Global Cooling - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 05-11-2008, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

CO2 doesn't cause asthma.

CO2 emissions from vehicles and power plants contribute to ozone pollution which adversely impacts public health...just try staying outside on a ozone alert day in Chicago this summer.

Chicago Department of Environment

Quote:

Summer in Chicago brings the potential for high ozone days--days when our air quality may be unhealthy. Ground-level ozone is an air pollutant that forms on very warm, calm days when sunlight reacts with certain industrial, automotive and household pollutants. In high concentrations, ozone may cause respiratory problems, decrease lung function and damage lung tissue. It can also aggravate the symptoms of asthma. Children, the elderly, individuals with existing respiratory problems and individuals who exercise or work outdoors are most susceptible to the adverse effects of high ozone levels, but even healthy people are at risk.

host · 05-11-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

CO2 emissions from vehicles and power plants contribute to ozone pollution which adversely impacts public health...just try staying outside on a ozone alert day in Chicago this summer.

Chicago Department of Environment

dc_dux, why even bother? The man posts that "he knows what he knows"....the "environmentalists" are the ones spending all the millions of dollars to spread misinformation for god know what reasons....and if it wasn't for Exxon and other polluters spending so much to fund sites like "Tech Central Station", and organizations that sponsor venues for the fine Senator Inhofe's brilliant press flack, Marc Morano, to present "the truth" about global warming, where on earth would we be?

The environmentalists might sucker us into spending a fraction of what the great war to find the WMD, overthrow the evil dictator, and liberate the good people of Iraq is costing us.

Horrors...musn't have that. The American Petroleum Institute will fund the exposure of liberal hacks, like Al Gore, regarding the great global warming hoax he is leading. We know what we know, after all....we've been right about Al Qaeda being in Iraq, about all the WMD hidden there.....about the integrity and fine and able leadership of our president....

What have you been right about, dc_dux?

Ustwo · 05-12-2008, 04:15 AM

Ok now that I have some time I need to expound on this.

DC, your statement is almost everything thats wrong with the 'environmental' movement right now.

Yes, ozone pollution is a problem, its a bad thing. Combustion engines create pollutants which are bad for the environment, such as SO2, NO2, CO, and particulate matter, ALL of which are bad and should be reduced.

But you state 'CO2 emissions' not 'pollution' or what REALLY creates ozone pollution, NO2, but CO2 emissions as if CO2 is the major problem. You are trying to work in that fear, that buggaboo of global warming into the equation to scare people into doing SOMETHING now. Its interfering with really dealing with the real pollution. The cleanest, pollution free internal combustion engine would produce CO2 and water. If there was a new engine which did just that, even if it was quite expensive, I'd be in full support of making such engines mandatory is they would be eliminating huge amounts of measurable and verifiable environmental damage and potential harmful effects to humans.

Instead, we have made CO2 the main enemy, and therefore internal combustion the enemy no matter how 'clean' the burning. This is of course what many of the radical environmentalists want, they see the good of removing the other pollutants worth perpetuating the fear of global warming, even if not true. They think people are too stupid to do whats right, so they can say things like 'CO2 emissions causing ozone pollution' even though CO2 has nothing to do with ozone pollution.

One of the major issues with O3 (thats ozone) is damage to crops/plants, and interestingly increased CO2 helps to negate the negative effects of O3. Basically we are releasing a poison, O3, and releasing the antidote CO2 at least as far as plants are concerned. Animals on the other hand, not so much.

silent_jay · 05-12-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Um... can you name a single Inuit city of 6,000? Can you name a single Inuit city?

No, they live in VERY small bands and are very nomadic. That's not exactly the Norse tradition.

Yes I can Iqaluit.

dc_dux · 05-12-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ok now that I have some time I need to expound on this.

DC, your statement is almost everything thats wrong with the 'environmental' movement right now.

Yes, ozone pollution is a problem, its a bad thing. Combustion engines create pollutants which are bad for the environment, such as SO2, NO2, CO, and particulate matter, ALL of which are bad and should be reduced.

But you state 'CO2 emissions' not 'pollution' or what REALLY creates ozone pollution, NO2, but CO2 emissions as if CO2 is the major problem. You are trying to work in that fear, that buggaboo of global warming into the equation to scare people into doing SOMETHING now. Its interfering with really dealing with the real pollution. The cleanest, pollution free internal combustion engine would produce CO2 and water. If there was a new engine which did just that, even if it was quite expensive, I'd be in full support of making such engines mandatory is they would be eliminating huge amounts of measurable and verifiable environmental damage and potential harmful effects to humans.

Instead, we have made CO2 the main enemy, and therefore internal combustion the enemy no matter how 'clean' the burning. This is of course what many of the radical environmentalists want, they see the good of removing the other pollutants worth perpetuating the fear of global warming, even if not true. They think people are too stupid to do whats right, so they can say things like 'CO2 emissions causing ozone pollution' even though CO2 has nothing to do with ozone pollution.

One of the major issues with O3 (thats ozone) is damage to crops/plants, and interestingly increased CO2 helps to negate the negative effects of O3. Basically we are releasing a poison, O3, and releasing the antidote CO2 at least as far as plants are concerned. Animals on the other hand, not so much.

Ustwo....I didnt say CO2 causes ozone pollution. I said it contributes to it. I agree it may have been poorly worded.

CO2 emitted from fossil fuels burned at power plants and in vehicles causes excess heat to be trapped thus contributing to conditions for ground level ozone pollution....or simply put, excessive CO2 emissions from these sources contribute to air pollution. As more and more CO2 is emitted from anthropogenic sources, the Earth's (forests/plants and oceans) ability to soak up or re-absorb these billions of tons of carbon each year are diminished.

Is that better?

Perhaps this is the solution.....horse power

Quote:

The horse walks on a fibreglass treadmill, generating enough power to move the 300kg Naturmobil along on six motorcycle wheels.

http://www.xpress4me.com/news/uae/dubai/20007183.html

Oh wait.....methane.

Seaver · 05-12-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Yes I can Iqaluit.

