Global Warming

[xyzer]

Here is another recent article which covers the flaws in the IPCC assessments over the past few years..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html

You will note the famous "hockey Stick" Graph used to scare the world has proven statistically flawed?

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

Further the so called global warming local temperature records have beem shown to be flawed?

The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.

If we are uncertain about the intrepretations of scienfic studies are we supposed to accept them without protest?

(And no, after 30 years of research, I don't belive science is going to reverse it's conclusions on global warming. To the contrary, they've pretty well covered all the bases.)

Pardon me Sonart but surely you jest? What are you one of the complacent sheep who follow the leader without question? Who place implicit faith in a political organizations interpretation of several scientific studies(most flawed)?

Here is a source that feels we doubters should sue Al gore and other demgogues making a fast dollar out of scaring the public..
FOXNews.com - Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

This scam is right out of books! "I'll show you how to help stop global warming. Just invest in my carbon credit scam and you can help? Your money will be well used?

[Century 25]

The Pentagon's Nightmare:

The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare The climate could change radically, and fast. That would be the mother of all national security issues. - February 9, 2004

Read the full report here:

"An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United
States National Security"

http://www.gbn.com/GBNDocumentDispla...v%3Fid%3D28566

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process.

{{SIGH}} This is what I mean... Xyzer simply regurgitates this pap in an endless cycle, conveniently forgetting that it was shot down long ago. Wegman's challenge suggested that temperatures varied more than reported the further back in time they went. However, as applied to the Hockey Stick itself, there was basically no difference.



"Reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the last 1,000 years according to various older articles (bluish lines), newer articles (reddish lines), and instrumental record (black line)."

None of this changes what I've been saying repeatedly... that we SHOULD be in a cooling trend, which abruptly shot skyward during the last 200 years of global industrialization.

Quote by: Xyzer In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report.

The NCPA??? That would be the National Center for Policy Analysis.

"The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector. Topics include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, criminal justice, education and environmental regulation."

And is Dr. Kesten Green a scientist? Nope...

Senior Research Fellow
Business and Economic Forecasting Unit
Monash University, Australia

Is J.Scott Armstrong a scientist? No, he's a professor of marketing.

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

You simply can't find an unbiased source to save your life, can you. First the Washington Times and then FAUX News.

Is John Coleman a scientist???? Nah, he's the 74 yr-old "Weather Guy" on local San Diego TV, KUSI-TV. And he founded the Weather Channel, before being forced out.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So tell you what, Xyzer, I'll put...

National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes

...up against your local Weather dood and economics professors any day.

Quote by: Xyzer I have asked you to explain why if anthropogenic causes are the reason for global warming...WHY THE GLOBAL TEMPS COOLED IN THE 1960s and 70s AS ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 WAS INCREASING?

Because, you flipping moron, it was a short-term fluctuation within a larger overall trend.

Here's the U.S. stock market, over the last 100 years...



I'd say it's generally going up, wouldn't you? Because it dropped dramatically and leveled off between 1928 and 1944 doesn't change that fact, does it? So why would you assume that a cyclical leveling off... which in earlier cycles had been a clear DROP... changes the fact of the overall rise? About every 30 years or so... up, down, up, down. Until now... way up, level, way up. This is like trying to explain why the sky is blue to a 6 year old who isn't the least bit interested in understanding.

Quote by: Foxfyre So we agree that at least one solution to a presumed problem of global warming is likely a bunch of baloney and quite counterproductive to implement.

Yeah... so what? What does that have to do with whether Global Warming is real or not?

Quote by: Foxfyre Which, in my mind, raises the question of how many more of such 'solutions' may wind up in similar disrespect?

Who knows, Foxfyre, but I think the sooner we get started trying, the sooner we'll find solutions that work.

As Thomas Edison once said, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

Quote by: Foxfyre I believe science is already questioning its conclusions on global warmings as its models fail to produce projected outcomes.

Then you're not paying attention, deary. Current research is proving that Global Warming is happening FASTER than the models "projected outcomes". I'm not sure that's the type of statistical error you had in mind, is it.

Most of that is being caused by "Feedback Loops", which simply means that, as the globe warms, it starts other biological processes that were unforseen, but which put even MORE CO2 into the atmosphere, causing even greater warming.

Quote by: Foxfyre Already a number of high profile pro-AGW scientists have jumped ship and joined those who are unconvinced if not professed skeptics.

I call Bullsh!t. Show me a source that says this.

Former Global Warming Skeptics.

