gary says, "Most of your data has turned out to be erroneous even though you cling to it like your life depended on it."
Erroneous to whom? Not to the people who published it as factual record.
Like I said - believing that the warming is not happening is similar to a man caught in bed with his mistress telling his wife "are you gonna believe ME or your lying eyes?" That arctic ice is not melting ITSELF my friends.
The fact that the USA has had 19 of the warmest years in it's history in the last 25 years is not erroneous.
Seems like everyone on this forum believes the Earf is not warming. Hard to fathom that position when the evidence says otherwise.
I rely less on "predictions and models" and focus on what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED. And that is an upward trend, WORSE LATELY.
How can you say 150 years out of, lets say 2000 years (the biblical times) is a definable trend? And who knows what the control conditions of weather stations from 150 years ago were in place?
Even today a large percentage of weather data collection sites are compromised.
Despite its popularity, I find this topic hilarious. Any study of the Geologic record shows unceasing changes in temperature over the earth's history (billions of years). None of these changes were caused by the industrialization of humans, That humans would be so arrogant to think that they must be the cause of possible warming in one century is a little silly. Its possible this is the case, of course, but I think may people don'r discern the difference between coorelation abd causality. Just because humans have ibcreased CO2 release into the atmosphere at the same time temps seem to have gone up proves nothing. Its a correlation.Somically insignificant.eone please prove causality. Even if possible, a much longer period of time would be necessary.
OK, fellas, you got me. Nothing anyone ever says about GW is correct, the historical records are compromised/falsified/wrong/mean nothing, the current trends are too short to matter, CO2 is not affecting the greenhouse effect, arctic ice is NOT melting, the 2006 heat wave was just our imagination, 2007 was NOT the warmest on record in the USA, the fact that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than anytime recently has no bearing, the oceans are cooling us off, alGore is an idiot, GW is a hoax/money grab/conspiracy/power grab, the only temperature we should worry about is today's, don't worry about your carbon footprint, stop recycling, trade that hybrid for a diesel dually, turn that A/C down to 60, burn as much fuel as fast as you can, don't worry about those silly rain forests or coral reefs, water shortages are not that big a deal, flooding coastlines are just a fact of life, asthma is not a big problem (just get them an inhaler!), stop spending money on mass transit, disband CAFE/EPA/OSHA, put the Oil Barons in charge of everything, start burning your trash, use your leaf blower every day just for fun, mow your lawn even if it does not need it, go ahead and take that hour-long shower every day, stop using solar power and wind power (coal works FINE !!), and just let the chips fall where they MAY !!
Now you are a logical thinking man. What did you ascertain from that Nature piece? My take was the oceans being colder is somewhat of an indictment against climate change as it is being preached by the media. I do not know if those scientists are any smarter than the rest. Most are just working stiffs trying to make their boss happy. And the customers happy. With the billions being wasted on GW I would guess there are scientists of every size and shape lined up to get a piece of the action. I know that was the case in Prudhoe Bay when the oil companies were handing out grants to study everything from whale migration to tundra grass growth.
You said "This latest Nature report is just a whitewashing to confuse the masses into believing that Al Gore and his GW groupies are not all wet."
Nature is a highly respected peer reviewed journal that doesn't seem to screw up all that often. But perhaps you think more highly of the other journal in its league?
The upshot of that study is that "low-oxygen zones in the oceans where sea life is threatened or cannot survive at all are growing. The researchers found oxygen-depleted zones around the equator in the central and eastern Atlantic and the Pacific had expanded over the last 50 years." They blame GW.
Whatever I think, I don't think there's a whitewashing going on. In spite of all the conspiracy theories and mockery being posted, there's a whole lot of research going on. I'm curious to hear what the next few years worth of studies will turn up.
How can you be sure of any study paid for by anyone with an agenda? In this day and age EVERYONE seems to have an agenda. I don't trust any of them. As far as the oxygen depletion. Might it just be the massive amounts of fertilizer being dumped into the waterways that find their way to the ocean. The Dead Zone in the Gulf comes to mind.
The whole fiasco with DDT is an example of environmentalism acted upon without enough evidence. Ridding the world of DDT became cult like just as GW has.
In a report published in the journal Science, the researchers say it's because global warming is raising ocean temperatures. And they say continued expansion of these zones could have dramatic consequences for both sea life and coastal communities.
There is a PERFECT example of media passing on erroneous information. The latest studies say the WORLDS oceans have not warmed over the last 10 years. If anything they are slightly cooler.
From NPR Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
Or that Al Gore has only made speeches on land heating only the air in the immediate vicinity of his speeches.
Are they questioning the accuracy of the historical record?
Lars, read the book! We've been over it several times here.
Accuracy is one issue but not the central one. Global temperatures have varied all over the place throughout history and convincingly demonstrate that CO2 does not drive global warming. Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 levels LAG behind global warming and reductions in atmospheric CO2 levels LAG behind global cooling. "Adherents" casually dismiss this to the detriment of science.
