There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[Zee 0]

Quote

Some of you reading this thread may find Michael Chrichton's 2004 book "State of Fear" entertaining. It's a fiction novel based around the concept that global warming is mostly a natural phenomenon and the Earth is going through a normal phase between ice ages.

Extremely well written like all his novels and backed up with plenty of facts and references.

I've read it twice - it's a bit over the top but all in all, a very good read. I've also had some time to check out a few of the many scientific references he provides in the book. It makes you wonder, not only about global warming, but many other issues where hype and fear based on pseudo science (such as the banning of DDT) is used as the primary driving element to support a "cause".

Scary stuff.....


Peace,
Z

Action©Sports

[rushmc 18]

Well, NASA and the Russian Academy of Science are warning of Global Cooling. Research indicates that 1998 to 2005 temps have not risen (accourding to thier research)

Anyway, Dr Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia (who is a Paleoclimatoligist) says climate change is normal. That is by deinition what climate does. He says that yes, the climate is changing but that is normal and that man has very little to do with it. CO and temp graphs used by everybodies friend AlGore actually prove the oposite of his contentions! Why? Because the temps are rising ahead of increased CO and, the temp has not risen in 7 years but CO is still being released

Anyway there are many links out there for this person. He makes more sense and answers many of the claims for those with models claiming mans heating up the planet.

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05carter.pdf

http://www.veiled-chameleon.com/weblog/archives/000251.html


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/global-warming120706.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,116]

Yes, climate change is normal. So is getting old. Doesn't mean I want to deliberately do a bunch of stuff that makes it happen sooner.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

That is not what is being claimed here. He says, and I agree with, that the hype is taking away from far more critical issues such as power plant emisions.

Again, I am not for creating a dirty planet but I am also against making large financial moves for bogus reasons

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Interesting links, Rush.

One of them led me to this: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

It's from the official US SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS website.

The claims are pretty damning.

I wonder if any environmental groups have gone about disproving those claims.

Here's a sample:

Quote

Continuing with our media analysis: On July 24, 2006 The Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004 Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323

However, the analysis in Science Magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser.

Peiser also pointed out that less than two percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called “consensus view” that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Interesting links, Rush.

One of them led me to this: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

It's from the official US SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS website.

The claims are pretty damning.

I wonder if any environmental groups have gone about disproving those claims.

Here's a sample:

Quote

Continuing with our media analysis: On July 24, 2006 The Los Angeles Times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at the University of California San Diego and the author of a 2004 Science Magazine study. Oreskes insisted that a review of 928 scientific papers showed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. This study was also featured in former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323

However, the analysis in Science Magazine excluded nearly 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming, according to a critique by British social scientist Benny Peiser.

Peiser also pointed out that less than two percent of the climate studies in the survey actually endorsed the so-called “consensus view” that human activity is driving global warming and some of the studies actually opposed that view.

I have posted this before and GW hype specialists ripped into him as a poor source. It will be interesting to follow this now as more evidence comes in supporting his claims

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Here's another goody:

Quote

In May, our nation was exposed to perhaps one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time: former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” In addition to having the backing of Paramount Pictures to market this film, Gore had the full backing of the media, and leading the cheerleading charge was none other than the Associated Press.

On June 27, the Associated Press ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared “Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie.” The article quoted only five scientists praising Gore’s science, despite AP’s having contacted over 100 scientists. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2006-06-27-inconvenient-truth-reviews_x.htm

The fact that over 80% of the scientists contacted by the AP had not even seen the movie or that many scientists have harshly criticized the science presented by Gore did not dissuade the news outlet one bit from its mission to promote Gore’s brand of climate alarmism. http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

I am almost at a loss as to how to begin to address the series of errors, misleading science and unfounded speculation that appear in the former Vice President’s film Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT has written about “An Inconvenient Truth.” “A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way:

• He promoted the now debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate



•He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age

•He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.

•He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer

•He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

•He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing

•He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices

•He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

•He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing

•He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits

•He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving

•He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004

Now that was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Imagine how long the list would have been if I had actually seen the movie -- there would not be enough time to deliver this speech today.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Here's another goody:

Quote

In May, our nation was exposed to perhaps one of the slickest science propaganda films of all time: former Vice President Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” In addition to having the backing of Paramount Pictures to market this film, Gore had the full backing of the media, and leading the cheerleading charge was none other than the Associated Press.

