Finaly ONE senator understands global warming (long, scroll button) - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Seaver · 11-20-2006, 09:00 AM

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp

Quote:

Antarctic Ice Sheet Mass Balance Reference
Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635.

What was done
The authors "analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003." This survey, in their words, "covers 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet," which together comprise "72% of the grounded ice sheet.""

What was learned
Wingham et al. report that "overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1." To calculate the ice sheet's change in mass, however, "requires knowledge of the density at which the volume changes have occurred," and when the researchers' best estimates of regional differences in this parameter are used, they find that "72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year-1, a sink of ocean mass sufficient to lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm year-1." This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic mass loss from West Antarctica."

What it means
Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more.
Reviewed 8 November 2006

So global warming causes ice caps to grow? Sorry if I dont believe the hype with all this conflicting scientific data which is simply ignored.

dc_dux · 11-20-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO.../V9/N45/C2.jsp

So global warming causes ice caps to grow? Sorry if I dont believe the hype with all this conflicting scientific data which is simply ignored.

I know its more politically advantageous for some to believe the organization behind the "co2science" article/site - the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, wth its funding and ties to "big oil" - then to believe the "hype" and research of the National Academy of Sciences or the the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body which involves thousands of scientists from over 120 countries.

I agree there is "conflicting scientific data", but I would suggest that the preponerance of recent, independent, peer-reviewed data leans toward some measure of human activity as a contributing factor to global warming.

BUT, even assuming the "confliciting scientific data" supports neither position, the fact that there is "conflicting scientific data" is enough reason alone for continued research by government science agencies.

Willravel · 11-20-2006, 09:35 AM

Ustwo, you have to read Host's next post in it's entirity now.

host · 11-20-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intense1

So what you're saying, ustwo, is that Al Gore is basically potentially full of crap, is that it? Hey, we Tennesseans have known that for years - that's why we didn't put him over the top in 2000!

I am like most Americans and don't have a true in-depth knowledge of the science of climate activity, but I do know enough to realize that when dueling apologists appear, one doesn't pick one's side before fully checking out the information presented by both. Pity the rest of America is so indoctrinated to believe the doom's day theory of "global warming" over Sen. Imhoffe's. Especially when his arguement has been so well presented. (Yes, I read it all)

Edited to state: Just because an argument comes from someone who is in a political party that one doesn't espouse doesn't mean that this view point isn't valid, Host and Roachboy. Pardon me for saying, but it appears that the two of you seem to discount any argument that doesn't fit in with your view of how you see the world. You just want to put down what doesn't fit with your views. That's your right - just as it's my right to give my view.

I would be interested in reading your own assessment of the consequences for Tenn. and the U.S., of your voting decisions (of candidates for federal elected offices), over the span of the last thirty years.

With regard to the issue of global warming, as in our earlier debate about the consequences of Tenn.'s support for Bush instead of Gore in 2000, I've "followed the money"......there is a signifigant longterm, monetary cost because a Tenn. voting majority backed Bush in 2000, and not Gore. The signifigant sums expended to counter the opinions of mainstream science about the threat from global warming have come from business interests fighting a perceived threat to their bottomline:

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/sto...2612021&page=1
Senators to Exxon: Stop the Denial
By CLAYTON SANDELL

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27, 2006 — ExxonMobil should stop funding groups that have spread the idea that global warming is a myth and that try to influence policymakers to adopt that view, two senators said today in a letter to the oil company.

In their letter to ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson, Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., appealed to Exxon's sense of corporate responsibility, asking the company to "come clean about its past denial activities."

The two senators called on ExxonMobil to "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth."

Phone calls to ExxonMobil were not immediately returned to ABC News.

An upcoming study from the Union of Concerned Scientists reported that ExxonMobil funded 29 climate change denial groups in 2004 alone. Since 1990, the report said, the company has spent more than $19 million funding groups that promote their views through publications and Web sites that are not peer reviewed by the scientific community.

The senators singled out the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank, and the Tech Central Station Web site as beneficiaries of Exxon's efforts to sow doubt within the public about the scientific consensus behind global warming.