.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Sonart . I call Bullsh!t. Show me a source that says this. Former Global Warming Skeptics. .

Your Wikipedia list seems to be mostly non-scientsts, Sonart.
The list of scientists who were once AGW advocates but who now count themselves among the skeptics has become pretty impressive. The following lists quite a few. There is probably some overlap of names, but there are lots of other sources too but here's a start:

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/artic...idarticle=9469

[xyzer]

Sonart, have you "flipped your Jibbet"?
Posting charts with the Dow Jones Industrial average as evidence of climate change? Submitting graphs labeled Reconstruction? of Temps(when its been shown even our recent temperatures have been recorded in a flawed scenario)
I don't think you get the import of my question about as CO2 is rising the temperature has cooled...Is anthropogenic CO2 a major influencer of climate change? Instead we get this

Because, you flipping moron, it was a short-term fluctuation within a larger overall trend.

You avoid the question with an inanity. Hey most experts agree the global climate has warmed(a small amount) over the last century. They agree it has gradually warmed since the last Ice Age thousands of years ago, The question is why?Durn it! the Goreish hyperbole is insisting that we Humans are the cause of warming because we burn too much carbon energy. Then he suggests we humans can control climate by carbon trade offs and reduced energy consumption?,

So for a period of 20 years it cools as CO2 use goes up. Why? You respond with a bunch of insults and unrelated charts. When informed that several earlier proponents of the theory of man made causes have recanted you explode into another round of unrelated drivel which includes insults as well as unrelated references?
Answer the question and quit posting unrelated charts and graphs plus ad hominem nonsense that really show your juvenile mindset. You sound like a troubled child? Grow up and answer the question.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Foxfyre Your Wikipedia list seems to be mostly non-scientsts, Sonart.

Don't EVEN play that with me, Foxfyre. I've presented more combined scientific expertise and consensus than you could hope to rebut in 10 years. Not simply a few individual scientific crackpots but the most legitimate, renowned scientific institutions and expertise in the field to be found in the U.S. Shall I review?

National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes

And that's just the U.S. How about a few more...

The National Geographic Society
the World Meteorological Organization
The American Association for the Advancement of Science -- "In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise"
Scientific American

And kindly note that NOWHERE do I reference even one lobbying or advocacy group... no Sierra Club or Greenpeace or World Wildlife Fund or Brookings Institute or anything else... just Science!

You guys, on the other hand, that's all you present! And what do you offer in your latest post? A BLOG by the former Republican chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, James Inhofe, one of the most virilant anti-global warming radicals in the Congress. This is not even a Minority Report from the Republicans on the Committee... it's simply an Inhofe blog in which he dredges up every loner crackpot skeptic he can find and then declares, WEEEEeeee, it's an avalanche!

And while Inhofe is now roaming the political wilderness, here's what the Full Committee is working on...

"The Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision Regarding EPA’s Authorities with Respect to Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act." after the Bush's own Supreme Court kicked Bush's butt and declared greenhouse gases to be pollutants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And now, regarding my list of global warming converts... I've already presented a vast body of peer reviewed scientific consensus and research. The people listed aren't meant to be scientific authorities but internationally renowned thinkers and leaders in their fields, whose opinions are significant because of how conservative they are on other issue and how far they their conversions took them.

Sir David Attenborough is probably the world's most renowned naturalist film maker, including the renowned series, Planet Earth.

Richard Branson, the maveric entrepreneur and founder of Virgin Airways and Virgin Records.

British Petroleum. What else need be said. An oil company that's willing to admit the truth.

Ronald Bailey is an economist who is now the science editor of Reason Magazine. He was a former denier who contributed to all the usual conservative suspects you guys post here... the Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, National Review, but now says, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up."

Newt Gingrich, one of the most pre-eminent thinkers of the Reagan free-market revolution. "My message, I think, is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere."

John Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia and well known skeptic.

Frank Luntz is a conservative corporate and political consultant who worked with FAUX... er... FOX News.

Pat Robertson, world famous televengelist and former conservative candidate for President.

Michael Schermer, founder of the Skeptics Society and editor of Skeptic magazine. Not one to believe just any damn thing.

Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the longest serving Republican in the Senate, "Once an avowed critic of anthropogenic climate change, began actively supporting legislation to combat climate change in early 2007. "Global climate change is a very serious problem for us, becoming more so every day,"

Andrew Sullivan, libertarian conservative author, political commentator and one of the first political bloggers.

