My main thing is that there are so many variables to the planet and to how the sun operates and many other things. That being said I do think that the amounts of crap we are pouring into the air, sea and everywhere else is not going to be good for our planet, much like smoking is not good for your body. There has to be some sort of effect to the polution.
Detailed list of scientists against climate change
- Thread starter binderman
- Start date
Most of this has been said more than once before, but some just ignore it and hope others will also.
The way I see it , our species will argue about it indefinitely until its too late.
The thing that's the biggest problem is the developing nations want the same lifestyles which the rich countries have , but the rich countries are not going to give them that if its going to come at our expense.
As global population increases, and food and water start to become more scarce , I suspect the wars being fought now will look like nothing.
North Korea , Iran , Somalia, its all about what people will do when they're hungry.
Everyone wants their slice of the pie. Just look at the arguments that are starting to develop because the arctic passages are opening up. Nobody gave a shit when it was all ice , but now that shipping lanes are opening up, everyone's laying claim to it.
If you find treasure at the bottom of the ocean, I guarantee someone else will say its theirs.
The thing that's the biggest problem is the developing nations want the same lifestyles which the rich countries have , but the rich countries are not going to give them that if its going to come at our expense.
As global population increases, and food and water start to become more scarce , I suspect the wars being fought now will look like nothing.
North Korea , Iran , Somalia, its all about what people will do when they're hungry.
Everyone wants their slice of the pie. Just look at the arguments that are starting to develop because the arctic passages are opening up. Nobody gave a shit when it was all ice , but now that shipping lanes are opening up, everyone's laying claim to it.
If you find treasure at the bottom of the ocean, I guarantee someone else will say its theirs.
The global warming following has become almost a religion. It’s devoted aren’t interested in facts and are only interested in their dogma. They will jump all over you and call you all sorts of names if you dare question their beliefs. They call you, “denier,” “unbeliever,” or in cahoots with the great satan, the big oil companies.
It’s not surprising that the congregation of the church of global warming are themselves, anti-progress, anti-globalization and anti-west. This is a thinly disguised agenda to bring down the west, specifically the US.
Harper got it right when he said that Kyoto was nothing more than a socialist scheme for transferring wealth from the wealth producing nations to the poor nations. It is a method to damper industrial progress. Copenhagen is just more of the same mentality. Neither one will do anything to help global warming.
Here are some of the facts.
Nobody denies that the world is warming up over the last few decades, although it seems to be cooling slightly in the last decade.
Everyone agrees that industry and commerce need to be more responsible to the environment.
However…
CO2 is a greenhouse gas but a relatively minor one. There are many others in the atmosphere. By far the largest contributor is water vapour. CO2 is considered a byproduct of industry, although the CO2 produced by industry is so minor compared to other natural sources such as a volcanic eruption. So we have focused all our attention this minor industrial portion of a minor greenhouse gas and are blaming ourselves, or more specifically, our industrial progress with warming the planet.
This solar system is blessed with a very stable sun. However, the energy output from our sun is not entirely uniform. We are only just beginning to understand what a complex system our sun is. It has storms just as the earth does. The sun’s variations in energy output have dramatic affects on the earth’s climate. The sun’s output not only affects this planet but the others in the solar system as well.
The study of global warming is focused on the industry CO2 emissions while it entirely ignores the sun. Study of the sun reveals that its variation of energy has a direct relationship to the earth’s climate.
The church of global warming prophesizes that a rise in temperature will be a disaster for the human race and many species of life on this planet. The “end is near” doomsayers are getting shriller and shriller every year. Yet the planet and humans have survived periods of much warmer climate than this and have done fine. The polar bears and penguins have been here millions of years and have seen more dramatic climate changes, yet they did not go extinct.
In conclusion, the world is definitely warming up but there are serious doubts that we are the cause of it. Rather, it is a normal, natural occurrence that we don’t yet fully understand. Yes, we should be kinder to our planet and stop polluting but to buy carbon credits from China is just a stupid idea.
It’s not surprising that the congregation of the church of global warming are themselves, anti-progress, anti-globalization and anti-west. This is a thinly disguised agenda to bring down the west, specifically the US.
Harper got it right when he said that Kyoto was nothing more than a socialist scheme for transferring wealth from the wealth producing nations to the poor nations. It is a method to damper industrial progress. Copenhagen is just more of the same mentality. Neither one will do anything to help global warming.
Here are some of the facts.
Nobody denies that the world is warming up over the last few decades, although it seems to be cooling slightly in the last decade.
Everyone agrees that industry and commerce need to be more responsible to the environment.