But it has been on a more severe upward trend LATELY ...
Well, no, that's not true either. If you take a long term view, temperatures have been rising for over 400 years as I mentioned earlier. However, the rate of increase over the past century or two have not been as great as the rate of increase between about 1600 and 1800. Here's the data though I caution that it is a very large download: http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf
The fact that the USA has had 19 of the warmest years in it's history in the last 25 years is not erroneous.
Of course, you meant warmest only over a particular (VERY) limited span of time. There were many periods in history when global (and local) temperatures were far higher than today. Let's not lapse into cherry picking again.
Yes, it has been on a more severe uptrend lately. It surely has. I have posted charts showing it has gone upward severely. Post a chart that shows a downtick if you think there is one.
And what happened 200 years ago does not matter as much as what is happening RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT NOW we know that man, because the population is larger than ever before and we are more advanced than ever before, is producing more CO2 and other GHGs than ever before.
How the Earf is coping with that is the question now, i.e., how much of that is having an affect on global weather patterns?
Sure, it's a limited period of time. BUT IT IS HAPPENING NOW, which makes it more important than any past trend. What we need to do NOW and for the foreseeable future is the concern, not 50 to 70,000 years ago.
Are we negatively affecting an already natural weather trend?
Dang sure might be. MIGHT BE.
And that's why GW is only a theory, and I want better proof. And if it is proven, I'm a pro-GW advocate - wanting GW - as I think we are too close to an Ice Age on this planet. The average temperature of the Earth is only 57F or 59F. Why do I support this? Because ysterday - May 1 - I had to scrape frost off the windows of my car. It is too cold - 57F is too cold. So now that I am buying a house I'm going to be burning oil and wood to keep warm 8 months of the year.
If you're too hot living in a desert, Canada and Alaska are much larger than the lower 48, and the land is basically empty because it has been too cold to live there. We'll have plenty of new land to occupy if the Earth warms.
So how is it proven, and and not a theory that this warming period is any different than any historical warming period?
How do I know this warming period is anything but natural? Just because there is more CO2 in the air does not prove the 2 are related. Nobody really knows because the science and models are not developed enough. Yes there are theories and suspiscions, and throughout history you will see that most theories are wrong.
I do not follow theories without good proof; I would not follow the theory to throw people in a volcano to appease the gods that "must exist" in there, burn witches because bad-events must be the work of evil, believe the Earth is round, ...
Sure mankind affects the world, but we don't know how. We may actually be keeping the world from sliding into another Ice Age by burning fuels. No one really knows what the Earth would be doing if we weren't here (impossible to run the experiment). But we do know the temperature rise ove rthe last 150 years has ONLY been a degree or so, and that is well within temperature swings that have occurred naturally. So the affect of man is not so much, that it is evident.
Natural? Man-enhanced? We don't know yet. But to completely dismiss human activity as a possible variable is ridiculous.
That's what we've been telling you! GW due to anthropogenic reasons is a theory, one of MANY possibilities. And the GW if the temperatures are accurate is very small - 1F I believe per your quoted data. Because it is only 1 of many possibilities, I will not make or suggest anyone make any changes other than what they typically do.
My points:
If GW is occurring what % is due to mankind 0.001%? Is GW necessarily bad - I say NO.
Therefore I wouldn't suggest anyone change anything until those are PROVEN and discussed (that does not mean just lisiting the negatives of a warmer Earth).
RIGHT NOW we know that man, because the population is larger than ever before and we are more advanced than ever before, is producing more CO2 and other GHGs than ever before.
Just how do you and Big Al propose to send us back to 1990 CO2 levels? Taking into consideration that China has passed the US and has no intentions of depriving their populace of a better way of life. Same goes for India. And of course Australia was all for it until they realized the first step would raise everyone's electric bill by 25%. So do you think if everyone in the USA were to buy a Prii that it would take us back to 1990? Or would CO2 created by building another 250,000,000 vehicles and recycling the old ones be detrimental?
All I see is wringing of hands and telling us the sky is falling. Give us the solution, or let the sky fall where it may. Don't try to sell me carbon credits. And if you think hacks like Gore are in this for anything but making the BIG BUCKS you are naive.
First of all, I have asked people to not put me into cahoots with AlGore. I don't know anything about the man other than general layman knowledge, I have not watched his movie, and I am not on his team in ANY WAY, shape or form.
Secondly, I don't have any solutions. I'm not a policy wonk and I do not belong to an environmental or political think tank.
All I DO know is that we should try to use REAL SCIENCE to determine if man is having a negative impact on Earf and SHOULD THAT be the case, then do whatever is necessary to curb or stop man's impact.
And in the meantime, I have been doing my part in limiting my negative influence on Earf for many years now, and with an upcoming mortgage refi I'm doing some solar stuff on my home.
That's all. I'm not doing any hand-wringing or "sky is falling" declarations. And I don't care who makes money from whatever they can make money from. It's a free capitalist country, more power to those who can secure their family's future.
