More Proof GWing Alarmists are Running Out of Time

[billvon 2,463]

>Something I'm still having some problems with, though - you've said
>several times that we really don't know all that much about how the
>climate works.

We don't know much about certain aspects of the climate. Overall, though, we've gotten pretty good at predicting climactic changes, like how much warmer it will get, what causes a lot of hurricanes, what an El Nino does, what the weather will be like tomorrow etc.

>Regardless of that, you still have plenty of comments talking about how
>much warming was due to this, that or the other effect.

Right, because we can measure those quantities. It's like me not understanding completely what's going on in a cellphone (I don't understand what all the software is doing, or how to tune some of the RF sections) but I can still give you pretty accurate numbers as to how much power each component is taking, or what will happen if you use slower FLASH memory.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>This has been a major point of your argument!

What has been a major point of my argument? That there WERE coal fired power plants 140,000 years ago? Or that CO2 always "starts" any warming trend?

>And I think you are wrong about CO2 and temp relations

You believe CO2 IS the initial impetus that began the upward trend in temperatures?

No, and according to someone with better credentials than yours, I may be correct in my conclusions

"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]

Quote

Quote

I don't know that I believe the evidence is stronger

Then how do you justify being dogmatic about your "side"?

Quote

So let me ask you. What do you think of the info and opinion from my post up above?

You want MY dogmatic opinion? I don't have one. Like you, I'm largely ignorant. I'm not a scientist focussing on this problem. All I have are popular accounts of the science (just like you do.) I know I'm not qualified to have a dogmatic opinion.

Why don't you know that?

Nice PA. You don't know a fucking thing about me. Call your self ignorant but leave me out of your (self proclaimed) ignorant assumptions

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

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Nice PA. You don't know a fucking thing about me. Call your self ignorant but leave me out of your (self proclaimed) ignorant assumptions

Oh, I beg your pardon. I had no idea you were a PhD Climatologist! Please, carry on with your authoritative opinions. You're clearly so well-educated as to be able to judge the respective quality of all of the evidence with a scientist's perspective.

I'm so glad we have such an elite specialist here to put Billvon and our other so-called experts in their place!

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Nice PA. You don't know a fucking thing about me. Call your self ignorant but leave me out of your (self proclaimed) ignorant assumptions

Oh, I beg your pardon. I had no idea you were a PhD Climatologist! Please, carry on with your authoritative opinions. You're clearly so well-educated as to be able to judge the respective quality of all of the evidence with a scientist's perspective.

I'm so glad we have such an elite specialist here to put Billvon and our other so-called experts in their place!

As of right now, you are the same to me as Amazon. I will rarely respond to your posts. Your insults and your condescending comments will be ignored. Go stalk some one else

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

[narcimund 0]

Quote

As of right now, you are the same to me as Amazon. I will rarely respond to your posts. Your insults and your condescending comments will be ignored. Go stalk some one else

Ah yes, the TRUE scientists' methodology: ignore everyone who points out the flaws in your reasoning.

This proves that you're truly among the FINEST of our modern minds. Only the most omniscient and advanced thinker could have your supreme confidence with such ... um ... apparently mediocre information.

I hope to be as snart as you someday.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[mnealtx 0]

That makes a bit more sense to me now - thanks.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 18]

Here is more stuff from Prof Bryson from the 90's

http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/cpep_web/Downloadable/MCM_methodology.pdf
Edited to add:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2005/Jan.%208.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

[rushmc 18]

I know I am running with this guy but this has to be considered.

By PROF REID BRYSON, DEAN OF US CLIMATOLOGISTS


Some Common Fallacies
1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique. Wrong. There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the other for at least a million years.
2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.
3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide.
4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other "greenhouse gasses". Wrong. To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination. There are studies that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on the order of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature is about the same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. For many areas the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.
5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done. Wrong. The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.
6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.

"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]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, lemme get this straight . . . because you've quoted several different articles and passages that say a couple of different things . . . I just wanna understand all of them at the same time.