.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer Sonart, have you "flipped your Jibbet"? Posting charts with the Dow Jones Industrial average as evidence of climate change?

Good grief, Matt. How do I possibly debate this guy without pointing out how monumentally stupid he's being??? Honest to gawd, it's like he's being intentionally dense.

No Xyzer, the Dow Jones graph was not meant to be evidence of climate change. It's meant to show that within complex systems, there are often changes, even when the overall trend is moving in a decidedly dominant direction. The graph showed a stock market that was steadily climbing, and the fact of occasional dips didn't change that.

Quote by: Xyzer You avoid the question with an inanity. Hey most experts agree the global climate has warmed(a small amount) over the last century.

No, most experts agree that global climate has warmed SIGNIFICANTLY and is dramatically inconsistant to what should be happening normally. The agree that it's a dramatic anomoly, caused by the explosion of human population and our exploding capacity to pollute the planet.

Quote by: Xyzer They agree it has gradually warmed since the last Ice Age thousands of years ago, The question is why?

About 10,000 years ago, and the 'Why' has been explained to you, in depth, again and again, by the most knowledgable people on the planet.

Quote by: Xyzer When informed that several earlier proponents of the theory of man made causes have recanted you explode into another round of unrelated drivel which includes insults as well as unrelated references?

And when informed by the foremost scientific institutions in the United States and the world of the reality of global warming, and by formerly skeptical conservative leaders, thinkers and opinion makers who have been convinced of the reality of global warming, you simply cover your ears and blather. You're like a four year old who, when explained an answer to a question, simply keeps asking "Why?" over and over again, not because you want to know -- you have no interest whatsoever in knowing -- but because you know it will drive people crazy.

Quote by: Xyzer Grow up and answer the question.

I did.

One more time, very slowly... it appears to be part of a continuous cycle of rising and falling temperatures. If you actually LOOKED at the chart I posted, you would see what I'm referring to. Here's a chart showing a variety of temperature estimates for the last 1,000 years... Pick the colored graph of your choice and look very, very carefully now, Xyzer. Temperatures will go UP for 30 or 40 years, then go DOWN for 30 or 40 years. UP, then DOWN, yet the OVERALL TREND is a slow, steady decrease in temperatures, as should be happening after the sharp climb out of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago.

You do see all this, right? We're not going too fast for you?

UP, then DOWN, then UP, then DOWN, but always slightly lower with each cycle... Why? I don't really know, but science seems to have accepted it as part of normal climate shifts.

UNTIL, of course, about 200 years ago -- which COINCIDENTLY is the same time as the explosion in human population and global industrialization -- when temperatures went WAY UP, then down a little, the WAY UP EVEN MORE, then down a teeny bit, the WAY UP AGAIN. I've already predicted that temperatures may once again go "down a little", before going WAY UP AGAIN.

And science is saying that without a doubt, this is NOT NORMAL and can ONLY be explained by human activity.




.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Sonart . Don't EVEN play that with me, Foxfyre. I've presented more combined scientific expertise and consensus than you could hope to rebut in 10 years. Not simply a few individual scientific crackpots but the most legitimate, renowned scientific institutions and expertise in the field to be found in the U.S. Shall I review? National Academy of Sciences American Geophysical Union American Meteorological Society National Weather Association National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NASA Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes And that's just the U.S. How about a few more... The National Geographic Society the World Meteorological Organization The American Association for the Advancement of Science -- "In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" Scientific American And kindly note that NOWHERE do I reference even one lobbying or advocacy group... no Sierra Club or Greenpeace or World Wildlife Fund or Brookings Institute or anything else... just Science! You guys, on the other hand, that's all you present! And what do you offer in your latest post? A BLOG by the former Republican chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, James Inhofe, one of the most virilant anti-global warming radicals in the Congress. This is not even a Minority Report from the Republicans on the Committee... it's simply an Inhofe blog in which he dredges up every loner crackpot skeptic he can find and then declares, WEEEEeeee, it's an avalanche! And while Inhofe is now roaming the political wilderness, here's what the Full Committee is working on... "The Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision Regarding EPA’s Authorities with Respect to Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act." after the Bush's own Supreme Court kicked Bush's butt and declared greenhouse gases to be pollutants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - And now, regarding my list of global warming converts... I've already presented a vast body of peer reviewed scientific consensus and research. The people listed aren't meant to be scientific authorities but internationally renowned thinkers and leaders in their fields, whose opinions are significant because of how conservative they are on other issue and how far they their conversions took them. Sir David Attenborough is probably the world's most renowned naturalist film maker, including the renowned series, Planet Earth. Richard Branson, the maveric entrepreneur and founder of Virgin Airways and Virgin Records. British Petroleum. What else need be said. An oil company that's willing to admit the truth. Ronald Bailey is an economist who is now the science editor of Reason Magazine. He was a former denier who contributed to all the usual conservative suspects you guys post here... the Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, National Review, but now says, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up." Newt Gingrich, one of the most pre-eminent thinkers of the Reagan free-market revolution. "My message, I think, is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move toward the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere." John Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia and well known skeptic. Frank Luntz is a conservative corporate and political consultant who worked with FAUX... er... FOX News. Pat Robertson, world famous televengelist and former conservative candidate for President. Michael Schermer, founder of the Skeptics Society and editor of Skeptic magazine. Not one to believe just any damn thing. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the longest serving Republican in the Senate, "Once an avowed critic of anthropogenic climate change, began actively supporting legislation to combat climate change in early 2007. "Global climate change is a very serious problem for us, becoming more so every day," Andrew Sullivan, libertarian conservative author, political commentator and one of the first political bloggers. .