Um.. it was founded in 1942 by the military as an airbase... doesn't quite count.

silent_jay · 05-12-2008, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Demographics- Inuit 57.9%

Languages- Non Official 53.2% (predominantly Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun but includes other First Nations languages and non-official)

Long regarded as a campsite and fishing spot by the Inuit, the place chosen had traditionally been named Iqaluit - "many fish" in Inuktitut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqaluit#Demographics

Quote:

doesn't quite count.

You sure about that?

Um...I believe your question was:

Quote:

Um... can you name a single Inuit city of 6,000? Can you name a single Inuit city?

Which I did, would you like some more Inuit cities, I can name quite a few:
Rankin Inlet 2,358 in 2006
Arviat 2,060
Baker Lake 1,728
Igloolik 1,538
Cambridge Bay 1,477
Pangnirtung 1,325
Pond Inlet 1,315
Kugluktuk 1,302
Cape Dorset 1,236
All those are predominately Inuit cities, and Iqaluit is over 6000 so I believe I have taken care of your questions.

Here's some more information for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit

Ustwo · 05-12-2008, 08:17 PM

Which is a completely moot point, regardless of how big Inuit settlements may have been 500 years ago because no Vikings were living on ice sheets eating seal meat.

Its documented, we have the ruins, we have the accounts, we have the remains.

Vikings were raising cattle and sheep on Greenland doing quite well at first and then over the years it got colder and colder forcing them to leave or starve.

This has only come into question, not because of real evidence, but because it clashes with what global warming alarmists want to claim about current temperatures in relation to past ones.

This is really an excellent straw man for me to beat the crap out of if anyone really wants to argue this point, so please, argue away.

pig · 05-13-2008, 03:35 AM

Just dropping in to point out that not all internal combustion engines put out CO2, only those combusting hydrocarbons

carry on. i'm not sure I can get into this again right now, but I'm enjoying the reading. Following sources. Checking things out. Have a nice day fellow TFP environmental debate type people.

dc_dux · 05-13-2008, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Which is a completely moot point, regardless of how big Inuit settlements may have been 500 years ago because no Vikings were living on ice sheets eating seal meat.

Its documented, we have the ruins, we have the accounts, we have the remains.

Vikings were raising cattle and sheep on Greenland doing quite well at first and then over the years it got colder and colder forcing them to leave or starve.

This has only come into question, not because of real evidence, but because it clashes with what global warming alarmists want to claim about current temperatures in relation to past ones.

This is really an excellent straw man for me to beat the crap out of if anyone really wants to argue this point, so please, argue away.

So this is what it has come to....Ustwo beating the crap out of anyone who wants to argue about Vikings or Inuits raising cattle and sheep.

Ustwo...how about responding to the fact that nearly every credible science body/organization in the world has endorsed the IPCC position that post-industrial revolution human activities have resulted in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases that are highly likely to contribute to climate change.

Do you know of any scientific bodies/organizations that do not support this position?

Ustwo · 05-13-2008, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

So this is what it has come to....Ustwo beating the crap out of anyone who wants to argue about Vikings or Inuits raising cattle and sheep.

Actually it was NOT raising cattle and sheep, and I don't think you 'get' my point, and I know you don't understand the science. It really had nothing to do with anything you were saying in this thread, but other people. I also added that its a straw man because its such an easy global warming alarmist position to debunk. Its not even worth mentioning beyond a basic educational standpoint.

Quote:

Ustwo...how about responding to the fact that nearly every credible science body/organization in the world has endorsed the IPCC position that post-industrial revolution human activities have resulted in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases that are highly likely to contribute to climate change.

The IPCC is a political organization which does not allow descent in the ranks on global warming, this is documented and I addressed one scientists concern /resignation over it earlier in the thread. Saying we increased greenhouse gasses is not an issue, we have, what the effect is, is the issue.

Quote:

Do you know of any scientific bodies/organizations that do not support this position?

Scientific bodies? No, not off the top of my head. As you are well aware scientific bodies are political organizations based around money, be it the AMS or the ADA. I do have things like this though.

Quote:

Open Kyoto to debate

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming

Special to the Financial Post Published: Thursday, April 06, 2006

An open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper:

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational

headlines, they are no basis for mature policy

formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources

- - -

Sincerely,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

I suppose these people are all unqualified to analyze the data as well.

dc_dux · 05-13-2008, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The IPCC is a political organization which does not allow descent in the ranks on global warming, this is documented and I addressed one scientists concern /resignation over it earlier in the thread. Saying we increased greenhouse gasses is not an issue, we have, what the effect is, is the issue.

Scientific bodies? No, not off the top of my head. As you are well aware scientific bodies are political organizations based around money, be it the AMS or the ADA. I do have things like this though.

I suppose these people are all unqualified to analyze the data as well.

Ustwo...in fact, the IPCC does allow dissenting opinions, so your initial premise is incorrect.

A group of 60 scientists around the world representing a minority opinion should be heard. That is why the IPCC recommendations represent a consensus and not unanimous recommendations.

Beyond that, on the surface, these people certainly seem qualified to analyze the IPCC data. I would be interested in seeing where they might receive funding.

But IMO, its a bit disingenuous to assign political motives to those scientists and scientific bodies that endorse the IPCC recommendations and not to scientists who disagree (some of whom may be industry funded).

I assume you believe the latter group (dissenters) is somehow more pure than the former (endorsers). Why doesnt that surprise me?

update: I just searched one name on your list at random.

Timothy Francis Ball, Ph.D., is a retired university professor and global warming skeptic. He heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and formerly headed the activist organization Friends of Science, which was funded by energy industries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball

So why is he more credible and not politically motivated?

Or Arthur B. Robinson, Founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

Credible? Not politcially motivated?

silent_jay · 05-13-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Which is a completely moot point, regardless of how big Inuit settlements may have been 500 years ago because no Vikings were living on ice sheets eating seal meat.

Think it's moot all you like, I was answering a question Seaver asked.

As for your letter Ustwo, how many of those scientists posted past or emeritus positions as their main appointments? Only two (Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer) listed current appointments in a university department or a recognized research institute in climate science. There's even a journalist(David Wojick) on the list, and a social anthropologist(Benny Peiser), yep tons of climate change knowledge there.