On June 27, the Associated Press ran an article by Seth Borenstein that boldly declared “Scientists give two thumbs up to Gore's movie.” The article quoted only five scientists praising Gore’s science, despite AP’s having contacted over 100 scientists. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2006-06-27-inconvenient-truth-reviews_x.htm

The fact that over 80% of the scientists contacted by the AP had not even seen the movie or that many scientists have harshly criticized the science presented by Gore did not dissuade the news outlet one bit from its mission to promote Gore’s brand of climate alarmism. http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

I am almost at a loss as to how to begin to address the series of errors, misleading science and unfounded speculation that appear in the former Vice President’s film Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT has written about “An Inconvenient Truth.” “A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.” http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way:

• He promoted the now debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate



•He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age

•He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.

•He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer

•He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

•He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing

•He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices

•He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

•He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing

•He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits

•He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving

•He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004

Now that was just a brief sampling of some of the errors presented in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Imagine how long the list would have been if I had actually seen the movie -- there would not be enough time to deliver this speech today.

Man, put your Nomex on as I got flamed big time over many of these assurtions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Yes, climate change is normal. So is getting old. Doesn't mean I want to deliberately do a bunch of stuff that makes it happen sooner.

I do - things like going out with friends, taking on too many sports and damaging my joints, having kids, etc might make me age faster, but the quality of life is worth it.

(the obvious analogy to climate change is not intentional nor do I think it really applies.....)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,380]

Your position seems to keep changing. On this particular subject it seems to be:

-Global warming stopped in 1998
-Global warming is happening but it's normal
-Temperature is rising ahead of CO2, so the human part of the CO2 rise isn't causing it
-Our emissions aren't causing a rise in CO2

If the only thing consistent in your beliefs on a given subject are political ones, it makes one suspect that they are politically rather than scientifically based.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Your position seems to keep changing. On this particular subject it seems to be:

-Global warming stopped in 1998
-Global warming is happening but it's normal
-Temperature is rising ahead of CO2, so the human part of the CO2 rise isn't causing it
-Our emissions aren't causing a rise in CO2

If the only thing consistent in your beliefs on a given subject are political ones, it makes one suspect that they are politically rather than scientifically based.

why do you insit on redirection when differing theroy and opinion is presented to you?

My stance is and has always been man is not causeing a catostrophic warming that the alarmists (such as yourself) squeel about. (I have even questioned and still do question whether the planet is really warming today or not with all the conficiting data out there but in any event)

Specifics have changed, yes, as I learn more and more.
Now, with your redirceting tactics addressed, how do you respond to the meat of the mans ideas, research, opinions and answeres? Or do you dare go there??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

A slight step back or the begining of the back pedaling to save face?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

The following is the very last phargrahp in the article.

"However, Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network, urged governments to be cautious. "There needs to be better data before billions of pounds are spent on policy measures that may have little impact," he said"

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Royd 0]

Quote

What follows is a very brief summary of the science that the former Vice President promotes in either a wrong or misleading way:

• He promoted the now debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate



•He attempted to minimize the significance of Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age

•He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.

•He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer

•He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

•He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing

•He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices

•He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

•He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing

•He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits

•He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving

•He completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004

HE PLAYED ON OUR FEARS!!

[rushmc 18]

Very good!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

The following is the very last phargrahp in the article.

Phargrahp, was he a character from Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,380]

>why do you insit on redirection when differing theroy and opinion is
>presented to you?

You're not interested in theory; you're interested in proving your political position, which is that man has nothing to do with global warming.

But to get into detail:

"Changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide, which can be measured in ice cores, occur in close parallelism. In detail, however, over both annual and longterm glacial-interglacial periods, changes in temperature PRECEDE changes in carbon dioxide. Thus carbon dioxide cannot be a primary forcing agent for temperature change."

This is not true. CO2 increases precede the beginning of periods of temperature rise. This has been demonstrated via ice cores; the trapped air shows a CO2 rise that initially precedes climactic changes.

"modern temperatures are neither particularly high nor particularly fast-changing."

Untrue. Average global temperatures are changing more rapidly than any period in the past few centuries.

