# global warming data...garbage in...



## billc

Here is a story that always makes me smile.  The author looks at where we have temperature reading stations...and why they shouldn't be relied on to confirm global warming...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/how-bad-data-contribute-to-global-warming-hysteria.php



> Climate realists are generally willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that the Earth has warmed somewhat in recent decades. In fact, though, it is not obvious that even this modest claim is true. Satellite data show no net warming for as long as such data have been collected, i.e., back to 1979. Ocean measurements show no net warming over that period, either; the evidence for warming is based on land measurements. But the accuracy of land measurements depends on proper siting and maintenance of weather stations. One obvious factor is the urban heat island effect: many weather stations are located in cities, which grow warmer as more people and buildings accumulate. Thus, increasing temperatures at such stations may be measuring urban development rather than the climate. We all know that the urban heat island effect is real&#8211;&#8221;chance of frost in outlying areas&#8221;&#8211;yet the data that alarmists rely upon do not take it into account.





> onclusive proof of global warming, right? Well, not so fast. It turns out that other stations in the Sierras show no warming at all over the same period. Here is one such station, in Tahoe National Forest:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a newer station, but its temperature record shows no warming trend:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the record from a ranger station just 15 miles from the one at Tahoe City, going back to 1949. No warming trend starting in the 1980s:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is going on here? Is Lake Tahoe really warming dramatically, or not? This is the weather station that shows the warming trend that so alarms Governor Brown:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the trash burning barrel just five feet away from the weather station. That was removed after a global warming skeptic pointed it out. But that isn&#8217;t what drove the sudden temperature increase in the early 1980s. Rather, it was the construction of the adjacent tennis court and apartment complex, which occurred at that time:


----------



## fangjian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Scientific_consensus
".....there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community that human-caused global warming is real. "
".....the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement [on climate change]... Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately&#8212;and this is hard to say without sounding elitist&#8212;mostly either not actually climate researchers....."

This is similar of course to those who don't except Evolutionary Biology or Big Bang Cosmology. If there are 50,000 actual Biologists in the world and 50,000 actual Cosmologists ( those who actually do research in the field and are under intense scrutiny by there peers ), there's always like *4 people* that are actually in the field that oppose the explanations . And then there's always the "hundreds of _Phd's _that sign something saying 'we oppose these theories' "   Those Phd's are never actually in those fields ( Biology, Cosmology....). They're always Mathematicians or Philosophers and Theologians. hahahahhhaha


----------



## arnisador

There can't be any doubt about anthropogenic global climate change. To deny it is to look at the entire Industrial Revolution--at factories, farming changes, at powered transportation--and say "no effect". Of course that kind of thing must have some effect. I'm not in a panic but climate change due to man-made effects is indisputable. 

As to biology and evolution, they have the best response in the Steve Project (and as mentioned, the majority of deniers are _not _trained in biology):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

Global climate change needs something like this!


----------



## Empty Hands

Good to see you again Arnisador.


----------



## Chris Parker

billcihak said:


> Here is a story that always makes me smile.  The author looks at where we have temperature reading stations...and why they shouldn't be relied on to confirm global warming...



I suppose what worries me the most, when all is said and done, isn't so much that you'd believe this flawed piece of propaganda, Bill, it's that it'd "make you smile".... why? Does feeling that you're right mean that much to you? Let's look at it realistically: If Global Warming is real (and it is), then the vast majority of findings that support that have been a warning for us to look after the planet, and ourselves. Good thing. If they're not right (they are), then the basic upshot is that people will be more concerned with looking after the planet and each other, leading to a better quality of life, and better longevity for the planet altogether. Good thing. But if you choose not to believe the vast majority of evidence and the recommendations of almost everyone who's looked at the subject, then go ahead and not look after your own home and surroundings, leading to the sooner ruination of the planet.... uh, good thing? Nope, not really. 

So why does such an article make you smile?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Are glaciers and ice sheets melting?

Is a lot of fresh water being introduced into a salt water system?

Know anything about the oceanic conveyor belt system?



and now for something completely different

Hey Arnisador


----------



## WC_lun

I freely admitt I am putting words in billi's mouth, but the reason it makes him smile is because the truth does not concern him, only that there is this thing that supports his "side."


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> Are glaciers and ice sheets melting?
> 
> Is a lot of fresh water being introduced into a salt water system?
> 
> Know anything about the oceanic conveyor belt system?
> 
> 
> 
> and now for something completely different
> 
> Hey Arnisador



The question is are we causing it or is it a natural cycle?  I'm all for cleaning up the world but do it for the right reason don't make up a disaster we have no control over.  And don't be selective about it well the US needs to cut back but china or India are free to do what they wish.  Clean up the environment because its the right thing to do but making money off "carbon offsets". Is just silly you planting a tree in Aspen does not offset your private jet you took to get there.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> The question is are we causing it or is it a natural cycle?  I'm all for cleaning up the world but do it for the right reason don't make up a disaster we have no control over.  And don't be selective about it well the US needs to cut back but china or India are free to do what they wish.  Clean up the environment because its the right thing to do but making money off "carbon offsets". Is just silly you planting a tree in Aspen does not offset your private jet you took to get there.



well, consider this:

We have been burning fosil fuels for about 100 years like it's going out of style, those are carbon (like CO2) compounds that have been sealed away underground for a good long time. And they won't go back underground any time soon either.

Add to that the deforestation: it takes a good size tree nearly a century to grow, taking up CO2 during this time, then, poof, it's been released again into the atmosphere.

And less trees are left to grow. The one tree in Aspen won't do it, right.
But suggesting that the CO2 emissions are not man made jumps in the face of logic. It's one of the basic laws even of chemistry: The stuff has to go somewhere.


----------



## WC_lun

98% of experts say it IS man made.  Even an expert hired by the Koch brothers to "debunc" the man made climate change theories.  Who are the people saying it is not man made?  For the most part, people who are paid to do so by corporations that would be effected by pollution controls and the people who believe those lobbyist.


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> The question is are we causing it or is it a natural cycle?  I'm all for cleaning up the world but do it for the right reason don't make up a disaster we have no control over.  And don't be selective about it well the US needs to cut back but china or India are free to do what they wish.  Clean up the environment because its the right thing to do but making money off "carbon offsets". Is just silly you planting a tree in Aspen does not offset your private jet you took to get there.


Yup, could be a natural cycle, could be planetary orbit or tilt, could be a number of natural causes...but it tends to go against historical data based on climatology and geology...  and if it is pollution it is not a justification to say well their doing it so why should we stop...but I have said this in multiple Global warming thread here on MT.

We need to stop the finger pointing and looking for someone or something to blame and figure out if it can be minimized, stopped, reversed or.. if there is absolutely nothing we can do about it what do we do now.

A professor of mine in college once said, very easily in this global warming discussion The planet is self-correcting, however that correction tends to be rather violent and you really dont want to be in its way when it happens

But enough of that... I'm not asking abot planting trees or private jets...

Are glaciers and ice sheets melting?

Is a lot of fresh water being introduced into a salt water system?

Know anything about the oceanic conveyor belt system?


----------



## Omar B

Really ties in well with his anti-Obama/Coal mining thread.

Supporting one of the dirtiest industries in one thread, then saying global warning is not real in another.  I used to think you are misguided, now I'm truly sad for you.


----------



## granfire

Xue Sheng said:


> Yup, could be a natural cycle, could be planetary orbit or tilt, could be a number of natural causes...but it tends to go against historical data based on climatology and geology...  and if it is pollution it is not a justification to say well their doing it so why should we stop...but I have said this in multiple Global warming thread here on MT.
> 
> We need to stop the finger pointing and looking for someone or something to blame and figure out if it can be minimized, stopped, reversed or&#8230;.. if there is absolutely nothing we can do about it what do we do now.
> 
> A professor of mine in college once said, very easily in this global warming discussion&#8230; &#8220;The planet is self-correcting, however that correction tends to be rather violent and you really don&#8217;t want to be in its way when it happens&#8221;
> 
> But enough of that... I'm not asking abot planting trees or private jets...
> 
> Are glaciers and ice sheets melting?
> 
> Is a lot of fresh water being introduced into a salt water system?
> 
> Know anything about the oceanic conveyor belt system?




The people in Alaska say the ice is melting, so do the Polar Bears. 

The oceanic conveyor belt is among other currents the Gulf Stream: Water that melts from the Arctic icecap sinks to the bottom of the ocean floor, creating a push/pull for warmer water from other areas of the ocean to flow there 

Actually I think I have it partially wrong, as the water getting in contact with the big ice cubes up north cools down too and sinks to the bottom of he ocean...

Also, I think an abundance of floating trash somewhere in the pacific is marking the ocean currents in a rather visible way...


----------



## Xue Sheng

Oooo

I have another relevant question&#8230;. 

What does Global warming actually mean?


----------



## billc

The fact that "climategate 1 and 2" are actually a part of the debate, that the stations used to measure surface temperature may very well be compromised, that the temperature levelled off as opposed to a slow, unending increase, all these things simply point out that man's involvement in temperature change is nowhere near conclusive.  

And yes, this picture of a temperature station next to a garbage burning barrel is funny.





Yeah, coal is dirty so is oil but you know what, they are reliable, fairly cheap and they actually work when you use them.  Before you just stop using coal because you don't like it, you had better have a locked in power source that actually works, especially in cold states where the temperatures will kill people if they don't have reliable power.  Solar, Wind, are not reliable, do not work in all cases, and are destructive to the environment in their own way.

Yes, the data on global warming is so conclusive that the guys in charge destroyed it to keep it out of the hands of skeptics, plotted to keep the work of skeptics out of the various science journals and plotted to get editors of science journals who allowed the work of skeptics into their journals fired...all disclosed in the Climategate e-mails...and you guys want to change how people live their lives based on that track record of lies and deceptions...go ahead, have fun with that.

And the real funny thing, the people most pushing for man made global warming to be real have a great solution, give poor countries money from wealthy countries...yes we have seen this before as well...


And then you have stories like this that are all too common in the debate...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-greenpeace-collaborate-on-global-warming.php

POSTED ON *AUGUST 6, 2012* BY *JOHN HINDERAKER* IN CLIMATE, MEDIA BIAS, THE WAR ON THE KOCH BROTHERS


> *U.S. NEWS AND GREENPEACE COLLABORATE ON GLOBAL WARMING*
> 
> We have written here and here about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. The project&#8217;s goal was to carry out a comprehensive survey of recorded temperatures from as many locations around the world as possible, to develop the most accurate possible history of global temperatures from 1753 to 2011. It is still underway, but the group recently released a preliminary report, which finds that the Earth is somewhat warmer today than in 1753, and that average global temperature has increased 0.869 degree C since the 1950s.
> This conclusion is something of a yawner, since pretty much everyone has long assumed that the Earth is warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age, and that there has been some warming in the last century. There are obvious holes in the BEST analysis. Here are just a few of them:
> 1) The work done so far covers only land measurements, so more than half of the Earth&#8217;s surface area, the oceans, are not represented.
> 2) The BEST data tell us nothing new about the causes of temperature fluctuations. The report does not attempt to measure or to explain the warm temperatures during Roman times and the Medieval Warm Period, the colder temperatures during the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age, and so on.
> 3) The report does not attempt to explain the fact that satellite measurements, which are taken in the atmosphere where global warming should be taking place, do not show the warming trend that appears in land measurements.
> Over the coming months, scientists will analyze and critique the BEST data. Maybe their methods will hold up, maybe they won&#8217;t. But on any scenario, the preliminary BEST report does not come close to resolving the many debates over the Earth&#8217;s climate and the causes that drive its constant changes.



And then you have this, and I haven't even gone into my collection of global warming material yet...this is just a quick search...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...2-can-regulate-climate-is-sheer-absurdity.php



> *THE BELIEF THAT CO2 CAN REGULATE CLIMATE IS &#8220;SHEER ABSURDITY&#8221;*
> 
> Klaus-Eckart Puls is a German physicist and meteorologist who investigated the underpinnings of global warming hysteria and was horrified at how unscientific the global warming advocates are. He recently gave an interview to the Swiss magazine _factum which is translated here:__*factum*: You&#8217;ve been criticising the theory of man-made global warming for years. How did you become skeptical?_
> _*Puls*: Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data &#8211; first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power._
> _*factum*: Is there really climate change?_
> _*Puls*: Climate change is normal. There have always been phases of climate warming, many that even far exceeded the extent we see today. But there hasn&#8217;t been any warming since 1998. In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling._
> _*factum*: The IPCC is projecting 0.2°C warming per decade, i.e. 2 to 4°C by the year 2100. What&#8217;s your view?_
> _*Puls*: These are speculative model projections, so-called scenarios &#8211; and not prognoses. Because of climate&#8217;s high complexity, reliable prognoses just aren&#8217;t possible. Nature does what it wants, and not what the models present as prophesy. The entire CO2-debate is nonsense. Even if CO2 were doubled, the temperature would rise only 1°C. The remainder of the IPCC&#8217;s assumed warming is based purely on speculative amplification mechanisms. Even though CO2 has risen, there has been no warming in 13 years._
> _*factum*: How does sea level rise look?_
> _*Puls*: Sea level rise has slowed down. Moreover, it has dropped a half centimeter over the last 2 years._​_So maybe Barack Obama has caused the seas to stop rising after all. Then again, maybe not.__It&#8217;s important to remember that mean sea level is a calculated magnitude, and not a measured one. There are a great number of factors that influence sea level, e.g. tectonic processes, continental shifting, wind currents, passats, volcanoes. Climate change is only one of ten factors._
> _*factum*: What have we measured at the North Sea?_
> _*Puls*: In the last 400 years, sea level at the North Sea coast has risen about 1.40 meters. That&#8217;s about 35 centimeters per century. In the last 100 years, the North Sea has risen only 25 centimeters._
> ​



So, please, tell me again how the science is settled...

As to ice melt...



> *factum*: But it is true that unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is melting?
> *Puls*: It has been melting for 30 years. That also happened twice already in the last 150 years. The low point was reached in 2007 and the ice has since begun to recover. There have always been phases of Arctic melting. Between 900 and 1300 Greenland was green on the edges and the Vikings settled there. &#8230;


----------



## billc

Here is some info. on Climate gate...it is a nice summary of a huge scientific scandal...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-men-bahaving-badly-a-short-summary-for-laymen/



> Here are excerpts from his post &#8220;*Men behaving badly*&#8220;.What&#8217;s the hubbub? It all comes down to men behaving badly. Emails and files related to top scientists that support man made global warming theory were released in the hacked files. These scientists have authored/co-authored many of the studies relied on by the UN IPCC, and world governments. The studies have been used to pronounce global warming an immediate, and therefore taxable, threat.
> Here are some of the highlights of the documents released.
> 1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He&#8217;s just not very good at securing his web site.
> 2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be &#8220;predictable&#8221;.
> 3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.
> 4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.
> What the emails/files don&#8217;t do is completely destroy the possibility that global climate change is real. They don&#8217;t preclude many studies from being accurate, on either side of the discussion. And they should not be seen as discrediting all science.
> 
> ​



Climate science is to conclusive they had to do these things to prove it...

So tell me again how wrong I am to doubt man made global warming....


----------



## billc

Here is another picture that makes me smile...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/03/link-to-weather-station-photos/





And some more poorly placed temperature stations...but yeah, I'm wrong to distrust the methods used to prove man made global warming:lfao:

http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/temperature-monitoring-sites


----------



## billc

And more easy searching results...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/more-from-the-climatefail-files.php





> An account on the Thomson-Reuters AlterNet site, though with the odd headline &#8220;Greenland Ice Said More Robust to Climate Change Than Feared,&#8221; decodes the study quite well:OSLO, Aug 2 (Reuters) &#8211; Greenland&#8217;s ice seems less vulnerable than feared to a runaway melt that would drive up world sea levels, according to a study showing that a surge of ice loss had petered out.
> &#8220;It is too early to proclaim the &#8216;ice sheet&#8217;s future doom&#8217;&#8221; caused by climate change, lead author Kurt Kjaer of the University of Copenhagen wrote in a statement of the findings in Friday&#8217;s edition of the journal Science. . .
> The cause of the surge in ice loss in the 1980s was unclear but might have been linked to a shift in ocean currents. The underlying cause of a change in currents was unknown.​Of course, cautiously stated research like this is no fun at all if you&#8217;re a climateer.  That&#8217;s why it will be ignored.



and as to the Koch guy (or do you prefer pepsi?)...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/mulling-over-muller.php



> But just how much of a &#8220;skeptic&#8221; was Muller?  Here&#8217;s the opening from his 2008 interview with Grist.org:Grist: What should a President McCain or Obama know about global warming?
> Muller: The bottom line is that there is a consensus &#8212; the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] &#8212; and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can&#8217;t. Roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; we&#8217;re responsible for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we don&#8217;t cause any more, global warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide.​Sounds pretty close to the &#8220;consensus&#8221; party line to me, and as such today&#8217;s _Times_ op-ed does not represent a fundamentally new position for Muller at all.  (I&#8217;m wondering whether a _Times_editor pressured him to use the &#8220;total turnaround&#8221; language.)  Actually, Muller has always been among the group of folks known as &#8220;lukewarmers,&#8221; i.e., that warming has taken place, but that serious doubts remain about the full extent of human causation, and more importantly, how much more warming can be expected in the future (not much, says MIT&#8217;s Richard Lindzen, for example), or what should be done about it if there is more warming ahead: the climateers&#8217; only answer&#8212;suppression of fossil fuels, is idiotic&#8212;full stop&#8212;and their opposition to considering alternatives to fossil fuel suppression hinders the development of real options (geoengineering, carbon capture, resilience/adaptation, etc.) for dealing with climate change _from whatever cause_.  (The weakest part of Muller&#8217;s new piece, by the way, is his discussion of the potential of future warming, which shouldn&#8217;t make anyone on any side of this controversy happy.  But we&#8217;ll have to see what additional findings are released tomorrow.)





> It turns out that the Climateers hate the &#8220;lukewarmers&#8221; almost more than climate skeptics, as can be seen from this piece from Clive Hamilton on the ThinkProgress blog:We are familiar with the tactics, arguments, and personnel of the denial industry. Yet there is a perhaps more insidious and influential line of argument that is preventing the world from responding to the warnings of climate science.
> &#8220;Luke-warmists&#8221; may be defined as those who appear to accept the body of climate science but interpret it in a way that is least threatening: emphasizing uncertainties, playing down dangers, and advocating a slow and cautious response.​Sure enough, Muller&#8217;s _Times_ op-ed today includes these important breaks with the alarmist line:I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I&#8217;ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn&#8217;t changed.
> Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren&#8217;t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren&#8217;t going to melt by 2035. And it&#8217;s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the &#8220;Medieval Warm Period&#8221; or &#8220;Medieval Optimum,&#8221; an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to &#8220;global&#8221; warming is weaker than tenuous.​Well this rather takes all the fun about of being a climateer, doesn&#8217;t it?



Hmmmm...global warming is good for polar bears?  Hmmmm...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ars-is-bad-news-for-global-warming-alarmists/



> *8/15/2012 *





> Crockford has more than 35 years&#8217; experience in zoology and evolutionary biology, with a special focus on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. She publishes a highly respected science website called &#8220;Polar Bear Science: Past and Present.&#8221;
> In a July article on her website, Crockford explains why the colder temperatures yearned for by global warming alarmists may negatively affect polar bear populations. Crockford explains that extended periods of thick sea ice extending south to Arctic shorelines may negatively impact ringed seal populations. Because ringed seals are the only prey species readily available to female polar bears giving birth to cubs on shore or on sea ice near shore, long periods of thick ice near Arctic shores can pose grave threats to polar bear populations. The recent disappearance of ringed seals from Beaufort Sea shores during periods of exceptionally thick sea ice appear to verify Crockford&#8217;s observations.
> More importantly for the future outlook, Crockford explains, polar bears have successfully endured climate change and Arctic sea ice extremes far beyond those of recent years.
> &#8220;It is still not known for certain when Polar Bears evolved but there is no question that, in the many millennia they have existed as a separate species, they have survived very significant changes in climate,&#8221;



I'm sorry, say again...



> The recent disappearance of ringed seals from Beaufort Sea shores during periods of exceptionally thick sea ice appear to verify Crockford&#8217;s observations.



But, I thought all the ice was melting like a popsicle left in the sun...


----------



## WC_lun

You know Billi, I'll even give you the instances in these photos are real and not another hack job.  So all of those scientist are really just making this up?  Keep believing what the magic men tell you.  Me, I'll put my trust in science first.


----------



## billc

I put my trust in science as well, I just wish the "scientists," who are trying to pass off global warming as a man made phenomenon were just sticking to science as well.  It would be nice if they stopped sabotaging the scientists who disagree with them wouldn't it?

If Climategate 1 wasn't bad enough, there was a sequel...Climategate 2

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/



> A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
> Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political &#8220;cause&#8221; rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.



What was that about "trusting science?"



> Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.





> &#8220;I&#8217;ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,&#8221;writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
> &#8220;Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get &#8211; and has to be well hidden,&#8221; Jones writes in another newly released email. &#8220;I&#8217;ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.&#8221;
> The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. &#8220;Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?&#8221; Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. &#8220;Keith will do likewise. &#8230; We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!&#8221;
> The new emails also reveal the scientists&#8217; attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.





> The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. &#8220;Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?&#8221; Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. &#8220;Keith will do likewise. &#8230; We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!&#8221;
> The new emails also reveal the scientists&#8217; attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.
> &#8220;The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what&#8217;s included and what is left out&#8221; of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC&#8217;s most recent climate assessment.
> &#8220;I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don&#8217;t know what she thinks she&#8217;s doing, but its not helping the cause,&#8221; wrote Mann in another newly released email.



Doesn't this scandal shake your belief in what these guys are selling?



> These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting  that his fellow Climategate scientists &#8220;must get rid of&#8221; the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.


----------



## WC_lun

No, billi, you are a science denier.  A majority of scientist in the field, by a vast magin, say it is real and man made.  You say it is not.  Not only is that not logical thinking, but it just proves that you will put the propaganda you hear before everything else.  It is also very sad, because it means that absolutely nothing will convince you that you are mistaken...certainly not all those scientist who have trained in the the field.


----------



## billc

The guys hiding data and destroying data and sabotaging other scientists and journalists and editors are not fringe guys...they are the guys generating the data that everyone else cites as global warming gospel...The other scientists are using their data, and then proclaiming that global warming is man made...you don't think twice about that?

Oh, so you know, it is just Bill.  Thanks.

How do you call me a science denier when we have e-mails from the main global warming theorists destroying their data to keep it from being analyzed?  This isn't a fringe thing, it actually happened...is that real science?


----------



## ballen0351

I guess for me it comes down to if it were as serious as every claims then why are there programs out there to try and sell Carbon Credits?  If it so bad shouldnt we be trying to stop CO2 from entering the system not bartering with other poor countries to buy there share of co2 credits.  If it were so bad shouldnt the ones leading the charge Gore. Leo Decaprio, ect lead by example and ditch the huge houses and private planes.  If its really an earth changing evert should we not try to shut down India and China and Africa whos polution standards are so much higher then our own By force if we need to since its for the children after all.  

OR

Is it a natrual cycle that the earth has a warming and cooling period ice melts it happens at the end of every ice age so for the ice to melt the temps must rise and some smart people saw a way to make a few bucks by selling things like Carbon Offsets and Hybrid vehicles.  And a small niche of scientest found a way to keep the grant money rolling in by finding the results they were actually trying to find.

Me Im more of the Clean up your yard because it looks nicer and makes the out doors more enjoyable.  Do it because its the right thing to do not because some doom and gloom "science"  says we must.  Do it because When I take my kids out on our boat I dont like seeing floating beer cans and trash.  Do it because we should be looking out for other animals and be good stewards of the earth so my gand kids will know the thirll of reeling in a large Rockfish or Shooting a huge white tail buck.


----------



## WC_lun

Because many of the emails have been proven to be fakes and 98% of the people who actually do the science say it is real and man made.  I see you have convenientley ignored the scienteist hired by the Koch brothers as well.  You post anything that supports your narrative, but ignore the far greater body of work that does not.

For your theory to be correct, Bill, 98% of the scientist in the world who have anything to do with climate change investigation or research would have to collude together in order to keep the false information output consistant.  Not only is that not plausable, but also not very possible. So yes, you are a science denier, right up there with your friends that say the Earth is only six thousand years old.


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> Because many of the emails have been proven to be fakes and 98% of the people who actually do the science say it is real and man made.  I see you have convenientley ignored the scienteist hired by the Koch brothers as well.  You post anything that supports your narrative, but ignore the far greater body of work that does not.
> 
> For your theory to be correct, Bill, 98% of the scientist in the world who have anything to do with climate change investigation or research would have to collude together in order to keep the false information output consistant.  Not only is that not plausable, but also not very possible. So yes, you are a science denier, right up there with your friends that say the Earth is only six thousand years old.



There was a time when 98% of the worlds experts thought the world was flat as well.


----------



## fangjian

ballen0351 said:


> There was a time when 98% of the worlds experts thought the world was flat as well.



True. 

The scientific consensus currently is also that the Earth is a spheroid, and that the planet Neptune exists.  Maybe those silly theories will get debunked as well. lolz


----------



## Tgace

When I was a school kid the scientists were telling us that acid rain and the next ice age were the extinction events I had to look forward to...


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## arnisador

ballen0351 said:


> There was a time when 98% of the worlds experts thought the world was flat as well.



Actually. it's not so simple. The Greeks already had pretty good estimates for the circumference of the round earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

But mistakes happen in science. However, it's unlikely that 98% of experts are completely wrong in the age of the Scientific Method. It's true that _F_=_ma_ is false but Newton was absolutely on to something and that contribution has lasted.


----------



## ballen0351

fangjian said:


> True.
> 
> The scientific consensus currently is also that the Earth is a spheroid, and that the planet Neptune exists.  Maybe those silly theories will get debunked as well. lolz



We had a planet named pluto once but no more


----------



## Xue Sheng

granfire said:


> The people in Alaska say the ice is melting, so do the Polar Bears.
> 
> The oceanic conveyor belt is among other currents the Gulf Stream: Water that melts from the Arctic icecap sinks to the bottom of the ocean floor, creating a push/pull for warmer water from other areas of the ocean to flow there
> 
> Actually I think I have it partially wrong, as the water getting in contact with the big ice cubes up north cools down too and sinks to the bottom of he ocean...
> 
> Also, I think an abundance of floating trash somewhere in the pacific is marking the ocean currents in a rather visible way...



And if you introduce a lot of fresh water into the conveyorbelt it will shut down and then let the climate games begin. However you reallywont feel the full extent of it for about 100 years

The global ocean conveyor belt


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> Actually. it's not so simple. The Greeks already had pretty good estimates for the circumference of the round earth.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
> 
> But mistakes happen in science. However, it's unlikely that 98% of experts are completely wrong in the age of the Scientific Method. It's true that _F_=_ma_ is false but Newton was absolutely on to something and that contribution has lasted.


98% of experts that have there entire job based on climate change.  If they all of a sudden said opps we were wrong there would be 98% of them in the unemployment line.  When your only existance is it prove something exists it becomes pretty easy to prove it.  Even easier when the earth naturally warms and cools in cycles and we may be on the warming trend. Then again maybe not


----------



## WC_lun

Ballen, sorry your theory does not hold up to logical probing.  For the gloabl warming to be faked by so many people, they would have to coordinate the fraud of every single researcher and scientist that says it is real and man made.  Think about how difficult it would be to do that.  Even in today's world of super communication it would not be possible.  Let's dumb it down a bit to make it easier to understand what I am saying.  Take 50 people and put them in a room.  Now ask 49 of those 50 people to coordinate a lie.  Now ask 49 of them to provide data supporting the truthfullness of thier lie.  Also remind them thier reputations are on the line.  How long do you think it woul be before those 49 fractured and started telling the truth?  98% of scientist have said global warming is real and man made.  Which is more credible that so many scientist would be lying and the lie would hold up or that other people are pushing an agenda are lying?


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> 98% of experts that have there entire job based on climate change. If they all of a sudden said opps we were wrong there would be 98% of them in the unemployment line. When your only existance is it prove something exists it becomes pretty easy to prove it. Even easier when the earth naturally warms and cools in cycles and we may be on the warming trend. Then again maybe not





That's _weather_, not *climate* a common confusion of the common man.



> Worldwide Climate Classifications
> 
> *Climate* encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elemental measurements in a given region over long periods. *Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these elements and their variations over shorter periods*.





> *Weather* is the state of the atmosphere, to the degree that it is hot or cold, wet or dry, calm or stormy, clear or cloudy.[SUP][1][/SUP] Most weather phenomena occur in the troposphere,[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] just below the stratosphere. Weather refers, generally, to day-to-day temperature and precipitation activity, whereas climate is the term for the average atmospheric conditions over longer periods of time.[SUP][4][/SUP] When used without qualification, "weather" is understood to be the weather of Earth



So, anecdotally, here is what I know:

For the last three years, I've gotten two corn crops per season, and two melon crops as well, where, in anyone else's memory, including Ernesto Roybal, my 90 some odd year old well technician, we'd have only had one.

This has happened, as near as I can tell, as far north as Pueblo, CO. 

High mountain flowers, on which bees and much of the rest of the ecosphere are dependent, are dying off, made more vulnerable by earlier spring seasons.

Bees are dying off.

More to the point, as others have pointed out, glaciers and ice caps are melting away, adding water to the thermohayalene current (sorry, Xue-I'm a sailor....:lfao: ) which drives our world's climate.

Lastly, of course, core samples of arctic, antarctic and Greenland ice indicate that our atmospheric CO2 content is at a level that the planet hasn't seen in close to 850000 years-and the planet was much warmer when it was this high. 

Basically, we're kinda ****ed. The ice caps reflected a great deal of heat from the earth-their melting means less reflected heat, and more melting-and more melting means more fresh water disrupting the thermohayelene current. 

There's really very litte we can do about it, now. We could all go back to the stone age, and the process is probably nearly irreversible: the earth is getting warmer, and we'll all see it's effects-our children and grandchildren even more. What's really *disgusting*, is that some, in the name of economics and *profit*, would choose to insist that global warming-man made or otherwise-is a hoax, meant to keep business from doing *business as usual.*

We're gonna get the world we deserve, unfortunately, and I'm glad I won't live to see it-even as I cry for my kids and grandkids.


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> Ballen, sorry your theory does not hold up to logical probing.  For the gloabl warming to be faked by so many people, they would have to coordinate the fraud of every single researcher and scientist that says it is real and man made.  Think about how difficult it would be to do that.  Even in today's world of super communication it would not be possible.  Let's dumb it down a bit to make it easier to understand what I am saying.  Take 50 people and put them in a room.  Now ask 49 of those 50 people to coordinate a lie.  Now ask 49 of them to provide data supporting the truthfullness of thier lie.  Also remind them thier reputations are on the line.  How long do you think it woul be before those 49 fractured and started telling the truth?  98% of scientist have said global warming is real and man made.  Which is more credible that so many scientist would be lying and the lie would hold up or that other people are pushing an agenda are lying?



Most of these so called experts just regurgitate the same data over and over so its really not that hard.  But again Im not saying the climate isnt warming Im saying its natural it warms and cools like its done for millions of years.  So its really not hard to do a study and say well see the climate is getting warmer.  You cant prove it is man made.  
Now if it is man made and its such a global crisis why are the powers of the world doing anyhting about it.  If it truly was going to kill us all why are we not cracking down with force against the worlds top polluters like China India US Germany and Canada.  Could it be that its not really as bad as we are being told.  Im still waiting to burn up from the hole in the Ozone I was told was going to kill us all by the year 2010


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> That's _weather_, not *climate* a common confusion of the common man.


