Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Ok, you see GISS as part of the conspiracy. It doesn't surprise me. Notice I've no use for anything else you say about their data, that's just noise once you state this belief.

Yes, your true colors are showing. The data is irrelevant. Any criticism of your pet belief is a conspiracy.

What I point out is a person with a well documented history of pushing an AGW agenda who also is in charge of an agency which is supposed to provide objective information.

If you cannot see the dangers in such a situation, then so be it.

Wow, I guess so. The king of iTulip deniers is supporting Seitz?! Get this straight, we're not tossing the IPCC under the bus so you don't have to give up your boy Seitz. You own that piece of shit from this day forward, enjoy it. Seriously, you want to draw the line here? Support this loser? Go for it, let's debate the value of this scam artist. He's a classic sellout denier. First tobacco and now global warming. What's next, child labor?

Did I say I supported Seitz? What I said was that the same games played by the video posted by toast'd one, when applied to the IPCC, should yield the same results.

Your attempt to equate Seitz's history with tobacco with global warming can also be equated to Al Gore's "took the initiative in creating the internet". Since this statement is clearly bullshit therefore so is his AGW stance?

This is another common AGW faithful tactic: the Poisoning of the Wells - discrediting an opponent's view by attacking his sources.

Well, I can do the same: another proponent of AGW - anthropogenic global warming - is Dr. Stephen Schneider.

Stephen H. Schneider (born c. 1945) is Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change (Professor by Courtesy in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering) at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. He has served as a consultant to Federal Agencies and/or White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations.
His research includes modeling of the atmosphere, climate change, and "the relationship of biological systems to global climate change." He has helped draw public attention to the issue of global warming. He is the founder and editor of the journal Climatic Change. He has authored or co-authored over 450 scientific papers, proceedings, legislative testimonies, edited books and book chapters; some 140 book reviews, editorials, published newspaper and magazine interviews and popularizations. He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II IPCC TAR; and is currently a co-anchor of the Key Vulnerabilities Cross-Cutting Theme for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). During the 1980s Schneider emerged as a leading public advocate of sharp reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming.

The problem of course is that Dr. Schneider was part of the global cooling movement in the 70s.

“The dramatic importance of climate changes to the world’s future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. This well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immediate consideration.”

Stephen Schneider, Back cover endorsement, Lowell Ponte, The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive It (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976).

“Predictions of future climate trends by Stephen Schneider and other leading climatologists, based on the prevailing knowledge of the atmosphere in the early 1970s, gave more weight to the potential problem of global cooling than it now appears to merit.”

Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Betrayal of Science and Reason (Washington: Island Press, 1996), p. 34.

In his paper (2nd author behind R.I. Rasool): "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate"

However, it is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase 6 to 8-fold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection... should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 oC. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.

Later he wrote in "The Genesis Strategy"

A consensus among scientists today would hold that a global increase in atmospheric aerosols would probably result in a cooling of the climate; however, a smaller but growing fraction of the current evidence suggests that it may have a warming effect.

So, there was a global cooling consensus in 1976 based upon the then prevailing global cooling trend - that proved clearly wrong.

But the consensus with the seminal IPCC papers for AGW during a warming trend is right? So now that we're in a cooling trend again, will we return to global cooling?

The real reason I bring up Schneider is that he is much more of a REAL scientist who merely has failed to ensure that his research is better understood:

I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming. [1]

Or has he? Because Schneider also said this:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

(Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).

I personally have issues with deliberate attempts to "capture the public's imagination...offer[ing] up scary scenarios...simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

This is tantamount to saying the ends justify the means and is not something a scientist should do, but is something every politician does.

Each should stick to their own knitting.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The [GISS] data is irrelevant. Any criticism of your pet belief is a conspiracy.

Yup, GISS, NCDC, NOAA, IPCC, and a host of others are all irrelevant and your crazy little cadre of climate deniers own the truth.

Let me help you out. Your boy Roy Spencer, (at least he's a scientist!), is publishing at that bastion of scientific integrity, Prison Planet......but still using that tired old IPCC chart from 1990.

Scientists move on as new data becomes available but not ole Spence. He seems to be stuck in a rut.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-cru...vity-91-0.html

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Yup, GISS, NCDC, NOAA, IPCC, and a host of others are all irrelevant and your crazy little cadre of climate deniers own the truth.

