Isn't this ironic, "One of these explanations is that Chinas coal use
doubled from 2002 to 2007, putting more sulphate aerosol particles into the
atmosphere and cooling the earth by reflecting solar energy back into
space." In summary, burning coal reduces global warming. Does not quite
fit the picture we have been led to believe. Or, at least, I have been led to
believe. Interesting for scientific inquiry is why with increased emissions of
greenhouse gases, have the targets and projections for global warming provided
by the computer models missed so badly. Could it be the models are imperfect?
@ JP I was in high school in the fifties not the sevsnties so the article
referenced wasn't published when I was in high school, so I don't think that was
the source of the misinformation being spouted at that time.Nevar the less. all
the tax dollars we throw at this climate change is not going to make any
signifigant changes in it.
well... if climate change advocates get to cherry pick data, why not the rest of
To "JP | 2:54 p.m." do you know why the evidence posted in the
journals is typically from GW Alarmists?According to the
non-alarmists the journals won't accept their papers because the journals are
controlled by people who are GW Alarmists. One example is Stanley Goldenberg,
NOAA Scientist. In an article titled "NOAA Meteorologist Claims 'Gross,
Blatant Censorship' by Media for Speaking Out Against Climate Change
Alarmism." He outlines how anything disproving GW is ignored and not
@RedShirt "Believe what you want, all I know is that each year we see more
evidence that the GW alarmists are either making up data or have missed large
pieces of the puzzle."If what you see is more evidence that the
data is made up, it's partly because you're ignoring any evidence that
contradicts you, and partly because the news media gives the issue roughly 50/50
coverage when really the evidence presented in journals is more like 95/5.
To "John44 | 1:33 p.m." and "JP | 1:27 p.m." so what you are
saying is that you are going to believe a consensus rather than look at what the
GW alarmists are saying, and questioning them. It was the consensus during the
middle ages that the earth was flat.If you say that it was
irrelevant, why is it irrelevant? It was the leading scientific thought of the
time.If you say it was irrelevant because what they said was based
on observation, you are wrong. They had mathematical models predicting the
motion of the stars based on a flat earth. There is nothing different between
the examples I gave and the current GW alarmists.Believe what you
want, all I know is that each year we see more evidence that the GW alarmists
are either making up data or have missed large pieces of the puzzle.
Demisana, can you show me the studies, done by ice scientists, published in peer
reviewed journals, that say ice is increasing overall?We just
finished the warmest decade in history, and this year promises to be a scorcher,
world-wide, once again.Surely you've not been looking at the reports
of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, have you? Check it out at NSIDC dot
ORG. Ice in the Arctic this year is two standard deviations below the 1980-2000
average. 2007 was the previous worst year -- 2011 is shaping up to be as little
ice as 2007, or maybe worse.Scientists don't get reputations by
being stupidly wrong. Check the data for yourself.
To RedShirtYour comparisons to the 1400's and 1930's are irrelevant.
Knowledge and technology have advanced exponentially since those
times, but if the "exceptional minority/martyr" excuse makes you feel
better than go for it.And I'm not going to do homework for you.
Seems you've made up your mind anyway, so what's the point?
cjb said: [quote]If the evidence were valid. Why the fraud?[end quote]You were aiming that at the "skeptics," right? The only study
retracted, for fraud and plagiarism, the Wegner study, had been those done by
those who claim warming isn't real, or we don't need to worry about it.If science says no warming, why the fraud?
@RedShirtYou picked a poor example to prove your point. In the 1400's,
most educated people believed the world was round. Sailors had been observing
that fact for centuries, after all. From Wikipedia (quoting a pamphlet from the
Members of the Historical Association, 1945):"The idea that educated
men at the time of Columbus believed that the earth was flat, and that this
belief was one of the obstacles to be overcome by Columbus before he could get
his project sanctioned, remains one of the hardiest errors in teaching."
The Rock complains: "1. We can't predict the path of a hurricane 12 hours
out so how can we forecast the climate decades out?"Farmers
have been doing that for 5,000 years. It's a key part of civilization. The
difficulty, now, is that the climate is changing, rapidly. We have the data
that show it. Have you checked the plant zones from USDA lately?"2. The hacked email from EAU (East Anglican University) show they were
trying to hide the fact that they were distorting the data."Five different investigations contradict your claims. But the
"study" that showed errors by scientists claiming warming? That one
has been retracted for plagiarism and science error. Don't look through the
telescope backwards."3. When you look at the treaties that they
want us to sign you understand that this is an attach on our freedom."How is clean air "giving up freedom?" You must be too young
to remember smog. No one in your family has asthma? You're lucky.