"We are convinced that ExxonMobil's long-standing support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics' access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy," the letter said.

The letter said ExxonMobil's efforts to confuse haven't worked everywhere.

"It has failed miserably in confusing, much less convincing, the legitimate scientific community," the senators wrote......

"tech central station" has changed it's name to TCSdaily.com and last month, announced the sale of that site to it's editor, Nich Schulz, formerly employed by foxnews....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...onfessore.html
December 2003

Meet the Press
How James Glassman reinvented journalism--as lobbying.

By Nicholas Confessore

.......As a writer and public figure, Glassman has, over time, aligned his views with those of the business interests that dominate K Street and support the Republican Party; he has also increasingly taken aggressive positions on one side or another of intra-industry debates, rather like a corporate lobbyist. Nowhere is this more apparent than on TCS, where Glassman and his colleagues have weighed in on everything from which telecommunications technologies should be the most heavily regulated to whether Microsoft is a threat to other software companies.

But TCS doesn't just act like a lobbying shop. It's actually published by one--the DCI Group, a prominent Washington "public affairs" firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called "Astroturf" organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot. The two organizations share most of the same owners, some staff, and even the same suite of offices in downtown Washington, a block off K Street. As it happens, many of DCI's clients are also "sponsors" of the site it houses. TCS not only runs the sponsors' banner ads; its contributors aggressively defend those firms' policy positions, on TCS and elsewhere.

James Glassman and TCS have given birth to something quite new in Washington: journo-lobbying. It's an innovation driven primarily by the influence industry. ......

.......The articles on Tech Central Station address a broad range of issues, some of concern to its sponsors, many not. And most of the site's authors are no doubt merely voicing opinions they have already reached. But time and time again, TCS's coverage of particular issues has had the appearance of a well-aimed P.R. blitz. After ExxonMobil became a sponsor, for instance, the site published a flurry of content attacking both the Kyoto accord to limit greenhouse gasses and the science of global warming--which happen to be among Exxon-Mobil's chief policy concerns in Washington.

TCS's articles have also complemented work being done by DCI...........

Here is what Richard Mellon Scaife's "fish wrap" weighed in with:

Quote:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_480324.html
Monday, November 20, 2006

A letter about global warming from two U.S. senators to CEO Rex W. Tillerson, chairman the Exxon Mobil Corp., could have a chilling effect on free speech and free thinking.

In their crude attempt to replace rational thought with group-think, Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, want ExxonMobil and any other past corporate sponsor of the "denial" campaign to stop funding organizations that don't blame mankind for Earth's latest warming trend and "to foster greater understanding of the necessity of action on a truly global scale before it is too late."

Mr. Rockefeller and Mrs. Snowe clearly hope to monopolize the debate about the possible causes of global warming. Yes, some scientists accuse humans. But other scientists claim warming and cooling simply are characteristics of this planet, man notwithstanding. And there are many more who have other theories or remain undecided.

But will others be heard if Rockefeller and Snowe silence anyone who might not agree with them? Why are they so threatened by any other hypothesis?

Man's mind was not created to be chained. Solutions come from comprehension -- not coercion. Reason does not need bullies to silence the irrational. Truth speaks for itself.

Scaife's newspaper couldn't disputed the points in the bipartisan Snowe Rockefeller letter....so it accused Rockefeller and Snowe of hoping to "monopolize the debate about global warming". It is a debate where one side is funded by the fossil fuel industry......

Intense1, the theme of the majority of my posts is the question, "how do you know what you know?" While you were receptive to the "values centric" message of the candidates who you voted for, I was "following the money", and......I can assure you....so were the candidates who you voted for.

On most issues that you've posted about, your positions are "in synch" with those of Richard Mellon Scaife and L. Brent Bozell III. The former has spent a lot of money, and the latter, a lot of effort, to achieve that result.

If for no other reason, and there are many, IMO.....it would serve you well to examine what is up, with that.

Seaver · 11-20-2006, 12:58 PM

Host, I'm not saying that big oil has a vested interest of debunking global warming. That is like saying that the global warming community has no vested interest in overblowing the potential impact or their level of understanding of global temperature events.