What we are debating--I'm not willing to change the subject here--are those who have switched sides in the debate. Again my list contains a lot of qualified credentialed scientists. Your list seems to be made up of mostly pundits, politicians, and a few business types. Lets see some folks with credentials in environmental science that have crossed over to your side recently.

[xyzer]

Woops! Here we go again. Answer the question with a long uninformed diatribe about climate variation? Throw in a bunch of source titles without any narrative,and of course mix in a modicum of ad hominem blather?

Durn it Sonart, you just don't want to get it do you?

If you actually LOOKED at the chart I posted, you would see what I'm referring to. Here's a chart showing a variety of temperature estimates for the last 1,000 years... Pick the colored graph of your choice and look very, very carefully now, Xyzer. Temperatures will go UP for 30 or 40 years, then go DOWN for 30 or 40 years. UP, then DOWN, yet the OVERALL TREND is a slow, steady decrease in temperatures, as should be happening after the sharp climb out of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago.

I asked you many pages back how do you reconcile the fact that if the temperature has warmed about 1 Degree C. in 100 years according to Temperaturre Estimates to translate the obvious how do we know this with any accuracy when we didn't start closely measuring global temps accurately until about 25 years ago? Are you suggesting that estimates and proxies are in any way certain?

We could only inexactly measure temps at the surface level and on a few mountains or use proxies(dendrology, ice cores) for most of the last century?? How do you or any scientist really know what temps were at other levels of our atmosphere? Can a dendrologist tell from a tree ring what the temperatures were within one degree, within any growing season? Now some daring mix of politicians and scientists(The IPCC Panel) have used studies with that inexact data to predict climate change hundreds of years in the future?? And 'sheeplike humans believe its bound to happen based on such flawed data? Hey wake up Sonart we are talking about a very tenuous set of predictions?

Next lets address the affect of CO2 (Less than 1% of our atmospheric gas) It has been determined to have a forcing effect on reflected sunlight.(It blocks reflection which prevents some reflected heat from escaping.) We humans create an estimated .04% of the 1% of this gas? And while we are burning carbons for energy at an increased rate the globsl temperature cools and then as you point out, warms? In the last decade it hs leveled and even cooled.again?

Why can we then point to CO2 as a major factor in climate warming? As our CO2contributions increase why does climate cool? Why are we supposed to believe that cutting our .04% contribution can overcome natural(non human made) effects on climate? Do you climate sheep really believe that all the industrial powers of the world can be induced to cut their energy use? Cut their standards of living on such flimsy evidence?

I know logic is not your strong point?. But I want you to apply your limited mental powers to the logical problem and above all answer the questions.

While you are at it tell us how the scientists who made studies were able to use any constants in their models..such as the variation in the suns brilliance, volcanic activity, shifting ocean currents, changing cosmic particles and the suns changing magnetism? Did they have any such magic wand so as to be able to predict accurately what would happen many years from now?

As has been pointed out several major climate experts have backed away from the hyteria and downright nonsense created by Al Gore and the IPCC with help from sensationalist press.
We really don;'t know with any scientific certainty what the major influences are Plus as you pointed out climate drivers vary?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Foxfyre What we are debating--I'm not willing to change the subject here--are those who have switched sides in the debate. Again my list contains a lot of qualified credentialed scientists. Your list seems to be made up of mostly pundits, politicians, and a few business types. Lets see some folks with credentials in environmental science that have crossed over to your side recently.