Quote:

One of the signatories has since publicly recanted, stating that his signature was obtained by deception regarding the content of the letter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...nary_principle
Yep great letter you had there, rather easy to see why you used it as well, it followed your opinion, you agreed with it, didn't bother doing the research into it though.

Quote:

I suppose these people are all unqualified to analyze the data as well.

Considering that many of the signatories were non-scientists or lacked relevant scientific backgrounds(journalist anyone), I'd say that some are unqualified to analyse the data, or as qualified as you or any of us to analyse the data.

Here's a letter I found as well:

Quote:

An Open Letter to the Prime Minister of Canada
on Climate Change Science

April 18 2006

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P. Prime Minister of Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A3

Dear Prime Minister:
As climate science leaders from the academic, public and private sectors across Canada, we wish to convey our views on the current state of knowledge of climate change and to call upon you to provide national leadership in addressing the issue. The scientific views we express are shared by the vast majority of the national and international climate science community.

We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001, which has also been supported by the Royal Society of Canada and the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil. We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities” and of the 2005 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment that “Arctic temperatures have risen at almost twice the rate of those in the rest of the world over the past few decades”.

Climate variability and change is a global issue and the international IPCC process for assessment of climate science, with its rigorous scientific peer review processes, is the appropriate mechanism for assessing what is known and not known about climate science. Many Canadian climate scientists are participating in the preparation of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report which will be completed in 2007.

The following points emerge from the assessments and ongoing research by respected Canadian and international researchers:

• There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in
Canada and around the world.
• There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural
ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities.
• Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have
provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes.
• Canada needs a national climate change strategy with continued
investments in research to track the rate and nature of changes, understand what is happening, to refine projections of changes induced by anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases and to analyse opportunities and threats presented by these changes.

We have supplied justification and more detail for each of these points in the accompanying documentation.

We urge you and your government to develop an effective national strategy to deal with the many important aspects of climate that will affect both Canada and the rest of the world in the near future. We believe that sound policy requires good scientific input.

We would be pleased to provide a scientific briefing and further support, clarification and information at any time.

Yours sincerely:

Signed by 90 Canadian climate science leaders from the academic, public and private sectors across the country.

If you'd like a copy of the signatories I can provide them as well

Seaver · 05-14-2008, 04:38 AM

Quote:

All those are predominately Inuit cities, and Iqaluit is over 6000 so I believe I have taken care of your questions.

Fair enough. How about this, can you name a single settlement of 6,000 people on the ice BEFORE the advent of gas powered machines and airlifts?

It's a completely different beast when you can just fly in all the meat/veggies/etc you need vs. making/raising it yourself.

dc_dux · 05-14-2008, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Fair enough. How about this, can you name a single settlement of 6,000 people on the ice BEFORE the advent of gas powered machines and airlifts?

Can you name ONE 21st century scientific body anywhere in the world that doesnt support the position that anthropogenic emissions of GHG contribute to warming?

silent_jay · 05-15-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

It's a completely different beast when you can just fly in all the meat/veggies/etc you need vs. making/raising it yourself.

You think they fly in all the meat the Inuit in these places need? Seriously? Hilarious.

I like how you changed you original question to suit your arguments though, especially after the other question didn't go over so well for you.

Willravel · 05-15-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NASA

Earth Impacts Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change

A new NASA-led study shows that human-caused climate change has impacted a wide range of Earth's natural systems, from permafrost thawing to plants blooming earlier across Europe to lakes declining in productivity in Africa.

Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period. The study, published May 15 in the journal Nature, concludes that human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe.

"This is the first study to link global temperature data sets, climate model results, and observed changes in a broad range of physical and biological systems to show the link between humans, climate, and impacts," said Rosenzweig, lead author of the study.

Rosenzweig and colleagues also found that the link between human-caused climate change and observed impacts on Earth holds true at the scale of individual continents, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia.

To arrive at the link, the authors built and analyzed a database of more than 29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth's natural systems, collected from about 80 studies each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004. Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Impacts also included changes to biological systems, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and ranges of plant and animal species moving toward the poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.

The team conducted a "joint attribution" study in which they showed, first, that at the global scale, about 90 percent of observed changes in diverse physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. Other driving forces, such as land use change from forest to agriculture, were ruled out as having significant influence on the observed impacts.

Next, the scientists conducted statistical tests and found that the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. So, the team concluded that observed global-scale impacts are very likely due to human-caused warming.

"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the warming is causing impacts on physical and biological systems that are now attributable at the global scale and in North America, Europe, and Asia," said Rosenzweig.

On other continents, including Africa, South America, and Australia, documentation of observed changes in physical and biological systems is still sparse despite warming trends attributable to human causes. The authors concluded that environmental systems on these continents need additional research, especially in tropical and subtropical areas where there is a lack of impact data and published studies.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...an_impact.html

NASA: Humans are linked to global climate change.

Ustwo · 05-15-2008, 11:32 AM

Next, the scientists conducted statistical tests and found that the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. So, the team concluded that observed global-scale impacts are very likely due to human-caused warming.

This is the only interesting part of that article as it pertains to human created global warming. Without seeing how they did their meta analysis and what data sets were used I can't make any comment pro or con as the statement itself is presented sans evidence.

The idea is that we are warming (quite possible) and that its more than natural. So where does one draw the line between 'natural' and unnatural. Global temperatures are not at the highest point even in civilizations history, so the question is what makes this stand out to the scientists involved. How do they know what 'natural' is? Cynthia Rosenzweig is one of the biggest global warming is going to kill us all types out there, and while I do not discount her work based on her opinion of the matter, I do need more than a small blurb.

.....

Ok did a bit of looking, apparently its a Nature article, which I've been meaning to resubscribe to but haven't. Anything I can find about it is her focusing on the warming but not the human cause.

Interestingly if everything claimed in the study is in fact true, then somewhat ironically there is nothing to be done about it and the warming trend itself will not be reversible (without some sort of invasion of the 3rd world and China) and reducing the global standard of living tremendously.