If this data is accurate, regardless of who funds the research, then it gives ample justification for critisism of the Global Warming community. If you wish to stop big oil funding of the anti-Global Warming community, then you must also stop the Heinz Fund from funding Global Warming research.

Do you think that Mrs. Heinz-Kerry and the Democrats have less purpose in their research as Exxon-Mobile? If you are going to use these excuses to ignore the research, which I would not blame you if you did, then you have the duty to do it evenly on both sides.

BTW, did big oil invest the research by my prior post about Armagh Observatory? Their research has spanned over 200 years of daily temperature readings, which found the earth had in fact cooled. Did big oil have that long a history of funding research?

boatin · 11-20-2006, 01:31 PM

Seaver,

I think your logic about the funding is good, and I buy the sense and fairness of it. The problem I have is that the outcomes are not the same both ways. If global warming is a sham, and the global warm-ers all get rich, that sucks.

If the anti global warming types are wrong, we all die in a flood. (I know that's an overstatement, btw). This wouldn't hold up in court, but I feel like 'everything is fine crowd' should have a higher burden of proof.

I think this is the same reason so many congress people voted for war in Iraq - the consequences of being wrong about WMDs are SO huge it's worth the extra caution. And if it turns out that the global warm-ers are cooking the books to only see that side of it, we should be as pissed as people are about WMDs.

For now, for me, I'm not seeing malfeasance on the side of the Al Gore army. Perhaps they are wrong - but I'd rather err on that side until we know more.

dc_dux · 11-20-2006, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Host, I'm not saying that big oil has a vested interest of debunking global warming. That is like saying that the global warming community has no vested interest in overblowing the potential impact or their level of understanding of global temperature events.

If this data is accurate, regardless of who funds the research, then it gives ample justification for critisism of the Global Warming community. If you wish to stop big oil funding of the anti-Global Warming community, then you must also stop the Heinz Fund from funding Global Warming research.

Do you think that Mrs. Heinz-Kerry and the Democrats have less purpose in their research as Exxon-Mobile? If you are going to use these excuses to ignore the research, which I would not blame you if you did, then you have the duty to do it evenly on both sides.

BTW, did big oil invest the research by my prior post about Armagh Observatory? Their research has spanned over 200 years of daily temperature readings, which found the earth had in fact cooled. Did big oil have that long a history of funding research?

I think its disingenuous of those who like to "debunk" global warming to cherry pick research, like your Amagh reference, without at least acknowledging that scientists at the facility also stress the need for further research on global warming:

Quote:

Of the problems facing the human race today, none is more pressing in the medium term than change in the global climate. Global warming, if it continues at the current rate for a century or more, is expected to cause increasing desertification of some parts of the world simultaneously with rising sea levels. No country is immune from the effects of global warming, but those with extensive coastlines, such as Ireland and Britain, have particular cause for concern. Although it can be argued that climate has never been stable, we cannot plan for the industrial and social requirements of the future unless we understand the causes of climate change – i.e. are they natural or anthropogenic in origin, to what degree do the various factors contribute, and what will the consequences be?
...

The results suggest that much of the global warming that has occurred over the last century could in principal have derived from the known changes in solar activity levels and their predicted effects on low clouds. However, when we look at the actual observed cloud data from various parts of the world, including Ireland, since the beginning of the 20th century, we find that the picture is more complicated and that changes in cloud at all levels must be taken into account before we can reliably predict the full contribution of clouds to global warming.

Thus we see how mundane and often tedious meteorological observations, if gathered over a sufficient time, can give us important clues about the real causes of global warming.

http://www.irishscientist.ie/2001/co...=IS01pages.xsl

I think its also a bit farfetched to suggest or imply that "Mrs. Heinz-Kerry and the Democrats" are somehow responsible for such independent research as that conducted by the National Academy of Sciences and the UN Climate study group.

I agree with Boatin's conclusion: I'd rather err on that side (of further study) until we know more. The demagogery by either side serves no scientific or public policy interest.

Seaver · 11-20-2006, 05:49 PM

While I concede the point that, if Global Warming exists to the point the alarmists state, it could be extremely dangerous.