1) The planet is warming. (I assume we all agree on that point now?)

2) CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans because when they get warmer they hold more CO2.No,Cooler water holds more CO2 than warmer water. Simple physics

3) When the earth is in a natural warming cycle, atmospheric CO2 level rise as a result.

yes

Ok, just wanted to ensure you weren't contracting yourself because I could have sworn that you had a bit earlier.

Anyway . . . now that we have your position straight . . . are you suggesting that the CO2 levels in both the atmosphere and the oceans are somehow tied together via temperature and that -all- we're seeing from the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a result of -just- that balance?

Alright, I mean this with all due respect but, I felt you were trying to see if could help me trap myself. Were you? Did I answer your questions?

I respect those, like you and billvon, that have conviction of your opinion and are willing to show what info you use. While I do not agree I try to understand.

If change is in the cards because of "something", I will support that change. If change is pushed down my throat for what I see to be political reasons, I can become an unreasonable bastard. If I am proven to be the later, I will bow and admit I am wrong. When if comes to GWing, I have not yet reached that point but, I am still learning.

I am however, drawn to those that I agree with, just like those on the other side.

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

[narcimund 0]

Quote

By PROF REID BRYSON, DEAN OF US CLIMATOLOGISTS


Some Common Fallacies
1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique. Wrong. There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the other for at least a million years.

I love how you intersperse your comments throughout the scientist's comments. Then, just to make sure we don't know which words are yours or his, you randomly boldface (or not) your own words. Who wrote the word "wrong" in your quote above? You or him? You'd like us not to know, wouldn't you?

It's ok though. You're an eminent scientists yourself. Your judgments are just as good as this guy's, aren't they?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

By PROF REID BRYSON, DEAN OF US CLIMATOLOGISTS


Some Common Fallacies
1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique. Wrong. There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the other for at least a million years.

I love how you intersperse your comments throughout the scientist's comments. Then, just to make sure we don't know which words are yours or his, you randomly boldface (or not) your own words. Who wrote the word "wrong" in your quote above? You or him? You'd like us not to know, wouldn't you?

It's ok though. You're an eminent scientists yourself. Your judgments are just as good as this guy's, aren't they?

Follow the link, oh, maybe you don't want to. It might make you look ah, wrong?

I hope you are not to embarased

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

[mikkey 0]

This one is also of interest

http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

This one is also of interest

http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/

This thread has conspicuously silent.......except for erroneous accusations

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

[quade 3]

Quote

Alright, I mean this with all due respect but, I felt you were trying to see if could help me trap myself. Were you? Did I answer your questions?

No trap. I just wanted to know if I understood your position correctly. There did appear to be a fairly large contradiction based on what I had, it appears, mistakenly thought.

You've clarified your position. Not proven, but at least clarified it in such a way as I can now understand it.

Now that I understand those parts of it, I need to try to understand a couple of more things.

Do you believe that atmospheric CO2 is transparent to radiant energy?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

This one is also of interest

http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/

Who said, "follow the money"? Well, most recently it was rushmc (in this post), but it's certainly not an original idea. Still it's good advice anyway. So, let's look at who funded "http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/".

According to their own "fact sheet" (and I use the term very loosely), it was published by Pacific Research Institute and American Enterprise institute.

Well, I guess we can start at Source Watch to find out who they are;
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute#Funding

Ah! As I suspected. Pacific Research Institute is funded by;

Altria
Chevron Texaco
Cypress Semiconductor
ExxonMobile Corporation
Freedom Communications
Microsoft
Pfizer
PhRMA
SBC
Verizon
White House Writers Group

Hmmm . . . who the hell is "White House Writers Group"?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=White_House_Writers_Group

Let's see . . . who else is involved here at the American Enterprise Institute?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute#Funding

Carthage Foundation
Castle Rock Foundation
Earhart Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
Smith Richardson Foundation

Hmmm . . . who are these Scaife folks?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Scaife_Foundations

Anyway, yeah, I'm almost certain "http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/" is a completely unbiased group just looking out for the planet.