However…
CO2 is a greenhouse gas but a relatively minor one. There are many others in the atmosphere. By far the largest contributor is water vapour. CO2 is considered a byproduct of industry, although the CO2 produced by industry is so minor compared to other natural sources such as a volcanic eruption. So we have focused all our attention this minor industrial portion of a minor greenhouse gas and are blaming ourselves, or more specifically, our industrial progress with warming the planet.
This solar system is blessed with a very stable sun. However, the energy output from our sun is not entirely uniform. We are only just beginning to understand what a complex system our sun is. It has storms just as the earth does. The sun’s variations in energy output have dramatic affects on the earth’s climate. The sun’s output not only affects this planet but the others in the solar system as well.
The study of global warming is focused on the industry CO2 emissions while it entirely ignores the sun. Study of the sun reveals that its variation of energy has a direct relationship to the earth’s climate.
The church of global warming prophesizes that a rise in temperature will be a disaster for the human race and many species of life on this planet. The “end is near” doomsayers are getting shriller and shriller every year. Yet the planet and humans have survived periods of much warmer climate than this and have done fine. The polar bears and penguins have been here millions of years and have seen more dramatic climate changes, yet they did not go extinct.
In conclusion, the world is definitely warming up but there are serious doubts that we are the cause of it. Rather, it is a normal, natural occurrence that we don’t yet fully understand. Yes, we should be kinder to our planet and stop polluting but to buy carbon credits from China is just a stupid idea.
You know Corn Flake you remind me of the Charlton Heston Movie, The Omega Man 1971. Great flick!
You and a few others play the role of the Mutants in that movie.
The mutants are led by Matthias (Anthony Zerbe), formerly a TV newsreader, now an anti-technology crusader who encourages his followers to destroy the scientific and technological items they find, as he blames meddling scientists for ultimately decimating the world's population.....
You and a few others play the role of the Mutants in that movie.
The mutants are led by Matthias (Anthony Zerbe), formerly a TV newsreader, now an anti-technology crusader who encourages his followers to destroy the scientific and technological items they find, as he blames meddling scientists for ultimately decimating the world's population.....
Have any of my posts said anything different?
My problem always has been the problems with the science and the people who blindly follow along because its a good thing to do
The science is far from settled it never has been settled and unless we actually do science as opposed to using science to push a political adgenda we will never know.
Before you jump and say the science is settled there are far to many questions remaining to claim anything of the sort.
The adjusted temperatures that formed the basis of the ICPP reports
The poor data collection and exemption used for the both Mann's and Ammaan reports . The later one used the data from he first report to justify the first report, circular logic by definition.
The raw data that was disposed of ?
That data is the center piece of a lifetimes work, if accurate, reviewed and reproduced it would be the work that made your entry into teh text books and history assured and somebody dispossed of it?
That alone stretches credibility to the limit, when you add in the discrepancies noted by various and sundry over the years the missing data begins to look like a cover up. Add in the e-mails and data that were released and you have a major problem with the science .
The problem is that the science is not reproducable by independant people from the raw data, if you took that to your thesis advisor you would be slapped and sent back to start over and do it correctly.
When you add in the lack of transparancy and the active denigration of anybody who brings up questions regarding anything to do with this subject and again there is a problem.
The basic problems with the science stretch from ignoring things like the little ice age and the medeval warm period, both periods of climate extreams that we know existed from historical records
People lived through them and wrote down their experiences, both those periods were averaged out of the temperature graphs that formed the basis of the IPCC repots.
The fact the models can not predict or account for EL Nino even when we know they occured means something is wrong with the models.
The basic scientific method says
1) Propose a theory
2) Design an experiment to test your theory
3) Examine your results
4) Revise your theory to fit the observed results
5) Begin again and carry on until your theory matches your experimental results.
At this point you have a workable theory, put a paper together and try to publish it.
Referees will judge the worthiness of your work for publication, once published with all the data and methodology available others will review your work. If it is found wanting other papers will be done in rebuttal ,and the process continues until everybody is either satidfied with your results or your results are proven to be unassailable.
In this situation we have people reviewing each others work, no arguments allowed.
The ability to publish being interfered with by interested parties and people being " black listed " for their views.
A group of interested parties controlling data and access as well as coordinating methodology and data adjustments in order to produce acceptable work.
All of this makes me wonder what the hell is going on. A growing number of people both in and out of the climate change industry are also wondering.
When you add the UN into the act trying to redistribute money ina manour that they approve of and again you have to ask what is actually going on.
No as to your immediate response but what if the science is correct and we wait ?
