How the GW myth is perpetuated

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Steve Milloy of Junkscience has ties to Exxon. He helped develop the Global Climate Action Team. Millions of dollars invested to infuse manufactured uncertainty into the information on climate science, much like the tobacco companies did, whom Steven Milloy also has ties to.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
Milloy is a scientific hoor(sic), he'll support the position of anyone willing to pay for his services, he attacked the science on the negative effects of DDT and tobacco to name a few.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,870
116
63
Big media shows bias on climate issueBy Dick Little
Paradise PostI know this is getting old. I keep writing about scientists who challenge the global warming theory. I do that because the mainstream media's assertion that you and I are responsible is definitely debatable. Reporters ignore legitimate scientists who say the way we live and our machines are not the cause.
The mainstream press is caught up in, "global warming hysteria," just like Hollywood and government officials. There are literally hundreds of legitimate scientists who say, "We don't know," or that it's a "myth." I believe you are entitled to both sides, so I write about scientists who challenge the theory to balance what the mainstream media fails to print.
S. Fred Singer is a professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He also has a degree in physics from Princeton, and was the founding dean of the school of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere.
He has written a dozen books including, "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 years." "Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way," he says, "climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action." He tops that off with, " should it occur, a modest warming would be welcome!"
Reporters at one time were ethically bound to call someone like Singer when Al Gore (who doesn't have any credentials) comes out with global warming propaganda just to keep the issue in "balance." If reporters are handing out information on a subject as important and complex as global warming without even seeking contrary opinions, they are doing the rest of us a disservice.
CBS's "60 Minutes," a program I have long respected, is the latest to do a one-sided "hit job" on global warming. They used to seek two sides. Singer said programs like "60 Minutes" must look at both sides, " because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty." He notes, "The misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations, that could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.
The issue would be another "environmental fad," (such as the theory of "global cooling" in the '70s) were it not for the fact there is a certain panic that has been created by environmental organizations and power hungry politicians such as Al Gore, Singer said.
He agrees, "greenhouse gasses" (caused by burning fossil fuels) need to be, " taken seriously," but we also, " have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth." He notes there is a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.
The so-called, "scientific consensus" proclaimed by people like Al Gore and others, brings a sharp, " there is no such consensus," from Singer, "quite the contrary, a growing number of scientists are going the other way!" The so-called 2,500 scientists on the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change alleged to support the idea we are responsible is an "illusion," he claims, most of those panelists have, " no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC's report."
The Associated Press reports only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report's "Summary for Policymakers." Singer says scientists inside the American Meteorological Society (AMS) are openly rebelling on the so-called," consensus statement," issued by the organization. "Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not a show of hands melting glaciers prove nothing glaciers melt when there's natural warming!" He called most of the global warming theories, "bad logic."
Singer contends all scientists know, "correlation (our carbon releases and the current warming trend) is not causation," and contends it's, " bad logic." He notes during the last century while hydrocarbons were rising, temperatures were "cooling." In addition, " temperatures have not risen during the past eight years, even though greenhouse gasses have been rising."
Using logic from global warming enthusiasts, Singer notes, " greenhouse warming in the tropics should register increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere (six miles above the equator) at that point the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three (In fact) there is no increase at all!" Balloon-borne radiographs reportedly show a slight "decrease." The data comes from an April, 2006 climate report.
Those who know and operate computers will tell you if you insert "garbage," then "garbage" will come out! "Real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas," Singer contends, "every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor (a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of CO 2 increase by an average factor of two or three)." He says it's possible that water vapor feedback is "negative," rather than "positive," and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO-2 by a factor of two or three. The climatologist notes growing evidence shows, "man made global warming is not a threat," and attempts to regulate greenhouse gases is " pointless and unwise." He challenges attempts by government to "regulate" greenhouse gasses, which we will go into in this space next week.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Water vapour is not the most powerful greenhouse gas, it is the largest greenhouse gas component by volume. Chlorofluorocarbons are the strongest greenhouse gas.
Water vapour does not even reach the upper atmosphere, where we see increased absorption of the infrared through other greenhouse gases, leading to a net increase in global heat retention.


If I follow this reporters logic, two wrongs apparently make a right.....
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Fred Singer is a quack. Don't believe anything he says until you see a confidence interval and the data it was calculated from. I can wave my hands just as vigorously as him, doesn't make me or him right. Hand waving is not science, its magic.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
The mainstream press is caught up in, "global warming hysteria," just like Hollywood and government officials. There are literally hundreds of legitimate scientists who say, "We don't know," or that it's a "myth."

Global Warming deniers are using the mainstream media to attack the legitimate science on climate change that doesn't reflect the almost complete concensus of credible scientists. Large scale phenomena are being observed such as worldwide decrease in glaciers, retreating sea ice in the Arctic and Antartic, accelerated melting in Greenlands icesheet and increases in extreme weather effects like drought, flooding, tornados, hurricanes and heat-waves.

It's been well established that many of the so called scientists who are attacking evidence of Global Warming are supported by the petrochemical industry and in some cases also worked with the tobacco industry to deny negative claims about its product. There's still some who will claim smoking isn't hazadous to your health, are we going to believe them also?
 

typingrandomstuff

Duration_Improvate
To me, it's Petro Vs. Petro. Petroleum use earth's oil so that there will be no more oil left. In the end, it is the petroleum companies that make other petroleum companies bankrupt. Very well. It's a weird time. Junk Science isn't that proper. I know. I just think it's nice they do something great for the environment for a change even though it isn't that green. Never heard of Fred Singer before. He must be an intermediate star.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
I grow tired of the pointless waltz Extra.
I'm not tired of it at all, but I am very short on time available to continue, as you are no doubt aware, due to my not getting back to you for a week.

