Sun to Blame for Global Warming

[PeterMP]

Then we agree....These organizations force consensus as a cost of membership!

Thanks for making my point about COERSIVE POLITICS in the Global Ice Age yesterday......Global Warming today debate

:applause:

List of those that do not agree

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

Except there is nothing to suggest that politics are involved. The AMS is a scientific organization not a political one (for example, unlike unions they don't give out political contributions). You have inserted politics into something where there are none.

It is a question of scientific knowledge. The vast majority of members of the AMS support a role for humans in global warming based on their statement. Those members that do have the right to question the scientific knowledge/credential of the minority that don't. Endorsement by the AMS is a scientific endorsement. If the AMS as an organization doesn't feel that you show proper scientific credentials, then why should it be forced to

If as you contend, there isn't a vast consensus, why don't those that dissent leave and start another organization? Why would you stay a member of an organization that pushes a flawed scientific idea?

[IHOPSkins]

Want me to find some Pat Robertson quotes, and announce that "The Right believes that Global Warming is caused by gays?"

You said not ONE

I gave you two

Either you admit defeat...or :stfu:

Your constant topic change strategy does not help the debate

It only makes you look silly :2cents:

[Larry]

88 < 95

Even liberals can figure that out right?

So how large does the majority need to be for you to decide that maybe it's time to cut back on our rate of pollution?

When it gets to 90%, will that be enough for you to agree that pollution is bad?

Or does it have to be 95%?

When 75% of the entire ice cap is gone, then will it be time to actually recognize that "Hey, something freaky's going on, here?" Or does it have to be 100% gone before we start working on doing something about it?

(Does it bother you that the effects of greenhouse gases, at least based on my limited understanding, take decades, maybe centuries, to show up? That it's at least conceivable that this melting is caused by the pollution we dumped in the atmosphere 50 years ago, and that even if we were to cut our pollution back to 1950 levels, the melting would not only continue, but would continue accelerating, until the Earth eventually reached a new equilibrium, 50-100 years from now?)

Or is your plan just to deny forever?

[Larry]

Your constant topic change strategy does not help the debate

It only makes you look silly :2cents:

Right. That was terrible the way I claimed that freedom of speech was involved, when you had never mentioned it.

[IHOPSkins]

...... why don't those that dissent leave and start another organization? Why would you stay a member of an organization that pushes a flawed scientific idea?

Finances

Politics

Seniority

Peer Pressure

PeterMP.....I do not disagree that a large portion of the scientific community supports the Idea

I think to assert that politics played no part in the decision is absurd

That this political influence changes the projections should be common sense

AND

Before we commit to Drastic Economic Consequences.....the science needs to be proven AND the public needs to be educated...not indoctrinated

[PeterMP]

Meaningless?...that would be your post

My point was to disprove the claimed 95% support by scientists (as revised from 98%) that claim man caused global warming

Here is a link documenting a dissentor...AND MEMBER OF THE IPCC

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

So even though the IPCC supports the theory that man causes Global Ice Age Warming....individuals should not be counted

98% (now 95%) support for Global Ice Age Warming is unsupported

Well, if he is a dissenter then you really have problems. He supports using special air craft to place aersoles into high into the atmosphere to keep temps from increasing.

"Instead, it makes sense to decrease solar radiation by 0.3%-0.5%. Stratosphere-based aerosols have the biggest capacity of weakening solar radiation. In tentative estimates, in order to bring down the temperature in the troposphere by one degree, it is necessary to throw into it about a million tons of aerosols or burn 300,000 tons of sulfur.

We could either introduce sulfur into the troposphere by a special method, or supply high-altitude aircraft with high-sulfur fuel. These measures will bring down the troposphere temperature very quickly - in two to three years. "

Of course, burning sulfur causes all sorts of other problems, inculding acid rain.

Oh and all those port cities. Bye-bye, but they don't matter. New York, Baltimore, ahh they don't matter. All of those condos in Ocean City MD. Don't worry. We can just them somewhere else when the sea level quits rising.