@The Rock "2. The hacked email from EAU (East Anglican University) show
they were trying to hide the fact that they were distorting the data."A. It's actually the University of East Anglia. Anglicans are something else
entirelyB. No, they don't show anything of the sort. That was the initial
media frenzy, but after the media had moved onto something else and the emails
were actually looked at they were found to be rather unexciting.@
desert Pete "When I was in high school in the fifties they told us we were
all going to freeze to death."This idea is due to an article
published in Time in 1974 called "Another Ice Age?" and another in
Newsweek in 1975 called "The Cooling World." They misrepresented the
views of most scientists of the time. Of papers published in scientific peer
reviewed journals from 1965 to 1979, 10% thought the earth was cooling wheras
62% thought it was warming.
To "John44 | 12:40 p.m." wow, are you ever a flat earther. Since when
is science determined by scientists simply agreeing on something.In
the 1400's, the leading scientists believed the earth was flat. Only a minority
believed that it was round. Look at who was correct.In the 1930's
scientists believed that the sound barrier could not be broken, the minority
believed it was possible. Again look at who was correct.If you want
to "prove" to us that the science behind global warming is settled,
give us the names of some published data that shows that warming exists. I will
hold that data to the same standard that all other science publications use.
Show us that their data meets the 95% Confidence Interval criteria. I have yet
to hear of a global warming study meeting that criteria. The best studies all
So 90%+ of relevant scientists agree, but there are still some well-funded
deniers out there, and yet the headline is: Studies: Global warming,
climate science far from settledGo find some people who think the
Earth is flat. Then you can write the headline:Studies: Americans
divided on shape of Earth.
To "MormonDem | 9:31 p.m." actually, you don't have to cherry pick
data to find all of the flaws in the Global Warming/Climate Change theories.
All you need to do is go to the data sources and you can see where the flaws
start.The UK Register's article "Painting by numbers: NASA's
peculiar thermometer" show how NASA has been adjusting the temperatures to
show global warming over the past 10 years. The raw data showed that the US has
been cooling during the 20th century. The "adjusted" data shows
warming. Why would that be?The NOAA web site has a map of all of
the Available GHCN Temperature Stations. You should note that there are large
gaps in the spacing throughout Africa, the Oceans, and the Poles. Between
datapoints, they interpolate, which is a bad thing to do over thousands of
miles.Also, if you take the UAH, RSS, and NASA data since 1979 or
so, the data collected from satelites shows either no warming or else a slight
cooling, while only the NASA landbased data shows warming.Those are
a few ideas that shoot large holes in GW theories.
Roy Spencer, in the journal Remote Sensing...This is the same Roy
Spencer who is a regular guest on Coast to Coast AM, the late night conspiracy
radio show started by Art Bell.Am I the only one that finds it
hysterical he is cited as a credible source?
I can understand the complaints about uninformed people spouting off their
opinions that Global Warming isn't a big problem, but what I don't understand is
why certain people aren't equally skeptical of equally uninformed politicians
and their drastic solutions to a problem they don't fully understand either.
Points to ponder:1. Al Gore flunked science in high school.2.
In college Al Gore got a "D" in science.3. When has climate not
changed?4. Water expands when frozen. If icebergs were to melt, the
oceans would recede, -not flood the coastlines.5. Using heat index to
report temperatures has led people into thinking this is a really hot summer.6. When reporting melting icebergs and polar bears, the pictures need to be in
January and not July, and salt water lowers the freezing point.7. Our
government leaders have caused more problems than climate change.
If the evidence were valid. Why the fraud?Fool me once shame on you
[quote]Errmm. Runwasatch was being sarcastic. Al Gore, did say that he took the
"initiative in creating the internet".It's just too fun and easy
to make fun of his ridiculous statements and assertions.[end quote]I
think you've still misquoted him.Al Gore was the only Member of
Congress who protested the attempts to kill ARPANET, the forerunner to the
internet, back in the Reagan administration. Gore said we couldn't afford to
kill it, because while it was mostly college professors and researchers using at
the time, it had commercial possibilities moving information electronically.Gore was right. He prevailed after a massive campaign. He was
far-sighted, and deserves all the credit you wish to deny him for being
visionary. Of course, the people at Apple and Google recognized that, and put
him on their boards. In the marketplace, Al Gore's value is recognized.