I understand the difference thanks its just a funny picture






> So, anecdotally, here is what I know:
> 
> For the last three years, I've gotten two corn crops per season, and two melon crops as well, where, in anyone else's memory, including Ernesto Roybal, my 90 some odd year old well technician, we'd have only had one.
> 
> This has happened, as near as I can tell, as far north as Pueblo, CO.
> 
> High mountain flowers, on which bees and much of the rest of the ecosphere are dependent, are dying off, made more vulnerable by earlier spring seasons.
> 
> Bees are dying off.
> 
> More to the point, as others have pointed out, glaciers and ice caps are melting away, adding water to the thermohayalene current (sorry, Xue-I'm a sailor....:lfao: ) which drives our world's climate.
> 
> Lastly, of course, core samples of arctic, antarctic and Greenland ice indicate that our atmospheric CO2 content is at a level that the planet hasn't seen in close to 850000 years-and the planet was much warmer when it was this high.
> 
> Basically, we're kinda ****ed. The ice caps reflected a great deal of heat from the earth-their melting means less reflected heat, and more melting-and more melting means more fresh water disrupting the thermohayelene current.
> 
> There's really very litte we can do about it, now. We could all go back to the stone age, and the process is probably nearly irreversible: the earth is getting warmer, and we'll all see it's effects-our children and grandchildren even more. What's really *disgusting*, is that some, in the name of economics and *profit*, would choose to insist that global warming-man made or otherwise-is a hoax, meant to keep business from doing *business as usual.*
> 
> We're gonna get the world we deserve, unfortunately, and I'm glad I won't live to see it-even as I cry for my kids and grandkids.


Again I dont doubt all that but you cant say we caused it.   Warming and cooling are natural we will all be wiped out at some point in the future either by heat of by freeze its the earths cycle if we dont nuke ourselves first before that happens


----------



## fangjian

ballen0351 said:


> Most of these so called experts just regurgitate the same data over and over so its really not that hard.


Right?!  Just like the planet Neptune. It's a conspiracy. These people just believe whatever they're told.   "Neptune exists, We went to the Moon, The Holocaust happened................"   BS


> Now if it is man made and its such a global crisis why are the powers of the world doing anyhting about it.  If it truly was going to kill us all why are we not cracking down with force...............



Complacency.


----------



## billc

Wc Lun you obviously didn't read post #18 where I specifically discussed the Koch guy and made a pepsi joke...except the article discusses some of the views he held before he worked for the Koch (or do you prefer pepsi) guys, which is in my post...

and as to the Koch guy (or do you prefer pepsi?)...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ver-muller.php




> But just how much of a &#8220;skeptic&#8221; was Muller? Here&#8217;s the opening from his 2008 interview with Grist.org:Grist: What should a President McCain or Obama know about global warming?
> Muller: The bottom line is that there is a consensus &#8212; the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] &#8212; and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can&#8217;t. Roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; we&#8217;re responsible for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we don&#8217;t cause any more, global warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide.​Sounds pretty close to the &#8220;consensus&#8221; party line to me, and as such today&#8217;s _Times_ op-ed does not represent a fundamentally new position for Muller at all. (I&#8217;m wondering whether a _Times_editor pressured him to use the &#8220;total turnaround&#8221; language.) Actually, Muller has always been among the group of folks known as &#8220;lukewarmers,&#8221; i.e., that warming has taken place, but that serious doubts remain about the full extent of human causation, and more importantly, how much more warming can be expected in the future (not much, says MIT&#8217;s Richard Lindzen, for example), or what should be done about it if there is more warming ahead: the climateers&#8217; only answer&#8212;suppression of fossil fuels, is idiotic&#8212;full stop&#8212;and their opposition to considering alternatives to fossil fuel suppression hinders the development of real options (geoengineering, carbon capture, resilience/adaptation, etc.) for dealing with climate change _from whatever cause_. (The weakest part of Muller&#8217;s new piece, by the way, is his discussion of the potential of future warming, which shouldn&#8217;t make anyone on any side of this controversy happy. But we&#8217;ll have to see what additional findings are released tomorrow.)
> 
> 
> 
> It turns out that the Climateers hate the &#8220;lukewarmers&#8221; almost more than climate skeptics, as can be seen from this piece from Clive Hamilton on the ThinkProgress blog:We are familiar with the tactics, arguments, and personnel of the denial industry. Yet there is a perhaps more insidious and influential line of argument that is preventing the world from responding to the warnings of climate science.
> &#8220;Luke-warmists&#8221; may be defined as those who appear to accept the body of climate science but interpret it in a way that is least threatening: emphasizing uncertainties, playing down dangers, and advocating a slow and cautious response.​Sure enough, Muller&#8217;s _Times_ op-ed today includes these important breaks with the alarmist line:I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I&#8217;ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn&#8217;t changed.
> Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren&#8217;t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren&#8217;t going to melt by 2035. And it&#8217;s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the &#8220;Medieval Warm Period&#8221; or &#8220;Medieval Optimum,&#8221; an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to &#8220;global&#8221; warming is weaker than tenuous.​Well this rather takes all the fun about of being a climateer, doesn&#8217;t it?


----------



## billc

Do you mean this 97-98% of scientists...

http://junkscience.com/2011/09/08/t...climate-scientists-believe-in-global-warming/



> During Wednesday&#8217;s GOP presidential debate, Jon Huntsman attacked Rick Perry with the claim that 97% to 98% of climate scientists believe in the manmade global warming hypothesis. This claim is also gaining currency in the lamestream media
> The claim arises from this June 2010 PNAS study. Read it if you have the time and stomach, but the bottom line is that about 97% to 98% of climate researchers (if not more) are paid by the government and climate interest groups to support and to advance the global warming hypothesis and, guess what, they do.
> This doesn&#8217;t make these researchers correct or credible, just employed.
> The study&#8217;s premise that unless you&#8217;ve published 20 papers on climate your views don&#8217;t matter or are uninformed is patently arbitrary and absurd.
> If you can read a graph, then you have all the tools necessary to decide the climate controversy for yourself. You only need the PhD and track record of publications if you want to rip-off taxpayers in the name of alarmism.



Or this take on the 98% from the Heartland institute...oh I know, they are conservative so their views don't count...but still, it you are interested...

http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/05-02-12_bast_myth_of_the_98.pdf



> The Myth of the 98% By Joseph L. Bast
> Last updated: May 1, 2012
> Do 98 percent of climate scientists really believe in man&#8208;made global warming? A little research reveals that the often&#8208;cited figure is a confused and erroneous reference to two different studies that both fail to prove what those who cite them believe or allege.





> Doran and Zimmerman
> The first study, by Doran and Zimmerman, appeared in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2009. You can retrieve it at http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf. This article reports the results of a survey, but it was a meaningless one.
> The researchers &#8211; a professor at the University of Illinois and a graduate student &#8211; sent a two&#8208; minute online survey to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies, generating responses from 3,146 people. Only 5 percent of respondents self&#8208; identified as climate scientists. The survey asked two questions:
> &#8220;Q1. &#8220;When compared with pre&#8208;1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?&#8221;
> Q2. &#8220;Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?&#8221;
> Overall, 90 percent of respondents answered &#8220;risen&#8221; to question 1 and 82 percent answered &#8220;yes&#8221; to question 2. The authors get their fraudulent &#8220;98 percent of climate scientists believe&#8221;
> sound bite by focusing on only 79 (not a typo) scientists who responded and &#8220;listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50 percent of their recent peer&#8208;reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.&#8221;
> Given that there are tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of scientists with real expertise in basic sciences related to climate, a survey that looks at the views of only 79 climate scientists is ridiculous. Its tiny sample size makes it meaningless.
> Even worse than the sample size, though, is the complete irrelevance of the questions asked in the survey to the real debate taking place about climate change. Most skeptics would answer those two questions the same way as alarmists would.





> Anderegg et al.
> The Doran and Zimmerman survey is often confused or conflated with a second study, Anderegg et al., &#8220;Expert credibility in climate change,&#8221; in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107
> From the abstract:
> Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97&#8211;98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
> Note that this is not a survey of scientists, whether &#8220;all scientists&#8221; or specifically climate scientists. Instead, Anderegg et al. counted the number of articles published in academic journals by 908 &#8220;climate researchers,&#8221; defined as people who had signed petitions opposing or supporting the IPCC&#8217;s positions or had coauthored IPCC reports and had published a minimum of 20 climate publications.
> They found that 97 to 98 percent of the most prolific 200 climate researchers, so defined, appeared to believe that &#8220;anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for &#8216;most&#8217; of the &#8216;unequivocal&#8217; warming of the Earth&#8217;s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century.&#8221;
> Observe that this counting exercise did not determine how many of these authors believe global warming is a crisis, or that the science is sufficiently established to be the basis for public policy, or even that future global warming would be bad (or good). Anyone who cites this study in defense of these views is mistaken.



Wow, a new term..."Publication Bias."  What's that?





> Why Alarmists Publish More
> Anderegg et al.&#8217;s assertion that &#8220;he who publishes the most must be the most credible&#8221; is implausible. There are at least four reasons why skeptics appear in print less frequently than do alarmists, and none of them has to do with credibility or expertise. They are:
> Publication bias. Articles that &#8220;find something&#8221; &#8211; such as a statistically significant correlation that might imply causation &#8211; are much more likely to get published than those that do not. Such &#8220;findings&#8221; are newsworthy and important to other researchers, while experiments that do not &#8220;find something&#8221; are less so. Even though falsifying hypotheses with experimental data is the essence of true science, it is the experiment that seems to generate or support a hypothesis that gets all the attention and is most likely to be published, even if that experiment had a small sample size, limited duration, or other defects that increased the odds of a false positive finding.
> Publication bias is also caused by heavy government funding of the search for one result, but little or no funding for other results. In the case of climate change, hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants have gone to scholars who say they are trying to find a discernible human impact on climate, or of climate change on plants, animals, fish, human health, or a litany of other things. Much less funding is available to scholars who say they are seeking to find natural causes for climate change, or explanations of natural phenomena that don&#8217;t involve climate change.
> Publication bias helps explain why most published research findings are false, not only in climate science but in all disciplines. Thousands of researchers are being paid to &#8220;find something,&#8221; and they publish whenever they think they might have found something, no...



:angel:

These climate scientists wouldn't "Pad their resumes," would they...Uh oh...!



> Resumé padding. Climate scientist Phil Jones, before the Climategate scandal revealed that he was hiding data and illegally blocking FOIA requests, was identified as a coauthor on articles appearing in science journals an average of once a week, an astounding pace if the findings he was reporting were being carefully vetted. (As reported by Fred Pearce in The Climate Files). His data are still being cited in footnotes for scores of other published articles every week or month.
> This extraordinary productivity is a function of several things, but one is the practice of having large numbers of coauthors on scientific papers, so that a dozen or even two dozen writers get to list the paper in their resumé. This makes objective peer review difficult or impossible, helping to ensure publication. This practice became pervasive in climate research only in the past decade, and it is entirely a phenomenon of alarmist scientists. Most skeptics continue to publish alone or with only a few coauthors.




Ummmm...errrr...sooo...tell me again how this is all about the science...


----------



## billc

The 98%ers vs. the old farts...

http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/05-02-12_bast_myth_of_the_98.pdf



> Age and academic status. Climate scientists who are skeptics tend to be older, and more are emeritus, than scientists in the alarmist camp. This could be the result of two things: Either they are willing to speak out because they either have tenure or are retired and do not fear retaliation for taking an unpopular stance, or they are less impressed by the current fixation on computer models.
> These &#8220;old school&#8221; scientists recognize that computer models&#8217; outputs are not data but hypotheses that must be tested by data (empirical observation) &#8211; a relationship that many younger scientists, accustomed to working constantly with computers and far less with observations of the natural world, tend to get exactly backward. These older scientists also were considered respected and successful if they published once or twice a year and devoted time to classroom teaching, if they are not fully retired.
> Climate alarmists tend to be younger, trying to get tenure by appearing in academic journals, and more likely to team up with other scientists to appear more frequently in those journals. Alarmists also are more likely to be environmental activists, drawn to the field by their interest in environmental issues rather than by pure interest in science itself. This again makes them more likely to write and publish articles specifically on the hot topic of climate change.



Editorial Bias...What's that?



> Editorial bias. We know from the leaked Climategate emails that a small clique of influential government scientists worked behind the scenes to get academic journal editors to reject papers that would otherwise have qualified for publication. These scientists even arranged for editors who dared to publish such papers to be fired or pressured into resigning. This is gross editorial bias and likely contributed to some of the disparity in publishing numbers between skeptics and alarmists. More subtle bias, which might not be apparent even to the editors who exercise it, probably accounts for still more of the disparity.



Sooo...tell me again about this 98% of scientists thing...


----------



## Xue Sheng

elder999 said:


> More to the point, as others have pointed out, glaciers and ice caps are melting away, adding water to the thermohayalene current (sorry, Xue-I'm a sailor....:lfao: ) which drives our world's climate.



You have no idea how close I came to adding to my question "this is for everyone BUT elder" 

That Climatology class waaaaaaaay back in college did also call it the thermohayalene current but I was not sure how many would know that terminology

And I'm the son of a sailor (22 years navy and 3 carriers  )


----------



## pgsmith

I know it's stupid, but I just can't help myself ... OK Bill, while you're ranting on about your usual topics, let me point out a couple of things here. First is the fact that the average global air and sea temperature is rising. This is undisputed, and every single climatologist agrees with this fact. Not theory, fact. Second is the fact that methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat, and increases the earth's average temperature. This is also undisputed fact that is agreed with by everyone involved in climatology. What is disputed among some climatologists is whether humanity is directly responsible for the rising temperatures or not. However, given these two facts, do you personally think it's a *good* idea to ignore how many millions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane gasses that our industries pump into the atmosphere every year? Does it really appear to you that ignoring any potential ill effects from our manufacturing processes is the best thing to do? Do you think that ignoring how many toxins are pumped into the ocean is a good idea also? In your opinion, should we release all pollution controls from our industries so they can maximize their profits, or do you think that limits on pollution are a necessary regulation?

I am truly interested in your answers to these questions.


----------



## Tgace

Preach that to China and India....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999

pgsmith said:


> I know it's stupid, but I just can't help myself ... OK Bill, while you're ranting on about your usual topics, let me point out a couple of things here. First is the fact that the average global air and sea temperature is rising. This is undisputed, and every single climatologist agrees with this fact. Not theory, fact. Second is the fact that methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat, and increases the earth's average temperature. This is also undisputed fact that is agreed with by everyone involved in climatology. What is disputed among some climatologists is whether humanity is directly responsible for the rising temperatures or not. However, given these two facts, do you personally think it's a *good* idea to ignore how many millions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane gasses that our industries pump into the atmosphere every year? Does it really appear to you that ignoring any potential ill effects from our manufacturing processes is the best thing to do? Do you think that ignoring how many toxins are pumped into the ocean is a good idea also? In your opinion, should we release all pollution controls from our industries so they can maximize their profits, or do you think that limits on pollution are a necessary regulation?
> 
> I am truly interested in your answers to these questions.



Facts? 

You really think you can argue with _facts?_ You don't have any propaganda websites to support your position, no endless screeds on the oppression of the right, no drooling polemics on the vast right wing conspiracy to heat the planet for our off-world reptilian overlords?
:lfao:

Oh, wait!









Facts??? They're like inert gases to some people, man: as long as they get enough oxygen, they can breathe in those facts and it's like they're not even there!

"Facts"....:lfao:



Tgace said:


> Preach that to China and India....
> 
> Sent from my ROIDX using Tapatalk



And this was, of course, the chief flaw of the Kyoto protocols-that they placed too much of a burden on the U.S., and not enough on places like China, where a new coal burning power plant goes on line every week, and without any of the controls that would be mandated here in the U.S.


----------



## granfire

Tgace said:


> Preach that to China and India....
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Sorry, but the west took the leading role...

Those have just not learned the lessons from or past...


----------



## Tez3

Tgace said:


> Preach that to China and India....
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk




We do.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> Sorry, but the west took the leading role...
> 
> Those have just not learned the lessons from or past...QUOTE]
> The last list I saw of "offender" countries was 1 china 2 India 3 USA 4 Canada 5 Germany 6 Japan.  But chinas output was higher then 3,4, and 5  combined


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> granfire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the west took the leading role...
> 
> Those have just not learned the lessons from or past...QUOTE]
> The last list I saw of "offender" countries was 1 china 2 India 3 USA 4 Canada 5 Germany 6 Japan.  But chinas output was higher then 3,4, and 5  combined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now they are the leaders.
> The development is hardly new though, and somehow Chine missed the green part from all they stole from the western technology sector.
> Chlorofluorocarbons were a start, known very well in the 80s as to the damage they were doing, acid rain, same their...CO2 emissions regulations are also a really old hat, back when China was still the manufacturer's dream land and vastly undeveloped.
> 
> The damages strip mining has done...blahblah
> All the data is at least 20 years old. yes, those countries are producing more NOW, but for 100 years *we* were the leaders.
> It sucks that they missed the bad part about the industrial revolution...and are bound to repeat the mistakes the west made.
Click to expand...


----------



## geezer

elder999 said:


> Facts??? They're like inert gases to some people, man: as long as they get enough oxygen, they can breathe in those facts and it's like they're not even there!



Inert gases? Like helium? They breathe it in and don't even know it's there? But when they talk, _boy do they sound funny!

_


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> ballen0351 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now they are the leaders.
> The development is hardly new though, and somehow Chine missed the green part from all they stole from the western technology sector.
> Chlorofluorocarbons were a start, known very well in the 80s as to the damage they were doing, acid rain, same their...CO2 emissions regulations are also a really old hat, back when China was still the manufacturer's dream land and vastly undeveloped.
> 
> The damages strip mining has done...blahblah
> All the data is at least 20 years old. yes, those countries are producing more NOW, but for 100 years *we* were the leaders.
> It sucks that they missed the bad part about the industrial revolution...and are bound to repeat the mistakes the west made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I forgot about acid rain I'm.still waiting for that to kill me too.  That was the big crisis 20 years ago now its global warming unless its a colder year then its climate change until we have a few days in a row over 100 then its see global warming then winter comes are we get record cold then its back to climate change.  Its hard to keep track of all the stuff that is supposed to kill us.  Let's just turn off all power and live like Amish.
Click to expand...


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> granfire said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I forgot about acid rain I'm.still waiting for that to kill me too. That was the big crisis 20 years ago now its global warming unless its a colder year then its climate change until we have a few days in a row over 100 then its see global warming then winter comes are we get record cold then its back to climate change. Its hard to keep track of all the stuff that is supposed to kill us. Let's just turn off all power and live like Amish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary causes of acid rain from coal combustion are nitric and sulfuric acids formed from the conjoining of sulfates and nitrates with water. Low NOX burners and combustion management, and various forms of SO2 removal, have reduced these emissions to such a level (it's not uncommon for an equipped coal plant to remove more than 92% of the SO2 from its emissions) that acid rain is no longer as big an issue.
> 
> So, we didn't have to turn off the power and live like the Amish, we had to impose regulations on the industry, so that they were forced to come up with solutions-the regulation created a need that there was a market for, and the market filled the need-it's a free market solution. It worked with SO2 and NOX, it's worked with particulate for more than 50 years, and it will work for CO2.
Click to expand...


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> ballen0351 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The primary causes of acid rain from coal combustion are nitric and sulfuric acids formed from the conjoining of sulfates and nitrates with water. Low NOX burners and combustion management, and various forms of SO2 removal, have reduced these emissions to such a level (it's not uncommon for an equipped coal plant to remove more than 92% of the SO2 from its emissions) that acid rain is no longer as big an issue.
> 
> So, we didn't have to turn off the power and live like the Amish, we had to impose regulations on the industry, so that they were forced to come up with solutions-the regulation created a need that there was a market for, and the market filled the need-it's a free market solution. It worked with SO2 and NOX, it's worked with particulate for more than 50 years, and it will work for CO2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so now Acid rains not going to kill us all? What about that hole in the Ozone thats supposed to burn us all alive?  Is that still a crisis?
Click to expand...


----------



## Empty Hands

ballen0351 said:


> elder999 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait so now Acid rains not going to kill us all? What about that hole in the Ozone thats supposed to burn us all alive?  Is that still a crisis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you _possibly _think this is a good argument? Those things are no longer big problems _because we did something about them_.  Cap and trade for acid rain, and banning CFCs for the ozone layer. Bringing these things up suggests that we should do the same for CO2 emissions!
Click to expand...


----------



## Sukerkin

I think your quote went a little wonky, EH .  Those are Ballens words rather than Elders.


----------



## ballen0351

Empty Hands said:


> ballen0351 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you _possibly _think this is a good argument? Those things are no longer big problems _because we did something about them_.  Cap and trade for acid rain, and banning CFCs for the ozone layer. Bringing these things up suggests that we should do the same for CO2 emissions!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not an argument its just awful funny every 10 to 20 years the next earth ending crisis shows up and were all going to die.  We need to change our way of life or else we will all die, buy a hybrid for 8 to 10 grand more then a normal car or else, walk to work or else, get rid of regular light bulbs or else,  shut down coal plants or else, pay more for our power or else, pay more for or Gas or else.  But we dont need the other "less civilized"  countries to follow because its just not fair to punish them they cant afford it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Sukerkin

I disagree, Ballen.  That *is* an argument and one that is not easily put aside.  

We all ride on the surface of the world inside a very thin shell of an atmosphere and we should all be concerned about what we do to make that existence more precarious.

The consumer society, tho', is the biggest problem when it comes to adding disadvantageous compounds to the atmosphere.

Economics and sustainability are intimately inter-related.


----------



## ballen0351

Sukerkin said:


> I disagree, Ballen.  That *is* an argument and one that is not easily put aside.
> 
> We all ride on the surface of the world inside a very thin shell of an atmosphere and we should all be concerned about what we do to make that existence more precarious.
> 
> The consumer society, tho', is the biggest problem when it comes to adding disadvantageous compounds to the atmosphere.
> 
> Economics and sustainability are intimately inter-related.



Its not an argument because I dont doubt the world is getting warmer.  I just dont agree we are causing it.  Its a warming cycle it happens everytime we come out of an iceage.  At some point it will cool again back into an IceAge.  
I also agree we need to clean up the earth and preserve nature and forests, but not because of climate change, or acid rain, or Ozone holes, or whatever else comes up next, once this climate change thing is "solved," but because its the right thing to do.  Not that it will cause a crisis and kill us all but because I want my kids and grand kids to be able to go fishing in a mountain stream, go diving on a coral reef, and go hunting in a forest.   I think there are more important things we should be cleaning up first then a natural gas we breath out.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Oh I forgot about acid rain I'm.still waiting for that to kill me too.  That was the big crisis 20 years ago now its global warming unless its a colder year then its climate change until we have a few days in a row over 100 then its see global warming then winter comes are we get record cold then its back to climate change.  Its hard to keep track of all the stuff that is supposed to kill us.  Let's just turn off all power and live like Amish.



you are talking like a city slicker who has never set foot in a wooden patch.

Now try that same approach as a land owner who has 80 years or more invested in a crop to see it wither and die...that is nearly 3 life times. 

yes, we have managed to turn the tide - some. After many acres of forest had died. 

Oh...you know, those big green things... taking CO2 out of the atmosphere....THOSE things. 

And the Ozone...well, true I grant you that. It won't affect you much in New England...however folks near the Polar circles have felt the impact. And that is one problem that won't be corrected soon...

And maybe we need to live more like the Amish...some of them are behind their plain facade pretty darn rich!


----------



## WC_lun

Something to keep in mind, we acted upon the causes of those threats in the past.  Now we are so busy argueing we cannot come up with any helpful regulations.  Anything that infringes upon the profit of a company, even with a foundation of loads of scientific proof is shouted down by deniers.  If that had happened when acid rain was a thread, it would still be a threat.


----------



## granfire

WC_lun said:


> Something to keep in mind, we acted upon the causes of those threats in the past.  Now we are so busy argueing we cannot come up with any helpful regulations.  Anything that infringes upon the profit of a company, even with a foundation of loads of scientific proof is shouted down by deniers.  If that had happened when acid rain was a thread, it would still be a threat.



Well, we have always allowed for heaps of denial: I mean, why allow companies to 'buy' greener companies achievements in terms of pollution.

but you are right.

Oh....going green has it's own reward in business: it's a growing business, there is money to be made...


----------



## Xue Sheng

granfire said:


> Well, we have always allowed for heaps of denial: I mean, why allow companies to 'buy' greener companies achievements in terms of pollution.
> 
> but you are right.
> 
> Oh....going green has it's own reward in business: it's a growing business, there is money to be made...


----------



## pgsmith

> Preach that to China and India....


  I live in neither of those countries, so I do not have a voice in what they do. However, the old saw about "they do it" as if that somehow makes it OK for us, is something that my children used to say all the time when they were little. I'll tell you the same thing I used to tell them, as well as my Boy Scouts ... That's ridiculous. Justifying what you do based upon what others do is to attempt to avoid your own responsibility. Determine what the right thing to do is whithin the context of your own life, then do it. That is called personal responsibility, and is something we need mcuh more of in this country. 

  Bill, you never answered the questions I asked. I am still curious.


----------



## Xue Sheng

pgsmith said:


> I live in neither of those countries, so I do not have a voice in what they do. However, the old saw about "they do it" as if that somehow makes it OK for us, is something that my children used to say all the time when they were little. I'll tell you the same thing I used to tell them, as well as my Boy Scouts ... That's ridiculous. Justifying what you do based upon what others do is to attempt to avoid your own responsibility. Determine what the right thing to do is whithin the context of your own life, then do it. That is called personal responsibility, and is something we need mcuh more of in this country.
> 
> Bill, you never answered the questions I asked. I am still curious.



Or as multiple teachers in school, my first sensei and my parents ocassionally said to me growing up. "So if they all jump off a cliff then I guess it is ok for you too... right"


----------



## Tgace

Isn't deforestation of the rain forest going to kill us all first anyways?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

pgsmith said:


> I live in neither of those countries, so I do not have a voice in what they do. However, the old saw about "they do it" as if that somehow makes it OK for us, is something that my children used to say all the time when they were little. I'll tell you the same thing I used to tell them, as well as my Boy Scouts ... That's ridiculous. Justifying what you do based upon what others do is to attempt to avoid your own responsibility. Determine what the right thing to do is whithin the context of your own life, then do it. That is called personal responsibility, and is something we need mcuh more of in this country.
> 
> Bill, you never answered the questions I asked. I am still curious.



So we should make huge changes that will impact our economy even though...with China chugging away unchanged...we will have the same end result?

Got it.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Xue Sheng

And we... well not we but the top (small) percentage of the population of all 3 countries... like China and India will have all the money in the world on a dying planet...then what...money is ok but air, food and water are better


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> And we... well not we but the top (small) percentage of the population of all 3 countries... like China and India will have all the money in the world on a dying planet...then what...money is ok but air, food and water are better



So its a much better plan to punish us with higher priced gas and energy so when china and India destroy  our air food and water anyway we can all die broke


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> So its a much better plan to punish us with higher priced gas and energy so when china and India destroy  our air food and water anyway we can all die broke



Who said anything about punishing anyone....I mean other than you.... so I guess from your post I can then surmise that you are equating clean air, water and food to punishment..... That is interesting

Besides..what good is money if your dead as the planet you once lived on


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> Who said anything about punishing anyone....I mean other than you.... so I guess from your post I can then surmise that you are equating clean air, water and food to punishment..... That is interesting
> 
> Besides..what good is money if your dead as the planet you once lived on



When the govt say it would like to see gas prices as high as Europe so we won't drive as much that's punishment.  When the govt wants to shut down coal plants and cause energy prices to rise that's punishment.  When they refuse to drill for oil to purposely drive up prices that's punishment.


----------



## Tgace

ballen0351 said:


> When the govt say it would like to see gas prices as high as Europe so we won't drive as much that's punishment.  When the govt wants to shut down coal plants and cause energy prices to rise that's punishment.  When they refuse to drill for oil to purposely drive up prices that's punishment.



And when the price of everything..and I mean EVERYTHING is driven up so high that we force more people into poverty, these same people will be complaining that the government will have to DO something about the cost of living.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> When the govt say it would like to see gas prices as high as Europe so we won't drive as much that's punishment.  When the govt wants to shut down coal plants and cause energy prices to rise that's punishment.  When they refuse to drill for oil to purposely drive up prices that's punishment.



But I never said anything about any of that now did I so I then surmised that you are equating clean air, water and food with punishment. Now you are changing the discussion to an issue I never even mentioned nor do I plan on talking about at all

Your Government issues have little to do with Global warming and its possible causes. You may need to separate those in order to discuss Global warming with less emotional content


----------



## Tgace

Xue Sheng said:


> But I never said anything about any of that now did I so I then surmised that you are equating clean air, water and food with punishment. Now you are changing the discussion to an issue I never even mentioned nor do I plan on talking about at all
> 
> Your Government issues have little to do with Global warming and its possible causes. You may need to separate those in order to discuss Global warming with less emotional content



What?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## pgsmith

> So its a much better plan to punish us with higher priced gas and energy so when china and India destroy our air food and water anyway we can all die broke


  Think whatever you like, it's still a free country. For myself, I'll do the little things that make sense within the context of my life, and will continue to wish that others would do their part. However, I refuse to whine and complain about 'them' that are 'hurting our economy' by wanting tighter pollution controls. I prefer to lay the blame for our poor economy squarely on all the millions of people that are eagerly buying cheap Chinese made goods at their local Walmart to save themselves a buck. Couple that with all of those already filthy rich people that are moving their manufacturing facilities out to other countries because of the super cheap cost of labor. Pollution controls don't cause that, the dirt poor people in other countries combined with the greedy 'me first' attitude of the U.S. population is what is to blame. 

  So, are you doing your little bit to make things better or worse?


----------



## billc

From your questions...



> I know it's stupid, but I just can't help myself ... OK Bill, while you're ranting on about your usual topics, let me point out a couple of things here. First is the fact that the average global air and sea temperature is rising. This is undisputed, and every single climatologist agrees with this fact. Not theory, fact. Second is the fact that methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat, and increases the earth's average temperature. This is also undisputed fact that is agreed with by everyone involved in climatology. What is disputed among some climatologists is whether humanity is directly responsible for the rising temperatures or not. However, given these two facts, do you personally think it's a *good* idea to ignore how many millions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane gasses that our industries pump into the atmosphere every year? Does it really appear to you that ignoring any potential ill effects from our manufacturing processes is the best thing to do? Do you think that ignoring how many toxins are pumped into the ocean is a good idea also? In your opinion, should we release all pollution controls from our industries so they can maximize their profits, or do you think that limits on pollution are a necessary regulation?
> 
> I am truly interested in your answers to these questions.​



1) No, I don't know that it is an undisputed fact considering the tampering with the data that we have from the very people who are in charge of the I.P.C.C report.

2)No, we should be careful of the pollution that we put into the air, not as it concerns global warming but for local living conditions.

3) Ignoring it, no, placing it above all other concerns, for a hysteria over man made global warming is again something I don't want to support.  A real, cost benefit analysis and impact on how the pollution control attempts actually impact people at the same time we look at the over all environmental impact, with more weight put to how it affects local humans, first.

4) Polluting the oceans, of course not.  But once again, a rational policy regarding pollution control versus and environmental extremist policy.

5)Of course, in fact we should pay them to poison the air and water and land, as well as making sure the food we eat is even more deadly than the air, water and land.  

Why is it with you global warming extremists if someone wants 1) legitimate science followed and not environmentalist cover ups 2) that you always accuse the people who disagree with you of not wanting any form of pollution control at all.  That's just silly thinking on your part, not ours.

What problem do we have with environmental extremist policies...one example is the California central valley that has been brought to my attention by  Dennis Miller, and comedian Paul Rodrieguez, whose family owns farmland in the valley.  The delta smelt gets priority over the human farmers and because of this, their farms can't get the water that they need.  People are losing their farms over this policy.  Vast areas are going to waste for want of water.  As to global warming, I'll take a good cost benefit analysis of pollution control techniques, done by impartial groups, and not the E.P.A.  They are radical environmentalists as well as bureaucrats.