So here it is. Governments, corporations and the academic world have embraced the science which concludes we have a major effect on the climate, that our contribution represents more than 50% of attributed warming in the past 200 years or so.
Bullfeathers!! Governments and corporations have bowed to the political reality. Academics have either embraced the political bandwagon, or faced reality and jumped about the bandwagon rather than lose funding or tenure.

I have picked apart the links of yours I have read.
On the contrary, I have negated your claims. (Imagine, trying to use the Mann hockey stick as evidence at this date:roll:). Oh, sure, you supplied that link which had all the scientific reasoning that solar variance isn't sufficient to cause the current change (therefore human CO2 must be responsible, even though I've provided solid evidence that it isn't) and they included everything, including cosmic ray interactions (see, I did read it). Very impressive. And theoretically the bumble bee can't fly either. Yet, as I demonstrated, global temperatures follow those insufficient solar variations, not CO2 variations, and the bumble bee flies anyway.

Any time there's a conflict between theory and/or scientific papers and the reality, you must accept the reality as being correct, and the theory/papers at fault. To do otherwise is to be a fool.

You rebut with wonky "yah, but". If the science is as sure as you say it is, well than heres a challenge for you. Take these papers I post, and show where they are flawed. Show where the science is incorrect. I will post no op-eds or blog quotes like you have. This is science, show me that your confidence in the denialist science can disprove the accepted theory. Just simply show me where they are wrong.

Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf

Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on Earth's climate
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf

Solar activity over the past 1150 years: Does it correlate with climate
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf

These should be a good starter.


And here's a few scientific papers for you to peruse:

A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability
(Annals of Glaciology, vol. 39, p.127-132, 2004)
- P.A Mayewski, K. Maasch, J.W.C White, E.J. Steig, E. Meyerson, I. Goodwin, V.I. Morgan, T. van Ommen, M.A.J. Curran, J. Sourney, K. Kreutz


A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since the 1940's
(Physical Review Letters 91, 2003)
- Ilya G. Usoskin, Sami K. Solanki, Manfred Schüssler, Kalevi Mursula, Katja Alanko


A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L13705, 2007)
- Anastasios A. Tsonis, Kyle Swanson, Sergey Kravtsov


A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data
(CR 26:159-173, 2004)
- Ross McKitrick1, Patrick J. Michaels


Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L13208, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer


QUOTE We have found that while the models generally agree with each other, they disagree with the observations. In particular, the three state-of-the-art greenhouse models (Hadley, DOE PCM, and GISS SI2000) examined here show positive temperature trends that increase with altitude, reaching values greater than the near-surface trends by as much as 50 to 100 percent. However, the existing observational data sets show decreasing as well as mostly negative trends since 1979.

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination
(Science 5, Vol. 291. no. 5501, January 2001)
- Eric Monnin, Andreas Indermühle, André Dällenbach, Jacqueline Flückiger, Bernhard Stauffer, Thomas F. Stocker, Dominique Raynaud, Jean-Marc Barnola


Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles
(Geology, v. 33; no. 1; p. 33-36, January 2005)
- Lenny Kouwenberg, Rike Wagner, Wolfram Kürschner, Henk Visscher


Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
(GSA Volume 13, Issue 7, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv, Ján Veizer


Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L15707, 2007)
- Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, Justin Hnilo


CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, Apil 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso


Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin
(Journal of Climate, Volume 19, Issue 17, p. 4276–4293, September 2006)
- H. J. Fowler, D. R. Archer


Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series
(Energy and Environment, Vol. 14(6), 751-772, 2003)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


Cosmic rays and Earth's climate
(Space Science Review 93: 155-166, 2000)
- Henrik Svensmark


Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate
(Space Science Reviews, v. 94, Issue 1/2, p. 215-230, 2000)
- Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark


Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48 Issue 1 Page 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
- Henrik Svensmark


Cyclic Variation and Solar Forcing of Holocene Climate in the Alaskan Subarctic
(Science 26, Vol. 301. no. 5641, pp. 1890 - 1893, September 2003)
- Feng Sheng Hu, Darrell Kaufman, Sumiko Yoneji, David Nelson, Aldo Shemesh, Yongsong Huang, Jian Tian, Gerard Bond, Benjamin Clegg, Thomas Brown


Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 31, L13207, 2004)
- David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels


Differential trends in tropical sea surface and atmospheric temperatures since 1979
(Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 28, NO. 1, PAGES 183–186, 2001)
- Christy, J.R., D.E. Parker, S.J. Brown, I. Macadam, M. Stendel, W.B. Norris


Documentation of uncertainties and biases associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change assessment.
(Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928, 2007)
- Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N. Doesken, M. Cai., S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X. Lin, H. Li, S. Raman


Does a Global Temperature Exist?
(Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, June 2006)
- Christopher Essex, Ross McKitrick, Bjarne Andresen


QUOTE There is no global temperature... Since temperature is an intensive variable, the total temperature is meaningless in terms of the system being measured, and hence any one simple average has no necessary meaning. Neither does temperature have a constant proportional relationship with energy or other extensive thermodynamic properties.

Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp. 417–432, March 2001)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou


Estimation and representation of long-term (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphere-gridded surface temperature: A note of caution
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L03209, 2004)
- Willie W.-H. Soon, David R. Legates, Sallie L. Baliunas


Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds
(Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A, Vol. 462, Issue 2068, 2006)
- R. Giles Harrison, David B. Stephenson


Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series
(Journal Advances in Space Research, February 2007)
- Charles A. Perrya


Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner


QUOTE In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that A. there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, B. there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, C. the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, D. the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, E. the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, F. thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Formation of large NAT particles and denitrification in polar stratosphere: possible role of cosmic rays and effect of solar activity
(Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 2273-2283, 2004)
- F. Yu


First survey of Antarctic sub–ice shelf sediments reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat
(Geology, v. 29; no. 9; p. 787-790, September 2001)
- Carol J. Pudsey, Jeffrey Evans


QUOTE The period when the Prince Gustav ice shelf was absent corresponds to regional climate warming deduced from other paleoenvironmental records. We infer that the recent decay cannot be viewed as an unequivocal indicator of anthropogenic climate perturbation.

Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture?
(Journal Advances in Space Research, 2007)
- Joan Feynmana


Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L03710, 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


QUOTE Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1)

Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science 12, Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714, March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck


Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate
(Physical Review Letters - November 30, 1998 - Volume 81, Issue 22, pp. 5027-5030)
- Henrik Svensmark


Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, D21114, 2006)
- Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk L. Yung


Late Holocene approximately 1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications
(Geology, v. 26; no. 5; p. 471-473, May 1998)
- Ian D. Campbell, Celina Campbell, Michael J. Apps, Nathaniel W. Rutter, Andrew B. G. Bush


Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
(Science, Vol. 254. no. 5032, pp. 698 - 700, November 1991)
- E. Friis-Christensen, K. Lassen


Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development
(Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol 49 No 2, Pages 32–44, June 2007)
- W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe, N Willemse


Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays
(Phys. Rev. Lett., 85(23), 5004-5007, 2000)
- Nigel D Marsh, Henrik Svensmark


Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability
(Science 22, Vol. 295. no. 5563, pp. 2250 - 2253, March 2002)
- Jan Esper, Edward R. Cook, Fritz H. Schweingruber


Measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L11813, 2006)
- Toshihisa Matsui, Roger A. Pielke Sr.


Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo


Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years
(Springer Wien, Volume 95, January, 2007)
- Lin Zhen-Shan, Sun Xian


New perspectives for the future of the Maldives
(Global and Planetary Change, v. 40, iss. 1-2, p. 177-182. 2004)
- Nils-Axel Momer, Michael Tooley, Goran Possnert


QUOTE In the region of the Maldives, a general fall of sea level occurred some 30 years ago. The origin of this sea level fall is likely to be an increased evaporation over the central Indian Ocean linked to an intensification of the NE-monsoon. Furthermore, there seems no longer to be any reasons to condemn the Maldives to become flooded in the near future.

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, A08105, 2005)
- Nir J. Shaviv


On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 1527–1530, 2001)
- Dominic R. Kniveton and Martin C. Todd


Orbitally induced oscillations in the East Antarctic ice sheet at the Oligocene/Miocene boundary
(Nature 413, 719-723, October 2001)
- Naish TR, Woolfe KJ, Barrett PJ, Wilson GS, Atkins C, Bohaty SM, Bücker CJ, Claps M, Davey FJ, Dunbar GB, Dunn AG, Fielding CR, Florindo F, Hannah MJ, Harwood DM, Henrys SA, Krissek LA, Lavelle M, van Der Meer J, McIntosh WC, Niessen F, Passchier S, Powell RD, Roberts AP, Sagnotti L, Scherer RP, Strong CP, Talarico F, Verosub KL, Villa G, Watkins DK, Webb PN, Wonik T


Past and Future Grounding-Line Retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
(Science, Vol. 286. no. 5438, pp. 280 - 283, October 1999)
- H. Conway, B. L. Hall, G. H. Denton, A. M. Gades, E. D. Waddington


Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
(Science 7, Vol. 294. no. 5549, pp. 2130 - 2136, December 2001)
- Gerard Bond, Bernd Kromer, Juerg Beer, Raimund Muscheler, Michael N. Evans, William Showers, Sharon Hoffmann, Rusty Lotti-Bond, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani


Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L05708, 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West


Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers
(Science 16, Vol. 315. no. 5818, pp. 1559 - 1561, March 2007)
- Ian M. Howat, Ian Joughin, Ted A. Scambos


Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
(Science 11, Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1013 - 1016, November 2005)
- Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev


Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal
(Energy and Environment, Vol. 14, Issues 2 & 3, April 11, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Craig Idso, David R. Legates


QUOTE Many records reveal that the 20th century is likely not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.

Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate change
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 22, NO. 23, PAGES 3195–3198, 1995)
- Judith Lean, Juerg Beer, Raymond Bradley


Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate
(Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50, pp. 955-968, 2007)
- Richard Mackey


Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, NO. D2, Pages 2835–2844, 1991)
- George C. Reid


Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 125, Issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, Friday, December 22, 2006)
- J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler


QUOTE The Sun is the most important energy source for the Earth. Since the incoming solar radiation is not equally distributed and peaks at low latitudes the climate system is continuously transporting energy towards the polar regions. Any variability in the Sun-Earth system may ultimately cause a climate change.

Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
- Richard S. Lindzen


Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L08203, 2007)
- H. B. Hammel, G. W. Lockwood


Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L14703, 2007)
- Charles D. Camp, Ka Kit Tung


The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
(physics/0612145v1, 2006)
- Henrik Svensmark


The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, NO. 18, PAGES 2319–2322, 1997)
- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis


The Ever-Changing Climate System: Adapting to Challenges
(Cumberland Law Review, 36 No. 3, 493-504, 2006)
- Christy, J.R.


The search for patterns in ice core temperature curves
(AAPG Studies in Geology 47, p. 213230)
- John C. Davis, Geoffrey C. Bohling


QUOTE In summary, the present climate does not appear significantly different than the past climate at times prior to industrialization.

Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov


QUOTE The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D06102, 2007)
- John R. Christy, William B. Norris, Roy W. Spencer, Justin J. Hnilo


Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
(Science 10, Vol. 194. no. 4270, pp. 1121 - 1132, December 1976)
- J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton


QUOTE It is concluded that changes in the earth's orbital geometry are the fundamental cause of the succession of Quaternary ice ages.

Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage - a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 59, 1225-1232, 1997)
- Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen


Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L16712, 2005)
- Willie W.-H. Soon


Very high-elevation Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate change
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D09120, 2007)
- C. Vincent, E. Le Meur, D. Six, M. Funk, M. Hoelzle, S. Preunkert


Warming trends in Asia amplified by brown cloud solar absorption
(Nature 448, 575-578, 2 August 2007)
- Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Muvva V. Ramana, Gregory Roberts, Dohyeong Kim, Craig Corrigan, Chul Chung, David Winker


Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?
(Science 23, Vol. 291. no. 5508, pp. 1497 - 1499, February 2001)
- Wallace S. Broecker


QUOTE The Little Ice Age and the subsequent warming were global in extent. Several Holocene fluctuations in snowline, comparable in magnitude to that of the post-Little Ice Age warming, occurred in the Swiss Alps. Borehole records both in polar ice and in wells from all continents suggest the existence of a Medieval Warm Period. Finally, two multidecade-duration droughts plagued the western United States during the latter part of the Medieval Warm Period. I consider this evidence sufficiently convincing to merit an intensification of studies aimed at elucidating Holocene climate fluctuations, upon which the warming due to greenhouse gases is superimposed.

What may we conclude about global tropospheric temperature trends?
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L06211, 2004)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
There's a strong denial machine funded by big petrochemical companies to fight the real science on Global Warming.



http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html
I guess you missed the post where I commented on smears instead of evidence.

If you have the evidence, you use the evidence. If you don't have the evidence, you shoot the messenger.

Anyone who resorts to character assassination and smear campaigns instead of presenting opposing evidence is de facto conceding defeat.

Nice to know you admit you're wrong.

Have you heard of the Oregon Petition, signed by more than 17000 scientists opposing the theory of man-made climate change? Of course not. Check it out.

And here's a few scientists and organizations who dispute the theory:

Scientists:
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA
Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Benny Peiser, Ph.D. Professor of Social Anthropology, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Bjørn Lomborg, Ph.D. Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (Bjørn Lomborg believes in man-made global warming, but he thinks the fight against it is futile)
Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Australia
Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France
Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics Professor, University of Western Ontario, Canada
Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA
David Deming, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA
David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA
David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK
David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA
Dennis Avery, M.S. Agricultural Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA
Douglas Leahey, Meteorologist, Calgary, Canada
Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA
Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA
Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Physics, Princeton, USA
Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA
Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA
George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA
George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA
Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, The University of Leningrad, Russia
Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark
Howard Hayden, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA
Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA
Ian D. Clark, Professor Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia
Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK
James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, USA
Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
John J. Ray, Ph.D. Psychology, Macquarie University, Mensa, Sydney, Australia
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA
Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA
Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada
Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard, USA
Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA
Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus, Climatology, University of Lyon, France
Marlo Lewis, B.A. Political Science, Ph.D. Government, Claremont McKenna College, USA
Michael Crichton, A.B. (summa cum laude) Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA
Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA
Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus, Department of Biogeography, University of London, UK
Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA
Reid A. Bryson, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Richard S. Courtney, PhD. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA
Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA
Roger A. Pielke, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA
Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Geography, University of Oklahoma, USA
Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA
Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Robert Johnston, M.S. Physics, B.A. Astronomy, USA
Robert M. Carter, Geologist, James Cook University, Australia
Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA
Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA
Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK
Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Founding Director International Arctic Research Center, USA
Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA
Tim Patterson, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada
Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography, Historical Climatology, University of London, UK
Vaclav Klaus, app. Ph.D. Economics, University of Economics, Prague, Czechoslovakia
Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK
Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa
William M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland

Deceased:

August H. Auer Jr., AMS Certified Meteorologist, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, USA (Died: June 10, 2007)

Organizations:
AccuWeather, USA
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, USA (31,000+ Members)
American Association of State Climatologists, USA (Noncommittal)
American Policy Center, USA
Australian APEC Study Centre, Australia
Cato Institute, USA
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, USA
Center for Science and Public Policy, USA
Committee for Economic Development, USA
Competitive Enterprise Institute, USA
Cooler Heads Coalition, USA
DCI Group, USA
FAEC - Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology, Argentina
Fraser Institute, Canada
Friends of Science, Canada
Frontiers of Freedom Institute, USA
George C. Marshall Institute, USA
Global Climate Coalition, USA
Greening Earth Society, USA
Heartland Institute, USA
Heritage Foundation, USA
High Park Group, Canada
Hoover Institution, USA
Hudson Institute, USA
Independent Institute, USA
Institute for Energy Research, USA
Institute of Economic Affairs, UK
Institute of Public Affairs, Australia
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, USA
International Policy Network, UK
Lavoisier Group, Australia
Maine Heritage Policy Center, USA
Media Research Center, USA
National Center for Policy Analysis, USA
Natural Resources Stewardship Project, Canada
New Hope Environmental Services, USA
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, New Zealand
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, USA
Pacific Research Institute, USA
Property and Environment Research Center, USA
Reason Foundation, USA
Science & Environmental Policy Project, USA
Scientific Alliance, UK
Science and Public Policy Institute, USA
Sustainable Development Network, UK
Tropical Meteorology Project, USA

Check out these guys:
The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science. Here is the series so far:
Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII
Allegre's second thoughts -- The Deniers XIII
The heat's in the sun -- The Deniers XIV
Unsettled Science -- The Deniers XV
Bitten by the IPCC -- The Deniers XVI
Little ice age is still within us -- The Deniers XVII
Fighting climate 'fluff' -- The Deniers XVIII

Science, not politics -- The Deniers XIX
Gore's guru disagreed -- The Deniers XX
The ice-core man -- The Deniers XXI
Some restraint in Rome -- The Deniers XXII
Discounting logic -- The Deniers XXIII
Dire forecasts aren't new -- The Deniers XXIV
They call this a consensus? -- Part XXV
NASA chief Michael Griffin silenced - Part XXVI
Forget warming - beware the new ice age -- Part XXVII
Open mind sees climate clearly -- Part XXVIII
Models trump measurements -- Part XXIX
What global warming, Australian skeptic asks -- Part XXXIn the eye of the storm of global warming -- Part XXXI
From chaos, coherence -- Part XXXII
The aerosol man -- Part XXXIII
The Hot Trend is cool yachts -- Part XXXIV
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Milloy is a scientific hoor(sic), he'll support the position of anyone willing to pay for his services, he attacked the science on the negative effects of DDT and tobacco to name a few.
It's generally been admitted world wide that theBS about DDT was just that, bunk.