However, giving into the hype while evidence is completely inconclusive holds equally drastic problems. How do we lower CO2 emissions without completely altering our economy? We have no other cost-effective mass energy production as of yet outside of nuclear power. Hydrogen-fuel cars take vastly more energy to produce per energy output then gasoline, and produce just as much CO2 because the energy to split the water molecule is produced primarily by coal plants.

The only effective alternative to nuclear would be air/sun production, but those change by the minute so would require the old standby coal.

And cars, working at good efficiency, only produce water and CO2. If we are to lower emissions we would have to lower the amount of cars. If we are to get rid of the hundreds of millions of cars in America we damn well better be sure that Global Warming is an actual threat.

Oh yeah, what ever happened to the predicted worse-than-last-year hurricane season? We've had a killer 0 hurricanes this year.

dc_dux · 11-20-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

How do we lower CO2 emissions without completely altering our economy? We have no other cost-effective mass energy production as of yet outside of nuclear power.

Perhaps we will find out how to lower emissions in an economically practical way from California.

Schwarzenegger signed The Global Warming Solutions Act earlier this year. It is designed to limit the state's carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and allows for the use of market mechanisms to provide incentives to businesses to reduce emissions.

Specifically, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires the Calfornia Air Resources Board to:

# Establish a statewide greenhouse gas emissions cap for 2020, based on 1990 emissions by January 1, 2008.
# Adopt mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of greenhouse gases by January 1, 2009.
# Adopt a plan by January 1, 2009 indicating how emission reductions will be achieved from significant greenhouse gas sources via regulations, market mechanisms and other actions.
# Adopt regulations by January 1, 2011 to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas, including provisions for using both market mechanisms and alternative compliance mechanisms.
# Convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and an Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee to advise CARB.
# Ensure public notice and opportunity for comment for all CARB actions.
# Prior to imposing any mandates or authorizing market mechanisms, CARB must evaluate several factors, including but not limited to impacts on California's economy, the environment and public health; equity between regulated entities; electricity reliability, conformance with other environmental laws and ensure that the rules do not disproportionately impact low-income communities.

http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/

California has the 5th largest economy in the world and one possible economic outcome is that it may very well provide the incentives for more start-up companies in developing alternative energy solutions and applications just as it was the start-up home of the computer technology and the bio-tech industries. Buidlign on this existing technology base, many California start-ups are already exploring possibilities through new applications of nano-technology.

Quote:

Oh yeah, what ever happened to the predicted worse-than-last-year hurricane season? We've had a killer 0 hurricanes this year.

I dont know any reputable scientist who would come to conclusions on climate changes based on one year's occurence of hurricanes, notwithstanding global warming opponents suggesting that this occurence is evidence of something (?).

Ustwo · 02-05-2007, 01:07 PM

Long time no post, and while I don't plan on posting anytime soon again, I saw this and had to think of all you arm chair experts out there.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...6fef8763c6&k=0

The meat of it.

Quote:

...
Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

I'm glad that some scientists are finally looking beyond the buzz and discovering what I and others have concluded for years. No amount of 'PCing' should be allowed to effect scientific judgement.

This is the inconvienent truth, but its inconvienent for those who turn science into another tool to manipulate the masses with.

ratbastid · 02-05-2007, 02:33 PM

Ironic you'd post this, given the news yesterday that Exxon-Mobil:

1) Posted the largest annual profit ever made by a US company, $39.5 billion, and

2) Secretly offered a share of that profit (a cool $10k) to any environment scientist willing to cast doubt on the single biggest threat to their ongoing profitability, global warming.

One wonders whether Dr. Shaviv is $10,000 richer today...

Welcome back for however briefly you're back, Ustwo. Hasn't been the same around Tilted Politics without you.

pig · 02-05-2007, 02:51 PM

I don't know Ustwo: I don't have time to read this in its entirety yet, but I don't think that anything has been refuted outright. I just see healthy scientific debate. I'm pretty sure that most proponents of CO2-driven global warming theories concede the importance of solar activity. This guy is saying that he believes that solar activity is the dominant factor in global warming, and that CO2 is a minor (insigificant) factor. Sounds like he passed peer-review - is he the only guy out there saying this? I doubt it. Regardless, I would guess it'll shake out when others have a chance to address his points.