......

Ok may have found this in the abstract...

Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, ...

They are saying its warmer because the IPCC said it was likely warmer due to human caused warming, they did not do any science on this themselves.

I'd like to think there was more too it than that but so far can't see it.

So basically the paper says things are warmer, which I am not arguing, and that its our fault because they say it is.

Thats special.

Ustwo · 05-18-2008, 11:17 PM

This is a story from today....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7404846.stm

Here is the screen capture, and I made the funny part obvious with the power of MSpaint.

And some of you ask why I am not sold on the global warming (oh pardon), "Climate Change" scare?

What the article basically says is 'we don't know'.

ottopilot · 05-19-2008, 02:25 PM

Ustwo - There's always those pesky facts like reduced hurricane activity, record growth of the antarctic ice shelf, and the poor polar bear population facing extinction because their numbers have increased from 5,000 to 25,000 since the 70's

... which are constant reminders that the science of climate change - cause and effect - is still on shaky ground.

As long as corrections like this recent report (by prominent "greenhouse gases will cause more hurricanes" expert Tom Knutson) keep turning up, I'm keeping an open mind. I think we have years of experts changing their minds and junk science to wade through on global warming (sorry, I should've used the PC flip-flop term "climate-change" )... the jury is definitely still out.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world...cane_link.html

Quote:

Posted on Mon, May. 19, 2008

Scientist shifts on warming-hurricane link
Tom Knutson, who had raised concerns about the effects of climate change on Atlantic storms, now says differently.

By Seth Borenstein
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Global warming isn't to blame for the jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, according to a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Not only that, warmer temperatures will actually reduce the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic and those making landfall, research meteorologist Tom Knutson reported in a study released yesterday.

In the past, Knutson has raised concerns about the effects of climate change on storms. His new paper has the potential to heat up a simmering debate among meteorologists about the effects of global warming in the Atlantic.

Many climate-change experts have tied the rise of hurricanes in recent years to global warming and hotter waters that fuel them.

Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle.

What makes this study different is that it is by Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fluid dynamics lab in Princeton who previously has warned about the harmful effects of climate change.

He has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration.

He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming."

The study, published online in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent.

It says the number of hurricanes making landfall in the United States and its neighbors - anywhere west of Puerto Rico - will drop by 30 percent because of wind factors.

It's not all good news from Knutson's study, however. His computer model also forecasts that hurricanes and tropical storms will be wetter and fiercer.

Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said Knutson's computer model "fails to replicate storms with any kind of fidelity."

But NOAA hurricane meteorologist Chris Landsea, who wasn't part of this study, praised Knutson's work. "I think global warming is a big concern, but when it comes to hurricanes the evidence for changes is pretty darn tiny," Landsea said.

Hurricane season starts June 1 in the Atlantic.

dc_dux · 05-19-2008, 02:55 PM

I'm still trying to get a handle why Ustwo and Seaver believe that the hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists who contributed to the work of the IPCC ...as well as the top 15 national academies of science in the world, 50+ other national and international bodies, etc...have no scientific integrity (they are "political")...

...yet the far far smaller number of scientists who are of a minority opinion (many with easily identifiable conflicts of interests with their work supported by energy interests) are credible and apolitical.... and the fact that no scientific body of any stature anywhere in the world support or endorse that minority position.

Willravel · 05-19-2008, 03:05 PM

I would also like to see that addressed, DC. I'm reminded of similar debates between ID and evolution, where a rag-tag group of "scientists" are going against the grain, but in fact are teaching at Jerry Falwell's school or aren't even biologists or chemists.

Ustwo · 05-19-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I'm still trying to get a handle why Ustwo and Seaver believe that the hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists who contributed to the work of the IPCC ...as well as the top 15 national academies of science in the world, 50+ other national and international bodies, etc...have no scientific integrity (they are "political")...

...yet the far far smaller number of scientists who are of a minority opinion (many with easily identifiable conflicts of interests with their work supported by energy interests) are credible and apolitical.... and the fact that no scientific body of any stature anywhere in the world support or endorse that minority position.

I didn't know science was based on democratic principles. I base it on data, hard data, not fuzzy data. Apparently the whole 'hurricane' thing was wrong, perhaps Al Gore was a bit premature blaming the catastrophe in Burma on global warming after all.

Quote:

This year the IPCC, for the first time, has categorically linked global warming to an increase in hurricanes stating that there was an observational increase in the number of cyclones since 1970 in correlation to increased sea surface temperature. Caribbean meteorologists and consultants writing in Caribbean360 have agreed with the IPCC assessment and pointed out that more intense tropical cyclones have been reported in the past 15 years (1990-2005) than in the previous 15 years (1975-1989) with the greatest increases in the North Atlantic. They argued that the only contributing factor was global warming.

Well golly looks like your body of scientists was wrong.

Do you expect me as a scientist, and I am a scientist, even if I am no longer working in the environmental sciences, to say 'well the evidence says this, but these people all seem to think something else so I better back down and agree'?

You have the avatar that dissent is patriotic, and yet because I do not abide by the thought of mass bodies that the fault must be with me? I am not alone, there are very distinguished scientists who share my position, and that number is growing.

The last half of my day today was looking at scientific, peer reviewed and published papers, that were wrong. These are on systems far less complex than the global environment, but still they were wrong, and provably so. I reserve the right to review such studies, like the one I investigated that will posted above and come to my own conclusions as a formally educated environmental scientist.

Amusingly while reading another global warming article a couple of days ago the scientist in question stated the reason we haven't seen the rise in temperature predicted was in fact we should be entering an ice age phase. Wouldn't it be ironic if we were in fact warming the planet and in so doing we were holding off the next ice age? Global cooling would be far more catastrophic for humanity than any projected warming trend. Now I don't agree that this is the case, but it is food for thought, don't you think?

ottopilot · 05-19-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I'm still trying to get a handle why Ustwo and Seaver believe that the hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists who contributed to the work of the IPCC ...as well as the top 15 national academies of science in the world, 50+ other national and international bodies, etc...have no scientific integrity (they are "political")...