Now, here is why I don't trust the science...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/climate-high-sticking-the-unmanly-mann.php

I had never before made the connection between Mann and Sandusky's University...



> Oh_ this_ is going to be fun.  Michael Mann&#8212;he of the iconic climate change &#8220;hockey stick&#8221; that purports to prove man-made climate change by displaying how global temperature is at its highest level in 2000 years (somehow making the Medieval warm period disappear)&#8212;is threatening to sue _National Review_ and Mark Steyn  (and perhaps Peter Wood of the National Association of Scholars) for libel for questioning whether Penn State&#8217;s exoneration of Mann over the &#8220;Climategate&#8221; scandal was as self-serving as their investigation of Jerry Sandusky.  Rand Simberg wrote in a blogpost post that &#8220;Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.&#8221;



This is the interesting bit...



> The editor of Simberg&#8217;s blog subsequently removed this sentence from the post, but it lives on in a post of Steyn&#8217;s, to which Steyn added:Not sure I&#8217;d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change &#8220;hockey-stick&#8221; graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to &#8220;investigate&#8221; Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
> If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won&#8217;t it cover up? Whether or not he&#8217;s &#8220;the Jerry Sandusky of climate change&#8221;, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his &#8220;investigation&#8221; by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.
> 
> ​


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> But I never said anything about any of that now did I so I then surmised that you are equating clean air, water and food with punishment. Now you are changing the discussion to an issue I never even mentioned nor do I plan on talking about at all
> 
> Your Government issues have little to do with Global warming and its possible causes. You may need to separate those in order to discuss Global warming with less emotional content


So you choose to talk about the problem but not the Govt "fix" for the problem.  Got it and why would you not want to talk about the "fix"  hmmm I cant imagine why lol.


----------



## billc

Who is Michael Mann and why is his cover ups so important to the global warming debate...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...manly-mann.php



> This is where the fun will begin. First off, Mann has been stonewalling on legal requests to turn over his own emails and other private documents in suits against his former employer, the University of Virginia.  Now he&#8217;ll have to cough those up.  But second, I&#8217;ll enjoy reading depositions of some of his scientific colleagues, many of whom, while agreeing with Mann generally about climate change, nonetheless find Mann to be an insufferable jerk.  In my long review of the &#8220;Climategate&#8221; email cache, I came across repeated complaints about Mann&#8217;s ego, along with doubts about his hockey stick.  (So much for an iron-clad &#8220;consensus.&#8217  Here&#8217;s the relevant part of my long _Weekly Standard_ article about Climategate in 2009 that deals with Mann:CRU scientist Keith Briffa, whose work on tree rings in Siberia has been subject to its own controversies, emailed Edward Cook of Columbia University: &#8220;I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series,&#8221; adding that he was tired of &#8220;the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage [Mann] has produced over the last few years .&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;. and (better say no more).&#8221;
> Cook replied: &#8220;I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in Mike&#8217;s recon[struction], particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his letter. It would be too aggravating. .&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.&#8221;
> In yet another revealing email, Cook told Briffa: &#8220;Of course [Bradley] and other members of the MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes] camp have a fundamental dislike for the very concept of the MWP, so I tend to view their evaluations as starting out from a somewhat biased perspective, i.e. the cup is not only &#8216;half-empty&#8217;; it is demonstrably &#8216;broken&#8217;. I come more from the &#8216;cup half-full&#8217; camp when it comes to the MWP, maybe yes, maybe no, but it is too early to say what it is.&#8221;
> Even as the IPCC was picking up Mann&#8217;s hockey stick with enthusiasm, Briffa sent Mann a note of caution about &#8220;the possibility of expressing an impression of more consensus than might actually exist. I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not &#8216;muddy the waters&#8217; by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent consensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence.&#8221; Briffa had previously dissented from the hockey stick reconstruction in a 1999 email to Mann and Phil Jones: &#8220;I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.&#8221; Even Malcolm Hughes, one of the original hockey stick coauthors, privately expressed reservations about overreliance on their invention, writing to Cook, Mann and others in 2002:
> &#8220;All of our attempts, so far, to estimate hemisphere-scale temperatures for the period around 1000 years ago are based on far fewer data than any of us would like. None of the datasets used so far has anything like the geographical distribution that experience with recent centuries indicates we need, and no one has yet found a convincing way of validating the lower-frequency components of them against independent data. As Ed [Cook] wrote, in the tree-ring records that form the backbone of most of the published estimates, the problem of poor replication near the beginnings of records is particularly acute, and ubiquitous. .&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;. Therefore, I accept that everything we are doing is preliminary, and should be treated with considerable caution.&#8221;
> Mann didn&#8217;t react well to these hesitations from his colleagues. Even Ray Bradley, a coauthor of the hockey stick article, felt compelled to send a message to Briffa after one of Mann&#8217;s self-serving emails with the single line: &#8220;Excuse me while I puke.&#8221; One extended thread grew increasingly acrimonious as Mann lashed out at his colleagues. He wrote to Briffa, Jones, and seven others in a fury over their favorable remarks about a _Science_ magazine article that offered a temperature history that differed from the hockey stick: &#8220;Sadly, your piece on the Esper et al paper is more flawed than even the paper itself. .&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;. There is a lot of damage control that needs to be done and, in my opinion, you&#8217;ve done a disservice to the honest discussions we had all had in the past, because you&#8217;ve misrepresented the evidence.&#8221;
> 
> ​



The original Weekly Standard Article...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp

How can you know about this level of corruption among the "experts" on man made global warming and not think to yourself,  "Perhaps there is something untrue about what they are covering up..."  Yet, the believers in man mad global warming continue to march along trying to generate hysteria as they go...


----------



## ballen0351

pgsmith said:


> Think whatever you like, it's still a free country. For myself, I'll do the little things that make sense within the context of my life, and will continue to wish that others would do their part. However, I refuse to whine and complain about 'them' that are 'hurting our economy' by wanting tighter pollution controls. I prefer to lay the blame for our poor economy squarely on all the millions of people that are eagerly buying cheap Chinese made goods at their local Walmart to save themselves a buck. Couple that with all of those already filthy rich people that are moving their manufacturing facilities out to other countries because of the super cheap cost of labor. Pollution controls don't cause that, the dirt poor people in other countries combined with the greedy 'me first' attitude of the U.S. population is what is to blame.
> 
> So, are you doing your little bit to make things better or worse?



Well since I know warming and cooling are natural and will happen regardless of what we do or have done Ill just keep on doing what I do. :headbangin:


----------



## billc

And finally, before I go...sitting and typing in a location once covered by a mile high glacier wall...where did that glacier go again...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp



> The emails--more than 1,000 of them--reveal a small cabal of scientists who, in the words of MIT's Michael Schrage, engaged in "malice, mischief and Machiavellian maneuverings." In an ironic twist, one of the frequent correspondents in this long e&#8209;trail (University of Arizona scientist Jonathan Overpeck) warned several of his colleagues in September, "Please write all emails as though they will be made public." Small wonder why. It's being called Climategate, but more than one wit is calling them "the CRUtape Letters."





> bloggers have been swarming over the material and highlighting the bad faith, bad science, and possibly even criminal behavior (deleting material requested under Britain's Freedom of Information Act and perhaps tax evasion) of a small group of highly influential climate scientists. As with Rathergate, diehard climate campaigners are repairing to the "fake but accurate" defense--what these scientists did may be unethical or deeply biased, they say, but the science is _settled_, don't you know, so move along, nothing to see here. There are a few notable exceptions, such as _Guardian_columnist George Monbiot, who in the past has trafficked in the most extreme climate mongering: "It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," Monbiot wrote in a November 23 column. "The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. .&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;. I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them. .&#8201;&#8201;.&#8201;&#8201;. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed.





> As tempting as it is to indulge in_ Schadenfreude _over the richly deserved travails of a gang that has heaped endless calumny on dissenting scientists (NASA's James Hansen, for instance, compared MIT's Richard Lindzen to a tobacco-industry scientist, and Al Gore and countless -others liken skeptics to "Holocaust deniers"), the meaning of the CRU documents should not be misconstrued. The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any foundation. What they reveal is something problematic for the scientific community as a whole, namely, the tendency of scientists to cross the line from being disinterested investigators after the truth to advocates for a preconceived conclusion about the issues at hand. In the understatement of the year, CRU's Phil Jones, one of the principal figures in the controversy, admitted the emails "do not read well."



And once again, about all those scientists who agree on man made global warming or even warming in general...



> The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia is not just an important hub of climate science, but one whose work plays a prominent role in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body that every five or six years since 1992 has produced a massive report on the international "consensus" in the field of climate science. This is the body typically said to comprise 2,000 of the world's top scientists, though there are many thousands more scientists working on aspects of climate change who do not participate in the IPCC process, many of whom dissent from the rigid "consensus" the process produces. One of the things the CRU emails prove is that the oft-cited figure of 2,000 top scientists is misleading; the circle of genuinely active scientists in the work of CRU and related institutions in this country is very small.


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Well since I know warming and cooling are natural and will happen regardless of what we do or have done Ill just keep on doing what I do. :headbangin:



A rather sad statement.
(and not surprising billie liked it...)


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> A rather sad statement.
> (and not surprising billie liked it...)



Equally sad to want to handicap American industry and punish the American people over a naturally occurring cycle of warming and cooling to which we have little control over.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> And finally, before I go...sitting and typing in a location once covered by a mile high glacier wall...where did that glacier go again



It also used to be a swamp.......and volcanic......you need to get over that. :lfao:

This constant hyping of the "Climactic Research e-Mail Scandal," is kind of like being a birther,too, dude. You need to let it go. :lfao: :



> First announced in December 2009, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010.[SUP][103][/SUP] *The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt*.[SUP][104][/SUP] The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.[SUP][105][/SUP]
> The panel did rebuke the CRU for their reluctance to release computer files, and found that a graph produced in 1999 was "misleading," though not deliberately so as necessary caveats had been included in the accompanying text.[SUP][106][/SUP] It found evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them, though the panel did not ask anyone at CRU whether they had actually done this.[SUP][107][/SUP]
> At the conclusion of the inquiry, Jones was reinstated with the newly created post of Director of Research


----------



## billc

You mean these guys helped clear our guys of this scandal...

Yeah, the guy who cleared investigated Sandusky investigated Mann...yeah, you read that right...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012..._jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_common_thread.html



> Spanier's "investigation" of Jerry Sandusky was so thoroughly inept that it got him fired.  When it was completed, Spanier stated that he had "complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations against Sandusky," and he was fired very shortly thereafter.  The recent Freeh report indicates that the investigation was conducted for the purpose of finding nothing.  In other words, it was a cover-up.
> It wasn't the only time Spanier rigged an inept investigation for the purpose of finding nothing.  In 2010, his investigators found that Penn State climatologist Michael Mann had done nothing wrong when he invented his "hockey stick trick," to "hide the decline" and lend false credibility to climate change theory.  The difference between the Mann investigation and the Sandusky investigation is that one covered up a sex offender and the other covered up a fraud.
> *The Climategate "Investigation"*
> The methodology, however, was equally bad.  The "Climategate" investigation was conducted by five Penn State employees.  It is available here.  The five internal investigators were given a list of four specific allegations of academic fraud, and they proceeded to dismiss the three most significant allegations outright, without investigating them at all.  The next step was to read 376 e-mails written by Mann and dismiss 329 of them.  After this, they conducted a two-hour interview with Michael Mann, in which he (shocker!) denied doing anything wrong.
> The next step was to interview two outside climatologists, noted within the report itself for their personal support of Mann himself and his science, named Dr. Gerald North from Texas A&M and Dr. Donald Kennedy from Stanford University.  Naturally, these two friends supported Mann.  Next, they interviewed Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, who accused them of ignoring the most important allegations.  They ignored him and moved on.  The report actually states this.  "We did not respond to him."
> After this, the investigators deemed that Michael Mann hadn't done anything wrong.  They did not investigate three quarters of the allegations against him, and they did not interview anyone with an opposing viewpoint.  President Spanier then stated, "I know they have taken the time and spent hundreds of hours studying documents and interviewing people and looking at issues from all sides."  This statement is blatantly untrue, as the report itself indicates.  It also sounds disturbingly similar to Spanier's statement about the Sandusky cover-up -- "I have complete confidence in how they handled the allegations against Sandusky" -- which got him fired.





> Global warming advocate Michael Mann was cleared by the Penn State committee charged with investigating his conduct. In light of all the revelations in the ClimateGate e-mails, this raises the question of what kind of investigation was conducted. Penn State's official report reveals it to have been a very shallow one. The report even admits to ignoring a respected scientist when he told them their conclusions were wrong. Consider the documents that the Penn State committee's report (PDF) says were used:
> Documents available to the Investigatory Committee:
> · 376 files containing emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and originally reviewed by the Inquiry Committee
> · Documents collected by the Inquiry Committee
> · Documents provided by Dr. Mann at both the Inquiry and Investigation phases
> · Penn State University's RA-IO Inquiry Report
> · House of Commons Report HC387-I, March 31,2010
> · National Academy of Science letter titled, "Climate Change and the Integrity of Science" that was published in Science magazine on May 7, 2010 Information on the peer review process for the National Science Foundation (NSF)
> · Department of Energy's Guide to Financial Assistance
> · Information on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's peer review process
> · Information regarding the percentage of NSF proposals funded
> · Dr. Michael Mann's curriculum vitae
> ​While Mann's famous hockey stick curve was exposed as false by both the National Academy of Sciences report and the Wegman committee report (PDF), the Penn State committee consulted neither. How could Penn State investigate whether the errors in Mann's work were honest mistakes or misconduct if they don't even know what those mistakes were? They can't.
> 
> Here is the schedule of interviews as listed in the committee's report:
> April 12, 2010: Dr. William Easterling, Dean, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University
> 
> April 14, 2010: Dr. Michael Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University
> 
> April 20, 2010: Dr. William Curry, Senior Scientist, Geology and Geophysics Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
> 
> April 20, 2010: Dr. Jerry McManus, Professor, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University
> 
> May 5, 2010: Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology​Observe what is missing: Penn State did not interview either McIntyre or McKitrick who are the two people most familiar with Mann's faulty science and with Mann's efforts to hide and disguise his mistakes.
> 
> During their "investigation" of Michael Mann, a Penn State committee interviewed M.I.T. Professor Richard Lindzen who holds the Alfred P. Sloan char in M.I.T.'s Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts. The committee's report (PDF) summarizes Prof. Lindzen's astonishment at how they were "investigating":
> When told that the first three allegations against Dr. Mann were dismissed at the inquiry stage of the RA-lO process, *Dr. Lindzen's response was: "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these are issues that he explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?"* . . . .
> 
> *The Investigatory Committee members did not respond to Dr. Lindzen's statement.* Instead, Dr. Lindzen's attention was directed to the fourth allegation, and it was explained to him that this is the allegation which the Investigatory Committee is charged to address. [Emph. added]
> ​So they could have asked Prof. Lindzen what they should have been investigating but they didn't. They ignored him. Lindzen concluded, quite reasonably it seems, that the investigation was just a "whitewash." I predicted as much last year.




Yeah, this is the same as the birth certificate thing...yeah, right...:lol:

I have read elsewhere that the British investigation was just as unthorough as the American investigation...


----------



## billc

And here is the British cover up of climate gate...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100031404/climategate-the-parliamentary-cover-up/


> *James Delingpole*
> 
> *James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books, including his most recent work Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future, alsoavailable in the US, and in Australia as Killing the Earth to Save It. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.*





> One insider has described Oxburgh's appointment to lead this supposedly neutral investigation into Climategate as "like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank." Here are just a few more of this scrupulously unbiased fellow's interests, revealed by Orlowski:In the House of Lords Register of Lords' Interests, Oxburgh lists under remunerated directorships his chairmanship of Falck Renewables, and chairmanship of Blue NG, a renewable power company. (Oxburgh holds no shares in Falck Renewables, and serves as a non-exec chairman.) He also declares that he is an advisor to Climate Change Capital, to the Low Carbon Initiative, Evo-Electric, Fujitsu, and an environmental advisor to Deutsche Bank. For a year he was non-exec chairman of Shell.​GLOBE seems especially drawn to the kind of MP who likes sailing close to the wind. Its president is none other than Stephen Byers, recently exposed in the "cash for influence" scandal as offering his services as a lobbyist like a "cab for hire" for a small consideration of just £5,000 a day. And its leading lights have also included Elliott Morley, one of the MPs more heavily implicated in the Telegraph's parliamentary expenses scandal.
> As Bishop Hill notes its UK parliamentary group officers also include the redoubtable and incorruptible Labour MP Eric Joyce &#8211; "the first MP to claim more than £1m in expenses and on more than one occasion the most expensive MP in the house. He once famously claimed for three oil paintings on expenses "because they looked nice"."
> But then, to judge from the research done by Cumbrian Lad at Bishop Hill, GLOBE is very much the kind of body that likes to do things on the sly. Its Memorandum of Incorporation includes this revealing snippet about its purposes:"To provide a forum for ideas and proposals to be floated in confidence *and without the attention of an international spotlight*"​



And some more on the British cover up...

http://drtimball.com/2011/climategate-cover-up-continues-with-cru-hacking-saga/



> The spin-doctors put in place two investigation panels that separated out the science and limited their investigation with terms of reference. The University of East Anglia (UEA) and Muir Russell both said the Lord Oxburgh inquiry would examine the science. At a press conference on February 11, 2010, Muir Russell said,
> Our job is to investigate scientific rigor, the honesty, the openness and the due process of CRU&#8217;s approach as well as the other things in the remit and compliance with rules. It&#8217;s not our job to audit CRU&#8217;s scientific conclusions. That would require a different set of skills and resources.​The Lord Oxburgh investigation was doomed from the start.
> A member of the House of Lords appointed to investigate the veracity of climate science has close links to businesses that stand to make billions of pounds from low-carbon technology.​The cover-up was easily detectable. Clive Crook, Senior editor of the _The Atlantic_, wrote a searing indictment of the whitewash.
> I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.
> 
> ​


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> Equally sad to want to handicap American industry and punish the American people over a naturally occurring cycle of warming and cooling to which we have little control over.



:lfao:

now you are being ridiculous.

And you have not paid any attention:
Going green can yield enormous profits. 
You know, like the poor American people were being punished when they had to buy <gasp> catalytic converters in their cars...
When they are forced to improve their houses so in the end they can have <gasp> lower heating bills...
or not so much trash in their trashcans.

In my estimation the US is still about 20 years behind the curve of what can be done without 'punishing' the American people'

The 'we have always done it this way' is incredible dangerous to our way of life in all aspects. 
We pride ourselves in being sentiment beings with the ability to learn...BS my friend, because we keep repeating the same mistakes over again.


----------



## billc

Yes, tell that to the taxpayers who had their money given to Solyndra and all the other green energy companies that have collapsed...


----------



## billc

A little more on the non-investigation of climategate...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709/



> I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.
> 
> The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann -- the paleoclimatologist who came up with "the hockey stick" -- would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for "lack of credible evidence", it will not even investigate them. (At this, MIT's Richard Lindzen tells the committee, "It's thoroughly amazing. I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the emails. I'm wondering what's going on?" The report continues: "The Investigatory Committee did not respond to Dr Lindzen's statement. Instead, [his] attention was directed to the fourth allegation.") Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers -- so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.
> You think I exaggerate?This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research...
> Had Dr. Mann's conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions...
> Clearly, Dr. Mann's reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.​In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no. His record is swooned over. Verdict: case dismissed, with apologies that Mann has been put to such trouble.
> Further "vindication" of the Climategate emailers was to follow, of course, in Muir Russell's equally probing investigation. To be fair, Russell manages to issue a criticism or two. He says the scientists were sometimes "misleading" -- but without meaning to be (a plea which, in the case of the "trick to hide the decline", is an insult to one's intelligence). On the apparent conspiracy to subvert peer review, it found that the "allegations cannot be upheld" -- but, as the impressively even-handed Fred Pearce of the Guardian notes, this was partly on the grounds that "the roles of CRU scientists and others could not be distinguished from those of colleagues. There was 'team responsibility'." Edward Acton, vice-chancellor of the university which houses CRU, calls this "exoneration".



So no, this is not a fake controversy  but a deliberate attempt to skew the outcome in favor of one set of scientists.

And yes, tell me again, with a straight face that Penn State really investigated this...


----------



## billc

This is Graham Spanier who oversaw the investigation of the climategate scandal at Penn State...so tell me again how this has no bearing on the investigation...



> *Child sex abuse scandal and resignation*
> 
> _Main article: Penn State child sex abuse scandal_
> Spanier was criticized in 2011 for his initial reaction to a sex abuse case involving former Penn State footballdefensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. Sandusky was charged on November 5, 2011 with 40 counts related to alleged sexual abuse of minors.[SUP][12][/SUP] Penn State athletic director Timothy Curley and university Senior Vice President Gary Schultz were also indicted for perjuring themselves and not reporting a 2001 incident in which a then graduate assistant and later assistant coach named Mike McQueary said he witnessed Sandusky abusing a child on Penn State property.[SUP][13][/SUP]
> Spanier issued a statement the day the charges came to light in which he said Curley and Schultz had his "complete confidence",[SUP][5][/SUP] and they "operate at the highest levels of honesty."[SUP][14][/SUP] Spanier was criticized for expressing support for Curley and Schultz, and failing to express any concern for Sandusky's alleged victims.[SUP][15][/SUP] After this, he largely dropped from public view. According to the _Chronicle of Higher Education_, the Board of Trustees ordered him to keep silent.[SUP][16][/SUP] He did, however, cancel head football coach Joe Paterno's weekly press conference due to legal concerns. Paterno was a key witness in the grand jury probe.[SUP][17][/SUP]
> A group of Penn State students created the Facebook page "Fire Graham Spanier" in order to call on Penn State's Board of Trustees to fire Spanier.[SUP][18][/SUP] An online petition at change.org called for Spanier's ouster. It garnered over 1,700 signatures in four days.[SUP][19][/SUP]



What did Mark Steyn say again...




> The editor of Simbergs blog subsequently removed this sentence from the post, but it lives on in a post of Steyns, to which Steyn added:Not sure Id have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change hockey-stick graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to investigate Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
> If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what wont it cover up? Whether or not hes the Jerry Sandusky of climate change, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his investigation by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> ​



An old joke was, What do you call a conservative winning an argument against a liberal: a fascist.

Now, what do you call a conservative pointing out that the same guy who investigated the child molesting coach Sandusky, and didn't see anything, investigated the climate gate scandal:a birther...now that is a powerful counter argument isn't it...:lfao:​


----------



## billc

Finally, the predictive nature of climate science...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/anthropogenic-global-warming-wrong-again.php



> A scientific hypothesis is tested by its predictive powers. Scientists reason: if this theory is correct, then X should be the case. They test for X; if they find X to be true, it tends to confirm the theory. If X is not the case, the theory is disproved. Some of a theory&#8217;s implications may relate to the future, and thus can only be tested over time. The anthropogenic global warming theory has been with us for quite a while now&#8211;I first learned about it circa 1970&#8211;so how have its predictions fared over time?
> We have written a number of times about James Hansen, one of the leading global warming alarmists. In 1988, he authored one of the most influential alarmist papers, titled &#8220;Global climate change, according to the prediction of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.&#8221; Hansen and his colleagues modeled the global temperature impact of varying levels of future CO2 emissions. This chart, from Watts Up With That, summarizes Hansen&#8217;s 1988 predictions, compared with actually observed temperatures. Briefly, Hansen&#8217;s prediction was off by 150%.





>


This is probably why Mann and the other guys involved in climategate kept their data from other scientists and went so far as to destroy it...


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> :lfao:
> 
> now you are being ridiculous.
> 
> And you have not paid any attention:
> Going green can yield enormous profits.
> You know, like the poor American people were being punished when they had to buy <gasp> catalytic converters in their cars...
> When they are forced to improve their houses so in the end they can have <gasp> lower heating bills...
> or not so much trash in their trashcans.
> 
> In my estimation the US is still about 20 years behind the curve of what can be done without 'punishing' the American people'
> 
> The 'we have always done it this way' is incredible dangerous to our way of life in all aspects.
> We pride ourselves in being sentiment beings with the ability to learn...BS my friend, because we keep repeating the same mistakes over again.



My problem is the politicians that want our gas prices up around 8 bucks a gal.  That decided I'm no longer allowed to have regular light bulbs I need to by the 8 to 10 dollar bulbs not the 89 cent bulbs.  They ones that decided we don't need more coal plants so my electric bill has gone up every year for the last 6 years straight,  the ones that force car makers improve MPGs to crazy levels so my truck with a V8 can't get out of its own way when towing my boat but my 1979 Cherokee with a 30 year old engine pulls like its on steroids.  The ones that want to turn our corn into gas so our food prices keep going up and our  boat motors and lawn mowers crap out every year due to that garbage they call gas now.  All in the name of "going green". If there was so much profit in it why is the govt footing most of the bill to keep it affordable and these "green" companies keep shutting down.  All in the name of climate change which has.been happening since the start of time.  If the earth temps don't rise naturally in a cycle then how did the temps rise enough to end the last ice age we didn't have factories to speed up the process so the earth had to warm up by itself melting the glaciers that cover most of north America.  If global warming is man made how did that happen?


----------



## billc

Ballen, when you make points like that and ask questions like that it turns you into...a birther!!!!!:angel:


----------



## Sukerkin

It's all going to be too little, too late, sadly:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19330307

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348194

I wonder what the world will be like in a couple/number of generations time? Will it be Waterworld? Or will my favourite interpretation of trends, the Snap Inversion occur and plunge the planet into it's natural state of Ice Age once again?


----------



## Tez3

Whether you believe in climate change being caused by man or not it's surely only sensible to take steps that minimise our impact on the natural world, for selfish reasons if not for the reason that we are the caretakers of the world and should be careful. Insulating your house to cut fuel bills is surely only sensible, recycling is also sensible otherwise we will be inundated with rubbish, landfill sites can only take so much and dumping our waste in the seas isn't the best answer. 
When I was a small child in London we still had the infamous 'pea-soupers', they were foul, they also made my mother who had a weak chest (a legacy of the Nazis) very ill as it did many others. The Clean Air Act, did wonders in cleaning up these horrendous fogs, that's positive action to improve our lives as well as doing soming that's also positive for the planet. We simply can't carry on pouring poisons into our atmosphere and seas, whether it causes global warming or not we cannot carry on killing our planet. It is up to everyone to do their best to make our impact on the planet the least we can, it might only be small things but often it's the small things that helps. Cutting up the plastic that holds cans of drinks is one very small thing that would go a long way to help animals http://www.uksafari.com/archive/litter.htm, recycling helps save money as much as it 'saves the planet'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1956


----------



## granfire

ballen0351 said:


> My problem is the politicians that want our gas prices up around 8 bucks a gal.  That decided I'm no longer allowed to have regular light bulbs I need to by the 8 to 10 dollar bulbs not the 89 cent bulbs.  They ones that decided we don't need more coal plants so my electric bill has gone up every year for the last 6 years straight,  the ones that force car makers improve MPGs to crazy levels so my truck with a V8 can't get out of its own way when towing my boat but my 1979 Cherokee with a 30 year old engine pulls like its on steroids.  The ones that want to turn our corn into gas so our food prices keep going up and our  boat motors and lawn mowers crap out every year due to that garbage they call gas now.  All in the name of "going green". If there was so much profit in it why is the govt footing most of the bill to keep it affordable and these "green" companies keep shutting down.  All in the name of climate change which has.been happening since the start of time.  If the earth temps don't rise naturally in a cycle then how did the temps rise enough to end the last ice age we didn't have factories to speed up the process so the earth had to warm up by itself melting the glaciers that cover most of north America.  If global warming is man made how did that happen?



the deal with the gas:
Stop whining first of all. Everytime I complain about the gas prices here my dad laughs, since they ahve been paying neearly 8 bucks a gallon for many many years now.
The solution: You get a more economical car. 
Now, this has nothing to do with punishing the people or <OH EM GEE> the companies. it can be done, it has been done, but oh hey, it won't be done, because of some narrow minded bastards who can't see past the tip of their nose. 
They profit (yes, making $$) by not changing things and have DC in their pocket so they can play as they want.

As to what is in the gas...it's about time to take the ethanol out, I don' think we can currently afford to continue that. it is a double whammy currently and I am thinking the people will be suffering here shortly - and no, it has nothing to do with going green, other than shoving dollar bills in one's pockets. I have yet to see anybody liking the ethanol gig - with the exception of the farmers who plant the corn. The US is in drought condition, has been for many years, and large parts of the Southwest have not seen meaningful rainfall in the last several years. To summarize it a little: corn is subsidized to go in the tank, that means less food crops are produced, including such benign things as hay. In turn it costs more in diesel to farm the fields....(now, the price of diesle baffles me, as high as the gas prices are in europe, diesel is ALWAYS much cheaper (relatively) than gas, plus the diesel vehicles are more economical...here in the US the diesel is always much higher than gas, and small diesel cars are virtually unheard of...I am calling scam!)

Alas, too many people do not want to change their way of thinking (btw, don't dump on the polititcians on the gas prices...while in Europe the MAJORITY of the gas price is taxes, it seems like around here it's about 30 cents on a gallon - which I would not have guessed if I would not have friends in the service who can fill up without paying that tax.
The majority of the gas money goes to the poor companies that have been making record _profits_ in the aftermath of Katrina, and only the oilspill put a damper on the business.Which btw, also showed that those poor companies are only too willing to save a couple hundred thousand bucks, which would be like pennies to you and me.


and sheesh, government is footing the bill...DUDE, that is what government is supposed to spend the money on: Things that benefit ALL the people. You know, like streets, hospitals, schools, building codes, environmental regulations....
The light bulb thing? oh poop, they cost more. had a guy tell me how he saw immediate savings on his light bill. Over the expected lifetime of said bulb you should see a total net gain. However, since you won't get a fat check in the mail when it burns out, you dismiss it as hippie treehugger crap. 

ok, again: I will try to explain - in layman's terms - how this climate change could be man made, ok?

Some time in the late 1800 somebody made the discovery that oil is fantastic to put in lamps (the whales approved) and to power the internal combustion engine (as well as furnaces)
Oil: organic matter, as in carbon compounds, C for short, that has been sealed away from the atmosphere for a long, LONG time. 
That means that is the CO2 from when the earth was young.

in the beginning it did not matter much, because little was used. But not any more.

Now, add to that that we destroy forested areas at the rate of may acres a day. Trees, too store carbon compounds over their life time, so what they collected during their 80 to several hundred year life span  - in the case of the rain forest deforestation - is released into the atmosphere as well.

add to that coal which is still in use in many places, in plants that have not seen any improvements since ever, extract little energy and even less pollutants. Meaning you will have to burn a lot more than you should have to with new technology.

So, man kind has been extracting carbons from down below and releasing them into the atmosphere for a good 200 years now. And wonders of wonders, it's still there.

But at one point mankind actually did seek for solutions: London Fog was not a weather phenomenon as much as it was a case of pollution (on a side note, in Victorian time I have heard, the Thames was a toxic slush, you'd better not fall into), and the LA smog lead to the implementation of catalytic converters. And I do believe most of us (maybe not billie) are old enough to remember the complaints of the auto industry when they were forced to put those things in. How badly they were being punished. 
Hm, they are still around, the profit margin is not depending on the cat, and they adjusted just fine. They just did not want to do the work, so they had to be forced.

The industry is punishing itself for shutting down innovation. And heaven help me I don't see why they are doing it.
As I said before, and I will repeat it again: the US are at least 20 years behind in terms of ecological awareness. Even the big push to go green a couple of years ago (I kid you not, I was out of the country for 2 month and when I got back even walmart had a huge influx of 'eco' junk in the shelves it was really that drastic!) did not make a real dent in it.

