Honesty of Global Warming movement???

[Guest]

Simultaneous Global Warming On Mars Observed

The polar caps on Mars have been receding for three years in a row, and it's attributed to changes in the sun.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The polar caps on Mars have been receding for three years in a row, and it's attributed to changes in the sun.

Where I work, I can conclusively state the the polar caps on Mars have been receding for three years in a row, and it's attributed to changes in the polar caps on Mars.

{{It's the only statement that wouldn't get rewritten by management. Some of the guys are a bit conservative in drawing conclusions or taking any kind of risks.....}}

...
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

[Zipp0 1]

I think maybe a different approach to global warming could help get more people on board. Maybe press the points about pollution and contamination. At the same time, take most of the science out of the argument and approach the conservatives in a religious and common sense way.

Tell them that pollution and contamination will kill wildlife and fish, so their hunting and fishing will suffer(I hunt and fish). Tell them that smog in the urban areas is hurting their kids. Get them onboard with land conservation by promoting things they like to do on the land - outdoor activities and recreation.

I think you can ask anybody if they want more pollution and chemicals in the ground and water, they will say "no." It just seems like a good starting point with much less deviciveness than global warming, with the same end result.

Just some thoughts.....

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 2,400]

>The polar caps on Mars have been receding for three years in a row, and it's attributed to changes in the sun.

I think it's funny that people here on earth claim that we don't understand the climate enough to make scientific predictions about what it will do in the future - but those same people claim that we understand the martian climate well enough that we know EXACTLY what's causing climactic changes there.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I learn as much - if not more - from being wrong and corrected than from being right.

Excellent reply -- not many can this tactfully take the wind from the sails of such an obvious personal insult.

Dont forget that hes a lawyer.

Indeed. I'm used to being wrong. I'm used to being told I'm wrong by an authority figure. Either you know how to take your lumps and learn from it, or you fail.

Being wrong does not mean you're a failure. The one who makes the most mistakes will usually ultimately prevail because the doer makes mistakes. A person who is mistake-free can usually be found doing nothing, saying nothing, taking no position, and learning nothing in the process.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Simultaneous Global Warming On Mars Observed

The polar caps on Mars have been receding for three years in a row, and it's attributed to changes in the sun.

Hmmm. So this melting of the icecaps has occurred in the last three years - almost exactly three years since Spirit and Opportunity arrived.

We put things on that planet that are not natural to it, affecting the balance. Looking at the melting of the icecaps, there is a direct corrolation with the insertion of not one, but TWO man-made spacecraft.

Coincidence?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

We put things on that planet that are not natural to it, affecting the balance. Looking at the melting of the icecaps, there is a direct corrolation with the insertion of not one, but TWO man-made spacecraft.

Coincidence?

Um. Yes.

Coincidence.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[jarrodh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I learn as much - if not more - from being wrong and corrected than from being right.

Excellent reply -- not many can this tactfully take the wind from the sails of such an obvious personal insult.

Dont forget that hes a lawyer.

Indeed. I'm used to being wrong. I'm used to being told I'm wrong by an authority figure. Either you know how to take your lumps and learn from it, or you fail.

Being wrong does not mean you're a failure. The one who makes the most mistakes will usually ultimately prevail because the doer makes mistakes. A person who is mistake-free can usually be found doing nothing, saying nothing, taking no position, and learning nothing in the process.

hear hear

2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!!

[lawrocket 3]

Oh, I agree that it is a coincidence. I'm just making a prediction that someone out there will seriously believe that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>So this melting of the icecaps has occurred in the last three years - almost
>exactly three years since Spirit and Opportunity arrived.

Actually it was first noticed back in 2001, which (of course) is the year the jews blew up the WTC. Of course the Zionist media doesn't want you to know that, because it will prove that they are behind both the warming of the universe _and_ 9/11.

[lawrocket 3]

What are your thoughts with regard to the correlation between the melting of the apparentl warming on Mars and the apparent warming of the Earth?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,400]

>What are your thoughts with regard to the correlation between the
>melting of the apparentl warming on Mars and the apparent warming of the Earth?

I don't know. I suspect Mars has the same sort of orbital/spin axis resonances that the earth has, but they are likely much more pronounced (since the orbit of Mars is much more elliptical than ours.) That means they will have much more of an effect on climate, especially polar climate (since Mars is also more inclined than Earth is.) Does that explain it? Once we understand Martian orbital resonances a bit more we may answer that question.

Edited to add - there is also an 11 year solar sunspot cycle, where the insolation varies naturally by around 2 watts/meter. This is much larger than any estimated change in average over time. (see attached.)