Let me help you out. Your boy Roy Spencer, (at least he's a scientist!), is publishing at that bastion of scientific integrity, Prison Planet......but still using that tired old IPCC chart from 1990.

Yes, again the lame attempts to equate one specific denier with all those who oppose the AGW tin god.

Why is it the questions I post have yet to be answered? If the science is settled, then it should be trivial to answer these conundrums. Or is it perhaps that too much skepticism and scrutiny is not permissible under the Great Leader's CO2 mandate?

Again, I repost them:

Why was there an Ice Age with CO2 levels at 4000 ppm if CO2 is such a powerful GHG?

Why was there global cooling from 1936 to 1976 - a period in which both a massive World War (with its accompanying industrialization) and massive increase in world oil use occurred? Was the CO2 and other forms of pollution in this era less than the modern one?

Why is there now global cooling and yet somehow CO2 will rampantly increase temperatures 20 years from now - as opposed to the 20 years from 1989 originally asserted as a possibility?

Why were temperatures 10000 years ago 2 degrees Celsius higher than today - when clearly there could not be significant man made CO2 AND CO2 levels were lower than today - and why it is different this time?

Why is it a climate model which can predict global temperature behavior 20 years or 50 years from now with confidence, cannot predict behavior 2 or even 5 years from now? For that matter, why can the climate models not model past major events like Ice Ages with any consistency?

Why is $23M spent by Exxon in 20 years more corrosive to scientific skepticism and debate than $70B+ spent by the federal government in the same period?

Why are hundreds of scientists in the Physics, Chemistry, and Meteorology fields putting their names and reputations publicly on the line as not agreeing with the AGW thesis - if the science is truly settled?

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Why is $23M spent by Exxon in 20 years more corrosive to scientific skepticism and debate than $70B+ spent by the federal government in the same period?

Attempts to frame the debate with denier questions that are not germane to the scientific questions being investigated, are at best boring and at worst further attempts to misinform, misguide, confuse and otherwise muddle the debate.

You've no interest in understanding this issue. You prove that when you site propaganda like the "31,000 signatures". Everyone knows that list is a discredited PR fabrication. The list is a joke, a hoax. But you don't care. If you think it will give you an edge, you'll use it.

The above quote by c1ue is typical denier junk logic. The government spends money on research and Exxon spends it on propaganda. PR. Lies. And it's not just them, the energy industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to PR the science to death. They only want to create doubt for as long as possible with fake science and lies.

There are hundreds of examples but here's one from 3 years ago:
The Competitive Enterprise Institute runs an ad that says, Antarctic ice sheets are getting thicker according to a recent paper by an IPCC scientist.

Of course, the scientist that wrote the paper complained but not before the usual MSM suspects picked it up and ran with it. How did the scientist characterize the CEI ad? "...a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate."

It's a very typical denier tactic.

iTulipers can watch the ads and read the background on this here:
http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html

[ggirod]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

OK, I have had enough!!! Research money, in the case of deniers makes no real difference. They are no way no how that stupid. Why spend money on expensive, peer reviewed research when they already know that the good stuff can be discredited by bullsh*t and the bad stuff has a life of its own. So, they spend their money much more wisely ...

FOR 2008 (the last election; see linked data for other years)How about the oil and gas industry spending $35,564,322 to influence Congress;

$8,113,550	to Democrats, $27,432,642 to Republicans.

And, not to be left behind, the Electric Utilities spent $20,779,001 to influence Congress; split roughly 50/50

$10,109,312	for Democrats, $10,666,338	for Republicans

Meanwhile the Coal Mining Industry ... $3,486,436 to Congress;

$922,048	to Democrats, $2,564,388 to Republicans

That sure does dwarf the amount of money reported for "research", huh!

And, finally, the alternative energy industry spent $1,938,461 to influence Congress;

$1,439,437	to Democrats, $496,724 to Republicans

Money Talks and Big Money Talks Loudly.

Note that these contributions were for 2008, click the links above to see the wonderful job OpenSecrets.org does reporting the influence of the almighty dollar.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Why spend money on expensive, peer reviewed research when they already know that the good stuff can be discredited by bullsh*t and the bad stuff has a life of its own. So, they spend their money much more wisely ...