That's right rush, we took your advice and followed the money . . .

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

This one is also of interest

http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/

This thread has conspicuously silent.......except for erroneous accusations

It generally takes me more than -9- minutes to check in, read a post, look at a link provided and then dig up some facts.

(May 23, 2007, 7:14 PM - May 23, 2007, 7:23 PM = 9 minutes)

You shouldn't mistake time taken doing research as time spent being "conspicuously silent".

I generally don't make snap decisions to tear people a new one. If I'm going to do it, I wanna get my facts first.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,463]

Both of you cut it out. Your one warning(s).

[narcimund 0]

Quote

This thread has conspicuously silent.......except for erroneous accusations

Oh no! I went to dinner. I'm SOOOO sorry I wasn't here at your beck and call. How dare I have a life?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[mikkey 0]

Well, well.... but no discussion of the points it makes. I have noticed that Carbon GW proponents mostly try to discredited skeptics instead of answering the questions raised.

And when it comes to money, any idea how many $'s (grants), jobs and influence there is at stake for the people involved in the "carbon based global warming catastrophy" industry? So there is no interest there? Isn’t it a fact that many of the people being most “catastrophic” in their arguments are people who are against economic growth, “industrialism”, “consumerism”, nuclear power and globalization? You could easily discredit a lot of these people. And BTW try to research how many people of the IPCC panel are actually scientists, and how many of these are actually climate scientists. Also try to look for how many on the panel actually disagree with many of the findings and methodologies.

Now let me boil my position down to these points:

The problem with the current GW “carbon” theories and the predictions made - especially the "catastrophic" ones - is:

1) Some of the data underpinning it has been discredited e.g. the hockey stick (which is no longer used in the latest IPCC report.

2) The FACT that CO2 increase has lagged behind to temperature increases by hundreds of years has NOT been explained.
Why have we had strong variations in climate and temperature before industrialism and before humans walked the earth?

3) Why did we have the medieval warming period followed by a small ice age?

4) Look at the “range” of uncertainty documented in the IPCC reports. There are lots of things we do not know – the IPCC itself classifies the knowledge about a lot of possible factors which either can cool or heat the planet as either “low” or “very low” – including the solar aspects. Some of the latest research indicates the possibility that solar influences by far could exceed CO2. BTW the latest IPCC report has cut the human influence on GW by 25% and the estimate of sea level rises by 50% to 17 inches. This just from one report to the next. Even if you accept that human activity – especially CO2 – is a factor – there is NO certainty by how much. So where is the scientific certainty in this matter that people want us to base extreme economic and political measures on?

5) What about nuclear power which is nearly carbon free? Most “carbon” GW proponents do not want it. Why? Is it because the GW “movement” is more about anti-economic growth and ant-industrialism then global warming?

6) The climate is far more complex then ANTHING ever modeled on computers (besides the many uncertainties and lack of certain data). One issue is rarely mentioned is that temperatures are not increasing evenly around the planet. Even at the poles there are areas where ice is melting, but others where it is increasing. And while we are reasonable good at forecasting the weather for a few days (a friend of mine is a senior scientist at the Australian Weather Bureau) – it gets quite uncertain past 3-4 days. So how do you think it gets for global models years ahead?

7) Also in regard to modeling. Try to look at other major issues modeled in the past – how accurate were they – for example the population “explosion” models a few years ago? Or the death toll resulting from Chernobyl.

8) What about the third world? Why are we not talking about Africa? We are moaning about poverty in Africa and on the other hand we will not be able to provide power generation to develop the countries – and no - solar panels and wind mills will not suffice. These energy sources can not provide base load and are around three times more expensive making industries depending on them uncompetitive.

9) In the always pessimistic forecasts (if you believe in the theory that CO2 is THE major factor in climate change – and many doubt that) the models always base themselves on worst case scenarios. But some of the strongest growing and CO2 increasing economies like China and India have enormous scope for energy efficiency gains – something the predictions don’t take into account.