Interesting link - thanks for the information. Hope 2007 is treating you ok.

11-20-2006, 12:58 PM	#45 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Host, I'm not saying that big oil has a vested interest of debunking global warming. That is like saying that the global warming community has no vested interest in overblowing the potential impact or their level of understanding of global temperature events. If this data is accurate, regardless of who funds the research, then it gives ample justification for critisism of the Global Warming community. If you wish to stop big oil funding of the anti-Global Warming community, then you must also stop the Heinz Fund from funding Global Warming research. Do you think that Mrs. Heinz-Kerry and the Democrats have less purpose in their research as Exxon-Mobile? If you are going to use these excuses to ignore the research, which I would not blame you if you did, then you have the duty to do it evenly on both sides. BTW, did big oil invest the research by my prior post about Armagh Observatory? Their research has spanned over 200 years of daily temperature readings, which found the earth had in fact cooled. Did big oil have that long a history of funding research? __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

11-20-2006, 05:49 PM	#48 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	While I concede the point that, if Global Warming exists to the point the alarmists state, it could be extremely dangerous. However, giving into the hype while evidence is completely inconclusive holds equally drastic problems. How do we lower CO2 emissions without completely altering our economy? We have no other cost-effective mass energy production as of yet outside of nuclear power. Hydrogen-fuel cars take vastly more energy to produce per energy output then gasoline, and produce just as much CO2 because the energy to split the water molecule is produced primarily by coal plants. The only effective alternative to nuclear would be air/sun production, but those change by the minute so would require the old standby coal. And cars, working at good efficiency, only produce water and CO2. If we are to lower emissions we would have to lower the amount of cars. If we are to get rid of the hundreds of millions of cars in America we damn well better be sure that Global Warming is an actual threat. Oh yeah, what ever happened to the predicted worse-than-last-year hurricane season? We've had a killer 0 hurricanes this year. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

02-05-2007, 02:51 PM	#52 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	I don't know Ustwo: I don't have time to read this in its entirety yet, but I don't think that anything has been refuted outright. I just see healthy scientific debate. I'm pretty sure that most proponents of CO2-driven global warming theories concede the importance of solar activity. This guy is saying that he believes that solar activity is the dominant factor in global warming, and that CO2 is a minor (insigificant) factor. Sounds like he passed peer-review - is he the only guy out there saying this? I doubt it. Regardless, I would guess it'll shake out when others have a chance to address his points. Interesting link - thanks for the information. Hope 2007 is treating you ok. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

11-20-2006, 09:35 AM	#43 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Ustwo, you have to read Host's next post in it's entirity now.

11-20-2006, 01:31 PM	#46 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	Seaver, I think your logic about the funding is good, and I buy the sense and fairness of it. The problem I have is that the outcomes are not the same both ways. If global warming is a sham, and the global warm-ers all get rich, that sucks. If the anti global warming types are wrong, we all die in a flood. (I know that's an overstatement, btw). This wouldn't hold up in court, but I feel like 'everything is fine crowd' should have a higher burden of proof. I think this is the same reason so many congress people voted for war in Iraq - the consequences of being wrong about WMDs are SO huge it's worth the extra caution. And if it turns out that the global warm-ers are cooking the books to only see that side of it, we should be as pissed as people are about WMDs. For now, for me, I'm not seeing malfeasance on the side of the Al Gore army. Perhaps they are wrong - but I'd rather err on that side until we know more.

02-05-2007, 02:33 PM	#51 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Ironic you'd post this, given the news yesterday that Exxon-Mobil: 1) Posted the largest annual profit ever made by a US company, $39.5 billion, and 2) Secretly offered a share of that profit (a cool $10k) to any environment scientist willing to cast doubt on the single biggest threat to their ongoing profitability, global warming. One wonders whether Dr. Shaviv is $10,000 richer today... Welcome back for however briefly you're back, Ustwo. Hasn't been the same around Tilted Politics without you.