Yet the solar cycle peaked in 2001-2002 and has been declining ever since. (It will start going up again later this year.) So the short-term output of the sun has been DECLINING over the past 5 years. It will no doubt climb right back up and peak again in 2013, but that makes it hard to consider Mars as an indicator of a warmer sun.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

What are your thoughts with regard to the correlation between the melting of the apparentl warming on Mars and the apparent warming of the Earth?

I think it's when Pluto starts to warm we REALLY have problems.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 2,400]

>I think it's when Pluto starts to warm we REALLY have problems.

Pluto has been warming over the past 14 years! But since its "year" is 250 years long, that's not much of a surprise. Jupiter and Saturn are slowly cooling - but again, that probably has more to do with other factors (like them gradually losing the heat of their formation) than any solar changes.

[billvon 2,400]

Some more reading material for people interested in the solar contribution to global warming:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>The polar caps on Mars have been receding for three years in a row, and it's attributed to changes in the sun.

I think it's funny that people here on earth claim that we don't understand the climate enough to make scientific predictions about what it will do in the future - but those same people claim that we understand the martian climate well enough that we know EXACTLY what's causing climactic changes there.

And I think it is pure arogance to think we know enough to make the conclusions that man is the major cause

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

[sundevil777 93]

A funny cartoon about offset credits

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,400]

>And I think it is pure arogance to think we know enough to
>make the conclusions that man is the major cause

So it's not arrogance to conclude that -

smoking is a major cause of lung cancer (we don't understand the human body 100%, after all)
we understand why planets orbit the sun (even though we've never been to most of them)
we can predict all sorts of weather to some degree of accuracy
we can predict what the tide will do tomorrow (even though we don't fully understand gravity)
we can predict what an El Nino will do to temperatures over the course of a year
we know enough about engineering to build a space station and have it not come crashing down
we know enough about orbital mechanics to send a spacecraft to pluto
we can predict when solar activity is at a maximum
we can build nuclear bombs and have them work the first time
we can predict what pollutants will make people sick
we can hold the seas back in Holland
we can make the desert bloom in California
we can part the seas under the English Channel

but it IS arrogance to understand how CO2 causes global warming?

I think many people who object to the study of climate change use the same basic argument that people who object to evolution use - the argument from incredulity. "I do not understand it, therefore it is arrogant/wrong to claim that anyone does." Fortunately, science doesn't work that way.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>And I think it is pure arogance to think we know enough to
>make the conclusions that man is the major cause

So it's not arrogance to conclude that -

smoking is a major cause of lung cancer (we don't understand the human body 100%, after all)
we understand why planets orbit the sun (even though we've never been to most of them)
we can predict all sorts of weather to some degree of accuracy
we can predict what the tide will do tomorrow (even though we don't fully understand gravity)
we can predict what an El Nino will do to temperatures over the course of a year
we know enough about engineering to build a space station and have it not come crashing down
we know enough about orbital mechanics to send a spacecraft to pluto
we can predict when solar activity is at a maximum
we can build nuclear bombs and have them work the first time
we can predict what pollutants will make people sick
we can hold the seas back in Holland
we can make the desert bloom in California
we can part the seas under the English Channel

but it IS arrogance to understand how CO2 causes global warming?

I think many people who object to the study of climate change use the same basic argument that people who object to evolution use - the argument from incredulity. "I do not understand it, therefore it is arrogant/wrong to claim that anyone does." Fortunately, science doesn't work that way.

OOOooohhhhhK

I do think I understand what is going on so your point here is worthless.

Once again, there is no experiment that supports that man is causing the current GWing cycle. On the contrary, tried expreiment counter that side of the debate. All you have is tweaked corilations on graphs and computer models that have been adjusted untill the wanted data is derived.

Yes the climate is changing That is what it does. Highs and lows, by diffintion are inputs to averages. I do not beleive that man is having any significant effect on the climate and your claim that "most scientists" beleive is bunk.

It is a fact however that some of the first exhaulted propents of the man make GW crap are starting to claim publicly they are changing thier minds and they are being vilified for it. Why??

Follow the money and the politics. You can see why and where the support is coming from. And it aint the big corps

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Once again, there is no experiment that supports that man is causing the
>current GWing cycle.

There was one in 1995. They predicted warming, and it happened. When predictions match actual results, then you reinforce the theory.

>Yes the climate is changing That is what it does. Highs and lows, by
>diffintion are inputs to averages.

Exactly. And they show the average is going up. Only the really out-there deniers are claiming that the climate isn't changing; too many people can look out their windows and see that it is.

>I do not beleive that man is having any significant effect on the climate . . .

Yes, you've said that before. Fortunately scientists do not go on belief, but rather on what they can prove. Many people have a lot of themselves invested in their beliefs, though, and can cling to them even when the evidence is to the contrary. That's just human nature.