There are those companies that will make excuses as to how the public won't accept it. It's BS.
All the grocery stores here give you arms full of those little plastic bags (even though they sell the reusables, they are not set up, really, to reuse them) I am sure management will tell you they can't do away with them because the customer expects them.
BS! Tge German grocery chain Aldi is adhering to the German model: BYOB, bring your own bag. The plastic bags they do have are expensive. They have also trained their customers to return their carts to the store...and all to get that QUARTER back they put in the lock....the American public CAN learn a new trick!

Another thing that bugs my German mentality: It's been done for 30 years elsewhere: reduce the amount of packaging needed.
And I am not even going on about double and tripple wrapping stuff in oversized containers (but that is a pain, having a pill bottle that is 90-95% air and cotton)
No, why not just sell less fillers! You know, super concentrated detergents. Why buy water form some place else...The containers can be smaller, saves money there, and transport space, which translates into money.

There is no need to buy a super sturdy plastic container for each time you have to get laundry detergent. Use the above method, make the packaging small and the customer can add the water. You can reduce the waste (and heaven knows, the plastic going in  the landfill is a waste of precious oil and resources) by not throwing the big plastic bottle away but something that isn't bigger than a zip lock bag. 

omg, forcing people to recycle...there is MONEY in that. 


oh well, narrow mindedness is king these days...

Our children and their children will probably have to mine our garbage dumps for materials we thoughtlessly tossed aside. 

One can have a posh life being green, one does not have to become Amish (which is btw a spiritual mindset, not a forced on one. many of those guys are pretty damn rich and modern agriculture is looking at their farming methods for pointers...)

And I might as well just delete the above, because you and billie are deliberately obtuse on these matters....


----------



## Tgace

Lol..."we fixed acid rain"...

Bull ****.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson297.html 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tgace said:


> What?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



What is; Who, ____, Where, When, Why, How, and What time.


----------



## pgsmith

I've said before that I shouldn't, but sometimes I just can't help myself. Since you seem to have a hard time thinking tyhrough this stuff for yourself, I am going to help you ...



> My problem is the politicians that want our gas prices up around 8 bucks a gal.


Your high gas prices are not decided by politicians, they are decided by corporations. The oil industry figured out that they could make more money by refining less gasoline and diesel fuel, and so pushing the price up, than they could by building more capacity and selling more gas and diesel at lower prices. The governement doesn't own the oil industry, it is more the other way around.


> That decided I'm no longer allowed to have regular light bulbs I need to by the 8 to 10 dollar bulbs not the 89 cent bulbs.


Not sure where you live, but I can go into my local Home Depot and buy a cheap light bulb if I want to. Of course, buying the cheapest light bulb available with no thought to how it is being used is just stupid, but I could do it if I wanted to. 


> They ones that decided we don't need more coal plants so my electric bill has gone up every year for the last 6 years straight,


Your electricity bill has gone up because a certain political party decided that the government shouldn't be regulating electricity, and allowed it to revert to publicly owned companies with the stupid idea that competition would lower electricity rates.  So, less government interference is responsible for your electricity rates, not more.


> the ones that force car makers improve MPGs to crazy levels so my truck with a V8 can't get out of its own way when towing my boat but my 1979 Cherokee with a 30 year old engine pulls like its on steroids.


Your V8 can't pull your boat mainly because of pollution controls, not efficiency. Improving the efficiency of the engine (and thus the gas mileage) would result in more power, not less. If you were smart, you'd have bought a diesel V8 for towing since it gets much more power and torque, as well as getting much better gas mileage and lasting much longer.


> The ones that want to turn our corn into gas so our food prices keep going up and our boat motors and lawn mowers crap out every year due to that garbage they call gas now.


That is also something that was put in place by the industry lobbyists. Environmentalists such as Sierra Club were against using ethanol in gasoline, but giant corporate farming interests like Monsanto pushed Bush into backing ethanol.


> All in the name of "going green".



No, all in the name of corporate profits, green was simply the excuse that was used so a non-thinking and distracted society wouldn't complain. 


> If there was so much profit in it why is the govt footing most of the bill to keep it affordable and these "green" companies keep shutting down.


The government shells out far grerater amounts of money to subsidize industries that have absolutely nothing to do with 'green'.


> All in the name of climate change which has.been happening since the start of time.


No, as i've just pointed out, most of it is in the name or corporate and political greed. While you are absolutely correct that climate change is a constantly ongoing thing. However, since we don't know how much affect we are having on the climate, we need to be as careful as is resonably possible to make our impact as little as possible. After all, animal droppings have been flowing into rivers since the start of time, but if we don't regulate our raw sewage, it will quickly kill any river it drains into. Trying to clean up after ourselves should be a natural inclination, not something the government has to force you to do.


> If the earth temps don't rise naturally in a cycle then how did the temps rise enough to end the last ice age we didn't have factories to speed up the process so the earth had to warm up by itself melting the glaciers that cover most of north America. If global warming is man made how did that happen?


If you'll stop parroting what others tell you to say and think for yourself, you'll realize the stupidity of that question. Just because man may not be *causing* the current global warming trend does not mean that we are not contributing to it, which we most certainly are. Are you willing to bet your grandchildren's lives on whether or not whatever we are voluntarily contributing to glabal warming will not be anough to tip the scales over the edge? If we use the sort of reasoning that you are suggesting, then we could say that since ozone has been occuring naturally since time began, that we don't need to worry about the excessive ozone from car exhausts that is killing people in cities on hot summer days.

Stop and think about more than the surface, or what the local political pundit says you should be thinking. It's the only way we'll ever have any chance of taking back control of our lives. Of course, that's just my thoughts ...


----------



## ballen0351

pgsmith said:


> I've said before that I shouldn't, but sometimes I just can't help myself. Since you seem to have a hard time thinking tyhrough this stuff for yourself, I am going to help you ...


Gee thanks you so kind



> Your high gas prices are not decided by politicians, they are decided by corporations. The oil industry figured out that they could make more money by refining less gasoline and diesel fuel, and so pushing the price up, than they could by building more capacity and selling more gas and diesel at lower prices. The governement doesn't own the oil industry, it is more the other way around.


Nope its when the Govt decides we need to have this blend for this time of year, that blend of that time of year.  Its when they refuse to allow new refinaries and open new drilling grounds, its when they keep adding higher and higher taxes onto a gal of gas to Punish record profits.  When the president says id like to see gas prices reach 8 bucks a gal thats a problem.


> Not sure where you live, but I can go into my local Home Depot and buy a cheap light bulb if I want to. Of course, buying the cheapest light bulb available with no thought to how it is being used is just stupid, but I could do it if I wanted to.


not for long several states have outlawed incandescant bulbs.  I believe here I have about 2 more years then poof gone.



> Your electricity bill has gone up because a certain political party decided that the government shouldn't be regulating electricity, and allowed it to revert to publicly owned companies with the stupid idea that competition would lower electricity rates.  So, less government interference is responsible for your electricity rates, not more.


Not when the electric company has asked for and been denied approval to build more plants to meet demand by a certain political party



> Your V8 can't pull your boat mainly because of pollution controls, not efficiency. Improving the efficiency of the engine (and thus the gas mileage) would result in more power, not less. If you were smart, you'd have bought a diesel V8 for towing since it gets much more power and torque, as well as getting much better gas mileage and lasting much longer.


And why are they adding more pollution controls?  Oh acid raid no wait ozone oh wait no global warming oh no wait now its climate change



> That is also something that was put in place by the industry lobbyists. Environmentalists such as Sierra Club were against using ethanol in gasoline, but giant corporate farming interests like Monsanto pushed Bush into backing ethanol.


And?  I dont care who wanted it he Govt demanded it and pays for it and now I need to replace my small engine machines like weed wackers and chain saws every other year at best some have not even made it thru a season.



> No, all in the name of corporate profits, green was simply the excuse that was used so a non-thinking and distracted society wouldn't complain.
> 
> The government shells out far grerater amounts of money to subsidize industries that have absolutely nothing to do with 'green'.
> 
> No, as i've just pointed out, most of it is in the name or corporate and political greed.


And?  



> While you are absolutely correct that climate change is a constantly ongoing thing.


Thanks you can stop there thats all that matters



> however, since we don't know how much affect we are having on the climate, we need to be as careful as is resonably possible to make our impact as little as possible.


I dont disagree I think there are far more inportant pollutants we need to worry about then C02  




> After all, animal droppings have been flowing into rivers since the start of time, but if we don't regulate our raw sewage, it will quickly kill any river it drains into. Trying to clean up after ourselves should be a natural inclination, not something the government has to force you to do.


I agree


> If you'll stop parroting what others tell you to say and think for yourself, you'll realize the stupidity of that question.



So answer the question then? we have come out of ice ages in the past without the help of excess CO2 which proves temp rise and fall with or with out people.



> Just because man may not be *causing* the current global warming trend



Yep thanks again you can stop there



> does not mean that we are not contributing to it, which we most certainly are.


Stop being Al Gores parrot and think for yourself its happened long before man and will happen long after we are gone.



> Are you willing to bet your grandchildren's lives on whether or not whatever we are voluntarily contributing to glabal warming will not be anough to tip the scales over the edge?


Im not will to bet there financial futures on a natural cycle we have no control over.



> If we use the sort of reasoning that you are suggesting, then we could say that since ozone has been occuring naturally since time began, that we don't need to worry about the excessive ozone from car exhausts that is killing people in cities on hot summer days.


The stupidity of people not smart enough to find some A/C and drink some water is what killed them not car exhaust



> Stop and think about more than the surface, or what the local political pundit says you should be thinking. It's the only way we'll ever have any chance of taking back control of our lives. Of course, that's just my thoughts ...


If You want to take control of your life by turing it over to Al Gore Have fun but I dont buy what he is selling.


----------



## ballen0351

granfire said:


> the deal with the gas:
> Stop whining first of all. Everytime I complain about the gas prices here my dad laughs, since they ahve been paying neearly 8 bucks a gallon for many many years now.
> The solution: You get a more economical car.
> Now, this has nothing to do with punishing the people or <OH EM GEE> the companies. it can be done, it has been done, but oh hey, it won't be done, because of some narrow minded bastards who can't see past the tip of their nose.
> They profit (yes, making $$) by not changing things and have DC in their pocket so they can play as they want.
> 
> As to what is in the gas...it's about time to take the ethanol out, I don' think we can currently afford to continue that. it is a double whammy currently and I am thinking the people will be suffering here shortly - and no, it has nothing to do with going green, other than shoving dollar bills in one's pockets. I have yet to see anybody liking the ethanol gig - with the exception of the farmers who plant the corn. The US is in drought condition, has been for many years, and large parts of the Southwest have not seen meaningful rainfall in the last several years. To summarize it a little: corn is subsidized to go in the tank, that means less food crops are produced, including such benign things as hay. In turn it costs more in diesel to farm the fields....(now, the price of diesle baffles me, as high as the gas prices are in europe, diesel is ALWAYS much cheaper (relatively) than gas, plus the diesel vehicles are more economical...here in the US the diesel is always much higher than gas, and small diesel cars are virtually unheard of...I am calling scam!)
> 
> Alas, too many people do not want to change their way of thinking (btw, don't dump on the polititcians on the gas prices...while in Europe the MAJORITY of the gas price is taxes, it seems like around here it's about 30 cents on a gallon - which I would not have guessed if I would not have friends in the service who can fill up without paying that tax.
> The majority of the gas money goes to the poor companies that have been making record _profits_ in the aftermath of Katrina, and only the oilspill put a damper on the business.Which btw, also showed that those poor companies are only too willing to save a couple hundred thousand bucks, which would be like pennies to you and me.
> 
> 
> and sheesh, government is footing the bill...DUDE, that is what government is supposed to spend the money on: Things that benefit ALL the people. You know, like streets, hospitals, schools, building codes, environmental regulations....
> The light bulb thing? oh poop, they cost more. had a guy tell me how he saw immediate savings on his light bill. Over the expected lifetime of said bulb you should see a total net gain. However, since you won't get a fat check in the mail when it burns out, you dismiss it as hippie treehugger crap.
> 
> ok, again: I will try to explain - in layman's terms - how this climate change could be man made, ok?
> 
> Some time in the late 1800 somebody made the discovery that oil is fantastic to put in lamps (the whales approved) and to power the internal combustion engine (as well as furnaces)
> Oil: organic matter, as in carbon compounds, C for short, that has been sealed away from the atmosphere for a long, LONG time.
> That means that is the CO2 from when the earth was young.
> 
> in the beginning it did not matter much, because little was used. But not any more.
> 
> Now, add to that that we destroy forested areas at the rate of may acres a day. Trees, too store carbon compounds over their life time, so what they collected during their 80 to several hundred year life span  - in the case of the rain forest deforestation - is released into the atmosphere as well.
> 
> add to that coal which is still in use in many places, in plants that have not seen any improvements since ever, extract little energy and even less pollutants. Meaning you will have to burn a lot more than you should have to with new technology.
> 
> So, man kind has been extracting carbons from down below and releasing them into the atmosphere for a good 200 years now. And wonders of wonders, it's still there.
> 
> But at one point mankind actually did seek for solutions: London Fog was not a weather phenomenon as much as it was a case of pollution (on a side note, in Victorian time I have heard, the Thames was a toxic slush, you'd better not fall into), and the LA smog lead to the implementation of catalytic converters. And I do believe most of us (maybe not billie) are old enough to remember the complaints of the auto industry when they were forced to put those things in. How badly they were being punished.
> Hm, they are still around, the profit margin is not depending on the cat, and they adjusted just fine. They just did not want to do the work, so they had to be forced.
> 
> The industry is punishing itself for shutting down innovation. And heaven help me I don't see why they are doing it.
> As I said before, and I will repeat it again: the US are at least 20 years behind in terms of ecological awareness. Even the big push to go green a couple of years ago (I kid you not, I was out of the country for 2 month and when I got back even walmart had a huge influx of 'eco' junk in the shelves it was really that drastic!) did not make a real dent in it.
> 
> There are those companies that will make excuses as to how the public won't accept it. It's BS.
> All the grocery stores here give you arms full of those little plastic bags (even though they sell the reusables, they are not set up, really, to reuse them) I am sure management will tell you they can't do away with them because the customer expects them.
> BS! Tge German grocery chain Aldi is adhering to the German model: BYOB, bring your own bag. The plastic bags they do have are expensive. They have also trained their customers to return their carts to the store...and all to get that QUARTER back they put in the lock....the American public CAN learn a new trick!
> 
> Another thing that bugs my German mentality: It's been done for 30 years elsewhere: reduce the amount of packaging needed.
> And I am not even going on about double and tripple wrapping stuff in oversized containers (but that is a pain, having a pill bottle that is 90-95% air and cotton)
> No, why not just sell less fillers! You know, super concentrated detergents. Why buy water form some place else...The containers can be smaller, saves money there, and transport space, which translates into money.
> 
> There is no need to buy a super sturdy plastic container for each time you have to get laundry detergent. Use the above method, make the packaging small and the customer can add the water. You can reduce the waste (and heaven knows, the plastic going in  the landfill is a waste of precious oil and resources) by not throwing the big plastic bottle away but something that isn't bigger than a zip lock bag.
> 
> omg, forcing people to recycle...there is MONEY in that.
> 
> 
> oh well, narrow mindedness is king these days...
> 
> Our children and their children will probably have to mine our garbage dumps for materials we thoughtlessly tossed aside.
> 
> One can have a posh life being green, one does not have to become Amish (which is btw a spiritual mindset, not a forced on one. many of those guys are pretty damn rich and modern agriculture is looking at their farming methods for pointers...)
> 
> And I might as well just delete the above, because you and billie are deliberately obtuse on these matters....



Ok so again ill ask a simple question.  If we are causing this then how did the earth warm up on its own before people.
according to scientists we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. So by your theroy up until the 1800's when we discovered coal and oil how during the prior 2.5 million plus years did the earth warm up on its own to melt the rest of the ice that covered much of north america.  Also why did it stop warming up on its own and now only during the last 200 years did it start warming again at our hand? 

Also there were 4 prior ice ages to this one so how did we cool down and heat up for each of the prior ones with out mans help?


----------



## ballen0351

Tez3 said:


> Whether you believe in climate change being caused by man or not it's surely only sensible to take steps that minimise our impact on the natural world, for selfish reasons if not for the reason that we are the caretakers of the world and should be careful. Insulating your house to cut fuel bills is surely only sensible, recycling is also sensible otherwise we will be inundated with rubbish, landfill sites can only take so much and dumping our waste in the seas isn't the best answer.
> When I was a small child in London we still had the infamous 'pea-soupers', they were foul, they also made my mother who had a weak chest (a legacy of the Nazis) very ill as it did many others. The Clean Air Act, did wonders in cleaning up these horrendous fogs, that's positive action to improve our lives as well as doing soming that's also positive for the planet. We simply can't carry on pouring poisons into our atmosphere and seas, whether it causes global warming or not we cannot carry on killing our planet. It is up to everyone to do their best to make our impact on the planet the least we can, it might only be small things but often it's the small things that helps. Cutting up the plastic that holds cans of drinks is one very small thing that would go a long way to help animals http://www.uksafari.com/archive/litter.htm, recycling helps save money as much as it 'saves the planet'.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1956



I agree 100% there is no need to make up a fake crisis.  We should clean up the earth because its the right thing to do.  Focus on real issues not something we have no control over.  Plant trees because forests are great places to camp and hike, clean up reefs because they are great places to dive and fish, clean the air from real pollutiants because fresh air is better then bad air.  keep sewage out of rivers because people want to boat swim and fish in them.  Dont over harvest animals so our kids will get to try them too ect ect ect


----------



## Tez3

ballen0351 said:


> I agree 100% there is no need to make up a fake crisis. We should clean up the earth because its the right thing to do. Focus on real issues not something we have no control over. Plant trees because forests are great places to camp and hike, clean up reefs because they are great places to dive and fish, clean the air from real pollutiants because fresh air is better then bad air. keep sewage out of rivers because people want to boat swim and fish in them. Dont over harvest animals so our kids will get to try them too ect ect ect



Plant trees because they are the earth's lungs and because they are home to many species of wildlife, logging also causes landslides and devastion in many places. Clean up reefs because people need to fish to live, clean air because bad air kills people, keep sewage out of water because people need clean water to drink and dirty water kills, don't kill animlas off because they are part of the ecology and balance it.


----------



## Tgace

ballen0351 said:


> I agree 100% there is no need to make up a fake crisis.  We should clean up the earth because its the right thing to do.  Focus on real issues not something we have no control over.  Plant trees because forests are great places to camp and hike, clean up reefs because they are great places to dive and fish, clean the air from real pollutiants because fresh air is better then bad air.  keep sewage out of rivers because people want to boat swim and fish in them.  Dont over harvest animals so our kids will get to try them too ect ect ect



But you don't get it..the only way to FORCE change is by scaring people with imminent extinction. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> Ok so again ill ask a simple question.  If we are causing this then how did the earth warm up on its own before people.
> according to scientists we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. So by your theroy up until the 1800's when we discovered coal and oil how during the prior 2.5 million plus years did the earth warm up on its own to melt the rest of the ice that covered much of north america.  Also why did it stop warming up on its own and now only during the last 200 years did it start warming again at our hand?
> 
> Also there were 4 prior ice ages to this one so how did we cool down and heat up for each of the prior ones with out mans help?



Ice ages can also be triggered by multiple things some of those being absolutely out of our control such as the planets orbital path, axis tilt, volcanic activity or a rather large impact too. I once took a class many years ago that discussed humidity levels in association with Ice ages as well. Planet heats up, more humidity in the air, more humidity more solar radiation is deflected back into space, planet starts to cool down however this is not a quick process. It is interesting stuff to study but the ramifications of it can be rather deadly to the inhabitants of the planet. Frankly I do not want to be in the way of a 2 mile thick glacier or a flood from raising sea level or the second coming of the Younger Dryas. All really cool to study but I would not want to be in the way of one.

I believe that technically, based on climatological date, we are supposed to be in a cooling trend..... but we are not... it appears to be getting warmer which is not part of the predicted cycle based on weather history. And even if this is the end of an Ice Age it is happening rather rapidly based on the historical data. So even though they may say were in an Ice age, glacier melt and the breaking up of ice in Antarctica say we are not, unless it is the dramatic and extremely rapid (based on geological time) end of one and we are talking supersonic quick. 

There are multiple reasons for warming and cooling and we, meaning human beings, could now be or have been one of those since we showed up. Just read an interesting article on what ended the Mayans and it could be their farming activities had dire consequences on an already existing draught. We do appear to have a major effect on the planet as a species more so than any other on the planet. 

The little ice age that occurred during recent human times (started in the 13th century) that appears it could have been the result of a few things in combination or possibly just one, things such as cyclical lows in solar radiation, changes in thermohayalene current (that one is for elder), increased volcanic activity, and even the possibility of Lower CO2 atmosphere due to decreased numbers in human populations (I doubt the last one could have done it by itself but in combination with one of some of the others possibly). And if CO2 is a contributor (and it is) then increases of it can and will cause heating and all sorts of nasty things can occur once things get warm enough, if you happen to be living on the planet when it happens. 

Another thing to think about, if another professor of mine was right, there are a few inactive volcanos under the Antarctic ice sheet and as the ice melts the earths crust rebounds they could become active and a lot of ash in the atmosphere, amongst other things a volcano releases, is not a good thing if it is all of then and if I am remembering correctly it is somewhere between 6 to 8

My only point to all this is that we really need to stop arguing and calling global warming fake (see glacial melt and the breaking up of Antarctic ice sheets) and figure out if we can do anything about it or if we are just along for the ride. If we can do anything about we best get busy before it is too late, if we cant we better figure out what we can do to survive it and move to higher ground. Or possibly by all the property in Southern Georgia that borders Florida and let your ancestors become wealthy off of all the beach front property they will one day have to sell. 

And there are a TON of things that come along with Global warming that we are not even talking about here that are part of the whole global warming package, many of those not good for us.


----------



## pgsmith

> If You want to take control of your life by turing it over to Al Gore Have fun but I dont buy what he is selling.


What in the world does Al Gore have to do with anything? You've gotten to the point where you're no longer making any sort of sense, you're just spewing out whatever ideas pop off the top of your head whether they make any sense or not.



> I agree 100% there is no need to make up a fake crisis. We should clean up the earth because its the right thing to do. Focus on real issues not something we have no control over. Plant trees because forests are great places to camp and hike, clean up reefs because they are great places to dive and fish, clean the air from real pollutiants because fresh air is better then bad air. keep sewage out of rivers because people want to boat swim and fish in them. Dont over harvest animals so our kids will get to try them too ect ect ect


OK, but you can't possibly believe that big industry will spend one thin dime to prevent pollution if they're not forced to. Surely you're not that naive? Or, based upon your responses and reactions, I guess you really are.
Either way, this horse is dead and polluting a stream. I'm done beating it.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tgace said:


> But you don't get it..the only way to FORCE change is by scaring people with imminent extinction.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Don't think we will go extinct and I do not think I have even heard a serious discussion on the topic of human extinction form global warming either. Could cause a serious decrease in population, will decrease usable land mass, arable land and livable space, could make existence rather difficult compared to today


----------



## Tgace

Xue Sheng said:


> Don't think we will go extinct and I do not think I have even heard a serious discussion on the topic of human extinction form global warming either. Could cause a serious decrease in population, will decrease usable land mass, arable land and livable space, could make existence rather difficult compared to today



Well the extinction of cuddly polar bears then...

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Xue Sheng

pgsmith said:


> What in the world does Al Gore have to do with anything? You've gotten to the point where you're no longer making any sort of sense, you're just spewing out whatever ideas pop off the top of your head whether they make any sense or not.



Al Gore made a movie "An Inconvenient Truth" that was all about Global warming and the disaster to come based on what Al Gore claimed to be scientific evidence, which turned out to be a bit questionable and based on extreme possibilities more that hard science. However it was more propaganda than reality and has a lot to do with, IMO, the current argument. Basically it did more harm than good (again IMO). It was more like the James Cameron version of the Sinking of the Titanic than say a documentary version you may see on the History Channel


----------



## ballen0351

pgsmith said:


> What in the world does Al Gore have to do with anything? You've gotten to the point where you're no longer making any sort of sense, you're just spewing out whatever ideas pop off the top of your head whether they make any sense or not.


Global warming is Al  gores baby he made millions off of it



> OK, but you can't possibly believe that big industry will spend one thin dime to prevent pollution if they're not forced to. Surely you're not that naive? Or, based upon your responses and reactions, I guess you really are.
> Either way, this horse is dead and polluting a stream. I'm done beating it.


So go after them for real problems and pollution not CO2 which we all make in our own bodies.  But your right you can't answer a simple question about warming and cooling cycles without admitting it is not man made so you better run along now. Have a good day.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tgace said:


> Well the extinction of cuddly polar bears then...
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Ever seen an adult polar bear.... I don't think I would want to cuddle one... I don't want them to go extinct either.... but I would not call them cuddly


----------



## WC_lun

Part of what is worrisome is the rapidity of the change.  Nature tends to move in eons, not decades.  Now granted, if a large meteorite or super volcano erupted, change would be very quick, but weather patterns normally do not change as quick as they have been the last few years.

As long as no one is willing to change first, no one change at all.  We are the richest country on Earth.  Rightly or wrongly, other countries look to us to take the lead on such matters.  Yes, India and China are very large polluters as well.  China is already finding that is unsubtanable and making some changes, though I won't say argue they have made large changes.  Instead of passing laws that make it illegal to discuss the results of climate change in a scientific way, perhaps we should be condidering what steps we could be taking.  burying our heads in the sand will not healp anyone.  In the long run it will be far more financially unsettling to not do anything.


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> Don't think we will go extinct and I do not think I have even heard a serious discussion on the topic of human extinction form global warming either. Could cause a serious decrease in population, will decrease usable land mass, arable land and livable space, could make existence rather difficult compared to today



So then its the earths way of gaining balance and we get what we deserve right?


----------



## ballen0351

WC_lun said:


> Part of what is worrisome is the rapidity of the change.  Nature tends to move in eons, not decades.  Now granted, if a large meteorite or super volcano erupted, change would be very quick, but weather patterns normally do not change as quick as they have been the last few years.
> 
> As long as no one is willing to change first, no one change at all.  We are the richest country on Earth.  Rightly or wrongly, other countries look to us to take the lead on such matters.  Yes, India and China are very large polluters as well.  China is already finding that is unsubtanable and making some changes, though I won't say argue they have made large changes.  Instead of passing laws that make it illegal to discuss the results of climate change in a scientific way, perhaps we should be condidering what steps we could be taking.  burying our heads in the sand will not healp anyone.  In the long run it will be far more financially unsettling to not do anything.



So what steps would you like to see?


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> Global warming is Al  gores baby he made millions off of it



And he hurt things more than helped them because he was more interested in $$$ than truth.  Bassically the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" makes more money than a weather Channel documentary



ballen0351 said:


> So go after them for real problems and pollution not CO2 which we all make in our own bodies.  But your right you can't answer a simple question about warming and cooling cycles without admitting it is not man made so you better run along now. Have a good day.



CO2 alsocomes from the burning of fossil fuels...which is pollution. We also produce Methane which is also part of the issue too. And I am not sureif it is "manmade" or not...I do feel humans are a contributing factor to what is happening but humans may be only part of the issue. 

Can you say without any doubt and with totalconviction that humans have absolutely nothing to do with it?


----------



## Tgace

I don't worry about GW...the supervolcanoes and meteors are gonna kill us all first...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/pompeii-supervolcano-super-volcano-doomsday_n_1751840.html

Good times....

 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## WC_lun

I don't know...I guess things like what Republicans thought of where coporations got tax credits for pollution emissions under the industry norm.  That's one good idea..of course it was held up in congress so it was never voted on.  Stricter mileage and emission standards on cars would be another good idea.  Maybe higher tarrifs on goods from countries that don't control thier pollution to keep the price of thier goods more in line with US goods.  Good for the enviroment and good for the economy do not have to be polar opposites, but you have to start from a place where the science is taken seriously and not discarded for short term profits.


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> So then its the earths way of gaining balance and we get what we deserve right?



Nope not what I am saying at all.

What I did say was

1) I don't think we will fall victim to extinction
2) I have not heard (or read) any serious discussions about the possibility of human extinction from global warming
3) As the planet gets warmer, things change and as things change it can have adverse effects on the human population
4) As the planet warms, sea level raises therefore you have less land
5) As climates change growing seasons change and farm land will decrease
6) Less land above water means less land to live on
7) All of this could make existence more difficult than it is today, this would be due to population densities, food production and disease


That clear it up for you


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> Can you say without any doubt and with totalconviction that humans have absolutely nothing to do with it?[/FONT][/COLOR]



  Are we causing the current warming trend not a chance.  If the warming was a new thing then I'd say you are right but the earth has been warming for millions of years in order to have melted all the ice that covered the great lakes and most of north America well before we were here to screw it up.


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> Nope not what I am saying at all.
> 
> What I did say was
> 
> 1) I don't think we will fall victim to extinction
> 2) I have not heard (or read) any serious discussions about the possibility of human extinction from global warming
> 3) As the planet gets warmer, things change and as things change it can have adverse effects on the human population
> 4) As the planet warms, sea level raises therefore you have less land
> 5) As climates change growing seasons change and farm land will decrease
> 6) Less land above water means less land to live on
> 7) All of this could make existence more difficult than it is today, this would be due to population densities, food production and disease
> 
> 
> That clear it up for you



Sorry I guess I wasn't clear.  I wasn't thinking that was your point it was more mine.  I was saying at some point there will be too many humans to survive on earth and it will need to reset itself kinda like a forest fire is actually healthy for a forest in the long run.


----------



## ballen0351

Tgace said:


> I don't worry about GW...the supervolcanoes and meteors are gonna kill us all first...
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/pompeii-supervolcano-super-volcano-doomsday_n_1751840.html
> 
> Good times....
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


You solved the global warming crisis all we need to do is set off a super volcano



> The real danger of a supervolcano is the ash, which -- in large enough quantity -- can collect in the atmosphere and block out the sun,



See that would lower the temps OR even better the excess CO2 we have now is just a security blanket to keep us warm once the volcano erupts.  See we are pre planning for a super volcano eruption.  Quick everyone go start your cars and pump some more security into the air.


----------



## Xue Sheng

ballen0351 said:


> Sorry I guess I wasn't clear.  I wasn't thinking that was your point it was more mine.  I was saying at some point there will be too many humans to survive on earth and it will need to reset itself kinda like a forest fire is actually healthy for a forest in the long run.



Well the planet may be self-correcting...at least that was a college professor&#8217;s theory. And that correction is likely rather catastrophic and you don't want to be around for it.... but I am not sure I would put it like we get what we deserve and I am not sure it is good for us as species.... actually I am fairly sure it isn't but then that is just me


----------



## billc

I heard the authors of this book interviewed...they have a different take on things...



S. Fred Singer (Author), Dennis T. Avery (Author)[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer



> *Siegfried Fred Singer* (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[SUP][1][/SUP] Singer trained as anatmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, his questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that betweenCFCs and stratospheric ozone loss [SUP][2][/SUP] , his public denial of the health risks of passive smoking, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. He is the author or editor of several books including _Global Effects of Environmental Pollution_ (1970), _The Ocean in Human Affairs_ (1989), _Global Climate Change_ (1989), _The Greenhouse Debate Continued_ (1992), and_Hot Talk, Cold Science_ (1997). He has also co-authored _Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years_ (2007) with Dennis Avery, and _Climate Change Reconsidered_ (2009) with Craig Idso.[SUP][3][/SUP]





> During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, he argued that smoke from the Kuwaiti oil fires would have little impact, in opposition to most commentators. He debated the astronomer Carl Sagan on ABC's _Nightline_, Sagan arguing that the smoke might loft into the upper atmosphere and lead to massive agricultural failures. Singer argued that it would rise to 3,000 feet (910 m) then be rained out after a few days.[SUP][47][/SUP] Singer's position proved correct: the fires had little impact beyond the Gulf region.[SUP][48][/SUP]





> http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Updated-Expanded/dp/0742551245/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345759244&sr=1-1&keywords=unstoppable+global+warming
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition [Paperback]
> S. Fred Singer (Author), Dennis T. Avery (Author)*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *
Click to expand...