I grew up eating that stuff. My father put lots of it on our vegetable garden. I recall him making a paste of DDT dust and water in his palm and immersing seeds in it before planting. He's 101 now, and quite feeble, but it didn't do him any harm, or me either. As for bird shell thinness, they came up with a scientific theory on how DDT made it happen, but the fact is that bird shells were thin long before it came into usage, and by the time it was in general use, the shell thickness was already recovering.

DDT was the only effective treatment against malarial mosquitoes in Africa, and while it was used, deaths dropped to a few thousand per year. Once it was banned, malarial deaths shot up into the millions.

Just one more example of how environmental fanaticism causes death by the millions to humans (but that must be OK, right? After all they're only African blacks)
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Tell you what, people. I have no time to continue this, much as I would like to. Here's what I propose. Tell me, as believers in the approaching calamity due to global warming, what you suggest to "save the planet". I posed the question on the thread "7 Ways to Save the World" a week ago. So far, no solutions.

But you all say we must do something. So find that question I posed a week ago (3rd from the end at this date) and tell me exactly what we should do.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Bullfeathers!! Governments and corporations have bowed to the political reality. Academics have either embraced the political bandwagon, or faced reality and jumped about the bandwagon rather than lose funding or tenure.

On the contrary, I have negated your claims. (Imagine, trying to use the Mann hockey stick as evidence at this date:roll:). Oh, sure, you supplied that link which had all the scientific reasoning that solar variance isn't sufficient to cause the current change (therefore human CO2 must be responsible, even though I've provided solid evidence that it isn't) and they included everything, including cosmic ray interactions (see, I did read it). Very impressive. And theoretically the bumble bee can't fly either. Yet, as I demonstrated, global temperatures follow those insufficient solar variations, not CO2 variations, and the bumble bee flies anyway.

Any time there's a conflict between theory and/or scientific papers and the reality, you must accept the reality as being correct, and the theory/papers at fault. To do otherwise is to be a fool.




And here's a few scientific papers for you to peruse:
.......

And the political reality is that the majority of citizens are concerned with what they see. Never mind the reconstructions and proxies and forcings and solar constants, regular people are noticing the effects. Do you know how many times I heard global warming on my Aquaculture field trip this weekend? Every site, every single one. Some are even being courted for carbon credits, like the farm that grows sea weed for Japanese markets. Others have noticed a difference in ice cover over their farms, the temperature profiles of the sites are no longer valid, others have noticed the increase in fouling/parasitic organisms.

Couple that with a scientific theory, and government's can see which way the wind is blowing. Corporations can see it coming. Even conservative politicians are now changing their tune.

You have yet to show me, in a study that I cannot refute, where the temperature has followed the TSI, sun spot variance, or cosmic ray flux. They have in the past, up until about 30 years ago, from then there is no match. There is very obviously something else. A fact you can't seem to comprehend with your comparisons of different epochs.

A few to peruse, are you serious? Why on earth should I spend any more time on this. I gave you three articles, which do not require subscriptions, and asked for you to use the superior grasp on science you say exists, to prove these climate scientists wrong. Instead you bombard me with more than 50 papers, most of which are abstracts only, requiring subscriptions.

You have not pointed to flawed methods, you just switch the subject, or bring up some counter spin from dubious sources, and yes they are dubious sources. If this is what counts as serious science in your books, good luck to you chap...
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
And the political reality is that the majority of citizens are concerned with what they see.
They wouldn't be concerned in the least if not for the fear mongering. People like it warmer. 50 below isn't fun, as I can tell you from personal experience.
Never mind the reconstructions and proxies and forcings and solar constants, regular people are noticing the effects.
Sure they are, and they were when it was cooling 35 years ago too
Do you know how many times I heard global warming on my Aquaculture field trip this weekend? Every site, every single one.
Well why not? It's the biggest promotion in the world at this time. Everyone's aware of it, and the scare.
Some are even being courted for carbon credits, like the farm that grows sea weed for Japanese markets.
Ah, yes carbon credits, a huge expenditure that has absolutely no effect other than to make some savvy entrepreneurs (like Reverend Al Gore) very rich indeed.
Others have noticed a difference in ice cover over their farms, the temperature profiles of the sites are no longer valid, others have noticed the increase in fouling/parasitic organisms.
But why are you repeating all this? No-one is denying that the climate is changing! If it weren't for all the scaremongering most people in Canada would be celebrating.

Couple that with a scientific theory, and government's can see which way the wind is blowing. Corporations can see it coming. Even conservative politicians are now changing their tune.
Ah, yes, they see which way the wind is blowing. The schools, leftwing politicians and the media have successfully brainwashed the population. Graduating school kids are the most thoroughly brainwashed and they are reaching the voting stage. Politicians can't ignore the numbers if they want to be re-elected. Common sense and ethical governance go out the window in favor of retaining power.

But let's not go on about this any more. As I said, I don't have the time for it. Instead, just give me your solution to the impending catastrophe. You, and all the other doomsayers say we have to do something. Tell me what your solution is. Tell me what we should do to save the world, something that would actually be effective.

Inquiring minds want to know.
 