>Follow the money and the politics. You can see why and where the support
>is coming from. And it aint the big corps.

If you think that, you are not following the money, you're watching TV. You're watching FOX and Newsmax and mistaking their opinions for science. Opinions and beliefs are just that.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Once again, there is no experiment that supports that man is causing the
>current GWing cycle.

There was one in 1995. They predicted warming, and it happened. When predictions match actual results, then you reinforce the theory.

>Yes the climate is changing That is what it does. Highs and lows, by
>diffintion are inputs to averages.

Exactly. And they show the average is going up. Only the really out-there deniers are claiming that the climate isn't changing; too many people can look out their windows and see that it is.

>I do not beleive that man is having any significant effect on the climate . . .

Yes, you've said that before. Fortunately scientists do not go on belief, but rather on what they can prove. Many people have a lot of themselves invested in their beliefs, though, and can cling to them even when the evidence is to the contrary. That's just human nature.

>Follow the money and the politics. You can see why and where the support
>is coming from. And it aint the big corps.

If you think that, you are not following the money, you're watching TV. You're watching FOX and Newsmax and mistaking their opinions for science. Opinions and beliefs are just that.

Wow, Big Brother!!!!!! Somehow you know what I watch and listen too!

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

[billvon 2,400]

A one liner and a little crazy! The trademark RushMC reply.

If you are actually interested in the science and not the politics, here are a few sources. They are peer-reviewed articles and are published based on their merits as scientific research, not on how well they cling to anyone's beliefs, political preferences or sense of the spectacular.

http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/index.cfm?page=1084

(Yes, Kallend, I included the Royal Society!)

Here are a few sites about the organizations actually doing the research:

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/

http://sio.ucsd.edu/

[rushmc 18]

Quote

A one liner and a little crazy! The trademark RushMC reply.

If you are actually interested in the science and not the politics, here are a few sources. They are peer-reviewed articles and are published based on their merits as scientific research, not on how well they cling to anyone's beliefs, political preferences or sense of the spectacular.

http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/index.cfm?page=1084

(Yes, Kallend, I included the Royal Society!)

Here are a few sites about the organizations actually doing the research:

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/

http://sio.ucsd.edu/

So I am to understand that you don't like me calling you on putting words into my mouth but it is OK for you to tell me you KNOW where I get my info and how my opinions are formed. (or as the left likes to say, who gave those opinions to me) To bad.

As for you links. I have will not get to them tonight but I look for the same old same old. Graphs, stretched links and references to tweaked computer models. They also tend to ingore those scientists studing world climiate history. Science by consensus. One more time........

So be it but I am prepared to be under impressed yet again.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>I have will not get to them tonight but I look for the same old same old.

And you will get the same old same old. Just like those scientists who keep saying the earth is round, the sun runs via nuclear fusion, and we evolved from simpler animals. You know, science.

>They also tend to ingore those scientists studing world climiate history.

The sources I listed above ARE the scientists studying climactic history, atmospheric physics, paleontology, solar physics, Greenland ice sheet dynamics, changes in ocean pH due to carbonic acid etc. In other words, they won't tell you what you want to hear, but they are the people doing the peer-reviewed science that we base our understanding on. They don't often make it to FOX though.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I have will not get to them tonight but I look for the same old same old.

And you will get the same old same old. Just like those scientists who keep saying the earth is round, the sun runs via nuclear fusion, and we evolved from simpler animals. You know, science.

>They also tend to ingore those scientists studing world climiate history.

The sources I listed above ARE the scientists studying climactic history, atmospheric physics, paleontology, solar physics, Greenland ice sheet dynamics, changes in ocean pH due to carbonic acid etc. In other words, they won't tell you what you want to hear, but they are the people doing the peer-reviewed science that we base our understanding on. They don't often make it to FOX though.

You know that telling people what they think and why is insulting and a PA in my estimation. (But that tactic has been used by the left for decades to stiffel debate if possible) But you are a moderator so you can make that distinction as you wish.

And, so you know you are wrong about FOX. They follow basicly the same course as the rest of the news biggies. They do however, every once in a while offer the other side of the story. I am sure that is why you don't like them. I think that is because that GW alarmists can not survive an open debate. Why, because as more info, data gathering processed and why tweaked compurter modle forcasts comes to light, the argument for man made GWing gets weaker and weaker.

2 years ago I was inclined to beleive man was a major cause of GW. But much like once being a supporter of more gun control, once I learned more I changed my views. Once I gained understanding and information and began to understand why people push that crap, I came down on the other side.

I will look at the links you posted. I do not expect to find anything new but, you never know.

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