Kleiner Perkins raises big money to fuel clean tech By Scott Duke Harris Mercury News link title
..."The Green Growth Fund comes less than six months after former Vice President Al Gore joined Menlo Park-based Kleiner Perkins as a partner. Earlier in the year, Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to educate the public about the perils of man-made climate change, and an Academy Award for the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."
The new Kleiner Perkins funds, Denniston said, will further the firm's "very active collaboration" with Generation Investment Management, a London firm chaired by Gore that specializes in ventures to help companies curtail their impact on climate change.
"He is spending time with us, helping us think about global opportunities," Denniston said of Gore's role at Kleiner Perkins."...
..."The go-green movement is clearly gaining momentum. Also Thursday, General Motors announced a new fuel-technology initiative"...
All this happening,... literally further up the road.....
As I said and some folks have seen the logic, GREEN has been and will be the new code words for the new way of DBA....
saw the show that said by getting up and driving to work I'm destroying the earth. I remember seeing where cars and light trucks only use 20% of the fuel in the world. houses, cities, ships, trains, busses, trucks, factories, etc, use the other 80%. Then I saw that there are 600 million cars in the world. There will be 700 million in less than 10 years. Most of the 100 million added will be in China and India. 247,000 hybrids per year from Toyota will not turn back the tide that is coming. I realize that I can't exist without going to work and therefore destroying the earth. How green is the earth in places where we fight wars over diamonds, gold, oil, food?
All I DO know is that we should try to use REAL SCIENCE to determine if man is having a negative impact on Earf
You'd need to define "negative impact on Earf". Since it is not alive - it is a sphere of the known elements in various combinations - what is negative about humans rearranging the molecules a little?
If you mean are we ruining the surface of the Earth, I would say our technological advances have made the earth a much better environment for human habitation. Without our factories and machines, the amount of food and medicines that we can produce allows 6+ Billion people to live on the Earf, and in the more advanced countries live to an average of 70+ years. Without those machines and the energy they consume many less people would live here, and the average lifespan might be 30 years. If you want some examples, look at the poorest countries in the World, - they have little impact on the Earth - but they work hard, suffer, and klive short lives.
I realize that I can't exist without going to work and therefore destroying the earth.
I'm sure there were people back around 1800 who thought they were destroying the Earf by burning whale-oil or wood, and thought that if they only burned a little less and skrimped that they would save the world. Mighty noble of them, but it seems quaint.
The Earth was never in any danger of exploding, or otherwise not existing.
How can you be sure of any study paid for by anyone with an agenda?
Nature and Science are peer reviewed journals. Articles tend to get vetted pretty good before they get published there. Unlike, say, 99% of the popular news media.
The world didn't get rid of DDT btw. It's still used, in small quantities, for skeeter control in the tropics. What is gone is the widespread dumping of the stuff on ag lands, with the resulting proven harmful impacts on birds and fish.
The Birds of Prey center here in Boise was instrumental in the recovery of the peregrine falcon, whose numbers, like the bald eagle, were decimated by indiscriminate DDT use in the 50's and 60's.
All I DO know is that we should try to use REAL SCIENCE to determine if man is having a negative impact ...
You say that but you don't really mean it!
The current trend in rising temperature has been happening for 400 years. There is not a shred of evidence that the trend lines would be any different in the absence of mankind. Real science would indicate that if a certain trend existed before an alleged causal agent is introduced into a system and the trend is unchanged after the introduction of the alleged causal agent then the alleged causal agent probably isn't.
My theory is - if you keep this trend of posts - insisting we look at all the facts - you will be "causalling" us to think, rather than just mimicing what we are told to think and say.
Everyone knows that if 1) the earth is warming and 2) that man can affect the Earth, and 1 + 2 = 3, then 3) man must be causing the Earth to warm.
Man affecting the Earth = Harm! The Earth is perfect without Man! Man No Good!!
Border Patrol lets some illegals go — over and over again By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press Writer
..."Gonzalez and a group of other women and children — all Indians from the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca — have no interest in staying in the United States. All they want to do is panhandle outside El Paso businesses, using the children as lures.
At the end of a productive day, they wait for the Border Patrol to come pick them up and drive them back to the border"...
Tidester - do you HONESTLY believe that sometime in the past, some climate scientist said, "in the absence of any human causal evidence, let's publish a paper saying man is causing the warming !! It will be a HOOT !!!!"
Do you think that happened? Yes or No would be fine. Then after your response I will comment again.
That's all. I'm not doing any hand-wringing or "sky is falling" declarations.
You could have fooled me. You have spent a lot of energy and time refuting anything that did not agree with the GW theory.
And I don't care who makes money from whatever they can make money from. It's a free capitalist country, more power to those who can secure their family's future.