...yet the far far smaller number of scientists who are of a minority opinion (many with easily identifiable conflicts of interests with their work supported by energy interests) are credible and apolitical.... and the fact that no scientific body of any stature anywhere in the world support or endorse that minority position.

Just because a group of "experts" says it's one way "apparently doesn't mean it's based on sound or unbiased scientific methodologies. For example, we are constantly told that the polar ice is melting away, but a recent report from NOAA says the opposite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOAA

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/mar/global.html#seaice
March 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the largest sea ice extent in March (28.6% above the 1979-2000 mean) over the 30-year historical period, surpassing the previous record set in 1994 by 10.9%. Sea ice extent for March has increased at a rate of 4.2%/decade.

So which is it?

I'm guessing some would say that the voice of the minority must always be protected. Our government is a representative form of government, but science is absolutely not a democratic process. We see on a daily basis the cracks forming (pun intended) in hardcore global warming activism. If we continue to close our minds to level thinking, jump to conclusions and say the discussion is over, then we risk rolling down the path of quick short-sighted feel-good measures like crop subsidies for ethanol production. The geniuses that pushed that through must not have considered the possibility of panic over the resulting world food shortage.

Quote:

EDIT - WOW, just took a look at posts from 5-10-08, you've been busy!

dc_dux and host ... you get an A+ on your homework assignment. I step away for a little while and come back and take a peak at last week's posts to this thread to find lot's of cutting and pasting! Excellent work. I'll have your next assignments soon.

Where's raveneye when you need him?

Steven Milloy? Ustwo - I see why you've resurected the "Hypno Toad". ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

otto....start with the many "scientists" that Ustwo has linked to in the past at junkscience.com or Steven Milloy, the "scientist" who administers that site.....or from scientists cited by Mark Morano, the chief denier on the minority staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Speaking of Steven Milloy, I think you guys really need to take "The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge!" Heck, you should be able to rack up a fast $500,000 with your consensus of scientists (be sure it's not the same consensus of scientists that predicted the next ice age in the 1970's).

Steven Milloy is in league with the Hypno Toad, controling our minds ...

OK, regarding the "consensus of scientists" ...

... this is from a May 16 blog (by Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers) about a new petition signed by members from the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science (a who’s who of Science). They gathered approximately 32,000 signatures from which 9,000 have PhD's. The 32,000 is a significant increase of signatures since the 17,800 of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s Petition Project of 2001. Since the Oregon petition, most were

Quote:

outraged at Kyoto’s corruption of science, wrote to the Oregon Institute and its director, Arthur Robinson, asking that the petition be brought back.
“E-mails started coming in every day,” he explained. “And they kept coming. “ The writers were outraged at the way Al Gore and company were abusing the science to their own ends. “We decided to do the survey again.”

The full blog article can be found at http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...0-deniers.aspx

A note on "The Deniers" and author Lawrence Solomon.
The National Post's sensational series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science. Written by Lawrence Solomon, the series profiles the ideas and the scientists who do not share the “consensus” United Nations’ theories on climate change and global warming. Read them all."

So my friends, the question goes 'round and 'round ... "How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?"

dc_dux · 05-19-2008, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You have the avatar that dissent is patriotic, and yet because I do not abide by the thought of mass bodies that the fault must be with me? I am not alone, there are very distinguished scientists who share my position, and that number is growing.

Ustwo...no one here has denied your right to dissent from the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists.

What I find disingenuous is the double standards you apply to those who endorse the IPCC position and recommendations and those who dissent, particularly those many "scientists" you have cited in earlier posts (including some in your recent post 131) who, after a quick search, were found to have a potential conflict of interest with their work being funded by energy companies.

The fact remains that there is an overwhelming majority of climate (and other) scientist who believe that the millions of tons of anthropogenic GHG emissions each year are harmful to the environment and are highly likely to have a long term negative impact on the world's climate.

We can act now with reasonable policies and actions to lower GHG emissions from power plants, cars, heavy industry in an economically sustainable manner, as well as take other reasonable actions with regard to other potentially harmful emissions....(I dont support all of the IPCC recommendations and I have stated that on numerous occasions)....

Or we can do nothing , wait until the climate scientists reach a unanimous finding while we continue to spew millions of tons of GHG into the atmosphere and hope they dont significantly contribute to long term environmental and climatic degradation.

I believe the US government should act now since we are a major contributor and serve as a model for responsible actions (we have no control over other countries). If the hundreds (or thousands) of IPCC scientists, the 15 national academies of science, the 50 other scientific bodies around the world are proven wrong in 10-20 years...the worst we would suffer is the cost of implementing energy and environmental conservation programs.

If your guys are wrong, we potential suffer a much worse fate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Speaking of Steven Milloy, I think you guys really need to take "The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge!" Heck, you should be able to rack up a fast $500,000 with your consensus of scientists (be sure it's not the same consensus of scientists that predicted the next ice age in the 1970's).

Otto.....you can play the Steve Milloy or Marc Morano card as often as you like.

If that is your best shot, you have already blown that wad repeatedly.

Where are these growing number of credible dissenters...who are not funded by energy interests? I see a trickle not a groundswell.

Why cant you or Ustwo point to even one credible national or international scientific body that endorses or supports the work of Steve Milloy...or that does not endorse the IPCC position on anthropogenic GHG emissions? One national meteorological organization...one geophysics organization....ANY ORGANIZATION!
(since Ustwo has gone to the color mode to make his point - I chose RED for the increasing number of CODE RED days we face each passing summer).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

So my friends, the question goes 'round and 'round ... "How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?"

Consensus = overwhelming majority, with a recognition that it is not unanimous.

So tell me why hundreds (or thousands) of climate scientists who contributed to the IPCC final report, the 15 top national academies of science in the world, more than 50 other national or international meteorological, climate or other related (or general) scentific bodies do not constitute a consensus?

But you are correct in one respect...we just go round and round. You will continue to support the dentist and the energy industry whore and I will continue to support the overwhelming number of scientific bodies.