Tell that to the retreating glaciers, rising ocean temperatures, atmospheric
CO2, earlier migration of birds, erratic weather patterns and a long list of
climate changes. Polls are a measure of public awareness, not scientific fact.
I'm always amazed at the armchair scientists who are so certain they know better
than 90% of the people who have spent their entire careers studying this. I'm
guessing the majority of the people behind these comments believe what they
believe because their pundit of choice told them so. If you'd like
to actually become informed on the subject before entrenching yourself in your
chosen view, check out skepticalscience.
Brigham Young University Life Science professor Tom Smith, is a "pal"
of Charles Monnett. Tom and the BYU Life Sciences has based an entire polar
bear research project on the work of Charles. On their web site, BYU Life
Sciences quotes the discredited Charles Monnett claim: "The reduction of
sea ice is having a dramatic impact on polar bear populations."Researching polar bear populations is certainly a worthwhile scientific
project, but basing the study on discredited science is academically unsound as
it invalidates the entire study while destroying the credibility of the
institution sponsoring the study. And what about Monnett's polar ice
cap melt? It is easy to find the NASA satellite images of the Polar Cap. They
began photographing them in 1980. Comparing 1980 with 2011 sets the record
straight concerning ice cap melt, and it does not support the Charles
@ AZEIR. Ice has been melting on earth for millions of years, long before SUVs.
At one time, most of N. America was covering in ice, but thankfully, most of it
melted so we could live here! Intelligent design?
Sigh...What's the net change in global ice? Since Antarctica ice
has been growing...Since when is carbon dioxide a pollutant???
Hello - it's the natural biproduct of carbon based animal life - and needed by
plant life. Plant a few more trees, already.Exactly how much carbon
dioxide are we talking about humans contributing, compared to the amount already
naturally occurring? Far less than 1 percent.What's the cost vs.
benefit of reducing our carbon contribution? Even the most optimistic global
warming science suggests that we'd have to cut our energy usage by 80 percent or
more, in order to reduce global temperatures by less than 1 degree F. Can you
imagine the level of human suffering caused by such drastic cuts? Unemployment,
famine, disease...Much of the global warming hysteria serves to keep
third world countries from developing - oh the horrors if all those people got
cars and electricity. Totally ignoring the fact that they'd then not be burning
carbon to cook, and using flatulent animals for transport. Not to mention the
single biggest factor in environmental cleanliness is the ability to AFFORD to
use less polluting methods.
Funny how none of these studies refute basic physics that heat melts ice. I'm no
scientist, but when you can literally watch the polar ice caps melt,
millions-year-old glaciers melt, high-altitude mountain snow caps melt, I think
it's a pretty safe bet something is getting warmer.You can deny the
cause all you want, but are you REALLY willing to be the planet on your theory
the planet isn't warming when you can watch all of this ice melt?
I would love for some enterprising journalist to do a story on which hypothesis
is more likely to get you a grant if you are a researcher: "Global Warming
is Agenda Science" or "Global Warming is now called Climate Change and
it will Kill Us All!!!"
Hmm - so, here we have this story where the majority of the support on the
"no climate change" side of the debate is provided by scientists who
have backpedaled on their findings or by non-scientists....Also in
today's paper is a story of a dry region of Chile that has gotten more rain in
the month of July than they normally get in a year (and yes, they were really
surprised because their rainfall has been declining and it was thought that
climate change would make it more of a desert, not less of one).And
on Yahoo, there is a story about the record number of records broken by July's
heat.The debate is not about whether or not climate change is
occurring - the debate is about what is causing it and what can be done about
it. And ultimately - will humans survive it?
Even if you don't "believe" in climate change, the same things that
cause climate change also cause pollution, and we know that is real. The entire
world will be better off without such pollution (not to mention not fighting
wars for oil), our country will be better off if we take the lead if developing
and producing the solutions, and our cities will be much more livable if we
convert to cleaner, renewable energy.And if, along the way, we
happen to prevent catastrophic climate change by addressing our pollution
issues, so much the better.
There was a great story on Radio West today analyzing why quack
climate-change-doubter science gets traction in the media, even though only a
tiny fringe minority of scientists subscribe to it. Here in America, we pick
and choose the science that we believe according to whatever science is most
friendly to our political point of view. In the rest of the world, they're
investing in clean technologies and devoting more and more resources to
research. We're getting left in the dust.I live just down the road
from the wind farm at the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon. Nearly every nut and
bolt of that thing was imported, because we've been too busy in this country
arguing with the quack doubters to develop the technologies that response to
actual science. It's as if we'd recused ourselves from the space race because a
few fringe scientists didn't believe the moon was real.The rest of
the world laughs at us that we've even politicized this issue. It's ignorance on
a massive scale.