"But the world is concerned with global warming and its potential consequences. The forecast for the current century predicts an average rise by 2.5 C-3 C (with extreme limits from 1.4 C to 5.8 C). The ocean level is supposed to rise by 47 cm. I don't think this poses a global threat to humanity. Of course, some lowlands and ports may face a problem, but new pierces will be built and people will live on the higher ground. "

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070418/63856919.html

[PeterMP]

Finances

Politics

Seniority

Peer Pressure

PeterMP.....I do not disagree that a large portion of the scientific community supports the Idea

I think to assert that politics played no part in the decision is absurd

That this political influence changes the projections should be common sense

AND

Before we commit to Drastic Economic Consequences.....the science needs to be proven AND the public needs to be educated...not indoctrinated

What politcis? The AMS is not a political organization.

Seniroity in what? The AMS is not like the Senate where seniority matters

Peer Pressure from whom? The people that disagree w/ you and are trying to kick you out.

I understand what you think, but you haven't offered any sort of evidence to support it.

The longer we wait if the science is right (which it almost certainly is) the more drastic action is going to be required, and please tell me what are the DRASTIC economic consequences of the McCain Lieberman bill in front of the Senate right now?

The general problem w/ that arguement is that we heard the samething before and essentially the same people were yelling it before. We heard there was no way to clean up power plants in an effort to reduce acid rain w/o having electricty prices going through the roof and all the people in the North East freezing to death because they couldn't heat their homes.

They were wrong.

We heard that there was no way to eliminate CFC's and save the ozone layer because it was to expensive.

They were wrong.

I tend to be conservative. I am a Chemist and am familiar with over-goverment regulation. In my lab, I couldn't poor a beer (much less something w/ a real alcohol content) down the drain (it would have to go into a specially marked waste container where it has to be exposed of specially at great cost to the Institution I work for) w/o risking a fine from the EPA.

However, I've also repeatedly heard all of the same claims that different people are making now w/ respect to the science and motivation behind global warming science before when dealing with acid rain and ozone depeltion. They were wrong then, and unless somebody can give me some real evidence to conclude they are right now, I am forced to conclude they are most likely wrong again.

(See this post for documentation: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4581209&postcount=14)

And I see no evidence of a vast conspiracy by scientist to lie to the public. All I see is smear campaings, lies, and distortions of the facts.

In terms of educating the public, it is a complex topic, and a large percent of the public doesn't have a good grasp of even what science really is. Your own post indicates that. Science does not prove things; it disproves things. If you've disproven all of the reasonable alternatives, then you have given a great degree of support for your idea.

[IHOPSkins]

Well, if he is a dissenter then you really have problems. He supports using special air craft to place aersoles into high into the atmosphere to keep temps from increasing......

You are now mixing apples and oranges

"In dissenting with the scientific opinion on climate change, Izrael has stated, "climate change is obvious, but science has not yet been able to identify the causes of it and, "there is no proven link between human activity and global warming."

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

Dissent = Man did not cause Global Ice Age Warming and Polar Bear Slaughter save the whales

[IHOPSkins]

So...in sumation

90% = Proof?

And that the 90% is NOT made up of 100% of the group means?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

[PeterMP]

So...in sumation

90% = Proof?

And that the 90% is NOT made up of 100% of the group means?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

Actually, you don't know where the 90% came from. It might be 90% because 90% of the group believes it 100% and 10% believes it 0% and so they simply combined them and said 90% belief.

As, I stated before, there is no way to PROVE things like this absolutely. To demand proof shows a basic minconception about what science is and what it can do.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Those who are arguing about the politics are ignoring the rest of the world. For example, in Australia, even the conservative party members (who up until early this year were stamping and screaming that it was a fraud) have now mostly crossed over. The US Republican party is pretty much the lone holdout among significant parties in developed nations.

[IHOPSkins]

.......In terms of educating the public, it is a complex topic, and a large percent of the public doesn't have a good grasp of even what science really is. Your own post indicates that. Science does not prove things; it disproves things. If you've disproven all of the reasonable alternatives, then you have given a great degree of support for your idea.