In the meantime, I am looking forward to the Senate debate this summer on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (even though its not a great bill, with cap and trade provisions at its core, but its a start)....particularly the highly anticipated circus performance of Sen. Inhofe (the Senate's chief denier) and if McCain will waffle.

ottopilot · 05-19-2008, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Otto.....you can play the Steve Milloy or Marc Morano card as often as you like.

If that is your best shot, you have already blown that wad repeatedly.

Why cant you or Ustwo point to even one credible national or international scientific body that endorses or supports the work of Steve Milloy...or that does not endorse the IPCC position?
(since Ustwo has gone to the color mode to make his point - I chose RED for the increasing number of CODE RED days we face each passing summer).

I love it when you talk that tough-guy talk!

Sorry you were all worked up putting me in my place that you couldn't notice that I was totally punking you guys for even bringing up Steve Milloy (remember to say "evil" when referring to Steve Milloy) in this conversation. Give me a break. I knew the "challenge" would immediately get a rise for two reasons ....

1. I know that you and other like minded folk cannot resist launching an all out discrediting assault upon the mere mention of anything to do with "evil" Steve (the response was great entertainment, thank you)
2. None of you could actually take the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge and win, so you must quickly discredit anything about it to deflect attention away from that fact.

I couldn't care less about "evil" Steve or Marc Morano. Nothing I've said has ever been quoted from either of them. You pulled those guys out of a hat because it's an easy (and baseless) cheap shot to avoid the discussion. I gave raveneye shit for that a long time ago too (anyone heard from that pleasant fellow lately?).

So "if that's YOUR BEST SHOT" ... tough guy.

Here, I'll say this in bold tough-guy-red like you ...
Why cant you or host, or anybody with your "consensus of scientists" just take THE ULTIMATE GLOBAL WARMING CHALLENGE so you can send your $500,000 to one of Al Gore's carbon credit scams, I mean eco corporations?
How was that?

BTW- I just addressed your credible scientific body question in an edit to my previous post. I look forward to your rationalizing that away.

Please excuse me while I go and channel my marching orders from "evil" Steve and the hypno toad.

* * * * EDIT: Cool.... I see there's more made-up stuff added to your last post since reading mine. Getting very personal, how will I go on?[/B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc-dux

Where are these growing number of credible dissenters...who are not funded by energy interests?

Now that was an easy leap based on absolutely zero facts (well... not for some). We wouldn't want to

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

promulgate knowingly false or deceptive information

would we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

You will continue to support the dentist and the energy industry whore and I will continue to support the overwhelming number of scientific bodies.

That's either intellectual density or more of that tough-guy talk.

dc_dux · 05-19-2008, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

BTW- I just addressed your credible scientific body question in an edit to my previous post. I look forward to your rationalizing that away.

Please excuse me while I go and channel my marching orders from "evil" Steve and the hypno toad.

You may believe your link that references the Global Warming Petition Project with 30,000+ names is credible....I do not.

Do you even take a few minutes to verify your links or check the potential credibility lapses they may pose?

It is a project of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

****
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...nizations.html

More on the "Oregon Project:

Quote:

n May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."

Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.[15]
”

In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[16] ”

In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Are some signators credible...sure. I have no idea how many? Do you?

31,000? ummmm...i dont think so.

Quote:

Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey

A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a 'new' article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 "Oregon Petition"

The article itself is just an update of the original article, minus an author (Baliunas), with a switch of Robinson children (Zachary's out, Noah is in), but with a large number of similar errors and language. As in previous case, this paper too, is not peer reviewed.

Since this is a rehash of the previous paper plus a few more cherry-picked statistics of dubious relevance.....

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-and-malarkey/

Did I 'rationalize it (your link and the "petition") away to your satisfaction?

Repeating myself...we just go round and round. You will continue to support the dentist and the energy industry whores (like the Marshall Institute who co-funded your petition project) and I will continue to support the overwhelming number of actual credible scientific bodies.

Tough enough talk for you? I like to think of it as my own "straight talk" express.

Ustwo · 05-20-2008, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But you are correct in one respect...we just go round and round. You will continue to support the dentist and the energy industry whore and I will continue to support the overwhelming number of scientific bodies.

You ignored that your precious scientific body on global warming the IPCC was just proven WRONG. So wrong in fact that their promotion of the concept that hurricanes were being directly effected by global warming is what caused resignations from the IPCC.

You support them like you support a political ideology but you don't understand the science, thats obvious. As of right now the score is dentist 1 IPCC and political operative who only posts in political thread on TFP 0 when it comes to supposed effect of global warming (did I hurt anyones feelings by not saying climate change?).

I'd say the difference between this dentist and you is that when McCain starts spouting global warming feel good nonsense I'll still call it nonsense, but if the democrats start to back off from "Climate Change" you will be changing your tune to march lock step.

dc_dux · 05-20-2008, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You ignored that your precious scientific body on global warming the IPCC was just proven WRONG. So wrong in fact that their promotion of the concept that hurricanes were being directly effected by global warming is what caused resignations from the IPCC.

You support them like you support a political ideology but you don't understand the science, thats obvious. As of right now the score is dentist 1 IPCC and political operative who only posts in political thread on TFP 0 when it comes to supposed effect of global warming (did I hurt anyones feelings by not saying climate change?).

Ustwo....are you open to other analyses of the recent Knutson study or are you so set in your political ideology that you wont even consider such possibilities.

Quote:

Of most fundamental significance to assessing the reliability of these current projections, in our view, is the "junk in/junk out" factor. The detailed projections made using either the RCM approach of Knutson et al or the 'random seeding' approach of Emanuel et al, can only be as good as the large-scale scenarios used to drive them. And since key aspects of those large-scale scenarios as far as Atlantic TC activity is concerned (i.e. what really happens to the ENSO mean state and amplitude of variability) are currently not confidently known, neither can we be confident using the model projections to say what will happen to Atlantic TC activity in the future.

