Climate Emails Stoke Debate: Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates BitterFeud

[Georgia]

Quote by: Sonart . How about that...a cold spell in the midst of a considerably shorter winter... Late Start Fails To Ice Winter Sports Sales - "After one of the warmest Novembers in memory, up until a few days ago many were wondering what happened to winter." ...and balanced by record heat waves in the southern hemisphere. Australia Wheat Crop Estimates Cut in Record Heat Record Heat Across South Australia In First Half of the Month Decade sizzling to heat record Given that level of intellectual dishonesty, I don't see any point in responding to you.

That's an interesting post.
I've heard it said by AGW alamrists that we can't take data from a single season into account.
That's to say a paticularly cold winter doesn't prove anything.

Yet here you post Australia's heat wave is caused by AGW.

Which way is it? Does a single season (or two) of abnormal weather in a paticualr region prove or dispell AGW? I guess it matters which side you're on.

Note: Your WCCO radio link doesn't claim a late season is AGW. Not at all. No scientists claim it either. It's apparently just your AGW personal belief presented as scientific fact.
It's just more of what I've been saying all along- everything is blamed for AGW. In this case it's a rediculous unsubstantiated claim that a late Minnesota winter is effecting Austrailia.

I also noticed you call people who disagree with the theory dishonest, even pathetic. Interesting.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Georgia Yet here you post Australia's heat wave is caused by AGW.

Yeah? Why's that a problem? You guys post some anecdotal evidence that here in the northern hemisphere - omigosh - it's snowing and cold in January. Holy Walt!!

Ok then, I'll see your anecdotal evidence and raise you anecdotal evidence of record heat from the southern hemisphere. Voilà!

But you're right, Georgia. I mean, it's not like I've ever posted hundreds of links to mainstream journalism reports and legitimate scientific research supporting the reality of AGW.

Quote by: Georgia Note: Your WCCO radio link doesn't claim a late season is AGW.

Of course... that would simply be a total coincidence to all the reports that DO make that claim.

Shorter Winters Making Some Seeds Sprout Later - Nov. 2007

Keep winter cool - National Ski Areas Association (NSAA)

Winter sports and the Olympics on thin ice due to global warming - Mar. 2009

Robins in winter a harbinger of global warming, Audubon Society study says - Feb. 2009

Decline in Snowpack Is Blamed On Warming - Feb. 2008

From Maple Syrup to Snow Pack, Global Warming Happening Here and Now - June, 2009


Having fun yet?

Quote by: Georgia I also noticed you call people who disagree with the theory dishonest, even pathetic.

Yes... when people have been shown the same data over and over again, yet keep coming back full circle with the same damn questions, when they know the evidence is overwhelming, yet insist on desperately linking to any obviously agenda driven skeptic that pipes up, when we show you a lengthy list of high profile and highly partisan former skeptics, and then you turn around and claim that AGW advocates are all agenda driven, that's intellectual dishonesty.

If you have any specific such allegation that bothers you, by all means point it out, and I'll explain exactly why I said it.

Although to be honest, how ANYONE can remain unconvinced at this point is beyond me. What have we failed to show you? What argument of yours have we not answered ten times over with layer upon layer of redundant scientific sources, or confirmation of the cynical efforts by partisan skeptics to insult your intelligence?

I mean, fer gawd's sake, I've been answering the same frigging questions for 15 years now. At what point can I stop saying, "Yes, thank you, we know all about natural fluctuations, but this isn't one of them. We know all about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, we know all about volcanoes and solar cycles, we know that water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas, and that CO2 only makes up .03% of the atmosphere, and that plants absorb CO2. Thank you."

Day to day politics I could really care less about these days. Global warming is about the possible end of life on earth as we know it... an ultra slow motion asteroid strike.

Exactly what part of the debate do you think you're winning?


.

[Georgia]

Quote by: Sonart Having fun yet?.

Fun? Yea I guess so. More interesting I think.

I was right, none of your sources link WCCO to Austrailia's weather as you've claimed.

Quote by: Sonart (Snip) and then you turn around and claim that AGW advocates are all agenda driven, that's intellectual dishonesty.

That is dishonest. Plesase indicate where I've said all AGW advocates are agenda driven. I don't believe it's so. I do however believe most are mislead.

Quote by: Sonart If you have any specific such allegation that bothers you, by all means point it out, and I'll explain exactly why I said it.

Ok I'll start with double standards whether made by you or just AGW supporters in general.