I like how you snuck that in there.....Anyway

Here is a PETITION website on AGW (anthropogenic global warming) deniers (US Scientists)

19,000 of them

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

[PeterMP]

I like how you snuck that in there.....Anyway

Here is a PETITION website on AGW (anthropogenic global warming) deniers (US Scientists)

19,000 of them

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

In 1997, I would have signed the samething. I used to argue the essentially the exact opposite view that I do know. In the late 90's, a prevelant scientific opinion was that the Earth had warmed for a number of reasons, but that we had reached a pleateu and warming would not continue (i.e. that 1998 marked a high water mark and in that sense would become the high "anomally", which all other warm years would be measured against). That opinion melted away after near record temps year after year in early part of this decade and essentially evaporated from the peer reviewed journals w/ the record breaking year in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#American_Meteorological_Society

From the wikipedia page I gave you before (just as some examples):

The AMS didn't release their "consensus" statement until 2003.

The American Institute of Physics the same year.

The American Astronomical Society in 2004.

Go through the list. For the vast majority of them, it wasn't until after 2000. This demonstrates that the members of these organizations didn't reach enough of a consensus until those years to release the strongly worded statements that they have so a petition like this would have gotten a lot of support by people that have since changed their mind.

A decade is a long time in field as active as global warming. The opinions of people two years ago are no longer relevant, much less those of a decade ago.

***EDIT***

By the way, I'm sorry if you think I've tried to SNEAK something by. That was not my intent. Please, look at my history of post on scientific matters. I am quite open w/ the fact that a lot of people misunderstand science and think that it is possible to prove things to be true and that this is false and shows a basic misunderstanding of how science operates. I have on more than occassion said that everybody should be able to express an opinion, but that people that don't have basic knowledge on a topic can't really state that they are giving an educated opinion.

[mjah]

IHOPSkins, I don't have a major horse in this race. But you really need to pay more careful attention to your sources. There is a sizable gap between what you want them to be and what they actually are.

In your quote below, anything in orange is MISLEADING.

Here is a PETITION website on AGW (anthropogenic global warming) deniers (US Scientists)

19,000 of them

That website's definition of "scientist" is ANYONE with a BS, MS, or PhD in ANY physical science from ANYWHERE, apparently as long as they have a US address. This fits a dictionary definition of the word "scientist," but it says NOTHING about their credibility on the topic of global warming and therefore is misleading as an indicator of informed dissent on the topic. A guy who got a BS in soil science from Tougaloo College can sign this list. Is he an authority on global warming? If not, then why does his signature matter? There is no indication of anyone's field of study on the survey, so it's impossible to tell how many, say, climatologists are on it.

...A fact which should be very important to an individual calling for such a high standard of "proof" when people make claims with which he disagrees...

19,000 scientists is numerically insignificant, as there are literally millions and millions of people in the US with a BS, MS, or PhD in the physical sciences. In the BEST CONCEIVABLE case, you're talking about a fraction of one percent of them signing this petition.

There are 2.5 million PhDs in the US alone, hundreds of thousands in the physical sciences. Among the signatures on that petition, only about 25% are PhDs. So, fewer than 5,000 -- again, a tiny percentage of the whole.

This petition, as a percentage of all "scientists," is utterly insignificant. Why did you post it?

If I were in your position, I would have run away screaming from this petition, hoping that nobody else would find it and think about it for even a couple of seconds.

[RLeVan]

mjah, perhaps you should look into the credentials of those that are part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), those whom Al Gore relies upon for his movie "An Inconvienient Truth".

[PeterMP]

mjah, perhaps you should look into the credentials of those that are part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), those whom Al Gore relies upon for his movie "An Inconvienient Truth".