> Singer and Avery present&#8212;in popular language supported by in-depth scientific evidence&#8212;the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with the natural physical records found in ice cores, seabed sediment, cave stalagmites, and tree rings, _Unstoppable Global Warming_ argues that the 1,500 year solar-driven cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the driving force in the current warming trend.
> 
> Trillions of dollars spent on reducing fossil fuel use would have no effect on today's rising temperatures. The public policy key, Singer and Avery propose, is adaptation, not fruitless attempts at prevention. Further, they offer convincing evidence that civilization's most successful eras have coincided with the cycle's warmest peaks. With the added benefit of modern technology, humanity can not only survive global climate change, but thrive.



*R






eview

Click to expand...

*


> Singer and Avery present in popular language supported by in-depth scientific evidence the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. _Unstoppable Global Warming_ explains why we're warming, why it's not very dangerous, and why we can't stop it anyway. (_Science Daily_ )
> 
> Fred Singer and Dennis Avery highlight the many fallacies associated with the hysterical claims of dangerous climate change and unsubstantiated computer projections surrounding the theory of human caused global warming. They have managed to lay out, dissect, and expose the facts in a thoroughly readable style. _Unstoppable Global Warming_ is a &#8216;must read&#8217; for everybody who is interested in the real issues surrounding climate change. (William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research )
> 
> Singer and Avery skillfully present their case for the existence of a solar-induced 1,500 year cycle that generates warming and cooling of the Earth's temperature irrespective of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. The authors even more skillfully argue the implications of their findings to the ongoing heated debate regarding the human contribution to observed and future changes in climate. (Robert C. Balling, Jr., Arizona State University )
> 
> Fred Singer and Dennis Avery have put together an impressive collection of 'reasons to believe that global warming may not be as bad as some people are telling us'&#8212;in other words, that natural variations, rather than human-emitted greenhouse gases, have tended to control climate. Their exhaustive list of scientific references, mostly from refereed journals, only underscores their statements. Bravo for a job well done! (George H. Taylor, State Climatologist, Oregon Climate Service )
> 
> This book is must reading for anyone concerned about global warming. The authors stress that "consensus" has no place in science, only hard-headed testing of speculation. Their testing of the earth's erratic, moderate warming since 1850 leads them to the planet's recently discovered&#8212;but already broadly studied&#8212;1500-year climate cycle. (Frederick Seitz, former President, National Academy of Sciences )
> 
> Real science in, real science out. A masterpiece of understanding, dispelling the computer myths of manmade global warming. Please read this book. (David Bellamy, Order of the British Empire, academic, author and host of British TV documentaries )
> 
> A wonderful new book. . . . meticulously researched and footnoted. (_The Washington Times_ )
> 
> ...a thoughtful book by two respected scientists... (National Association of Manufacturers _Shopfloor.Org_ )
> 
> Recommended (_CHOICE_ )
> 
> This well written book is arguably the best book to date on the politics and science of global warming. (_Hawaii Reporter_ )


----------



## Sukerkin

Just to clarify some of the misconceptions that seem to be creeping in from those that are more politically motivated than scientifically engaged, the last ice age was less than 12,000 years ago.  

The world has not been warming for millions of years for Inter-glacials tend to be quite short, speaking in geological time, as Ice Age seems to be the default condition for Earth.  Most guesstimates are that we have several thousand years to go before this inter-glacial is over but the influence we are having on the chaotic system that is climate could swing things either way i.e. we could either delay the onset of the next Ice Age or precipitate it through a 'snap inversion' (where the system trends in the opposite way than that that is expected).

What has caused the worry of late is the rate of warming, which coincides with the flowering of human agricultural and industrial expansion - what many people forget is that we are more responsible for the release of methane from our livestock than we are for the release of CO2 from our cars.

Change the composition of the atmosphere and you change the composition of the biosphere - the danger is that it changes to the point where humans are stretched in their ability to adapt - it's happened before when we went down to as few as 10,000 individuals world wide, which is why we are all related to each other very closely.

In biological terms we are not very diversified, which makes us vulnerable to environmental change and our current focus on consumption rather than preparation is undermining the ability we have to manage the environment to suit us (which is what has made us so successful a creature).

So to stick to the 'I'm going to consume and pollute as much as I want' path is not very helpful to our survival.


----------



## ballen0351

Sukerkin said:


> Just to clarify some of the misconceptions that seem to be creeping in from those that are more politically motivated than scientifically engaged, the last ice age was less than 12,000 years ago.


According to most things Ive read we are still coming out of the last ice age. Thats not politics its science.  How does Ice melt?  Warmer air again science not politics.  So then the earth naturally warms itself up. So we are currently coming out of the last ice age which would mean the earth is warming



> The world has not been warming for millions of years for Inter-glacials tend to be quite short, speaking in geological time, as Ice Age seems to be the default condition for Earth.  Most guesstimates are that we have several thousand years to go before this inter-glacial is over but the influence we are having on the chaotic system that is climate could swing things either way i.e. we could either delay the onset of the next Ice Age or precipitate it through a 'snap inversion' (where the system trends in the opposite way than that that is expected).


So if the earth dose not warm all by itself with out help from our cars then how did we come out of the last few glacial periods?



> What has caused the worry of late is the rate of warming, which coincides with the flowering of human agricultural and industrial expansion - what many people forget is that we are more responsible for the release of methane from our livestock than we are for the release of CO2 from our cars.


So now its the cows farting that is causing this crisis.  Thats great news Im all for eatting more Steak see you want me to go green by eatting a Tbone then call me Green. Or we need to kill off all livestock and become vegans. 



> Change the composition of the atmosphere and you change the composition of the biosphere - the danger is that it changes to the point where humans are stretched in their ability to adapt - it's happened before when we went down to as few as 10,000 individuals world wide, which is why we are all related to each other very closely.
> In biological terms we are not very diversified, which makes us vulnerable to environmental change and our current focus on consumption rather than preparation is undermining the ability we have to manage the environment to suit us (which is what has made us so successful a creature).
> 
> So to stick to the 'I'm going to consume and pollute as much as I want' path is not very helpful to our survival.



So whats the answer then to this "problem"


----------



## billc

There is an easy answer to man made global warming.  Be prepared.  Put away supplies that you might need for the disaster that is global warming.  You can just put them next to all the supplies you saved up for Y2K.  Those supplies should still be usable.

In order to be prepared for man made global warming, please read this book...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Populatio...0&sr=8-1&keywords=the+population+bomb+ehrlich


> *The Population Bomb [Hardcover]*
> 
> Paul R. Ehrlich (Author)



A review by a reader as he explains what the book is about...



> Ehrlich predicted that, by the end of the 20th century, human want would outstrip available resources; whole areas of human endeavor would screech to a halt due to resource scarcity; England would, in all likelihood, cease to exist; India would collapse due to its inability to feed itself; and "inevitable" mass starvation would sweep the globe (including the US). We were on the brink of disaster in 1968, and the future looked very, very dark. In fact, he asserts, "it is now too late to take action to save many of those people."



and from wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bomb



> It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its charismatic author brought the idea to an even wider audience.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]The book has been criticized in recent decades for its alarmist tone and inaccurate predictions. The Ehrlichs stand by the basic ideas in the book, stating in 2009 that "perhaps the most serious flaw in _The Bomb_ was that it was much too optimistic about the future" and believe that it achieved their goals because "it alerted people to the importance of environmental issues and brought human numbers into the debate on the human future."[SUP][2][/SUP]





> In answer to the question, "what needs to be done?" he wrote, "We must rapidly bring the world population under control, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it negative. Conscious regulation of human numbers must be achieved. Simultaneously we must, at least temporarily, greatly increase our food production." Ehrlich described a number of "ideas on how these goals _might_ be reached."[SUP][6][/SUP] He believed that the United States should take a leading role in population control, both because it was already consuming much more than the rest of the world, and therefore had a moral duty to reduce its impact, and because the US would have to lead international efforts due to its prominence in the world. In order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or racism it would have to take the lead in population reduction efforts.[SUP][7][/SUP] Ehrlich floats the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area."[SUP][8][/SUP]He suggests a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. He suggests incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization before they have two children, as well as a variety of other monetary incentives. He proposes a powerful Department of Population and Environment which "should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment."[SUP][9][/SUP] The department should support research into population control, such as better contraceptives, mass sterilizing agents, and prenatal sex discernment (because families often continue to have children until a male is born. Ehrlich suggested that if they could choose a male child this would reduce the birthrate). Legislation should be enacted guaranteeing the right to an abortion, and sex education should be expanded.
> After explaining the domestic policies the US should pursue, he discusses foreign policy. He advocates a system of "triage," such as that suggested by William and Paul Paddock in _Famine 1975!_. Under this system countries would be divided into categories based on their abilities to feed themselves going forward. Countries with sufficient programmes in place to limit population growth, and the ability to become self sufficient in the future would continue to receive food aid. Countries, for example India, which "were far behind in the population-food game that there is no hope that our food aid will see them through to self-sufficiency" would have their food aid eliminated. Ehrlich argued that this was the only realistic strategy in the long-term. Ehrlich applauds the Paddocks' "courage and foresight" in proposing such a solution.[SUP][10][/SUP] Ehrlich further discusses the need to set up public education programs and agricultural development schemes in developing countries. He argues that the scheme would likely have to be implemented outside the framework of the United Nations due to the necessity of being selective regarding the targeted regions and countries, and suggests that within countries certain regions should be prioritized to the extent that cooperative separatist movements should be encouraged if they are an improvement over the existing authority. He mentions his support for government mandated sterilization of Indian males with three or more children.[SUP][11][/SUP]



Wow, he should have switched over to global warming...

Why is it that in all these left leaning scares they want to cut down on 3rd world populations?  What do they have against these people and their desire to advance their prospects in life?


----------



## Sukerkin

Do you really want to discuss this, Ballen?  Let me know if you do rather than it being a desire to 'be right'.

For a start, I'll even tell you, at the level of an individual you *are* right.  It is hard to even conceive of any degree of responsibility when you don't really have any power and it is difficult to see what iota of difference any changes you make to your lifestyle will cause in the grand scheme of things.

Speaking from my perspective, to carry on kicking holes in the side of the ship because it's going to sink anyway is still not rational.  We are an adaptable species in terms of our intelligence and inventiveness.  If we give ourselves enough time, we might be able to devise ways to survive the changes that are coming.  As a species I think we'll make it but whether our civilisation will is another matter.

Oddly, there is a positive to find in the fact that climate, whilst predictable in broad strokes over long periods, is a chaotic system and inherently hard to predict in the short term.  That means that small changes in the short term can cause big changes in outcome over the longer term.  Which in turn means that, just maybe, things we do now will be of benefit in the future.  So there is some hope.


----------



## Tgace

Its all coming to an end this December anyway....I'm trading in my Honda for an H2. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

Do I want to discuss it sure that's what I'm doing.  I'm waiting for anyone to tell me why I should believe the current global warming trend is not a natural occurrence that happens every so often at the end of an ice age which you yourself even said we are coming to the end of the last one.  That alone is enough evidence for me.to see this is a natural cycle that happens to exit an ice age the ice must melt for the ice to melt the temp needs to rise


----------



## Tgace

Tgace said:


> Its all coming to an end this December anyway....I'm trading in my Honda for an H2.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Not to be too flip, but I'm with Ballen...Ive been a hunter, climber, camper, outdoors type for a large chunk of my life. I want to maintain a clean healthy environment for my children. What I don't like is the quasi religious environmentalists driving us into decisions with unknown economic consequences using a campaign of Armageddon fear mongering. 

And the more years I live, the more acid rain, Ozone hole, supervolcanoe, meteor impact, global warming doomsday I seem to see come and go. It leaves me with less and less give a ****. If one isn't gonna wipe us out they seem to tell us its gonna be another. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Big Don

I'd be more apt to believe in global warming in general, if there wasn't ALWAYS a group of chicken little's running around screaming that we are doomed...
I'd be more apt to believe in man caused global warming, if those who lecture us on it, and what we should and shouldn't do, i.e. cars, planes, etc, rode horses to get from NY to LA and/or sailed in actual sailing ships from NY to London, etc...
You know, instead of marketing the fear and getting rich from it, like, Al Gore...


----------



## Sukerkin

ballen0351 said:


> Do I want to discuss it sure that's what I'm doing. I'm waiting for anyone to tell me why I should believe the current global warming trend is not a natural occurrence that happens every so often at the end of an ice age which you yourself even said we are coming to the end of the last one. That alone is enough evidence for me.to see this is a natural cycle that happens to exit an ice age the ice must melt for the ice to melt the temp needs to rise




I think the key thing to latch on to with this topic is that it is the rate of change that makes it different. That and the fact that temperatures are rising all around the globe, rather than in a 'local' and sequential fashion, is reckoned to be the 'finger-print' of an external force (or an overly stimulated internal 'driver') at work.

The stance that I always take on this issue, mind you, is that it makes no difference to the common sense of the changes required to reduce our species environmental impact. Wasting less, polluting less and making the best use of the resources we have is the intelligent thing to do at the end of the day. If it turns out that our adding methane, CO2, tar particulates and so on to the atmosphere is _not_ appreciably adding to the big problem of rising temperatures then it's still the clever thing to limit what we emit anyway - because even if it's not bad for the planet it is bad for us.


----------



## Sukerkin

Here's an article that came out today on the BBC which touches on the 'naturalness' of the climatological variations:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348427

And for a bit of a deeper wade into the 'numbers':

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm


----------



## billc

And as to the world heating up...the models might be a little off...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/wheres-the-heat-its-hiding.php




> Global warming alarmists have long been embarrassed by the fact that the Earth isn&#8217;t heating up to the extent that their models predict (assuming that it is heating up at all). In the world of science, when empirical observation contradicts a theory, the theory is deemed to be refuted. But global warming alarmism exists in the world of religion, so when empirical observation contradicts the theory, its proponents merely tinker with the theory so as to make it harder to falsify. A case in point is this AP story, which suggests that the &#8220;missing&#8221; heat may be hiding&#8211;their word, not mine&#8211;where we can&#8217;t find it:
> 
> The mystery of Earth&#8217;s missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported on Sunday.
> Climate scientists have long wondered where this so-called missing heat was going, especially over the last decade, when greenhouse emissions kept increasing but world air temperatures did not rise correspondingly. &#8230;
> The world temperature should have risen more than it did, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research reckoned.
> They knew greenhouse gas emissions were rising during the decade and satellites showed there was a growing gap between how much sunlight was coming in and how much radiation was going out. Some heat was coming to Earth but not leaving, and yet temperatures were not going up as much as projected.
> So where did the missing heat go?
> Computer simulations suggest most of it was trapped in layers of oceans deeper than 1,000 feet during periods like the last decade when air temperatures failed to warm as much as they might have.​Note that there is zero evidence that the &#8220;missing&#8221; heat is hiding deep in the oceans; this is simply a hypothesis that has been developed by tweaking those trusty computer programs, which will say whatever the alarmists who create them want them to say.
> The most significant point in the AP story is this one, which it reports as fact:
> &#8230;satellites showed there was a growing gap between how much sunlight was coming in and how much radiation was going out.
> ​



And this is the neat part...




> NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth&#8217;s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. &#8230;


----------



## billc

And here, today is an article from Americanthinker on climate modeling...and how the models are off...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/models_not_climate_are_hypersensitive_to_carbon_dioxide.html



> JunkScience.com has done this work and we have come to the conclusion that the Kyoto Protocol is a clunker that should be allowed to expire without progeny.
> 
> As a column like this is too short to cover any real detail, we have prepared about 20 pages of explanation in downloadable PDF format. But here is a very brief and simplified overview.





> Climate concern originally began because the planet appeared to have warmed about seven tenths of one degree (0.7[SUP]o[/SUP]) Celsius since preindustrial times.  Post hoc ergo propter hoc, these events are seen by alarmists as related and, therefore, human activity causal of the rise in global mean temperature.
> 
> Some people still ask how we know what the global temperature is or should be, so here's a quick refresher:
> We know the size and emission temperature of the sun, how far away it is and how much sunlight the Earth intercepts. We've got a pretty good idea what proportion of sunlight is reflected away without warming the Earth, so we know its effective equilibrium temperature (the temperature at which it radiates energy to space to balance the amount it gets from the sun).
> We also know that within the atmosphere, below the point where incoming and outgoing radiation is in balance, we have a nice little life-friendly incubator of atmosphere  warmed by compression, conduction, evaporation and transpiration and through absorption of infrared radiation.
> The greenhouse effect you hear so much about is because the atmosphere is composed of some infrared radiation absorbers, mainly water in its various forms but including carbon dioxide (CO[SUB]2[/SUB]), inter alia, which absorb and re-radiate energy helping to keep the lower atmosphere warmer. As the warmed air is displaced by cooler, more dense air it is forced upward where it expands in the lower pressure, cooling until there are no absorbers remaining and energy is radiated to space, balancing that coming from the sun.
> Enhanced greenhouse theory postulates that adding more absorbers, like CO[SUB]2[/SUB], will absorb more infrared near the surface and increase temperatures in the zone where we live. Based on atmospheric modeling, a doubling of pre-industrial era CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels was thought to yield an increase of about 1.2ºC in surface temperature.
> 
> It turns out that base estimate is a dud -- i.e., it is far too large. We know this because the -- gasp -- the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tells us so.





> The method for calculating a change in forcing (something that makes temperature change) is net "down minus up" expressed in Watts per meter squared (W/m[SUP]2[/SUP]). The IPCC is most definite that a doubling of atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB] adds 3.7 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP]. This makes the calculation actually: incoming solar radiation minus albedo plus feedback, which (if you do the math like we have) resolves to less than a 0.7ºC increase from a doubling of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] -- not 1.2ºC.
> 
> Unfortunately for alarmists, the situation goes downhill from there.
> Climate models have been tortured to guesstimate future climate decades and even a century in advance even though they are not suited to that purpose. They are merely process models which, like economists, can be very helpful for understanding what we have seen but useless for telling us what we will see.
> 
> 
> Because we do not fully understand the climate system and do not know how to represent such important functions as cloud formation -- and we still lack sufficient processing power to represent the Earth at fine enough resolution to capture such important heat transports as thunderstorms -- many of Earth's climate processes are parameterized (i.e., faked) in models.
> 
> Also because we do not really know how to model the climate we pretend some things are more important than they really are -- like making CO[SUB]2[/SUB] responsible for a large effect because we don't know what is required for models to properly calculate near-surface temperature, for example. CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels are used simply as a multiplier to adjust model output to more or less match previously measured temperatures.



So tell me again how I am anti-science when the science doesn't even have the tools yet to really know what is going on.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012...ensitive_to_carbon_dioxide.html#ixzz24U12BosA
​​


----------



## billc

And More...



> But this still isn't enough, so marvelous magical multipliers are applied to further magnify CO[SUB]2[/SUB]'s alleged effect in an effort to curve-fit historical measures.
> 
> Unfortunately for modelers (and their alarmist backers), the world doesn't believe them. The world is not warming in response to increasing atmospheric CO[SUB]2[/SUB].
> 
> According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) we have already added 3.15 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] worth of additional forcing from greenhouse gases -- some 85% of the figure for a doubling of CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. As the doubling of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is supposed to have yielded 3[SUP]o[/SUP]C warming, we should have seen 85% of 3[SUP]o[/SUP]C, a little over 2.5[SUP]o[/SUP]C.
> 
> We have not.
> 
> 
> According to the most recent IPCC Assessment Report 4 (p103, AR4 WG1 FAQs) we've only seen 0.7[SUP]o[/SUP]C from enhanced greenhouse -- and land use change, black and brown carbon (soot and smoke) and everything else of which humanity stands accused. While it's a long list, there has been little global temperature effect.







> Some will claim this is because warming takes a long time to equilibrate and that most of the warming is "in the pipeline." That's outright nonsense.
> 
> As the National Climatic Data Center points out, Earth reacts rapidly to the extra absorption of incoming solar radiation by northern hemisphere land masses, increasing the planet's mean temperature by almost 4[SUP]o[/SUP]C from January to July and cooling back to January again. The mean land surface temperature changes more than 11[SUP]o[/SUP]C over the same period. In our new analysis, we provide a multi-source time series of Earth's warming and subsequent cooling with the 1997-1998 "super El Niño" event -- it was done and dusted in under 30 months.
> We also use Earth's natural greenhouse effect as a template to determine that doubling the atmosphere's CO[SUB]2[/SUB] will only deliver 0.4[SUP]o[/SUP]C warming, over half of which has already occurred unnoticed in the background of natural variation many times larger.
> ​




​

​


----------



## Xue Sheng

:hmm: So glaciers and ice sheets are not melting... ahhh so that is all propaganda too


----------



## granfire

Xue Sheng said:


> :hmm: So glaciers and ice sheets are not melting... ahhh so that is all propaganda too



I am sure the penguins and Polar bears will understand...


----------



## Xue Sheng

granfire said:


> I am sure the penguins and Polar bears will understand...



Yeah but the Hot-Headed Moles won't and THOSE are the ones you really need to worry about...well... at least as long as there is ice in Antarctica


----------



## billc

A quick look at Himalayan glaciers...

http://whyfiles.org/2012/himalayan-glaciers/



> The decline of the Himalayan glaciers does not prove climate change, Kääb says. &#8220;What we did was measure glacier thickness over five or six years; no more, no less. Climate is defined as weather over 30 years, so our study did not talk about climate-induced change.&#8221;
> Further, five or six years is &#8220;not a long time,&#8221; Kääb says. &#8220;It could be that they were very good or very bad years for the glaciers, but there are almost no sufficient meteorological measurements on the ground.&#8221;



And glaciers around the world...

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/nasa-satellite-debunks-melting-glacier-myth



> The story of melting glaciers has been told _ad nauseam_ by climate catastrophists and the scientifically gullible news media for years. This blog has reported on the purported &#8220;rapid melting&#8221; of the Himalayan glaciers several times before (see &#8220;Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting&#8221; and &#8220;Himalayan Glacier Disappearance Overstated&#8221. It is true that glaciers melt, they are the primary source of water in a number of regions around the world.
> As I have often stated, this is an interglacial period, ice is supposed to melt. Otherwise there would still be a mile of ice on top of New York City. But despite evidence to the contrary, warmists continue to claim that glaciers are disappearing at an alarming rate. According to an accompanying _News & Views_ article appearing in the same issue by Jonathan Bamber, from the Bristol Glaciology Centre:_Glaciers and ice caps are pivotal features of both water resources and tourism. They are also a significant contributor to sea-level rise. About 1.4 billion people are dependent on the rivers that flow from the Tibetan plateau and Himalayas1. Yet significant controversy and uncertainty surround the recent past and future behaviour of glaciers in this region. This is not so surprising when one considers the problem in hand. There are more than 160,000 glaciers and ice caps worldwide. Fewer than 120 (0.075%) have had their mass balance (the sum of the annual mass gains and losses of the glacier or ice cap) directly measured, and for only 37 of these are there records extending beyond 30 years. Extrapolating this tiny sample of observations to all glaciers and ice caps is a challenging task that inevitably leads to large uncertainties.
> _​It is certainly no exaggeration that previous estimates of glacial melting have been fraught with error, sparking contentious debate among glaciologists. &#8220;Discussion of the demise of the Himalayan glaciers has been mired in controversy, partly because of basic errors, but also because of the dearth of reliable data on past trends,&#8221; Bamber explains. Indeed, estimates for the Himalayan glaciers, based on a few easy to access sites, was roundly criticized by experts world wide. Now comes a &#8220;surprising&#8221; new set of estimates, based on satellite measurements of glacier ice mass.
> Most previous global mass balance estimates for Glaciers and ice caps (GICs) rely on extrapolation of sparse mass balance measurements, which represent only a small fraction of the GIC area. Based on a global, simultaneous inversion of monthly GRACE-derived satellite gravity fields, Thomas Jacob_et al_, calculated the mass change over all ice-covered regions greater in area than 100&#8201;km[SUP]2[/SUP]. In &#8220;Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise,&#8221; the authors describe their work:





> &#8220;Our results for HMA disagree significantly with previous studies,&#8221; the article plainly states. Even though previous GRACE based studies showed significant mass loss, the authors state that those measurements were in error&#8212;the outcome of &#8220;leakage&#8221; of readings from surrounding plains that was included by the Gaussian smoothing functions used. The excessive readings from the plains have been attributed to groundwater movement, not ice loss. They also dismiss any contribution from broad-scale tectonic uplift. In short, they found minimal ice loss from the glaciers of the Himalaya.
> According to the report: &#8220;The GIC rate for 2003&#8211;2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period. The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4&#8201;±&#8201;20&#8201;Gt&#8201;yr[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP] for 2003&#8211;2010, compared with 47&#8211;55&#8201;Gt&#8201;yr[SUP]&#8722;1[/SUP] in previously published estimates.&#8221; Bamber summarizes the article's findings this way:






> The bungled estimates for melting in the Himalaya are exposed as total fabrications. Science works, but there is no easy defense against lazy or biased scientists who produce &#8220;facts&#8221; that support a political agenda. That is why it is best to remain skeptical of claims of impending disaster backed by weak minded consensus arguments.
> Hopefully this new evidence will put and end to the exaggerated claims of glacial melting from those who want to prove that the world around us is afflicted by the evil works of man. The alarmists' previous estimates were &#8220;well over ten times larger&#8221; for some areas according to these experts. It would appear that, when it comes to climate science, if you are going to tell a lie, you should tell a big lie. That ensures you make the evening news.



So you were saying about melting glaciers...

And a little more...

http://www.iceagenow.com/Our_glaciers_are_growing_not_melting.htm



> If you click on the words "are melting" in Gore's article, you're taken to a paper by Michael Zemp at the University of Zurich. Mr. Zemp begins his paper by warning that "glaciers around the globe continue to melt at high rates."
> However, if you bother to actually read the paper, you learn that Zemp's conclusion is based on measurements of "more than 80 glaciers."
> Considering that the Himalayas boast more than 15,000 glaciers, a study of "more than 80 glaciers" hardly seems sufficient to warrant such a catastrophic pronouncement.
> 
> 
> Especially when you learn that of those 80 glaciers, several are growing.
> 
> Growing. Not melting.
> 
> "In Norway, many maritime glaciers were able to gain mass," Zemp concedes. ("Able to gain mass" means growing.)
> 
> In North America, Zemp also concedes, "some positive values were reported from the North Cascade Mountains and the Juneau Ice Field."  ("Displaying positive values" means growing.)
> Remember, we're still coming out of the last ice age. Ice is _supposed_ to melt as we come out of an ice age. The ice has been melting for 11,000 years. Why should today be any different? I'm guessing that most Canadians and Northern Europeans are very happy that the ice has been melting.
> Unfortunately, that millenniums-long melting trend now appears to be changing. No matter how assiduously Mr. Gore tries to ignore it, almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are now _gaining_ mass. (Or, displaying positive values, if you will.)


----------



## billc

Oh wait, I was wrong...here is a news article that details the melting of polar ice...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/another-epic-climatefail.php



> &#8220;The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth&#8217;s surface. . . .
> &#8220;Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. . . . Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. The change in temperature has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic.&#8221;



Here is a picture of the actual story....from 1922!!!!



> Here&#8217;s an image of the actual story:



And the rest of the story...



> Today comes a similar report from the UK-based _Register_ newspaper: &#8220;1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today&#8221;:Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
> 
> 
> The photos in question were taken by the seventh Thule Expedition to Greenland led by Dr Knud Rasmussen in 1932. The explorers were equipped with a seaplane, which they used to take aerial snaps of glaciers along the Arctic island&#8217;s coasts.
> After the expedition returned the photographs were used to make maps and charts of the area, then placed in archives in Denmark where they lay forgotten for decades. Then, in recent years, international researchers trying to find information on the history of the Greenland glaciers stumbled across them.
> Taken together the pictures show clearly that glaciers in the region were melting even faster in the 1930s than they are today, according to Professor Jason Box, who works at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University.
> 
> ​



From the embedded story on the 1930's glacial melt...and return...



> It now appears that the glaciers were retreating even faster eighty years ago: but nobody worried about it, and the ice subsequently came back again. Box theorises that this is likely to be because of sulphur pollution released into the atmosphere by humans, especially by burning coal and fuel oils. This is known to have a cooling effect.



Like I said before, put your global warming survival equipment next to your Y2K survival gear...then make some room for the next scare...like heterosexual aids or one of the other oldy but goody scares...


----------



## Empty Hands

billcihak said:


> Like I said before, put your global warming survival equipment next to your Y2K survival gear...then make some room for the next scare...*like heterosexual aids* or one of the other oldy but goody scares...



AIDS has a prevalence of about 19% in most of Sub-Saharan Africa.  Nearly all heterosexuals.


----------



## Sukerkin

:grins:  And you know why Y2K wasn't an unmitigated disaster?  Because people like me and companies like the one I work spent any awful lot of time and money making sure it didn't get the chance to. 

You can pay me a nice bonus (or a "thank you" would do) for the two weeks I spent on call over the Christmas/New Year period that year if you like?  Tho' of course I was only safe-guarding British systems so that probably doesn't count.


----------



## billc

Not quite the global plague that was predicted in the 80' is it?  I'm sure the Queen thanks you for your effort Sukerkin.


----------



## Xue Sheng

billcihak said:


> A quick look at Himalayan glaciers...
> 
> http://whyfiles.org/2012/himalayan-glaciers/
> 
> 
> 
> And glaciers around the world...
> 
> http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/nasa-satellite-debunks-melting-glacier-myth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you were saying about melting glaciers...
> 
> And a little more...
> 
> http://www.iceagenow.com/Our_glaciers_are_growing_not_melting.htm



You do know there are more glaciers then just the Himalayas don't you... or maybe you don't

Look at Greenland, Alps, and the Glaciers in South America, Alaska and  Canada.... 

Do you have any idea what Global warming really means and what the resault of it is?  I am guessing no based on your posts


----------



## granfire

Xue Sheng said:


> You do know there are more glaciers then just the Himalayas don't you... or maybe you don't
> 
> Look at Greenland, Alps, and the Glaciers in South America, Alaska and  Canada....
> 
> Do you have any idea what Global warming really means and what the resault of it is?  I am guessing no based on your posts



I was looking at a comparison picture of a glacier on Mt Rainier...it was really drastic how the ice had receded in very recent years.

But no, it's the coming ice age that does that....


Anyhow...
A general question:
With all the asphalt we put out, and glass and such...paving places over....don't we create more heat yet?
(not to mention the A/C units...I know the energy balance is +/- but since the cold air is inside...doesn't it war up the outside?)