It would only require a couple of years of real science to determine if the work done by CRU GISS and others has any basis in reality, that could be done while the current negotiations are going on.
Unfortunatly that is going to require that the people who have a vested interest the outcome provide all the data, the computer coding for the models all the notes on the work ( notes that they should have kept as basic methodology would require, you need to be able to figure out what you did so if you have a problem you can back track and find out where the problem is )
Once that information is made available an independant group of scientists will audit and review the work, the interested parties will not have any input until after the audit at which point they can add comments to the panels report.
This can all be done while the negotiations are ongoing, unless there is a reason for the climate negotiations to be rammed through without an audit?
Again, you aren't grasping the facts and I'm not referring just to numbers.
you say it's only a 'FEW', which is generally thought to be just more than a couple, but it a general increase over a significant number of years. Someone else can supply you with the a more accurate number.
The temperature doesn't have to increase that much, perhaps 4°C to really screw things up. At that point, believe me a lot of people will suffer and die.
I don't think you understand the importance of the ice on this planet for the survival of life as we know it that is where the greatest changes are seen. Many of the figures thrown out are averages and not indicative of what's happening in the polar regions. The greatest increases are happening there, but most people don't care because it isn't affecting them, YET.
When it does it will be too late. Anynym you my find it amusing, but thank goodness most people don't.
the temperature has been warming since the mid 1800's and arctic/antartic ice covers reached an historical max in the late 60's . So basing your comments and studies useing a maximum value for a starting point is poor science.
How do you know what the base line" normal " value for temperature or ice cover should be?
How do you know what the base line" normal " value for temperature or ice cover should be?
Yes the temperature has been increasing since the mid 1800's, kind of in step with the industrial revolution, with a time lag of course, caused possibly by reaching a critical value; imagine that.
I sure would like to know where you pulled that ice cover factoid. Are you referring to a linear or volumetric value, seasonal or pack ice, ice shelves, grounded or free icebergs, or land locked glaciers? Some more information would help understand your comment.
As far as a normal base line you have to establish some time line or point to begin to establish that.
Where did I say using maximum values is poor science?
You did not say that using a maximum was bad science. However all of your comments about ice melt back and temperature changes are based on from what I assume is personal observation. Assuming that you were not born in the 1800's than what you are seeing is based entirely on your personal observations of what you saw in the past and what you see now.
If for example the ice pack was indeed at an historical high in the 60's ( I will dig out the paper its around here somewhere), then you are comparing a current amount against a maximum. In that case what is your basis for saying the ice pack is melting is a retreat from what could have been an unnatural high point, how do you know that what you are seeing now is not " normal". The ice pack could be melting back to what is a normal equilibrium state.
As far as the rising temperatures vs the CO2 levels. The bulk of the CO2 now in the atmosphere was deposited post second world war, the bulk of the temperature rise to date has been pre second world war , if the CO2 is a forcing element would it not make sense that the forcingt element would be present prior to the temperature rise?
If for example the ice pack was indeed at an historical high in the 60's ( I will dig out the paper its around here somewhere), then you are comparing a current amount against a maximum. In that case what is your basis for saying the ice pack is melting is a retreat from what could have been an unnatural high point, how do you know that what you are seeing now is not " normal". The ice pack could be melting back to what is a normal equilibrium state.
As far as the rising temperatures vs the CO2 levels. The bulk of the CO2 now in the atmosphere was deposited post second world war, the bulk of the temperature rise to date has been pre second world war , if the CO2 is a forcing element would it not make sense that the forcingt element would be present prior to the temperature rise?
This is a new report just showed up, the one I am looking for is on paper and in the archives it will take a couple while to locate
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/sea-ice-extent-now-normal-in-arctic/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif
This one is a temperature record from a greenland ice core
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif
Shows temperatures over time
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/sea-ice-extent-now-normal-in-arctic/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif
This one is a temperature record from a greenland ice core
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif
Shows temperatures over time
I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat it but I will again. It's the rate of change that is unprecedented.
My conclusions are not based 'SOLELY' on my personal observation, but they goes hand in hand with others, who I know and respect, who have observed similar occurrences.
You still didn't qualify the term maximum. that's kind of important. You comment about the CO2 being a forcing element is an assumption that I don't accept as there are a number interconnected influences of which CO2 is just one. CO2 does not work in isolation and is often a result of other reactions. It soon become something of a chicken or egg question.