How about these peoples credentials:

Christopher Field

Carnegie Institution of Washington

Environmental Sciences and Ecology

2001

global ecology, climate change

Inez Fung

University of California, Berkeley

Geophysics

2001

carbon cycle, climate change, earth system modeling

Brian Hoskins

University of Reading

Geophysics

2002

atmospheric dynamics, weather processes, climate variability, climate change

Robert Kates

Brown University

Human Environmental Sciences

1975

sustainable development, climate change, hunger, population, environment, geography, Africa, natural/technological hazards

John Kutzbach

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Environmental Sciences and Ecology

2006

climate, climate change, paleoclimate, future climate, earth science, environmental science, hydrology, ecology

Roy Radner

New York University

Economic Sciences

1975

bounded rationality in decision-making; organization theory; game-theoretic analyses of global climate change and corruption

Veerabhadran Ramanathan

University of California, San Diego

Geophysics

2002

climate change, greenhouse effect, atmospheric brown clouds; radiation budget, hydrological cycle

Thomas Schelling

University of Maryland, College Park

Economic Sciences

1984

climate change, nuclear weapons, terrorism

Carl Wunsch

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Geophysics

1978

physical oceanography and modern climate change, general circulation of the ocean, quantitative study of paleoclimate

They all happen to be members of the US National Academy of Sciences. The US National Academy of Sciences agreed to release this joint statement w/ National Academies of Sciences from other countries:

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742

"But human activities are now causing

atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases –

including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone,

and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels.

Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in

1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous

levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000

years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing

temperatures to rise"

"Major parts of the climate system respond slowly to

changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. Even if

greenhouse gas emissions were stabilised instantly at

today’s levels, the climate would still continue to change as

it adapts to the increased emission of recent decades.

Further changes in climate are therefore unavoidable.

Nations must prepare for them."

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now

sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It

is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they

can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term

reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."

This was in June 2005 so before it was clear that 2005 would become the hottest year in the last 400 or so years.

[RLeVan]

I didn't say everyone on the council lacked credentials. However, when Al Gore and numerous news outlets claim 2,500 scientists and all members of the IPCC agree I expect to see every member on that council to have suitable credentials of the scientists who agree. Call me a stickler for detail. I have yet to find a composite list of everyone on that commitee listing their credentials.

Let me put this out there. I've read quite a few news threads that claim that not all of the scientists on that council agreed with everything put forth in that document. In fact, upon the release of the findings of the IPCC, many scientists have proclaimed that they were either misrepresented for the benefit of the 'cause'.

I'm not here to argue that pollution is bad. Anyone in their right mind could agree with that. I'm questioning that within 100 even 200 years, mankind could affect global climate change in such a drastic way that Al Gore could win a Nobel Prize. Gore is notorious for stepping on the shoulders of giants, or purporting those that hey stepped on were giants.

[IHOPSkins]

......it says NOTHING about their credibility on the topic of global warming and therefore is misleading as an indicator of informed dissent on the topic.....

lets talk credability......

NASA Data Goof Fuels Global Warming Skepticism

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070820_gw_mismatch.html

One result of the adjustment that was widely touted in the blogosphere as a refutation of global warming was the replacement of 1998 as the warmest year on record in the GISS data with 1934. Schmidt says this replacement is largely irrelevant to the global warming discussion because that year was something of an oddity.

Lots of cars in 1934 that "Special Year"

The trendlines changed....Hummmmmmm

5 Editors Resign

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Comrie.pdf

It is with some regret that I inform you of my decision to resign as an editor of Climate Research. The recent events regarding CR have not made it easy to defend the quality of the journal and therefore to serve as an editor. CR was a fine journal.....

Inflated Storm #s help Warm the Alarmists

http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-NOAA-Hurricane-Prediction-Season-113007.html

"Washington, D.C. - The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is inflating the count of tropical storms.......

"NOAA is doing so both by changing the criteria for naming storms and by failing to account for changes in technology that make detection of storms much easier."

Changing HOW you count is credible.....right?

Urban Environment Biased Temps

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

There's a reason that NOAA specifies that temperature sensors should be a minimum of 100 feet away from buildings, concrete, and asphalt which may introduce biases into the reading. What we don't know is why there has been such an apparent regular failure to adhere to such specifications.

I will assume you saw my previous post listing Errors in Gores "Unexplainable Truth" semi-doc on Polar Bear Swimming Lessons

[mjah]

mjah, perhaps you should look into the credentials of those that are part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), those whom Al Gore relies upon for his movie "An Inconvienient Truth".

I didn't do anything that anybody else couldn't do. Give it a try yourself and let me know what your results are.