Sparrow

Council Member
Nov 12, 2006
1,202
23
38
Quebec
Global warming hysteria

Global warming scientists fudge data

By Klaus Rohrich
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body pushing for laws that would limit man-made carbon emissions through a series of ultra-draconian regulations aimed primarily at developed nations, has a dirty little secret: its scientists have fudged their data to make the global warming picture look worse than it actually is.
That's what Douglas J. Keenan, an obvious global warming denier who bothered to check the documentation used by the IPCC's chief climatologist, Dr. P. D. Jones in the IPCC's latest report.
Jones, in conjunction with several other scientists published a paper purporting to use long-term data from 84 weather stations in China. The authors claimed these stations were chosen on the basis that they had not been changed or relocated since 1954 so that their data stream would provide a reliable record of temperatures over a 30+-year period.
Jones and his associates and later another IPCC scientist named Wang issued a similar report claimed that the stations were used because they had not been moved over a long period of time. "The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times. [Jones et al.] They were chosen based on station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times...." [Wang et al.]
But when checking over the claims made by Dr. Jones, Wang and their associates, Keenan discovered discrepancies that he says couldn't possibly be accidental. So the only logical conclusion is that Jones and his cohorts lied. Keenan's charge stemmed from the fact that the United States Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences issued a joint report, which stated that 49 of the 84 weather stations had no history as to location, or instrumentation changes available. The remaining 35 stations, Keenan discovered, had indeed had changes in instrumentation and movement, in one case, movement as much as 41 kms.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/klaus081607.htm

North Pole 'was once subtropical'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3631764.stm
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
They wouldn't be concerned in the least if not for the fear mongering. People like it warmer. 50 below isn't fun, as I can tell you from personal experience. Sure they are, and they were when it was cooling 35 years ago too Well why not? It's the biggest promotion in the world at this time. Everyone's aware of it, and the scare.Ah, yes carbon credits, a huge expenditure that has absolutely no effect other than to make some savvy entrepreneurs (like Reverend Al Gore) very rich indeed. But why are you repeating all this? No-one is denying that the climate is changing! If it weren't for all the scaremongering most people in Canada would be celebrating.

Ah, yes, they see which way the wind is blowing. The schools, leftwing politicians and the media have successfully brainwashed the population. Graduating school kids are the most thoroughly brainwashed and they are reaching the voting stage. Politicians can't ignore the numbers if they want to be re-elected. Common sense and ethical governance go out the window in favor of retaining power.

But let's not go on about this any more. As I said, I don't have the time for it. Instead, just give me your solution to the impending catastrophe. You, and all the other doomsayers say we have to do something. Tell me what your solution is. Tell me what we should do to save the world, something that would actually be effective.

Inquiring minds want to know.

What you call fear mongering, I call the bridging of the gap between what the public knows and what science tells us. Also, I could easily make the case for denialists and their fear mongering ways.

Carbon credits absolutely do work. That all you can say is something about Al Gore shows your true understanding of the issue and it's scope. The farm I was referring to takes carbon dioxide captured at the Irving oil refinery in Saint John New Brunswick, and injects it into the water to fertilize the crop so to speak. In fact the water is superstaurated with many different fertilizers, and gets tremendous growth as a result. The only limiting factor in this case is the temperature.

You have absolutely no idea. The farms I was at do not enjoy warmer tempertures. Temperature profiles are generated before a farm opens. The profile is important because aquatic species are very sensitive to even small changes. Too warm, and not only does growth suffer, but you get biofouling which results in lowered oxygen in the water. Species that normally wouldn't be found there invade, and how do you kill a pest in "mariculture" without harming your own crop/livestock? It's very expensive, and generates bad press. With good reason.

Graduating school kids are more brainwashed now then say 30-40 years ago? Hah. Older generations always say crap like that. There is just as much coverage in the media for skeptics as there is for AGW. It certainly depends on which organization you get your brand of truth from. I suspect most people are finally beginning to see the web of lies, the misdirection and wonky approach taken by the denialists.

This thread is about something very different. I have posted many comments in different threads about how we can work to mitigate and change our ways. I'll throw something together in the next few days/week and post it where appropriate.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
What you call fear mongering, I call the bridging of the gap between what the public knows and what science tells us.
The public knows very little, but believes the fearmongers. And the only ones saying what science tells us are the "deniers".
Also, I could easily make the case for denialists and their fear mongering ways.
You keep saying that, but I still don't understand how it can be fear mongering to say there's nothing to be afraid of. Unless you're referring to the costs of Kyoto compliance. That's not fear mongering, that's information.

Carbon credits absolutely do work. That all you can say is something about Al Gore shows your true understanding of the issue and it's scope. The farm I was referring to takes carbon dioxide captured at the Irving oil refinery in Saint John New Brunswick, and injects it into the water to fertilize the crop so to speak. In fact the water is superstaurated with many different fertilizers, and gets tremendous growth as a result. The only limiting factor in this case is the temperature.
I can say a lot more, but I thought everyone knew what a scam that is. Carbon credits, or offsets, are nothing more than wealth transfers. For example, if the gov't establishes a cap per capita on how much carbon a province is allowed, Alberta will doubtless be well over the limit. Quebec, on the other hand, may be well under it, depending on where it is set. Thus Quebec would have the difference between what it is allowed and what it actually emits as a credit, that it could sell to other provinces who have more than they're allowed. Alberta would then be able to buy credits from Quebec. Problem is, there would be no net reduction in emissions, but there would be a wealth transfer. NEP II. Offsets, where you can buy indulgences from some entrepreneur who will use a small part of your money to plant trees or invest in wind energy or the like may make a Hollywood actor feel better, but again, there's no reduction in emissions.

As for the farm utilizing CO2, that's not carbon credits, that's just utilization of a waste product. Great idea, I'm all for that type of thing. Problem is, when the animals/plants that utilize that CO2 are eaten/digested/decompose, the CO2 is released. No reduction.

You have absolutely no idea. The farms I was at do not enjoy warmer tempertures. Temperature profiles are generated before a farm opens. The profile is important because aquatic species are very sensitive to even small changes. Too warm, and not only does growth suffer, but you get biofouling which results in lowered oxygen in the water. Species that normally wouldn't be found there invade, and how do you kill a pest in "mariculture" without harming your own crop/livestock? It's very expensive, and generates bad press. With good reason.
Ah, that's not what you said before. You said they're concerned about global warming, when in fact they're concerned with the water temperature of their farms. Well, you're on the east coast. On the west coast, as I posted in another thread, we had unusually cool surface water temperatures this year, only half the increase that should have occurred over winter temps. I heard it on a CBC radio program, and of course they tried to blame it on global warming, without being able to come up with a scenario on how it could have caused the reduction.