I do have a problem with many things people do to make money. Illegal Drugs for one. Lies for another. Pyramid schemes. Mortgages to people that do not have the income to pay them back.leaving me the tax payer to pay for their scam. In fact about half the crap and vapor ware sold in this country should put the sellers in jail. 150 years ago Al Gore would have been run out of town as a snake oil salesman. Shows we have not gotten smarter, just a lot more gullible.
Just because I don't want man's influence on the climate to be dismissed/ignored does not mean I think the sky is falling.
Just because I disagree with the people who say there is no evidence of warming does not mean I think the Earf is going to burn itself up in a fiery Hades in 50 years.
Gary says, "I do have a problem with many things people do to make money. Illegal Drugs for one."
Well, you know I did not intend to include illegal or immoral activities in my statement. That's a big ole fat obvious DUH.
And remember - It's NOT a LIE if the person saying it truly believes it at the time they are saying it. They might be WRONG, but they cannot be called a LIAR.
It's NOT a LIE if the person saying it truly believes it at the time they are saying it.
I worked with a guy that made up stories about his being a WW2 Pilot continually. We finally came to the conclusion he believed he was really a WW2 Pilot at age 10. That is what is known as a pathalogical liar. He read war stories all the time and those stories became his stories. He did not hurt anyone as it was just entertainment for those sitting around drinking with him.
I just happen to believe that Al Gore KNEW many of the faked scenes in his movie were LIES. That makes him a big fat LIAR. Just as Michael Moore was caught in several lies in his recent movie. But then it is part of Hollywood, that is all make believe. I would like us to hold our people to higher standards when they are propagandizing our children and grand children. "The Inconvenient Truth" with its eleven proven LIES was made mandatory viewing by students in one Florida School district. That is flat wrong. This is how it should be handled as Seattle schools and all UK schools are doing.
This week in Federal Way schools, it got a lot more inconvenient to show one of the top-grossing documentaries in U.S. history, the global-warming alert "An Inconvenient Truth."
School Board members adopted a three-point policy that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented," that they must get the OK of the principal and the superintendent, and that any teachers who have shown the film must now present an "opposing view."
The requirement to represent another side follows district policy to represent both sides of a controversial issue, board President Ed Barney said.
do you HONESTLY believe that sometime in the past, some climate scientist said, "in the absence of any human causal evidence, let's publish a paper saying man is causing the warming
That's rather silly but, for what it's worth, this is how it happened:
Somebody noticed in the 70s that the alleged cooling of the Earth that had occurred over the previous three or four decades was coming to an end and that temperatures started to rise. Tentative explanations were put forth in the scientific literature with some suggesting that atmospheric levels of CO2 may be a contributory factor.
People began to take notice over the following quarter of a century and, in particular, politicians became interested. That's the point at which human involvement was put into the mix. Meanwhile, the scientists were and still are trying to make sense of a VERY complicated system. When politics is massively injected into a scientific endeavor, the science becomes sloppy. It's even worse when the reporting of the science is done by political organizations.
If you have ever looked at real scientific publications, you will know that scientists rarely, if ever, make definite statements about things like "this is caused by human activity." Even if they suspect it is the case, they couch their statements with all kinds of qualifiers and caveats. Those are the parts that get dropped in the "executive summaries." The press goes along with it and things get hyped beyond recognition.
Real scientists recognize that the issues of anthropogenic climate change are NOT settled. You REALLY should read Lawrence Solomon's book that I referenced earlier.
Speaking of facts, here's an interesting factoid. I just received the "Spring 2008 Catalogue" of the United Nations Publications. One of the listings is the "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" report for which they charge a whopping $85! The interesting part is that the report is NOT listed in the Environment section and it is NOT listed in the Science and Technology section. It is listed in the Economics section!
You have to remember our friend from AZ has a different agenda with a lot more credibility than the GW (Climate Change) agenda. Larsb is obsessive about emissions. GW just fit in with his wanting US all to pollute less so he jumped onto the GW bandwagon. Just like so many have jumped onto the ethanol bandwagon because they JUST WANT AN ALTERNATIVE to fossil fuel. While cleaning the air we breathe is commendable. Trying to set back civilization to the stone age based on a weak theory is not acceptable.
I tried to finish the Hansen book today; wound up skimming and skipping around a lot. Maybe that's what you get when a physicist writes a book about a colleague. If any book needs a reader's guide, it's this one.
The thing I took away was this guy (a scientist who studied under Van Allen, of the belts fame) was (and maybe still is) a bit naive about politics and wound up dropping a lot of qualifiers in his public comments after NASA started rewriting and defusing his NASA papers and testimony he was giving various places, including to Congress.
On one occasion in '89 or so, when he was called to testify before Congress, he was tipped that his written testimony had been hacked by the PR people at NASA so that his report was essentially whitewashed. He faxed then Senator Al Gore the night before with some suggested questions, the answers to which didn't jibe with the written submission, leading to the first of the censorship claims against the Bush administration. That's Bush I btw.