....we have to consider the entirety of currently available evidence that can inform our assessment of climate change impacts on Atlantic TCs. We know, for example, from the work of Santer et al. that the warming trend in the tropical Atlantic cannot be explained without anthropogenic impacts on the climate. Knutson et al. do not contest this. Furthermore, they do not dispute that the late 20th century increase in Atlantic TC frequency is tied to large-scale SST trends (though they argue that the influence may be non-local rather than local). So we know that (i) the warming is likely in large part anthropogenic, and (ii) that the recent increases in TC frequency are related to that warming.] It hardly seems a leap of faith to put two-and-two together and conclude that there is likely a relationship between anthropogenic warming and increased Atlantic TC activity.

What Knutson et al are asking us to do in essence is to put all that aside (because, they argue–in short–that its not the warming but the pattern of warming that matters here) and instead take on faith the perhaps not-much-more-than 50/50 proposition that the mean changes in ENSO state and variability projected by the IPCC multimodel ensemble (which are a key determinant in the projected future Atlantic TC activity) should be trusted.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...nes-yet-again/

I dont claim to have expertise. What I do have is a capacity to read various analyses and assess their objectivity to the best of my ability.

You find one study that you agree with and immediately determine that the IPCC HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG. Sorry, that approach doesnt work for me.

You're the expert...so what do you find to be invalid with this Real Climate analysis of Knutson? Particularly this statement:

We know, for example, from the work of Santer et al. that the warming trend in the tropical Atlantic cannot be explained without anthropogenic impacts on the climate. Knutson et al. do not contest this. Furthermore, they do not dispute that the late 20th century increase in Atlantic TC (tropical cyclone) frequency is tied to large-scale SST (sea surface temperatures) trends (though they argue that the influence may be non-local rather than local). So we know that (i) the warming is likely in large part anthropogenic, and (ii) that the recent increases in TC frequency are related to that warming.

Doc...Are you one of the 31,000 "scientists" who signed the OISM petition? It certainly is impossible to tell since their list of signators only has names...no titles, no organization/university affiliation, no contact info....in fact, no way to verify.

Ustwo · 05-20-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

You find one study that you agree with and immediately determine that the IPCC HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG. Sorry, that approach doesnt work for me.

dc its quite the opposite. The IPCC used one study, which was not well supported, and has now been taken to task for it. Its not like this is the first, or only study saying that hurricanes we are currently experiencing have nothing to do with global warming.

But more good news today for science....

http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/371688

Quote:

Global warming hysteria challenged
(May 20, 2008)

An anti-nuclear, Toronto-based, urban-loving, 1970s peace activist who opposes subsidies to the oil industry might be the last person expected to detail cracks in the science of global warming.

But Lawrence Solomon has done just that in a short book with a long subtitle: The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, And Fraud (And Those Who Are Too Fearful To Do So).

The spark for the book came after an American TV reporter compared those who question the Kyoto Protocol to Holocaust deniers. But Solomon wondered about that, so he sought out the experts in specific fields to garner their views.

Consider Dr. Edward Wegman, asked by the U.S. Congress to assess the famous "hockey stick" graph from Michael Mann, published by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which purported to show temperatures as mostly constant over the past 1,000 years -- except for a spike in the last century.

The IPCC claimed the hockey stick "proved" unique 20th-century global warming. But it didn't. Wegman, who drew on the initial skepticism of two Canadians who questioned Mann's statistical handling, found that his "hockey stick" was the result of a statistical error -- the statistical model had mined data to produce the hockey stick and excluded contrary data.

That mistake occurred not because Mann was deceptive or a poor scientist; he's an expert in the paleoclimate community as were those who reviewed his paper. But that was the problem: The paleoclimate scientists were trapped in their own disciplinary ghetto and not up to speed on the latest, most appropriate statistical methods.

Is Wegman the scientific equivalent of a medical quack? No. His CV includes eight books, more than 160 published papers, editorships of prestigious journals, and past presidency of the International Association of Statistical Computing, among other distinctions.

Opinions in The Deniers vary dramatically and Solomon, a non-scientist, does not try to settle the disputes. He instead attempts to give readers insight into how non-settled and fragmentary the science is on climate change.

For example, think the polar ice caps are melting? That's true at the North Pole but it's not certain at the South Pole, according to Dr. Duncan Wingham. A portion of Antarctica's northern peninsula is melting. But that's a tiny slice of the 14-million-square-kilometre continent. And confounding evidence exists.

Since the inception of the South Pole research station in 1957, recorded temperatures have actually fallen.

Wingham is cautious. He doesn't deny global warming might exist. But his data show the Antarctic ice sheet is growing, not shrinking, and the chapter on why ice measurements are tricky is another fine, informative part of The Deniers.

Is Wingham a flake, a denier in league with flat-earthers? Only if you think the chair of the department of space and climate physics and head of earth sciences at University College London, and a member of the Earth Observation Experts Group, among other qualifications, qualifies for such a label.

The most intriguing part of The Deniers is the attempt by dozens of credible scientists to point out what should be common-sense obvious: The sun might affect Earth's climate.

"We understand the greenhouse effect pretty well," Solomon writes, "we know little about how the sun -- our main source of energy driving the climate -- affects climate change."

But the IPCC refuses to even consider the sun's influence on Earth's climate -- it conceives of its mission only to investigate possible man-made effects upon climate. But that's akin to a hit-and-run investigation where police rule out all cars except one model before they even question witnesses.

No one who reads The Deniers will be able to claim a scientific consensus exists on global warming. (Some scientists even argue the planet's climate is about to cool.)

But it might leave honest readers with this question: So what? Why not spend billions to reduce possible human-induced climate change just in case?

Because, as Antonio Zichichi (a professor emeritus at the University of Bologna and author of more than 800 papers) argues, global warming is only one alleged calamity that faces the world's poor. As Solomon writes in his interview with Zichichi, "every dollar and hour diverted to a crisis that might not exist has real and tragic costs."

The "deniers" and The Deniers matter because the book is about the search for scientific explanations for a complex phenomenon by eminent scientists in a better position than most to judge whether a consensus exists on global warming. Their collective verdict, much varied in the particulars, is "No."

dc you keep deciding science based on committee, I'll keep reading what data I can find out there and drawing my own conclusions.

dc_dux · 05-20-2008, 04:27 PM

Ustwo....what I asked you to explain to me with your expertise was this particularly point raised by the Real Climate analysis of Knutson:

Knutson et al. do not contest that the warming trend in the tropical Atlantic cannot be explained without anthropogenic impacts on the climate.