1) As I've already pointed out, it's commonly said among AGW supporters that single season(s) of cold weather is meaningless.
For example it might be said "So what if it's cold at the Copenhagen GW summit. It means nothing".
Yet they post that abnormally warm weather somewhere supports proof of AGW.
No problem, just pick and choose which story fits and use it.
To be fair, both sides use the tactic. If the science was truly settled either side shouldn't need this.

2) Posting links to individual scientists, no matter how influential is meaningless. Unless of course their view supports AGW.

3) Funding for GW research is suspect if it comes from power companies, government, Repubs. That is a fair and legitimate point. The only exception to that rule is if it supports AGW.
More,
Funding for scientists supportive of AGW remains obscured and hidden behind a cloak of private information. No, I am not advocating widespread conspiracy. However the findings of any organization dependent on hidden funds for survival should be suspect.

Another thing which makes me personally skeptical is when "The debate is over" claim is made. There is definetly still very qualified scientists who are not convinced. I see the claim as an attempt to shut down opposing view, which is never good IMO.

Quote by: Sonart Exactly what part of the debate do you think you're winning?

I never considered any winners here, just a friendly debate.
You may or may not consider this, but I'm personally on the fence about this.
There is so much political power to grab, massive global monetary transfers to be made that it is imperative accurate, unbiased facts are presented.
You are satisfied the facts are there. I am not for the 3 contradictions just listed, emphasis on #3.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Georgia I was right, none of your sources link WCCO to Austrailia's weather as you've claimed.

Where did I claim this? I linked to other reports, from a variety of sources, connecting shortened winter or reduced snowfall to AGW. Australia was exactly what I stated... anecdotal evidence of unusual heat that completely balances your anecdotal claims of unusual cold. 2009 remains the 5th warmest year in recorded history.

Quote by: Georgia That is dishonest. Please indicate where I've said all AGW advocates are agenda driven.

LOL... You have yet to show me where ANY of them are agenda driven. Try to remember that I don't link to Greenpeace or Sierra Club or Earth First.

This really escapes you, doesn't it. When we talk about the 'Skeptic Agenda', we don't simply imply some vague, nebulous conspiracy... we point directly at them, we name names... these people here, paying these scientists here, for this specific reason. We name the scientists, and list their specific connections to one of two agendas: 1. the fossil-fuel dependent industry -- Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Coal Institute, etc. and 2. the Libertarian ant-government, anti-regulation, Free-market Policy makers -- The American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institute.

Look them up yourself, read their missions statements, look at their environmental/global warming positions. The billion dollar energy industry depends - so they believe - on fossil fuels for their massive profits. That agenda is obvious. The free-marketeers are ideologically opposed to government regulation and fear that global warming will compel it. How is this not glaringly obvious?

And yet you accuse AGW supporters of an agenda, but you not only can't point to anyone specifically, you can't even define what the friggin' agenda is. What agenda? To achieve what? Get research grants? All scientific research depends on grants, when did they suddenly decide to corrupt the process in order to create fake data on a globally massive scale? To raise taxes? Why? Do you SERIOUSLY believe that? Suggesting the "Liberals love to raise taxes" just to raise taxes is like saying al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 because "they hate freedom"... it's transparently self-serving partisan hokum.

And if you didn't say ALL, then who? Which of these organizations do you claim is agenda driven? Point them out. Let's see names. Define the agenda... what's in it for them? Who can we believe and who can we not believe? Please, point them out, because ALL of these organizations have made public statements that they agree that AGW is a deadly serious, human caused problem.

National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science
American Chemical Society
US National Research Council
Journal of the American Medical Association
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes
The National Geographic Society
the World Meteorological Organization
Scientific American Magazine
The Journal Nature

And MOST IMPORTANT, how have they gotten away with faking data. If not ALL, then who? Why?

AS TO YOUR LIST OF CONTRIDICTIONS:

1. Localized cold weather, no matter how severe, is ANECDOTAL. It makes nice headlines and confuses the naive, but in the scheme of overall warming it means absolutely nothing, and as I've tried to point out, it is balanced by dramatic heat waves on the other side of the planet, and EVERY SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY IS DESPERATELY TRYING TO GET THIS ACROSS TO THE MEDIA!

Unfortunately, science doesn't have a microphone... Fox News and the rest of the controversy loving media does.

2009 will remain the 5th warmest year in recorded history, meaning also among the estimated warmest years of the Holocene era... since before the last Ice Age. And this while in the trough of a Solar Minimum. As the sun spot cycle curves back up over the next 5.5 years, temperatures will once again begin to rise dramatically.