Hansen will be relatively easy to disprove if he's wrong - he's on record as saying the climate change tipping point, if greenhouse gasses can't be reduced, is 2016. Environment News Service
I think we all want that. There are compelling reasons to do so but climate change isn't one of them. Those who desire reductions in the various forms of pollution would be, in my opinion, far more effective if they just stuck to those issues and dropped the artificial hyperbole of climate change.
He lights into Science and Nature pretty good too.
Nice find!
It is really quite alarming that once respected scientific journals have become so blatantly and openly political and one-sided. In my opinion, this wholesale corruption of science will be far more damaging to mankind in the long run than any potential damage brought about by the adoption of the agenda they seek to impose.
Perhaps Peiser and people like him will help get science back on track by drawing attention to damage being done to it.
once respected scientific journals have become so blatantly and openly political and one-sided.
I belong to the Audubon Society and was once a Sierra Club member. I feel they were both taken over by radical elements. There is No such thing as zero growth. Flora, Fauna, societies and civilizations either grow or they die. Like it or not Nature is survival of the fittest. When you see a Killer whale or Polar bear do what they do to survive it is harsh & brutal and it is reality. So when you have people preaching that we all need to move into a stinking city and ride a stinking bus, I say NO WAY. I do not believe in wasting our natural resources. I also do not believe it is healthy living like rats in a city. I have probably planted as many thousands of trees on my properties as anyone else here. So I am soaking up my CO2 if it is even a problem. I am not going to pay some scam artist money to plant a tree in Africa and claim it is doing some good.
"The state Legislature is looking to hire a few good polar bear scientists. The conclusions have already been agreed upon -- researchers just have to fill in the science part. Legislators hope to undermine the public perception of a widespread consensus among polar bear researchers that warming global temperatures and melting Arctic ice threaten the polar bears' survival."
Threatened or endangered status could affect recent drilling leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska and cost the oil companies more money to drill, or even delay drilling. That would cut into Alaska's oil royalty money, and they'd wind up having less money to spend on, er, science.
Is a foregone conclusion the same as a hypothesis?
Actually they should be hiring seal meat processors!!! Waiters to deliver the tender morsels in some scientifically approved way. Nice project for the UN.
But I guess the graphic of Polar Bears looking for food is like an GW advocates equivalent of motherhood and apple pie.
is looking to hire a few good polar bear scientists.
Steve Amstrup was not mentioned in the article. He is the premier polar bear scientist in the World. I have tried to get a hold of him as he is a drinking buddy of mine from the 1980s. I would like to hear from him if the PB population is endangered. He is now with the USGS as a research biologist. I think if the PB is endangered it is due to Eskimos killing them and selling the gall bladders and other parts to oriental customers. Not from GW.
Is a foregone conclusion the same as a hypothesis?
No, it is a political response to a political ploy. Politics was used to generate "the public perception of a widespread consensus among polar bear researchers that warming global temperatures and melting Arctic ice threaten the polar bears' survival" in the first place. The science is irrelevant to both political camps and only gets (mis)quoted for the purpose of beating up the other side, neither of which has a clue about how real science works.
Comments
Erroneous to whom? Not to the people who published it as factual record.
Like I said - believing that the warming is not happening is similar to a man caught in bed with his mistress telling his wife "are you gonna believe ME or your lying eyes?"
That arctic ice is not melting ITSELF my friends.
The fact that the USA has had 19 of the warmest years in it's history in the last 25 years is not erroneous.
Seems like everyone on this forum believes the Earf is not warming. Hard to fathom that position when the evidence says otherwise.
I rely less on "predictions and models" and focus on what has ACTUALLY HAPPENED. And that is an upward trend, WORSE LATELY.
How can you say 150 years out of, lets say 2000 years (the biblical times) is a definable trend? And who knows what the control conditions of weather stations from 150 years ago were in place?
Even today a large percentage of weather data collection sites are compromised.
www.surfacestations.org
Everyone agree? OK THEN GET STARTED !!!
Nature is a highly respected peer reviewed journal that doesn't seem to screw up all that often. But perhaps you think more highly of the other journal in its league?
Study: Low-oxygen zones in the oceans expanding with global warming (KTUU - you remember them, right? - quoting Science).
The upshot of that study is that "low-oxygen zones in the oceans where sea life is threatened or cannot survive at all are growing. The researchers found oxygen-depleted zones around the equator in the central and eastern Atlantic and the Pacific had expanded over the last 50 years." They blame GW.
Whatever I think, I don't think there's a whitewashing going on. In spite of all the conspiracy theories and mockery being posted, there's a whole lot of research going on. I'm curious to hear what the next few years worth of studies will turn up.
The whole fiasco with DDT is an example of environmentalism acted upon without enough evidence. Ridding the world of DDT became cult like just as GW has.
There is a PERFECT example of media passing on erroneous information. The latest studies say the WORLDS oceans have not warmed over the last 10 years. If anything they are slightly cooler.