Am I reading that wrong or is that correct...that Knutson does not contest anthropogenic impacts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

dc you keep deciding science based on committee, I'll keep reading what data I can find out there and drawing my own conclusions.

Ustwo..I am not deciding science. My focus and interest is public policy.

And in that respect, you are correct that I do place value on the positions of reputable scientific organizations arrived at through an open deliberative process, particularly US scientific bodies. I think policy makers should give serious consideration to the positions held by such bodies of experts and not cherry pick single studies that support a pre-conceived policy position.

I think it is fair to say that you dont because you cant find one that supports your position.

If Knutson were to present his study to the American Meteorological Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union or some equally credible body, and they adopt a resolution to endorse it and disavow their endorsement of the IPCC position... I would certainly be receptive to rethinking my position.

05-12-2008, 04:15 AM	#123 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Ok now that I have some time I need to expound on this. DC, your statement is almost everything thats wrong with the 'environmental' movement right now. Yes, ozone pollution is a problem, its a bad thing. Combustion engines create pollutants which are bad for the environment, such as SO2, NO2, CO, and particulate matter, ALL of which are bad and should be reduced. But you state 'CO2 emissions' not 'pollution' or what REALLY creates ozone pollution, NO2, but CO2 emissions as if CO2 is the major problem. You are trying to work in that fear, that buggaboo of global warming into the equation to scare people into doing SOMETHING now. Its interfering with really dealing with the real pollution. The cleanest, pollution free internal combustion engine would produce CO2 and water. If there was a new engine which did just that, even if it was quite expensive, I'd be in full support of making such engines mandatory is they would be eliminating huge amounts of measurable and verifiable environmental damage and potential harmful effects to humans. Instead, we have made CO2 the main enemy, and therefore internal combustion the enemy no matter how 'clean' the burning. This is of course what many of the radical environmentalists want, they see the good of removing the other pollutants worth perpetuating the fear of global warming, even if not true. They think people are too stupid to do whats right, so they can say things like 'CO2 emissions causing ozone pollution' even though CO2 has nothing to do with ozone pollution. One of the major issues with O3 (thats ozone) is damage to crops/plants, and interestingly increased CO2 helps to negate the negative effects of O3. Basically we are releasing a poison, O3, and releasing the antidote CO2 at least as far as plants are concerned. Animals on the other hand, not so much. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 05-12-2008 at 06:19 AM..

05-12-2008, 08:17 PM	#128 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Which is a completely moot point, regardless of how big Inuit settlements may have been 500 years ago because no Vikings were living on ice sheets eating seal meat. Its documented, we have the ruins, we have the accounts, we have the remains. Vikings were raising cattle and sheep on Greenland doing quite well at first and then over the years it got colder and colder forcing them to leave or starve. This has only come into question, not because of real evidence, but because it clashes with what global warming alarmists want to claim about current temperatures in relation to past ones. This is really an excellent straw man for me to beat the crap out of if anyone really wants to argue this point, so please, argue away. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

05-13-2008, 03:35 AM	#129 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	Just dropping in to point out that not all internal combustion engines put out CO2, only those combusting hydrocarbons carry on. i'm not sure I can get into this again right now, but I'm enjoying the reading. Following sources. Checking things out. Have a nice day fellow TFP environmental debate type people. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

05-15-2008, 11:32 AM	#138 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Next, the scientists conducted statistical tests and found that the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. So, the team concluded that observed global-scale impacts are very likely due to human-caused warming. This is the only interesting part of that article as it pertains to human created global warming. Without seeing how they did their meta analysis and what data sets were used I can't make any comment pro or con as the statement itself is presented sans evidence. The idea is that we are warming (quite possible) and that its more than natural. So where does one draw the line between 'natural' and unnatural. Global temperatures are not at the highest point even in civilizations history, so the question is what makes this stand out to the scientists involved. How do they know what 'natural' is? Cynthia Rosenzweig is one of the biggest global warming is going to kill us all types out there, and while I do not discount her work based on her opinion of the matter, I do need more than a small blurb. ..... Ok did a bit of looking, apparently its a Nature article, which I've been meaning to resubscribe to but haven't. Anything I can find about it is her focusing on the warming but not the human cause. Interestingly if everything claimed in the study is in fact true, then somewhat ironically there is nothing to be done about it and the warming trend itself will not be reversible (without some sort of invasion of the 3rd world and China) and reducing the global standard of living tremendously. ...... Ok may have found this in the abstract... Given the conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely to be due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, ... They are saying its warmer because the IPCC said it was likely warmer due to human caused warming, they did not do any science on this themselves. I'd like to think there was more too it than that but so far can't see it. So basically the paper says things are warmer, which I am not arguing, and that its our fault because they say it is. Thats special. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 05-15-2008 at 12:04 PM..

05-18-2008, 11:17 PM	#139 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	This is a story from today.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7404846.stm Here is the screen capture, and I made the funny part obvious with the power of MSpaint. And some of you ask why I am not sold on the global warming (oh pardon), "Climate Change" scare? What the article basically says is 'we don't know'. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

05-19-2008, 02:55 PM	#141 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I'm still trying to get a handle why Ustwo and Seaver believe that the hundreds (if not thousands) of scientists who contributed to the work of the IPCC ...as well as the top 15 national academies of science in the world, 50+ other national and international bodies, etc...have no scientific integrity (they are "political")... ...yet the far far smaller number of scientists who are of a minority opinion (many with easily identifiable conflicts of interests with their work supported by energy interests) are credible and apolitical.... and the fact that no scientific body of any stature anywhere in the world support or endorse that minority position. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-19-2008 at 02:58 PM..

05-19-2008, 03:05 PM	#142 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I would also like to see that addressed, DC. I'm reminded of similar debates between ID and evolution, where a rag-tag group of "scientists" are going against the grain, but in fact are teaching at Jerry Falwell's school or aren't even biologists or chemists.