----------



## billc

Do you mean this Greenland glacier...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...reenland-glacier-survived-warmer-temperatures



> Greenland's ice sheet is no closer to melting than that of Antarctica, indicates a study reported by five scientists at Britain's University of Southampton in the March 8 issue of _Naturemagazine._
> _The scientists report extensive ice-rafted sedimentary debris was deposited in the Norwegian-Greenland Sea roughly 30 to 38 million years ago. Evidence indicates the sediment was carried by glacial ice rather than sea ice, which in turn indicates glaciers existed on Greenland "about 20 million years earlier than previously documented, at a time when temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were substantially higher" than they are today._
> _According to the University of Southampton scientists, at the time Greenland glaciers deposited the sedimentary debris, ocean bottom-water temperatures were 5 to 8 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were up to four times greater than today's._
> _"Our data provide the stratigraphically extensive evidence for the existence of continental ice in the Northern Hemisphere during the Palaeogene," the scientists report, which "is about 20 million years earlier than previously documented, at a time when global deep water temperatures and, by extension, surface water temperatures at high latitude, were much warmer."_
> _Given the existence of Greenland glaciers when temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were much greater than exist today, "there is great reason to not only doubt, but to reject out-of-hand, Mr. Gore's scare stories of sea levels rapidly rising tens of feet in response to his implied rapid demise of the Greenland Ice Sheet," said Craig Idso, founder and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. "We now have evidence of a much warmer period of time that failed to bring about such a catastrophic consequence."_



Did you miss this about Greenland Ice in my earlier post...





> Today comes a similar report from the UK-based _Register_ newspaper: &#8220;1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today&#8221;:Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
> 
> 
> The photos in question were taken by the seventh Thule Expedition to Greenland led by Dr Knud Rasmussen in 1932. The explorers were equipped with a seaplane, which they used to take aerial snaps of glaciers along the Arctic island&#8217;s coasts.
> After the expedition returned the photographs were used to make maps and charts of the area, then placed in archives in Denmark where they lay forgotten for decades. Then, in recent years, international researchers trying to find information on the history of the Greenland glaciers stumbled across them.
> Taken together the pictures show clearly that glaciers in the region were melting even faster in the 1930s than they are today, according to Professor Jason Box, who works at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University.
> 
> ​





Or Kilimanjaro...Not global warming?

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2004/02/01/nature-study-debunks-kilimanjaro-glacier-myth



> *Deforestation &#8220;More Likely Culprit&#8221;*
> *According to Nature&#8217;s Betsy Mason, &#8220;Although it&#8217;s tempting to blame the (Kilimanjaro) ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain&#8217;s foothills is the more likely culprit.&#8221;*
> *Forests at the base of Kilimanjaro have been steadily disappearing for decades. &#8220;Without the forests&#8217; humidity,&#8221; Mason reports, &#8220;previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.&#8221;*
> *&#8220;Why has [the Kilimanjaro ice cap] been melting so relentlessly?&#8221; asked climatologist John Daly. &#8220;The greenhouse industry say &#8216;global warming,&#8217; but then they would say that, wouldn&#8217;t they?*
> *&#8220;The only problem with that knee-jerk explanation is that there has been no measurable atmospheric warming in the region of Kilimanjaro,&#8221; noted Daly. &#8220;Satellites have been measuring temperature since 1979 in the free troposphere between 1,000 and 8,000 meters altitude, and they show no tropospheric warming in that area. None.&#8221;*
> *Said Daly, &#8220;Kilimanjaro is above most of the weather and is thus exposed to the equatorial sun, a sun that has been hotter during the twentieth century than at any time since the medieval period. That would be a sufficient explanation in itself for the depletion of the ice cap.&#8221;*



Why would glaciers be melting...




> According to the Center, &#8220;Following the peak of Little Ice Age coldness, it should come as no surprise that many records indicate widespread glacial retreat, as temperatures began to rise in the mid- to late-1800s and many glaciers returned to positions characteristic of pre-Little Ice Age times.



But if some are melting...but others are growing...and others are staying the same...how can it be global warming?



> *Some Glaciers Shrinking, Others Growing*
> *&#8220;What people may find surprising, however, is that in many instances the rate of glacier retreat has not increased over the past 70 years; and in some cases glacier mass balance has actually increased, all during a time when the atmosphere experienced the bulk of the increase in its CO2 content.&#8221;*
> *A study published in Progress in Physical Geography (Braithwaite, R.J., 26: 76-95 (2002)), analyzed mass balance measurements of 246 glaciers from around the world between 1946 and 1995. According to the study&#8217;s author, &#8220;there are several regions with highly negative mass balances in agreement with a public perception of &#8216;the glaciers are melting,&#8217; but there are also regions with positive balances.&#8221;*
> *Within Europe, for example, &#8220;Alpine glaciers are generally shrinking, Scandinavian glaciers are growing, and glaciers in the Caucasus are close to equilibrium for 1980-95,&#8221; according to Braithwaite. Significantly, regarding this most recent 15-year period of time, Braithwaite noted &#8220;there is no obvious common or global trend of increasing glacier melt in recent years.&#8221;*
> *Daly predicts that because of mountain base deforestation, and all other things being equal, &#8220;What happens on Kilimanjaro will also be happening on countless mountains all over the world where forests on lower slopes have been replaced by open pasture.*
> *&#8220;Blaming it all on &#8216;global warming&#8217; was just too glib and convenient for an industry desperate to convince a skeptical public that the end of the world was nigh,&#8221; said Daly. &#8220;With a more down-to-earth cause like this identified, other &#8216;global-warming-did-it&#8217; phenomena should be looked at again for simple local causes like this.&#8221;*





> Added Singer, &#8220;The National Academy of Sciences published a report (in 2000) that defines the geographic regions of warming and cooling during the last 20 years. Surface measurements of East Africa show no warming trend. Weather satellites show a pronounced cooling trend of the atmosphere there. No one has questioned these data.&#8221;
> &#8220;One of the endlessly fascinating aspects of modern journalism is the absolute lack of critical insight tendered towards environmental scares,&#8221; said Pat Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. &#8220;A cursory inspection of (Kilimanjaro) data shows that Kilimanjaro&#8217;s glaciers would be dying even if _Homo sapiens were still just hanging around the trees of the Rift Valley, a few hundred miles to the West._
> _&#8220;From 1953 through 1976, 21 percent of the original (ice cap) area was uncovered. This was during a period of global cooling--yes, cooling--of 0.13º F,&#8221; said Michaels. &#8220;Around Kilimanjaro, satellite data show a cooling of 0.40º F since 1979 Still, Kilimanjaro&#8217;s glaciers continued to shrink.&#8221;_
> _Added Michaels, &#8220;Kilimanjaro turns out to be just another snow job, precipitated by a journalistic community that has lost its desire for critical factual investigation when it comes to our globe&#8217;s environment.&#8221;_


----------



## Xue Sheng

granfire said:


> I was looking at a comparison picture of a glacier on Mt Rainier...it was really drastic how the ice had receded in very recent years.
> 
> But no, it's the coming ice age that does that....
> 
> 
> Anyhow...
> A general question:
> With all the asphalt we put out, and glass and such...paving places over....don't we create more heat yet?
> (not to mention the A/C units...I know the energy balance is +/- but since the cold air is inside...doesn't it war up the outside?)



The lack of green space is an issue, asphalt can be an issue but not for creating more heat, heat comes from solar radiation, it affects water retention, erosion and heat retention more, and any or all of that can be a problem. As for AC units, don't know, never really looked at it much beyond the fossil fuels that are used in production and transportation of them and the refrigerant they use to use.


----------



## billc

And a last little bit on glaciers...


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...limatefail.php



> It now appears that the glaciers were retreating even faster eighty years ago: but nobody worried about it, and the ice subsequently came back again. Box theorises that this is likely to be because of sulphur pollution released into the atmosphere by humans, especially by burning coal and fuel oils. This is known to have a cooling effect.
> Unfortunately atmospheric sulphur emissions also cause other things such as acid rain, and as a result rich Western nations cracked down on sulphates in the 1960s. Prof Box believes that this led to warming from the 1970s onward, which has now led to the glaciers retreating since around 2000.
> Other scientists have said recently that late-20th-century temperature rises in the Arctic may result largely from clean-air legislation intended to deal with acid rain: some have even gone so far as to suggest that rapid coal- and diesel-fuelled industrialisation in China is serving to prevent further warming right now.
> Still other scientists, differing with Prof Box, offer another picture altogether of Arctic temperatures, in which there were peaks both in the 1930s and 1950s and cooling until the 1990s: and in which the warming trend which resulted in the melting seen by Rasmussen's expedition actually started as early as 1840, before the industrial revolution and human-driven carbon emission had even got rolling. In that scenario, variations in the Sun seem to have much more weight than is generally accepted by today's climatologists.
> At any rate, the new information from the old Danish pictures adds some more data to the subject. The new study by Box and his co-authors is published by _Nature Geoscience_, here. ®


----------



## Xue Sheng

billcihak said:


> Do you mean this Greenland glacier...
> 
> http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...reenland-glacier-survived-warmer-temperatures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Kilimanjaro...Not global warming?
> 
> http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2004/02/01/nature-study-debunks-kilimanjaro-glacier-myth
> 
> 
> 
> Why would glaciers be melting...
> 
> 
> 
> But if some are melting...but others are growing...and others are staying the same...how can it be global warming?



Where are you getting this from because it is mostly wrong, well all except the Al Gore bits, if you were paying attention you would have noticed I said a while ago he made things worse, basically he was sensationalizing things to make money. As for the rest it is rather incorrect. I mean it is supporting your ranting but it is still mostly wrong. Oh and don't forget Ice Sheets, I did mention those too... now go find some wrong bit of news to show the Antarctic Ice sheet is not breaking up and those Icebergs big as small states do not exist... which will also be wrong... but it will keep you busy for a few minutes

Now I shall ask this for the third time

Do you have any idea what Global warming really means and what the resault of it is?  I am guessing no based on your posts

Now look here http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/08/arctic-sea-ice-and-greenland-h.html

Here http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html

and here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18978483


----------



## billc

Oh, you must have missed this part in your article...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18978483



> *Watch this space*He said that, because this Greenland-wide melting has happened before - in 1889 - scientists are not yet able to determine whether this is a natural but rare event, or if it has been sparked by man-made climate change.
> Continue reading the main story*&#8220;Start Quote*
> *The observation is in my view much more important than the recently reported break up of a large iceberg from Petermann Glacier&#8221;*​Poul ChristoffersenScott Polar Research Institute
> "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," said Lora Koenig, a glaciologist from Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland and a member of the research team analysing the satellite data.



and this...



> Scientists said they believed that much of Greenland's ice was already freezing again.


Hmmm...that sounds like a cycle to me...

Hmmm...melting cycles and deforestation...doesn't sound like "man made" global warming to me...


----------



## billc

I already posted this, but here it is again on NASA and Greenland.  Of course, NASA, an organization that just experienced obama era budget cuts wouldn't be looking for a reason to get more money would it, like say..."man made" global warming research?  Hmmm...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/more-from-the-climatefail-files.php



> We reveal two independent dynamic ice loss events on the northwestern Greenland Ice Sheet margin: from 1985 to 1993 and 2005 to 2010,which were separated by limited mass changes. Our results suggest that the ice mass changes in this sector were primarily caused by short-lived dynamic ice loss events rather than changes in the surface mass balance. This finding challenges predictions about the future response of the Greenland Ice Sheet to increasing global temperatures. (Emphasis added.)



And on the NASA budget crunch hurting their environmental agenda...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012405139.html


> NASA's earth science budget shrank from about $2 billion to $1.4 billion between 2000 and 2006, when the Bush administration's greater funding priority was space exploration. Several environment-related satellite missions were either cut or shelved:
> l The Global Precipitation Measurement mission, designed to replace the 13-year-old Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, was delayed from 2010 until at least 2012 during the Bush administration. President Obama's 2011 budget proposes a mid-2013 launch.
> l The Landsat series of Earth observation satellites, a nearly 40-year-old mission run by the U.S. Geological Survey, had its next satellite delayed from this year, with the latest plans estimating a 2012 launch. This mission watches rising sea levels, glacial movement and coral reef decline, and it charts environmental conditions for military and intelligence uses. But one of its two satellites is experiencing degraded image quality and the other has been up since 1984, far past its life expectancy.





> Meanwhile, NASA must rely on limited aircraft surveillance to measure ice sheet thickness in the cryosphere - the Earth's surface where water is in solid form, including sea ice, glaciers and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica - since its Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) failed nearly a year ago. A new version of that satellite, ICESat-2, is planned for launch in 2015, but until then NASA will be limited to three narrower flight-path views, observing only key regions where NASA knows it can't afford to go blind.
> "Since the cryosphere is changing so fast right now, we really need to continue those measurements," said Thorsten Markus, ICESat-2 program manager at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt.
> Given financial constraints, it is unclear what will happen to satellite surveillance of the environment. In its budget request for this year, the Obama administration has proposed increasing NASA's earth science budget to about $1.8 billion, moving it back toward the 2000 level, as the National Research Council recommended in a 2007 report.
> For now, the scientists wait and hope.



Or, NASA scientists can lean on that "crisis" button to help shake the money tree...


----------



## Xue Sheng

Bill

I didn't miss anything, I knew it already... I studiied this stuff before, there are melts and freezes all the time, just not at the scale and speed we are currently witnessing

And I am not arguing whose fault it is, I am just saying it is getting warmer, don't care about politics in association with this issue

now for the forth time, in red in a larger font

Do you have any idea what Global warming really means and what the resault of it is?  I am guessing you don't based on your posts


----------



## billc

Err...the earth is getting warmer...?  The earth gets warmer?  Of course, the earth gets warmer...and cooler, and all without our help.


----------



## ballen0351

Xue Sheng said:


> Bill
> 
> I didn't miss anything, I knew it already... I studiied this stuff before, there are melts and freezes all the time, just not at the scale and speed we are currently witnessing


How do we know that?  How do we know it does not warm up faster towards the end of every ice age as part of nature?  How do we know its not the earths natural cycle?  I'm not trying to be a smart butt I'm just asking I'm not a scientist so do we really without a doubt know this does not happen every few thousand years


----------



## billc

Exactly Ballen.  Also, if these global warming scientists are so sure of what they believe, why the attempts to destroy people who question their findings, why destroy the original data, why go after the journalists and editors of the peer reviewed journals if they let skeptics articles get published?


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> And a last little bit on glaciers...
> 
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...limatefail.php



That's clearly, once again, *wrong*:

From the Andes to Alaska, and the Himalayas to Europe. From Washington to Greenland, ice is melting. Period.
View attachment $Grinnell%20Glacier%20Loss.jpg








(How about *that*, billi? They say a picture's worth a thousand words-I gues I just trumped all 8 thousand words of your copypastas with seven pictures of my own, though....:lfao: )


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> How do we know that? How do we know it does not warm up faster towards the end of every ice age as part of nature? How do we know its not the earths natural cycle? I'm not trying to be a smart butt I'm just asking I'm not a scientist so do we really without a doubt know this does not happen every few thousand years




I've posted about this before. Because we drill for Antarctic ice cores. These cores go to levels in the ice that date back 800,000 years. From the content of the ice, and its captured atmospheric bubbles, we can determine tthe chemical constituents of the water and atmosphere-from these we can deduce climactic conditions at the time. By taking samples from several different dates and graphing them, we can clearly see how climate-and climate change-behaved in the past-*without a shadow of a doubt.*


----------



## Xue Sheng

billcihak said:


> Err...the earth is getting warmer...?  The earth gets warmer?  Of course, the earth gets warmer...and cooler, and all without our help.



err.... yes and no..... so I guess I was mostly rightyou dont know

Global warming means the average global temperature increases but that does not mean the entire surface of the globe is getting warmer. Global warming causes climate change and ice melt and ice melt sends large amounts of fresh water into a salt water system which causes all sorts of problems with levels of acidity and t thermohaline circulation (for elder ). Basically it shuts down thermohaline circulation which causes all sorts of climate and temperature issues. And then guess what some places get a little warmer, some places get a lot warmer some get cooler and other places get a lot cooler. And you also get a sea level raise and is the entire Greenland ice sheet melted you get a rather substantial raise, I am typing from memory here so I could be off but I think it may be as much as 7 meters. And I apologize because again I am typing from memory, if one of the larger Ice shelves in Antarctica melted (cant remember which one) it raises sea level enough to reverse flow and several large rivers (one of those is the Hudson) as well as put a few major cities underwater. Have any idea what reverse flow o major fresh water rivers mean or what major cities underwater means to population and disease issues. And did you know warmer means more water in the atmosphere which equates to draught. 

Now has the earth gotten warmer and cooler all by itself in the past? Yes, yes it has but not at this rate without something contributing to it. And even then I do not think there has been a melt at this rate covering so much of the globe.

But there all sorts of reasons for warming, and cooling and frankly I dont care whose fault it is and threads such as this one you started here do nothing to figure out what is really happening or to see if there is a solution all they do is try to find someone to blame so we (humans) can feel real good about ourselves since wellit is not our fault and maybe it isnt or maybe it is. Actually it does not much matter.. we need to stop arguing and figure out what the problem is, if we can fix it and if we cant how do we survive it.

Now is if CO2, is it a solar radiation increase, is it a decrease in the magnetic field, is it the earths orbit, is it some guy named Murray who lives in central Japan. Can we make it better?

But I do not think you care about this.. it seems to be more important to you to prove it is not our fault and or it is some political parties fault and not the other

Want to know more of what I know and what I have said before feel free to search here on MT, I have been in multiple discussions about this topic but I am done here because this is a waste of my time, you could be standing on a melting Iceberg from Antarctica floating off South America and still be arguing whose fault it is and how the whole thing is fake.

Now I'm tired and sick of computers so I am going to log off, shutdown and read a book...have a good weekend and hey. Have fun storming the castle


----------



## elder999

And the island nation of Tuvalu, already under negotiations with a variety of places for their ultimate, and *inevitable* relocation, is the "canary in the coal mine" for rising sea levels from global warming. 

View attachment $Copy of 4b2653316.jpg
View attachment $SP1109072.jpg


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> I've posted about this before. Because we drill for Antarctic ice cores. These cores go to levels in the ice that date back 800,000 years. From the content of the ice, and its captured atmospheric bubbles, we can determine tthe chemical constituents of the water and atmosphere-from these we can deduce climactic conditions at the time. By taking samples from several different dates and graphing them, we can clearly see how climate-and climate change-behaved in the past-*without a shadow of a doubt.*



So this is so accurate it can tell if during a 100 period  100000 years ago the temps changed a few degrees faster then it normally did.  And from that we can tell that the rate we have now is faster then ever before and can tell its our fault?


----------



## billc

As to pictures...

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_17.html


> *[CSPP Note:  *_The 9-9-06 Issue of *The Economist*__ has global warming as a cover story, *The Heat is On*__.  On page 8 of the special section, the Economist lends support to the quip that environmental writers have a post-it-note on their computer screens that reads: &#8220;never, ever check facts.&#8221;  __We take note of the fact that it prints two pictures of a Svalbard Glacier from 1918 and 2002 respectively called Blomstrandbreen as implicit
> proof of melting ice. Danish professor Ole Humlum from Oslo University, who used to work at the university&#8217;s branch in Svalbard, years ago revealed the photos as a Greenpeace hoax. Blomstrandbreen is a so-called galloping glacier, which periodically advances and retreats, regardless of the climate.  We reach back to 2002 for a report on the hoax.  The Economist seems either oblivious or unconcerned with reality.  Makes one wonder what else in the report is science fiction.*]*_
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *Now you see it, now you don't: Blomstrandbreen glacier, Norway, 1918 and 2002*
> 
> 
> *****
> Jo Knowsley, The Mail on Sunday
> http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_archives/climate/greenpeacestunt.htm
> 
> 11th August 2002
> _Scientists dismiss Greenpeace pictures as stunt - Global warming claim meaningless as glacier photos show 'natural changes in shape'._
> The pictures appeared to be the most shocking evidence so far of the devastating effects of global warming. But last night scientists who work on the spot where they were taken dismissed them as a misconceived publicity stunt. The two photographs, taken 84 years apart, were released by Greenpeace International last week. They appear to show a radical shrinking of the Blomstrandbreen glacier, on Svalbard, 375 miles north of Norway.
> But scientists on the ground at Svalbard say the illustration is 'meaningless' as a measure of climate change because glaciers retreat and advance constantly as part of a natural cycle. At the same time, there has been no significant drop or increase in temperature in the region since the Twenties.
> They argue that Greenpeace used the pictures to highlight the effects of global warming caused by what they see as man's pollution.
> Blomstrandbreen might now be retreating, but on the west side of Svalbard is Friddjovbreen glacier which has advanced more than a mile in the past seven years - one of dozens of glaciers to do so.


----------



## ballen0351

elder999 said:


> And the island nation of Tuvalu, already under negotiations with a variety of places for their ultimate, and *inevitable* relocation, is the "canary in the coal mine" for rising sea levels from global warming.
> 
> View attachment 17203
> View attachment 17204
> View attachment 17205
> View attachment 17206



There is a small island in the middle of the Chesapeake bay that is similar its slowly been flooded over last 50 years.  Its down to 1 house left from an island of about 15 houses and a small store.  They have all been reclaimed by the bay or moved.  One house left and its got no yard and the water is up to its foundation.


----------



## elder999

ballen0351 said:


> So this is so accurate it can tell if during a 100 period 100000 years ago the temps changed a few degrees faster then it normally did. And from that we can tell that the rate we have now is faster then ever before and can tell its our fault?




yeah-we can sometimes tell if there were massive forest fires that year, and just how massive they were, and sometimes-going back a few hundred or thousand instead of hundreds of thousands of years-even where they were. We can tell how bright the sun was.One thing we know as an incontravertible fact: the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased in the last 100 years to a level unseen on the planet for more than 450,000 years-and when the CO2 was last that high...............
...........the earth was much, much warmer.


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> And the island nation of Tuvalu, already under negotiations with a variety of places for their ultimate, and *inevitable* relocation, is the "canary in the coal mine" for rising sea levels from global warming.
> 
> View attachment 17203
> View attachment 17204
> View attachment 17205
> View attachment 17206




The Maledives will soon follow...
The I suppose Florida...


----------



## billc

And more pictures...

http://algorelied.com/?p=3564



> In light of the recent UN IPCC Himalayan Glaciergate, the Mother Nature Network (MNN) has rushed out some spin claiming glaciers are indeed melting, we caused it, and it is &#8220;very scary&#8220;.  MNN has also put together a photo montage of the &#8220;Top 7 disappearing glaciers&#8220;, along with alarming commentary.
> As the list starts with #7 (The Matterhorn) and ends with #1 (Glacier National Monument), the first image a reader sees are these starkly different photos of the Matterhorn:
> 
> 
> c. 1960 & today, Getty Images​The photo caption is by MNN.  The message that they are trying to obviously convey here is that circa 1960 the Matterhorn was covered with snow, ice, and glaciers, that it was very, very cold, and that today it&#8217;s much warmer which has caused all that frozen stuff to melt.
> So I asked myself, &#8220;Self, have the Matterhorn glaciers really melted that much since 1960 as the photos depict?&#8221;  Although I&#8217;d love to take a trip to The Alps to check it out for myself, I decided a more efficient way to find out quickly would be to visit the image sharing site, Flickr.com, and see from photos that others have uploaded what they discovered on their own.  Here&#8217;s a couple of relatively recent photos that indeed show a dramatic difference in the amount of white frozen stuff on the Matterhorn:
> 
> 
> Photo taken July 15, 2006 by richardcjones & licensed by Creative Commons
> 
> 
> 
> Photo taken January 12, 2010 by AndiH & licensed by Creative Commons​I suppose an opportunist could conclude from photos that I found on Flickr that the the amount of snow, ice and glaciers on the Matterhorn have actually grown significantly from 2006 to today, but a realist recognizes that this is not necessarily the case, and that a better explanation would be that the photo showing little snow was shot during the summer, and the other showing a blanket of snow was shot during the winter.  Regarding the MNN photos presented, no mention is made of what season each photo was shot ,and it&#8217;s doubtful that they even want us to consider such inconvenient thoughts.  To the contrary, MNN expects readers to just swallow their photos whole, be scared, and do so without asking any pesky questions.
> FULL DISCLOSURE: Via Flickr, I did find one photo taken during the winter that shows very little, snow, ice, or glaciers on the Matterhorn, and in which you can even see a waterfall formed by the melting glaciers:
> 
> 
> Photo taken January 11,2007 by DTrigger05 & licensed by Creative Commons
> 
> ​


----------



## billc

On melting glacier hoaxes...

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ipcc-imperialism-indian-glaciers



> Glacier alarmism is not new. Greenpeace once published photos showing the rapid retreat of the Uppsala Glacier in Argentina, ascribing this to global warming. But when I visited the glacier, I was told that global warming was too gradual to account for the dramatic retreat of the glacier, and clearly powerful local causes were responsible. Of several glaciers descending from the South Andean Icefield, Uppsala was retreating, Perrito Moreno was advancing, and several others were stable. Such varying outcomes obviously reflected local geoclimatic variations, not global climate at all.
> Will Greenpeace admit it? Not a chance. But if the IPCC wants to make amends for Climategate-II, perhaps it can start by apologising for glacier alarmism. That will help restore its scientific credibility.



More than one incident of glacier melting fake photos...Norway, Argentina, the Himalayas...


----------



## billc

More pictures of glaciers...I know...exciting isn't it...

http://www.greenpacks.org/2009/04/17/worlds-7-largest-glaciers-by-continent/

And some more on the man made global warming hoax...and more pictures of glaciers...

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html



> *And about those "melting glaciers..."*
> 
> Strange how our research turned up a completely different story.  We found 50 glaciers are advancing in New Zealand, others are growing in Alaska, Switzerland, the Himalayas, and even our old friend, Mt. St. Helens is sprouting a brand new crater glacier that is advancing at 3 feet per year.And down south last September, NASA satellites showed the Antarctic Ice Field to be the largest it has ever been in the 30 years it has been observed by satellite (based on an analysis of 347 million radar altimeter measurements made by the European Space Agency's ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The terminus of Tsaa Glacier in Icy Bay in July 2005.
> Photo by Chris Larsen, Geophysical Institute, UAF​The terminus of Tsaa Glacier in June 2007 after a recent advance of the glacier. Note the position of the large waterfall. The glacier advanced about one-third of a mile sometime between August 2006 and June 2007.
> Photo by Chris Larsen, Geophysical Institute, UAF​
> Al Gore tells us the Greenland ice cap is thinning, but he doesn't mention that a newly discovered volcanic "*hot spot*" may be a contributor, along with warming on the coast due to warmer waters coming up the gulf stream.  In general, we found growing glaciers outpacing melting glaciers by a good margin.  Nothing like cherry-picking an isolated example to create panic, Al.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Oceanography friends tell us that the actual measured rise in average ocean levels is on the order of 1.6 millimeters (about the width of a match ) annually.  There are 25.4 mm in an inch, so in 25 years, the oceans might be up about 1.5 inches or so if the trend continues.  In athousand years, it will be up a whopping 64 inches, and everyone but the NBA is clearly in serious trouble.Al Gore, on the other hand, recently said the problem is much worse than previously thought, and the Polar Ice Cap will be completely gone in 5 years.
> We're going to hold you to that, Albert.  We wonder if anyone has ever had a Nobel Prize taken back...  If you make a quick knee-jerk assumption, you'd probably conclude that something has to be melting somewhere to cause such a steady rise, however miniscule.  But there's another principle of physics at work here called thermal expansion.  When you heat an object, it gets bigger.  Since the oceans have been slowly warming over the past few centuries, the volume of the oceans has also been increasing a tiny bit, and that can possibly account for most, if not all, of the 1 mm per year rise in the average sea level.​
> Old glaciers are a wonderful repository of historical information, because past samples of earth's atmosphere are locked up in them.  Coral heads and Sargasso Sea sediments also leave Carbon 14 and Oxygen 18 clues to the past temperature of the earth.  We all agree that the historical CO[SUB]2[/SUB] curves and the temperatures curves closely match each other.  But when we look closely at the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and temperature data found locked in ancient ice core samples, we find that increases in CO[SUB]2[/SUB] are actually following increases in temperature and that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] doesn't cause warming - warming causes CO[SUB]2 [/SUB]to increase.​


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> On melting glacier hoaxes...
> 
> http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ipcc-imperialism-indian-glaciers
> 
> 
> 
> More than one incident of glacier melting fake photos...Norway, Argentina, the Himalayas...



Uhhhh.....no. 



> [h=1]USGS Repeat Photography Project - Glacier National Park, Montana[/h]





Lots of images like that one, paid for with your tax dollars. :lfao:


----------



## billc

And the other photos...

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/12-more-glaciers-that-havent-heard-the-news-about-global-warming

Source: Discovery



*2. Alaska&#8217;s Hubbard Glacier. Growing. A lot.*
Alaska&#8217;s Hubbard Glacier is advancing moving toward Gilbert Point near Yakutat at an average of seven feet per day.
The Army Corp of Engineers&#8217; Hubbard Glacier website for has some great photos of the advancing behemoth.
Source: CDApress.com
*3. Norwegian glaciers. Growing again.*
IceAgeNow.com reports on the growth of Norwegian glaciers:




&#8220;After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate. The actual magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir Elvehøy.&#8221;The developments were originally reported by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK).​Source: IceAgeNow.com
*4. Glaciers growing on Canada&#8217;s tallest mountain*
Canada.com tells the tale of glaciers growing on Canada&#8217;s tallest mountain:
&#8220;Canada&#8217;s tallest mountain, the Yukon&#8217;s towering Mount Logan, may have experienced a growth spurt.&#8232;&#8232;





&#8220;The University of Alaska aerial survey, conducted last summer with a laser altimeter by Fairbanks-based geoscientist Sandy Zirnheld, pegged Canada&#8217;s geographic zenith at 5,966 metres. That&#8217;s seven metres (23 feet) higher than the official height of 5,959 metres, determined in 1992 after a celebrated climb to the top by a team of Canadian researchers led by Mike Schmidt of the Geological Survey of Canada.&#8232;&#8232;
&#8220;Snow and ice accumulation is the most likely explanation,&#8221; Chris Larsen, the scientist leading the University of Alaska&#8217;s research on the continent&#8217;s northwest mountain ranges, said.&#8221;&#8232;​Source: Canada.com
*5. North to Alaska and more growing glaciers*
Alaska&#8217;s glaciers have been in retreat for nearly 200 years. But now they&#8217;re advancing again.