From NPR
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
Or that Al Gore has only made speeches on land heating only the air in the immediate vicinity of his speeches.
Lars, read the book! We've been over it several times here.
Accuracy is one issue but not the central one. Global temperatures have varied all over the place throughout history and convincingly demonstrate that CO2 does not drive global warming. Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 levels LAG behind global warming and reductions in atmospheric CO2 levels LAG behind global cooling. "Adherents" casually dismiss this to the detriment of science.
Well, no, that's not true either. If you take a long term view, temperatures have been rising for over 400 years as I mentioned earlier. However, the rate of increase over the past century or two have not been as great as the rate of increase between about 1600 and 1800. Here's the data though I caution that it is a very large download: http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf
Of course, you meant warmest only over a particular (VERY) limited span of time. There were many periods in history when global (and local) temperatures were far higher than today. Let's not lapse into cherry picking again.
And what happened 200 years ago does not matter as much as what is happening RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT NOW we know that man, because the population is larger than ever before and we are more advanced than ever before, is producing more CO2 and other GHGs than ever before.
How the Earf is coping with that is the question now, i.e., how much of that is having an affect on global weather patterns?
Dang sure might be. MIGHT BE.
And that's why GW is only a theory, and I want better proof. And if it is proven, I'm a pro-GW advocate - wanting GW - as I think we are too close to an Ice Age on this planet. The average temperature of the Earth is only 57F or 59F. Why do I support this? Because ysterday - May 1 - I had to scrape frost off the windows of my car. It is too cold - 57F is too cold. So now that I am buying a house I'm going to be burning oil and wood to keep warm 8 months of the year.
If you're too hot living in a desert, Canada and Alaska are much larger than the lower 48, and the land is basically empty because it has been too cold to live there. We'll have plenty of new land to occupy if the Earth warms.
Natural? Man-enhanced? We don't know yet. But to completely dismiss human activity as a possible variable is ridiculous.
How do I know this warming period is anything but natural? Just because there is more CO2 in the air does not prove the 2 are related. Nobody really knows because the science and models are not developed enough. Yes there are theories and suspiscions, and throughout history you will see that most theories are wrong.
I do not follow theories without good proof; I would not follow the theory to throw people in a volcano to appease the gods that "must exist" in there, burn witches because bad-events must be the work of evil, believe the Earth is round, ...
Sure mankind affects the world, but we don't know how. We may actually be keeping the world from sliding into another Ice Age by burning fuels. No one really knows what the Earth would be doing if we weren't here (impossible to run the experiment). But we do know the temperature rise ove rthe last 150 years has ONLY been a degree or so, and that is well within temperature swings that have occurred naturally. So the affect of man is not so much, that it is evident.
That's what we've been telling you! GW due to anthropogenic reasons is a theory, one of MANY possibilities. And the GW if the temperatures are accurate is very small - 1F I believe per your quoted data.
Because it is only 1 of many possibilities, I will not make or suggest anyone make any changes other than what they typically do.
My points:
If GW is occurring what % is due to mankind 0.001%?
Is GW necessarily bad - I say NO.
Therefore I wouldn't suggest anyone change anything until those are PROVEN and discussed (that does not mean just lisiting the negatives of a warmer Earth).
It is the old "sky is falling" garbage and the "crying wolf" business that really turns me off.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Just how do you and Big Al propose to send us back to 1990 CO2 levels? Taking into consideration that China has passed the US and has no intentions of depriving their populace of a better way of life. Same goes for India. And of course Australia was all for it until they realized the first step would raise everyone's electric bill by 25%. So do you think if everyone in the USA were to buy a Prii that it would take us back to 1990? Or would CO2 created by building another 250,000,000 vehicles and recycling the old ones be detrimental?
All I see is wringing of hands and telling us the sky is falling. Give us the solution, or let the sky fall where it may. Don't try to sell me carbon credits. And if you think hacks like Gore are in this for anything but making the BIG BUCKS you are naive.
Secondly, I don't have any solutions. I'm not a policy wonk and I do not belong to an environmental or political think tank.
All I DO know is that we should try to use REAL SCIENCE to determine if man is having a negative impact on Earf and SHOULD THAT be the case, then do whatever is necessary to curb or stop man's impact.
And in the meantime, I have been doing my part in limiting my negative influence on Earf for many years now, and with an upcoming mortgage refi I'm doing some solar stuff on my home.
That's all. I'm not doing any hand-wringing or "sky is falling" declarations. And I don't care who makes money from whatever they can make money from. It's a free capitalist country, more power to those who can secure their family's future.
By Scott Duke Harris
Mercury News
link title
..."The Green Growth Fund comes less than six months after former Vice President Al Gore joined Menlo Park-based Kleiner Perkins as a partner. Earlier in the year, Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to educate the public about the perils of man-made climate change, and an Academy Award for the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."