2. "Posting links to individual scientists, no matter how influential is meaningless." Do you know who Sir Fred Hoyle was? He was a highly esteemed British astronomer who made huge contributions to cosmology. Unitil he made one big mistake. He disagreed with the Big Bang theory. In fact, that's where the name came from... Hoyle was poking fun at the theory by mocking it as the 'Big Bang'. Alas, when Edwin Hubble proved the Big Bang, poor Sir Fred was ruined, his once celebrated reputation ended.

Try to get this across, Georgia. 97% of climatologists studying AGW say it's real. EVERY major, legitimate scientific institute in the U.S., every major Scientific publishing journal agrees.

At some point it has to become clear that while, yes, there are a very few individual scientists who disagree but get lots of publicity thanks to the Skeptics Agenda, they are in the extreme minority, and you need to decide who you should believe... the 97%, or the 3% ?

3. "The only exception to that rule is if it supports AGW." And again, you're not paying attention. Go back to the top of the page and start again. We can DEFINE the skeptic agenda... we can point straight at them, name them and clearly define WHY they're opposed to AGW. You cannot do the same with the SUPPORTERS of AGW. You cannot name a political agenda with compels them to falsify data, or name the people who are compelling them to do so, or explain why... much less HOW... they're falsely compiling years and years of vast supporting data...

...much less how they're melting glaciers and ice packs.

Quote by: Georgia I never considered any winners here, just a friendly debate.

I'm sorry... the Health Care issue is a friendly debate. The mid-term elections are a friendly debate. The ups and downs of Barack Obama is friendly debate. AGW is potentially about the end of life on earth as we know it.

Research Finds That Earth's Climate is Approaching 'Dangerous' Point - NASA, 2007

"NASA and Columbia University Earth Institute research finds that human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth’s climate close to critical tipping points, with potentially dangerous consequences for the planet.

Tipping points can occur during climate change when the climate reaches a state such that strong amplifying feedbacks are activated by only moderate additional warming. This study finds that global warming of 0.6ºC in the past 30 years has been driven mainly by increasing greenhouse gases, and only moderate additional climate forcing is likely to set in motion disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet and Arctic sea ice. Amplifying feedbacks include increased absorption of sunlight as melting exposes darker surfaces and speedup of iceberg discharge as the warming ocean melts ice shelves that otherwise inhibit ice flow."

This would be our beloved NASA, the folks who flew us to the moon and back and landed rovers on Mars that are still wandering around after 6 years, telling you the facts as they see them.


.

[rmnunez]

You cannot name a political agenda with compels them to falsify data, or name the people who are compelling them to do so, or explain why...

In one word; "e-n-v-i-r-o-n-m-e-n-t-a-l-i-s-m", this is the agenda that drives advocates of AGW.

Other "fellow travellers" have joined the bandwagon. There are economic redistributionists who are excited about the possibilities fears of global warming should induce western governments to transfer massive wealth to the third world so it can cope better with the forecasted cataclysm. Assorted socialists unhappy with the wealth accumulated by oil companies salivate at the prospect of their being driven out of business once Co2 is banned. Luddites yearning to impose a simpler (and more primitive) lifestyle hope the global warming scare will force the rest of us to give up much more than just SUVs, but even plastic bags. Vegetarians are hopeful the nefarious effects of cows will discourage the loathsome (to them) habit of eating flesh. There are others with agendas that happily find space under the big AGW tent

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez In one word; "e-n-v-i-r-o-n-m-e-n-t-a-l-i-s-m", this is the agenda that drives advocates of AGW.

Are you suggesting 'Environmentalism' is an agenda that caused every legitimate scientific institution in the United States, including NASA and MIT, to invent a fake scientific problem and are right now falsifying data on a globally massive scale???

Is that what you're saying, rm? The 'Tree-hugger' lobby manufactured out of whole cloth the data by which 97% of climate scientists studying AGW now verify its reality?

And why are they doing this? The evil, wealthy, powerful environmentalists are taking this massive risk because they stand to gain exactly what?

Try to keep in mind, rm... I have NEVER sourced GreenPeace, the Sierra Club, Earth First, Earthwatch or any other environmental advocacy group. Just legitimate science, or Mainstream media reports on legitimate science.

Quote by: rmnunez Other "fellow travellers" have joined the bandwagon.

So what? That's certainly not sciences fault. If you don't like the left leading the policy solutions, then it might be best if the conservatives and free-marketeers got out in front with their own solutions... by which I mean REAL solutions, that actually SOLVE the problem, rather than simply placating the wealthy.

ONCE AGAIN... Global Warming is not a popularity contest. I can't be voted down. I won't go away because of popular opinion. It doesn't give a rat's ass about liberals or conservatives, It doesn't care how rich you are, it doesn't favor individual liberty or free markets.