MichNews.com reports the cold, hard facts:
&#8220;Unusually large amounts of Alaskan snow last winter were followed by unusually chilly temperatures there this summer. &#8220;In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years,&#8221; says Bruce Molnia of the U.S. Geological Survey, and author of The Glaciers of Alaska. &#8220;It&#8217;s been a long time on most glaciers where they&#8217;ve actually had positive mass balance (added thickness).&#8221;
&#8220;Overall, Molnia figures Alaska had lost 10&#8211;12,000 square kilometers of ice since 1800, the depths of the Little Ice Age. That&#8217;s enough ice to cover the state of Connecticut. Climate alarmists claim all the glaciers might disappear soon, but they haven&#8217;t looked at the long-term evidence of the 1,500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles. During the Little Ice Age&#8212;1400 to 1850&#8212;Muir Glacier filled the whole of Glacier Bay. Since then, the glacier has retreated 57 miles.​Source: MichNews.com



*6. Glaciers are growing in California. California?*
You might be surprised to learn that the Golden State has glaciers. And the Associated Press says they&#8217;re growing:
&#8220;Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta&#8217;s flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing.&#8221;
Source: FoxNews.com
*7. A glacier is growing on Washington&#8217;s Mt. St. Helens.*
Mount Saint Helens has glaciers? But it&#8217;s an active volcano. But, but, but&#8230;





KATU-TV reports the details:
&#8220;On May 18, 1980, the once bucolic ice-cream cone shape that defined Mount St. Helens in Washington state disappeared in monstrous blast of ash, rock, gas, and heat.
&#8220;Inside the volcano, which was once a soft dome of snow but is now a gaping, steaming menace with an unpredictable streak, an unexpected phenomenon is taking place: a glacier is growing.
&#8220;In these days of global warming concerns and scientists showing alarming then-and-now images of glaciers disappearing from mountainsides, it may be the only growing glacier in America &#8211; or maybe the world.​Source: KATU.com
*8. Glaciers are growing in France and Switzerland, too*
Another continent has reported in. According to an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research, glaciers are growing in France and Switzerland, too:




The research was conducted by six scientists from leading agencies and departments in France and Switzerland that deal with hydrology and glaciology. The research was funded by Observatoire des Sciences de l&#8217;Univers de Grenoble (OSUG), the European Programs ALPCLIM and CARBOSOL, and by the city of Chamonix Mont-Blanc.Vincent et al. collected a variety of datasets that could help them understand how the high-elevation glaciers of Mont Blanc were impacted by variations and trends in climate. Among other findings, they found that the mass balance of the glaciers is strongly controlled by precipitation, not temperature.
Vincent et al. state &#8220;The most striking features of these figures are the small thickness changes observed over the 20th century. For both areas, thickness variations do not exceed ±15 m. The average changes are +2.6 m at Dôme du Goûter (please note that this glacier is growing) and -0.3 m (-12 inches) at Mont Blanc.
&#8220;Considering the uncertainty interval, i.e., ±5 m, it can be concluded that no significant thickness change is detectable over most of these areas&#8221;. &#8220;All these results suggest that the SMBDôme du Goûter and Mont Blanc did not experience any significant changes over the 20th century.&#8221;​Source: World Climate Report
*9. New Zealand&#8217;s largest glaciers are growing&#8232;*
Growing may not be a strong enough word. They&#8217;re surging. IceAgeNow.com reports the story:




Guides say the Franz Josef and the Fox glaciers continued advancing down their valleys in the past year and may soon be close to positions reached 40 years ago.
That (supposedly) contrasts sharply with the plight of many glaciers elsewhere on the planet, which are (supposedly) shrinking three times faster than they were in the 1980s, according to the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS).
&#8230;
Franz Josef Glacier Guides base manager Tom Arnold estimated the Franz Josef and the Fox had advanced hundreds of meters in the past year.​Source: IceAgeNow.com


----------



## billc

Hubbard glacier advancing...I think it's outside my door right now...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/fs-001.03.pdf


> Hubbard Glacier, the largest calving glacier on the North American Continent (25 percent larger than Rhode Island), advanced across the entrance to 35-mile-long Russell Fiord (fig.1) during June 2002, temporarily turning it into a lake. Hubbard Glacier has been advancing for more than 100 years and has twice closed the entrance to Russell Fiord during the last 16 years by squeezing and pushing submarine glacial sediments across the mouth of the fiord (figs. 2 and 3). Water flowing into the cutoff fiord from mountain streams and glacier melt causes the level of Russell Lake to rise. How- ever both the 1986 and 2002 dams failed (fig. 4) before the lake altitude rose enough for water to spill over a low pass at the far end of the fiord and enter the Situk River drainage, a world- class sport and commercial fishery near Yakutat, Alaska.
> Calving Glaciers are Unresponsive to Climate
> Hubbard Glacier is defying the global para- digm of valley or mountain glacier shrinkage and retreat in response to global climate warm- ing. Hubbard Glacier is the largest of eight calving glaciers in Alaska that are currently increasing in total mass and advancing. All
> 140o
> 13


9o
60o 30'
60o
MT LOGAN
_Malaspina Glacier_
Osier Is
ALASKA MAP AREA
HYDROLOGIC BASIN BOUNDARIES
USGS Fact Sheet 001&#8212;03 January 2003
_Malaspina L_
_Y A K U T A T_
_B AY_
of these glaciers calve into the sea, are at the heads of long fiords, have undergone retreats during the last 1,000 years, calve over relatively 59o shallow submarine moraines, and have unusu-	30' ally small ablation areas compared to their accumulation areas.


----------



## granfire

billcihak said:


> And more pictures...
> 
> http://algorelied.com/?p=3564



for starters the Zugspitze is not a glacier, it's a mountain - pretty much without glacier....

and that last picture is from an amusement park. I am sure they can regulate the waterfall....


----------



## Big Don

I will fear global warming and it's consequences 50-100 to 1000 years from now when anyone can predict the local weather ANYWHERE with 100% accuracy for ONE lousy week, from 6 months ahead of time. Ever notice the weatherman is the only guy who can be wrong 100% of the time and keep his job?


----------



## billc

and some more on glaciers...

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#10



> Dr. Tim Patterson writes about Canadian glaciers that researchers from the University of Calgary and the University of Western Ontario have shown that glaciers in the Lake Louise area and at the Athabaska Icefields have receded far above their present limits in the past. We should consider the conditions that cause glaciers to advance and retreat. Obviously, climate warming will cause melt-back of the toe of a glacier (retreat). The cause for advance is primarily increased snowfall at the top of a glacier (the accretion zone). The pressure of the new glacial ice at the top of the glacier will cause the glacier to start flowing downhill more rapidly than the toe is melting; hence, the advance. Cooler temperatures without the increase in snowfall will probably not halt the retreat. It is possible to have a retreat with cool temperatures and low precipitation, and it is possible to have an advance with warm temperatures and heavy snowfall. It has been recorded in the literature that waxing and waning of glaciers all over the world is a common occurrence and that any reference to this being an abnormal thing, due to Global Warming depends on selectively gathered &#8220;evidence&#8221;. This has been remarkably well illustrated in New Zealand in 2004 with the rapid advance of glaciers in the South Island with the only climatic change being very heavy precipitation.



Patterson's paper...

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/GLACIERS IN CANADA.pdf


> It is possible to have a retreat with cool temperatures and low precipitation, and it is possible to have an advance with warm temperatures and heavy snowfall. It has been recorded in the literature that waxing and waning of glaciers all over the world is a common occurrence and that any reference to this being an abnormal thing, due to Global Warming depends on selectively gathered &#8220;evidence&#8221;. This has been remarkably well illustrated in New Zealand in 2004 with the rapid advance of glaciers in the South Island with the only climatic change being very heavy precipitation.





> 2_. B.H. Luckman _from the University of Western Ontario has published research papers on the analysis of wood fragments discovered to be coming out from beneath the tongue of the Athabaska Glacier. These fragments were from two species of trees, _Pinus _and _Abies_, both erect species. The _Albies _species fragment appears to have come from a tree some 150 to 250 years old before being killed and buried by the glacier. C14 dating indicates that the age of the wood fragments range from slightly older than 5,000 to over 8,000 years. This information indicates that from _5,000 to 8,000 years ago mature trees were growing in an area now underneath the Athabaska Glacier. _This information ties reasonably well with that from the Lake O&#8217;Hara region. Obviously the glacier has advanced, retreated, advanced and is currently retreating the same as the Opabin Glacier.
> The writer&#8217;s own experience from fairly extensive travel in the Monashee, Selkirk, Purcell and Cariboo ranges confirms that glaciers have retreated and advanced a number of times and that the present retreat is not an unusual event. Not infrequently more than one lateral or even terminal moraine is preserved below a glacier. If the final advance is not as large as some of the previous advances, remnants of the previous moraines will be preserved. Up to three previous lateral moraines preserved below a glacier have been observed by the writer.
> All of this demonstrates that there has been a steady ebb and flow of glaciers in the Cordillera and that it is foolish to adopt a &#8220;sky is falling&#8221; attitude. The previous advances and retreats of the glaciers took place long before the advent of diesel trucks.


----------



## granfire

Big Don said:


> I will fear global warming and it's consequences 50-100 to 1000 years from now when anyone can predict the local weather ANYWHERE with 100% accuracy for ONE lousy week, from 6 months ahead of time. Ever notice the weatherman is the only guy who can be wrong 100% of the time and keep his job?



well, then look a little bit closer to home:
This year many places in the US broke records for hottest days this summer. And while am where it is now considerably balmy (it feels like damn fall and it's only AUGUST!) and we had quiet some rain, other places are in considerable drought conditions. Is it global warming?
or just reoccuring weather patterns? 
I do not know, but I do fear it.

And so should you, because you will see the effects on your monthly food bill. 
(and just in case you should suggest irrigation: many places the wells are running dry, and not just in the Texas panhandle where they say they are having conditions similar to the 1930s...)


----------



## Big Don

granfire said:


> well, then look a little bit closer to home:
> This year many places in the US broke records for hottest days this summer. And while am where it is now considerably balmy (it feels like damn fall and it's only AUGUST!) and we had quiet some rain, other places are in considerable drought conditions. Is it global warming?
> or just reoccuring weather patterns?
> I do not know, but I do fear it.
> 
> And so should you, because you will see the effects on your monthly food bill.
> (and just in case you should suggest irrigation: many places the wells are running dry, and not just in the Texas panhandle where they say they are having conditions similar to the 1930s...)



The Weather Channel's website has a ten day forecast you can look at for your city. I look at it every day, it is nothing if not consistent. If 99 is forecast, it is 95, or 97 or 103... Their only business is weather, they can't be 100% right from yesterday to today, let alone Monday thru Friday. What in the world would make me change my life due to their guessing of what will be 100 years from now? That they were close to the mark? A broken watch is right twice a day, but, you don't rely on broken watches.


----------



## WC_lun

No, but you rely on information and history that is already at your disposal.  The weather channel may not get the forecast %100 correct, but the measurements for days that have already past are pretty easy to have accurate records on.  Scientist are telling us that the word's weather patterns are changing and we have some responsibility for that.  If a doctor told you that you had a condition it is perfectly valid to go for a 2nd opinion.  If you go to 100 doctors and 98 tell you the same thing, it sounds foolish to me to ignore what the docs have told you.


----------



## Sukerkin

A very good analogy, Lun :nods:.  

I do take Don's point too tho' and, as I have said myself in the past, the models of such a vast and chaotic system are not really all that accurate (they are improving as processing power gathers apace and more variables can be factored more accurately).  

To my mind, given what is at stake and the fact that going 'green' is actually in our long term best interests regardless of climate, I have to say that I come down on the side of doing what we can that is economically viable without committing economic suicide.  

Bear in mind that for me, 'going green' doesn't mean sackcloth and ashes and living a Neo-neolithic lifestyle .  For me Green means using nuclear power to stop using gas and oil for electricity generation and, other than for entertainment ('cos you can't beat a V12 Aston Martin {http://youtu.be/NZzVVVIKDxMor} or a rumbling Camaro {http://youtu.be/f03RM5i3cDs} ), we should stop burning petrol just to move cars around - it's far too useful for other things.  I also am fully in favour of a much more extensive and accelerated space programme because what we will get from that is, eventually, the resources we need to carry on having an industrial civilisation with much of the pollution  outsourced to where it does no harm.


----------



## Tgace

The refusal to consider nuclear energy is one of the reasons I don't take these green wenies seriously. There is no other realistic alternative to power our society.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## billc

We can always use pixie dust.  See Sukerkin, you would make a good republican with that point of view.  The problem that I and other conservatives have with these green scares is exactly that they want to stop human progress, especially in the third world, where it is needed most.


----------



## billc

And about the incredible sinking island nation called Tuvalu...not so much...

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32



> "We are told that the sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Al Gore told us that the inhabitants are invading New Zealand because of it.
> 
> "Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree -- there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands, including Tuvalu, confident that they would show that all of them are sinking.
> "Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose."
> Other expert reviewers at the IPCC, and scientists elsewhere around the globe, share Dr. Gray's alarm at the conduct of the IPCC. An effort by academics is now underway to reform this UN organization, and have it follow established scientific norms. Dr. Gray was asked to endorse this reform effort, but he refused, saying: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only 'reform' I could envisage would be its abolition."


http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=1



> But Tuvalu reminds me of a comic song I used to sing of Gracie Fields called "He's dead but he won't lie down". Tuvalu persistently refuses to subside .
> A tide gauge to measure sea level has been in existence at Tuvalu since 1977, run by the University of Hawaii It showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades It fell three millimeters between 1995 and 1999. The complete record can still be seen on John Daly's website: http://www.john-daly.com>www.john-daly.com  Obviously this could not be tolerated, so the gauge was closed in 1999 and a new, more modern tide gauge was set up by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's National Tidal Center by Flinders University at Adelaide. But Tuvalu refuses to submit to political pressure. The sea level has actually fallen since then Tuvalu cannot be allowed to get away with it. So Greenpeace employed Dr John Hunter. a climatologist of the University of Tasmania, who obligingly "adjusted" the Tuvalu readings upwards to comply with changes in ENSO and those found for the island of Hawaii and, miraculously, he found a sea level rise of "around" 1.2 mm a year which, also miraculously, agrees with the IPCC global figure .
> Since all this seems biased, or politically influenced, Dr John Church of the CSIRO at Hobart, Tasmania, a lead author of the IPCC Chapter on "Sea Level", plus his colleague Dr Neil White, have sought to reverse actual measured trends by "combining records from tide gauges from all over the world with satellite altimeter data to assess regional variation". Unsurprisingly, and equally miraculously, they reach the same conclusion as Greenpeace and the IPCC. All this has to be imposed on poor little Tuvalu to "prove" global warming.and speed emigration .
> The IPCC Chapter on Sea Level is one of the more dishonest. It practices two important deceptions. First, it completely fails to mention the fact that many tide gauges are situated close to cities where the land is subsiding because of erection of heavy buildings, or removal of ground water, oil and minerals. It so happens that the island of Hawaii is one of the more heavily populated Pacific islands where the sea level is "rising" because the land is "falling" Another reason for upwards bias is Port Adelaide, Australia, where they decided to increase the water level in the harbour to allow for larger ships, They dredged and built a bar on the harbour. Unsurprisingly, the level rose on the tide-gauge. Corrections for these upwards biases in tide-gauge measurements have never been permitted to be discussed by the IPCC .



And more about the Island that isn't sinking...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2002/07/01/island-nation-may-sue-us-over-global-warming



> Australia&#8217;s National Tidal Facility (NTF), based at Flinders University in Adelaide, has installed and maintained eight sophisticated tide gauges at South Pacific sites, including Tuvalu. Since the instrumentation was installed in 1993, average sea level increase at Tuvalu has been 0.5 mm/yr, being a rate of 5 cm per century.
> A similar analysis of 27 data-sets for the Pacific (longest record, 92 years at Honolulu) yields a rise of 8 cm per century. Crucially, &#8220;... visually at least, and at this stage, there is no clear evidence for an acceleration in sea level trends over the course of the last century.&#8221;





http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32


----------



## elder999

[h=1]In climate landmark, Arctic ice melts to record low :[/h]





> The sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has melted to its smallest point ever in a milestone that may show that worst-case forecasts on climate change are coming true, US scientists said.
> The extent of ice observed on Sunday broke a record set in 2007 and will likely melt further with several weeks of summer still to come, according to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and the NASA space agency.
> The government-backed ice center, based at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said in a statement that the decline in summer Arctic sea ice "*is considered a strong signal of long-term climate warming."*
> The sea ice fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles), some 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) less than the earlier record charted on September 18, 2007, the center said.
> Scientists said the record was all the more striking as 2007 had near perfect climate patterns for melting ice, but that the weather this year was unremarkable other than a storm in early August.


----------



## granfire

Tgace said:


> The refusal to consider nuclear energy is one of the reasons I don't take these green wenies seriously. There is no other realistic alternative to power our society.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Sorry, after Fukushima...and Chernobyl....

It's BS. The society can change to meet the supply. it always has. 

naturally, in the past it has expanded it.

I believe the technology is available to power more with less.

of course, the billies of the world have to cure their rectal-cranial inversion to let it happen.


----------



## elder999

granfire said:


> Sorry, after Fukushima...and Chernobyl....



Gotta disagree here, Gran. Chernobyl was an event that combined failed technology with sheer stupidity-really, buckets of super special Soviet stupid sauce on that one...:lfao:..... 

Fukushima is a good example of u_nderengineering_-I've been saying for 20 years or more that technology like that needs to be engineered for the 10,000 year event, and not the 100 year event, since you never know which is going to happen, or when, never mind the environmental irresponsibility that is a boiling water reactor.

 Nuclear power-especially the latest designs-presents a more and more manageable source of energy, with a relatively low environmental impact.


----------



## Master Dan

Yes Virgina there is Global Warming. Those people who lie or refuse to believe it don't believe in Santa Claus either?

Your premise on ocean temps is complete BS and try living in the Arctic the last 20 years even since 1999 it has been extreme change causing many violent swings of lows and highs but those who are paid or troll slaves like yourself will not admit it untill everything you own is under water, burned up or you have to take out a second mortgage to buy food? The scary part folks is that if we eliminate all cabon discharge 100% today the amount right now in the atmosphere will stay beyond our current life spans and continue to have extreme effects such as extreme heat and lack of rain in many areas and to date there has not been a method for removing Co2 yet? but I understand it is being worked on? 

*Breitbart is Dead Obama Lives!!!!
*


----------



## ballen0351

Master Dan said:


> Yes Virgina there is Global Warming. Those people who lie or refuse to believe it don't believe in Santa Claus either?
> 
> Your premise on ocean temps is complete BS and try living in the Arctic the last 20 years even since 1999 it has been extreme change causing many violent swings of lows and highs but those who are paid or troll slaves like yourself will not admit it untill everything you own is under water, burned up or you have to take out a second mortgage to buy food? The scary part folks is that if we eliminate all cabon discharge 100% today the amount right now in the atmosphere will stay beyond our current life spans and continue to have extreme effects such as extreme heat and lack of rain in many areas and to date there has not been a method for removing Co2 yet? but I understand it is being worked on?
> 
> *Breitbart is Dead Obama Lives!!!!
> *



The sky is falling were all going to die the sky is falling were all going to die the sky is falling were all going to die.  Think Ill go fire up my 79 cherokee with its 360 V8 and its 8 mpg and go for a drive today it looks like its going to be nice out


----------



## billc

More rebuttal to the "man made" global warming hysteria...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/winning_the_agw_science_debate_heres_how.html


> I would start by asking AGW supporters the following question: "What is your single most important piece of evidence for AGW?"  I have received many answers to this question; most of them can be disposed of in a trivial way.  Some examples are:
> 
> 
> "Man-made CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is increasing in the atmosphere."  _True, but is warming increasing as a result?_
> 
> 
> "Climate models predict rising climate temperatures in the future."  _True, but models are _not_ evidence._
> 
> 
> "Glaciers are melting, sea ice is shrinking, storms are increasing, droughts and floods are increasing_._"_  Even if any of these were true, they don't reveal the cause and certainly cannot furnish temperature data like thermometers._
> 
> 
> "Sea levels are rising."  _But they have been rising for 18,000 years, and there is no evidence that the current rate of rise is affected by temperature; 20[SUP]th[/SUP]-century data show no acceleration._
> 
> 
> A common misleading reply by AGW supporters: "The past decade is the warmest in X years."_  This may be true, provided X is chosen appropriately, but the current _trend_ over the past decade has been approximately _zero_._  (One must not confuse _Trend_ [measured in degrees C/decade] with temperature [measured in degrees C].  According to climate models, it is an increased temperature _trend_ that should relate to any increasing trend in greenhouse gases.)
> But note also that climate seems to follow long-term cycles of about 1,500 years (Singer and Avery, _Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years_, 2007).  If the "Bond-cycle" is active now, we may expect further, irregular warming in the present century and beyond -- entirely due to natural causes, likely related to the Sun.
> 
> Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/winning_the_agw_science_debate_heres_how.html#ixzz258jlz06m
> ​





> Further, the models are largely unable to represent or capture important _natural_ forcings -- for example, well-documented climate oscillations involving the oceans, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation or Pacific Decadal Oscillation.  Also omitted from the models are the effects of solar-activity changes -- in spite of excellent evidence, supported by a growing body of published results, that solar-caused cosmic-ray variations strongly correlate with terrestrial climate changes.
> Turning next to climate observations, there are many questions about the reliability of the reported land-surface temperature data reported by weather stations.  Mid-troposphere temperatures do not agree with surface trends -- a disparity that a National Academy of Sciences climate panel tried unsuccessfully to resolve in 2000.  It seems that mid-troposphere temperature trends derived from radiosondes in weather balloons and from microwave instruments in satellites both show negligible tropical warming in the last decades of the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century.  Data are never perfect, and there may be corrections necessary.  However, for the time being, these two independent datasets show remarkable agreement with one another, and remarkable disagreement with what the IPCC models would expect as a result of anthropogenic warming.
> 
> Re​





> Ocean data have been notoriously difficult to reconcile, since they employ so many different types of instrumentation.  These include buckets, buoys, ship-engine cooling-water inlet temperatures, and both infrared and microwave satellite observations.  Unfortunately, there are problems with each of the datasets; their coherence is often different from what one might expect.  One example: inlet temperatures seem to be warmer than bucket and drifter buoys that measure temperatures close to the surface -- just opposite of what would be expected.
> 
> Additional ocean datasets do not show the warming observed by land weather stations; for example, night-time marine air temperatures (NMAT) confirm the strong warming up to 1940 and cooling to 1975 but show only a small recovery post-1978, with maximum temperatures in the 1990s no greater than in 1940.  Similarly, data of ocean heat content (OHC) do not show a warming trend from 1978 to 2000 -- although it should be noted that 20[SUP]th[/SUP]-century OHC data is of poor quality and has been subject to frequent corrections.





> Finally, we have non-thermometer proxy data, which mostly show no warming from 1978 to 1997.  Most confirm the 1910-40 warming from weather stations -- but also show no post-1940 warming.  It would be interesting to examine the large dataset assembled by the authors of the "hockeystick" to see what temperatures are observed after 1978; unfortunately, their published curve stops at just that point, and their post-1978 data have not been accessible.
> 
> It should be clear by now that the strong AGW claims of the IPCC are based on rather flimsy evidence.



The best part...




> It would be interesting to examine the large dataset assembled by the authors of the "hockeystick" to see what temperatures are observed after 1978; unfortunately, their published curve stops at just that point, and their post-1978 data have not been accessible.




​


----------



## Sukerkin

I can understand Ballens attitude in a way, for the boy that cried "Wolf" is a famous parable and, superficially at least, there have been a couple of over-hyped scenarios within my lifetime.  However, one vital thing to understand when it comes to massive, chaotic, systems is that they have equally massive inertia.  So, usually, by the time you notice something happening it is usually well along the road to non-recoverability.  So, it is in our interests to act if we suspect that something is in the wind, so to speak {Yeah, climatological pun attack! }.

Here is the British Met Office's take on the various temperature observation and measurement regimes that have been used to support the theory that we are stepping over the threshold of a warming period:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/temp-records

Now, the Met Office may draw a little ribald comment on their forecasting accuracy (the weather here is notoriously complex as we have a lot of factors in a small area) but they are a fairly sober and serious organisation, not given to wild speculation.  So I tend to trust what they have to say on something.

The trends are clear, altho' I do think that less than a couple of centuries of data is a small pool from which to draw conclusions.  As I noted above, massive systems have lots of 'lag' in them and altho' we have been loading the atmosphere with CO2 for quite some time, to the extent that the PH of the oceans is changing, it might yet be that the Earth will regulate that excess away in time (most likely by using it's great climate tool, living things).  Even so, I think it only makes good sense to do the things I've mentioned before regardless of whether the climate is going to change radically or not.  Oil and gas are finite resources and far too useful to waste just by setting fire to them.


----------



## Sukerkin

I don't know if our members outside the UK can access this podcast from Costing the Earth.  Not directly relevant to the thread but pretty interesting nonetheless:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/costearth/costearth_20120814-1529a.mp3


----------



## billc

Sooo...You have the men who created the I.P.C.C report, the one all the other scientist point to as proof of man made global warming, hiding or destroying their data to keep it from being examined by other scientists, trying to keep other scientists who disagree with their report from getting published, trying to get journalists and editors who allow skeptics to get published, fired.  Then you have groups like green peace doctoring glacier photos and members of the I.P.C.C team lying about glaciers in their research.  You have global warming computer climate models that don't actually work with real world data.  You have temperature monitoring stations either being ignored, if they are in cold parts of Russia, or badly placed, next to garbage incinerators for example.  You have islands that are supposed to be sinking having their water level monitoring equipment showing no rising waters.

Yet...we are supposed to trust that what all of this "information" points to is man made global warming.  Hmmmm...You know, I have this bridge that is a real deal right now and if you're interested...


----------



## Sukerkin

Soooo ... when it comes to forming an opinion on climate change my choices are .... the ninety-seven percent of professional climatologists who think there is a problem to be addressed or some bloke on the Interwebs who would love to cast the situation as a plot dreamed up by Obama to facilitate the destruction of the American Way {TM}?  

Which one to choose for reliable information?  It's such a conundrum that I really can't choose between the two options ... I'll sleep on it.


----------



## billc

I have to guess you didn't pay any attention to climate gate 1 or 2, the made up data on glaciers, the made up data on Tuvalu, the fact that the I.P.C.C. report that the 97 percent of scientists base their opinions on global warming is the subject of climate gate, or the ignoring of temperature monitoring stations in the cold parts of the world, or the failure of climate model computers to accurately predict the current climate or any number of other screw ups in the man made global warming science.

As a reminder...



> Turning next to climate observations, there are many questions about the reliability of the reported land-surface temperature data reported by weather stations. Mid-troposphere temperatures do not agree with surface trends -- a disparity that a National Academy of Sciences climate panel tried unsuccessfully to resolve in 2000. It seems that mid-troposphere temperature trends derived from radiosondes in weather balloons and from microwave instruments in satellites both show negligible tropical warming in the last decades of the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century. Data are never perfect, and there may be corrections necessary. However, for the time being, these two independent datasets show remarkable agreement with one another, and remarkable disagreement with what the IPCC models would expect as a result of anthropogenic warming.





> In the meantime we can post certain question to the AGW supporters and await their answers:
> **Why did climate warm between 1910 and 1940?
> **Why did climate cool from 1940-1975?  If the cause is assumed to be aerosols, also please explain the separate trends observed in the northern and southern hemispheres and compare with climate models.  This asymmetry has been a puzzle for some time.
> **Why is there a step increase (temperature "jump") in 1976-77 -- and again in 2001-2002?  Such jumps are not in accord with the slow, steady increase calculated by climate models.
> **Why is there no pronounced warming trend since 2002?
> **And finally, why no warming for night-time marine air temperatures, troposphere, and proxies in the last two decades of the 20th century -- in conflict with reported land-surface temperatures?  _Could one admit the possibility that there might be something wrong with the land-surface data used by IPCC as "evidence" for AGW?_



Obama wasn't mentioned once in any of the information on these topics.

Hmmm...you must be reading my posts again.  How brave of you.


----------



## Sukerkin

Don't make me wish I wasn't - there's a fine line between curiosity and the Net equivalent of Car-crash TV.


----------



## billc

I can't make you do anything Sukerkin, if you don't have the strength to read my posts, well, I can't help you then.


----------



## billc

A new book on the myth of man made global warming...

http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warning-how-gaia-replaced-god/



> The hypothetical courtroom is a newly published book,





> _Global Warning, Trials of an Unsettled Science_; and the prosecutor is its author, David Solway, a familiar name to regular readers of PJ Media.





> What will especially raise readers&#8217; ethical hackles are his  disclosures of duplicity at what should be the most credible  institutional levels in ensuring that counter-claims to the received  wisdom are suppressed.
> 
> For a particularly egregious example of bad faith in communicating  with the public, Solway cites a 2009 University of Illinois survey  concluding that 97.4% of scientists agree that mankind is responsible  for global warming. But the methodology of the survey was grossly  corrupt. Of the 10,257 respondents, 10,180 demurred from the consensus.  They were summarily rejected, even though included amongst them were  solar scientists, meteorologists, physicists, and other scientific  experts. Seventy-five of the remaining 77 respondents agreed with the  proposition that global warming is caused by humans and _voilà!_  That equals 97.4%. In fact, only .008% of the respondents concurred with  the hypothesis. This is intellectual fraud of breathtaking arrogance,  yet it is only one of a slew of truth-traducing offenses Solway has  amassed.
> How do academics and other global-warming stakeholders justify their  complicity in manufacturing consent? Solway explains it as a form of  cognitive dissonance of the type one often finds in religions and  triumphalist ideologies, where ends are privileged over means. In his  chapter on environmentalism as religion, Solway explains how Gaia, the  earth&#8217;s divine avatar, replaced God in our secular age.


----------



## Sukerkin

Aye that's a bad way to run a study all right.  But I am perplexed why you are so fiercely committed to banging this drum, Bill.  

Really, as I have said many times now, it does not matter if the process is driven by mankind or just helped along the road by us.  Trying to pollute and waste less is just good sense and, if we can, rein in the temperature rises to something within which we can maintain our civilisations.


----------



## WC_lun

In similiar news, evolution is a hoax and the Earth is only six thousand years old.


----------



## elder999

WC_lun said:


> In................. and the Earth is only six thousand years old.



And it's *flat*...:lol:


----------



## Xue Sheng

And it is on the back of Atlas or a turtle....that is where it gets a bit fuzzy


----------



## elder999

Xue Sheng said:


> And it is on the back of Atlas or a turtle....that is where it gets a bit fuzzy




And it used to have unicorns, but they all missed the Ark.....:lfao:


----------



## granfire

elder999 said:


> And it used to have unicorns, but they all missed the Ark.....:lfao:



but the damn horseflies didn't! :flammad:


----------



## CanuckMA

WC_lun said:


> In similiar news, evolution is a hoax and the Earth is only six thousand years old.




Prepostorous. The World is 5,773 years old.


----------



## Xue Sheng

elder999 said:


> And it used to have unicorns, but they all missed the Ark.....:lfao:



But they fit 2 of every other living thing in approximately 101,000 square feet.


----------



## WC_lun

Sometimes you guys make me laugh.


----------



## CanuckMA

Xue Sheng said:


> But they fit 2 of every other living thing in approximately 101,000 square feet.



Well the stupid bugs didn't take much room. 

And some of the bigger things were not on board...


----------



## Xue Sheng

CanuckMA said:


> Well the stupid bugs didn't take much room.



But DAMN they were annoying


----------



## WC_lun

I wonder how many breeds of misquitoes were killed out of reaction slaps?


----------



## Xue Sheng

WC_lun said:


> I wonder how many breeds of misquitoes were killed out of reaction slaps?




Obviously not enough :EG:


----------



## Xue Sheng

Its melting...or at least not freezing as much

Who knows...maybe we will find the ark as things melt :uhyeah:


----------



## billc

Well, it may be that NASA was caught changing historical temperature data on it's site to make warming look more real.  Is this true?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_ruler.html




> We've been hearing that 2012 has been the "hottest on record." I had written earlier  that those claims were based on the contiguous United States only, or  1.5% of the earth's surface. The "global temperature" in 2012 through  June was only the 10[SUP]th[/SUP] hottest on record. In fact, every single month of 1998 was warmer than the corresponding month of 2012.
> 
> I  thought I'd update that analysis to include July's and August's  temperatures. To my surprise, NASA's entire temperature record, going  back to January 1880, changed between NASA's June update and its August  update. I could not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The _entire spreadsheet_ needed to be updated.
> 
> I  knew NASA would occasionally update its estimates, even its historical  estimates. I found that unsettling when I first heard about it. But I  thought such re-estimates were rare, and transparent. There is  absolutely no transparency here. If I had not kept a copy of the data  taken off NASA's web site  two months ago, I would not have known it had changed. NASA does not  make available previous versions of its temperature record (to my  knowledge).
> 
> NASA does summarize its "updates to analysis," but the last update it describes was in February. The data I looked at changed sometime after early July.


​


> In  short, the data that NASA makes available to the public, temperatures  over the last 130 years, can change at any time, without warning and  without explanation. Yes, the global temperature of January 1880 changed  some time between July and September 2012.
> 
> Surprise of surprise, the change had the effect of making the long-term temperature record support conclusions of _faster warming_. The biggest changes were mostly pre-1963 temperatures; they were generally adjusted _down_.  That would make the warming trend steeper, since post-1963 temperatures  were adjusted slightly upward, on average. Generally, the older the  data, the more adjustment.
> 
> ​



Hmmm...soooo...if this is true, then why should anyone trust what the "scientists" say is happening with the weather/climate?  Is NASA doing this in order to get it's budget increased to "study" global warming?