The new Kleiner Perkins funds, Denniston said, will further the firm's "very active collaboration" with Generation Investment Management, a London firm chaired by Gore that specializes in ventures to help companies curtail their impact on climate change.
"He is spending time with us, helping us think about global opportunities," Denniston said of Gore's role at Kleiner Perkins."...
..."The go-green movement is clearly gaining momentum. Also Thursday, General Motors announced a new fuel-technology initiative"...
All this happening,... literally further up the road.....
As I said and some folks have seen the logic, GREEN has been and will be the new code words for the new way of DBA....
You'd need to define "negative impact on Earf". Since it is not alive - it is a sphere of the known elements in various combinations - what is negative about humans rearranging the molecules a little?
If you mean are we ruining the surface of the Earth, I would say our technological advances have made the earth a much better environment for human habitation. Without our factories and machines, the amount of food and medicines that we can produce allows 6+ Billion people to live on the Earf, and in the more advanced countries live to an average of 70+ years. Without those machines and the energy they consume many less people would live here, and the average lifespan might be 30 years.
If you want some examples, look at the poorest countries in the World, - they have little impact on the Earth - but they work hard, suffer, and klive short lives.
I'm sure there were people back around 1800 who thought they were destroying the Earf by burning whale-oil or wood, and thought that if they only burned a little less and skrimped that they would save the world. Mighty noble of them, but it seems quaint.
The Earth was never in any danger of exploding, or otherwise not existing.
Nature and Science are peer reviewed journals. Articles tend to get vetted pretty good before they get published there. Unlike, say, 99% of the popular news media.
The world didn't get rid of DDT btw. It's still used, in small quantities, for skeeter control in the tropics. What is gone is the widespread dumping of the stuff on ag lands, with the resulting proven harmful impacts on birds and fish.
The Birds of Prey center here in Boise was instrumental in the recovery of the peregrine falcon, whose numbers, like the bald eagle, were decimated by indiscriminate DDT use in the 50's and 60's.
You say that but you don't really mean it!
The current trend in rising temperature has been happening for 400 years. There is not a shred of evidence that the trend lines would be any different in the absence of mankind. Real science would indicate that if a certain trend existed before an alleged causal agent is introduced into a system and the trend is unchanged after the introduction of the alleged causal agent then the alleged causal agent probably isn't.
Everyone knows that if 1) the earth is warming and 2) that man can affect the Earth, and 1 + 2 = 3, then 3) man must be causing the Earth to warm.
Man affecting the Earth = Harm! The Earth is perfect without Man! Man No Good!!
..."Gonzalez and a group of other women and children — all Indians from the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca — have no interest in staying in the United States. All they want to do is panhandle outside El Paso businesses, using the children as lures.
At the end of a productive day, they wait for the Border Patrol to come pick them up and drive them back to the border"...
link title
Do you think that happened? Yes or No would be fine. Then after your response I will comment again.
Oh, Kind Sir, I beg to differ. I 100% mean it. I mean it with all the meanness I contain. I mean the heck out of it.
You could have fooled me. You have spent a lot of energy and time refuting anything that did not agree with the GW theory.
And I don't care who makes money from whatever they can make money from. It's a free capitalist country, more power to those who can secure their family's future.
I do have a problem with many things people do to make money. Illegal Drugs for one. Lies for another. Pyramid schemes. Mortgages to people that do not have the income to pay them back.leaving me the tax payer to pay for their scam. In fact about half the crap and vapor ware sold in this country should put the sellers in jail. 150 years ago Al Gore would have been run out of town as a snake oil salesman. Shows we have not gotten smarter, just a lot more gullible.
Just because I disagree with the people who say there is no evidence of warming does not mean I think the Earf is going to burn itself up in a fiery Hades in 50 years.
Well, you know I did not intend to include illegal or immoral activities in my statement. That's a big ole fat obvious DUH.
And remember - It's NOT a LIE if the person saying it truly believes it at the time they are saying it. They might be WRONG, but they cannot be called a LIAR.
I worked with a guy that made up stories about his being a WW2 Pilot continually. We finally came to the conclusion he believed he was really a WW2 Pilot at age 10.
That is what is known as a pathalogical liar. He read war stories all the time and those stories became his stories. He did not hurt anyone as it was just entertainment for those sitting around drinking with him.
I just happen to believe that Al Gore KNEW many of the faked scenes in his movie were LIES. That makes him a big fat LIAR. Just as Michael Moore was caught in several lies in his recent movie. But then it is part of Hollywood, that is all make believe. I would like us to hold our people to higher standards when they are propagandizing our children and grand children. "The Inconvenient Truth" with its eleven proven LIES was made mandatory viewing by students in one Florida School district. That is flat wrong. This is how it should be handled as Seattle schools and all UK schools are doing.
This week in Federal Way schools, it got a lot more inconvenient to show one of the top-grossing documentaries in U.S. history, the global-warming alert "An Inconvenient Truth."
School Board members adopted a three-point policy that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented," that they must get the OK of the principal and the superintendent, and that any teachers who have shown the film must now present an "opposing view."