Graduating school kids are more brainwashed now then say 30-40 years ago? Hah. Older generations always say crap like that. There is just as much coverage in the media for skeptics as there is for AGW. It certainly depends on which organization you get your brand of truth from. I suspect most people are finally beginning to see the web of lies, the misdirection and wonky approach taken by the denialists.
Nobody tried to indoctrinate us with political BS back then. When global cooling was the scare, the governments and schools ignored it, just taught the curriculum. Coverage for skeptics? Where? I only know two media outlets, National Post and Western Standard Magazine. I don't have cable TV, so my limited viewing (just news and re-runs of Frasier) doesn't include the other networks. Both CBC and Global are strongly pro-doomsayers, never giving air time to skeptics. The two local papers are also strongly pro-doomsday, printing many articles and editorials and columns on the approaching catastrophe, none on the opposing view, although they will print opposing letters. My radio is tuned to either an oldies station that has no news, or (most of the time) CBC, which is virulently pro-catastrophe. And since I've seen many examples of fraud, outright lies and outrageous doomsday scenarios from the global warming crowd, and nothing but science from the deniers, I'd say the web of lies, the misdirection and wonky approach is from the fearmongers.

This thread is about something very different. I have posted many comments in different threads about how we can work to mitigate and change our ways. I'll throw something together in the next few days/week and post it where appropriate.
Yeah, as I said, I don't have much time for this, enjoyable as your company is, I have other pursuits that are of higher priority, so I'm greatly limiting my time here. The question was intended to be my last topic as I bow out and spend my time elsewhere. I had posted the question on another thread, and expected the reply there.

Still no suggestions from you or anyone else (except typingrandomstuff). I'm amazed. I would have thought all those of you who so dearly want action taken would have a suggestion as to what action to take.
 
Last edited:

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
The public knows very little, but believes the fearmongers. And the only ones saying what science tells us are the "deniers".
That's your opinion. There are plenty of scientists doing good work every day who don't support your assertion. There are plenty of citizens who know more than you give them credit for.

You keep saying that, but I still don't understand how it can be fear mongering to say there's nothing to be afraid of. Unless you're referring to the costs of Kyoto compliance. That's not fear mongering, that's information.
And I would say that advocating we change our ways is not fear mongering, that is also information. Fear mongering goes both ways you know, and I'll be the first to say here that both sides have guilty parties involved.

I can say a lot more, but I thought everyone knew what a scam that is. Carbon credits, or offsets, are nothing more than wealth transfers. For example, if the gov't establishes a cap per capita on how much carbon a province is allowed, Alberta will doubtless be well over the limit. Quebec, on the other hand, may be well under it, depending on where it is set. Thus Quebec would have the difference between what it is allowed and what it actually emits as a credit, that it could sell to other provinces who have more than they're allowed. Alberta would then be able to buy credits from Quebec. Problem is, there would be no net reduction in emissions, but there would be a wealth transfer. NEP II. Offsets, where you can buy indulgences from some entrepreneur who will use a small part of your money to plant trees or invest in wind energy or the like may make a Hollywood actor feel better, but again, there's no reduction in emissions.

Now that is a load of fear mongering right there. You're presenting a carbon market as if Environment Canada would allocate ceilings based on provincial output, rather than giving certain industries a ceiling. It's ridiculous to give petrochemicals the same cap as say aerospace. And you're assuming that all of the trading would take place between provinces here in Canada. There is already a carbon trading market in Chicago, with companies making real cuts to emissions and selling their 'left-overs' to other companies that don't have the same intensity in R&D. Wal-Mart for instance could make money on carbon trading, after all of the changes they've made recently. Energy efficiency will be embraced by the corporate sector, and has to take place. We can't rely on regulations only to make meaningful changes.

Ah, that's not what you said before. You said they're concerned about global warming, when in fact they're concerned with the water temperature of their farms. Well, you're on the east coast. On the west coast, as I posted in another thread, we had unusually cool surface water temperatures this year, only half the increase that should have occurred over winter temps. I heard it on a CBC radio program, and of course they tried to blame it on global warming, without being able to come up with a scenario on how it could have caused the reduction.

Initially I said more than just temperature, I did say global warming, which brings about more than just temperature changes. My last post was in response to your wacky claim that warmer temperatures are more enjoyable. I said they aren't, most south shore farms would agree.

Nobody tried to indoctrinate us with political BS back then. When global cooling was the scare, the governments and schools ignored it, just taught the curriculum. Coverage for skeptics? Where? I only know two media outlets, National Post and Western Standard Magazine. I don't have cable TV, so my limited viewing (just news and re-runs of Frasier) doesn't include the other networks. Both CBC and Global are strongly pro-doomsayers, never giving air time to skeptics. The two local papers are also strongly pro-doomsday, printing many articles and editorials and columns on the approaching catastrophe, none on the opposing view, although they will print opposing letters. My radio is tuned to either an oldies station that has no news, or (most of the time) CBC, which is virulently pro-catastrophe. And since I've seen many examples of fraud, outright lies and outrageous doomsday scenarios from the global warming crowd, and nothing but science from the deniers, I'd say the web of lies, the misdirection and wonky approach is from the fearmongers.

Well, I have no idea how old you are, but indoctrinating young people is nothing new. Duck and cover, skin colour, evil socialists, russians bad, evolution is wrong. Every generation has had political muck flung at them during their upbringing, mine is no different, except to say that it is more mobile, and pervasive now due to the increased transmission of information, and in this case disinformation.

CBC has ran pro-skeptic programs before. News panels on TV have skeptics and pro-AGW guests.

Speaking of misdirection, did you catch the hoopla about James Hansen recently? More lies from the pro-skeptic media. Blatant lies....
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
"... They were chosen based on station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times...." [Wang et al.]

