talk about is Max...
For those who keep saying there are other places where you can go "to...
Boozer is just doing and showing what he has always had, Talent! As long as...
Condolences to the LeBaron family! He was the mission Pres in South Africa...
I've enjoyed reading Dick Harmon's articles through the years. An enduring...
I think we have found our stride. But we need to bring in one more player to...
to make a move until nearer the deadline. You can't get the best player until...
"If this team had an interior Defense for 48 minutes they would contend. "...
What have you done for me lately, Boozer? Well, lately Boozer has been...
Advertisements
I think the same thing can be said about Liberals, right? They won't admit when they are wrong either. So I go by the facts, and what I found personally, through my own research is that the world has these highs and lows naturally, I am not going to fall victim to a blame America for everything mentality that find so many others prone to do.