In the words of Kyle Reese: "You still don't get it, do you? He'll find her! That's what he does! It's *all* he does! You can't stop him!"


.

[Nono]

Quote by: Sonart If you don't like the left leading the policy solutions, then it might be best if the conservatives and free-marketeers got out in front with their own solutions... by which I mean REAL solutions, that actually SOLVE the problem, rather than simply placating the wealthy.

This is a good point, and shows how the Right looks at AGW through the wrong end of a distributor-cap lead. Let them propose a solution that goes beyond sticking one's head in the sand.

[Georgia]

Quote by: Sonart . Where did I claim this?

Quote by: Sonart . How about that...a cold spell in the midst of a considerably shorter winter... Late Start Fails To Ice Winter Sports Sales[/B] - [B]"After one of the warmest Novembers in memory, up until a few days ago many were wondering what happened to winter." ...and balanced by record heat waves in the southern hemisphere. Australia Wheat Crop Estimates Cut in Record Heat Record Heat Across South Australia In First Half of the Month Decade sizzling to heat record

(Emphasis my own)

Quote by: Sonart . LOL... You have yet to show me where ANY of them are agenda driven. Try to remember that I don't link to Greenpeace or Sierra Club or Earth First.

The issue is the AGW funding remains hidden behind the veil of privacy. There is no way of knowing whether Greenpeace, Sierra or Earth First or even other countries are paying these scientists salaries.
I've looked for funding information for AGW supportive organizations but found none. They're hidden.

Quote by: Sonart . And MOST IMPORTANT, how have they gotten away with faking data. If not ALL, then who? Why?

This is a link to a few who were caught.

Quote by: Sonart . Unfortunately, science doesn't have a microphone... Fox News and the rest of the controversy loving media does.

In fact it does. Everything from kids pimples to shrinking brains are blamed on AGW thanks to mass media. They're even scaring the kids on Saturday cartoons. I've seen it 1st hand.

Quote by: Sonart . As the sun spot cycle curves back up over the next 5.5 years, temperatures will once again begin to rise dramatically.

Exactly how dramatically? Give me something very specific, something I can point to and say "Sonart was right". I'll save your quote and we'll see in a few years.

Quote by: Sonart . 2. Try to get this across, Georgia.

I'll take that as affirmation that credible scientists with opposing views should be ignored and any opposing data somarily discarded.

Quote by: Sonart . 3. "The only exception to that rule is if it supports AGW."

Can you provide sources of grants, etc which support AGW? I can't. They're hidden from view.

Quote by: Sonart . AGW is potentially about the end of life on earth as we know it.

So what? This is like Chicken little.

It is also entirely possible for a giant meteor to enter our atmosphere and end life. Should we make potentially huge political upheaval, dramatic global monetary exchanges, make the rich, middle class and poor poorer, not to mention demolishing our childrens already crumbling financial future to avert such a threat?

Quote by: Sonart . This would be our beloved NASA, the folks who flew us to the moon and back and landed rovers on Mars that are still wandering around after 6 years, telling you the facts as they see them. .

Yes, our beloved NASA, the organization in which this recently happened:
Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to contract fraud

Schoeberl was the chief scientist of the Goddard Space Flight Center's Earth Sciences Division and the head of the Aura Project, a NASA mission to study the Earth's ozone layer, air quality and climate. He has written extensively about the depletion of the ozone level, and the influence of humans on global climate change.

But you're right. We can blindly trust those guys. After all, they support AGW so anything they publish simply must be fact.

[rmnunez]

No, I wouldn't go so far as to conclude every scientist in each institution supporting the IPCC's conclusions is driven by an environmentalist agenda, I expect some are more concerned about the environment than others. Some are so concerned they have faked data, they also suppress dissenting views or alternate explanations and exagerate their conclusions.

In reality there is global warming, but its not Co2 induced, its natural. Global warming is aggravated by Co2, but not as much as the leading proponents of AGW suggest with distorted extrapolations from tendentious computer models.

People more motivated by environmentalism than science latch on to this idea some scientists think Earth is on the brink of a dysaster of biblical proportions -and the only solution is exactly what you say, be done with free-market theories, endorse a global authority to halt all this pollution.

Are you sure 97% of the world's climate scientists are 100% behind the perspective you have? That they all think unless we stop using oil the world is going to end?

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: rm That they all think unless we stop using oil the world is going to end?

As that is a strawman argument you have concocted, probably not.