It's even more simple than that. They can't do the research because they're not trained to do it. Anthony Watts, a classic denier, is a weatherman in California. He'll go to a complete BS forum like the one's setup by the Heartland Institute but he's not welcome at a real conference, because he's not a scientist. Deniers set-up these fake conferences and publicize the hell out of them. The Heartland scam conference was all over the news creating the idea that working, mainstream climatologists had doubts about global warming. It's just PR, delay and deny.

[johnnybill45]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Lots of predictions based on computer modeling. Weather is a slipperly little devil indeed and predictions 5 or 10 years out seem ridiculous.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist. And a die-hard skeptic. So I've read about three books and at least 30 scientific articles on global warming, all the IPCC data I could find, and my conclusion is that we are looking at a tiny data set on a huge graph. The huge graph is called : warming and cooling in the last 100,000 years. The tiny data set is called: the last 100 years. And I also don't believe we have anything to worry about.

We just don't know for sure if we are still trending up or down. But one thing we do know: Some of the same guys that said "the sky is falling because the earth is cooling" in the 70's are saying "the sky is falling because the earth is warming" in the 00's.

If I had to bet, I'd bet that the whole global warming fears will blow over in another 10 years and those who believed it was an issue will find new issues to fear.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Attempts to frame the debate with denier questions that are not germane to the scientific questions being investigated, are at best boring and at worst further attempts to misinform, misguide, confuse and otherwise muddle the debate.

Yes, the possibility that there are OTHER causes which raise global temperatures - when there are well documented historical examples of both higher CO2 levels without higher temperatures as well as higher temperatures without high CO2 levels - is not germane.

The possibility that climate models are not just inaccurate for 2 to 5 year future time spans (asserted by climate modellers) but also inaccurate for 20 to 50 year horizons is not germane (how convenient).

The possibility that gigantic new bureaucracies and taxes will be created to solve potentially nonexistent problems is not germane.

The numerous instances of IPCC and AGW proponent scientists talking about exaggerating results to gain media attention are not germane.

The financial livelihoods and professional reputations staked on AGW are not germane.

All that is germane to the AGW fanatic is that AGW is real and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

FOR 2008 (the last election; see linked data for other years)How about the oil and gas industry spending $35,564,322 to influence Congress;

$8,113,550	to Democrats, $27,432,642 to Republicans.

And, not to be left behind, the Electric Utilities spent $20,779,001 to influence Congress; split roughly 50/50

$10,109,312	for Democrats, $10,666,338	for Republicans

Meanwhile the Coal Mining Industry ... $3,486,436 to Congress;

$922,048	to Democrats, $2,564,388 to Republicans

That sure does dwarf the amount of money reported for "research", huh!

And, finally, the alternative energy industry spent $1,938,461 to influence Congress;

$1,439,437	to Democrats, $496,724 to Republicans

And what are you trying to say? That all the oil and natural gas money noted above is devoted towards promoting 'denier' beliefs in Congress and the Presidency?

Because if that is your assertion, then the $70B+ spent by the federal government on AGW research and technology proves that the evil oil industry lobbying and contribution money isn't working.

The $5B+ to be spent by the federal government just in 2009 on AGW related topics also shows that the 'deniers' aren't getting their money's worth.

To put the $70B/20 years and $5B+/2009 in perspective, the infamous Farm Lobby received a total of $177B from 1995 to 2006 with $13.4B in 2006.

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/summary.php

The oil and other energy industry groups you speak of spend that money for various energy subsidies including alternative energy, not to fight AGW.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Lots of predictions based on computer modeling. Weather is a slipperly little devil indeed and predictions 5 or 10 years out seem ridiculous.

I'm not a climate scientist, but I am a scientist. And a die-hard skeptic. So I've read about three books and at least 30 scientific articles on global warming, all the IPCC data I could find, and my conclusion is that we are looking at a tiny data set on a huge graph. The huge graph is called : warming and cooling in the last 100,000 years. The tiny data set is called: the last 100 years. And I also don't believe we have anything to worry about.