"Indeed, temperatures in Antarctica for the three interglacials which precede the Holocene were respectively about 5, 4 and 6 degrees
warmer than today."

That is true. Likewise, the North Pole is currently _warmer_ than it was during the interglacials. Antarctica, due to its massive load of ice and high albedo, will take a long, long time to show any climactic change. The North Pole, with its lower albedo and lower ice load, will show climactic change more quickly.

"Because of our lack of understanding of many parts of the climate system, and because of the non-linearity of climate processes, deterministic computer models, on which the IPCC relies
so heavily, are unable to provide meaningful predictions of future climate states."

They have already done so. They predicted the same temperature increases we have already seen. So we have proved that they do work; this indicates they are likely to work in the future as well.

"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame."

I already answered this for you about six months back. Showed you the graphs and everything.

"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."

I already answered this as well. Google "iceball planet." CO2 saved our bacon back then by CAUSING a runaway greenhouse effect; if it hadn't happened the planet would still be covered with ice.

The last article is one by a politician, not an article about science, so I won't bother going through it.

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

>The last article is one by a politician, not an article about science, so I won't bother going through it.

Since "the right" has had such great success predicting events in Iraq and the cost of the war, did such a great job predicting that the deficit would be small and short lived, and made those wonderfully accurate predictions of the cost of the Medicare drug benefit, why wouldn't you trust a rightist prediction on climate?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

why wouldn't you trust a rightist prediction on climate?

Maybe he's just playing devils advocate?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Since "the right" has had such great success predicting events in Iraq and the cost of the war, did such a great job predicting that the deficit would be small and short lived, and made those wonderfully accurate predictions of the cost of the Medicare drug benefit, why wouldn't you trust a rightist prediction on climate?

Lush Rimjob and David Savage do not believe its happening so....... it cant be happening..period.. end of story

[rushmc 18]

You say I am making a political point??
You advocate making huge changes by imposition of your point of view. I say your proof is being refuted regularly by researchers with just as much clout as those you quote. You do not seem able to stand up to review, you would rather claim consensus......which is not science.

Looked in the miror?

The more that come out the more you are proven wrong (to me at least) and i am not quoting polititions.

Someday you may remove your blindfold and see....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I say your proof is being refuted regularly by researchers with just as much clout as those you quote.

You can believe that if you want to.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[speedy 0]

Quote

They predicted the same temperature increases we have already seen. So we have proved that they do work; this indicates they are likely to work in the future as well.

With so many different models out there is it any wonder that one matches what we see?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I say your proof is being refuted regularly by researchers with just as much clout as those you quote.

You can believe that if you want to.

....as can you. there is a difference between those that debate on this topic however.

One side questions the science AND the reasons. The other side does not like to have thier opinions called into question ever when they say that peer review of the science to which they refer, is a good thing and is what is supposed to happen in research. Ironic maybe?

It was said of me that I have an opinion that is based on politics. Why would someone say that unless...??? Make your own judgements.

It has become clear to me however that this topic (at least here anyway) is more emotional than scientific. And that kills any chance of open discussion...........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Since "the right" has had such great success predicting events in Iraq and the cost of the war, did such a great job predicting that the deficit would be small and short lived, and made those wonderfully accurate predictions of the cost of the Medicare drug benefit, why wouldn't you trust a rightist prediction on climate?

Lush Rimjob and David Savage do not believe its happening so....... it cant be happening..period.. end of story

You left out "And who cares if Clinton got a blowjob?"

Does anyone think the United States should take on (costly) anti-pollution measures to combat global warming if China and India don't do the same?

Why?

[wmw999 2,116]

Quote

Does anyone think the United States should take on (costly) anti-pollution measures to combat global warming if China and India don't do the same

Yes. For the same reasons that we shouldn't torture, even though other countries are. For the same reasons that we should provide free schooling, even though other countries don't.

Because whenever possible, it's best to do the right thing, as we see it now. And the long-term right thing seems to be to reduce carbon emissions as much as possible. Maybe not for our economic prosperity, but for the overall long-term comfort of earthlings.

If we start now, when our backs aren't up to the wall, we have more control over how we do it, and maybe we can serve as a shining example, and make it easier for other countries to do the right thing.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)