[rmnunez]

Okay, let me rephrase; "That they all think unless we stop generating Co2 the world will end?"

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: rmnunez Okay, let me rephrase; "That they all think unless we stop generating Co2 the world will end?"

Again you are employing a strawman argument. but then again, we should expect as much considering the massive deficit of intellectual honesty that must be required to sustain your position on this topic.

[Georgia]

Quote by: rmnunez No, I wouldn't go so far as to conclude every scientist in each institution supporting the IPCC's conclusions is driven by an environmentalist agenda, I expect some are more concerned about the environment than others. Some are so concerned they have faked data, they also suppress dissenting views or alternate explanations and exagerate their conclusions.

I completely agree, there certainly are scientists who employ unbiased opinions on both sides.
The AGW supporters are quick to point out that skeptics scientific research is directed by, or at least swayed by special interest.

So they do conclude that scientists are able to be biased.
I agree with that idea and people will follow the money. (Mostly, at least)

The problem is, it seems to be taken for granted that their side isn't biased in the least. Despite the fact other countries or special interest might be behind thier scientists paycheck by hidden backers doesn't seem to bother them at all. It's only their side that's beyond repute.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Georgia (Emphasis my own)

And yet again... where did I claim they were connected to anything? I said they were anecdotal evidence, no different than the winter storms you seem so focused on. I said that while there was record cold in the northern hemisphere, there was record heat in the southern, in order to remind you that global warming means 'Global'. My anecdotal evidence supported that. I said that while we may be experiencing a cold snap now, on the whole winters have been shorter. My evidence supported that as well. I said quite specifically...

"Ok then, I'll see your anecdotal evidence and raise you anecdotal evidence of record heat from the southern hemisphere. Voilà!"

Anecdotal evidence being a story "which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence."

Quote by: Georgia The issue is the AGW funding remains hidden behind the veil of privacy.

Ahhh, yes, the good old mysterious 'Veil of Secrecy'... OOooOOOOOOooooo! How convenient.

I gave you a list of 20 of the most hi-profile, most highly respected scientific institutions and agencies in America, all of which apparently have secret agendas hidden behind a 'Veil of Secrecy'. Now given that you'all keep telling us that half of their funding comes from government grants (mostly Republican government, remember) maybe you can just take a wild ass guess as to what insidious 'Agenda' could compel 90% of America's scientific community, on a massive scale unheard of in history, to fake and falsify 20 years of scientific research.

And I'll remind you that with a click or two of the mouse, I can uncover agendas left and right.

American Enterprise Institute - [About AEI] - "The Institute's community of scholars is committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise."

Competitive Enterprise Institute - [About CEI] - "The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a public interest group dedicated to free enterprise and limited government."

The Heartland Insitute, Free Market Solutions - [About] - "Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems."

The Cato Institute, Individual Liberty, Free Markets and Peace - [About] - "The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace."

Can I assume that the agendas of Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute and the Coal Institute are reasonably self explanatory?

Quote by: Georgia This is a link to a few who were caught.

Which proves what about...

National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science
American Chemical Society
US National Research Council
Journal of the American Medical Association
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes
The National Geographic Society
the World Meteorological Organization
Scientific American Magazine
The Journal Nature
?????

Bernie Madoff was the chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange. Bernie Madoff is going to prison for a zillion years for massive fraud. Shall we also shut down NASDAQ?

Quote by: Georgia Exactly how dramatically? Give me something very specific, something I can point to and say "Sonart was right". I'll save your quote and we'll see in a few years.

Nah, I'm not in a position to give you anything 'specific', but I bet we set new records. Maybe some new "Killer Heat Waves" in the next few years. I'm not a scientist, but I can add 2 + 2.

Solar Cycle Linked To Global Climate - ScienceDaily, July 2009 - "Establishing a key link between the solar cycle and global climate, research led by scientists at the National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., shows that maximum solar activity and its aftermath have impacts on Earth that resemble La Niña and El Niño events in the tropical Pacific Ocean."

El Niño and sunspots return, sea ice doesn’t - July 2009 - "The two main reasons why 2008 was the coolest year since 2000 was that the Pacific ocean was in its La Niña phase, and the sun was remarkably inactive and showed us a blank face for essentially the whole year. Both of these factors (oceanic and solar) exert a mild to strong influence on year-to-year climate variability. The forcing effect of additional greenhouse gases is more subtle in the short term, but ultimately dominates because it is inexorable (until we mitigate our emissions) and accumulative (due to long residence times)."

NASA: New sunspot cycle just warming up - USA Today - "The flow for this cycle is taking a much longer time to move down to the critical latitude at which sunspots get started," says Hill. "The sunspot cycle is about to take off," he adds, based on the latest solar jet stream measurements, which he suggests point to a less active solar storm season ahead."

El Nino conditions return to affect U.S. weather - USA Today, "U.S. government scientists say El Niño, the periodic warming of water in the tropical Pacific Ocean that can influence weather around the world, has returned.

The Pacific had been in what is called a neutral state, but forecasters at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration say the sea surface temperature climbed by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit along a narrow band in the eastern equatorial Pacific in June."



Save this post. In five years I'll either be right or wrong.

Quote by: Georgia So what? This is like Chicken little.

Is it really? Watch this video (don't let the title fool you) It's about a different climate phenomena, but towards the end the connection to AGW will scare the piss out of you.

Try to bear in mind that most predictions of the affects of AGW only stretch out over the next 50 years or so, and merely predict mass starvation, massed migrations, mass wildlife extinctions, flooding, desertification, catastrophic ocean problems, etc. Apparently they either don't want to imagine beyond that point or they assume we'll have solved it by then.

The REAL problem, of course, lies with a whole variety of unexpected feedback loops. We've already seen the effects of them, since global warming is happening faster than predicted.

Examples:

Permafrost melting - Along with glaciers and ice fields, vast areas of formerly permanently frozen tundra - permafrost - to melt, releasing long held CO2, accellerating what humans are creating.

White Ice/Dark Water - White ice fields and glaciers reflect heat back into space. Dark seawater absorbs heat from the sun and gets even warmer... melting more ice... making the water even warmer... melting more ice.

Increased Water Vapor - Global warming leads to higher humidity in the atmosphere. This was one of the first consequences of warming that I learned of many years ago. It's why they predicted all those big hurricanes... because warm water and humidity are the engines that drive ocean storms. What they forgot is what every novice skeptic always loves to blurt out... the single most effective greenhouse gas in the atmosphere isn't CO2 or Methane.

It's water vapor. Increased humidity means more water vapor in the atmosphere means even more greenhouse effect.

You getting the picture at all? What this all means is that as some 'Point of No Return', global warming will become a self-accelerating mechanism that we won't be able to stop no matter what we do.

Decade after decade, the globe keeps warming... 1 degree, 2, 3, 4, 5... completely out of our control. At what point... 59 years?... 100 years?... 150 years?... does the earth simply become unlivable? You tell me.

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Georgia I completely agree, there certainly are scientists who employ unbiased opinions on both sides.

Yeah... in a ration of about 30 to 1 favoring AGW. You guy's ability to engage in willful denial is downright pathological.

Quote by: rmnunez Are you sure 97% of the world's climate scientists are 100% behind the perspective you have?

No, I just made that up, rm. I just keep throwing up this list over and over again because It's so meaningless.

National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science
American Chemical Society
US National Research Council
Journal of the American Medical Association
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes
The National Geographic Society
the World Meteorological Organization
Scientific American Magazine
The Journal Nature

Quote by: rmnunez In reality there is global warming, but its not Co2 induced, its natural.

Right... whatever you say, rm. What do all those scientists know anyway.

[Georgia]

Quote by: Sonart National Academy of Sciences American Geophysical Union American Meteorological Society National Weather Association National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NASA American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science American Chemical Society US National Research Council Journal of the American Medical Association Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes The National Geographic Society the World Meteorological Organization Scientific American Magazine The Journal Nature

Who is funding these organizations? Is there any link between them? Who is offering monetary grants and bonuses?
The answer to those important questions are not available, yet only the AGW supportive organizations are beyond repute.

The question of funding in any other debate would be valid.
I don't buy it.

My quote:

Exactly how dramatically? Give me something very specific, something I can point to and say "Sonart was right". I'll save your quote and we'll see in a few years.

Quote by: Sonart Nah, I'm not in a position to give you anything 'specific', but I bet we set new records. Maybe some new "Killer Heat Waves" in the next few years. I'm not a scientist, but I can add 2 + 2.

I didn't think so. You say sunspot-caused AGW effects will be starting in 5.5 years but can't commit to exactly what's going to happen. "Killer heat waves" is an easy out, as they happen every year since man crawled this Earth.

Another thing, back in 2006 they were saying sun spots don't cause GW.
National Geographic

Now it does according to your links.

GW was found on Mars a half decade ago, creating a sunspot-induced scenario excluding the human factor. Speculating the same effects are causing GW on Earth, publications from "Science" organizations quickly followed to hedge the fact, creating articles like this:
http://Newscientist.com
Realclimate.org

Sunspot caused GW didn't fit the AGW thoery so supporters change their findings.
Science indeed.

Quote by: Sonart Save this post. In five years I'll either be right or wrong.

Right or wrong about what? You've not said anything specific and I'm not disputing solar activity.
Tell you what- If your scary hypothesis plays out then I'll buy you an ice cream cone. I'll even make it minty "Green".
However, if a metor slams the Earth creating perpetual night then you owe me a flashlight.
Deal?

Quote by: Sonart Try to bear in mind that most predictions of the affects of AGW only stretch out over the next 50 years or so, and merely predict mass starvation, massed migrations, mass wildlife extinctions, flooding, desertification, catastrophic ocean problems, etc. Apparently they either don't want to imagine beyond that point or they assume we'll have solved it by then.

Why not make it 75 or 100 years out. 25-100 years- The difference doesn't even matter.

Quote by: Sonart Dark seawater absorbs heat from the sun and gets even warmer... melting more ice... making the water even warmer... melting more ice.

I agree.
However I've recently pointed out a large block of ice melts faster than a sliver which relates to that fact. Some said it was silly kindergarten mentality but a similar point is only valid if it supports AGW.
Go figure.

Quote by: Sonart It's why they predicted all those big hurricanes... because warm water and humidity are the engines that drive ocean storms.

Which big hurricanes?

The National Hurricaine Center (Probably funded by your big oil) lists number and strength of hurricaines from 1851-2007.
NHC-NOAA
Looking at Table 6:
2001-2006 had 15 storms, 7 major.
Compared to:
1941-1950 had 24 storms, 10 major
1931-1940 had 19 storms, 8 major
1911-1920 had 21 storms, 7 major
1871-1880 had 20 storms, 7 major
1851-1860 had 18 storms, 6 major.

I'd call your "All those big storms" comment pathetically dishonest but I don't have need to insult people here.

You claim oceans will partially evaporate under the intense heat of AGW, hense excessive humidity and water vapor.
I hear you and other alarmists claim AGW will cause oceans to rise. How can an evaporating oceans rise while loosing enough of their mass to support catastrophic storms?

Quote by: Sonart Decade after decade, the globe keeps warming... 1 degree, 2, 3, 4, 5... completely out of our control. At what point... 59 years?... 100 years?... 150 years?... does the earth simply become unlivable? You tell me.

That's very scary.

I still think it would be better for the world to fall into political chaos, transfer massive global currency making the wealthy, middle and poor class poorer to create and fund a new global government to guard against planet killing metors instead.

[rmnunez]

An interesting opinion from the Wall Street Journal:

“Rabid environmentalists have descended into a separate reality where only green counts. Its gotten so bad that the head of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols, announced this past fall that costly new carbon regulations would boost the economy shortly after she was told by eight of the state’s most respected economists that they were certain these new rules would damage the economy. The next day, her own economic consultant, Harvard’s Robert Davis, denounced her statement as a blatant distortion. Scientists are expected to make sure their findings are replicable, to make the data available, and to encourage the search for new theories and data that may overturn the current consensus. This is what Galileo, Darwin and Einstein (among the most celebrated scientists of all time) did. But some climate researchers, most notably at the University of East Anglia, attempted to hide or delete temperature data that didn’t show recent rapid warming. They quietly suppressed and replaced the numbers, and then attempted to squelch publication of studies coming to different conclusions.”

Yes, I know, its a "capitalist rag".

[Nono]

What's your point with this odd mixture of rant and statement of the obvious??

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Georgia Who is funding these organizations? Is there any link between them? Who is offering monetary grants and bonuses?

What, am I supposed to do your homework for you? It's been repeatedly pointed out that about half of their funding comes from the government. And I've repeatedly pointed out that for the last 15 years the government pursestrings have been in the hands of the anti-government, anti-global warming Republicans.

So much for that argument.

Quote by: Georgia The answer to those important questions are not available,

It's not? Funny, I've never had a problem.

When Volconvo skeptics linked to a popular skeptics video of a John Stossel report supposedly 'tearing apart' global warming, I watched the video, wrote down the name of every scientific 'expert' they featured, and checked them out. Guess what... once again, all the 'usual suspects'.

Then I did the same with another skeptic video classic, 'The Great Global Warming Swindle. Once again, all the usual suspects.

I didn't simply pick Exxon, The American Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute or the Cato Institute out of a hat, Georgia. I picked them because their names kept showing up next to those of the 'usual suspect' Scientists.

And uncovering their agendas were extremely simple. Just go to their websites, click 'About Us' or 'Mission Statement' and it's right there, usually couched in the buzzwords 'limited government, free markets, individual liberty'.

Of course, I can see the scope of your dilemma. I only need to check out the 'usual suspects', those few skeptical scientists who keep popping up again and again. Given that there's around 30 pro-AGW scientists for every skeptic, kinda hard to check them all out.

But here's a start... livefree did a bang up job looking into just one of the scientific institutions that appears on my ubiquitous list of top American Scientific institutions....

National Academy of Sciences
>>>American Geophysical Union<<<
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
US National Research Council
Journal of the American Medical Association
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes
The National Geographic Society
the World Meteorological Organization
Scientific American Magazine
The Journal Science
The Journal Nature

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The thing you're going to have to eventually consider, Georgia, is that the reason you can't find this 'Mysterious Hidden Agenda' is simply because there is none, that these are simply scientists doing what they do... science ...for the reasons they always do it, to figure sh!t out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Quote by: Georgia I didn't think so. You say sunspot-caused AGW effects will be starting in 5.5 years...

You seem to be confused. The effects are starting right now, as the sun cycle turns back up. 5.5 years is when it reaches it's peak. After the supposed 10 year 'decline' in temperatures, 2009 being the 5th warmest year in recorded history suggests it's already swinging back upward.

Quote by: Georgia ...but can't commit to exactly what's going to happen.

Because I'm neither a scientist nor a prognosticator. All I can tell you - based on everything I've learned as a lay person - is that it's going start getting hotter again, and probably record hotter. Asking to predict specifics is simply a cheap 'gotcha'.

Quote by: Georgia "Killer heat waves" is an easy out, as they happen every year since man crawled this Earth.

Oh really? Like this?

Deadly Heat Wave Grips India - claims over 6,000 victims - CBS News, May, 2002

France heat wave death toll set at 14,802 - USA Today, Sept. 2003

Deadly heat wave grips Europe - CNN, Sept. 2007

Record Heat Wave Hits Australia - Feb. 2009

Australia Government Blames Deadly Heat Wave on Climate Change

That's like saying, Wow, look, it's winter... no global warming. The fact that summers are always hot does not explain repeatedly RECORD hot.

Quote by: Georgia GW was found on Mars a half decade ago,

Jeez, and yet another lame, 5 year old argument, {{ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz}}

Odd that no one's talking about Martian global warming today, isn't it, Georgia.

Quote by: Georgia ]However I've recently pointed out a large block of ice melts faster than a sliver which relates to that fact. Some said it was silly kindergarten mentality but a similar point is only valid if it supports AGW.

How about that! And I suggested that if you only told the scientists currently studying polar melt and global warming, they'd certainly all slap their heads in unison and shout, "Of COURSE, silly us... how could we have missed this?"

Since they haven't yet, I assume you haven't yet informed them of this amazing scientific revelation.

Quote by: Georgia Which big hurricanes?

I said 'predicted'! Apparently they failed to consider the 50 year record Solar Minimum that's caused the slight cooling these past few years.

]However I've recently pointed out a large block of ice melts fas]I'd call your "All those big storms" comment pathetically dishonest but I don't have need to insult people here.

How so? I said increased humidity was why they 'Predicted' increased storms. Were they or were they not 'Predicting' increased storms a few years ago? Was or was not warming oceans and increased water vapor 'WHY' they were 'PREDICTING' them?

Quote by: Sonart It's why they predicted all those big hurricanes... because warm water and humidity are the engines that drive ocean storms.

Care to point out exactly where I was dishonest? Or is this just another cheap attempt at a 'Gotcha'?

Quote by: Georgia I hear you and other alarmists claim AGW will cause oceans to rise. How can an evaporating oceans rise while loosing enough of their mass to support catastrophic storms?

Gawd, you're like a 6 yr-old. Oceans already evaporate... they always have, and yes, that's what causes hurricanes and typhoons. If it gets warmer, they will evaporate slightly more, but not nearly enough to counter the dramatic increase and polar and glacial ice melt.

Quote by: Georgia I still think it would be better for the world to fall into political chaos, transfer massive global currency making the wealthy, middle and poor class poorer to create and fund a new global government to guard against planet killing metors instead.

LOLOL!!! Yeah, I'm sure you'll want to take you hoarded wealth with you.


.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: rmnunez An interesting opinion from the Wall Street Journal:

Yes, how loverly... an OpEd opinion from the pen of Michael J. Boskin.

"Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush."

The Hoover Institution, defenders of "private enterprise" and "personal freedom". There's those dang libertarian buzzwords again.



.