The requirement to represent another side follows district policy to represent both sides of a controversial issue, board President Ed Barney said.
That's rather silly but, for what it's worth, this is how it happened:
Somebody noticed in the 70s that the alleged cooling of the Earth that had occurred over the previous three or four decades was coming to an end and that temperatures started to rise. Tentative explanations were put forth in the scientific literature with some suggesting that atmospheric levels of CO2 may be a contributory factor.
People began to take notice over the following quarter of a century and, in particular, politicians became interested. That's the point at which human involvement was put into the mix. Meanwhile, the scientists were and still are trying to make sense of a VERY complicated system. When politics is massively injected into a scientific endeavor, the science becomes sloppy. It's even worse when the reporting of the science is done by political organizations.
If you have ever looked at real scientific publications, you will know that scientists rarely, if ever, make definite statements about things like "this is caused by human activity." Even if they suspect it is the case, they couch their statements with all kinds of qualifiers and caveats. Those are the parts that get dropped in the "executive summaries." The press goes along with it and things get hyped beyond recognition.
Real scientists recognize that the issues of anthropogenic climate change are NOT settled. You REALLY should read Lawrence Solomon's book that I referenced earlier.
LoL!!
Speaking of facts, here's an interesting factoid. I just received the "Spring 2008 Catalogue" of the United Nations Publications. One of the listings is the "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" report for which they charge a whopping $85! The interesting part is that the report is NOT listed in the Environment section and it is NOT listed in the Science and Technology section. It is listed in the Economics section!
Very interesting.
No, you don't. If you did you would have commented on the paragraph that followed so I am puzzled over why you ignored it. :P
The thing I took away was this guy (a scientist who studied under Van Allen, of the belts fame) was (and maybe still is) a bit naive about politics and wound up dropping a lot of qualifiers in his public comments after NASA started rewriting and defusing his NASA papers and testimony he was giving various places, including to Congress.
On one occasion in '89 or so, when he was called to testify before Congress, he was tipped that his written testimony had been hacked by the PR people at NASA so that his report was essentially whitewashed. He faxed then Senator Al Gore the night before with some suggested questions, the answers to which didn't jibe with the written submission, leading to the first of the censorship claims against the Bush administration. That's Bush I btw.
Hansen will be relatively easy to disprove if he's wrong - he's on record as saying the climate change tipping point, if greenhouse gasses can't be reduced, is 2016. Environment News Service
I think we all want that. There are compelling reasons to do so but climate change isn't one of them. Those who desire reductions in the various forms of pollution would be, in my opinion, far more effective if they just stuck to those issues and dropped the artificial hyperbole of climate change.
Benny Peiser
He lights into Science and Nature pretty good too.
Nice find!
It is really quite alarming that once respected scientific journals have become so blatantly and openly political and one-sided. In my opinion, this wholesale corruption of science will be far more damaging to mankind in the long run than any potential damage brought about by the adoption of the agenda they seek to impose.
Perhaps Peiser and people like him will help get science back on track by drawing attention to damage being done to it.
I belong to the Audubon Society and was once a Sierra Club member. I feel they were both taken over by radical elements. There is No such thing as zero growth. Flora, Fauna, societies and civilizations either grow or they die. Like it or not Nature is survival of the fittest. When you see a Killer whale or Polar bear do what they do to survive it is harsh & brutal and it is reality. So when you have people preaching that we all need to move into a stinking city and ride a stinking bus, I say NO WAY. I do not believe in wasting our natural resources. I also do not believe it is healthy living like rats in a city. I have probably planted as many thousands of trees on my properties as anyone else here. So I am soaking up my CO2 if it is even a problem. I am not going to pay some scam artist money to plant a tree in Africa and claim it is doing some good.
Threatened or endangered status could affect recent drilling leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska and cost the oil companies more money to drill, or even delay drilling. That would cut into Alaska's oil royalty money, and they'd wind up having less money to spend on, er, science.
Is a foregone conclusion the same as a hypothesis?
GLOBAL WARMING: Conference would seek dissenting views (Anchorage Daily News)
But I guess the graphic of Polar Bears looking for food is like an GW advocates equivalent of motherhood and apple pie.
Steve Amstrup was not mentioned in the article. He is the premier polar bear scientist in the World. I have tried to get a hold of him as he is a drinking buddy of mine from the 1980s. I would like to hear from him if the PB population is endangered. He is now with the USGS as a research biologist. I think if the PB is endangered it is due to Eskimos killing them and selling the gall bladders and other parts to oriental customers. Not from GW.
No, it is a political response to a political ploy. Politics was used to generate "the public perception of a widespread consensus among polar bear researchers that warming global temperatures and melting Arctic ice threaten the polar bears' survival" in the first place. The science is irrelevant to both political camps and only gets (mis)quoted for the purpose of beating up the other side, neither of which has a clue about how real science works.