Your second reference on Greenland's ice core could be full of information if i could freeze it and read the charts and graphs. They are fanned through too quickly on my computer, not allowing proper reading
From what I see from your first reference is that the measurement is a linear or surface calculation and that leads to a position that is, excuse the pun, only skin deep. What it doesn't appear to do is calculate the volume of ice and that is felt by some to be more critical. There's no mention of the fact that sea ice is generally composed of year around pack ice 'and' seasonal ice and there is no acknowledgment of this. The graph's are set up to emphasize seasonal ice. The rather large ice shelf masses contained on Greenland and Antarctica are also ignored, not to mention what remains of the quickly disappearing glaciers on various continents. There seems to be a good deal cherry picking at best or at worst tunnel vision, possibly an effort to minimize parameters. I also question their somewhat short timeline of 12 years.
as i pointed out earlier that one was just sent to me, it is relevant from the point ot ice is forming and it is covering larger areas than had been predicted. There is a lot of controversy regarding the antarctic ice sheets as far as coverage is concerned , from as you point out cherry picking data, on both sides.
The glacier and greenland ice sheets as well as the antarctic for that matter are formed by snowfall and succesive freezing cycles so precipitation amouts rather than temperature could be the driving issue there , but as with most other things involved in this issue we just don't know, research is required.
As a side point the SOHO observatory is reporting large numbers of sunspot free days and in some cases weeks and a general slowdown in the internal cycles of the sun that could be an indicator of a slowdown in the solar output similar to the Maunder minimum in the that ran from the early 1600's to teh mid 1800's. During that period the temperatures were significantly lower than they are now. Some have theorized that lower solar emnmisions were responsible for the lower temperatures, that study is onging, with some interesting preliminary results.
As far as the time line is considered neither side of this argument can be praised for their selection of timelines to enhance there arguments.
Cherry picking data is another issue that is irritating.
The glacier and greenland ice sheets as well as the antarctic for that matter are formed by snowfall and succesive freezing cycles so precipitation amouts rather than temperature could be the driving issue there , but as with most other things involved in this issue we just don't know, research is required.
As a side point the SOHO observatory is reporting large numbers of sunspot free days and in some cases weeks and a general slowdown in the internal cycles of the sun that could be an indicator of a slowdown in the solar output similar to the Maunder minimum in the that ran from the early 1600's to teh mid 1800's. During that period the temperatures were significantly lower than they are now. Some have theorized that lower solar emnmisions were responsible for the lower temperatures, that study is onging, with some interesting preliminary results.
As far as the time line is considered neither side of this argument can be praised for their selection of timelines to enhance there arguments.
Cherry picking data is another issue that is irritating.
too many banks and governments stand to make BILLIONS on global warming. How many trillions will carbon credits and trading of carbon credits generate on taxes and fees for goverments and banks. Global warming COULD be a complete scam to create a new high value commodity (carbon credits) out of thin air. It is essentially a new way to tax.
Your comment that precipitation is a major factor in the high polar region show a misconception. The Antarctic and high arctic regions are actually, deserts by definition getting less than the equivalent of 4" of rain a year, but in real terms they receive less than 2". The reason there is so much snow is that it stays around from year to year. There are mountain peaks in Antarctica that have never seen the light of day in the time of man, until now.
The island of Greenland is an exception. It is not a desert island by definition. Some large areas of Greenland gets over 20 feet of snow each year that is seasonal and gets scarce around the coast in the short summer, to return the following fall, This coastal are has been getting bigger in recent years. There are large areas in the SW and Southern parts of the island that are green and marshy in the summer. A real lousy hike, let me tell you.
I have no misconceptions about the amount of snow in Arctic and Antartic regions I am well aware that they are for the most part desert. My point is that the bulk of the ice packs on Arctic Islands, glaciers and the antarctic ice cap are the result of presipitation over thousands of years.
My point was that any reduction in the ice caps would be more likely the result of less precipitation falling over time.
And again the short answer really is we don't know. There could be any number of reasons for a glacier to recede, climate change is amoung them, or in one case in the ANtarctic a below ice volcano cause a melt off.
If we had most of the answers the models would be correct and there would not be any need to cherry pick data or adjust it to remove unwanted details in the graphs.
My point was that any reduction in the ice caps would be more likely the result of less precipitation falling over time.
And again the short answer really is we don't know. There could be any number of reasons for a glacier to recede, climate change is amoung them, or in one case in the ANtarctic a below ice volcano cause a melt off.
If we had most of the answers the models would be correct and there would not be any need to cherry pick data or adjust it to remove unwanted details in the graphs.
On the subject of climate change and crime
http://www.climategate.com/organized-crime-in-charge-of-eu-carbon-trade-police-say