If most members of the IPCC aren't at all demonstrably knowledgeable on the topic of climate change, maybe it will be an interesting result similar to what I found with that online petition.

Otherwise... :whoknows:

Come back here and give us the numbers when you're done. Good luck.

[mjah]

lets talk credability......

I certainly hope the credibility of those links exceeds your previous standard.

I'm not on this thread to debate one side of this argument link by link (although I'm sure others will, so don't worry). But I do get annoyed when I see numerically insignificant things like that petition being passed off as something relevant.

Just keep in mind that your own credibility is reflected through the links you post. Global warming knowledge is gained through research, after all -- so do your research before posting stuff.

[IHOPSkins]

I certainly hope the credibility of those links exceeds your previous standard.

I'm not on this thread to debate one side of this argument link by link (although I'm sure others will, so don't worry). But I do get annoyed when I see numerically insignificant things like that petition being passed off as something relevant.

Just keep in mind that your own credibility is reflected through the links you post. Global warming knowledge is gained through research, after all -- so do your research before posting stuff.

Post something more than "I do not believe you"

Or

:stfu:

You might consider all of my posts on this thread and not just this one you disagree with

Just like I will give YOU a second chance at being contributory and not a verbose annoyance

[RLeVan]

I didn't intend to call you out, if that's the way you perceived it. If that's the case than I apologize. I've always been one of those that questions popular ideas and forms my own opinions after digging into the media. Nowadays, it really does require digging.

I'm a novice when it comes to global warming, yet it seems there are instantly a plethora of experts. Instantly I mean within the last 10yrs. Think about it, 10 yrs. Pardon me if there are decent scientists out there with legitimate claims being drowned out by bandwagon science. Now there are computer models that predicted where we are at now. We cant even predict the weather 10 days before it occurs, yet computer models from 50 years ago knew global warming was going to occur?

I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong for the sake of proving them wrong, although it may seem that way. I'm looking for reasonable answers to questions.

[mjah]

Post something more than "I do not believe you"

Or

:stfu:

I never posted "I do not believe you." I did post a very easy deconstruction of a link you shouldn't have posted, because it actually worked against you. There isn't a rational person on Earth who would look at that link and think it contributes to your position.

You can keep up the defensive tough-guy posturing, or you can just take a lump and get better at vetting your sources. Just suck it up and take the advice from someone who isn't trying to nail you to the global warming wall like many other folks on this thread.

You might consider all of my posts on this thread and not just this one you disagree with

I did. You might consider that your other posts weren't as crappy as your efforts to call out that insignificant online petition in an extra-large font. The other posts were better than the one I commented on.

I came into this thread enthusiastic to see a good, two-sided discussion on global warming. I followed your link because it seemed interesting, but it folded like a wet napkin in a monsoon. Now, I'm one of the dozens of people reading through this thread without jumping to one side or another. In fact, for just about any thread, the readers probably outnumber the posters. If we are to assume that you're trying, what should we conclude?

Next time I'll just PM you instead, so your ego doesn't get so scraped up. :whoknows:

Go ahead and pretend you're shutting folks down when you resort to using cartoons to tell them to STFU. You can pretend not to care what I think, but I know you've already taken it to heart. I guarantee you're going to take a second look at everything you post from now on. So don't bother with the posturing.

Now get back to work!

[IHOPSkins]

New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds ‘Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence’

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908

"These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)."

I wonder how much coverage this gets in the MSM?

I wonder if these Climate Scientists will have their credibility assaulted?

But the Issue is no longer in doubt?......Right?

[Larry]

Post something more than "I do not believe you"

Or

:stfu:

You might consider all of my posts on this thread and not just this one you disagree with

Just like I will give YOU a second chance at being contributory and not a verbose annoyance

I know I usually hate to see posts that look like this, but I just can't resist in this case. I simply cannot think of a more appropriate response than

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

I know, whenever I see it, my interpretation is that it's both childish and confrontational. And that's not my intention, here. (Although I'm not certain that I can precisely explain what my intention is.) But as I said, it just feels like it fits better than any other response I can think of.