And about that global warming thing and that arctic sea ice thing the alarmists keep harping on...



> You might also be interested to know that Antarctic sea ice set another record in September: the _most_ amount of ice ever recorded.
> 
> Once again, the basic global warming story, even after our hot summer in the US, is the same as I described in May.  "In short, the data show nothing alarming at all: very mild warming  over the long term, and actual cooling over the short term."




The article on the sea ice record...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/
 



> _Editor&#8217;s note:  An update from the author has been added to this article on September 20, 2012._
> 
> Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded  on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year).  Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract  some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data.
> 
> 
> Good News For Polar Bears Is Bad News for Global Warming Alarmists
> 
> *James Taylor*                     Contributor
> 
> 
> Don't Believe The Global Warmists, Major Hurricanes Are Less Frequent
> 
> *James Taylor*                     Contributor
> National Public Radio (NPR) published an article  on its website last month claiming, &#8220;Ten years ago, a piece of ice the  size of Rhode Island disintegrated and melted in the waters off  Antarctica. Two other massive ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula  had suffered similar fates a few years before. The events became poster  children for the effects of global warming. &#8230; There&#8217;s no question that  unusually warm air triggered the final demise of these huge chunks of  ice.&#8221;
> NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012.



​


----------



## WC_lun

Not true.


----------



## Xue Sheng

To quote Bugs Bunny



> Hold your seats, folks, here we go again!


----------



## billc

Hmmm...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/




> *Update:  To provide more perspective on global warming and Antarctica, I would like to update this column with some additional information:*
> As meteorologist Anthony Watts explains, new data show ice mass is accumulating on the Antarctic continent as well as in the ocean surrounding Antarctica. The new data contradict an assertion by global warming alarmists that the expanding Antarctic sea ice is coming at the expense of a decline in Antarctic continental ice.
> The new data also add context to sensationalist media stories about declining ice in small portions of Antarctica, such as portions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula (see here, for example). The mainstream media frequently publish stories focusing on ice loss in these two areas, yet the media stories rarely if ever mention that ice is accumulating over the larger area of East Antarctica and that the continent as a whole is gaining snow and ice mass.
> Interestingly, a new NASA study finds Antarctica once supported vegetation similar to that of present-day Iceland.
> &#8220;The southward movements of rain bands associated with a warmer climate in the high-latitude southern hemisphere made the margins of Antarctica less like a polar desert, and more like present-day Iceland,&#8221; a co-author of the NASA study reports.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/...ins-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/



> [h=1]ICESAT Data Shows Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses[/h]Posted on September 10, 2012 by Anthony Watts





> The results of ICEsat measurements are in for Antarctica, and it seems those claims of ice mass loss in Antarctica have melted now that a continent wide tally has been made. This was presented in the SCAR ISMASS Workshop in Portland, OR, July 14, 2012 and was added to NASA&#8217;s Technical Reports server on September 7th, 2012. H/T to WUWT reader &#8220;Brad&#8221;. What&#8217;s interesting (besides the result) is that the report was prepared by Jay Zwally, whose &#8220;ice free Arctic by the end of summer 2012&#8243; prediction is about to be tested in 12 days.  It also puts the kibosh on GRACE studies that suggested a net loss in Antarctica. Note there&#8217;s the mention of the &#8220;climate warming, consistent with model predictions&#8221; at the end of the report. They&#8217;d say the same thing if ICEsat had measured loss instead of gain, because as we&#8217;ve seen before, almost everything is consistent with warming and models no matter which direction it goes.
> Here&#8217;s the video presentation. The report abstract follows.
> 
> 
> Mass Balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet 1992-2008 from ERS and ICESat: Gains exceed losses &#8211; Presented by Jay Zwally, NASA Goddard, USA ISMASS 2012 is an activity of the renewed SCAR/IASC ISMASS expert group, which focuses on the mass balance of ice-sheets and their contribution to sea level changes. The workshop is sponsored by ICSU, SCAR, IASC, WCRP, IGS, and IACS with support from CliC and APECS. Video recording and editing provided by Kristin Poinar, Mai Winstrup, and Jenny Baeseman


----------



## Master Dan

Trying to tell right wing or low informed Republicans that global warming exists is a waste of time but I just love how uneducated non sicience people want to jump on conspiracy or other GOP Republican Oil company propaganda BILL BILL BILL that it does not exist!! Bull **** which one of you here live 100 miles below the Arctic Circle or with in 700 miles of the North pole since 1995 and lived it and have engineering experience none of you who Poo Poo global warming. Your as unqualified to vote in the election as you are to speak for the planet.

My daughter and I just picked up a person who brought his smaill sail boat from France here through the North West Passage and he found no Ice and yet you beliec NOAH and all the satellite images are fake ESAD like I said before when your house burns up or drowns and you have not food is when regardless of believe it or not there will be less of you idiots alive for the rest of us to deal with while trying to fix it and run off the corporations that want to exploit the planet at the cost of lives.


----------



## Master Dan

billcihak said:


> well, it may be that nasa was caught changing historical temperature data on it's site to make warming look more real.  Is this true?
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_ruler.html
> 
> ​
> 
> hmmm...soooo...if this is true, then why should anyone trust what the "scientists" say is happening with the weather/climate?  Is nasa doing this in order to get it's budget increased to "study" global warming?
> 
> and about that global warming thing and that arctic sea ice thing the alarmists keep harping on...
> 
> 
> 
> the article on the sea ice record...
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/
> 
> 
> ​



hey bill these two guys didn't believe in global warming either yourin good company? 

View attachment 17328View attachment 17329


----------



## billc

About man made global warming and loss of ice...lose it in one place and it build in another place...

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/experts-global-warming-means-more-antarctic-ice



> While the North Pole has been losing sea ice over the years, the water  nearest the South Pole has been gaining it. Antarctic sea ice hit a  record 7.51 million square miles in September. That happened just days  after reports of the biggest loss of Arctic sea ice on record.


I love it when global warming causes less ice...and more ice...at the same time.  What a joke.


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> About man made global warming and loss of ice...lose it in one place and it build in another place...
> 
> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/experts-global-warming-means-more-antarctic-ice
> 
> 
> *I love it when global warming causes less ice...and more ice...at the same time. What a joke.
> *



Of course, it would help if you actually read the article:



> Climate change skeptics have seized on the Antarctic ice to argue that the globe isn't warming and that scientists are ignoring the southern continent because it's not convenient. But scientists say the skeptics are misinterpreting what's happening and why.
> 
> *Shifts in wind patterns and the giant ozone hole over the Antarctic this time of year &#8212; both related to human activity &#8212; are probably behind the increase in ice, experts say.* This subtle growth in winter sea ice since scientists began measuring it in 1979 was initially surprising, they say, but makes sense the more it is studied.
> 
> "A warming world can have complex and sometimes surprising consequences," researcher Ted Maksym said this week from an Australian research vessel surrounded by Antarctic sea ice. He is with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.
> 
> Many experts agree. Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado adds: "It sounds counterintuitive, but the Antarctic is part of the warming as well."
> 
> And on a third continent, David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey says that yes, what's happening in Antarctica bears the fingerprints of man-made climate change.



and, by way of explanation:



> While the Arctic is open ocean encircled by land, the Antarctic &#8212; about 1.5 times the size of the U.S. &#8212; is land circled by ocean, leaving more room for sea ice to spread. That geography makes a dramatic difference in the two polar climates.
> The Arctic ice responds more directly to warmth. In the Antarctic, the main driver is wind, Maksym and other scientists say. Changes in the strength and motion of winds are now pushing the ice farther north, extending its reach.
> 
> Those changes in wind are tied in a complicated way to climate change from greenhouse gases, Maksym and Scambos say. *Climate change has created essentially a wall of wind that keeps cool weather bottled up in Antarctica, NASA's Abdalati says.
> *
> And the wind works in combination with the ozone hole, the huge gap in Earth's protective ozone layer that usually appears over the South Pole. It's bigger than North America.



Of course, given its counterintuitive nature, it could easily seem ridiculous-maybe, even "a joke"-to a non-scientist.....


----------



## CanuckMA

Now, now, elder, don't you try to inject science and logic in a good copy-pasta rant.


----------



## Xue Sheng

As I suspected (and said), some people...bill.... do not have a clue as to what "Global Warming" means or does.

I will try and keep this simple

Some places that were once cold get warmer while other places that were once warm get colder....it is called climate change&#8230;this means weather patterns change&#8230;. so lets review... places that were warm get colder and places that were cold get warmer and in addition to that some places that were warm get warmer and some places that were cold get colder&#8230;and that is as simple as I can make it for you

What global warming doesn't mean...... the entire surface of the planet...every square inch...gets warmer... so even though you may think it is a joke that some place loose ice while others gain ice and that based on this Global Warming is itself a joke... you would be incredibly wrong&#8230; thereby proving you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in this thread as it applies to Global warming


Now I am pretty darn sure elder understands this but bill&#8230;take a look at this&#8230;. this is the oceanic conveyor belt system (for bill) the thermohaline circulation (for elder  )&#8230; think of it kind of like a big wet HVAC system







Introduce enough fresh water (melting ice) into this system and it will shut down&#8230; now what do you think happens if it stops circulating and stops moving warm (red) and cold (blue) water around&#8230;well places that were cold get colder some that were hot get hotter some that were cold get warmer and some that were warm get colder&#8230;. And this has major effects on weather patterns and then it gets too complicated for me to explain simply&#8230; and that is just one factor in the equation


Sheesh&#8230;how many times do I have to explain Global Warming on MT&#8230;.


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> As I suspected (and said), some people...bill.... do not have a clue as to what "Global Warming" means or does.
> 
> I will try and keep this simple
> 
> Some places that were once cold get warmer while other places that were once warm get colder....it is called climate change&#8230;this means weather patterns change&#8230;. so lets review... places that were warm get colder and places that were cold get warmer and in addition to that some places that were warm get warmer and some places that were cold get colder&#8230;and that is as simple as I can make it for you
> 
> What global warming doesn't mean...... the entire surface of the planet...every square inch...gets warmer... so even though you may think it is a joke that some place loose ice while others gain ice and that based on this Global Warming is itself a joke... you would be incredibly wrong&#8230; thereby proving you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in this thread as it applies to Global warming
> 
> Sheesh&#8230;how many times do I have to explain Global Warming on MT&#8230;.



Xue, Bill lacks the capacity.


----------



## WC_lun

Wow BillC, even the links you are posting now support climate change that is man made.  Just out of curiousity, is there any doubt in your mind that climate change is man made now, or are you still denying the science?


----------



## billc

I don't believe the "science."  If it was such a lock, then the "scientists," wouldn't have had to fake data, try to destroy the skeptics by keeping them out of scientific journals, try to get editors who allow skeptics to publish, fired.  Climate gate the first revelation and the second revelation have destroyed any credibility the "man made" global warming theory had.  "Scientists," and their friends faking photographs of glaciers melting, lying about glacier melt and all the other things they have been caught doing to convince people that the science is legitimate just doesn't convince me.   The fact that past data put into the computer models can't tell us about the weather we already know about is another clue that there is a problem with the "science."   Too many skeptics, too little honesty among the proponents and  you have too much room for the theory to be wrong.

Even elder gets it wrong.  He posts pictures of a flooded city, and points to an Island that is supposed to be sinking, you look into it and you find that it isn't sinking, the old measuring equipment was wrong, the new equipment shows no sinking.  So no, the science isn't settled.


----------



## shesulsa

You won't have to believe it within the next few years.

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999

billcihak said:


> Even elder gets it wrong. He posts pictures of a flooded city, and points to an Island that is supposed to be sinking, you look into it and you find that it isn't sinking, the old measuring equipment was wrong, the new equipment shows no sinking. So no, the science isn't settled.



There are no "cities" on Tuvalu-it's all villages, and that's the picutre I posted.You're right, though.Tuvalu isn't sinking.

_The *sea* is rising

_This is an incontravertible, settled *fact*. So  much so that Tuvalu is planning for their _inevitable_ evacuation.



> The dazzling white sand and dark green coconut palms of Tepuka Savilivili were much like those on dozens of other small islets within sight of Funafuti, the atoll capital of Tuvalu. But shortly after cyclones Gavin, Hina and Kelly had paid the tiny Pacific nation a visit, islanders looked across Funafuti's coral lagoon and noticed a gap on the horizon. Tepuka Savilivili had vanished. Fifty hectares of Tuvalu disappeared into the sea during the 1997 storms. The tiny country's precious 10 square miles of land were starting to disappear.
> 
> Five years on, the government of Tuvalu has noticed many such troubling changes on its nine inhabited islands and concluded that, as one of the smallest and lowest-lying countries in the world, it is destined to become the first nation sunk by global warming. The evidence before their own eyes - and forecasts for a rise in sea level of up to 88cm in the next century made by international scientists - has convinced most of Tuvalu's 10,500 inhabitants that rising seas and more frequent violent storms are certain to make life unliveable on the islands, if not for them, then for their children. A deal has been signed with New Zealand, in which 75 Tuvaluans will be resettled there each year, starting now. As the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean creeps up on to Tuvalu's doorstep, the evacuation and shutting down of a nation has begun.


----------



## billc

You mean this Tuvalu...

http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archived/2002/2002-02-01.htm



> *Check the Science*
> Well, rather than rely on Brown's "sense" of sea level rise, let's check the instruments. As it turns out, estimates of globally averaged sea level rise in the 20th century are irrelevant since Tuvalu's local sea level change is very different from the globally averaged change. There are three estimates of sea level changes for Tuvalu. The first is a satellite record showing that the sea level has actually fallen four inches around Tuvalu since 1993 when the hundred-million dollar international TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite project record began. Second comes from the modern instruments recording tide gauge data since 1978. There the record for Tuvalu shows ups and downs of many inches over periods of years. For example, the strong El Nino of 1997-98 caused the sea level surrounding Tuvalu to drop just over one foot. The El Nino Southern Oscillation is a natural - as opposed to man-made -future of the Pacific Ocean, as areas of the Pacific periodically warm then cool every few years, causing significant sea level rises and falls every few years in step with the co-oscillations of the ocean and atmosphere. The overall trend discerned from the tide gauge data, according to Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, remains flat. "One definitive statement we can make," states Scherer, "is that there is no indication based on observations that sea level rise is accelerating." Finally, there is the new estimate by scientists at the Centre Nationale d¹Etudes Spatiales who also find that between 1955 and 1996 the sea level surrounding Tuvalu dropped four inches.
> 
> All these measurements show that Tuvalu has suffered, at worst, no sea level rise. So much for Brown's sense of sea level trends for Tuvalu.



So again, no, I do not trust the "science."


----------



## billc

And more on the Island that isn't "sinking."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/sinking_islands_or_stinking_is.html



> The sinking island syndrome first made waves in October 1987, when the Muslim dictator of the south Asia island chain the Maldives, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, presented an impassioned address to the United Nations General Assembly, alleging his Indian Ocean nation of 311,000 citizens was threatened by a rising sea.  He claimed, "a mean sea level rise of two meters would suffice to virtually submerge the entire country of 1,190 small islands, most of which barely rise over two meters above mean sea level.  That would be the death of a nation. With a mere one meter rise also, a storm surge would be catastrophic, and possibly fatal to the nation."  Mr. Gayoom stated his nation's dire situation was related to climate changes that had been "provoked and aggravated by man."
> 
> Environmentalists lapped it up.
> 
> Furthering the climate chimera, in 2001 the leaders of Tuvalu announced they needed to evacuate because of the global warming induced rising ocean.  After being rebuffed by Australia, the Tuvaluans asked New Zealand to accept its 11,000 citizens, but New Zealand declined.
> 
> Apparently, come editing time, big Al never got the news.
> 
> Truth is, Tuvalu and Maldives are not being swamped by an unstoppable rising sea.  If anything, scientific research indicates oceans levels in that part of the world have been _falling_ in recent years.
> 
> In 2004, Stockholm University professor Nils-Axel Mörner, of Sweden, published a paper in _Global and Planetary Change _(hardly a bastion for global warming deniers) regarding his extensive research of the ocean around the Maldives.  He noted, "In our study of the coastal dynamics and the geomorphology of the shores we were unable to detect any traces of a recent sea level rise.  On the contrary, we found quite clear morphological indications of a recent fall in sea level."
> 
> Dr. Mörner's research indicates that sea level about the Maldives has fallen approximately 11 inches in the past 50 years.  In fact, additional research indicates that about the time the leaders of Tuvalu created headlines in 2001, the sea-level surrounding the nine atoll islands of their country had recently _fallen_ 2.5 inches.


----------



## billc

Like most of the "man made," global warming hysteria, it is motivated by politics, and economics, of the scientists and the countries pushing hardest for this theory to be believed...elders Tuvalu for example is an example of a shakedown stunt...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...inking_is.html



> Likewise, the Tuvalu problem is not climate change, nor tourism; they only receive about 1000 tourists each year.  Tuvalu's bugaboo is that the island was never meant for modern inhabitation.  The country's primary indigenous vegetable crop, taro, has been seriously over-farmed.  There is no fresh water available -- only what can be cached from rain.  Much of the population uses the island's lagoon for bathing and toilet facilities. The country has to ship its commercial waste to landfills in Fiji and New Zealand.  Tuvalu is a tropical island mess being run by fools whose only remedy is evacuation.
> 
> Tuvalu's complaints of global warming are designed to be a shake-down operation, the likes of which would make a Chicago community organizer proud.  In a 2007 press release, the Tuvalu government said:





> [FONT=times new roman,times]he Deputy Prime Minister of Tuvalu, the Hon Tavau Teii, said that major greenhouse polluters should pay Tuvalu for the impacts of climate change. This claim was made during his speech to the United Nations High Level Meeting on Climate Change held at the UN headquarters in New York.[/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=times new roman,times]"Tuvalu is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change so we are seeking new funding arrangements to protect us from the impacts of climate change," Mr. Teii said. "Rather than relying on aid money we believe that the major greenhouse polluters should pay for the impacts they are causing."[/FONT]​[FONT=times new roman,times]So, while Mr. Gore conveniently lifted certain facts from the record when creating his film, he will no doubt champion the recent evacuations as prophetic vindication. Tuvalu is being decamped while New Zealand is being played like a cheap ukulele.
> [/FONT]



Money and politics, not "science," is the main motivator of the theory of man made global warming.


----------



## billc

Here is a paper that looks at the issues around global warming including glacier melt and sea levels...

http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/24312.pdf

Page 20...


> A recent 300-year study of Glacier National Park found its glaciers have advanced and retreated repeatedly, and not in sync with variable greenhouse gas levels. Another study found Alaskan glaciers have had periods of advance and retreat for at least 700 years. A researcher at the University of Alaska-Southeast reports that some 800 years ago Herbert Glacier retreated miles back into its valley. A forest grew. Then the glacier again advanced, then receded, advanced, and is again receding.



Page 21...



> Is Sea Level Rise Accelerating?
> An accelerated rise in sea level rise is far from scientifically established. Several studies in fact conclude that the rate of global sea level rise has been rather stable over the past century or more at a mean value of approximately 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr-1.
> Recently, White et al. (2005) conducted an analysis of the available data in an attempt to find the elusive predicted increase in the sea level's rate of rise (acceleration). They compared estimates of coastal and global averaged sea level between 1950 and 2000 and concluded their results confirm earlier findings of "no significant increase in the rate of sea level rise during this 51-year period" (the last half of the 20th century which includes two decades of a supposedly "unprecedented" rate of temperature increase.)



Page 30...



> CLIMATE MODELS AND BASELESS ALARMISM
> This brings us, finally, to the issue of climate models. Essential to alarm is the fact that most current climate models predict a response to a doubling of CO2 of about 4C. The reason for this is that in these models, the most important greenhouse substances, water vapour and clouds, act in such a way as to greatly amplify the response to anthropogenic greenhouse gases alone (ie, they act as what are called large positive feedbacks). However, as all assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have stated (at least in the text&#8212;though not in the Summaries for Policymakers), the models simply fail to get clouds and water vapour right. We know this because in official model intercomparisons, all models fail



What was that again...



> However, as all assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have stated (at least in the text&#8212;though not in the Summaries for Policymakers), the models simply fail to get clouds and water vapour right. We know this because in official model intercomparisons, all models fail



And one more time...



> all models fail



Why should I just accept this "science," as true or accurate with so much dishonesty in the work, and so much potential for the corruption of the science and scientists because of ego, greed, or political agendas with billions of dollars on the line for individuals and for research.


----------



## Sukerkin

Aye, BillC, the models are inaccurate - they can hardly be otherwise with the complexity of the systems and their interactions that are being modelled.  They are nonetheless getting more accurate as computing power expands and more variables are understood.  Extrapolating from approximations is ever a game of roulette and guiding approximations is the best we can do in terms of detailed modelling so far.  However, the temperature rises are real and it is not common sense to waste and pollute when we have other options.

I get the feeling we are on the brink of another technological revolution ... we just need to survive long enough to reap its benefits (and restructure our economic models away from consumption for consumptions sake) :fingers crossed:.  Ameliorating our position within the maelstrom of climate change so we have a chance to make it through to where we can once again mould the environment for our needs makes more sense to me than rejecting the entire notion that there is a problem to be addressed.


----------



## billc

> it is not common sense to waste and pollute when we have other options.




I couldn't agree with you more on this. Or when you said this...



> I have to say that I come down on the side of doing what we can that is economically viable without committing economic suicide.
> 
> Bear in mind that for me, 'going green' doesn't mean sackcloth and ashes and living a Neo-neolithic lifestyle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . For me Green means using nuclear power to stop using gas and oil for electricity generation and, other than for entertainment ('cos you can't beat a V12 Aston Martin {http://youtu.be/NZzVVVIKDxMor} or a rumbling Camaro {http://youtu.be/f03RM5i3cDs}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), we should stop burning petrol just to move cars around - it's far too useful for other things. I also am fully in favour of a much more extensive and accelerated space programme because what we will get from that is, eventually, the resources we need to carry on having an industrial civilisation with much of the pollution outsourced to where it does no harm.


 
I agree with you here as well.


It is way too common an attack to say that if you don't believe the information being put out by scientists who have been shown to have lied about data, tried to hide data from other scientists, and who have tried to prevent the expression of other view points by keeping them out of scientific journals or getting the editors of those journals fired, scientists who base their "facts," on models and equipment that have been  shown over and over to be inaccurate or completely wrong,...that you are for pollution and waste.  Where does that come from. 

The things the supporters of the theory of "man made," global warming are pushing for are more than just preventing waste and pollution.  They want massive wealth transfers, to themselves and countries that they think are the "victims," of man made global warming. 

They want policies that will slow down those technological advances both you and I are looking forward to for the future.   They want to stop third world countries from developing in order to stop global warming, condemning the people of those countries to lifestyles the advocates will never have to endure.  Clean up pollution, stop waste, sure.  Develop new clean energy technologies, absolutely, but not at the expense of energy technologies that actually work today, coal, oil and natural gas and nuclear energy.  If these worriers of "man made," global warming are so eager to combat it, they sure don't show it by refusing to support nuclear energy.   Transfer wealth based on "man made," global warming, stymie the development of the third world because of "man made," global warming...no way.


----------



## WC_lun

Those scientist have not been shown over and over again to be doing anything other than recording accurate information.  You keep up with this meme, but it doesn't hold water.  Fact is, 98% of those scientist agree global climate change is real and man made.  You are living in a fantasy world where you deny the truth in science.  Perhaps you'd just like to magic this problem away?


----------



## billc

You must not have read my post 191...



> A new book on the myth of man made global warming...
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warning-how-gaia-replaced-god/
> 
> The hypothetical courtroom is a newly published book,
> 
> 
> _Global Warning, Trials of an Unsettled Science_; and the prosecutor is its author, David Solway, a familiar name to regular readers of PJ Media.
> 
> 
> 
> What will especially raise readers&#8217; ethical hackles  are his  disclosures of duplicity at what should be the most credible   institutional levels in ensuring that counter-claims to the received   wisdom are suppressed.
> 
> For a particularly egregious example of bad faith in  communicating  with the public, Solway cites a 2009 University of  Illinois survey  concluding that 97.4% of scientists agree that mankind  is responsible  for global warming. But the methodology of the survey  was grossly  corrupt. Of the 10,257 respondents, 10,180 demurred from  the consensus.  They were summarily rejected, even though included  amongst them were  solar scientists, meteorologists, physicists, and  other scientific  experts. Seventy-five of the remaining 77 respondents  agreed with the  proposition that global warming is caused by humans and  _voilà!_  That equals 97.4%. In fact, only .008% of the  respondents concurred with  the hypothesis. This is intellectual fraud  of breathtaking arrogance,  yet it is only one of a slew of  truth-traducing offenses Solway has  amassed.
> How do academics and other global-warming stakeholders  justify their  complicity in manufacturing consent? Solway explains it  as a form of  cognitive dissonance of the type one often finds in  religions and  triumphalist ideologies, where ends are privileged over  means. In his  chapter on environmentalism as religion, Solway explains  how Gaia, the  earth&#8217;s divine avatar, replaced God in our secular age.



How do you believe the scientists when they can go back and erase or change their data...



> Well, it may be that NASA was caught changing historical temperature  data on it's site to make warming look more real.  Is this true?
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/nasas_rubber_ruler.html
> 
> We've been hearing that 2012 has been the "hottest on record." I had written earlier   that those claims were based on the contiguous United States only, or   1.5% of the earth's surface. The "global temperature" in 2012 through   June was only the 10[SUP]th[/SUP] hottest on record. In fact, every single month of 1998 was warmer than the corresponding month of 2012.
> 
> I  thought I'd  update that analysis to include July's and August's  temperatures. To  my surprise, NASA's entire temperature record, going  back to January  1880, changed between NASA's June update and its August  update. I could  not just add two more numbers to my spreadsheet. The _entire spreadsheet_ needed to be updated.
> 
> I  knew NASA  would occasionally update its estimates, even its historical  estimates.  I found that unsettling when I first heard about it. But I  thought  such re-estimates were rare, and transparent. There is  absolutely no  transparency here. If I had not kept a copy of the data  taken off NASA's web site  two months ago, I would not have known it had changed. NASA does not  make available previous versions of its temperature record (to my  knowledge).
> 
> NASA does summarize its "updates to analysis," but the last update it describes was in February. The data I looked at changed sometime after early July.
> 
> 
> ​ In  short,  the data that NASA makes available to the public, temperatures  over  the last 130 years, can change at any time, without warning and  without  explanation. Yes, the global temperature of January 1880 changed  some  time between July and September 2012.
> 
> Surprise of surprise, the change had the effect of making the long-term temperature record support conclusions of _faster warming_. The biggest changes were mostly pre-1963 temperatures; they were generally adjusted _down_.   That would make the warming trend steeper, since post-1963  temperatures  were adjusted slightly upward, on average. Generally, the  older the  data, the more adjustment.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...soooo...if this is true, then why should anyone trust what the  "scientists" say is happening with the weather/climate?  Is NASA doing  this in order to get it's budget increased to "study" global warming?


----------



## billc

more on manmade global warming...not so much...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/green-weenie-of-the-week-the-climateers.php



> The news out of the Met Office in England, one of the official keepers of the global warming faith, that global temperatures continue to be flat, and that there has been no rising temperature trend for 18 years now, ought to just about inter the parrot once and for all.  From the _Daily Mail_ story today:The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
> The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
> This means that the &#8216;plateau&#8217; or &#8216;pause&#8217; in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
> The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
> This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous  figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 &#8211; a very warm year.​Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.



And the damage the hysteria over manmade global warming...



> California is barreling ahead with its plant to install socialism in one state solve climate change in one state, with its own cap and trade program starting in January.  The _New York Times_ reports today:
> The risks for California are enormous. Opponents and supporters alike worry that the program could hurt the state&#8217;s fragile economy by driving out refineries, cement makers, glass factories and other businesses. Some are concerned that companies will find a way to outmaneuver the system, causing the state to fall short of its emission reduction targets.​


----------



## billc

Yes, and here is how the believers deal with apostates...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...radio-jock-forced-factual-accuracy-training-g



> For those who would claim liberals are the free-speech champions, see Philip Bump at the eco-leftist Grist magazine. Australian morning "shock jock" Alan Jones, "who apparently belongs to the Limbaugh/AEI school of factual accuracy" on "climate change," is being cited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (like their FCC)  and has been ordered to undergo "factual accuracy" training.
> Regulators ruled that Jones breached broadcast rules by claiming Australians contributed just ''1 per cent of .001 per cent of carbon dioxide in the air.&#8221; Climate activist scientists will apparently police the radio airwaves in Australia in a way Al Gore and the American Left can only envy:
> Controversial shock jock Alan Jones has been ordered to undergo &#8220;factual accuracy&#8221; training, and to use fact-checkers, in another damaging blow to his credibility.
> External trainers will conduct training sessions for Jones and other news and current affairs staff at [radio station] 2GB.&#8230;
> University of Melbourne climate change scientist David Karoly said Australians were in fact responsible for .45 per cent of total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. ''Obviously, we would much rather prefer that the comments of people like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt were, in fact, correct, so it is pleasing to get this ruling from ACMA,'' Dr Karoly said.
> The radio station told ACMA Jones' claims should have been taken as commentary, because his show was neither news nor current affairs, but, ''overwhelmingly &#8230; the personal opinion and comment of Jones''.
> But the authority said any ''ordinary, reasonable listener'' would have taken his claims to be fact.



And here is a main stream journalist who actually awakened to the problem with the "green," movement...This is for Sukerkin and others who wonder why I always post about this stuff...

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/10/18/eco-fascists/




> journalist Elizabeth Nickson, who was the European Bureau chief of_ Life_ magazine, in addition to contributing to_Time,_ the _Guardian, Vogue, Harper&#8217;s_ and numerous other MSM magazines, which typically have at least one boilerplate &#8220;green&#8221;-themed issue a year, found that out the hard way, hence the title of her new book, _Eco-Fascists: How Radical Conservationists Are Destroying Our Natural Heritage:_An investigative reporter documents the destructive impact of the environmental movement in North America and beyond.
> 
> 
> When journalist Elizabeth Nickson sought to subdivide her twenty-eight acres on Salt Spring Island in the Pacific Northwest, she was confronted by the full force and power of the radical conservationists who had taken over the local zoning council. She soon discovered that she was not free to do what she wanted with her land, and that in the view of these arrogant stewards it wasn&#8217;t really hers at all. Nickson&#8217;s long, frustrating, and eyeopening encounter with these zealots started her on a journey to investigate and expose the hugely destructive impact of the environmental movement on ordinary people and communities across North America&#8212;and the world.
> What she discovered is shocking. Forty million Americans have been driven from their land, and rural culture is being systematically crushed, even as wildlife, forests, and rangelands are dying. In _Eco-Fascists_, Nickson explores how environmental radicals have taken over government agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. The result? A wholesale sequestration of forest, range, and water&#8212;more than 40 percent of North America&#8212;impoverishing us all, especially the most vulnerable. This confiscation of America&#8217;s natural heritage is a major factor contributing to our current economic decline; until it is acknowledged and addressed, our economy will not recover.
> Nickson traces the tens of billions of dollars environmental nonprofits marshal every year to promote the notion that our essential natural systems are collapsing, and finds, in a brutal example of self-fulfilling prophesy, that their corrupted science is desertifying the heartland. She visits once-thriving communities that are turning to ghost towns because environmental legislation has forced mines, ranches, and mills to close and has forbidden critical forest, range, park, and wilderness maintenance.
> _Eco-Fascists_ exposes the major fallacies of the environmental movement&#8212;from wildlife protection to zoning to forest-fire management&#8212;and introduces us to the individuals who are fighting back. Fast-paced, highly accessible, and sure to be controversial, this is a work that will change the national conversation about environmental protection and its impact.
> ​









​Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...ced-factual-accuracy-training-g#ixzz29xYay2IK


----------