We just don't know for sure if we are still trending up or down. But one thing we do know: Some of the same guys that said "the sky is falling because the earth is cooling" in the 70's are saying "the sky is falling because the earth is warming" in the 00's.

If I had to bet, I'd bet that the whole global warming fears will blow over in another 10 years and those who believed it was an issue will find new issues to fear.

Petroleum geologist perhaps...;)

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

1. Is climate change real or am a Fox News retard?

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.


• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.

• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.

• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.
• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.

2. Is climate change caused by Humans, God, or Rush Limbaugh?

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works.)


• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.

• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.
• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.


3. What is going to happen or is this just Armageddon?


• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.

• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.

• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.

• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.

• More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.

• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.
• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.

4. Why can't I understand how global warming can result in cooling in some parts of the world?

• Because you are a Fox News watching Republican retard.

• Because Rep. Steve King R-Iowa, 5th District is my hero retard.

• The label is now "climate change" not "global warming' in order to help the retards undestand.

[ggirod]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

And what are you trying to say? That all the oil and natural gas money noted above is devoted towards promoting 'denier' beliefs in Congress and the Presidency?

No, quite obviously the money being spent targets more than global warming; it targets "drill, drill, drill", chopping mountaintops off and filling nearby valleys with toxic coal sludge in the pursuit of "clean coal", and other initiatives in the interests of the fossil fuel producers. What I was saying is that huge sums are spent to influence government to benefit the massive carbon producing industries whose profits relate almost directly to the CO2 their products release into the atmosphere. Truly the gift that goes on giving.

Compared to their expenditures to "research" global warming, however, it would appear the fossil fuel industry found that direct influence by buying congressmen was a better investment, and worthy of more investment.

[thousandmilemargin]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

It's even more simple than that. They can't do the research because they're not trained to do it. Anthony Watts, a classic denier, is a weatherman in California. He'll go to a complete BS forum like the one's setup by the Heartland Institute but he's not welcome at a real conference, because he's not a scientist. Deniers set-up these fake conferences and publicize the hell out of them. The Heartland scam conference was all over the news creating the idea that working, mainstream climatologists had doubts about global warming. It's just PR, delay and deny.

Richard Lindzen.

[jdv]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

c1ue - Thank you so much for the education you have provided to all of us. I have appreciated the quality of your responses (in comparison to the AGW advocates who seem much less open minded!)

My position has almost always been similar to Santafe2's - that some action is the prudent thing to do, just in case, for the sake of our kids. But your balanced fact based postings have exposed to me to the fact that there is not really as much consensus as the AGW advocates say there is. And I also agree with your point that there is alot of greed behind the AGW bandwagon.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Richard Lindzen.

Congratulations. That's the one. You just have to hope he can maintain the high road. Since he's one of the only truly credible skeptics he's well paid by the oil industry, (through Heartland and other conduits).

He needs to stay away from the really right wing press because he has a tendency to go off like Monckton and wildly overstate the opposition, as he does here in a "National Post" interview:

Q ... On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"

A I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.

School teachers are like Hitler? The implication of course is that global warming advocates will exterminate you. But as you point out, he's a credible scientist.

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

c1ue - Thank you so much for the education you have provided to all of us. I have appreciated the quality of your responses (in comparison to the AGW advocates who seem much less open minded!)

My position has almost always been similar to Santafe2's - that some action is the prudent thing to do, just in case, for the sake of our kids. But your balanced fact based postings have exposed to me to the fact that there is not really as much consensus as the AGW advocates say there is. And I also agree with your point that there is alot of greed behind the AGW bandwagon.

I'd add that c1ue is obviously a very smart guy, and every response by the pro-AGW side that either ignores his questions, or attempts to answer but with a sneering attempt to associate him and his side with Fox News or similarly discredited organizations just hurts their cause. The pro-AGW side is losing open minds on this forum, mostly because the personal nature of a lot of the responses reveals a limited understanding of the science.

If the four (or so) basic questions he posts can't be scientifically answered to any degree at all, then AGW-ers, please just acknowledge that this is a difficult field and certainty is not in the cards; acknowledge that a change in the theory with new data is at least possible, and that questions are good and make any theory stronger. Do the homework c1ue's very clearly done (and that I'm now compelled to do, argh).