... The remaining 35 stations, Keenan discovered, had indeed had changes in instrumentation and movement, in one case, movement as much as 41 kms.

Those two statements are perfectly consistent. In fact on the scale of 41kms, one could approximate the Earth as flat and only be making an error of 0.066 km, which compared to the scale of 41km is an error of 2 parts in 1000. This just shows a lack understanding of continuity on Keenan's part, or scientific dishonesty if he does understand the sort of approximations that are normally made.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
And I would say that advocating we change our ways is not fear mongering, that is also information. Fear mongering goes both ways you know, and I'll be the first to say here that both sides have guilty parties involved.
If you were to suggest changing our ways to reduce oil consumption to lessen dependency on unstable Mid-East countries, or to lessen pollution, I would agree, that's not fear mongering, it's good sense. If you suggest cleaning up the pollution from coal fired sources, I'm with you. That's also not fear mongering. If you were to warn of the damage done to human respiratory systems from burning fossil fuels, I'm on your side. But the idea of global warming catastrophe is nothing more that fear mongering. Have you checked out Bjorn Lomborg? He believes in anthropological global warming. He's left wing politically. But he decries the hysteria and waste of money on futile attempts to halt the warming, and suggests the money would do much more good elsewhere.

And I'm still waiting for an example of fear mongering on the denier side. There well may be some, but as yet I haven't seen it.

Now that is a load of fear mongering right there. You're presenting a carbon market as if Environment Canada would allocate ceilings based on provincial output, rather than giving certain industries a ceiling. It's ridiculous to give petrochemicals the same cap as say aerospace. And you're assuming that all of the trading would take place between provinces here in Canada. There is already a carbon trading market in Chicago, with companies making real cuts to emissions and selling their 'left-overs' to other companies that don't have the same intensity in R&D. Wal-Mart for instance could make money on carbon trading, after all of the changes they've made recently. Energy efficiency will be embraced by the corporate sector, and has to take place. We can't rely on regulations only to make meaningful changes.
I merely invented a simple example to show how totally useless it is.

Let me try to be more specific. Suppose company "A" cut's their emissions by 30 tons, and their cap required a reduction of 20 tons. That extra 10 tons is available for sale. Company "B" is unable to cut their emissions and is 30 tons over their cap.

Scenario 1. No credits are traded/sold, no money changes hands. Total reduction - 30 tons.
Scenario 2. Company "B" buys 10 tons worth of credits from company "A". Total reduction - 30 tons.

Here's another real life example of how the system fails to reduce, and may actually increase emissions. France has set caps on industries, and any company over their limit must pay X francs per tonne. LaFarge found that even with the newest technology they would be unable to come close to their cap. So they shut down the factory, putting hundreds of employees out of work permanently, and moved their manufacturing to Morocco. Net result - France's emissions are lowered more than expected, a bonus for their target efforts. Morocco's emissions increase the amount that France's decreased, plus the cost of transporting all that cement to France means emissions increased overall.

Initially I said more than just temperature, I did say global warming, which brings about more than just temperature changes. My last post was in response to your wacky claim that warmer temperatures are more enjoyable. I said they aren't, most south shore farms would agree.
You said they were all worried about global warming. What you should have said is they were worried about temperature increases for their farms. And if you think 50 below is enjoyable you obviously haven't even come close to experiencing it.


Well, I have no idea how old you are, but indoctrinating young people is nothing new. Duck and cover, skin colour, evil socialists, russians bad, evolution is wrong. Every generation has had political muck flung at them during their upbringing, mine is no different, except to say that it is more mobile, and pervasive now due to the increased transmission of information, and in this case disinformation.
Duck and cover was before my time and wasn't Canadian in any event. There was no discrimination on skin colour, we had East Indian, Japanese, Aboriginal, African students in our schools. Dating between races was common. Politics was presented in a balanced manner, no preference given to any position on the spectrum. It was not considered appropriate for schools or their teachers to get political with students. Russians were presented in a neutral manner, we were taught about how they were our allies in WWII and were now opposed to us. No opinion on who was right or wrong in the cold war was advanced. Religion was neither promoted nor taught, although there was an extracurricular club for those who wished to join after classes called the Inter School Christian Fellowship. (I didn't participate in that, few students did). There was no denigration of evolution. Everything seemed to be presented in a neutral manner, like they didn't want to step on anyones toes. The only political muck I had flung at me came from my father who was very left wing (Openly on the side of the Russians in the cold war). He considered socialism to be the be-all and end-all, even though he himself made his fortune by capitalism 8O. Go figure. By the way, I'm 60.

CBC has ran pro-skeptic programs before. News panels on TV have skeptics and pro-AGW guests.
As I said, I watch very little TV other than the news. I listen quite a bit to CBC radio, but haven't heard any skeptics there. Only cheerleaders for AGW.

Speaking of misdirection, did you catch the hoopla about James Hansen recently? More lies from the pro-skeptic media. Blatant lies....
Never heard of James Hansen. Where was that on?

Here's an unrelated question that falls into your field: Some years ago I heard of someone who had developed a system of raising prawns in tanks (I believe in Saskatchewan). Have you heard of it? Has anything come of it? Sounded like a good idea to me if it could be done economically.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Catastrophes related to climate change are observations at this point in time and no longer predictions. Observations can hardly be called fear mongering, unless one believes that all news is fear mongering.

Some examples: increased frequency of weather related disasters, year round opening of the Northwest passage and Norwegian and Russian equivalents, warmer winters interrupting the hibernations of northern mammals, bublebees and butterflies flying around the UK in December, and other things which I am unaware of. On their own each of these events may not have statistical significance to imply the reality of climate change, but when considered as observations and used to determine likelihoods the results are quite firm.

The problem is that skeptics want to deal with one observation at a time, but not in a formal setting. So the prior probabilities are never updated and they can constantly call for an unrealistic standard of evidence.