Nothing new here at all. It's the same old MO by the deniers. Muddy the waters
with cherry-picked data. You can already find refutations of this nonsense by
mainstream scientists. For a sound trouncing of this so-called science, look up
the response by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo.Even the author
himself, a climate change doubter, has already backpedaled from the
sensationalist headlines that the rightwing press has trumpeted about the
study.The same scientists who doubt climate change today are the
ones who were hired by the tobacco companies to doubt the danger of tobacco
thirty years ago.97% of climate scientists believe climate change is
real and exacerbated by humans.If 9 out of 10 oncologists said I had
cancer, do you think I'd ignore them and listen to the one herbalist that told
me to just drink a green smoothie?
When I was in high school in the fifties they told us we were all going to
freeze to death.They used the same argument then for the reasons as they do now
only we are going to fry.The climate will change no matter how many tax dollars
we throw at it.We need to cool down all the hot air in Washington and Al Gore's
neighboohood. It will be just as effective as the solutions they are trying to
sell us and the world.
"In a study published July 25 in the science journal Remote Sensing,
William Braswell and Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville and a former senior scientist for climate
studies at NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center, suggest the Earths atmosphere is
more efficient at releasing energy into space than models used to forecast
climate change have been programmed to believe.See, some of us tried to
tell you this global warming hoax was supported by junk science! Yep, that's
consensus science for you!
1. We can't predict the path of a hurricane 12 hours out so how can we forecast
the climate decades out?2. The hacked email from EAU (East Anglican
University) show they were trying to hide the fact that they were distorting the
data.3. When you look at the treaties that they want us to sign you
understand that this is an attach on our freedom.I refuse to
sacrifice my family, beautify daughters or our economy to the climate gods. It
makes just as much sense to sacrifice our daughters to the volcano gods just
because some medicine man told us that we need to.Nope: I am a
senior research engineer and know too much science to believe the predicting the
climate is even possible.
Errmm. Runwasatch was being sarcastic. Al Gore, did say that he took the
"initiative in creating the internet". It's just too fun and
easy to make fun of his ridiculous statements and assertions.
Whenever someone says Al Gore invented the internet, I know they probably aren't
very well informed.
If this article communicated anything, it was that the "Climate
Change" or "Global Warming" or whatever they call it now, is a
political issue, not a scientific issue.If we want an excuse to
spend more in taxes, we vote for politicians that will further the politics of
global warming. If we would rather not spend more in taxes, then we vote for
politicians that further the politics against global warming. After all, this is
a beauty contest, not science.(This reminds me of the
"Camelot" Broadway musical, in which laws were made to outlaw snowing
except between December and February. Man-made laws, to achieve political ends,
somehow don't seem to work with Mother Nature.)
Create a theory and then look for evidence to support it. Great science!!Never mind what the evidence shows; never mind the actual data.Let's all believe the computer models based on assumptions and guesses
(working together so well because of Al Gore's inventing the internet).It's a lovely world when you're a liberal...you just say it's so...whatever
you want...and it's so. Disagree and you're vilified and called a terrorist by
the Vice President!Thank heavens we spewed more CO2 into the air
back in the 70's...you know when the same nuts were screaming we were going into
a new iceage?? It sure would be miserably cold if we hadn't...they were right
about the iceage...right??
You can be sure of poor science when the conclusion to any scientific inquiry is
already "settled" and not open for debate. The most lively fields of
science, such as medicine, are constantly having new and unexpected findings.
Sometimes these are findings which turn a whole scientific community on its head
and reverse many of the preconceived notions of the scientists. If medicine
were to stick with all the "conclusions" of 50 or 100 years ago, it
would be a very poor scientific field with many false and dangerous ideas. If man-made global warming is real, then let all the science - pro and
con - come together in a non-political discussion so scientists can make the
most informed decisions. To immediately disregard anything that disagrees with
the anthropomorphic global climate-change model without examining it on its
merits is to really give credence to the skeptics. Good science is done by
experiment, by examining data, and then by drawing appropriate conclusions.
Good science is not done by majority vote, by coercion, by bullying, and by
suppressing discussion and dissent.