10) If you for one moment assume some of the more moderate predictions for temperature increases, it is never mentioned that there might a swell be some good effects as well as negative ones. E.g. some areas of the globe will be able to produce more food.

11) What is the REAL agenda of the GW lobby? I detect too much of a “green” “religious” zeal that is convinced that modern society is evil and we should go back to a “natural” live style.

In conclusion: I have great concerns that we are being forced into quick drastic measures that will greatly affect the economy and global development, based on uncertain science. I am concerned how this issue is being handled by the media – e.g. many people now think New York will be under water soon, when the latest prediction by IPCC says a sea level rise of 17 inches. I am concerned how people who question the science and assumptions are treated. I am concerned that the hysteria will drive political agendas that are hastily constructed and badly implemented – making the “cure” worse then the disease.

This all said – I am a great proponent of looking after the environment. I also agree that we have to decrease the amount of fossil fuel we use. Not because of GW – but because they have other environmental downsides and because fossil fuel reserves are not infinite and major reserves are located in bad geopolitical locations. This does however demand smart investment and politics and not hysteria. Just think about these BS carbon trading schemes and carbon offsets. It has already been documented that many of these are flawed, will be bad for economic efficiency and result in a lot of money being wasted.http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/carbon-credits-dont-grow-on-trees/2007/05/23/1179601494650.html.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[quade 3]

Quote

I have noticed that Carbon GW proponents mostly try to discredited skeptics instead of answering the questions raised.

It's because we do not trust the source.

It's the exact same reason I don't like to get my information about how well the war is doing from The Pentagon or The White House. The same reason I don't want the foxes guarding the hen house.

Your post raises a number of points. I'd love to go into each one in detail but because of the shear volume of points, it's impossible. At least within the time constaints I have at the moment.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Quote

I have noticed that Carbon GW proponents mostly try to discredited skeptics instead of answering the questions raised.

It's because we do not trust the source.

It's the exact same reason I don't like to get my information about how well the war is doing from The Pentagon or The White House. The same reason I don't want the foxes guarding the hen house.

You post raises a number of points. I'd love to go into each one in detail but because of the shear volume of points, it's impossible. At least within the time constaints I have at the moment.

Hmmm, there are numerous scientists who raising the same questions. You would smack my head if I discredited a source of yours just because Greenpeace is involved.....

I never said take this source or the interesting "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documetary as gospel, but they raise valid points - points many people do not want to answer - because they can't....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[quade 3]

Quote

I never said take this source or the interesting "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documetary as gospel, but they raise valid points - points many people do not want to answer - because they can't....

To -me- both are a bit like watching one of the 9/11 conspiracy theory documentaries. Yes, they raise some interesting points, in fact far too many to even begin to cope with at a rational level, but they never actually offer up any credible evidence.

On the other hand . . . YOU probably feel the same way about An Inconvenient Truth.

Lemme ask you a question . . . have you actually ever watched it?

Be honest now.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mikkey 0]

Yes I have - the reason I started researching skeptics was that the film actually raised my BS alarm - this because I had so many chats about climate with my buddy who actually is a scientist working for the weather bureau.

I find the comparison of the 2 documentaries with 9/11 conspiracies pathetic. They raise scientific questions - questions people who believe the "carbon" theory don't want to answer. Your reaction is exactly why I have become more and more critical of the “GW movement” – anybody who questions their wisdom is attacked. It’s a little like Scientology…

Especially in the "Swindle" documentary there are some very senior scientists asking these questions as well as a co-founder of Greenpeace. The issue that one scientist appearing in it was miffed afterwards - does not change this. There are some issues you can “attack” in these – but on the other hand – there is also clear evidence of inaccuracies in Al’s piece.

So have YOU watched these 2 documentaries? Be honest.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[ExAFO 0]

My left butt cheek itches.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.