{{SIGH}} No, Foxfyre... my list (see below) -- which you continually ignore -- represented the most pre-eminant, most prestigious SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS in the U.S., representing the research work of thousands of qualified, credentialed, peer reviewed scientists.

My OTHER list was intended to show you the high profile CONSERVATIVE leaders who have finally faced reality, conceded the research, and accepted the truth --- AND THE POTENTIAL THREAT -- of global warming.

I've listed more major American scientific institutions that have issued consensus statements declaring the reality of anthropogenic global warming than you have individual scientists denying it.

You simply don't understand that your premise -- that scientists are abandoning Global Warming in droves -- is simply wrong. It's a lie. It's a disinformation campaign being promoted by the opponents of global warming research... the ones I keep telling you about, over and over. Conservative, libertarian, free-market think tanks who are opposed to any form of government regulation of business, and therefore refuse to accept that global warming is a reality.

And THOSE are the people on the OTHER list... the most eminant Conservative, libertarian, free-market leaders who have changed their minds and admitted that the facts are what they are.

Quote by: Foxfyre Lets see some folks with credentials in environmental science that have crossed over to your side recently.

{{BIG SIGH}} I don't have to...the vast, overwhelming majority are already there. The Tobacco industry could come up with a dozen scientists that stated tobacco wasn't harmful... so what. Your silly list of pathetic losers doesn't even dent the massive weight of current scientific consensus.

ONCE AGAIN!

U.S. 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

.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Sonart . {{SIGH}} No, Foxfyre... my list (see below) -- which you continually ignore -- represented the most pre-eminant, most prestigious SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS in the U.S., representing the research work of thousands of qualified, credentialed, peer reviewed scientists. My OTHER list was intended to show you the high profile CONSERVATIVE leaders who have finally faced reality, conceded the research, and accepted the truth --- AND THE POTENTIAL THREAT -- of global warming. I've listed more major American scientific institutions that have issued consensus statements declaring the reality of anthropogenic global warming than you have individual scientists denying it. You simply don't understand that your premise -- that scientists are abandoning Global Warming in droves -- is simply wrong. It's a lie. It's a disinformation campaign being promoted by the opponents of global warming research... the ones I keep telling you about, over and over. Conservative, libertarian, free-market think tanks who are opposed to any form of government regulation of business, and therefore refuse to accept that global warming is a reality. And THOSE are the people on the OTHER list... the most eminant Conservative, libertarian, free-market leaders who have changed their minds and admitted that the facts are what they are. {{BIG SIGH}} I don't have to...the vast, overwhelming majority are already there. The Tobacco industry could come up with a dozen scientists that stated tobacco wasn't harmful... so what. Your silly list of pathetic losers doesn't even dent the massive weight of current scientific consensus. ONCE AGAIN! U.S. 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 .

Okay now really try to focus here. You can do this. I have faith that you too can have a discussion on a real issue without changing the subject.

The discussion was about those credentialed scientists who were on the pro-AGW side but who have jumped ship. You challenged that and demanded names. I furnished them.

Now you want to go back to the original groups and seem to think posting a list of organizations and publications is the same thing. You seem to think that politicians and pundits carry the same weight of credibility as does a PhD environmental scientist on the issue of global warming.

It isn't and they don't.

Follow the money and see how many of the organizations you listed are arms of the UN with political motives to further AGW and how many of the others depend on environmentalist wacko funding to stay in business.

Then check out the credentials of those I listed as scientists who once supported AGW but who now report that the science to support it simply does not hold up. And not one can be shown to have financial or political motives undergirding their point of view.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre The discussion was about those credentialed scientists who were on the pro-AGW side but who have jumped ship. You challenged that and demanded names. I furnished them.

But Foxfyre, your list doesn't furnish them. None of the names I recognized on your list belong to people who have ever accepted the theory. Not professionally, anyway. Allegre, Shaviv, Evans, Bellamy, Bryson (without question), Patterson, Jaworowski (again without question), and Clark have never spoken a word in support of the theory. In fact they're some of the most prominent AGW skeptics around.

Inhofe's (that name alone should be throwing up red flags) list is just more of his standard denialist garbage. I find it surprising that anyone believes a word the man says.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Foxfyre The discussion was about those credentialed scientists who were on the pro-AGW side but who have jumped ship. You challenged that and demanded names. I furnished them.

No, Foxfyre... YOUR discussion is about those scientists... who, by the way, Parrot just called you on. I don't give a flying fart about them, because of the list I keep showing YOU and which YOU keep refusing to comment on. Are you actually going to tell me that a dozen converted scientists who never actually converted are more significant or correct than the combined American scientific community currently studying the issue?

Who's Who on Inhofe's List of 400 Global Warming Deniers --"Sen. James M. Inhofe's list of 400+ supposedly prominent climate scientists who doubt global warming is full of names that should raise big question marks, including economists and other social scientists, mathematicians, TV weathermen, retired scientists and amateurs, as well as scientists who have received support for their work from fossil fuel industries.

* 44 TV Weathermen Among Global Warming Deniers
* 70 of Inhofe's Global Warming Deniers Have No Climate Science Background
* 20 of Inhofe's Global Warming Deniers Are Economists
* 84 of Inhofe's Global Warming Deniers Have Taken Industry Money"

Quote by: Foxfyre You seem to think that politicians and pundits carry the same weight of credibility as does a PhD environmental scientist on the issue of global warming.

I think it's significant that such highly regarded conservative leaders have changed their opinion on the matter. Otherwise, you're statement is completely idiotic because, with every post, I have repeatedly sourced the combined weight of American scientific research on Global Warming.

And yes, they DO know more than your PhD scientist. SO ONCE AGAIN...

U.S. 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

Quote by: Foxfyre Then check out the credentials of those I listed as scientists who once supported AGW but who now report that the science to support it simply does not hold up.

I already have. So friggin' what... compare them to the credentials I have listed above. There simply IS no comparison.

.

[Sonart]

.

Here ya go, Foxfyre... going down the list of "Expert Scientists", the first one that's not on Parrot's list of non-converts is the 2nd on Inhofe's list... Bruno Wiskel. Although listed as a 'geologist', he is apparently not a PhD and no where do I see him referred to as Dr. Wiskel. He teaches at the University of Alberta Extension at the Devonian Gardens on building energy efficient homes, how to drill for water, heating with wood, how to negotiate, Pruning trees and shrubs, etc.

He apparently does NOT teach any science, nor do I see any list of scientific publications or any peer reviewed scientific research whatsoever on Global Warming.

His books, however, include...

Designing and Landscaping the Family Home

Trees and Shrubs of the Prairies

the ever popular Woodlot Management

and, of course, his non-scientific screed, The Emperor's New Climate - Debunking the Myths of Global Warming

The first page of his website - such as it is - includes the following statement;

"Bruno not only agrees that global warming is happening, but uses the rock record to prove that it has been happening for the last 18,000 years - long before humans had a written language let alone had carbon producing industry."

Halelujah, brothers, can I hear a resounding DUUUHHH! for a statement that extraordinary in being simultaneously right and monumentally wrong. First off, 18,000 years ago was the beginning of the end of the last Ice Age, so... duh, yeah, there was dramatic warming ...all part of a continuous cycle of warming and ice ages that has been recurring for millions of years...



HOWEVER, Wiskel is dead wrong in implying that the climate continued to warm when the end of the Ice Age peaked 8,000 years ago. To the contrary, by every available record the climate has been slowly but steadily COOLING, as it has historically after each Ice Age. Until 200 hundred years ago, that is, when it suddenly lept vertically.



.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Xyzer I asked you many pages back how do you reconcile the fact that if the temperature has warmed about 1 Degree C. in 100 years according to Temperaturre Estimates to translate the obvious how do we know this with any accuracy when we didn't start closely measuring global temps accurately until about 25 years ago? Are you suggesting that estimates and proxies are in any way certain?

I'm not a climate scientist, Xyzer, so I don't reconcile anything. These people do...

U.S. 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

Ask them!

Quote by: Xyzer Next lets address the affect of CO2 (Less than 1% of our atmospheric gas) It has been determined to have a forcing effect on reflected sunlight.(It blocks reflection which prevents some reflected heat from escaping.) We humans create an estimated .04% of the 1% of this gas? And while we are burning carbons for energy at an increased rate the globsl temperature cools and then as you point out, warms? In the last decade it hs leveled and even cooled.again?

Once again... I'm not the expert here, they are... ask these people.

U.S. 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

Quote by: Xyzer I know logic is not your strong point?. But I want you to apply your limited mental powers to the logical problem and above all answer the questions.

I don't have to... I let the experts do it.

U.S. 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

Quote: